10106_Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being – Investigating relatedness and motivation as potential mediators

Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations
2020
Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being: Investigating relatedness
Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being: Investigating relatedness
and motivation as potential mediators
and motivation as potential mediators
Elise A. Frickey
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Frickey, Elise A., “Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being: Investigating relatedness and motivation as
potential mediators” (2020). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 17908.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/17908
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and
Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information,
please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being: Investigating relatedness and motivation
as potential mediators
by
Elise A. Frickey

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major: Psychology

Program of Study Committee:
Lisa M. Larson, Major Professor
Daniel Russell
Meifen Wei

The student author, whose presentation of the scholarship herein was approved by the
program of study committee, is solely responsible for the content of this thesis. The Graduate
College will ensure this thesis is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a
degree is conferred.

Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2020

Copyright © Elise A. Frickey, 2020. All rights reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 3 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

APPENDIX A. INTERPERSONAL SENSITIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
APPENDIX B. PERCEIVED RELATEDNESS SATISFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
APPENDIX C. PERCEIVED RELATEDNESS DISSATISFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
APPENDIX D. PERCEIVED RELATEDNESS THWARTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
APPENDIX E. MOTIVATION FOR RELATIONSHIP ENGAGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
APPENDIX F. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
APPENDIX G. CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES SCALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
APPENDIX H. DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
APPENDIX J. IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY IRB APPROVAL LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

ii
iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Constructs and Associated Measures, Hypotheses, and Model Paths . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Variables of Interest . . 101

Table 3 Intercorrelations Among Motivation Comprehensive Score and Subscales. . . . . . . 102

Table 4 Interorrelations Among Interpersonal Sensitivity Sum and Subscales. . . . . . . . . . . 103

Table 5 Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Table 6 Internal Consistency Estimates of All Scales and Subscales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Table 7 Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations Among All Variables . . . . . . . . 106

Table 8 Bootstrap Analysis of Magnitude and Significance of Indirect Effects for
Hypothesized Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Table 9 Bootstrap Analysis of Magnitude and Significance of Indirect Effects for
Alternate Model with Depression as the Outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Table 10 Exploratory Factor Analysis for Relatedness Items: Promax Structure Matrix . . . . 109

Table 11 Exploratory Factor Analysis for Relatedness Items: Promax Pattern Matrix. . . . . . 110

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Original Hypothesized Partially Mediated Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 2 Final Hypothesized Partially Mediated Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 3 Final Hypothesized Partially Mediated Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 4 Alternate Model Results: Motivation as Two Separate Constructs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 5 Alternate Model Results: Motivation Indicated by Self-Determined and
Controlled Motivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 6 Model Results with Relatedness as a Single Construct. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 7 Reversed Theoretical Model Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 8 Model Results with Depression as the Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

v

ABSTRACT
Interpersonal sensitivity is a trait characterized by a hypersensitivity to criticism and rejection.
The present author aimed to conceptualize the relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and
well-being through the lens of self-determination theory. It was hypothesized that relatedness
variables (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting) would mediate the relation between
interpersonal sensitivity and a novel motivation construct (“motivation for relationship
engagement”); it was also hypothesized that motivation would in turn mediate the relation
between relatedness variables and positive and negative affect. After 343 university students
responded to the online survey, parcels were created to approximate each latent variable. Data
were analyzed via structural equation modeling using Mplus Version 7.4, and indices of model
fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999) suggested the theoretical model offered a good fit to the data. In support
of the author’s hypotheses, all direct and indirect paths in the partially mediated structural model
were significant (p > .05). Interestingly, findings suggest participants did not discriminate
between relatedness dissatisfaction and relatedness thwarting, breaking from past research which
had found these constructs to be distinct (e.g., Costa, Ntoumanis, & Bartholomew, 2015).
Overall, the present study points to importance of relatedness and motivation as crucial and
understudied mediators when it comes to researchers’ and clinicians’ understanding of
interpersonal sensitivity and affective experiences.
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Much research has demonstrated the importance of the need for social connection as a
fundamental human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 2000). It is a need
common across cultures (e.g., Kitayama & Markus, 1994; Yang, Zhang, Liang, & Hu, 2016), as
humans spontaneously form bonds with one another and are motivated to maintain such bonds.
The severing or absence of these connections has been found to have important implications for
long-term and short-term physical health (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Begen & Turner-
Cobb, 2012; Miller, Chen, & Cole, 2009;) and psychological health (Allen & Badcock, 2003;
Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Cohen & Wills, 1985). This essential need for social contact has
been investigated from a variety of perspectives: while Baumeister and Leary (1995) refer to this
construct as the need to belong, of particular interest to the present author is Deci and Ryan’s
highly similar conception of the basic psychological need for relatedness (2000). The present
author aims to expand the current understanding of this construct by investigating the specific
characteristics of individuals who are lacking in social connectedness. How does a failure to
meet this need for meaningful human contact maintain or exacerbate psychological difficulties?
Are some individuals more affected by an unmet need for relatedness? What psychological
characteristics or personality traits are associated with the perception of a lack of relatedness?
Does a lack of relatedness make it more or less motivating to engage in future relational
activities? The present author aims to answer these questions by consolidating literature on
several constructs, while also providing a theoretical framework through which the relations
between these constructs can be better understood.
Some researchers have understood the need for relatedness as a central component to
their conceptualizations of well-being. For instance, embedded within belongingness theory is
2

