 19. Cognitive–Affective Processes in Rejection Sensitivity  413
is elicited, and the behavioral responses that 
are generated in response. In other words, 
personality types share their if–then  signa -
tures and the underlying “processing dy -
namics”—the “patterns and sequences of ac -
tivation among the mediating units that are 
generated when these individuals encounter 
or constructs situations with relevant fea -
tures” (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, p. 257) that 
generate them.
Rejection Sensitivity: A Cognitive–Affective 
Processing Disposition
Social acceptance and belonging are funda -
mental human needs (Baumeister & Leary, 
1995) and experiences that fail to fulfill such 
needs lead to a host of negative outcomes, in -
cluding aggression, depression, self-  control 
failures, and reductions in prosocial behav -
ior (e.g., Chester, Lynam, Milich, & DeWall, 
2017; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 
2001; Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciaroc -
co, & Bartels, 2007; Slavich, O’Donovan, 
Epel, & Kemeny, 2010). Nevertheless, not 
everyone who is rejected respond to it simi -
larly. The RS model (Downey & Feldman, 
1996) was initially developed to understand 
such variability in the way people respond 
to social rejection in close relationships. 
Drawing from attachment and attribu -
tional theories (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980; 
Horney, 1937), the basic premise of the RS 
model is that rejection–  acceptance experi -
ences in early relationships with caregivers 
lead people to develop relationship schemas 
that shape the way they think, feel, and be -
have in subsequent relationships (Feldman 
& Downey, 1994; Downey, Khouri, & Feld -
man, 1997).
The RS model draws from the CAPS 
framework in that it specifically focuses on 
cognitive and affective processes through 
which experiences with significant oth -
ers come to shape individuals’ if–then sig -
natures in close relationships later in life. 
Therefore, RS is defined as a cognitive–  
affective processing disposition  whereby in -
dividuals anxiously expect, readily perceive, 
and overreact (emotionally and behavioral -
ly) to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996; 
Feldman & Downey, 1994). Situations that 
are relevant to rejection (e.g., disagreement) 
are the ifs of the disposition, and defensive overreactions (e.g., hostility, depression, dis -
engagement, ingratiation) are the thens , gen-
erated by fears, expectations, and construals 
of rejection.
Because rejection in early close relation -
ships occurs due to personal characteristics 
that lead a person to expect rejection of the 
self as an individual, the processing dynamic 
studied in the initial work on RS has been 
referred to as personal RS ( RS- personal ; 
Downey & Feldman, 1996). Rejection can 
also happen, however, based on status char -
acteristics shared with members of a group, 
such as characteristics based on one’s race, 
particularly when other groups stigmatize 
or discriminate against those social identi -
ties. In contrast to RS-  personal, such re -
jection experiences lead people to expect 
rejection based on their stigmatized status 
characteristics; hence, this has been referred 
to as status-  based RS ( RS- status ; Mendoza-  
Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 
2002). To date RS-  status has been studied in 
the context of race for African-  Americans 
(Mendoza-  Denton et al., 2002), and for 
Asian Americans (Mendoza-  Denton et al., 
2002; Chan & Mendoza-  Denton, 2008), 
as well as for gender (London, Downey, 
Romero-  Canyas, Rattan, & Tyson, 2012), 
social class (Rheinschmidt & Mendoza- 
Denton, 2014), sexual orientation (Pachan -
kis, Goldfried, & Ramrattan, 2008), age 
(Kang & Chasteen, 2009), and immigrant 
status (Wolfgramm, Morf, & Hannover, 
2014). As expected by the CAPS model, each 
of these constructs show differences in terms 
of its specific trigger situations (ifs) and as -
sociated outcomes (thens), even though the 
overall cascade of the dynamic is similar.
In what follows, we first focus on the 
body of empirical work on RS-  personal 
describing the various links of this pro -
cessing dynamic, highlighting the ways the 
construct exemplifies essential features of 
the CAPS framework. We then selectively 
highlight findings from the literature on 
RS- status to further illustrate CAPS, not -
ing both the similarities and the differenc -
es between RS-  personal and RS-  status, as 
well the domain-  specific manifestations of 
RS- status. Together, these findings show 
how fears and expectations of rejection in 
a particular domain lead people to readily 
perceive rejection and overreact to it in ways 
that are relevant to the domain.