Changes in Self-Definition Impede Recovery From Rejection

Transcription

1 612743PSPXXX / Personality and Social Psychology BulletinHowe and Dweck research-article2015 Article Changes in Self-Definition Impede Recovery From Rejection Lauren C. Howe 1 and Carol S. Dweck 1 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2016, Vol. 42(1) by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / pspb.sagepub.com Abstract Previous research highlights how adept people are at emotional recovery after rejection, but less research has examined factors that can prevent full recovery. In five studies, we investigate how changing one s self-definition in response to rejection causes more lasting damage. We demonstrate that people who endorse an entity theory of personality (i.e., personality cannot be changed) report alterations in their self-definitions when reflecting on past rejections (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or imagining novel rejection experiences (Studies 4 and 5). Further, these changes in self-definition hinder post-rejection recovery, causing individuals to feel haunted by their past, that is, to fear the recurrence of rejection and to experience lingering negative affect from the rejection. Thus, beliefs that prompt people to tie experiences of rejection to self-definition cause rejection s impact to linger. Keywords implicit person theories, rejection, recovery, self-theories Received November 4, 2014; revision accepted September 28, 2015 Rejections when a close other such as a friend, parent, or romantic partner decides to no longer be a part of one s life are often traumatic. We may worry that these painful experiences will haunt us, and best-selling self-help books offer advice on how to let go of hurtful past relationships. Yet much research tells us that our fears are overblown. This research suggests that people are, on average, quite adept at recovery from rejection. In fact, they are better at recovering from major interpersonal setbacks, such as the breakup of romantic relationships and divorce, than they anticipate (Eastwick, Finkel, Krishnamurti, & Loewenstein, 2008; Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998, for a review, see Wilson & Gilbert, 2003). This is because people are often unaware of all the strategies at their disposal to successfully cope with negative experiences (their powerful psychological immune system), leading them to overestimate the impact these events would have on them. People also have an impressive arsenal of strategies to repair their self-esteem after interpersonal rejection. For instance, people derogate rejectors and convince themselves that a rejector did not know them well to take the sting out of rejection (Bourgeios & Leary, 2001). In short, after rejection, there are many ways in which people may repair themselves. Romantic rejection is ideal for studying recovery, as breakups are common, highly traumatic events (Frazier & Hurliman, 2003). And, research on the dissolution of romantic relationships has focused on successful adaptation (Sbarra & Emery, 2005). For example, some time after marital transitions such as divorce and widowhood, people on the whole return to their pre-event baseline level of happiness (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003). However, the research refers to people on average. This means that many people have exceeded their pre-event level and, most germane to the present research, many are still suffering the after-effects. Moreover, many of the strategies used to repair the self are studied immediately post-rejection; if they are successful in the short run, it is assumed that they are successful in the long run. But, as research indicates, not everyone fully adapts after these events (Lucas, 2005; Luhmann, Hofmann, Eid, & Lucas, 2012) and in fact some people show a downward trajectory (Lucas et al., 2003). Thus, we use romantic rejection as a context for exploring when bruises from the past hinder recovery. The Role of the Self in Recovery What determines whether people recover readily or instead feel scarred by rejection? We argue that these differences can stem from the power that people give rejections to define the self. That is, people may differ in whether and how they connect rejections to their self. We propose that people who see rejections as revealing a core truth about oneself as a person, something about who they really are, may be more likely to struggle with recovery and carry rejection with them into the future. 1 Stanford University, CA, USA Corresponding Author: Lauren C. Howe, Department of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Building 420, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Lchowe@stanford.edu

2 Howe and Dweck 55 Accordingly, we also choose to focus on romantic rejection in this work because it embodies a potent threat to the self. People often look toward romantic partners as a source of information about the self (e.g., Campbell, Lackenbauer, & Muise, 2006). It may be particularly traumatic and selfrelevant to be rejected by someone who knows you well and with this insight decides that they no longer care for you or want to be with you. Previous work supports the idea that people may be particularly prone to link romantic rejection to the self, demonstrating that romantic relationships become intertwined with one s self-concept (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991), and that the self-concept can be impacted by the loss of a relationship (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). Some research has shed light on reasons why some people might show less resilience in the face of romantic rejection, finding that factors such as attachment style (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) and differential coping mechanisms (e.g., Leary, 2001) can impact the severity of reactions. Researchers suggest that the psychological mechanisms behind the lack of adaptation after significant life events, including interpersonal setbacks, deserve further study (Diener, 2012; Diener, Lucas, & Scollon, 2006). Thus, uncovering novel processes that can stand in the way of a full emotional recovery is the goal of the current research. We extend previous work by exploring how factors that cause rejection to be seen as more self-relevant determine who recovers from it over time, and who suffers continued impact. In this work, then, we ask: What are the basic beliefs that people carry with them into a relationship that might make them more likely to link rejection to the self, and thereby magnify and extend the impact of a rejection? Do Entity Theories of Personality Bind Negative Experiences to Self- Definition? To examine this question, we explore how beliefs about personality whether it is seen as fixed (an entity theory) or moldable (an incremental theory) might affect whether rejections become intertwined with self-definitions. Fixed versus malleable beliefs about the nature of attributes change how people approach and make sense of their social world (Dweck & Legget, 1988). For example, entity theorists 1 tend to see people s actions and outcomes as indicative of their underlying personality and character, whereas incremental theorists are less likely to see a few instances of behavior or outcomes as diagnostic of an underlying reality (e.g., Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997). Entity theorists focus on diagnosticity suggests that they see the true underlying traits of the self as being revealed through salient instances of what a person does and what happens to them (Plaks, Levy, & Dweck, 2009). However, although entity theorists believe in fixed traits, they don t necessarily know the quality or quantity of their fixed traits and, so, powerful events may serve as means for conveying this. Research suggests that entity theorists are chronically judging themselves and avoid situations that might prompt negative judgment (e.g., Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). We propose that entity theorists use their outcomes to discern and sometimes redefine themselves on relevant traits. Thus, entity theorists should be more likely to see events such as romantic rejection as informative about the self and even self-definitional. Using implicit theories of personality as a vehicle, we can thereby examine shifting self-definitions and their role in recovery from rejection. The Current Research: Implicit Theories, Changes in Self-Definition, and Impaired Recovery We make two main sets of predictions about entity, compared with incremental, theorists reactions to rejection. The first prediction regards entity theorists tendency to see rejection as self-definitional. The second prediction involves the negative impact that this redefinition of self has for them. Change in Self-Definitions: Hypotheses Our first prediction is that entity theorists will report concerns that rejection forces them to change their self-definitions (i.e., their understandings of who they really are). That is, entity theorists will explicitly question what rejections reveal about their core self. They will report questioning who they really are to a greater extent than incremental theorists when reflecting on or experiencing rejection. We predict that additional markers will follow from the link between rejection and the self among entity theorists. For instance, if entity theorists see rejection as revealing negative qualities of the self, then they should be more likely to feel negative self-directed such as embarrassment or disappointment in themselves when contemplating this experience. Another prediction relates to whether entity theorists, to the extent that they see their rejections as diagnostic of who they are, may be more likely to expect other people to view them that way as well. Entity theorists may expect others to define them differently to see them as a different kind of person and respond to them differently after learning about the rejection. Thus, we assess expectations about others evaluations in the light of rejection as well as negative self-directed emotion. Impaired Recovery: Hypotheses Because of these shifts in self-definitions, entity theorists should feel a greater, lingering impact of rejection. Our main predictions regarding this lingering impact are that entity theorists will carry a heavier burden from rejection and see it as more impactful for the future. Thus, we expect that (a) entity theorists will be more likely to experience lingering negative affect toward the rejection experience (e.g., continuing to be