the notion that self-esteem itself evolved as a gauge of social inclusion (Leary & Downs, 1995).
According to this sociometer hypothesis, state self-esteem is seen as a monitor of moment-to-
moment perceptions of one’s belonging, and trait self-esteem is a longer-term form of that gauge
(Leary, 2005). Additionally, Allen and Badcock (2003) argue that depression is an adaptive
mechanism evolved to temporarily minimize the risk of social exclusion whereby a
hypersensitivity to indicators of social risk helps depressed individuals avoid rejection. These
studies point to a link not only between well-being and one’s perceptions of belongingness, but
also to unique implications of a lack of social connectedness for those who suffer
psychologically (e.g., from depression or low self-esteem).
In light of this, it is unsurprising that research has found that those prone to the
development of, or already suffering from, depression are differentially affected by a lack of
their relatedness need being met. For instance, numerous studies point to a link between a lack of
social connectedness and depressive symptoms (e.g., Cockshaw & Shochet, 2010; Hagerty,
Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996; Peeters, Nicolson, Berkhof, Delespaul, & deVries, 2003), even
suicide risk (e.g., Christensen, Batterham, Mackinnon, Donker, & Soubelet, 2014; Van Orden,
Witte, Gordon, Bender, & Joiner, 2008).
Interpersonal sensitivity and well-being
It is intuitive that, if one’s need for relatedness is left chronically unmet, whether as a
result of social exclusion, rejection, or simply a lack of success in forming and maintaining
caring relationships, one would feel a certain insecurity regarding one’s social interactions. This
resulting hypersensitivity and its relation to difficulties such as depression and anxiety have been
studied from several perspectives: some researchers have focused their attention on the more
narrow construct of rejection sensitivity (the hypervigilant attention to and defensiveness
3

towards social criticism; e.g., Gao, Assink, Cipriani, & Lin, 2017; Kawamoto, Nittono, & Ura,
2015) or the more broad construct of emotional reactivity (the extent to which one is prone to
experiencing positive and negative affect; e.g., Boyes, Carmody, Clarke, & Hasking, 2017).
However, of interest to the present study is the construct titled interpersonal sensitivity, defined
according to the original study by Boyce and Parker (1989) as “an undue and excessive
awareness of, and sensitivity to, the behavior and feelings of others” (pg. 342). According to this
perspective, highly interpersonally sensitive individuals are hypervigilant about their
relationships and are preoccupied with situations which might involve criticism or rejection.
Nuanced views of this construct define interpersonal sensitivity from a perspective of self-esteem
(Derogatis, Lipman, & Covi, 1973), or focus on the accuracy of interpersonal perception
(Snodgrass, Hecht, & Ploutz-Snyder, 1998). However, for the purpose of this study, the
definition of Boyce and Parker will be used.
Interpersonal sensitivity, along with the highly similar construct of rejection sensitivity,
has repeatedly been found to be problematic for psychological health (e.g., Chango, McElhaney,
Allen, Schad, & Marston, 2012; Chesin, Fertuck, Goodman, Lichenstein, & Stanley, 2015;
Rowe, Zimmer-Gembeck, Rudolph, & Nesdale, 2015), particularly in its implications for
relational functioning. For instance, individuals with this heightened sensitivity to rejection have
been found to expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996;
Feldman & Downey, 1994). Individuals with this tendency have also been found to be more
prone to both loneliness and depression (Zimmer-Gembeck, Trevaskis, Nesdale, & Downey,
2014; Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998). Not only does interpersonal sensitivity thus predispose
individuals to depression, but the resulting sensitivity to social rejection has a stronger impact on
the well-being of depressed people (Steger & Kashdan, 2009). In other words, those in greatest
4

