Interpersonal acceptance and rejection are psychologically potent situations. Believing that one is liked, appreciated, included or valued fosters well-being, self-esteem and confidence, whereas feeling disliked, unappreciated, excluded or devalued evokes negative emotions, lowers self-esteem and may result in antisocial reactions such as aggression or withdrawal. A comparison of how people react when they are adored versus abandoned by a romantic partner, accepted versus ostracized by a group, elected versus defeated in an election, or awarded a standing ovation versus a cacophony of boos while on stage, clearly shows the power of interpersonal acceptance and rejection (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004).

Being rejected is a painful situation learnt about in childhood. When a child is  rejected, s/he begins to suspect and believe that s/he is different, unacceptable, isolated and unlikable. Because of early experiences with rejection of expressed needs by parents, children develop the expectation that when they seek acceptance they will probably be rejected. As a result, they come to place a high value on avoiding rejection. They experience anticipatory anxiety when expressing needs and vulnerabilities to significant others. Expectations of rejection make them hyper-vigilant for signs of rejection. Perceived rejection prompts affective and behavioral overreactions which include anger, hostility, despondency, withdrawal of support, jealousy, and inappropriate attempts to control the behavior of significant others (Erozkan, 2004).

A child’s ability to interact socially with peers is a basic skill and central to other measures of quality of life. The positive outcomes of these social interaction skills are clear peer acceptance and concomitant social status. The inverse of peer acceptance, peer rejection, remains one of the most pernicious of risk factors in later life.

Rejected children are those who are actively shunned by the rest of the peer group and they are characterized by the absence of friendly relationships. They exhibit either overt (i.e., social) behaviors or covert (i.e., affective responses and cognitive processes) behaviors which are primarily responsible for their peer rejection (Coie, 1990), and these behaviors act as a major stressor in childhood and have been linked to various problems in adulthood (Parker & Asher, 1987, 1993). These children have less in terms of support groups and so are hindered in their development of prosocial behaviors and coping mechanisms (Coie & Dodge, 1983).

Going through such a process causes children to develop the expectation of being rejected and to transfer this to later ages. On the other hand, being rejected by their peers is a most undesirable situation. Failure in examinations and not having a girl- or boy-friend are other situations that cause fear of being rejected in adolescence. However, the strongest fear of rejection reveals itself when a romantic relationship in late adolescence ends (Erozkan, 2004).

Horney (1937) attributed maladaptive orientations to relationships to “basic anxiety” about desertion, abuse, humiliation and betrayal. She viewed this anxiety as underlying a painful sensitivity “to any rejection or rebuff no matter how slight, for example, a change in an appointment, having to wait, failure to receive an immediate response”. Erikson (1950) proposed that a basic mistrust of others would compromise the possibility of personal and interpersonal fulfillment. Sullivan (1953) claimed that generalized expectations or personifications of significant others as meeting needs or as punitive, disapproving, or rejecting form the basis for how people perceive and relate to others (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Lebolt, & Rincon, 1998; Downey, Mougios, Ayduk, London, & Shoda, 2004).

Parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory; Rohner, 1986, 1991, 1999; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005) is a theory of socialization used in attempts to predict and explain major antecedents, consequences and other correlates of parental acceptance and rejection. According to PARTheory parents and primary significant others can be placed in the continuum between acceptance and rejection based on how warm they are toward adolescents. Accepting parents are warm and affectionate, whereas rejecting parents are cold, hostile, or indifferent. When adolescents perceive themselves to be rejected by their parents, they tend to have poor psychological adjustment and a negative worldview characterized by dependence, hostility, emotional unresponsiveness, instability, low self-esteem or self-adequacy.

Rejection sensitivity − the disposition to defensively expect, readily perceive and intensely react to rejection − is a potential source of vulnerability for  adolescents’ relationship difficulties. Rejection-sensitive teens are those who expect, and react very strongly to, rejection by a partner. Downey, Bonica, and Rincon (1999) view rejection sensitivity as a cognitive-affective processing system that stems from past rejection experiences with parents, peers, or romantic partners and is particularly marked during the adolescent period. This rejection sensitivity inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the individual becomes hypersensitive to any deviation of affection (Erozkan, 2004). Rejection-sensitive persons expect others to reject them, readily interpret ambiguous interpersonal cues as rejection, and overreact to rejection, real or imagined. People who enter a relationship anxious and disposed to expect rejection from significant others tend to (a) perceive intentional rejection in their partner’s insensitive or ambiguous behaviors, (b) feel insecure and unhappy about their relationship and (c) behave in ways that erode their partner’s relationship satisfaction (Downey & Feldman, 1996).