3 56 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) upset and feeling haunted by the rejection), and (b) entity theorists will be more likely to fear the recurrence of rejection. As entity theorists are particularly motivated to avoid failure (Burnette, O Boyle, Van Epps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013), we expect that this fear of recurrence will involve entity theorists distancing themselves from significant others, for instance putting up walls to protect themselves from rejection in future relationships and being reluctant to discuss past rejections lest people see them differently and become more likely to reject them. That is, if for entity theorists negative experiences reveal a stable, underlying trait that will be consistent across current and future situations (e.g., Erdley & Dweck, 1993; Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1997), they should have more lingering negative feelings and they should be more likely to view these rejections as foretelling a recurring pattern in their lives. In these ways, rejections will continue to impact entity theorists futures and persistently haunt them. In addition to our central predictions about the downstream consequences of rejection and self-definition (fear of recurrence and lingering negative affect), we also explored two more speculative, subsidiary predictions about possibly more downstream consequences. We made two predictions regarding whether entity theorists adopt different strategies from incremental theorists in response to rejection. First, we predicted that entity theorists should be less likely to believe that they can learn and grow from rejections. In the eyes of entity theorists, negative events reveal negative qualities, and because personality is static, negative events do not provide an opportunity to work on and perhaps improve these negative qualities. Thus, entity theorists may be less likely to understand rejection as a learning experience or to take something positive from their experience in dealing with rejection. Relatedly, instead of embracing rejections as opportunities for growth, we expect that entity theorists may have the goal of suppressing the memory of the undermining rejections, and may even wish to expunge the whole relationship from their history, wishing for example that they had never met the rejector. Thus, the effects of seeing rejections as self-definitional are predicted to include more lingering impact and impaired recovery from rejection, namely (a) feeling lingering negative affect and (b) expecting and guarding against rejection in the future. As secondary predictions, we anticipate that entity theorists, in dealing with these events, (c) have the goal of suppression, (d) rather than seeing opportunities for growth and acceptance. We present these predictions and the studies in which we test these predictions in Table 1. In summary, it has not been clear why some people recover more readily from rejection and move on to a brighter future, whereas others remain mired in it. In the following studies, we explore how entity beliefs about the nature of personality can lead to lasting group differences in recovery from rejection by increasing the perceived self-defining power of negative events. In this way, we hope to shed light on who succeeds in harnessing their psychological immune Table 1. Studies Testing Predictions About Entity Theorists Responses to Rejection. Addressed in Primary predictions study Entity theorists link rejection to self-definitions Perceive greater change in self-definitions postrejection 1,2,4,5 Report more negative self-evaluations postrejection 1,2,4,5 Report negative self-directed emotion postrejection 1,2,4,5 Expect change in others evaluations postrejection 1,2,4,5 Entity theorists experience lingering impact of rejection More lingering negative affect post-rejection 2,4,5 Fear rejection s recurrence 1,2,3,4,5 Addressed in Secondary predictions study Entity theorists adopt different strategies in response to rejection See less possibility of learning and growth from 2,4,5 rejection Desire to suppress rejection experiences 2,4,5 Experience greater general negative emotion, 1,2,4,5 other-directed negative emotion, and experience less positive emotion postrejection system to hasten their recovery and who instead continues to be plagued by ghosts from their past. Study 1 In Study 1, we ask whether people who endorse more of an entity theory are more likely to report changing their selfdefinitions and expecting others evaluations of them to change in response to rejection, and whether they experience increased negative self-focused emotion post-rejection. We also test a downstream consequence of this shift in self-definition: whether, as we suspected, people who endorse entity theories show an increased reluctance to disclose past rejections because they might prompt future rejection. Method Participants. We recruited 194 participants (77 women, 117 men; M age = 29.99, SD = 8.42) on Amazon s Mechanical Turk. 2 Participants first filled out a scale to assess implicit person theories (e.g., Chiu et al., 1997). Items included Everyone, no matter who they are, can significantly change their basic characteristics (indicating agreement with an incremental theory) and The kind of person you are is something very basic about you and it can t be changed much (indicating agreement with an entity theory). Respondents indicated their agreement with each item on a 7-point scale

