Implicit Vs. Explicit Peer Rejection Megan M. Schad, Amori Yee Mikami, Joseph P. Allen University of Virginia We would like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health for funding awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (R01-MH58066) for the conduct and write-up of this study. Introduction Youth who are disliked by their peers are well-known to be at increased risk for poor future adjustment (Parker & Asher, 1987), which underscores the importance of understanding the causes and consequences of peer rejection. Although sociometric nominations of peer rejection are considered the “gold standard” of assessment, literature also suggests the added value of youth’s self-perceptions of their rejection (Vitaro, Tremblay, & Gagnon, 1994) as well as findings that incorrect self-perceptions of rejection may lead to sociometric rejection (Peretti & McNair, 1987; Gronlund, 1955). Self-perceptions of rejection have largely been assessed using explicit measures in which youth self-report their social relationships. A limitation of this method is that it requires participants to accurately self-reflect, as well as overcome any social desirability biases to report on their true self- perceptions. An implicit measure of social relationships, on the other hand, measures self-perceptions of rejection not consciously recognizable (or reportable) by the participant. There is a burgeoning literature on implicit forms of rejection and its effects (Sommer & Baumeister, 2002), in which implicit rejection is linked to self-esteem, persistence in tasks, and self- deprecation. However, little research to date has directly compared the differential predictive power of explicit versus implicit self-perceptions of rejection within the same sample. This study examined the predictive utility of implicit (IPR) versus explicit (EPR) self-perceptions of peer rejection on adolescents’ adjustment and interpersonal relationships one year later. Hypotheses IPR and EPR will make distinct contributions to predicting functioning. Specifically, IPR will predict poor relationship quality, whereas EPR would predict poor adjustment. Measures Implicit Attitudes Task The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is a classification task that measures associative strength between concepts and attributes (see Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2006). In the present study, associations with the self (versus others) as rejected or liked were examined by comparing response latencies to classify stimuli when they reflected the association between the self + liked (and others + rejected), versus when they reflected the association between the self + rejected (and others + liked). The difference in average categorization latency across conditions was an indicator of relative IPR (see Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Self-Perception Profile At Time 1, teen’s completed the four-item social acceptance scale from the Self- Perception Profile (Harter, 1988). These items were reported on a 4-point Likert Scale. Adult Self-Report At Time 2, adolescents self-reported on their attention problems, anxiety and depression, aggression, and withdrawal on the Adult Self-Report (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2003). These four different scales were 18-, 9-, 15-, and 15-item scales reported on a 3-point Likert Scale. Friendship Quality Questionnaire Teen’s best friends at Time 2 were asked to report on teens’ betrayal & conflict. This was collected using the conflict and betrayal scale from the Friendship Quality Questionnaire (Parker & Asher, 1993). This 7-item scale was reported on a 5-point Likert scale. Conflict in Relationships Teen’s romantic partners’ at Time 2 reported their own positive communication measured using the Conflict In Relationships Measure (Wolfe, et al. 1994). This 8-item scale was reported on a 4-point Likert scale. Method Conclusions Results Participants  184 teenagers along with their best friends and romantic partners.  58% Caucasian, 29% African American, and 13% Mixed or Other ethnicity.  Average household income was within the $30,000 to $39,000 range.  Target teen mean age was 18.3 years at Time 1, at Time 2  Best friend and romantic partner mean age was and years, respectively IPR and EPR were uncorrelated in the present sample (r =.01). Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with the indicators of relationship quality and adjustment as criterion variables. On step 1 we placed the participant’s gender, on step 2 their family income, and finally on step 3 we placed the measures of EPR and IPR together. Results suggested that higher levels of IPR, but not EPR, predicted greater betrayal and conflict in friendships as reported by friends one year later. Figure 1. Implicit Perceived Rejection Predicts Relationship Quality in Friendships and Romantic Relationships One Year Later. These results suggest that IPR & EPR may be differential predictors of adjustment and interpersonal functioning. Relationship quality (as reported by partners and friends) was only predicted by IPR, whereas self-reported adjustment was uniquely predicted by EPR. It may not be surprising that EPR, but not IPR, predicted poorer self- reported adjustment one year later—these are youth who are self-aware of their problems and willing to overcome social desirability pressures to disclose them. What is perhaps more interesting is that IPR, but not EPR, predicted poorer subsequent interpersonal relationships as reported by friends and romantic partners, meaning that a feeling about oneself as rejected, even if one is not willing or able to explicitly disclose that feeling, has the potential to damage interpersonal relationships. Future studies should consider implicit in addition to explicit measures when assessing self-perceived peer rejection, because each construct may have different but important implications for psychosocial functioning. At Time 2, target teen’s self reported on their attention problems, anxiety and depressive symptoms, aggression, and withdrawal using the Adult Self Report. Target teens’ romantic partner filled out the NRI as a measure of positive communication. Also at Time 2, target teens’ best friends filled out the FQQ, giving us a measure of teens’ betrayal and conflict levels. Similarly, adolescents with greater IPR at Time 1 (but not EPR) were more likely to be in relationships with partners who reported less use of positive communication strategies at Time 2 (see Figure 1). By contrast, adolescents’ EPR, but not IPR, predicted higher levels of self-reported anxious and depressive symptoms, aggression, withdrawal, and attention problems one year later (see Figure 2). Note: * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Figure 2. Explicit Perceived Rejection Predicts Self-Reported Adjustment Outcomes One Year Later. Note: * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Procedures At Time 1, target teens’ performed the computer based Implicit Attitudes Task regarding themselves or others as more rejected. At this time, target teens also completed the Self-Perception Profile as a measure of explicit perceived rejection.