Rejection Sensitivity and Marital Adjustment among Military Spouses during Deployments

doi:10.4236/psych.2012.36067

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2012. Vol.3, No.6, 480-484

Published Online June 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.36067

480

Rejection Sensitivity and Marital Adjustment among Military

Spouses during Deployments

E. C. Hurley1, Tiffany Field1,2, Debra Bendell-Estoff1

1Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, USA

2Medical School, University of Miami, Miami, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received March 20th, 2012; revised April 24th, 2012; accepted May 21st, 2012

This research examined the relationship between rejection sensitivity and marital adjustment. The Adult

Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ) and the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) were

given to address this question among a sample of 129 spouses of individuals currently deployed on mili-

tary missions in Iraq or Afghanistan. Other potentially confounding variables were examined including

gender, age, education, number of times married, number of children in the household, number of previ-

ous deployments, and number of months separated during the current combat deployment. Rejection sen-

sitivity and number of deployments contributed to 34% of the variance on relationship adjustment.

Keywords: Rejection Sensitivity; Military; Marital Adjustment

Introduction

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring

Freedom (OEF) have provided opportunities for research on pro-

blems associated with deployments (Karney & Crown, 2007).

Much of the current research on military personnel focuses on

individual disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress

disorder. Recognition of the importance of military family pro-

blems has led to family research. The current research was de-

signed to study military spouses’ perceptions of rejection sensi-

tivity and marital adjustment during deployments along with

other potentially confounding effects on relationships including

gender, age, education, number of marriages, number of chil-

dren, number of previous deployments, and number of months

separated during current combat deployment.

Marital Adjustmen t during Deployment

Some research has indicated that war-related separations in-

creased marital instability (Frey-Wouters & Laufer, 1986; Gim-

bel & Booth, 1994; Laufer & Gallops, 1985; Stellman, Stell-

man, & Sommer, 1988). Other data have indicated that military

separations were negatively related to marital satisfaction, al-

though these data were limited to only a 13% response (Burrell,

Adams, Durand, & Castro’s, 2006). In contrast, longitudinal

data comparing Vietnam veterans and nonveterans found no

group differences in divorce rates (Call & Teachman, 1991;

Card, 1983). Some have even reported positive effects (Karney

& Crown’s, 2007). That study suggested that marriages may be

positively influenced by military service due to the resources

and benefits available to military families, particularly when

not exposed to combat. These benefits included extra pay, child

care and health care, family support programs, parenting and

marriage programs. Still others have focused on the risk and

resiliency factors that influenced family stability during de-

ployments (Sheppard, Malatras, & Israel, 2010). However, anec-

dotal reports of rejection sensitivity in the remaining-at-home

spouses of those who have been deployed highlight the ques-

tion of its effects on the marital relationship. The current study

addressed the relationship between rejection sensitivity and

marital relationship adjustment in a sample of military spouses.

A Model for Understanding Rejection Sensitivity

One theory on rejection sensitivity suggests that expectations

of rejection interact with the specifics of the situation (marital

separation due to deployment) (Freitas & Downey, 1998; Mis-

chel & Ayduk, 2002). A person who enters a romantic rela-

tionship with anxious expectations of rejection is predisposed

to anticipate insensitive behavior from her/his spouse, espe-

cially under stressful conditions.

Based on this model, military spouses may experience reject-

tion sensitivity in the following way. If the situation (such as

interpreting the spouse’s email) engenders an ambiguous or ne-

gative response from the deployed spouse, that response could

be interpreted as uncaring behavior on the part of the deployed

spouse. The spouses can scan interpersonal situations looking

for cues as they anxiously expect to find evidence to substanti-

ate their fear of abandonment. They then tend to become exces-

sively concerned regarding whether or not they are loved. Dur-

ing deployments, communication problems can intensify the

ambiguity. The stress of the situation enhances the capacity for

negative interpretations. This process can trigger a cascade of

feelings of anger, rage and resentment as the fear of abandon-

ment intensifies. Controlling and coercive behaviors may result.

Fears of rejection often lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. One

partner responds with emotional reactivity, generated by an

interpreted uncaring response from the spouse passively seek-

ing reassurance. Emotional distancing may result, which is

likely to escalate as the partner moves into a protective mode.

The escalation may then lead to an extra-marital affair or plan-

ning for divorce.