4 Howe and Dweck 57 with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), (8 items, α =.96). Higher numbers on this scale indicated higher endorsement of entity person theories (M = 3.59, SD = 1.42). Afterward, participants answered some questions about their current romantic life, including their current relationship status (whether they were in a relationship currently; 73.4% said yes), and filled out some additional scales not central to the current research. 3 Rejection experience. Next, participants recalled a painful time when they were romantically rejected. They were prompted to think about the rejection and answered some questions about the rejection s recency, how long ago the rejection occurred on a scale from 1 (over 10 years ago) to 7 (a few days ago), and the rejection s severity, how negative they thought the experience was (1 = extremely negative to 7 = extremely positive). We included these questions, as well as the question about current relationship status, to explore whether implicit theories had an impact over and above other factors that might influence how one feels about a rejection. For example, we suspected that one might not be as bothered by a past rejection if it was in the distant past, was not severe, and one is currently in another relationship. Perceived change in self-definitions. Participants also responded to statements about the rejection on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (see supplemental material for verbatim questions). One item assessed self-reported concerns about changes in self-definition in response to the rejection, asking participants the extent to which they agreed that, I worry that there is something wrong with me because I got rejected. Other markers of links to the self. Participants indicated whether they expected others evaluations of them to change after knowing that they had been rejected (5 items, α =.91, e.g., I worry that people might think I m less worthy if they knew about this rejection ). Participants indicated which they felt when thinking about the rejection on a scale from 0 (does not apply) to 100 (applies very much). Of greatest interest were negative self-directed (e.g., ashamed, dissatisfied with myself, 8 items, α =.94), but we also measured general negative (e.g., tense, sad, 12 items, α =.91), negative other-directed, (frustrated or angry, 2 items, r =.57), and positive (e.g., optimistic, content, 6 items, α =.89). Correlations between the outcome variables are available in the online supplementary material. Lingering impact of rejection. Finally, we assessed participants fear of rejection s recurrence by measuring concerns that disclosing past rejections would negatively impact new relationships (e.g., When I start a new relationship, I worry about discussing past times when people ended relationships with me, 2 items, r =.55). Did participants feel that they must guard against potential future rejection by avoiding discussion of past rejections? Results and Discussion Control variables. As participants tended to recall experiences that were both long ago (median response = 5-10 years ago) and rated as negative (median response = 2, negative), we took the square root of these variables to create more normal predictors in subsequent analyses. Implicit person theories were used as a continuous variable. Current relationship status, rejection severity, and rejection recency affected reactions to rejections in expected ways. For instance, participants reported that they had changed their self-definitions to a greater extent when the rejections were more recent, B = 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.00,.34], SE = 0.09, t(188) = 2.02, p =.045, or more severe, B = 0.31, 95% CI = [.48,.14], SE = 0.08, t(188) = 3.57, p <.001. Furthermore, participants who were in relationships were less likely to agree that they changed their self-definitions in response to rejection, B = 0.21, 95% CI = [.39,.04], SE = 0.09, t(188) = 2.40, p =.017. Accordingly, we controlled for these variables in the following analyses. Perceived change in self-definitions. As predicted, rejection prompted those with more of an entity theory to worry that they are flawed, and that others would suspect so as well. As perceived change in self-definitions and anticipated change in others evaluations were positively skewed, such that participants overall tended to disagree with these statements, we took the square root to create a more normal distribution. Participants who endorsed more of an entity theory were more likely to indicate that the rejection had prompted them to question their self-definitions, B = 0.07, 95% CI = [.01,.12], SE = 0.03, t(188) = 2.54, p =.012. The rejection made those with more of an entity theory suspect that there was something wrong with them. Other markers of links to the self. Participants who endorsed more of an entity theory believed that revealing the rejection would change how other people saw them to a greater extent, B = 0.06, 95% CI = [.02,.11], SE = 0.02, t(188) = 2.77, p =.006. This provides further evidence that people who hold more of an entity theory see rejections as diagnostic information that will lead them, and others, to question them as a person. As the emotion variables were skewed (participants tended to report high levels of negative emotion and low levels of positive emotion), we took the square root of these variables in the following analyses. First, as expected, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory experienced greater negative self-directed, such as shame and embarrassment, when reflecting on

5 58 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) Figure 1. Perceived change in self-definitions mediate the relationship between greater endorsement of an entity theory of personality and fearing rejection s recurrence (Study 1). Note. CI = confidence interval. the rejection, B = 0.26, 95% CI = [.01,.52], SE = 0.13, t(188) = 2.01, p =.046. This tendency to experience more self-conscious offers additional evidence that people who hold more of an entity theory link rejections to the self. In addition, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory felt more general negative emotion (e.g., sad) when thinking about the rejection, B = 0.35, 95% CI = [.15,.55], SE = 0.10, t(188) = 3.40, p <.001. Negative other-directed were also higher among those who endorsed an entity theory, B = 0.50, 95% CI = [.25,.75], SE = 0.13, t(188) = 3.96, p <.001. There was no relationship between implicit theories and positive, B = 0.09, 95% CI = [.13,.30], SE = 0.11, t(188) =.81, p =.42. Thus, when recalling rejections, people who endorsed entity theories experienced higher levels of all types of negative emotion. Lingering impact of rejection. Finally, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory more strongly agreed that disclosing past rejections would harm new relationships, B = 0.18, 95% CI = [.02,.34], SE = 0.08, t(188) = 2.19, p =.030. Because we predicted that this reluctance was a result of these shifts in self-definitions, we conducted a mediational analysis to explore whether changes in selfdefinitions accounted for the relationship between implicit theories and reluctance disclosing rejections. This mediational analysis confirmed our predictions (see Figure 1). We created a 95% CI for the indirect effect (a*b) using 5,000 repetitions (e.g., Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, 2014), and it did not include zero [0.01, 0.15], supporting the mediational hypothesis. Implicit theories predicted a shift in self-definitions, which led to reluctance to reveal past romantic rejections lest they prompt rejection in the present. Thus, we find evidence to suggest when it is that rejection causes people to question their self-definition. People who held more of an entity theory, compared with those who held more of an incremental theory, saw rejections as fundamentally changing how they think about themselves as a person, viewing the rejection as revealing a negative truth about the self. Because of this, they tended to want to avoid revealing past rejections, believing that this might prompt future rejection and continue to impact new relationships. Importantly, though people on average recalled rejections that had occurred 5 years ago, those with more of an entity theory still linked these incidents to the core self to a greater extent; felt more lingering, negative ; and believed others would view them differently if they knew about the rejection. This shows the lasting power that rejections can have among people with certain beliefs. Study 2 In our first study, we documented one downstream consequence of the self-definitional power of negative life events: being unwilling to disclose past rejections. In the next study, we replicated and extended our findings. First, we sharpened our concept of shifts in self-definitions. The item used in Study 1, I worry that there is something wrong with me because I got rejected, could be seen as measuring a combination of perceived change in self-definition (seeing the rejection as revealing a truth about the core self) and negative evaluations of the self (feeling worse about the self in response to rejection). To address this, we included items that directly and explicitly assessed perceived change in self-definition by asking participants whether the rejection revealed who I truly am or whether the rejection made me question my view of myself. Then, we created separate items assessing negative self-evaluations (e.g., feeling bad about the self post-rejection, or worrying that one is unlikeable), which we now included as a related marker of links to the self. Some research supports the idea that rejection can be linked to shifts in negative self-evaluations, for example prompting lower self-esteem (e.g., Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). However, most of this research has examined reactions to rejection in the moment and we are also interested in the conditions under which these changes can be more enduring. Then, we tested our other two central predictions about the impact of shifts in self-definition post-rejection. Namely, we assessed for whom rejection s impact lingered. Will people who endorse more of an entity theory allow one rejection experience to tarnish their romantic prospects? Will they feel