need for social connection are those most affected by their day to day social interactions. More
specifically, Reichenberger and colleagues (2017) found that ill-being was associated with less
positive feelings resulting from positive and neutral stimuli, but that these diminished emotional
responses are not found for unpleasant stimuli (Sloan, Strauss, & Wisner, 2001). This is
concerning in light of other research (Gotlib, Krasnoperova, Neubauer Yue, & Joormann, 2004)
which suggests that depressed patients have an attentional bias towards negative interpersonal
stimuli. Similarly, one study suggests that negative social cues will more greatly affect the self-
esteem, social involvement, and relational value of those with an unmet need for relatedness, all
which have implications for well-being (Tyler, Branch, & Kearns, 2016).
This research points to a strong link between depressive symptoms and a sensitization to
interpersonal stimuli. Given that individuals with heightened interpersonal sensitivity are thus
more likely to experience emotional reactions to negative stimuli than positive stimuli, to attend
to negative interpersonal stimuli, and to be affected by negative interpersonal stimuli, it is clear
how this construct could have great implications for psychological well-being. Though much of
the current literature has focused on the associations between interpersonal sensitivity and a
variety of psychological difficulties (e.g., Harb, Heimberg, Fresco, Schneier, & Leibowitz, 2002;
Masillo et al., 2017; Mathew, Sudhir, & Mariamma, 2014; Mogi & Yoshino, 2017; Otsuka et al.,
2017), the present author is interested in how this construct affects non-clinical populations.
Given the demonstrated importance of the need for social contact to well-being, the previously
mentioned strong links between interpersonal sensitivity and depression (e.g., Boyce & Parker,
1991), and the fact that interpersonal sensitivity has been found to predict the development and
treatment of depression, interpersonal sensitivity can thus be understood as a risk factor for the
5

onset of depression. Thus, it is crucial to understand if and how this multifaceted construct
affects non-clinical populations.
While many studies on this construct have included measures of depression or anxiety,
positive and negative affect have occasionally been used as indicators of well-being in the
interpersonal sensitivity literature (Smith & Zautra, 2001). Importantly, positive and negative
affect can be seen as an index of well-being for a non-clinical sample, given the strong
connections to a variety of disorders. Not only has depression been found to be characterized by
low positive affect and high negative affect (Peeters et al., 2003), but measures of positive affect
and negative affect have also been used to predict mood disorders (Cohen et al., 2017) and are
associated with anxiety disorders (Watson, Gamez, & Simms, 2005). While positive affect has
been related to well-being and inversely related to psychological difficulties (Beck et al., 2003;
Cohen & Pressman, 2006), negative affect has been found to be inversely related to numerous
indices of psychological well-being and overall health (e.g., Crawford & Henry, 2004; Beck et
al., 2003). Therefore, it is assumed that positive affect and negative affect can be effectively used
in the present study for the purpose of measuring the relation between well-being and constructs
related to depression in a non-clinical sample.
Interpersonal sensitivity and perceptions of relatedness
The above research points to associations between interpersonal sensitivity and ill-being,
as well as associations between social belonging and well-being. However, it also illuminates a
significant gap in the literature, in that less is understood about the relationship between
interpersonal sensitivity and one’s perceptions of relatedness. Although some have investigated
the relationship between social rejection/exclusion and rejection sensitivity (e.g., Gao et al.,
2017), the relationship between this sensitivity and one’s perceptions of social connectedness has
6