Downey and colleagues have demonstrated that childhood

rejection experiences can lead to later rejection sensitivity (Feld-

E. C. HURLEY ET AL.

man & Downey, 1994). Anticipatory rejection in relationships

is perceived as originating in a parent’s rejection of a child’s

needs, causing the child to become sensitive to rejection. The

model suggests that these individuals may enter relationships

with a propensity to expect rejection from significant others.

During stressful times, they are especially likely to 1) perceive

rejection by the partner’s insensitive or ambiguous behaviors, 2)

feel insecure about the relationship, and 3) respond to perceived

rejection with hostility, diminished support, or jealous, control-

ling behavior (Downey & Feldman, 1996). When such re-

sponses are unjustified and exaggerated, they are likely to

erode even a committed partner’s satisfaction with the rela-

tionship.

Rejection Sensitivity Research Applications

Early rejection sensitivity research operationalized and vali-

dated the construct of rejection sensitivity and demonstrated

how it impacted intimate relationships using a self-report scale

called the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) (Downey

& Feldman, 1996). In this study on rejection sensitivity, indi-

viduals who anxiously expected rejection by a significant other

tended to hurtful intent to a new romantic partner’s insensitive

behavior (Downey & Feldman, 1996). This response was not

induced by the other variables measured including social anxi-

ety, social avoidance, attachment style, self-esteem, neuroticism,

and introversion. The results also suggested that the rejection-

sensitive individuals were less satisfied with their relationships

and perceived their partner to be less satisfied as well. Another

study by Downey suggested that when both partners rate high

rejection sensitivity, the relationship is likely to end sooner

(Purdie & Downey, 2000).

Most of these studies on rejection sensitivity focused on sin-

gle undergraduate students. The current study extended this

research area by examining rejection sensitivity among military

spouses and how rejection sensitivity relates to relationship

adjustment. Based on the separate literatures of rejection sensi-

tivity and relationship adjustment, these variables were ex-

pected to be negatively related.

Method

Design

A survey monkey was used to assess rejection sensitivity and

relationship adjustment among spouses of army personnel who

were deployed to a combat zone, (either Afghanistan or Iraq).

Rejection sensitivity and relationship adjustment were surveyed

among the stay-at-home military spouses of both genders. Re-

jection-sensitive persons were expected to have low relation-

ship adjustment. Potentially confounding variables including

gender, age, education, number of marriages, number of chil-

dren in the household, number of previous deployments, and

total separation time during current deployment were entered

along with rejection sensitivity scores into a correlation analysis

and a regression analysis on the Revised Dyadic Adjustment

Scale (RDAS) scores.

Participants

This non-clinical sample of spouses of army personnel (rank

E-2 to E-7) was recruited at a shopping mall in a military base

town. The sample was comprised of 129 participants (see Table

1). Everyone enrolled in the study was able to complete the

survey. The participants were 94% female, and their ages

ranged from 19 to 50, with 57% being between 21 and 29 years

old. The participants had 12 to 20 years of education. Seventy-

seven percent of the participants were in their first marriage,

11% had one previous military marriage and 12% had 2 - 5

previous marriages. Seventy-five percent were married to

spouses who had no previous marriages while 25% were mar-

ried to spouses who were married one or two times before. The

length of the current marriages ranged from .3 to 19 years with

an average of 5 years. The average number of children the par-

ticipants had in their home was 1.5.

The number of military deployments ranged from one to

eight. Eighty-eight percent had between one and four military

deployment separations while 56% had no other separations,

and 44% had between one and 39 other separations. The total

time that spouses were separated due to military deployments

ranged from 1 to 96 months with a mean of 32 months.

Procedure

A heavily trafficked central area was selected within the

shopping mall for the survey. Two laptop computers with wire-

less connections to the Survey Monkey website were placed on

the table, and two folding chairs were placed at the table for

participants’ seating during data collection. A reading rug with

books and games was provided for the children of the partici-

pants. A sign described the research project. An administrative

assistant was present at the recruiting table to respond to ques-

tions regarding the research project. The assistant waited for

potential participants to approach the table as a response to

reading the sign. Participation was both voluntary and confi-

dential, although participants were offered $20 as an incentive

and the opportunity to enter a $200 lottery drawing to be con-

ducted after the study was completed. An informed consent

form was provided for each participant. After completing the

Survey Monkey questionnaires, the assistant debriefed the par-

ticipants.