6 Howe and Dweck 59 more persistent distress about the rejection? We also explored secondary predictions regarding additional ways in which people who endorse more of an entity or incremental theory adopt different strategies for dealing with rejection. Will people who endorse more of an entity theory fail to see how one could learn from rejections? Will they wish to suppress the memory of the rejection, or that they could erase it from their life altogether? Method Participants. We recruited 225 participants (107 women, 118 men; M age = 33.17, SD = 10.79) on Amazon s Mechanical Turk. Participants first completed the implicit person theories scale as in the previous study (8 items, α =.95, M = 3.66, SD = 1.41). As respondents on Mechanical Turk often complete multiple studies (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolacci, 2013), we removed 12 participants who reported that they had taken similar studies before, and 2 additional participants who reported knowing a lot about research on fixed and growth mind-sets, though results did not differ substantially when these participants were included. 4 This resulted in a final pool of 211 participants. Rejection experience. As in Study 1, participants recalled a painful time when they were romantically rejected. They were prompted to take a moment to think about the rejection and then, as in the previous study, answered questions about the recency and severity of the rejection, as well as their current relationship status, whether they were currently in a relationship (70.5% answered yes). As in the previous study, these variables were controlled for throughout the analyses. Perceived change in self-definitions. Participants also responded to statements about the rejection on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These statements included additional items designed to assess perceived shifts in selfdefinitions and to further our understanding of the concept, as shifts in self-definitions were previously measured by one item that asked participants whether the rejection made them suspect that there was something wrong with them. New items asked whether the rejection prompted the participant to change the way that they thought about themselves, (e.g., In a way, this experience revealed to me who I truly am, Sometimes, thinking about how this person rejected me makes me question my view of myself, 3 items, α =.66). These items directly test whether people report that they changed their core conceptions of themselves their selfdefinitions in the face of a rejection. A list of all dependent variables from the study is included in Appendix A in the online supplemental material. Other markers of links to the self. We again measured perceived change in others evaluations (5 items, α =.88). In addition, we asked participants several questions regarding whether their self-evaluations were lower post-rejection (e.g., I feel kind of bad about myself when I think about being rejected by this person, 4 items, α =.87). As in the previous study, we included ratings of the participants felt when thinking about the rejection, on a scale from 0 (does not apply) to 100 (applies very much). Lingering impact of rejection. Next, we tested two novel predictions regarding whether participants differed in how much they were haunted by the rejection. Did the rejections cause lingering negative affect (e.g., It sometimes upsets me to be reminded of this person, 4 items, α =.87)? And, did people anticipate that similar rejections might continue to befall them, fearing rejection s recurrence (e.g., Deep down, I sometimes worry that I might never find someone who really loves me, Because of this experience, I sometimes put up walls to protect myself in new relationships, 5 items, α =.87). Additional responses to rejection. Last, we tested two new, secondary, predictions about differing strategies in response to rejection: that participants who endorsed more of an entity theory would not have growth reactions to the rejections, such as seeing the rejection as a learning experience (e.g., Looking back on it, I can see how I grew from this experience, 2 items, r =.72), and that these participants would instead prefer to suppress the memory of the rejection (e.g., If I could erase this experience from my life, I probably would, 5 items, α =.79). Results and Discussion Control variables. As in the previous study, the rejection recency and severity variables were positively skewed, so we use the square root of both variables. Rejection severity, rejection recency, and participants current relationship status affected outcomes in similar ways as in the previous study and are not discussed in further detail. In this study, older adults were at least marginally less likely to experience all types of negative emotion in response to the rejection (see Tables 2 and 3). There were no interactions between gender and implicit theories on any of the outcome measures in this study, all ps >.50. In addition, throughout the studies, there were no consistent gender effects on the outcome measures, and thus we do not discuss them further. Perceived change in self-definitions. Mirroring our previous results, the more participants endorsed an entity theory, the more they were likely to change their self-definitions in response to the rejection, t(203) = 2.46, p =.015 (see Figure 2, and for linear regression coefficients and additional significant predictors that served as covariates, see Table 2). 5 They agreed, To some degree, this incident changed the way I think about myself. Thus, once again, rejection challenged self-definition among those who believe personality cannot be changed.

7 60 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) Table 2. Primary Predictions: Endorsing More of an Entity Theory Predicts Greater Perceived Change in Self-Definitions and Other Links to the Self and a Lingering Impact When Reflecting on a Past Rejection (Study 2): Unstandardized Linear Regression Coefficients. Change in selfdefinitions Change in others evaluations Negative selfevaluations Negative selfdirected Lingering negative affect Fear of recurrence Intercept 4.08*** 3.84*** 4.86*** 7.60*** 5.11*** 3.80*** (0.92) (0.88) (0.91) (1.78) (0.85) (0.85) [2.87, 5.77] [2.11, 5.57] [3.06, 6.65] [5.93, 11.36] [3.43, 6.79] [2.13, 5.47] Implicit theories 0.15* 0.17* 0.20** 0.26* 0.16* 0.21** (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.11) (0.07) (0.07) [0.03, 0.26] [0.03, 0.31] [0.06, 0.34] [0.05, 0.48] [0.02, 0.29] [0.08, 0.35] Rejection severity 1.03*** 0.83** 1.31*** 1.88*** 1.60*** 1.42*** (0.24) (0.28) (0.30) (0.45) (0.28) (0.27) [ 1.51, 0.57] [ 1.38, 0.27] [ 1.89, 073] [2.76, 1.00] [ 2.15, 1.06] [ 1.96, 0.88] Currently in relationship *** (0.19) (0.22) (0.23) (0.35) (0.22) (0.22) [ 0.71, 0.03] [ 0.80, 0.08] [ 0.63, 0.28] [ 0.32, 1.07] [ 0.78, 0.08] [ 1.23, 038] Rejection recency 0.71** 0.67* 0.75** *** 1.14*** (0.24) (0.28) (0.29) (0.44) (0.27) (0.27) [0.24, 1.18] [0.12, 1.23] [0.17, 1.33] [ 0.12, 1.63] [0.43, 1.51] [0.60, 1.68] Age *** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) [ 0.02, 0.01] [ 0.03, 0.01] [ 0.04, 0.00] [ 0.09, 0.03] [ 0.03, 0.01] [ 0.02, 0.02] Male (0.17) (0.20) (0.21) (0.32) (0.20) (0.19) [ 0.40, 0.27] [ 0.36, 0.44] [ 0.39, 0.43] [ 0.42, 0.83] [ 0.51, 0.26] [ 0.58, 0.19] R Adjusted R No. of observations 211 Note. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized linear regression coefficients are reported in square brackets. We also included a dummy variable for participants who reported that they were not sure whether they were in a relationship (n = 5), results are not presented in the table for brevity of presentation. Other markers of links to the self. The more participants endorsed an entity theory, the more they anticipated that others evaluations of them would change as a result of the rejection, t(203) = 2.42, p =.016, agreeing that Sometimes, I can t help but get the feeling that people see me differently in some way once I talk to them about this rejection. In addition, these participants reported worse self-evaluations associated with the rejection, t(203) = 2.73, p =.007, As in Study 1, we found that participants who endorsed more of an entity theory were more likely to experience selfdirected negative in response to the rejection. 6 Emotion variables were skewed as in the past study, so we used the square root of these variables. When reflecting on the rejection, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory were again more likely to report negative self-directed, such as shame, than participants who endorsed incremental theories, t(203) = 2.40, p =.018 (see Table 2 for linear regression coefficients). In addition, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory reported higher levels of negative general, t(203) = 2.34, p =.021 (see Table 3). There were trends for negative other-directed t(203) = 1.59, p =.12, which were greater among participants who endorsed more of an entity theory and for positive, t(203) = 1.58, p =.12, which were lower among participants who endorsed more of an entity theory. So, we replicate our findings that people who endorse more of an entity theory feel generally worse in the face of rejection, as well as specifically feeling worse about themselves. Lingering impact of rejection. Our two novel predictions about lingering impact were supported (see Figure 2). Stronger beliefs that personality is not malleable predicted greater distress in the present when reflecting on the rejection, t(203) = 2.33, p =.021 (for additional significant predictors that served as covariates and for linear regression coefficients, see Table 2). In addition, participants who endorsed entity theories to a greater extent were more likely to fear that rejection would reoccur, t(203) = 3.16, p =.002. Additional responses to rejection. Participants endorsing entity theories wanted to suppress the memory of the event or expunge the event itself, t(203) = 2.64, p =.009, believing

