  Friendships are central to adolescent development: negative peer relations predict risk for interpersonal incompetence and mental health problems well into adulthood (Reisman, 1985). Rejection Sensitivity (RJS) : Defined as the disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to social rejection ( Downey & Feldman, 1996). RJS concurrently associated with troubled romantic relationships, and with increasingly troubled peer relations, aggressive behavior, and anxiety one year later (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1988; London, Downey, & Bonica, 2007; McCarty, Vander Stoep, & McCauley, 2007). Concurrent Links made between rejection and/or maltreatment in family and rejection sensitivity (Downey, Khouri, & Feldman, 1997; Feldman & Downey, 1994)   Research primarily focuses on RJS in the context of romantic relations, just beginning to investigate same-sex peer relationship risk factors for RJS, such as peer rejection (London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin 2007).   Few studies have more closely examined the risk and protective factors of peer relations on Rejection Sensitivity from a multi-method, multi-reporter, longitudinal perspective. Participants   Data were collected from a multi-method, multi-reporter, longitudinal study of adolescent development in the context of peer and family relationships. Teens and close peers interviewed annually for seven years.   184 target adolescents (48% male, 52% female) and their close peers were interviewed at approximate age 13   Close peers have known adolescents for an average of 5.33 years at Time 1.   Target teens: 56% European American and 44% minority or mixed ethnic group   Median family income: $50, 000 Procedure Time 1: Adolescents and close peers interviewed at approximately 13 years of age. Time 2: Adolescents re-interviewed at approximately 19 years of age. Measures   Adolescent autonomy/relatedness toward peers. Teens and their close peers participated in an eight-minute, videotaped conflictual interaction task. The degree to which the teens and peers could use tactics that promote both collaborative and reasoned tactics in the context of a disagreement was coded utilizing the Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System (Allen. Hauser, Bell, Boykin, & Tate, 1996). Teen use of Negative Autonomy (high levels of pressuring, overpersonalizing, and avoidant tactics) and friend use of Positive Relatedness (high collaboration and warmth) were assessed.   Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire Revised. (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1998). Close peers reported on the target teen’s competence in interpersonal relationships. The Relationship Initiation and Conflict Resolution subscales were utilized for the current study.   Popularity. (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). A limited nomination, grade-based sociometric procedure was used, in which each adolescent, their closest friend, and two other target peers were asked to nominate up to 10 peers in their grade with whom they would “most like to spend time on a Saturday night”. The raw number of “like” nominations each teen received was standardized before being utilized as the primary measure of popularity in the current study.   Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Teens reported on how concerned or anxious they would be regarding a variety of interpersonal situations that apply to romantic, plutonic, familial, and vocational relationships. Teens also reported on how unlikely or likely it would be for them to expect the particular person to respond in a particular way Allen, J.P., Hauser, S., Bell, K. L., Boykin, K.A., & Tate, D.C. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M.T. & Reis, H.T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, Coie, J., Dodge, K., Coppotelli, H (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), Downey, G. & Feldman, S.I. (1996). Implications of Rejection Sensitivity for Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6) Downey, G., Khouri, H., Feldman, S. I., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later adjustment: The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention. (pp. 85). Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), McCarty, C. A., Vander Stoep, A., & McCauley, E. (2007). Cognitive features associated with depressive symptoms in adolescence: Directionality and specificity. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), Reisman, J. (1985). Friendship and its implications for mental health or social competence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(3),   It appears that teens who are generally more successful at initiating and maintaining peer relationships may be somewhat insulated against the future development of exaggerated cognitive and affective reactions when interacting with peers, partners, and family members.   Support and validation provided by close peers in early adolescence in the context of conflict also helps to protect teens against the development of rejection sensitivity in early adulthood.   Self-fulfilling prophecy: teens who rely on more hostile or distancing conflict tactics that inhibit their friends’ autonomy, may increase their susceptibility to experiencing negative reactions from others, which may ultimately lead them to be more sensitive to rejection.   Rejection sensitivity is a cognitive-affective risk factor for a variety of mental illnesses, such as anxiety, depression, and aggressive behaviors, therefore continued attention to longitudinal risk and protective factors for RJS can help to inform appropriate intervention strategies for such disorders. The current study uses hierarchical regression analyses to explore the following questions: 1. Is teen popularity predictive of lower levels of rejection sensitivity six years later? 2. 2.Does the peer’s use of constructive conflict tactics predict lower levels of teen rejection sensitivity six years later? 3. Does the teen’s own use of conflict tactics that undermine peer autonomy predict heightened rejection sensitivity six years later? BACKGROUND RESEARCH QUESTIONS METHOD CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES Note. *p <.05 ** p <.01. N =184. Final Beta weights are presented above for analyses covarying gender and total income (not depicted). A Longitudinal Examination of Peer Influences on Adolescent Rejection Sensitivity Erin M. Miga, Joseph P. Allen, & Emily Marston University of Virginia This study was made possible by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator ( Grant # R01-MH58066) RESULTS Note. *p <.05 ** p <.01. N =184. Final Beta weights are presented above for analyses covarying gender and total income.