Attachment styles have a very important role in rejection sensitivity since attachment is overt behavior by which a child attempts to maintain physical closeness and contact with the mother or primary caregiver. The existence of an internal state is inferred from attachment behavior. The attachment system offers children a clear survival advantage by maintaining a balance between exploratory behavior and proximity-seeking (attachment) behavior. Attachment needs remain important throughout the lifespan and attachment behavior is held to characterize human beings from the cradle to the grave (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1979).

In recent years, researchers have been applying attachment theory to all phases of life, studying various kinds of affectional bonds beyond infancy and early childhood, including relationships between elderly parents and their grown children and marital relationships (Shaver & Hazan, 1993; Weiss, 1982, 1991). In infancy and childhood, proximity to the caregiver leads to a situation of felt security. In later life the attachment system, though focused on different people, continues to promote a feeling of security. In addition, most adults continue a meaningful association with their parents, regardless of the fact that parents penetrate fewer aspects of their lives than they did before.

Bowlby’s attachment theory is the most elaborate model of the psychological mediators, linking early rejection with later interpersonal functioning (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1982). Bowlby proposes that children develop mental models of themselves and of relationships that influence their future relationships. At the core of these models are expectations about whether significant others will satisfy their needs or reject them. These expectations derive from the reliability with which their primary caregiver meets their needs in early childhood. When caregivers tend to meet children’s needs sensitively and consistently, children develop secure working models that incorporate the expectation that others will
accept and support them. When caregivers tend to react to children’s needs with rejection, children develop insecure working models that incorporate doubts and anxieties about whether or not others will accept and support them. Insecure working models are thought to underlie mistrustful or ambivalent orientations to adult relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1994).

As Bretherton, Ridgeway, and Cassidy (1990) have noted, when Bowlby introduced the internal working model “it was little more than a metaphor with useful connotation” (p. 77). The task of clarifying, elaborating, and operationalizing the working model is currently being approached in two ways by researchers interested in applying Bowlby’s ideas to adult relationships (Bretherton, 1985; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Main & Goldwyn, 1994; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). One approach has been focused on establishing how the quality of early caregiving is represented in memory. This approach is exemplified in Main’s use of detail, coherence, affective tone, and content of childhood memories as a basis for inferring people’s working models (e.g., Main & Goldwyn). A second approach has been to characterize the interpersonal styles of adults presumed to differ in the security of their working models. This approach is exemplified in Hazan and Shaver’s profiles of secure, ambivalent, and avoidant attachment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), securely attached individuals are characterized by comfort with both intimacy and independence and have a positive working model of self and of others. They posit two orthogonal dimensions that, in combination, yield four main attachment styles. One dimension measures self-image along a negative or positive continuum; the other measures one’s positive or negative image of others. Individuals with a secure attachment (positive self, positive other) are presumed to have internalized a sense of self-worth and a trust that others will be available and supportive; they are autonomous, yet comfortable seeking and expecting support from others. Fearful individuals (negative self, negative other) view others as uncaring and unavailable; they view themselves as unlovable. Fearful individuals avoid intimacy out of fear that they will be hurt by the other person or by eventual abandonment. They have a negative working model of both self and others. Preoccupied individuals (negative self, positive other) are preoccupied with attachment needs and depend overly on others for personal validation, acceptance and approval. They are anxious and clingy in relationships and have a negative working model of self and a positive working model of others. Dismissing individuals (positive self, negative other) distance themselves from others, viewing themselves as self-reliant and invulnerable to rejection by others. In addition, dismissing individuals avoid intimacy as it poses to them a threat of the loss of self, autonomy and independence. These individuals have a positive working model of self and a negative working model of others (Bartholomew & Perlman, 1994).