been less studied. While one study (Costa, Ntoumanis, & Bartholomew, 2015) did find an
association between perceptions of relatedness and interpersonal sensitivity, little further
research has investigated how this relationship unfolds. If interpersonal sensitivity does indeed
have implications for one’s perceived level of social connectedness, this could explain the
observed relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and depression, as a lack of belonging
both precedes and exacerbates psychological ill-being. In other words, relatedness could mediate
the relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and well-being.
There is reason to suspect that individual differences in interpersonal sensitivity might
predict levels of perceived social connectedness, despite the lack of research in the area. Given
the strong link between interpersonal sensitivity and depression, and the link between depression
and a lack of social connection, some research on depression can be logically assumed to be
relevant to this link between interpersonal sensitivity and relatedness as well. Much of the above
research that demonstrates how interpersonally sensitive individuals are attuned to and more
affected by negative interpersonal stimuli can also be construed as evidence for a link between
this construct and relatedness. People suffering from depression hold negative self-views, and as
a result of these, they actually prefer others who evaluated them unfavorably when compared to
non-depressed counterparts, even when receiving this feedback makes them unhappy (Swann,
Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992). Surrounding oneself with individuals who share one’s
negative self-views would likely prevent one from feeling a sense of belonging with others,
especially given that Baumeister and Leary conceptualized that a prerequisite of meeting this
need is a warm interpersonal environment (1994). Moreover, interpersonal sensitivity has been
found to be correlated with loneliness, a construct highly correlated with depression (Zimmer-
Gembeck et al., 2014; Cooper et al.,1998) and conceptually related to relatedness. Indeed,
7

research has shown that highly rejection-sensitive individuals are more likely to be rejected by
their romantic partners than are their less rejection sensitive counterparts, creating a sort of self-
fulfilling prophesy in which individuals who are most worried about losing their partners are
those most likely to be romantically rejected (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998).
Given the described research, it is intuitive that individuals high in interpersonal sensitivity
would have a lower sense of social connectedness.
Attitudes about interpersonal relationships
When attempting to understand how interpersonal sensitivity and the predicted lowered
relatedness would affect individuals’ future attitudes and behaviors regarding their interpersonal
relationships, the literature is unclear. According to classic need to belong theory, those whose
need for belonging is not met would be highly motivated to increase goal-directed activity aimed
at forming relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1994). According to this theory, individuals strive
to achieve a minimum number of social contacts, and once that threshold is met, the motivation
to seek out new contacts diminishes. As a sort of ‘satiation’ is reached, it is less satisfying to
engage in these relationships, and less distressing when such relationships dissolve. Fitting with
this viewpoint, research found those with the greatest need for social connectedness were more
skilled at decoding social cues than the comparison group (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004),
a skill which would be adaptive for the creation of new relationships.
While need to belong theory would thus suppose that those lacking in social
connectedness would be motivated to achieve more social contacts, there is also reason to
suspect the opposite. If, as previously mentioned literature suggests, an individual with high
levels of interpersonal sensitivity is attuned to negative interpersonal experiences, and more
8

affected by such experiences, it is also possible this would lead to a sense that one’s attempts at
forming social bonds are futile.
Self-determination theory as a theoretical framework
Support for this second view comes from research on self-determination theory, a theory
which can be used to understand how the variables of interpersonal sensitivity, relatedness, and
outcome variables relate to one another. Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) is
a theory of motivation which proposes there are three basic psychological needs which inform
motivation and personality functioning: volitional autonomy, or the belief that one is in control
of one’s choices, perceived competence, or the belief that one is able to accomplish important
tasks, and relatedness, or one’s belongingness/connectedness with others. When these three
needs are met, individuals are self-motivated, vital, and prone towards positive development.
However, when these needs are unmet, individuals can become apathetic and unmotivated, and
their well-being suffers. Recent research (e.g., Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thøgersen-
Ntoumani, 2011; Cordeiro, Paixão, Lens, Lacante, & Sheldon, 2016) has found a failure to meet
one’s needs can constitute one of two distinct processes: need dissatisfaction, which is the more
passive lack of a need being met, or need thwarting, which is the more active undermining of
one’s needs. Because of the reported differences in outcomes between need satisfaction,
dissatisfaction, and thwarting found in previous self-determination theory research (e.g., Costa et
al., 2015), these will be regarded as separate constructs for the purpose of the present study.
Numerous studies across a variety of areas have found SDT to be a valid and helpful
framework for understanding well-being as it relates to exogenous variables (e.g., Orkibi &
Ronen, 2017; Uysal, Lin, & Knee, 2010). Indeed, Patrick, Knee, Canevello and Lonsbary in
2007 found that the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for relatedness predicted both
9