8 Howe and Dweck 61 Table 3. Secondary Predictions: Endorsing More of an Entity Theory Predicts Worse Emotional Outcomes and Differing Strategies for Dealing With Rejection When Reflecting on a Past Rejection (Study 2): Unstandardized Linear Regression Coefficients. Negative general Negative otherdirected Positive Suppression of thoughts about rejection Growth reactions to rejection Intercept 8.02*** 8.78*** 3.50*** 4.72*** 4.98*** (1.30) (1.49) (1.06) (0.77) (0.87) [5.45, 10.58] [5.84, 11.72] [1.42, 5.58] [3.20, 6.25] [3.27, 6.69] Implicit theories 0.24* ** 0.18* (0.10) (0.12) (0.09) (0.06) (0.07) [0.04, 0.45] [ 0.05, 0.43] [ 0.30, 0.03] [0.04, 0.29] [ 0.32, 0.04] Rejection severity 2.36*** 2.76*** 1.74*** 1.71*** 0.39 (0.42) (0.48) (0.34) (0.25) (0.28) [ 3.19, 1.53] [ 3.71, 1.81] [1.07, 2.42] [ 2.20, 1.22] [ 0.17, 0.94] Currently in relationship * (0.33) (0.38) (0.27) (0.20) (0.22) [ 0.54, 0.77] [ 0.36, 1.14] [ 0.22, 0.85] [ 0.43, 0.35] [0.01, 0.89] Rejection recency 1.23** 1.06* * 0.20 (0.42) (0.48) (0.34) (0.25) (0.28) [0.40, 2.05] [0.11, 2.01] [ 1.15, 0.19] [0.14, 1.12] [ 0.75, 0.35] Age 0.04* (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) [ 0.07, 0.01] [ 0.07, 0.00] [ 0.03, 0.02] [ 0.01, 0.03] [ 0.02, 0.02] Male * (0.30) (0.34) (0.24) (0.18) (0.20) [ 0.42, 0.83] [ 0.51, 0.84] [0.07, 1.03] [ 0.54, 0.16] [ 0.45, 0.33] R Adjusted R No. of observations 211 Note. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized linear regression coefficients are reported in square brackets. We also included a dummy variable for participants who reported that they were not sure whether they were in a relationship (n = 5), results are not presented in the table for brevity of presentation. they would have been better off if they had never met the rejector (see Table 3). Participants who endorsed entity theories agreed to a lesser extent that they had learned from the rejection experience, t(203) = 2.57, p =.011. People who endorsed entity theories more did not tend to take positive lessons away from the rejection, and wished instead that it had never taken place. Mediation. First, we found that changes in self-definitions explained the relationship between stronger entity theories and lingering negative affect, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.18] (see Figure 3a). Similarly, the shift in self-definitions mediated the effect of entity theories on fear of rejection s recurrence, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.19] (see Figure 3b). Changes in self-definitions also mediated participants who endorsed entity theories increased tendency to want to suppress the rejection, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.10] (see Figure 3c). There was, however, no mediation for the effect on growth reactions, 95% CI = [ 0.04, 0.02]. Thus, greater endorsement of entity theories led to a shift in people s self-definitions, increasing reports that the rejection continued to impact one s future and haunt the present, and increasing desire to erase the rejection from one s life. Thus, we replicated and extended our findings that when recalling a painful experience with romantic rejection, participants who endorsed more of an entity theory indicated that the experience was more self-definitional and had lingering impact. In addition, we found initial support for our secondary predictions: Participants who endorsed more of an entity theory adopted different strategies in dealing with rejection than participants who endorsed more of an incremental theory, failing to see rejection as a learning experience and instead wishing to minimize thought about it. Study 3 In our next study, we explore whether people who endorse entity theories tend to describe rejection experiences as fundamental shifts in their lives when writing about personal rejection experiences. Do people who endorse entity theories

9 62 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) Figure 2. Endorsing more of an entity theory predicts perceived change in self-definitions and other links to the self, lingering impact of rejection, and differing strategies for dealing with rejection when reflecting on past rejections (Study 2). Note. Primary predictions are colored black; secondary predictions are colored gray. Self-def. = perceived change in self-definitions; Others = change in others evaluations; Self-eval. = negative self-evaluations; Linger = lingering negative affect; Fear = fear of rejection s recurrence; Suppress = desire to suppress rejection; Growth = growth reactions to rejection. discuss past rejections as permanently changing their expectations about themselves and their relationship prospects? In addition, by asking respondents to answer an open-ended question about romantic rejection, we are able to capture differences in a more realistic and spontaneous context. Method Participants. We recruited 194 participants on Amazon s Mechanical Turk. Ten participants were removed for not understanding our study writing prompt, for providing unrelated comments, or for writing nothing in response to the prompt, resulting in a total sample of 184 participants (100 women, 84 men; M age = 32.44, SD = 8.82). Procedure. As in the previous studies, participants first filled out a scale to assess implicit person theories (8 items, α =.94, M = 3.85, SD = 1.29). 7 Participants were then prompted to think about a painful time when they were romantically rejected, and to indicate how negative they thought the experience was (1 = extremely negative, 7 = extremely positive), so that we could control for the perceived severity of the rejection in our analyses. Afterward, participants were directed to an essay text box and asked to answer the question, What did you take away from this rejection? They were given an unlimited amount of time to respond to this question. Two independent coders rated the passage on various elements. The coders rated how positive or negative the tone of the passage was (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive). There was high rater agreement on this variable (r =.71, p <.001). Coders also rated whether the participant made a negative universal claim about their future romantic life when writing about what they took away from the rejection (0 = no claim, 1 = claim). That is, we asked research assistants to indicate whether the participant seemed to take away a permanent, pessimistic lesson from the rejection, and whether the rejection fundamentally changed their expectations about relationships for the worse. Examples include, I am too sensitive, and this characteristic makes people crazy and drives them away, No matter how hard I try, I cannot make someone love me, and I learned that I have a part of my personality that sabotages my happiness. In each of these statements, the rejected individual imagines that his or her experiences in future romantic encounters will be similar to or tainted by the previous rejection. There was appropriately high agreement between coders on this variable, with coders agreeing on 85% of the cases (Cohen s kappa =.58). There were 55 cases (29.5%) in which at least one coder identified a universal claim. Analyses including claims on which coders disagreed (27 of the 55 participants) are reported below, though effects remain significant when the cases on which coders disagreed are not included in analyses. Results and Discussion When describing what they took away from the relationship, participants wrote anywhere between 3 and 159 words (M Words = 31.22, SD = 24.92). As the ratings of rejection negativity were positively skewed (participants rated their experiences as highly negative), we took the square root of this variable to normalize it as a predictor. Implicit person theories were used as a continuous variable. Endorsement of entity theories was not predictive of the self-rated severity of the rejection, B =.02, SE =.02, t(182) =.85, p =.39. Age and gender were not predictive of rejection severity or any of the outcome variables (all ps >.4), and so were not included in analyses. Because participants tended to recall highly negative experiences, the ratings of passage tone (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive) were highly positively skewed and not normalized through square root or log transformations. Given this, we used logistic regression to predict whether a participant fell above or below the midpoint on the scale (<4 meant that the tone was at least slightly negative, 4 meant that the tone was neutral or positive). In all, 98 participants fell below the scale midpoint, and 86 above. Passage tone. Participants endorsing more of an entity theory used a more negative tone when writing about the rejection, B = 0.27, 95% CI = [.51,.05], SE = 0.12, z = 2.32, p =.021. This remained true when controlling for the