Table 1.

Demographic and assessment scale values.

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Age 19.0 50.0 28.61 5.91

Education 11.9 20.0 13.95 1.99

Current marriage (yrs.) .3 19.0 5.05 4.06

Times married 1.0 5.0 1.31 .65

Number of

Deployments 1.0 8.0 2.62 1.55

Times spouse

married 1.0 3.0 1.30 .57

Total time

separated (mos.) 1.0 96.0 32.16 22.73

Current separation (mos.)1.0 15.0 3.47 3.33

Number of children

in home 0 9.0 1.50 1.41

Adult rejection

sensitivity 1.11 22.55 8.38 4.94

Dyadic adjustment 11.0 65.0 47.80 10.23

E. C. HURLEY ET AL.

482

Questionnaires

The questionnaires used in this research included the Adult

Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ), the Revised Dy-

adic Adjustment Scale (RDAS), and the Participant Information

Form (PIF). The ARSQ and RDAS were presented in a coun-

terbalanced order. The PIF was used to provide information on

potentially confounding variables.

The Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ)

(Downey, Berenson, & Kang, 2006). The Adult Rejection Sen-

sitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ) was developed for studies of

adult samples. It was normed using a sample of 685 adults who

completed the questionnaire over the internet. Correlations with

other measures (self-esteem, attachment, etc.) were similar to

those found with the earlier student RSQ version. The ARSQ

has high internal reliability (alpha = .83), and all items on the

questionnaire had >.30 correlation coefficients. A high test-

retest reliability was noted as well (.83, p < .001).

The Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ) in-

cludes a list of 9 hypothetical situations. Each situation has two

questions for a total of 18 answers. Examples of these items are

1) After a bitter argument, you call or approach your significant

other because you want to make up; and 2) Lately you’ve been

noticing some distance between yourself and your significant

other and you ask him/her if there is something wrong. The first

question for each situation measures the degree of anxiety re-

garding the potential outcome on a 6-point scale ranging from 1

(very unconcerned) to 6 (very concerned). The second question

for each of the nine situations asks the participant to indicate

the likelihood of the other person responding with acceptance

on a similar 6-point scale. Anticipated rejection is noted by

lower scores. The score for each of the nine situations is calcu-

lated by weighting the expected likelihood of rejection by

how concerned or anxious the participant recorded his or her

response. The score on expectancy of acceptance is reversed as

a means of indexing the expectancy of rejection (expectancy of

rejection = 7 – expectancy of acceptance). Next, the reversed

score is multiplied by the score noted for the degree of concern

or anxiety. The total rejection sensitivity score for each par-

ticipant was determined by summing the rejection sensitivity

for each situation and dividing by 9 (the total number of situa-

tions).

Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) (Busby, Chris-

tensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale

(DAS) was originally developed by Spanier (1976, 1986) as an

instrument with four subscales measuring couples’ relationship

adjustment including: 1) consensus on matters of importance, 2)

dyadic satisfaction, 3) dyadic cohesion, and 4) affectional ex-

pression. In keeping with Spanier’s (1976) original intent, the

RDAS includes 3 subscales (14 items) of consensus, satisfac-

tion, and cohesion. Factor analysis provided evidence for the

construct validity of the revised version of the instrument

(Busby et al., 1995). Criterion validity was demonstrated by

discriminant function analyses. Internal consistency was high

(alpha = .79) (Crane et al., 1990).

Demographic questionnaire. The spouses of deployed mili-

tary personel also completed a demographic questionnaire on

potential covariates. These included gender, age, education,

number of marriages, number of children in household, number

of deployments and total months of current deployment.

Results

Correlation Analysis

A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted (Table 2). The

Table 2.

Matrix of pearson’s correlation coefficients.

