The elevated satisfaction that comes from interacting with close ties, as opposed to distal ties, is well-established in past research. What remains less clear is how the quality of daily interactions between close versus distal ties may vary as a function of personality. Drawing on data from a 2-week experience sampling study (N = 108 participants, N = 7755 observations), we consider how trait rejection sensitivity (RS)—or the tendency to worry about potential social rejection—interacts with perceived closeness and interaction channel (i.e., face-to-face vs. technology-mediated) in daily life. We find that individuals who are high (vs. low) in rejection sensitivity not only view distal tie interactions as less satisfying, they also perceive close tie exchanges as more enjoyable and supportive—but only for technology-mediated (vs. face-to-face) interactions. We also find that individuals who are high in rejection sensitivity have higher variability in the perceived quality of their interactions. These findings demonstrate the interlocked factors of personality tendencies, perceived closeness, and interaction channel in shaping the variability in the quality of daily interactions.
AlbrechtT. L.AdelmanM. B. (1984). Social support and life stress: New directions for communication research. Human Communication Research, 11(1), 3–32.
2.
AsendorpfJ.WipersS. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.
3.
BackM. D.VazireS. (2015). The social consequences of personality: Six suggestions for future research. European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1998
4.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
5.
BaumeisterR.LearyM. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
6.
BayerJ.EllisonN.SchoenebeckS.BradyE.FalkE. B. (2018). Facebook in context(s): Measuring emotional responses across time and space. new media & society, 20(3), 1047-1067.
7.
BayerJ. B.EllisonN. B.SchoenebeckS.FalkE. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 956–977.
8.
BayerJ. B.HauserD. J.ShahK. M.O’DonnellM. B.FalkE. B. (2019). Social exclusion shifts personal network scope. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1619.
9.
BayerJ. B.O’DonnellM. B.CascioC. N.FalkE. B. (2018). Brain sensitivity to exclusion is associated with core network closure. Scientific Reports, 8, 1-12.
10.
BerscheidE.SnyderM.OmotoA. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792
11.
BinderJ. F.RobertsS. G. B.SutcliffeA. G. (2012). Closeness, loneliness, support: Core ties and significant ties in personal communities. Social Networks, 34(2), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.12.001
12.
BlackhartG. C.NelsonB. C.KnowlesM. L.BaumeisterR. F.NelsonB. C. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065
13.
ButlerJ. C.DohertyM. S.PotterR. M. (2007). Social antecedents and consequences of interpersonal rejection sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1376–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.006
14.
CacioppoJ. T.FowlerJ. H.ChristakisN. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977–991. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016076
15.
CacioppoJ. T.HawkleyL. C.BerntsonG. G. (2003). The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01232
16.
DeWallC. N.RichmanS. B. (2011). Social exclusion and the desire to reconnect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(11), 919–932.
17.
DowneyG.FeldmanS. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
18.
DurkheimE. (1851). Suicide: New York [1997]. Free Press.
19.
FingermanK. L. (2009). Consequential strangers and peripheral ties: The importance of unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1(2), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00010.x
20.
FuY. C.HoH. C.ChenH. M. (2013). Weak ties and contact initiation in everyday life: Exploring contextual variations from contact diaries. Social Networks, 35(3), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.02.004
21.
GerberJ.WheelerL. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488.
22.
Gil De ZunigaH.DiehlT.HuberB.LiuJ. (2017). Personality traits and social media use in 20 countries: How personality relates to frequency of social media use, social media news use, and social media use for social interaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(9), 540–552. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0295
23.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
HallJ. A. (2018). Energy, episode, and relationship: A test of communicate bond belong theory. Communication Quarterly, 66(4), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2017.1411377
26.
HeisigJ. P.SchaefferM. (2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy053
27.
HirschJ. L.ClarkM. S. (2019). Multiple paths to belonging that we should study together. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618803629
28.
KawamotoT.NittonoH.UraM. (2015). Trait rejection sensitivity is associated with vigilance and defensive response rather than detection of social rejection cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01516
29.
KellyK. (2001). Individual differences in reactions to rejection. In LearyM. (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 291–315). Oxford University Press.
30.
KrämerN. C.RösnerL.EimlerS.WinterS.NeubaumG. (2014). Let the weakest link go! Empirical explorations on the relative importance of weak and strong ties on social networking sites. Societies, 4(4), 785–809. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc4040785
31.
LearyM. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In FiskeS.GilbertD. T. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
32.
LevyS.AydukO.DowneyG. (2001). The role of rejection sensitivity in people’s relationships with Significant. In LearyM. (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (p. 251). Oxford University Press.
33.
MadduxJ.NortonL.LearyM. (1988). Cognitive components of social anxiety: An investigation of the integration of self-presentation theory and self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 180–190.
34.
MehrabianA. (1970). The development and validation of measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 417–428.
35.
MehrabianA. (1976). Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Psychological Reports, 38(1974), 199–209.
36.
MehrabianA. (1994). Evidence bearing on the affiliative tendency (MAFF) and sensitivity to rejection (MSR) scales. Current Psychology, 13(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686794
37.
MoieniM.IrwinM. R.JevticI.BreenE. C.ChoH. J.ArevaloJ. M. G.MaJ.ColeS. W.EisenbergerN. I. (2015). Trait sensitivity to social disconnection enhances pro-inflammatory responses to a randomized controlled trial of endotoxin. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 62, 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.08.020
38.