10 Howe and Dweck 63 Figure 3. (a) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on lingering negative affect about the past rejection (Study 2), (b) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on fear of rejection s recurrence (Study 2), and (c) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on greater desired suppression of the past rejection (Study 2). severity of the rejection, B = 0.27, 95% CI = [.52,.03], SE = 0.12, z = 2.17, p =.030. Universal claims about the future. Participants who endorsed entity theories were also more likely to describe their rejection experience in terms of its lasting negative consequences, B = 0.32, 95% CI = [.06,.58], SE = 0.13, z = 2.41, p =.016. These results held when controlling for severity, B = 0.31, 95% CI = [.05,.58], SE = 0.14, z = 2.28, p =.023. Thus, people who endorsed entity theories used a more negative tone when recalling their past rejection, and derived more pessimism about future relationships from the rejection, often because it revealed permanent qualities about the self. Study 4 In Studies 1 to 3, we did not ask participants to explicitly describe the rejection s context. Thus, though we controlled for the perceived severity of the rejection, these rejections could have varied widely in their objective severity and thus people endorsing different theories may have been rating rejections of objectively similar severity as being quite different. To hold severity constant, we had participants in this next study respond to the same hypothetical rejections. In addition, the two hypothetical rejections differed in severity. In this way, we could investigate whether the magnitude of rejection plays an important role. It could be that people who endorse entity theories, for instance, only react negatively to severe rejections, and would not redefine themselves in the face of smaller instances of rejection. This extends previous research by investigating whether rejection from mere acquaintances, and not only long-term partners, can carry meaning for the self (cf. Slotter et al., 2010). In the first three studies, we examined how people perceived and felt about past rejections. Study 4 allows us to see people s beliefs in action as they confront a new (hypothetical) rejection. Will their implicit theories lead to the same kinds of outcomes? If so, it further supports the idea that we have pinpointed beliefs that influence important responses to rejection.

11 64 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) Method Participants. We recruited 184 participants (73 women, 111 men; M age = 32.01, SD = 11.51) through Amazon s Mechanical Turk. There were 3 participants who reported knowing a lot about research on growth and fixed mind-sets on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot), and they were omitted. Results did not differ when these participants were included. This resulted in a total pool of 181 participants. Materials. To capture whether rejection severity mattered, we created two rejection scenarios. In a between-subjects design, participants were asked to imagine responding to a vivid scenario, which involved either a more trivial or more significant rejection. The smaller rejection involved meeting someone at a party, feeling a spark, and then later overhearing this person telling a friend that they would never be interested in you romantically. The larger rejection involved a significant other of several years leaving you out of the blue after a fight. 8 In this way, we can test whether smaller rejections can affect self-definitions among people who endorse entity theories as much as larger rejections, or whether there are no differences between these groups in the face of less consequential rejection. Procedure. Participants implicit person theories were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) (8 items, α =.95, M = 3.37, SD = 1.08). After completing this scale, participants continued on to the second, seemingly unrelated part of the study and responded to either the large or small rejection vignette. Perceived change in self-definitions. Participants imagined how they would respond to the rejection, rating items that were similar to Study 2 but with wording changes to make them appropriate for the hypothetical rejections (e.g., for perceived change in self-definitions, This would make me question my view of myself. See Appendix A in the online supplemental material for the full list). Participants indicated whether this rejection would change their self-definitions (3 items, α =.84), change others evaluations of them (5 items, α =.89), and prompt negative self-evaluations (4 items, α =.88). Emotional outcomes. Participants then responded to several questions about the vignette, including the they would imagine feeling in response to the rejection (as in Study 2). Lingering impact of rejection. As in Study 2, we assessed lingering impact in two ways: anticipated fear of rejection s recurrence, (7 items, α =.90) and anticipated lingering negative affect (3 items, α =.90). These items were similar to the items used in Study 2 (see Appendix A in the online supplemental material for the full text of these items). Additional responses to rejection. We also measured anticipated desire to suppress the rejection (4 items, α =.77) and Figure 4. Endorsing more of an entity theory predicts perceived change in self-definitions and other links to the self, lingering impact of rejection, and greater desire to suppress rejection in response to hypothetical rejection experiences (Study 4). Note. Primary predictions are colored black; secondary predictions are colored gray. Self-def. = perceived change in self-definitions; Others = change in others evaluations; Self-eval. = negative self-evaluations; Linger = lingering negative affect; Fear = fear of rejection s recurrence; Suppress = desire to suppress rejection; Growth = growth reactions to rejection. anticipated growth reactions to the experience (2 items, r =.80), again using similar items as in Study 2. Results and Discussion We randomly assigned 93 participants to respond to the large rejection; 88 responded to the small rejection. There were no significant interactions between condition and implicit theories (all ts < 1.9). This is notable because it indicates that people endorsing entity theories responded to both larger and smaller rejections more severely than people who endorsed incremental theories. As there were no significant interactions between implicit theories and condition, we combine the two conditions in the following analyses. We control for study condition as there was a main effect of condition on most outcome measures: Participants tended to respond more negatively to the larger rejection. Perceived change in self-definitions. We replicated our key finding: Participants who endorsed stronger entity theories expected that they would shift their self-definition to a greater extent in response to the hypothetical rejection. Greater endorsement of entity theories predicted a larger anticipated shift in self-definitions, t(176) = 2.86, p =.005 (see Figure 4, and for linear regression coefficients and additional significant predictors that served as covariates, see