RDAS ARSQ Age Education

Times

Married

Current

Marriage

Times

Spouse

Number of

Children

Average

Child Age

Deployment

Separations

Other

Separations

Total Time

Separated

ARSQ –.52

Gender .06 .05

Age .03 –.00

Education –.07 –.04

.19

Times Married –.07 –.09 .35 .04

Current Marriage

Length –.10 –.03 .39 .12 –.12

Times Spouse

Married .05 –.06

.41 .14 .34 –.08

Number of

Children –.06 –.02 .27 –.32 .01 .38 –.01

Average Child

Age .11 –.04

.69 .18 .29 .36 .20 .46

# of

Deployments –.27 .08 .34 .17 .31 .09 .23 .02 .12

Other

Separations –.11 –.02 .06 .20 .16 .10 –.08 .03 .17 .10

Total Time

Separated –.20 .07 .19 .25 .20 .14 .19 –.05 .07 .71 .42

Current

ation .04 –.005 –.09 .08 –.05 .01 –.12 –.14 –.09 –.11 .05 .10

p < .05 for those coefficients in bold; RDAS = Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale; ARSQ = Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionaire.

E. C. HURLEY ET AL.

RDAS scores were negatively correlated with the ARSQ scores

(r = –.52), the number of military deployment separations (r =

–.27) and the total time separated (r = –.20). Higher rejection

sensitivity scores, more deployment separations and the total

time separated were associated with lower marital adjustment

scores.

The extent to which the zero-order negative correlation be-

tween the composite ARSQ and RDAS scores (r = –.52) was

influenced by the potentially confounding/mediating variables

was determined by partial correlation analysis. None of the par-

tial correlation coefficients decreased when the correlation be-

tween ARSQ and RDAS was controlled for gender, age, educa-

tion, times married, current marriage length, times spouse mar-

ried, number of children, average child age, deployment separa-

tions, other separations, total time separated, or current separa-

tion time. Thus, the negative correlation between ARSQ and

RDAS was not mediated by the potentially confounding vari-

ables.

Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

The stepwise multiple linear regression analysis also con-

trolled for the potential confounding variables including gender,

age, education, times married, current marriage length, times

spouse married, number of children, average child age, other

separations, total time separated, and current separation time.

The t statistics indicated that these variables were not signifi-

cant predictors of the variability in the RDAS scores at p > .05

(Table 3).

The stepwise regression retained the ARSQ scores and the

number of military deployments in the model (Table 3). The t

statistics indicated that these variables were significant predic-

tors of the RDAS scores at p = .05. The R2 adjusted value indi-

cated that 34% of the variance in the RDAS scores was ac-

counted for by the ARSQ scores and the number of deploy-

ments. This proportion was statistically significant, indicated by

F(2, 89) = 24.57, p < .001, and reflected by a medium size ef-

fect according to the criteria of Cohen (1992). The negative

signs of the regression coefficients implied that greater rejec-

tion sensitivity and more deployments predicted a lower level

of marital adjustment.

Discussion

This research suggests that rejection sensitivity affected mi-

litary spouses’ relationship adjustment. Further, the total num-

ber of deployments had a greater impact on relationship adjust-

ment than the immediate deployment separation. This finding is

consistent with those of Burrell et al. (2006) who reported that

military deployments were negatively related to marital satis-

faction.

Downey and Feldman (1996) noted that those who score

high on rejection sensitivity have a propensity to anxiously

expect rejection, readily perceive negative signals (both verbal

and non-verbal), and overreact to their spouses while in their

relationships. The spouses’ negative reactions can elicit further

rejection from their partners as a precursor to ending the rela-

tionship (Downey et al., 1998). Potential confounding variables

did not affect relationship adjustment in this study including

gender, age, education, number of marriages, number of chil-

dren in the household, or number of months currently separated

due to deployment. But the total number of deployments was

Table 3.

Stepwise regression analysis on marital adjustment.

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

Variables

β SE β Weights

t p

Collinearity

VIF

Intercept 4364.17332.66 13.12 <.000

Log Adult

Rejection

Sensitivity

Questionnaire

–742.51119.28–.537 –6.23 <.000 1.03

Square Root #

Deployments–367.33169.69–.187 –2.17 .0331.03

Note: Adjusted R2 = .341, F = 24.57, p < .001.

significantly related to relationship satisfaction. Previous re-

search noted that military deployments were associated with

poorer marital outcomes (Karney & Crown, 2007; Sheppard et

al., 2010). The present study adds to that literature by suggest-

ing that both rejection sensitivity and the number of deploy-

ments were negatively related to relationship adjustment.