It has been determined in several studies that there are differences in rejection sensitivity according to gender and perception of parenting styles. Rejection sensitivity was higher for females (e.g., Ayduk, Downey, & Feldman, 2000; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Erozkan, 2004, 2005; Mearns, 1991; Sweet, 1996) and children of authoritarian/rejecting parents (e.g., Downey & Feldman, 1996; Erozkan & Komur, 2006; Rohner, Khaleque, & Cournoyer, 2005). In addition, it has been determined in several studies that there was a significant relationship between rejection sensitivity and attachment styles (Erozkan & Komur, 2006; Kennedy, 1999).

In the present study the sample consisted of university students in the late adolescent period which involves very difficult and complex experiences for individuals. The objective was to determine their attachment styles, which are very important for rejection sensitivity levels. The other purpose of the study was to present the effects of rejection sensitivity and attachment styles on the students with respect to gender, and different parenting styles. The researcher set out to answer the following questions:

1. Do rejection sensitivity levels of university students differ with respect to attachment styles?
2. Do rejection sensitivity levels of university students differ with respect to gender?
3. Do rejection sensitivity levels of university students differ with respect to parenting styles?
4. Do attachment styles of university students significantly affect the average rejection sensitivity points?
5. Is there a significant relationship between rejection sensitivity levels and attachment styles of university students?

Method

Participants

The general research model was adopted for this study. The sample set of the research was taken from the Faculty of Education of Mugla University (Turkey) by the random set sampling method. The participants were 500 students (260 females; 240 males) who took part in the study voluntarily. The mean age of the participants was 20.20 years, with a standard deviation of 1.80 years.

Instruments

Information Form (IF) This form, developed by the researcher, was used to determine sociodemographical characteristics, gender, and parenting styles according to Baumrind (1991) and Yavuzer (2000). Parenting styles were classified in five dimensions: authoritarian, democratic, dismissing, protective, and inconsistent. Characteristics of each parenting style were explained in detail on the information form. Students were asked to choose one of five dimensions to describe how they perceived their parents.

Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) The RSQ, developed by Downey and Feldman (1996) and adapted for Turkish participants by Erozkan (2004), was used to determine the rejection sensitivity levels of students. This questionnaire consists of 18 items with each describing hypothetical interpersonal situations in which respondents make requests of important others such as parent, teacher, friend, or romantic partner. Participants are required to rate their agreement with each item on a 6-point scale. Principal components analysis by Downey and Feldman led them to identify a one-factor solution that provided an adequate resolution of the item correlation matrix. They reported an internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s α) of .83, test-retest reliability coefficients of .83 and .78 for 3 week and 4 month retest intervals, respectively, and supportive construct validation evidence from three additional studies.

The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s α) of the RSQ in the present study was found to be .81 and the test-retest reliability coefficient of the RSQ was calculated as .81. Theparallel form validity of the RSQ was tested with theInterpersonal Sensitivity Measure (Boyce & Parker, 1989) and the correlation coefficient was found to be .64 (Erozkan, 2004).

Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) The RSQ, developed by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) and adapted for Turkish participants by Sumer and Gungor (1999), was used to determine the attachment styles of the participating students. This questionnaire is a 30-item scale to measure four different attachment styles (secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing). Participants are required to rate their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale. The test-retest reliability coefficients of the scale varied between .54 and .78. The parallel form validity of this scale was tested with the Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and the correlation coefficients varied between .49 and .61.

Procedure

F statistics, t test, regression analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficients were employed to analyze the data obtained by instruments used in the research. The SPSS 14.0 package was used in the analysis of the data.

Results

Subproblems of the research and results of the statistical analyses performed for these subproblems are given below.

Comparison of Rejection Sensitivity Levels of Participants with Respect to Attachment Styles

The rejection sensitivity levels of the students were compared with respect to attachment styles by F test. A summary of statistics and their significances is given in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, rejection sensitivity levels of the group of students with a fearful attachment style are higher than those of students with secure, preoccupied, and dismissing attachment styles, with a significance level of .05.

Comparison of Rejection Sensitivity Levels of Participants with Respect to Gender

The rejection sensitivity levels of the students were compared with respect to gender by t test. A summary of statistics and their significances is given in Table 2.

As shown in Table 2, rejection sensitivity levels of female students were higher than those of male students, with a significance level of .05.

Comparison of Rejection Sensitivity Levels of Participants with Respect to Parenting Styles

The rejection sensitivity levels of the students were compared with respect to parenting styles by F test. A summary of statistics and their significances is given in Table 3.

As shown in Table 3, rejection sensitivity levels of students who had authoritarian parents were found to be higher than rejection sensitivity levels of students who had democratic, dismissing, protective, and inconsistent parents, with a significance level of .05.

The Explanation of Rejection Sensitivity by Attachment Styles

The explanation of rejection sensitivity by attachment styles was performed by multiple regression analysis. A summary of statistics and their significances is given in Table 4.

Results given in Table 4 show that attachment styles have a significant effect on rejection sensitivity and explain 13.8% of rejection sensitivity variance [p < .001; F = 14.504]. The rejection sensitivity levels of students who had secure attachment styles were found to be lower than rejection sensitivity levels of students who had fearful, dismissing or preoccupied attachment styles.

The Relationship Between Rejection Sensitivity Levels and Attachment Styles of Participants

The relationship between rejection sensitivity levels and attachment styles of  the students was tested by Pearson correlation analysis and results are given in Table 5.

As shown in Table 5, there was a significant negative relationship between rejection sensitivity and secure attachment style. Rejection sensitivity was found to be positively correlated to fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing attachment styles, with significance levels of .05 and .01.

Discussion

In this study it was found that rejection sensitivity levels of the group of students who had a fearful attachment style were significantly higher than those of others. This group has a negative view of themselves and others. Because they have a negative view of themselves as unlovable they are fearful individuals who avoid intimacy in order not to be hurt by the other person or by eventual abandonment. This means that they cannot easily establish and maintain relationships and makes them sensitive to rejection.

Rejection sensitivity levels of female students were found to be significantly higher than rejection sensitivity levels of male students. It can be said that females’ anxious rejection expectation, their tendency to quickly perceive rejection and their extreme reaction are higher than those of the males. Moreover, in several studies it has been found that females have shown more sensitivity to rejection than males (e.g., Ayduk et al., 2000; Berscheid, 1994; Broder, 2001; Creasey & Hesson-McInnis, 2001; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Erozkan, 2004, 2005; Hinde, 1979; LaFollette, 1996; Mearns, 1991; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000, 2001; Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes, & Kusche, 2002; Purdie & Downey, 2000; Rusbult, 1992; Sweet, 1996).

In terms of parenting styles, rejection sensitivity levels of students who had authoritarian parents were found to be significantly higher than those of others. Since individuals whose parents are authoritarian may be subject to pressure, intolerance, rejection and nonacceptance, it can be understood why they are easily hurt. In several studies it has been reported that the children of authoritarian/rejecting parents have shown more characteristics of sensitivity to rejection than others have (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Erozkan, 2004; Rohner, 1991, 1999; Rohner et al., 2005; Yavuzer, 2000).

In the study it was also found that rejection sensitivity was negatively correlated to secure attachment style, while it was positively correlated to fearful, preoccupied and dismissing attachment styles. These correlations are emphasized as an integrative perspective on the nature and effects of perceived rejection in attachment theory. That is, attachment principles are useful in explaining the functions of human bonding, together with the individual differences that are observed when such bonding appears to be threatened. The finding of the present study related to the relationship between rejection sensitivity and attachment styles is supported by the finding of Erozkan and Komur (2006).

When people perceive that others regard a real or potential relationship with them as valuable or important, they feel accepted and experience positive affect. However, when people perceive that others do not regard their relationship asvaluable or important, they feel rejected and respond negatively. Rejection has been found to be associated with stronger negative emotions − that is greater anger, hurt, and sadness − and less happiness than acceptance (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004). Rejection sensitivity, including irrelevant, extreme sensitivity and insecure attachment, particularly being prone to develop rejection sensitivity, is a process which damages interpersonal relations. Individuals who do not have interpersonal relationship skills are sensitive to rejection and the attachment problems of these people should be identified and social support, group psychological counseling or group psychotherapy should be provided for them.

Psychological theory suggests that human beings have a basic need to belong, and that perceived rejection is a highly aversive experience. The desire to be accepted, approved of, supported, and to belong motivates all people in interpersonal relations. Thus, rejection sensitivity and insecure attachment may cause problems in interpersonal relationships. In order to avoid a negative process in the context of adjustment to other individuals and to determine lifetime goals, individuals who are sensitive to rejection and who have a tendency towards insecure attachment should be advised to participate in interpersonal and cognitive behavioral counseling programs (Erozkan, 2004). These programs provide interpersonal achievement, understanding of others’ perspectives, and unconditional acceptance of self and others.

It can be concluded from the findings of the present study that there are significant relationships between rejection sensitivity and attachment styles of Turkish university students. Since rejection and attachment are universal concepts, cross-cultural studies may also be considered as future work.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Ayduk, O., Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (2000). Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 776-792.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Bartholomew, K., & Perlman, D. (1994). Attachment process in adulthood. London: Kingsley Publication.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.

Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to measure interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 23(3), 341-351.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209), 3-35.

Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models in the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 272-308). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Broder, M. S. (2001). The art of staying together. New York: Academic Press.

Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14-28.

Coie, J. D. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365-401). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(3), 261-281.

Creasey, G., & Hesson-McInnis, M. H. (2001). Affective responses, cognitive appraisals and conflict tactics in late adolescent romantic relationships: Associations with attachment orientations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(11), 85-96.

Crick, N., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Rincon, C. (1999). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 148-174). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.

Downey, G., Lebolt, A., & Rincon, C. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091.

Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, O., London, B. E., & Shoda, Y. (2004). Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system: Insights from the startle response to rejection cues. Psychological Science, 15, 668-673.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erozkan, A. (2004). Rejection, vulnerability, cognitive appraisal and coping in romantic relationships. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Institute of Social Sciences, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.

Erozkan, A. (2005). An investigation of interpersonal sensitivity and rejection sensitivity levels of  university students. Gazi University of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 5, 85-98.

Erozkan, A., & Komur, S. (2006). Rejection sensitivities and attachment styles of university students. First International Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, 22-24 June, Istanbul, Turkey.

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Kingsley Publication.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.

Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton.

Kennedy, J. H. (1999). Romantic attachment and ego identity, attributional style, and family of origin in first-year college students. College Student Journal, 33, 171-180.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

LaFollette, H. (1996). Personal relationships: Love, identity and morality. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1994). Adult attachment rating and classification system, manual in draft, Version 6.0. Unpublished manuscript. Berkeley: University of California.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move  to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104.

Mearns, J. (1991). Coping with a breakup: Negative mood regulation expectancies and depression following the end of a romantic relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 327-334.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-498.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2001). The contingencies of interpersonal acceptance: When romantic relationships function as a self-affirmational resource. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 163-189.

Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Bellavia, G. M., Holmes, J. G., & Kusche, A. G. (2002). When rejection stings: How self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology, 83, 556-573.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Beyond group acceptance: Friendship and friendship quality as distinct dimensions of peer adjustment. In D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 4). London: Kingsley.

Purdie, V., & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls’ vulnerability to relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5, 338-349.

Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rohner, R. P. (1991). Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

Rohner, R. P. (1999). Acceptance and rejection. In D. Levinson, J. Ponzetti, & P. Jorgensen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human emotions (pp. 6-14). New York: Macmillan.

Rohner, R. P., Khaleque, A., & Cournoyer, D. E. (2005). Parental acceptance-rejection theory, methods, evidence, and implications. Ethos, 33, 299-334.

Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Interdependence processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 231-248.

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 29-70). London: Kingsley.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Sumer, N., & Gungor, D. (1999). Assessment of Turkish adolescent attachment styles and a cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 14, 71-106.

Sweet, H. B. (1996). Perceptions of undergraduate male experiences in heterosexual romantic relationships: A sex role norms analysis. The Sciences & Engineering, 57(1-B), 0767.

Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, R. S. (1991). The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 66-76). London:
Routledge. Yavuzer, H. (2000). Parent and child. Istanbul: Remzi Publishing.

Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers.

Dr. Atılgan Erozkan, Faculty of Education, Mugla University, Campus Mugla, Turkey. Phone: +90 252 211 1832; Fax: +90 252 223 8491; Email: [email protected]