Noelle-NeumannE. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51.
39.
NoronaJ. C.SalvatoreJ. F.WelshD. P.DarlingN. (2014). Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.09.003
40.
OswaldD. L.ClarkE. M.KellyC. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: an analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460
41.
ParkL. E.PinkusR. T. (2009). Interpersonal effects of appearance-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 602–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.003
42.
PouwelsJ. L.ValkenburgP. M.BeyensI.DrielI. I. VanKeijsersL. (2021). Social media use and friendship closeness in adolescents’ daily lives: An experience sampling study. Developmental Psychology, 57(2), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001148.supp
43.
Prizant-PassalS.ShechnerT.AderkaI. M. (2016). Social anxiety and internet use—A meta-analysis: What do we know? What are we missing?Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.003
44.
RamseyM. A.GentzlerA. L. (2015). An upward spiral: Bidirectional associations between positive affect and positive aspects of close relationships across the life span. Developmental Review, 36, 58–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.003
45.
Romero-CanyasR.DowneyG. (2012). What I see when I think it’s about me: People low in rejection-sensitivity downplay cues of rejection in self-relevant interpersonal situations. Emotion, 13(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029786
46.
SadikajG.MoskowitzD. S.ZuroffD. C. (2015). Intrapersonal variability in negative affect as a moderator of accuracy and bias in interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality Disorders29(4), 468-485. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2015.29.4.468
47.
SandstromG. M.DunnE. W. (2014). Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of weak ties. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529799
48.
SeoM.KimJ.YangH. (2016). Frequent interaction and fast feedback predict perceived social support: Using crawled and self-reported data of Facebook users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12160
49.
SmallM. L. (2013). Weak ties and the core discussion network: Why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters. Social Networks, 35(3), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.05.004
50.
SutcliffeA.DunbarR.BinderJ.ArrowH. (2012). Relationships and the social brain: Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 149–168.
51.
TandocE. C.LouC.MinV. L. H. (2018). Platform-swinging in a poly-social-media context: How and why users navigate multiple social media platforms. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/14769018200800003
52.
TovW.NaiZ. L.LeeH. W. (2016). Extraversion and agreeableness: Divergent routes to daily satisfaction with social relationships. Journal of Personality, 84(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12146
53.
TriệuP.BayerJ. B.EllisonN. B.SchoenebeckS.FalkE. (2019). Who likes to be reachable? Availability preferences, weak ties, and bridging social capital. Information Communication and Society, 22, 1096-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1405060
54.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
55.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267
56.
van RoekelE.GoossensL.VerhagenM.WoutersS.EngelsR. C. M. E.ScholteR. H. J. (2014). Loneliness, affect, and adolescents’ appraisals of company: An experience sampling method study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(2), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12061
57.
van RoekelE.VerhagenM.EngelsR. C. M. E.ScholteR. H. J.CacioppoS.CacioppoJ. T. (2018). Trait and state levels of loneliness in early and late adolescents: Examining the differential reactivity hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47, 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1146993
58.
Van ZalkM.Van ZalkN.KerrM.StattinH. (2014). Influences between online-exclusive, conjoint and offline-exclusive friendship networks: The moderating role of shyness. European Journal of Personality, 146, 134–146.
59.
Van ZalkN.Van ZalkM.KerrM.StattinH. (2011). Social anxiety as a basis for friendship selection and socialization in adolescents’ social networks. Journal of Personality, 79(3), 499–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00682.x
60.
VanhalstJ.LearyM. (2014). Sociotropic differentiation: Differential anticipatory reactions to rejection by close versus distal others predict well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.004
61.
VittenglJ. R.HoltC. S. (1998a). A time-series diary study of mood and social interaction. Motivation and Emotion, 22(3), 255–275.
62.
VittenglJ. R.HoltC. S. (1998b). Positive and negative affect in social interactions as a function of partner familiarity, quality of communication, and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 196–208.
63.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed.). SAGE.
64.
WangJ. M.HartlA. C.LaursenB.RubinK. H. (2016). The high costs of low agreeableness: Low agreeableness exacerbates interpersonal consequences of rejection sensitivity in U.S. And Chinese adolescents. Journal of Research in Personality, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.005
65.
WeidmanA. C.FernandezK. C.LevinsonC. A.AugustineA. A.LarsenR. J.RodebaughT. L. (2012). Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.003
66.
WellmanB. (2012). Is Dunbar’s number up?British Journal of Psychology, 103, 174–176.
67.
WilsonR. E.HarrisK.VazireS. (2015). Personality and friendship satisfaction in daily life: Do everyday social interactions account for individual differences in friendship satisfaction?European Journal of Personality, 29(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1996
68.
WrightK.RainsS. a. (2013). Weak-tie support network preference, health-related stigma, and health outcomes in computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(3), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.792435
69.
WrightK.RainsS.BanasJ. (2010). Weak-tie support network preference and perceived life stress among participants in health-related, computer-mediated support groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(4), 606–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01505.x
70.
WrzusC.NeyerF. J. (2016). Co-development of personality and friendships across the lifespan an empirical review on selection and socialization. European Psychologist, 21(4), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000277
71.
ZuurA. F.IenoE. N.WalkerN. J.SavelievA. A.SmithG. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Statistics for biology and health. Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