individual and relational well-being, with relatedness uniquely predicting relationship outcomes.
While self-determination theory has not been yet utilized to understand the relationship between
the variables of interest to the present study, one recent study found associations between
interpersonal sensitivity and a thwarted need for volitional autonomy, perceived competence, and
relatedness (Costa et al., 2015). Additionally, previous research on self-determination theory has
found that psychological need fulfillment was correlated with greater relationship quality (Deci,
La Guardia, Moller, Scheine, & Ryan, 2006), emotional awareness, emotional disclosure,
openness (La Guardia, 2007), and willingness to rely on one’s partner (Ryan, La Guardia, Solky-
Butzel, Chirkov, & Kim, 2005) in one’s close relationships. These studies point to the utility of
self-determination theory for understanding the associations between relational functioning,
psychological needs, and well-being.
While previous research has suggested some relationship between all three basic
psychological needs and interpersonal sensitivity (Costa et al., 2015; Snodgrass et al., 1998), the
present study aimed to specify these findings by investigating the unique contribution of the need
for relatedness. This aim is reasonable, given previous studies in the SDT literature which have
investigated perceived relatedness as a unique mediator between certain variables and outcome
measures (e.g., Guiffrida, Gouveia, Wall, & Seward, 2008; Sparks, Dimmock, Lonsdale, &
Jackson, 2016). One important outcome relevant to well-being in the present context is
motivation. According to Deci & Ryan (2000), there are several types of motivation ranging
from intrinsic motivation, in which individuals spontaneously seek out novelty, challenges, and
opportunities to grow, to amotivation, in which individuals lack the intention to act. Amotivation
can result from the expectation that no desired outcome will come from engagement in a certain
activity (Seligman, 1975). Each type of motivation, according to this theory, falls on a continuum
10

from more autonomous motivation, meaning more self-determined forms of motivation, to
controlled motivation, meaning less self-determined forms of motivation (Sheldon, Osin,
Gordeeva, Suchkov, & Sychev, 2017.) Though not directly relevant to the present study, the
need for relatedness has been shown to mediate the relationship between environmental factors
and motivation in several domains, such that lowered sense of perceived relatedness indicates
less self-determined forms of motivation (e.g., Stults-Kolehmainen, Gilson, & Abolt, 2013).
The motivational domain of interest to the present study is titled “motivation for
relationship engagement,” a construct defined by the present author as a willingness to partake in
activities which lead to the formation of new friendships or deepening of current bonds.
Although SDT has not yet been utilized to examine motivation for relationship engagement, if
the observed pattern upholds, it would provide an alternate understanding of how the need for
relatedness, in certain populations, does not lead to a greater quality motivation to increase goal-
directed activity aimed at forming relationships. If this is the case, it could be interpreted as an
indication of future attempts at forming relationships: a vicious cycle whereby interpersonal
sensitivity contributes to lowered perceived relatedness, resulting in less self-determined forms
of motivation to engage in relationships. Furthermore, given the relationship between self-
determined motivation and positive and negative affect (e.g., Gillet, Vallerand, Lafrenière, &
Bureau, 2013), it is likely that these variables would predict levels of positive and negative
affect.
Interestingly, much of the motivation research in the self-determination theory literature
has failed to find large effect sizes for the relationship between motivation and positive and
negative affect. The present author believes this is because previous self-determination theory
motivational measures (e.g., Academic Motivation Scale, Motivation for Exercise, etc.) have
11

been domain-specific in areas not broad enough to substantially affect psychological well-being.
It is the present author’s belief that the SDT literature is lacking in a measure of motivation that
significantly impacts well-being; thus, it is imperative the author investigates a motivation for
relationship engagement that assesses individuals’ motivation (or lack thereof) to capitalize on
social opportunities to form or deepen interpersonal relationships. While one measure related to
this construct has recently been developed (Vanhalst, Luyckx, Stijn, & Soenens, 2018), the
authors’ vignette approach is rather time intensive and is less precedented in the self-
determination theory literature. Thus, the present author aimed to create a measure of motivation
for relationship engagement which more closely resembles other SDT measures of motivation,
such as the Self-Regulation Questionnaires, etc. Additionally, it is hoped that this measure will
be more closely related to well-being than previous measures.
Summary and Hypotheses
In summary, the present study offers a preliminary analysis of several factors which have
been previously understudied in the literature. While there is little research connecting
interpersonal sensitivity to relatedness, there is reason to suspect that the effect of this
personality trait on self-determined motivation would be mediated by perceived relatedness.
Additionally, given the nature of motivation as described in the SDT literature, the author
believed it was likely that this variable would predict positive affect and negative affect. The
author proposes a structural equation model in which the relationship between interpersonal
sensitivity and positive and negative affect is fully and partially mediated, respectively, by
relatedness satisfaction, relatedness dissatisfaction, relatedness thwarting, and motivation for
relationship engagement. The following hypotheses pertain to this model, which is shown in
Figure 1.
12

