An experimental manipulation of rejection: Effects on children's attitudes and mood depend on rejection sensitivity and relationship history

Guided by rejection sensitivity (RS) theory, the objective of this study was to test whether children's RS was associated with elevated negative emotional responses (less positive in‐group attitudes and more negative mood) following an episode of overt peer rejection or ambiguous rejection, in comparison to acceptance. Also, the role of children's self‐reported history of peer acceptance was examined. Participants were 206 children (7–11 years) who were randomly assigned to experience rejection, ambiguous rejection, or acceptance in a group simulation study. Children's group liking and negative mood depended on the 3‐way interaction of experimental condition, RS and children's history. In the ambiguous condition, as expected, children with higher RS reported more negative mood, and this did not differ in low compared to high accepted children. However, RS was only associated with less positive group attitudes among high accepted children in the rejection condition, and RS was associated with more negative mood among low accepted children only (in both conditions). Findings show the relevance of RS for elevated negative mood when rejection threat is ambiguous, and the combined role of RS and social history in children's emotional responses when situations are less ambiguous.     

Can boundary crossings in clinical supervision be beneficial?

Published studies have addressed boundary violations by clinical supervisors, but boundary crossings, particularly those deemed positive by supervisees, have not received much attention. Eleven trainees in APA-accredited doctoral programs in clinical and counseling psychology were interviewed regarding positive boundary crossings (PBCs) they experienced with clinical supervisors. Interview data were analyzed using Consensual Qualitative Research. Examples of PBCs included socializing with supervisors outside the office, sharing car rides, and supervisor self-disclosure. Typically, supervisees did not discuss the PBC with their supervisors because they were uncomfortable doing so, felt that the PBC was normal, or felt that processing such issues was not part of the supervisor’s style. Most supervisees viewed the PBCs as enhancing the supervisory relationship and their clinical training; however, some participants reported that the PBCs created role confusion. The results suggest that there are legitimate reasons for supervisors to be scrupulous about their boundaries with supervisees; however, supervisors who hold rigid boundaries can deprive supervisees of deeper mentoring relationships or a more authentic emotional relationship that can be valuable to supervisees learning how to provide psychotherapy.