While this research documents rejection sensitivity among

military spouses, it is uncertain how much these findings would

vary across military units that differ in organizational structure

and mission assignments. In addition, this sample was not rep-

resentative of older military spouses. Future research is needed

to address how different military units, diverse cultures and

family structures are impacted and how couples who have di-

vorced following deployments have experienced rejection sen-

sitivity. Nonetheless, this research has provided further support

for the association between rejection sensitivity and relation-

ship adjustment.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the military family members who parti-

cipated in this study. We would also like to thank Drs. Martha

Pelaez, Gary Schulman, Anthony Greene and Henry Soper for

their assistance with this research and Lissette Medina for her

assistance with this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Burrell, L., Adams, G., Durand, D., & Castro, C. (2006). The impact of

military lifestyle demands on well-being, Army, and family out-

comes. Armed Forces and Society, 33, 43-58.

doi:10.1177/0002764206288804

Busby, D., Christensen, C., Crane, D., & Larson, J. (1995). A revision

of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and non-dis-

tressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 289-308.

doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1995.tb00163.x

Call, V., & Teachman, J. (1991). Military service and stability in the

family life course. Military Psychology, 3, 233-251.

doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0304_4

Card, J. (1983). Lives after Vietnam: The personal impact of military

service. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 1, 98-101.

Crane, D., R., Allgood, S., Larson, J. H., & Griffin, W. (1990). Assess-

ing marital quality with distressed and nondistressed couples: A com-

parison and equivalency table for three frequently used measures.

Journal of Marriage and the F amily, 52, 87-93.

doi:10.2307/352841

E. C. HURLEY ET AL.

Derogatis, L. (1984). The derogatis stress profile DSP®: Preliminary

administration & scoring manual. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psycho-

metric Research.

Downey, G., Berenson, K. R., & Kang, J. (2006). The adult rejection

sensitivity questionnaire (ARSQ). Columbia University.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity

for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 70, 1327-1343. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327

Downey, G., Freitas, A., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The

self-fulfilling prophesy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity

and rejection by romantic partner. The Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.545

Eysenck H., & Eysenck, S. (1964). Eysenck personality inventory. San

Diego, CA: Educational Testing Service.

Feldman, S., & Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator

of the impact of childhood exposure to family violence on adult at-

tachment behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 231-247.

Fincham, F., & Bradbury, T. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage:

The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 62, 457-468. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.457

Freitas, A., & Downey, G. (1998). Resilience: A dynamic perspective.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 263-285.

doi:10.1080/016502598384379

Frey-Wouters, E., & Laufer, R. (1986). Legacy of a war. Armonk, NY:

M. E. Sharpe Press.

Gimbel, C., & Booth, A. (1994). Why does military combat experience

adversely affect marital relations? Journal of Marriage and the Fam-

ily, 56, 691-703. doi:10.2307/352879

Karney, B., & Crown, J. (2007). Families under stress: An assessment

of data, theory, and research on marriage and divorce in the military.

Washington, DC: National Defense Research Institute.

Laufer, R, & Gallops, M. (1985) Life-course effects of Vietnam combat

and abusive violence: Marital patterns. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 47, 839-853. doi:10.2307/352328

Levy, M., & Davis, K. (1988). Love styles and attachment styles com-

pared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship char-

acteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 439-471.

doi:10.1177/0265407588054004

Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2002). Self-Regulation in a cognitive-

affective personality system: Attentional control in the service of the

self. Self and Identity, 1, 113-120.

doi:10.1080/152988602317319285

Pittman, J., Kerpelman, J., & McFadyen, J. (2004). Internal and exter-

nal adaptation in army families: Lessons learned from Operations

Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Family Relations, 53, 249-260.

doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.0001.x

Purdie, V., & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent

girls’ vulnerability to relationship difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5,

338-349. doi:10.1177/1077559500005004005

Sheppard, S., Malatras, J., & Israel, A. (2010). The impact of deploy-

ment on U.S. military families. American Psychologist, 65, 599-609.

doi:10.1037/a0020332

Spanier, G. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for as-

sessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Mar-

riage and the Family, 38, 15-28. doi:10.2307/350547

Spanier, G. (1986). This week’s citation classic. Classic Citation, 51-

52.

Stellman, J., Stellman, S., & Sommer, J. (1988). Social and behavioral

consequences the Vietnam experiences among American Legion-

naires. Environmental Research, 47, 129-149.

doi:10.1016/S0013-9351(88)80038-0

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative

anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-

457. doi:10.1037/h0027806

484