Hypothesis 1: The hypothesized structural equation model will provide a good fit to the
data.
Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal sensitivity will directly negatively predict relatedness
satisfaction, but will directly positively predict negative affect, relatedness dissatisfaction, and
relatedness thwarting.
Hypothesis 3: Relatedness satisfaction will directly positively predict motivation for
relationship engagement. Relatedness dissatisfaction and relatedness thwarting will directly
negatively predict motivation for relationship engagement.
Hypothesis 4: Motivation for relationship engagement will directly positively predict
positive affect and will directly negatively predict negative affect.
Hypothesis 5: Relatedness satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting will fully mediate
the relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and motivation for relationship engagement.

Hypothesis 6: Motivation for relationship engagement will fully mediate the relation
between the relatedness variables (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting) and affect
variables (positive and negative).

Hypothesis 7: The relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and positive affect will
be fully mediated by relatedness variables (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting) and
motivation. The relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and negative affect will be
partially mediated by relatedness variables (satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting) and
motivation.

13

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The present literature review provides an overview of research relevant to the variables of
interest. First, research on the relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and well-being will
be presented. Subsequently, literature which suggests interpersonal sensitivity could have
implications for relatedness will be reviewed. This discussion will be followed by a review of the
studies finding links between relatedness and motivation for relationship engagement, and
motivation for relationship engagement and well-being.
Interpersonal Sensitivity and Depression

In Boyce and Parker’s classic 1989 study, they note how research on depression
frequently focuses on psychosocial and biological determinants. While personality factors could
play a crucial role in the onset, course, and expression of depression, the field was lacking in a
defined depression-prone personality type. They proposed that interpersonal sensitivity is a trait
characterized by a sensitivity to the state of one’s interpersonal relationships, indicated by a
preoccupation with the mood and behaviors of others. Highly interpersonally sensitive
individuals are vigilant about their interactions with other people, and react strongly to real or
perceived rejection or criticism. Boyce and Parker identify several component factors which
jointly constitute this construct: the first of these is interpersonal awareness, a sensitivity to the
perceived impact one has on others whereby one attempt to gauge others’ responses to one’s
behavior. The second factor, need for approval, illuminates the extent to which one desires to
please others and to be liked by them. The third factor, separation anxiety, is defined as the
tendency to be anxious about one’s relationships and to be sensitive to any threats to one’s
current bonds. The fourth factor is timidity, or a tendency to be unassertive in one’s interactions
with others. The fifth factor is the fragile inner-self, which Boyce and Parker define as having a
14