12 Howe and Dweck 65 Table 4. Primary Predictions: Endorsing More of an Entity Theory Predicts Greater Perceived Change in Self-Definitions and Other Links to the Self and a Lingering Impact When Reflecting on a Hypothetical Rejection (Study 4): Unstandardized Linear Regression Coefficients. Change in selfdefinitions Change in others evaluations Negative selfevaluations Negative selfdirected Lingering negative affect Fear of recurrence Intercept 4.53*** 4.74*** 5.13*** 8.07*** 5.31*** 5.36*** (0.42) (0.47) (0.51) (0.72) (0.48) (0.43) [3.69, 5.37] [3.58, 5.67] [4.64, 6.39] [5.76, 8.90] [3.51, 5.61] [3.57, 5.46] Implicit theories 0.25** 0.22* 0.22* 0.33* 0.35*** 0.26** (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.14) (0.10) (0.09) [0.08, 0.43] [0.03, 0.40] [0.03, 0.40] [0.05, 0.61] [0.17, 0.54] [0.09, 0.43] Small rejection condition * ** 0.56** (0.19) (0.20) (0.20) (0.31) (0.20) (0.19) [ 0.51, 0.24] [ 0.89, 0.08] [ 0.57, 0.22] [ 0.52, 0.69] [ 0.99, 0.18] [ 0.93, 0.20] Age 0.04*** 0.03*** 0.05*** 0.05*** 0.04*** 0.02** (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) [ 0.06, 0.02] [ 0.05, 0.02] [ 0.06, 0.03] [ 0.08, 0.02] [ 0.05, 0.02] [ 0.04, 0.01] Male * (0.20) [ 0.50, 0.28] (0.21) [ 0.48, 0.36] (0.21) [ 0.80, 0.02] (0.32) [ 1.01, 0.26] (0.22) [ 0.80, 0.05] (0.19) [ 0.81, 0.04] R Adjusted R No. of observations 181 Note. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized linear regression coefficients are reported in square brackets. Table 4). Thus, beliefs about personality appear to influence people s anticipated self-definitional responses to novel rejection experiences. Other markers of links to the self. Participants who endorsed entity theories believed that others evaluations of them would change more in response to the rejection, t(176) = 2.28, p =.024, and reported more negative self-evaluations, t(176) = 2.34, p =.021. In addition, we replicated our principal finding that rejection prompts people who endorse entity theories to feel more self-conscious emotion, t(176) = 2.29, p =.023 (see Table 4). Further, they reported marginally more negative general emotion in response to the rejection, t(176) = 1.85, p =.069, and marginally more negative other-directed, t(176) = 1.86, p =.065 (see Table 5). There were no significant differences in imagined positive, t(176) = 1.29, p =.20. Thus, we replicate the findings in Studies 1 and 2 with the objective severity of the rejection held constant. Lingering impact of rejection. Consistent with Study 2, the consequences of rejection lingered among people who endorsed entity theories (see Figure 4, and for linear regression coefficients and additional significant predictors that served as covariates, see Table 4). Stronger endorsement of entity theories predicted the belief that the rejection s emotional impact would persist, t(176) = 3.71, p <.001. Participants who endorsed entity theories more agreed to a greater extent that It would upset me to be reminded of this person in the future. These participants evinced increased concerns about recurrent rejection in the future, t(176) = 3.06, p =.003 (see Table 4). For example, they agreed that I would worry that the same kind of thing might keep happening to me. Additional responses to rejection. In terms of our secondary predictions, entity theories were associated with a greater anticipated desire to suppress the memory of the rejection, t(176) = 2.22, p =.028 (see Table 5). They agreed that I would do all that I could to push this incident out of my mind, and that I would wish that I had never met this person in the first place. Unlike Study 2, there was no relationship between implicit theories and the anticipation that one would learn or grow from the rejection, t(176) = 1.13, p =.26. Mediation. Echoing Study 2, we found that the anticipated shift in self-definitions mediated the effect of entity theories on greater lingering negative affect, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.31] (see Figure 5a), fear of rejection s recurrence, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.30] (see Figure 5b), and desire to suppress the rejection, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.15] (see Figure 5c). Thus, with objectively similar rejections, both smaller and larger, people who endorse more of an entity theory are more likely to feel diagnosed by the rejection and react accordingly. Among individuals with these beliefs, rejection from people who are essentially strangers can be meaningful for their self-definition.

13 66 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) Table 5. Secondary Predictions: Endorsing More of an Entity Theory Predicts Worse Emotional Outcomes and Differing Strategies for Dealing With Rejection When Reflecting on a Hypothetical Rejection (Study 4): Unstandardized Linear Regression Coefficients. Negative general Negative otherdirected Positive Suppression of thoughts about rejection Growth reactions to rejection Intercept 9.44*** 9.32*** 3.34*** 4.57*** 5.08*** (0.56) (0.68) (0.61) (0.42) (0.45) [7.56, 9.90] [7.23, 10.19] [3.25, 5.91] [2.61, 4.45] [3.58, 5.54] Implicit theories * 0.10 (0.11) (0.13) (0.12) (0.08) (0.09) [ 0.03, 0.41] [ 0.02, 0.51] [ 0.39, 0.08] [0.02, 0.35] [ 0.08, 0.28] Small rejection condition 0.57* 1.06*** *** 0.08 (0.24) (0.29) (0.26) (0.18) (0.19) [ 1.08, 0.14] [ 1.62, 0.49] [ 0.58, 0.45] [0.32, 1.03] [ 0.46, 0.30] Age 0.05*** 0.06*** 0.03* (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) [ 0.07, 0.02] [ 0.09, 0.04] [0.00, 0.05] [ 0.03, 0.00] [ 0.02, 0.02] Male * 0.52** 0.26 (0.25) (0.30) (0.27) (0.19) (0.20) [ 0.85, 0.14] [ 0.90, 0.29] [0.08, 1.16] [ 0.89, 0.15] [ 0.66, 0.13] R Adjusted R No. of observations 181 Note. Standard errors are reported in parentheses. 95% confidence intervals for the unstandardized linear regression coefficients are reported in square brackets. Study 5 Studies 1 to 4 provided consistent evidence that stronger entity theories are associated with lingering effects of rejection by prompting perceived change in self-definitions. However, those studies were correlational. This study explored whether manipulating implicit person theories would alter responses to imagined rejection to establish causal evidence. Method Participants. We recruited 130 participants through Amazon s Mechanical Turk (59 women, 69 men, 2 not reported; M age = 34.53, SD = 11.78) for a study that was said to be pre-testing different materials for future studies. Nine participants who reported having taken similar studies before on Mechanical Turk were omitted, resulting in a total sample of 121 participants. Results did not substantially differ when these participants were included in analyses. Materials. To manipulate implicit person theories, the researchers designed two online modules (presented as online articles from Psychology Today) to foster an entity or an incremental mind-set. The modules summarized psychological research on three important personal qualities and social abilities (namely social skills, optimism, and likeability). The module inducing entity theories was titled Three Critical Factors That Shape Who You Are and described how these characteristics are difficult to develop and seem to become set in stone after young adulthood. In contrast, the module targeting incremental theories, Three Key Ways To Shape Who You Are, described how these characteristics can be built through key changes at any point in one s life. Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to complete the module designed to expose participants to entity or incremental theories. Afterward, participants responded to five questions evaluating the module (e.g., How credible was this article? ) and completed the implicit person theories scale used in the previous studies (8 items, α =.95) as a manipulation check (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). In the second part of the study, described as unrelated to the first, participants responded to the vignette from Study 4 describing the larger rejection, in which one imagines being left by a long-term partner. The rest of the procedures were identical to Study 4. Results and Discussion Sixty-seven participants read the module designed to foster entity person theories; the remaining 54 participants read the module designed to foster incremental theories. The

