Repeated experiences of rejection result in decreases in ideal standards & self-perceived mate value & increases in ideal flexibility, but there is no increased acceptance

Charlot, Nicolyn, Rhonda N. Balzarini, and Lorne Campbell. 2018. “The Influence of Romantic Rejection on Change in Ideal Standards, Ideal Flexibility, and Self-perceived Mate Value.” PsyArXiv. October 3. doi:10.31234/osf.io/yhvdu

Abstract: Research has shown that ideal romantic standards predict future partner characteristics and influence existing relationships, but how standards develop and change among single individuals has yet to be explored. Using the Ideal Standards Model, the present study sought to determine whether repeated experiences of romantic rejection and acceptance over time influence ideal standards, ideal flexibility, and self-perceived mate value (N = 208). Per expectations, results suggest repeated experiences of rejection result in decreases in ideal standards and self-perceived mate value and increases in ideal flexibility, though no effects emerged for acceptance. Given the predictive nature of ideal standards and the influence rejection has on such, findings from this study contribute to a greater understanding of relationship formation processes.

---
Consistent with hypotheses, increased experiences of rejection predicted decreases in self-perceived mate value and ideal standards, and increases in ideal flexibility over time (H5, H7, H8). This is the first study to empirically support Simpson and colleagues’ (2001) idea that repeated experiences of rejection cause a decline in ideal standards and increases in ideal flexibility. Further, the finding that rejection is associated with lower self-perceived mate value over time is consistent with prior literature showing that rejection decreases self-esteem and self-perceived mate value (Kavanagh et al., 2010; Pass et al., 2010; Ruan & Zhang, 2012; Zhang et al., 2015), but the present study is the first to demonstrate this effect longitudinally. Combined, these findings suggest that repeated experiences of rejection predict changes not only in individuals’ perceptions of themselves, but also what they desire in a romantic partner. This may occur because multiple experiences of rejection repeatedly signal the disinterest of individuals advanced upon, which could cause participants to reevaluate their own worth as potential mates, as well as their standards for the types of people with whom they are likely to enter a relationship. Decreasing standards and increasing flexibility is likely advantageous, as doing so widens the dating pool and leads to an increased chance of experiencing acceptance.

Experiences of acceptance did not predict changes in ideal standards (H6), ideal flexibility, or self-perceived mate value. Although Simpson and colleagues (2001) suggested repeated experiences of acceptance would increase standards, prior literature has demonstrated that acceptance has mixed effects on mate expectations (e.g., Kavanagh et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). Sociometer theory suggests that people should be more attuned to rejection than acceptance (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary & Downs, 1995), as ignoring rejection is costlier than ignoring acceptance, which may further account for these findings. Acceptance may primarily function as a reaffirmation of the status quo, rather than a reason to increase standards. However, the type of person accepting the advance may be influential – repeated experiences of acceptance from potential partners of relatively high mate value may cause an increase in ideal standards and self-perceived mate value, and a decrease in ideal flexibility, while acceptances from similar or lower mate value individuals may not cause changes in these constructs.

Contrary to hypotheses, self-perceived mate value did not moderate rejection’s impact on change in ideal standards, ideal flexibility, or self-perceived mate value (H9, H10, H11). One explanation for the null findings is that high self-perceived mate value is an effective buffer against singular experiences of rejection, but not repeated experiences, as documented in this study. Indeed, sociometer theory suggests that people with high self-esteem should be less attuned to experiences of rejection than those with low self-esteem, but repeated instances of rejection should increasingly trigger the sociometer, thus decreasing self-esteem. Given the close association between self-esteem and self-perceived mate value (Brase & Guy, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001), this is likely true for self-perceived mate value as well. As the present study examined multiple instances of rejection, any buffering effects initially high self-perceived mate value had may not have been evident after six months of acceptance and rejection experiences. Future research should examine self-perceived mate value as a moderator of both singular and multiple experiences of rejection to explore this notion further.