core understanding of oneself as unlikeable and repugnant to others; this sense of oneself is
therefore highly affected by positive or negative evaluation.
Given that interpersonal sensitivity was developed to identify a depression-prone
personality type, it is necessary to establish a link between this personality construct and
depressive symptoms. There are 24 studies linking interpersonal sensitivity as measured and
defined by Boyce and Parker (1989) to depression. Nine of these studies assessed the
relationship between depression and an exclusively clinical population (Boyce, Hickie, Parker,
Mitchell, Wilhelm, & Brodaty, 1992; Davidson, Zisook, Giller, & Helms, 1989; Griens, Jonker,
Spinhoven, & Blom, 2002; Luty, Joyce, Mulder, Sullivan, & McKenzie, 2002; Mogi & Yoshino,
2017; Ogawa, Shigemura, Yoshino, & Nomura, 2013; Sato, Narita, Hirano, Kusunoki, Sakado,
& Uehara, 2001; Vidyanidhi & Sudhir, 2009).
These studies included individuals with clinical depression or another clinical disorder,
treatment resistant depression, and depressed patients currently in remission, with mean scores
on the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) for each sample ranging from 81.1 to 106.4.
Correlations between depression and interpersonal sensitivity ranged from .27 to .58 (p values all
< .01.) Some of these studies compared scores on the IPSM for participants with different subtypes of depression (melancholic depression, non-melancholic depression, treatment resistant depression, and depression in remission), or compared participants who did or did not meet thresholds of a different DSMV disorder (i.e., at risk mental state for psychosis). For these group comparisons, significant differences were found, such that participants more clinically at risk had significantly higher scores than participants less clinically at risk, with Cohen’s d ranging from .24 to 1.05. 15 The remaining 14 studies (Boyce et al., 1991; Dunn, Whelton, & Sharpe, 2012; Giardinelli, Paionni, Zucchi, Viviani, & Cabras, 1999; Hamann, Wonderlich-Tierney, & Vander Wal, 2009; Luterek, Harb, Heimberg, & Marx, 2004; Masillo et al., 2012; Mathew et al., 2014; Matthey, Barnett, Ungerer, & Waters, 2000; McCabe, Blankstein, & Mills, 1999; Otsuka et al., 2017; Rizzo, Dalye, & Gunerson, 2006; Rossetti et al., 2017; Sakado et al., 1999; Wilhelm, Boyce, & Brownhill, 2004) investigated either nonclinical and clinical populations, or exclusively nonclinical populations. Correlations between interpersonal sensitivity and depression in nonclinical samples (which included patients who were not depressed, patients not having endured childhood sexual abuse, and patients not clinically at risk for psychosis) ranged from .22 to .56 (ps all < .01) and from .34 to .56 (ps all < .01) for clinical samples (which included clinically depressed patients, patients enduring childhood sexual abuse, and patients at clinical risk for psychosis). It is worth noting once again that the clinical samples in the ten previous studies were found to have correlations between .27 to .58 (ps all < .01), a range quite similar to both clinical and non-clinical samples in these 14 studies. One of these studies (Rossetti et al., 2017) found strong, but nonsignificant, correlations between interpersonal sensitivity and depression for those with (.73) and without (.73) a history of suicide attempt. Mean scores on the IPSM for each sample ranged from 60.8 and 90.62 for the non-clinical samples and from 68.1 to 108.4 for the clinical samples. For those studies that compared clinical and nonclinical samples, significant differences between groups were found, such that clinical samples had higher scores than the nonclinical samples, with Cohen’s d ranging from .49 to 1.12. This second group of studies is particularly important to the present study because it demonstrates the utility of the interpersonal 16 sensitivity measure for assessment in a non-clinical sample, such as the one which was used in the present study. While these links to depression are taken as sufficient to establish a relationship between interpersonal sensitivity and well-being, this construct has also been related to a variety of pathological concerns, such as anxiety (e.g r = .55, p < .01; Rowe et al., 2015), suicide (e.g., Kim & Cincchetti, 2010), and bulimia (e.g., rs = .38, .31, .43, ps all < .001; Hamann et al., 2009). It is also worth noting research on rejection sensitivity, a construct which is highly similar to and included in the definition of interpersonal sensitivity, as rejection sensitive individuals expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Rejection sensitivity has also been related to a variety of mental health concerns. For instance, in Downey and Feldman’s famous study (1996), they observed that rejection sensitivity predicted negativity of participants’ reactions to a rejection situation (r = .52, p < .02); they also found an association between rejection sensitivity and the increase in rejected mood following such rejection situations (r = .71, p < .001), even when controlling for pre-manipulation rejected mood. Moreover, in 2017, Gao and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 75 studies to investigate the relationship between rejection sensitivity and mental health outcomes. Their results found moderate associations between rejection sensitivity and depression (pooled r = 0.332; p < 0.001), anxiety (pooled r = 0.407; p < 0.001), loneliness (pooled r = 0.386; p < 0.001), borderline personality disorder (pooled r = 0.413; p < 0.001), and body dysmorphic disorder (pooled r = 0.428; p < 0.001). Importantly for the present study, the findings were similar in clinical and nonclinical samples. 