14 Howe and Dweck 67 Figure 5. (a) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on greater lingering negative affect (Study 4), (b) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on greater fear of rejection s recurrence (Study 4), and (c) Perceived change in self-definitions mediates the effect of endorsing more of an entity theory on greater desire to suppress the rejection (Study 4). modules were rated as equally credible (M Incremental = 3.17, SD = 0.91 and M Entity = 3.18, SD = 0.89, t(119) = 0.08, p =.94, and persuasive (M Incremental = 3.02, SD = 1.08 and M Entity = 3.28, SD = 1.04, t(119) = 1.36, p =.18, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Participants were equally likely to agree with the message of both modules (M Incremental = 5.26, SD = 1.10 and M Entity = 5.21, SD = 0.24), t(119) = 0.24, p =.81, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Implicit person theories were marginally lower in the incremental (M = 3.02, SD = 0.92) than in the entity message condition (M = 3.34, SD = 1.13), t(119) = 1.67, p =.097, Cohen s d =.31, indicating that the messages affected implicit theories in the expected direction. Perceived change in self-definitions. Among those who were exposed to entity theories, rejections became self-defining. Participants who read the message fostering entity theories were more concerned that the rejection would change their self-definitions, t(117) = 2.41, p =.017, agreeing that This experience would reveal to me who I really am (see Figure 6, and for linear regression coefficients and additional significant predictors that served as covariates, see Table 6). Complementing Studies 1 to 4, we find causal evidence that entity person theories lead to changes in self-definitions. Other markers of links to the self. Other measures offered further support that the entity theory condition led people to implicate the self in rejection. Reading an entity message prompted participants to believe that they would change in others eyes as a result of the rejection, t(117) = 3.63, p <.001, and to report more negative self-evaluations in response to the rejection, t(117) = 2.88, p =.005. Extending this evidence, participants who read the message portraying important social attributes as fixed reported that they would feel more negative self-directed emotion in response to the rejection than those who read the incremental

15 68 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42(1) less likely to endorse growth responses to rejection, t(119) = 1.63, p =.11. Mediation. Perceived change in self-definitions mediated the relationship between the implicit theory conditions and perceived recurrence of rejection in the future, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.66] (see Figure 7). This study provides causal evidence that being exposed to the idea that personality characteristics are fixed leads people to report that rejection would change their self-definition, would change who they were in the eyes of others, would lead to more negative self-evaluations, would prompt more negative self-directed (as well as more general negative ), and would make them feel that rejections were more likely to recur in the future. Thus five of our six major predictions were supported in this study when people s implicit theories were induced rather than measured. Figure 6. Inducing an entity theory leads to perceived change in self-definitions and other links to the self and lingering impact of rejection in response to a hypothetical romantic rejection (Study 5). Note. Primary predictions are colored dark gray; secondary predictions are colored light gray. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Self-def. = perceived change in self-definitions; Others = change in others evaluations; Self-eval. = negative self-evaluations; Linger = lingering negative affect; Fear = fear of rejection s recurrence; Suppress = desire to suppress rejection; Growth = growth reactions to rejection. message, t(117) = 3.54, p <.001 (see Table 6 for linear regression coefficients). In addition, they reported more generally negative, t(117) = 2.41, p =.018, and marginally more negative other-directed, t(117) = 1.96, p =.052 (see Table 7). There were no differences in positive between those who read the incremental or entity message, t(117) = 1.18, p =.24. Lingering impact of rejection. Reading the entity message led to a greater belief that rejection would recur in the future, t(117) = 3.00, p =.003 (see Figure 6, and Table 6 for linear regression coefficients). However, in this study, there was no effect on the perception of lingering negative affect following the rejection, t(117) = 0.94, p =.35. Additional responses to rejection. Although the effects were in the predicted direction, there was no significant difference between groups on our secondary measures: reported desire to suppress the rejection, t(117) = 1.42, p =.16, or endorsing growth reactions, t(117) = 1.34, p =.18 (see Table 7). When removing age and gender, which were not themselves significant predictors of suppression desires or growth reactions, these relationships became trends, such that those in the entity condition reported an increased desire for suppression, t(119) = 1.74, p =.085, and were General Discussion In five studies, from both a prospective viewpoint involving imagined rejections (Studies 4 and 5) and a retrospective viewpoint involving actual, personally recalled rejections (Studies 1-3), believing that personality does not change leads rejections to carry a self-definitional power. When rejection prompts a perceived change in one s self-definition, its impact can be carried forward and the damage from rejection may not be fully repaired. Thus, we find a novel process through which rejection s impact lingers: namely, when people respond to rejection by questioning their true self in its wake. Our work adds to previous research on rejection s impact, which has focused on temporary downgrading of the self on traits such as self-esteem (e.g., Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998; Zadro et al., 2004), as well as research on implicit theories, which has shown the negative effects of academic failures or setbacks on immediate self-ratings (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). Going beyond the temporary consequences of rejection, our work demonstrates when and how people carry heavy baggage with them from these experiences in ways that impair their future expectations and well-being. Some of our participants reflected on rejections that had occurred over 5 years ago, yet differences in recovery were still evident. Future research should explore whether rejection becomes self-relevant and lingers in other domain in which negative experiences have implications for the self, such as rejection in non-romantic relationships (e.g., being abandoned by a parent), and non-interpersonal contexts, such as with academic or career failures. Interestingly, our research finds that rejection from people who are essentially strangers can become self-definitional among entity theorists. Additional work should explore boundary conditions of these effects;