Gender did not influence many outcomes when included in the primary analyses, although results did indicate that men reported higher numbers of overall, accepted, and rejected advances than women, which is consistent with prior research which shows men tend to initiate more dates and exhibit more direct dating behaviors than women (Eaton & Rose, 2011). Interestingly, gender was a significant moderator in a three-way interaction with initial self-perceived mate value and rejection, such that the ideal standards of women with initially low self-perceived mate value were more impacted by high levels of rejection than women with initially high levels of self-perceived mate value, and men with initially low self-perceived mate value. This finding suggests that the ideal standards of women with low self-perceived mate value are particularly sensitive to experiences of rejection. However, this result should be interpreted cautiously, given that the sample size of this study is lower than ideal for properly detecting a three-way interaction (Heo & Leon, 2010).

Implications

The current study has several theoretical implications. First, the results provide support for certain aspects of the ISM, as ideal standards positively correlated with self-perceived mate value, and ideal flexibility negatively correlated with ideal standards and self-perceived mate value. Additionally, this is the first study to empirically support the notion that repeated experiences of rejection over time decrease ideal standards and self-perceived mate value and increase ideal flexibility. However, the ISM posits that repeated experiences of acceptance will cause the opposite effect from rejection, but the present study did not demonstrate any effects of romantic acceptance. Future researchers using the ISM should take into consideration the relative importance of rejection over acceptance and examine the mechanisms behind this effect. Further, the ISM predicts that ideal flexibility should change more than ideal standards, but support for this prediction was not found in the current study. Furthermore, this study has implications for literature on the mating sociometer, as self-perceived mate value does not appear to moderate the influence of rejection on the aforementioned constructs. However, as mentioned previously, this may be due the present study’s focus on repeated versus singular rejection experiences, so self-perceived mate value’s role as a moderator should be explored further.

The present findings also have implications for relationship initiation and relationship satisfaction. Two longitudinal studies (Campbell et al., 2016; Gerlach et al., 2017) have demonstrated that ideal partner preferences of single individuals are predictive of characteristics of future partners. These findings, combined with the present study’s findings that experiences of rejection impact ideal standards, as well as ideal flexibility and self-perceived mate value, suggests that experiences of rejection while single may influence partner selection. Although future research is needed, these findings suggest that individuals who experience high levels of rejection may lower their ideal standards and enter relationships with partners of lower mate quality than initially desired. Therefore, individuals who change their ideal standards in response to rejection may end up with lower-quality mates than those who do not experience high levels of rejection. Reducing one’s standards and preferences may impact relationship quality, as people who enter relationships with partners who match their new, lower standards may experience less relationship satisfaction than those who enter relationships with partners who match their initial, unadjusted standards.

Limitations and Future Directions

While the present study contributes many novel findings to relationship literature, it does have several notable limitations. First, due to the longitudinal nature of the study, high attrition impacted the quality of data. Specifically, many participants did not complete every monthly survey, so the true number of accepted and rejected advances is unknown. It is possible that some people who were categorized as never having made an advance did make advances but did not fill out surveys for those months. Additionally, while the initial sample included 208 participants, only 95 were used in analyses involving the impact of rejection on change in ideal standards, flexibility, and self-perceived mate value, which is lower than desired. The remaining 113 participants either did not respond to the monthly surveys or did not report making any advances during the monthly surveys. The generalizability of the study is also limited, as the sample is predominantly white, and the sexual orientation of participants is unknown.

Second, the present study’s focus was on experiences of accepted and rejected advances, but it did not account for advances made towards the participants, which may also predict change in standards, flexibility, and self-perceived mate value. Participants who are routinely approached likely have higher ideals and self-perceived mate value, and lower flexibility than those who are never or less frequently approached. The present study also did not account for who participants were approaching. Rejection from a long-time crush may be much more impactful than rejection from a stranger at a bar, or, rejection from an extremely high-quality potential mate may have less of an effect on an individual than rejection from someone of similar or lower mate quality. Additionally, the present research did not inquire about the type of relationship being sought by participants; it is possible that those seeking casual relationships would be less impacted by rejection than those desiring more serious commitments. Further, explicit definitions of accepted and rejected advances were not included in the study, so participants may have had different interpretations of what counted as an accepted or rejected advance, which may have influenced their reports. Ultimately, the present study provides a broad perspective on how acceptance and rejection impact change in ideal standards, ideal flexibility, and self-perceived mate value, but it does not explore the nuances of the context in which each experience of rejection or acceptance occurs, which would be useful and informative in increasing the understanding of the associations between these constructs.