17 Interpersonal Sensitivity and Positive and Negative Affect The above research points to a strong link between interpersonal sensitivity and well- being. However, remarkably little research has associated this personality trait with positive and negative affect. Crucially, positive and negative affect can be used as an index of well-being for a nonclinical sample, given its strong connections to a variety of disorders. According to Watson, Clark and Tellegan (1988), while positive affect (PA) reflects the feeling of being alert, active, and enthusiastic, negative affect (NA) represents the feeling of distress or aversive mood states like anger, fear, guilt, etc. The absence of one mood factor is not equivalent to the presence of the other: the absence of positive affect is characterized by sadness and lethargy, while the absence of negative affect is considered to be a state of serenity and calmness. Watson and colleagues report how negative affect is related to stress, poor coping, health complaints, and the frequency of unpleasant events, while positive affect is related to social activity, satisfaction, and the frequency of pleasant events. Since this scale’s development, positive affect has continually been related to well-being and inversely related to psychological difficulties with medium to strong effects, and negative affect has been found to be inversely related to a variety of indices of psychological well-being and overall health, also with medium to strong effects (e.g, Beck et al., 2003; Cohen & Pressman, 2006; Crawford & Henry, 2004). For instance, Crawford and Henry (2004) found associations between affect and different measures of depression, with correlations for positive affect ranging from r = -.48 to -.52 and correlations for negative affect ranging from r = .44 to .60 (ps all < .01). They also found scores on anxiety measures to be associated with both positive affect (r = -.30, -.31) and negative affect (r = .60, .65; ps all < .01). Other research has verified that depression is characterized by low positive affect and high negative affect (Peeters et al., 18 2003; Watson et al., 2005), and has also found higher levels of negative affect to be indicative of a more severe (β = .03, SE = .01, z = 3.20, p < .01) and longer duration (β = .01, SE = .004, z = 3.00, p < .01) depression. Measures of positive and negative affect have also been used to predict mood disorders more generally (e.g, Cohen et al., 2017) and are associated with suicidal ideation (r = -.26, .50), insomnia, (r = -.18, .27), social anxiety (-.35, .59) and other indicators of well- being, respectively (p values all < .05; Watson et al., 2005). Therefore, it was assumed that positive and negative affect could be effectively used in the present study for the purpose of measuring well-being in a normal sample. Only one study to date has investigated the relationship between positive and negative affect and interpersonal sensitivity: Smith and Zautra (2001) found that interpersonal sensitivity was related to both positive affect (r = -.34, p < .05) and negative affect (r = .37, p < .05). Given the strong links between interpersonal sensitivity and mental health difficulties, and these same difficulties and positive affect and negative affect, the present author believed that interpersonal sensitivity would be related to these indicators of well-being. However, given the specific connections of this trait to indicators of ill-being, the author hypothesized that interpersonal sensitivity would have stronger ties to negative affect than to positive affect. Due to this research, the author included a direct path in an otherwise fully-mediated model between interpersonal sensitivity and negative affect. Interpersonal Sensitivity and Relatedness In much of the literature on interpersonal sensitivity and rejection sensitivity, correlations have consistently been found between these constructs and loneliness (e.g., r = .39, Gao et al., 2017; r = .39, p < .01, Rowe et al., 2015; r = .42, p < .05, Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2014). Loneliness, a construct strongly correlated with depression (e.g., r = .57, p < .01, Zimmer- 19 Gembeck et al., 2014), is also conceptually linked to relatedness. Indeed, loneliness and relatedness both pertain to perceptions of one’s level of social connection: loneliness is defined as an unpleasant reaction to a perceived disparity between one’s desired and existing social relationships (Perlman, 2004), while relatedness is defined as the need to feel belongingness and connectedness with others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In support of this notion, Zlomke, Jeter and Cook (2016) found loneliness to be correlated with relatedness (r = .35, p < .01). Because the link between loneliness and rejection sensitivity/interpersonal sensitivity is well-established in the literature, and because of the author’s specific interest in need satisfaction, dissatisfaction and thwarting, the author chose to proceed using relatedness variables as the sole indicators of social connectedness. Despite the clear conceptual link between one’s need for meaningful social contact and one’s sensitivity to social interactions, and the consistent associations between loneliness and interpersonal sensitivity, there is a surprising lack of research linking interpersonal sensitivity to the basic psychological need for relatedness. The first and only study to date which has linked the variables of interpersonal sensitivity as defined by Boyce and Parker (1989) and relatedness as defined by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) was performed in 2015 by Costa, Ntoumanis, and Bartholomew. These researchers investigated the relationship between psychological need satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and thwarting/frustration, noting how previous literature has assumed dissatisfaction and thwarting to be synonymous. Their analyses found support for the separation of need dissatisfaction—which is defined as a lack of the relatedness need being met—and need thwarting—which is more of an active undermining of this need—as well as for the notion that self-determination theory can be used to understand interpersonal sensitivity. Combining measures of perceived levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness