THE PAIN OF REJECTION: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ON THE REASONS

AND PROCESS OF REJECTION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS IN

PRE-ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Psychology Department
College of Liberal Arts
De La Salle University

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the
Degree in Bachelor of Arts
Major in Psychology

by
Riza Cuartero
Gail Franzine Guiang
Klein Cedric Murvy Sze
2013

PSYCHOLOGY
DEPARTMENT
THESIS
ACCEPTANCE
FORM
The Faculty of the Department of
Psychology of De La Salle University
accepts the thesis entitled:
The Pain of Rejection: A Qualitative Analysis on the
Reasons and Process of Rejection
Among College Students in Pre-romantic Relationships

Submitted by

Cuartero, Riza, Zausa

Guiang, Gail Franzine, Jose
Sze, Klein Cedric Murvy, Co

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Arts, Major in Psychology
MENTO Roberto E. Javier Jr., PhD
R
READE Katrina C. Fernando, MS
R
PAPER
GRADE
DATE
SUBMITTED April 16, 2013

Acknowledgement
First of all, we would like to thank God for giving us
the wisdom and the strength throughout the course of our

thesis. Most especially during the times when it seemed like

everything was not going according to plan. Thank you for
never leaving us during our weakest moments and giving us
good health despite the seemingly countless sleepless nights
we had to endure.

We would also like to thank Klein Szes family for

welcoming us in their humble home whenever we needed
somewhere to work on our thesis as a group. We are very
grateful for the hospitality you have shown and we shall
be forever in your debt for all your kindness.

In addition to this, we would also like to extend our

sincere gratitude to our families who were understanding
enough to support and motivate us throughout the course of
our thesis despite the fact that a lot of our family-time was
sacrificed.

And also, thank you batch mates, for the occasional

reminders regarding form and evaluation deadlines. Thank you
also for making us feel better during the times when we felt

like we were way behind schedule and working too slow. Thank
you, because you were able to calm us down whenever we
thought we couldnt finish before the deadlines.

Most of all, we would like to express our deepest

appreciation for the guidance, encouragement and mentoring of
Dr. Roberto Javier, Jr. and the comments and assistance of
our reader, Ms. Katrina Fernando, without whom, this
dissertation would not have been possible.

Riza Z. Cuartero
PSM-MGT/ 11044012
Gail Franzine J. Guiang
PSM-MGT/11033916
Klein Cedric Murvy C. Sze
PSM-BSA/ 11046864
April 16, 2013

Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Introduction
Background

Review of Related Literature

Strength of ties: Strong and weak

Weak or peripheral relationships: Acquaintances
Strong or intimate relationships: Friendships
Progression of Acquaintance to Romantic
Relationships
Progression of friendship to romantic
Relationship
Courtship
Rejection in Pre-romantic relationships
Process of rejection in pre-romantic
Relationships
Effects of rejection in pre-romantic
Relationships
Synthesis

4
5
9

Conceptual Framework
Statement of the Problem
Definition of Terms
Significance of the Study
Scope and Delimitations

14
17
19
21
12
28
29
31
34
34
35
37

Chapter 2 Methodology
Research Design
Sample and Sampling Design
Instruments
Data Gathering Procedures
Method of Data Analysis
Methodological Limitations

39
39
41
42
44
46

Chapter 3 Results
Reasons for Rejecting a Romantic Pursuit

47

Process of Rejection

55

Direct Manner of Rejection

55

Passive Manner of Rejection

Chapter 4 Discussion

57

Reasons for Rejecting a Romantic Pursuit

64

Direct Manner of Rejection

75

Passive Manner of Rejection

80

Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
References

86
88
88
90

Appendices
104
1 Interview Guide
107
2 Sample Transcription

Abstract
The main goal of this research is to study rejection in
pre-romantic

relationships,

particularly

between

acquaintances and cross-sex friends. It sought to explore

the rejecters perspective, specifically their reasons for
rejecting and the processes they go through when rejecting
a romantic pursuit. A qualitative approach was used wherein
8

narratives were analyzed through thematic analysis. Eight

participants were interviewed with ages ranging from 18 to
25 years old, four experienced rejecting an acquaintance
(two females and two males) and the other four experienced
rejecting a friend (two females and two males). Results
have shown that rejecters have common reasons for rejecting
however

some

of

the

reasons

vary

depending

on

the

relationship of the rejecter and the pursuer. In addition

to this, two manners on how rejection was executed emerged,
namely:

direct

Comprehensive

and

results,

passive

manner

implications,

future research are discussed.

and

of

rejection.

directions

for

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Evolutionary psychologists have already proven that

human beings are inherently social creatures wherein the
need for affiliation and establishment of relationships are
already inevitable parts of human nature (Lang, & Fingerman,
2003; Bleske & Buss, 2000). At the most basic level, social
ties are said to be necessary for humans to reproduce and
cope with evolutionary adaptive problems (Lang, & Fingerman,
2003; Bleske & Buss, 2000). Due to its prevalence, studies
determined various levels of social interactions such as
intimate dyads, family units, workplace organizations,
larger ethnic groups, social institutions, and the cultural
milieu (Lang, & Fingerman, 2003, p.3) which all
significantly contribute to the development of every
individual in the social world.

Throughout the course of developments, social

interactions and networks have been deemed central to the
structure and quality of interpersonal relationships

(Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). In addition, according

to Fingerman (2009), these social networks are actually
composed of both intimate and non-intimate ties, also known
as core and peripheral ties, which are essential for human
survival, enhancement of life quality and improvement of the
self. Connolly, Furman and Konarski (2000), have claimed
that these social networks have been the ones that paved the
way for the development of more intimate relationships in
the social world, from the weak ties of acquaintances to the
more stable and stronger ties of either friendships or
romantic relationships. It is important to note that close
relationships are different from intimate ones. However,
according to Collins and Sroufe (1999), some relationships
are considered as close relationships, which experience high
levels of contact and interdependence, even without being
intimate wherein mutual understanding, validation and care
is involved.

As these relationships between people with either core

and peripheral ties can progress towards romantic
relationships or depenetrate back to nothing (Altman, &

Taylor, 1973), the desire to advance the current

relationship strengthens. Despite this, not all advances are
favoured by both parties in the current relationship, this
situation lead individuals to refuse the offer of advancing
the relationship because of personal and non-personal
reasons. In the event of a romantic pursuit, individuals
have certain standards that often times cannot be met, and
there lies certain consequences for the romantic pursuer.
The uncertainties felt by both individuals in the
relationship drives the need to clear out its nature.
However, behaviors that display rejection do not evidently
come across accurate to the romantic pursuer. Questions such
as Why did he/she reject me?, What did I do wrong? are
some of the issues that will be answered in the study. The
research on the deformation of intimate and non-intimate
relationships has not been given much importance that it
leads to the confusion and presumptions on certain aspects
of relationships. The research aims to determine the reasons
for different forms of rejection using the lens of the
rejecters. The study also intends on creating a deeper

understanding of the reasons and processes of rejection in

pre-romantic relationships.

Review of Related Literature

The first section of this review of related literature
will describe the different strength of ties which involves
relationships such as acquaintances and friendships. Then,
the succeeding section will elucidate the process of
acquaintances and friendship towards romantic relationships.
The last section will expound on rejection and the
characteristics that distinguishes direct rejection from
passive rejection.

Strength of ties: Strong and weak

Granovetter (as cited in Ashman, Brown and Zwick, 1998),
attempted to determine a rough intuitive basis of the
strength of these social ties based on the amount of time
together, the emotional intensity, mutuality, and
reciprocity in the relationship.

However, despite not claiming a precise definition of

the strength of relationships, he managed to identify two
types of ties which were the weak and strong ties
previously mentioned. Further studies were able to support
this basis when they described strong relationship ties as
denoting a consistent interacting pattern, strong and
frequent influence on the partner and an ability to affect
the behaviour of the other (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski,
2000). These kinds of relationship involve self-disclosures
such as personal information about oneself (Vacharkulksemsuk
& Fredrickson, 2011).

Weak or peripheral relationships: Acquaintances

Weak or peripheral ties are kinds of ties that can also
be addressed in common parlance as acquaintance. According
to Granovetter (as cited in Baer, 2010), acquaintances, also
regarded as the weak ties, are less involved in the
relationship compared to those in strong ties. Considering
the influx of technology and the prevalence of social
networking sites which paved innovative ways for people to
communicate, a surge in peripheral ties seem to have emerged

(Sponcil & Gitimu, 2012). According to Boyd and Ellison

(2007, as cited in Sponcil, & Gitimu, 2012) social network
sites allow users to connect with one another, provide info
about oneself, read and post status and updates, and send
and receive messages instantly.

This can be a seemingly constant source of information

and updates regarding people within ones social network.
These social sites have helped in fulfilling the need for
communication by means of providing its users a means of
communication which can be accessed anytime, at their own
pace (Urista, Dong, & Day, 2009).

Given these innovations, humans ability to communicate

has been made easier and more convenient. Thus, has
permitted the formation of large groups, beyond dyadic
exchanges. As such, people list from a few hundred to
thousands of individuals in their personal networks.
(Fingerman,2009). The term consequential strangers,
pertaining to peripheral relationships or acquaintances,
was coined in order to indicate that these type of ties

rest above the realm of strangers but below the threshold

of intimacy. (Fingerman, 2004 as cited in Fingerman, 2009,
p. 72). In contrast to intimate relationships, consequential
strangers do not have mutually self-disclosing
conversations, nor do they derive a sense of being
understood, validated and cared for (Collins & Sroufe,
1999). They do not fill the need for intimacy and are often
tenuously linked or sometimes not at all (Fingerman, 2009).

Consequential ties have also been known to serve

compartmentalized functions which mean that different weak
partners may serve different unique functions in an
individual's social world (Fingerman, 2009; Collins &
Sroufe, 1999). According to Lydon, Holmes and Jamieson
(1997) acquaintance relationship is a non-unit which is
defined as the lack feelings of closeness and connectedness
of unit relations wherein despite moderate levels of
similarity, perceived similarities of non-unit relations
might be relatively lower (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson,
1997). An illustration of this is although proximity may be

high between neighbours, their relationship lacks affective

intensity (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson, 1997).

Some weak ties do not progress to intimate ties,

contrary to established social theories (Lydon, Holmes, &
Jamieson, 1997; Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). There
are times when weak ties either remain acquaintances or lose
contact completely. The absence of progress in this kind of
relationship may be due to negative emotions, indifference
or simply, lack of opportunity (Lydon, Holmes and Jamieson,
1997).

However, usually, intimate relationships often do

commerce via acquaintanceship, proceeding to friendship or
romantic ties (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson, 1997; Fingerman,
2009; Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). This is normally
attained by means of friendship behaviours which both
communicates ones desire to be friends and assists in
developing the relationship, in hopes of being able to
establish a friendship (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson, 1997).
However, it is important to note that these potential

friends still have the status of acquaintances wherein

different social exchanges and interactions are expected
from them as compared to established friends (Clark,
1984). Similar principles exist with some additions, in
establishing a romantic relationship, which is another type
of intimate relationship (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson, 1997).

Strong or intimate relationships: Friendships

Intimate relationships are now distinguished from nonintimate or peripheral ties based on the level of investment
and stability of the relationship (Fingerman, 2009).
According to Collins and Sroufe (1999), such ties include
relationships involving friends, couples, and families,
however functions and typical exchanges within each of these
types of dyads may differ respectively. These relationships
include affection and serve multiple functions in the lives
of the people involved (Fingerman, 2009).

The most common type of strong interpersonal tie is

friendship which can be generally defined as the continuous
interaction of individuals who are dependent of each other.

These individuals are actively responding to one another

usually involving certain levels of companionship, intimacy,
affection and mutual assistance (Wright, 1984; Hays, 1988,
as cited in Chan & Cheng, 2004). David Annis (1987), on the
other hand defines friendship (i.e. same-sex and cross-sex)
by its central elements shown through descriptions often
used to label what is a friend and what is not: (a) liking
each other being attracted to each other (i.e. platonic,
sexual or romantic), (b) sharing ones experiences and selfdisclosure to the other, (c) having feelings of empathy for
the other, and (d) having interpersonal trust (p. 349).
According to OMeara (1989, as stated in Harvey, 2003), to
be able to maintain the friendship between individuals, both
must create a communal relationship.

However, the initial challenges in maintaining

friendships are about defining and creating boundaries
within the friendship. These delineation confines the
behavior of individuals within friendship, especially in
cross-sex friendships. With the intention of creating a
clear distinction between different dyadic relationships,

10

Fuhrman, Flannagan and Matamoros (2009) aimed to distinguish

same-sex friendship, cross-sex friendship and romantic
relationship through perceived behavior expectations from
self-reports. Their study assumes that cross-sex encompassed
both features of same-sex friendships and romantic
relationships. The dilemma was the overlapping
characteristics of same-sex friendship and cross-sex
relationship, as well as romantic relationship and cross-sex
friendship. Like same-sex friendships, cross-sex friendship
is also characterized by the presence of emotional support,
acceptance, shared activities, social feedback and the
minimal expression of sexual behaviors, however it tends to
shift when the expression of sexual behaviors are taken into
account (Davis & Todd, 1982; Sapadin, 1988 as cited in
Fuhrman, Flannagan & Matamoros, 2009). The study concluded
that the perceived behavior expectations of man and woman in
romantic relationships are vastly different from their
behavior expectations of cross-sex friendships mostly from
individuals who are in a romantic relationship of their own.

11

Furthermore, findings also constitute that cross-sex

friendships, are also in part platonic, which means that
friends either do not or would not express attraction
towards each other (Harvey, 2003). However, due to the lack
of clearly defined set of norms or guidelines,
distinguishing cross-sex friendships from the other types of
dyadic relationships become a challenge (Harvey, 2003).
Nonetheless, individuals who want to maintain a platonic
friendship reduce their sexualities amongst each other by
means of not discussing topics such as sex (Guerrero &
Chavez, 2005). This makes cross-sex friends consider or
think twice about the nature of their relationship.

As stated by Hays (1985), any friendship poses its

benefits and costs. These costs can be represented by the
sexual and romantic attraction one or both friends would
experience towards each other; it is reported that it causes
ambiguity in the state of their friendship relationship
(Kaplan & Keys, 1997, Swain 1992 as cited in Bleske & Buss,
2000). This was supported by Harris & Kurzweil (1994),
affirming that the attraction and romantic pursuit that

12

would lead to uncertainty in the relationship is one of the

challenges of cross-sex friendship.

The main challenge is actually the relational

uncertainties that friends experience within the
relationship (Hays, 1985). Relational uncertainty as defined
by Harvey (2003), is the extent to which people lack
confidence about the accuracy of their perceptions of the
partners involvement. They also discussed a specific form
of relational uncertainty, also known as mutuality
uncertainty that happens when partners are not very sure if
their feelings are reciprocated. Instances where the
relationship may experience disagreements may happen between
cross-sex friends during the progress of their relationship
(Hays, 1985).

Progression of Acquaintance to Romantic Relationships

Previous studies have shown that males and females do
not differ in their capacity to develop intimate
relationships such as friendships and romantic relationships

13

(Hays, 1985). In addition to this, there is not much data

regarding the processes by which individuals in the real
world go beyond the initial attraction to develop romantic
ties (Hays, 1985). But Clarks (1984) studies managed to
demonstrate that whenever there is a potential for an
intimate relationship to develop, an individual naturally
responds by adopting a communal orientation that is
characteristic of the potential relationship, may it be
friendship or a romantic relationship. This only means that
acquaintances that plan on taking the relationship to a more
intimate level, such as friendship or romantic relationship,
must behave similar to how friends or lovers are
expected to behave.

Based on the Social Penetration theory, relationships

are actually systematic and predictable in terms of how it
develops and progresses from something non-intimate to
intimate. According to Altman and Taylor (1973), when
relationships deepen over time and manage to surpass the
phase of surface presentation to the raw personal truth,
it immediately means that social penetration has taken

14

place. This suggests that acquaintances, a non-intimate

relationship, only progresses towards a more intimate
relationship such as friendship, by means of selfdisclosures up to some permissible depth (Altman & Taylor,
1973). Thus, self-disclosure can be perceived as the core of
relationship development.

Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredricksons (2011) study, was

able to support the significance of the role of selfdisclosure when they came to a conclusion that not only does
it promote relationships, but it also builds rapport which
is an essential ingredient of relationship development
through mechanisms of liking and positive affect. In
addition, according to Collins and Miller (1994), people who
engage in more intimate self-disclosures are liked more,
compared to people who disclose at lower levels. They also
mentioned that people only self-disclose to those who they
seem to like, and it is by nature that they tend to like
people as a result of having disclosed to them.

15

Acquaintances, who are going through the transition

phase from acquaintance relationship to romantic
relationship, communicate their desire by means of
responding to the needs of the other person as compared with
established friends who mainly deal with reciprocity when
advancing a romantic pursuit (Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson,
1997). According to Lydon, Holmes and Jamieson (1997),
acquaintances are also concerned about reciprocity but
unlike in established friendships, it only serves as an
indication of acceptance or rejection of their pursuits.
Given this, acquaintances are said to experience discomfort
either because of the ambiguity and uncertainty of advancing
the relationship or the fear of being rejected.

The anxiety experienced by acquaintances in the

transitional phase of the relationship only serves as a
reminder of the fact that trust is still not firmly
established (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Thus in response to
this, the social interactions and exchanges in the
relationship are usually done to be able to promote and
establish assurance in an attempt to eliminate the

16

uncertainty for the would-be-relationship (Kelley &

Thibaut, 1978). This approach was supported by Collins and
Miller (1994) in their study which suggested that social
interactions actually serve as platforms for the development
of intimate relationships. Considering this, social
interactions are then expected to pave the way for progress
for initial interaction to follow a Guttman progression
towards the establishment of friendship or romantic
relationship (Hays, 1985).

Progression of friendship to romantic relationship

The attraction experienced in friends can be explained
earlier by the social penetration theory which posits that
the development of friendship would intensify the intimacy
between friends especially between cross-sex friends in
relation to the magnitude of their interaction (Hays, 1985);
although it is already common for cross-sex friends to
report being attracted to their friend (Fuhrman, Flannagan,&
Matamoros, 2009).

17

Media also plays a role in the attraction in cross-sex

friendships, Monsour (2002) noted that media suggests that
man and woman who are friends are naturally attracted to
each other. People influenced by the media portray or show
attraction to ones opposite-sex friend because it is what
is seen as normal behavior. According to Rose and Afifi
(1985, 1994 as cited in Harvey, 2003), self-reports indicate
that the cross-sex friendship relationships would
occasionally involve affection and flirtation because of the
relationships possible romantic or sexual repercussions.
Supporting this idea was the recent evolutionary-based
research of Bleske-Rechek, Somers, Micke, Erickson,
Matteson, Stocco, Schumacher, and Ritchie (2012) on crosssex friendships; their studys findings concluded that the
sexual and romantic attraction between cross-sex friends is
a predominant occurrence and that men initiate cross-sex
friendship in order to gain sexual or romantic access from
their cross-sex friend.

Courtship

18

Given that attraction among friends is predominant,

individuals are likely to behave in a way that would signal
their desire for the relationship to advance which,
according to Owens (2006), is courtship. Owens (2006) stated
that courtship can be associated with the wheel theory of
love by Reiss which showed that the development of love
during the courtship process follows a standard progression.
In the process of courtship, couples build rapport which
results to shared attitudes and interests. This is also the
point wherein partners will reveal information about
themselves to the other. As they learn more and more about
one another, they begin to feel closer and eventually, there
is a mutual understanding that grows between them (Owens,
2006). Courtship, unlike dating, differs in the sense that
it is more structured and subject to cultural norms (Owens,
2006).

There are two factors which affect the courtship

behavior of humans: instincts and culture. These patterns
which humans have learned from different people around them
are behavioral in nature. They are sometimes joined hand in

19

hand (Swertz, 2007). According to Nietzsche and Darwin,

culture depends primarily on instincts (Miller 1999).
Besides having primary instincts, media can also influence
ones social behavior (Swertz, 2007). This suggests that
courtship behavior is both nurture and nature. Thus, this
culture is passed on from one generation to another which
also changes time (Swertz, 2007).

According to Becker (as cited in Owens, 2006), courtship

involves the well-known exchange theory in courtship wherein
it is perceived as a long interview to identify the best
deal one can derive from the potential partner given his
limited resources. However, studies have gone against this
notion for the reason that it has neglected compelling
nature of love and its desire to create a lasting bond
(Owens, 2006; Swertz, 2007)

In the process of courtship, Owens (2006) stated that

there is actually a filter theory which was posited to
pertain to partner choice. Generally, potential partners go
through stages which evaluate their attractiveness, values

20

and complementarity with the one being pursued. Although it

has been established that physical attractiveness is
important for a romantic partnership to start, people
generally choose partners whom they perceive as having the
same level of attractiveness to their own.

Rejection in pre-romantic relationships

When desires for a more intimate relationship is not
favored by the other, this often leads to the absence of
reciprocity and the termination of the pursuit whether for
friendship or romantic relationship (Altman, & Taylor,
1973). However, ending a pursuit is said to be more
prevalent in relationships that desire to evolve into
romantic relationships which may be due to the fact that to
accept ones love requires a person to reject the love of
others (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009). According to Leary
(2005), being refused by the person one loves is the most
painful experience. These situations are regarded as
unrequited love wherein men usually take the role of the
rejectee, while women report more frequent experiences of
being the rejecter (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993).

21

Process of rejection in pre-romantic relationships

According to Kelly and Thibauts (1978) theory on
interdependence, whenever an individual rejects a pursuit
for a romantic relationship, the rejectee tends to make an
effort to make the other person know what he/she is feeling
and is now going through in an attempt to elicit empathy.
However, despite these attempts, rejecters will still have
the choice to reject the aspiring partner in a cruel and
humiliating way (Kelly & Thibaut, 1978). When this kind of
rejection occurs, rejecters and rejectees usually end up
feeling like victims due to the negative outcomes of each of
their actions (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993).
Accordingly, Rubin, Peplau & Hill (1981) mentioned that if
men find it more difficult than women to renounce their
love, individuals might also expect relations between former
partners to be more strained after the woman has rejected
the man than vice versa.

However, the concept of social constructionism has paved

the way for another method of rejection which adopts a more

22

passive approach (Bernstein, 1983). This assumes that

communication is the process by which a particular group
creates their social reality. It suggests that individuals
create, sustain, and change their realities by means of
communication and interaction (Bernstein, 1983). As
mentioned by Duck (1992), talking is a means of forming and
stabilizing interpersonal relationships. Individuals who
tend to reject romantic pursuits may talk about their
current romantic relationships as a way of telling the
rejectee that they are already involved with someone else
which is an indirect way of showing disinterest in the
romantic pursuit while still considering the welfare of the
other (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). Wood (1982) believes that
relationships and realities must be properly communicated by
means of talking. In addition to this, the level of intimacy
and how the friendship will be perceived is highly dependent
on what the individuals involved will agree on, along with
their inner dialogues.

In an attempt to avoid hurting the rejectee, oftentimes,

the rejecter creates ways of communicating about the

23

friendship in order to develop and maintain the relationship

rather than to become romantic partners (Harvey, 2003).
Maintenance, as suggested by Dindia (1994, 2003), is a
dynamic process that involves adapting to the changing needs
and goals that characterize the relationship. Both the
rejecter and rejectee use maintenance behaviors to decide
whether to maintain the status quo, move the friendship into
a new romantic phase, or discourage the friend from pursuing
a romantic relationship by effectively coping with change
through behaviors like frequency of communication, intimacy,
disclosures and the like (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). Aside
from that, they pointed out four common conceptualizations
of maintenance. Keeping a relationship in existence means to
keep the stability of the relationship. Next refers to
keeping the relationship in specified state wherein the
individuals involved in the relationship will strive to
retain the relationship in its present stage. Another
concept is keeping the relationship satisfying which entails
the responsibility of the individuals to maintain the
quality of relationship. Lastly, is the concept of keeping
the relationship in repair wherein the individuals overcome

24

problems and transgressions they encounter in the

relationship (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005).

In addition to this study, according to Turner and West

(1998), narratives can assist in keeping the relationship by
producing myths that provide prescription or direction on
how the friendship should continue. These narratives
actually help the individuals in the friendship to
understand and make sense of the relationship (Turner &
West, 1998). The concept of "myth" depends less on what is
perceived to be real and more on what we want to be real.
Narratives use myths in the cross-sex friendships as
partners try to communicate about their feelings and
interests to each other (Harvey, 2003).

In this kind of situation, Guerrero and Chavez (2005)

have claimed that rejecters are the ones who usually report
having to use more routine contact and activity, less
relationship talk, and more flirtation than those of the
rejectees.

25

After rejection, previous research have shown that a

woman who rejected a man may be able to reconstruct her
relationship from love to friendship - which, as Davis
(1973) notes, is often considered as a euphemism for
acquaintanceship since a rejected man may find such label
more difficult to accomplish (Rubin, Peplau & Hill, 1981).

When it comes to experiences in rejection, however,

despite the mentioned studies, Baumeister and Finkel (2009)
claimed that rejecters actually have a difficult time
refusing love even if they do not really want it. They often
feel guilty which results to why they usually create reasons
and avoid the conversation rather than directly rejecting
the pursuers advances (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009). The lack
of desire for the relationship to progress can be explained
by the theory of falling upward, by Baumeister and Wotman
(1992), which states that when a person falls for someone
that is better than him or her, it usually leads to romantic
disappointment. The study cited an example which, similar to
the filter theory stated that a person may fall in love with
an intelligent and beautiful person but unless the other

26

person has equal intelligence or physical beauty, that

person will reject the other. People reject others who do
not meet their standards (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009).
Experiences reported in studies, however, have reported that
rejecters do not want to hurt the rejectees feelings because
hurt feelings only signify an attempt to completely
terminate ones connection with the rejectee (Baumeister &
Finkel, 2009).

It was mentioned that social constructionism has already

acknowledged the existence of a passive manner of rejection
which catered to the attempts of the rejecters to not hurt
their rejectees. However, Sinclair and Frieze (2005) claimed
that adopting this method would only cause confusion in a
way that the rejecters intention may be misunderstood. This
is because the use of statements may be interpreted
differently. It has been said that this kind of approach may
be ineffective because usually rejection is only taken as an
actual rejection when the pursuer is explicitly rejected.
Rejectees, particularly male rejectees, may experience
negativeness blindness in their romantic pursuits

27

(Sinclair & Frieze, 2005). Negativeness blindness pertains

to the tendency of a rejectee to ignore a rejection after
having realized its occurrence in an attempt to save face
(Sinclair & Frieze, 2005). A study by Sinclair, Borgida, &
Collins (2002) even reported that 60% of rejectees still
hope that the relationship would work out despite having
acknowledged that they have been rejected and that the
rejecter had meant it.

Effects of rejection in pre-romantic relationships

In addition to this, when it comes to the rejectees,
Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, and Bartels (2007)
revealed that rejected people show a significant decrease in
prosocial behaviour after the experience. Their study showed
that rejectees were less generous in donating money to a
student fund, less willing to do a favor that was asked of
them, and less likely to interact with others on a
laboratory game. In addition, rejection leads to a variety
of different psychological outcomes including depression,
anxiety, diminished self-worth, sense of losing control, and
impaired cognitive and self-regulatory abilities (Leary,

28

Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Zardo, Williams & Richardson,

2004; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000; Baumeister, DeWall,
Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002).

MacDonald and Leary (2005) also showed that rejection

causes the feeling of numbness. However, despite the
negative effects of rejection, rejected people eventually
become more careful in selecting friends and in finding
people who seem likely to accept them for who they are than
before (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009).

Synthesis
The body of literature regarding rejections of romantic
pursuits in pre-romantic relationships such as friendship
and acquaintance relationship so far has only focused on the
process of how it happens, how they make it happen and how
it affects the rejectees. Data regarding the reasons for the
rejections are relatively lacking and seem to be focused
only on surface data such as preference, attractiveness and
even notions of avoiding to hurt the rejectees feelings. In
addition to this, a large number of literatures did not seem

29

to regard the rejecters as a major perspective to look into;

instead most of them seemed bias toward the rejectees point
of views.

Given that existing literature has limited data

regarding how rejections occur in pre-romantic
relationships, this study will attempt to go further into
the reasons that influence people into rejecting someone
both in outright and passive ways. It will also attempt to
clearly determine the difference between why people choose
to reject someone in a direct or passive way and determine
whether being in an acquaintance or friendship relationship,
prior to the romantic pursuit, matters in the method of
rejection to be utilized.

Conceptual Framework
According to Bleske and Buss (2000), relationships are
something inevitable in order to cater to the evolutionary
adaptive problems of the world. They are derived from the

30

social networks, composed of non-intimate ties or

acquaintances, wherein more intimate relationships such as
friendship and romantic relationships are formed (Fingerman,
2009). The process of intimate relationships usually begins
with acquaintances, then usually proceeds to more intimate
relationships such as friendship or romantic relationships
(Lydon, Holmes, & Jamieson, 1997; Fingerman, 2009; Connolly,
Furman, & Konarski, 2000). In the weak relationship of
acquaintances, studies have shown that individuals who
desire to take the current relationship into a romantic one
usually do communal acts similar of that of lovers; so as
meeting the needs of the other person. This is done to be
able to manifest their interest in advancing the
acquaintance relationship.

On the other hand, in strong pre-romantic ties such as

cross-sex friendship, courtship is based from the innate
behavior and its environment (Swertz, 2007). The social
penetration theory assumes that the development of
friendship would intensify the intimacy between cross-sex

31

friends in relation to the magnitude of their interaction

(Hays, 1985).

When the desire for the relationship to progress is not

mutual, rejection follows. This may lead to the termination
of friendship or the depenetration to acquaintance
relationship (Altman, & Taylor, 1973). Kelly and Thibauts
(1978) theory of interdependence states that in the process
of rejection, the rejectee tends to let the rejecter feel
what he/she is feeling. However, despite these attempts, the
rejecter may still reject the aspiring partner in a cruel
way in order to let the rejectee feel the humiliation.

Although the previously mentioned way of rejection is

the usual method in previous studies, the concept of social
constructionism has identified another method of rejection
(Bernstein, 1983). There are times when rejecters use a
passive method to show disinterestedness in romantic pursuit
and to avoid hurting the other while not sacrificing their
friendship (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). This assumes that

32

communication is the key to be able to create a social

reality one wants to establish for the relationship.

Figure 1. Diagram of Types of Pre-romantic Relationships

with Focus on the reasons of rejection

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the reasons of direct and
passive rejection in pre-romantic relationships and identify

33

how the reasons differ between rejection in friendship and

acquaintance relationship.

1. What are the reasons of rejection in pre-romantic

relationships?
2. How does rejection occur in pre-romantic relationships?
a. How do rejecters directly reject their pursuers?
b. How do rejecters passively reject their
pursuers?

Definition of Terms
1. Acquaintance is the type of ties that rest above
the realm of strangers but below the threshold of
intimacy(Fingerman, 2009, p.72).

2. Friendship Individuals actively responding to one

another usually involving varying degrees of
companionship, intimacy, affection, and mutual
assistance (Hays, 1988, p.395).

34

3. Direct Rejection The method of refusing an aspiring

romantic partner in a clear and concise outright manner.

4. Passive a method of refusing an aspiring romantic

partner in an ambiguous way; makes use of an action/s
which may be interpreted differently by the rejectee.

Significance of the Study

This study will be a significant contribution to the
pool of knowledge with regards to the forms of rejection and
its implications on the development and integration of
dyadic relationships specifically acquaintance and cross-sex
friendship. Furthermore, compared to current studies on
rejection which solely relies on the rejectees perspective
of the occurrence, this study strives on knowing rejection
from the rejecters perspective.

This study will be about the relational dissolution of

pre-romantic dyadic relationships, which has rarely been
researched on; and since it is focused on the rejection of
romantic pursuits, the study will be able to get a glimpse

35

of how rejecters in particular evaluate and select potential

mates in this day and age.

Moreover, it provides a new direction in the study of

the different mediums of communication that college students
utilize and the actions, strategies and techniques they use
in order to end their relationships. Also, since building
interpersonal relationships are innate in ones nature, this
study aids people to be aware of how they terminate and
maintain their relationships.

In addition, the study will also be able to clearly

define the reasons for direct and passive rejection. This
can also be of benefit for rejectees or individuals who are
rejected, for it would enable them to discern their place
within their existing relationship, whether it be an
acquaintance or friendship relationship. The results of the
study could inform people on how to address their
acquaintances or cross-sex friends who wish to forward their
relationship to a romantic one.

36

The study also posits links between modernization and

interpersonal relationships. The study will illustrate the
importance of the different contributing reasons and
processes that lead to direct and passive rejection in preromantic relationships, particularly between acquaintances
and cross-sex friends. This study can be a foundation for
future research of rejection and its role in dyadic
interpersonal relationships which will be discussed in the
later chapters of the study.

Scope and Delimitations

This study will focus on determining the reasons
rejecters usually consider when they reject, in a direct or
passive manner, a romantic pursuit from individuals in their
pre-romantic relationships. Given that there are a number of
pre-romantic relationships, the researchers will only draw
their attention to two specific pre-romantic relationships
namely, friendship and acquaintance relationship. In
addition to this, the study will only focus on heterosexual
relationships. This study will not cover any information

37

from the rejectees point of view nor the outcomes of

rejection in either type of pre-romantic relationship.

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Research Design

38

The study adopted a qualitative approach which utilized

thematic analysis in determining the reasons people consider
when rejecting romantic pursuits from individuals in their
pre-romantic relationships. Given that there are only few
existing studies which attempt to discover the reasons
rejecters have behind the direct and passive rejections of
romantic pursuits from friends and acquaintances, this
qualitative research design was most appropriate for the
reason that it not only described the data in rich detail,
it also interpreted various aspects of the topic by
identifying and describing the implicit and explicit ideas
within the gathered data.

Sample and Sampling Design

The researchers utilized the purposive sampling
technique in choosing the participants of this study.
Participants that were included for this research were
individuals with ages ranging from 18 to 25 years old
because this is a distinct period where romantic experiences
are unique compared to other developmental periods (Arnett,
2000, 2006). Arnett (2000) proposed this new demographic

39

phase as emerging adulthood since crucial changes take place

in their sense of self and capacity for self-rejection. It
is a life span between adolescence and full-fledge adulthood
where individuals in this stage have always struggled with
identity exploration, instability, self-focus, and feeling
in between (Arnett, 2000).

Participants have experienced rejecting either a

romantic pursuit from a friend and an acquaintance during
their high school or college years. These participants were
obtained through the use familiar connections and referrals
that match the criteria of the study. The sampling technique
used was chain sampling technique - the use of well-informed
people to gather other participants who are also
knowledgeable about the topic. This technique was used to
identify a number of cases pinpointed by the number of
expert informants as important cases that has built enough
data.

The study acquired 8 participants, 4 participants

were selected based on their experiences in rejecting a

romantic pursuit from an acquaintance (2 female and 2 male)
and 4 participants were selected based on their experiences

40

in rejecting a romantic pursuit from friend (2 female and 2

male) for the interviews.

Instruments
The study used semi-structured interviews to be able to
elicit data from the participants. Questions were regarding
the experiences of the rejecters when rejecting romantic
pursuits from their friends and acquaintances and it mainly
focused on what influences the decision of the rejecters to
reject their friends or acquaintances romantic pursuits. An
interview guide was developed for the interviews. Pilot
testing was conducted prior the actual interviews to be able
to determine whether the questions will be able to elicit
information the researchers needed for the study.

Interviews were done to be able to gather as much data

from participants regarding their individual experiences
without the influence of peers or other people in the
process. A tape recorder was also used to record the
interviews for the transcribing of oral data.

41

Data-gathering Procedures
Before beginning the interviews, preliminary procedures
were done such as defining the purpose of the interview,
identifying and inviting the participants, setting up the
schedule and location for the each participant, and
generating the interview guide. After that was the
delegation of the different roles in the interview (i.e.
interviewer and recorder). After gathering the sample of
participants, data was collected through individual
interviews. Pilot testing of the interview guide was
conducted prior the actual interviews. The interviews were
held at the Council of Student Organizations (CSO)
Conference Room during their preferred schedules.
Participants in the interviews, including the participants
for pilot testing, were briefed regarding the topic, the
goal of the interview and were asked if they would allow the
session to be recorded. They were also reminded that they
can refuse to participate or skip any questions they do not
want to answer at any time, and the information they gave
the researchers will be kept confidential. The one-on-one

42

interviews lasted approximately 30-45 minutes for each

respondent.

Initially, the participants were asked for basic

information such as their age, the school they came from and
their respective courses. Then, small talks followed in
order to make the participants comfortable and to build
rapport between the respondents and the interviewer. Some of
the small talks made use of questions such as Have you
eaten?, Did you have trouble getting here?, and the like.
This was done to be able to gain the trust of the
participants for them to be at ease when they are disclosing
their rejection experiences. After this, the interview guide
followed wherein probing and follow up questions were done
during both the interviews.

After each interview, participants were debriefed of

what had taken place in the session and were thanked for
their participation. All of the recorded data was
transcribed verbatim for data analysis which was then
checked by the interviewees for validation.

43

Method of Data Analysis

Data gathered from the interviews were analyzed first by
open coding since analysis of qualitative data is ongoing
and iterative. Here, categories of information were formed
regarding the rejecters experience on rejection. It was
important in this step to ask what the individuals were
saying in terms of their experience in rejection. Also, in
this process, data was analyzed line by line and was divided
into meaningful analytical units to identify meaningful
segments. During open coding, a master list of the codes was
developed for future reference.

After open coding, the codes which seemed to appear

frequently were grouped into themes and categories. This is
called axial coding wherein codes that were gathered from
the open coding were categorized. Coding schemes was also
created to define identified themes in order to be
classified and summarized until data was deemed accurate and
truthful. Memoing was also done to be able to keep track of
ideas and insights throughout the analyses. Other data

44

analysis techniques such as data reduction were also used to

be able to select, focus and simplify data from the
transcripts. The final themes selected were not based from
the prevalence of the responses of the participants in the
interviews, but from the essence or importance of response
that captures the study (Lichtman, 2013).

Furthermore, the identified themes were able to create

concrete answers to the research problems, thus increasing
the validity of the procedures. After identifying singlecase analysis themes of rejection between friends and
rejection between acquaintances, the themes were compared
through cross-case analysis. Cross-case analysis was able to
distinguish the similarities and the differences of the
resulted themes of rejection towards an acquaintance and
rejection towards a friend.

Methodological Limitations

45

Given that the study utilized the thematic analysis

approach, the researchers were limited to identifying
patterns and themes regarding the reasons and processes
individuals go through in a direct and passive rejection
with the use of self-reports gathered from participants. In
addition, interpretations were limited to the descriptions
of the phenomenon being studied. Since the interviews
focused on the distinctive individual experiences of the
respondents, the data gathered from the various interviews
cannot be compared with each other; thus, making it
difficult to derive universally applicable generalizations.

CHAPTER 3

46

RESULTS
The results section of this study is divided into three
parts: the reasons behind the rejection of the romantic
pursuit of friends and acquaintance, the direct manner for
rejecting a romantic pursuit among friends and
acquaintances, and the passive manner for rejecting a
romantic pursuit among friends and acquaintances.

Reasons for Rejecting a Romantic Pursuit

The participants yielded a variety of reasons for
rejecting a romantic pursuit. Table 1 answers the research
problem, What are the reasons of rejection in pre-romantic
relationships? The themes emerged are the following: (1)
Reluctance in losing the friendship, (2) Weak foundation of
the relationship, (3) Physical Appearance, (4) Perception of
the rejecter towards the rejectee, (5) Influences from
significant others, and (6) Revenge.

Table 1. Themes on the reasons for rejecting a romantic

pursuit among friends and acquaintances

47

Reasons

Definition

Reluctance to

Rejecter prioritizes keeping the friendship hence

lose the

unwilling to accept romantic pursuit because of the

friendship

thought of losing the built relationship.

Weak foundation

Having a subjective disposition of the strength of

of the

the acquaintance relationship or friendship before

relationship

committing to a romantic relationship.

Physical

The specific external attributes of the romantic

Appearance

pursuer that the rejecter finds unattractive.

Perception of the

The rejecters evaluation of the personality or

rejecter towards

attitude of the rejectee that they find

the rejectee

unappealing.

Influences from

Being swayed in actions and/or behaviors by the

significant

opinion of people relatively close to the rejecter.

others
Revenge

Seeking retaliation for the hurt caused by being

rejected in the past relationship with the pursuer.

Reluctance to lose the friendship

Data showed that one of the main reasons why rejecters
reject their friends romantic pursuit is the threat of
losing the friendship they have already established. One
respondent answered that maintaining the friendship is

48

better than letting it progress to a romantic relationship,

Sayang yung friendship. (Respondent I). Other respondents
reported that going into a romantic relationship could
weaken or lose the friendship You do not want to ruin what
you have which is yung friendship niyo, matagal yung
foundation so yun. (Respondent P) and Kasi yung
friendship malapit na siya sa as in maging super close e.
Ayoko naman na mawala siya. (Respondent A). One respondent
also stated that, Mas mahalaga yung friendship namin.
(Respondent G).

Weak foundation of the Relationship

One of the respondents reported that the foundation of
their friendship was not enough to progress to a romantic
relationship. The respondent said, Kasi parang kulang pa
yung foundation na na-lay down nung time na yon. (Respondent
I). According to him, the foundation of the relationship
was perceived as weak based on the length of time they have
known each other. The duration of their friendship played an
important role on how the rejecter judged how strong the
foundation of the relationship was. This was because of the

49

fact it was where the respondent based his judgment on

whether they have been able to spend enough time together,
to a point of knowing each other well enough to even
consider the progression of the relationship to a more
romantic one.

Physical Appearance
Some respondents reported that a major factor that
affects a rejecter to reject a romantic pursuit is the
pursuers physical appearance, especially in acquaintance
relationships. One said, Shes shes not super pretty.
(Respondent H). Another mentioned, Una, mataba siya.
(Respondent R).

Perception of the rejecter towards the rejectee

Another theme that emerged from the data gathered was
the discernment of the rejecters towards their romantic
pursuer. This was the rejecters perceived characteristics
of their romantic pursuer which they found unappealing and
eventually led them to reject the offer of escalating the
current relationship to a romantic one.

50

Two of the respondents mentioned that they rejected the

romantic pursuer because of being a flirt. A male respondent
said, Shes pretty popular then. Malandi siya e Then I
didnt want to kasi shes malandi. (Respondent H). A female
respondent also stated, Marami siyang girls. (Respondent
M).

Rejecters, associate having a lot of girls and being

popular with being a flirt, this does not necessarily mean

that the characteristics mentioned by the rejecter are true
or accurate.

Another respondent said that the romantic pursuer was

too dependent, and this was what led him to reject her. He
reported that the pursuer was, Parang laging nagpapababy.
(Respondent R).

Being too stagy, apathetic, lazy and irresponsible were

also the other perceptions mentioned that the rejecters
found as unappealing; as a respondent stated, Maarte
(Respondent R) ,Yung wala siyang drive to better or to

51

make it big in life. (Respondent H) and Tapos nagaaral

kami lahat then wala siyang ginagawa (Respondent J).

The respondents also pointed out characteristics of

their romantic pursuer that the rejecters found unlikeable.
The following were mentioned during the interview were:
manliness, aggressiveness, and moodiness, Ahhh masyadong
manly yung gesture niya. Aggressive, tapos ano pano nga ba
may mood swings siya. (Respondent I).

Always being jealous, possessive and intimidating traits

were also seen by the rejecter as unlikeable, Ayon, parang
wala lang, typical na pag may lumapit na kaibigan selos na
agad, possessive in a way parang ganon. (Respondent I).

One of the respondents reasons was that her romantic

pursuer was too nice, Yung ano yung ugali niya sobrang
bait niya kasi natatakot ako sobrang bait niya e.
(Respondent G).

52

In their cases, this was how the romantic pursuer came

across to the rejecter. It is important to note that these
qualities of the romantic pursuer may not be as truthful as
to how the rejecter has observed them.

Influences from significant others

Even external factors such as friends and family can
influence the decision of the rejecter in rejecting romantic
pursuits. One mentioned, Kunyari may mga friends na
lalake nagbibigay sila ng realizations na if ever kapag
kunyari tinry ko entertain mahihirapan na ako na kumawala
dun kasi may pagkaano nga siya. (Respondent I). Another
respondent said, Tapos may influence din nung friends.
Alam kasi nila yung taong yun, yung attitude towards
studies ganun. (Respondent J).

The opinions of close

friends are also seen as reasons that affect the decision of

the rejecter, Syempre alam ng best friend ko, friends
namin na close niya den, tapos yun ayaw nila sa kanya.
(Respondent M).

53

Moreover, being swayed by the opinion of parents

affected the decision of one rejecter. Yeah pero I think
my parents talked sense to me since I was a kid na. anak
it comes and goes so easy easy lang, pero they didnt tell
me to reject her. (Respondent H).

Revenge
Another theme that emerged regarding the reasons for
rejecting a romantic pursuit was revenge. One respondent
stated, Revenge din kasi ano nga diba, usually ganon naman
talaga. Once na may something kayo dati then nakamove-on ka
na, then siya naman maghahabol, iisipin mo gaganti talaga
ako sa ginawa mo sakin before. (Respondent I). The
situation behind this was that, at some point, the current
rejecter was the one who got rejected in the past by the
current pursuer.

Process of Rejection
The data analysis presented that rejecters have two ways
of rejecting a romantic pursuit, either direct or passive.

54

This part will answer the question How does rejection occur
in pre-romantic relationship? The researchers divided the
answers into two main parts: direct and passive.

Direct Manner of Rejection

Direct rejection is a clear and concise manner of
rejecting a romantic pursuit which often occurred in a
friendship relationship based from the data the researchers
have gathered. In the direct manner, two themes emerged, the
respondents seem to reject in two particular behaviors: (1)
Personal Confrontation and (2) Impersonal Confrontation.

Table 2. Themes for the direct manner of rejecting a

romantic pursuit among friends and acquaintances
Process

Definition

Personal

The face-to-face refusal of the romantic

Confrontation

pursuit in a clear and unambiguous way.

55

Impersonal

The use of technology such as mobile phones

Confrontation

and the like, as a medium for rejecting the

romantic pursuit in a clear and unambiguous
way.

Personal confrontation
There were respondents who rejected romantic pursuits by
immediately telling the pursuer face-to-face how they do not
reciprocate the feelings. A respondent reported once
instance, Sabi ko ayoko! Tapos sabi niya tanggapin ko
nalang daw, ayun. E ayoko, ayoko talaga. (Respondent M).

Another respondent said, I talked to her about it and

well I told her na I dont feel the same way. (Respondent
H). Lastly, a respondent also said, Ayun sinabi ko sa
kanya na talagang walang pag-asa, sabi ko wala talaga,
tapos yun mas okay na nga siguro na wag muna magusap para
mawala yung echos mo sakin, ayon. (Respondent M).

Impersonal confrontation

56

While some prefer face-to-face confrontations, some

would rather reject someone through the use of a number of
social networking sites or through text messages. One
reported an experience wherein, Tinext ko sa kanya, parang
ang sinabi ko sa kanya please go home, I dont want you to
be here! (Respondent R). Another respondent also reported,
I said like you too as a friend, oh, this happened in fb
chat lang ah, that is why it is not as personal, yeah.
(Respondent H).

Passive Manner of Rejection

This part of the discussion also answers the question
How does rejection occur in pre-romantic relationships?
but focusing merely on the indirect manner of rejecting a
romantic pursuit, as stated in the previous chapters, a
passive rejection is the a method of refusing an aspiring
romantic partner in an ambiguous way; making use of action/s
which may be interpreted differently by the rejectee or
romantic pursuer. This manner of rejection was observed to
mostly occur in acquaintance relationships. The following
are the themes that emerged from the analyzed data: (1) use

57

of humor, (2) use of reasons and excuses, and (3) avoidance

of confrontation.

Table 3. Themes for the passive manner of rejecting a

romantic pursuit among friends and acquaintances
Passive Manner

Definition

Use of Humor

The rejecters way of giving a slight hint that the

desire for the relationship to progress is not
mutual by concealing the real intention through
delivering the message as a joke.

Use of Reasons

Rejection by means of telling the romantic pursuer

and Excuses

that a significant other is the cause why he or she

cannot accept the romantic pursuit

Avoidance of

Unwillingness to verbally communicate what the

Confrontation

rejecter is feeling, this leads to avoiding the

romantic pursuer.

Use of Humor
Some of the respondents preferred using jokes as a
medium of communicating the message to the romantic pursuer.
A respondent reported an experience wherein, Sabi nung guy
sa harap ng friends namin, Ako na lang magpapasaya sayo
tapos sabi ko Yoko, ang pangit pangit mo kaya, paano ako
sasaya non? Joke lang! (Respondent J).

58

Use of Reasons and Excuses

The use of reasons and excuses is the rejecters way of
justifying that it is not his/her sole decision to reject
the romantic pursuit. Respondents made use of people whom
are influential to them as an excuse which lead them to the
rejection. As one respondent stated, I just said my
parents are strict kasi. That is the first thing that came
into mind. (Respondent H). Also, by using reasons and
excuses, rejection is ambiguous in a sense that the romantic
pursuer becomes uncertain if the rejecter is attracted to
them and is just constrained by the influence of others or
if the rejecter is not attracted to the romantic pursuer.
This is considered a passive manner of rejection because the
rejecter did not directly tell the romantic pursuer that he
is not interested in the romantic pursuit; in fact the
rejecter made erroneous reasons of why he had to reject the
romantic pursuit.

Avoidance of Confrontation

59

Lastly, a respondent said that there is the inability to

convey her emotions and confront the pursuer. She said,
Layo lang, hindi kinakausap. (Respondent M). Some also
reported an experience wherein they adopted this approach
with hopes of making the pursuer feel that the feelings are
not mutual. A respondent said, Kinonfront niya ako about
sa feelings niya, so parang di ko lang di ko lang siya
pinapansin. May time na hindi ako nagrereply (Respondent
G). And another even said, Hindi naman manhid yung isang
tao para hindi maintindihan. (Respondent J). There were
also instances that respondents reported how they did not
really plan on taking on this kind of approach but the
situation just seemed to ask for it. In line with this is
the report of one respondent wherein he said, Hindi mo rin
ineexpect na gagawin mo, pero dahil you found out na
someone parang likes you a bit, tapos ayaw mo sa kanila so
parang lalayo ka nalang. (Respondent A). Some of the
reasons the rejecters stated for doing this manner of
rejection is their lack of care with how the relationship
with the romantic pursuer would end which, as stated earlier
were mostly acquaintance relationships. The respondent

60

reasoned that, Hindi ganon ka-invested yung feelings (with

each other). (Respondent G). Another said, Walang
emotional attachment. (Respondent P).

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The research findings suggest varied causes for
rejection of friends and acquaintances; the study also
revealed two methods of rejecting a romantic pursuit (i.e.
Direct and Passive Rejection) along with how and why the two

61

methods are applied differently depending on the

relationship the rejecter has with the pursuer, whether they
are friends or acquaintances.

Most of the respondents stated that a person is

considered a friend if they are able to converse daily and
share their lives to the other person. On the other hand,
one is an acquaintance if it lacks the quality of intimacy
in a friendship relationship. The findings of Harvey (2003)
showed that cross-sex friendships constitute a platonic
relationship, meaning that friends do not express attraction
towards each other. However, there are instances where one
of the parties fail to control his or her emotions and
becomes attracted to the other. This unrequited attraction
was also observed in acquaintance relationships. And this is
where rejection comes in, when the other party would decline
the romantic pursuit.

Using the related literature and framework used in the

study, the researchers validated and explained the results
it has generated. This section of this chapter were divided

62

into three sections: (1) reasons behind the rejection of the

romantic pursuit of friends and acquaintance, (2) the direct
manner of rejecting a romantic pursuit among friends and
acquaintances, and (3) the passive manner of rejecting a
romantic pursuit among friends and acquaintances. It is
important to note that this study only focused on the
rejecters point of view in rejecting a romantic pursuit.
According to Baumeister, Wotman, and Stillwell (1993), men
are the ones who usually take the role of the receiver of
rejection, while women report more frequent experiences of
being the rejecter. To eliminate the biases, this study used
equal number of men and women.

Reasons for Rejection

Based from the results, it is said that several factors
are to be considered by the rejecter in rejecting the
romantic pursuit, this includes the following: (1)
reluctance to lose the friendship, (2) weak foundation of
the relationship, (3) physical appearance (4) perception of

63

rejecter towards the rejectee, (5) influences from

significant others, and (6) Revenge.

Reluctance to lose the friendship

According to Dindia (1994, 2003), maintenance is a
dynamic process that involves adapting to the changing needs
and goals needed in the relationship. Studies suggest that
both the rejecter and rejectee use these maintenance
behaviors in order to decide whether to maintain their
friendship, to move beyond the friendship, or to end the
friendship (Guerrero & Chavez, 2005). One of the reasons for
maintaining a relationship is the fear of losing the current
bond which is most of the time the bond between friends,
which is why the rejecter is reluctant to accept the
romantic pursuit. This explains why rejecters prefer to
preserve their friendship with the rejectee rather than to
ruin an established relationship.

Exploring this concept in the Philippine context gives

light to the 8 levels of social interaction. These levels
are divided into two categories, namely the ibang tao

64

category and the hindi-ibang tao category of which

friendship belongs in. Under the hindi-ibang tao category
lays the 3 levels: (1) pakikipag-palagayang loob, (2)
pakikisangkot, and (3) pakikiisa; this is where most
friendships can be situated, these levels is where there is
already a built rapport, mutual trust, and self-disclosure
among people (Pe-pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000). To get to
these three levels require time and effort between the two
parties; also they have to go through the first 5 levels of
interaction. Having reached this level gives the rejecter a
difficult time to accept the romantic pursuit because it
would risk ending the relationship and having to start off
again from nothing. Although accepting the romantic pursuit
could enrich the relationship, it also poses as a threat
that once the romantic relationship ends, it would not
return to their former friendship relationship.

Lastly, according to reports, friendship is something

the respondents valued more as compared to their
relationships with acquaintances due to the fact that the
relationship is perceived as deeper and more invested with

65

their time and emotions. This may be the reason why this
theme only occurred in reports from respondents who had
their friends as their pursuers.

Weak Foundation of the Relationship

Another reason that emerged in this study is the lack of
friendship foundation between both parties which greatly
influenced the decision of a respondent in the study.
According to Fingerman (2009), intimate relationships could
be distinguished from non-intimate or peripheral ties based
on the level of investment and stability of the
relationship. This implies that to be able to go beyond the
friendship stage, one must be able to invest on the strength
of the friendship relationship. As mentioned by Wright, 1984
and Hays, 1988 (as cited in Chan & Cheng, 2004), strong
friendship involves a continuous interaction among friends
who are dependent of each other. They usually have high
levels of companionship, intimacy, affection and mutual
assistance. In addition, the building of rapport which
results to shared attitudes and interests is one of the
processes in courtship (Owens, 2006). According to the

66

reports of the respondents, the stronger the relationship

the more likely to they will consider the romantic pursuit.

Relating this to the 8 levels of social interaction, it

would imply that being in the ibang-tao category puts the
romantic pursuer at a disadvantage since some of the
respondents prefer someone who has already established a
relationship.

However, this may be inconsistent to the statements

mentioned earlier. A romantic pursuer who is situated in too
deep in the relationship and having a superficial
relationship with the rejecter would also put one in
critical circumstances.
Physical Appearance
The theory of falling upward states that people who fall
for someone who is more physically attractive than him or
her usually leads to romantic disappointment (Baumeister &
Wotman, 1992). In addition, there is also a filter theory
which states that unless the pursuer has equal intelligence
or physical beauty with the rejecter, he/she will be

67

rejected (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009). People reject others

who do not meet their standards (Baumeister & Finkel, 2009).
In relation to this, the respondents mentioned that
unappealing physical attributes (i.e. ugly, fat) affected
the rejecters decision to reject the romantic pursuit. In
this time and age, physical appearance plays an important
role for a romantic relationship to start. To avoid
rejection, some people avoid choosing partners whom they
perceive as more or less physically attractive than them to
avoid rejection.

Perception of the rejecter towards the rejectee

There has been limited research on the perception of the
rejecter towards the rejectee as the reason for rejection in
pre-romantic relationships. However, Bargh, Chen, and
Burrows (1996) defined priming as a process wherein
incidental activation of knowledge structure is aided or
changed by the current situational context on the perception
of others, thus it can affect an individuals impression of
others. Certain attitudes can be triggered automatically by
the presence of familiar events or objects (Bargh, 1994).

68

One reason for the rejecters decision may be that the

romantic pursuer lacked any positive or desirable attitudes.
Their undesirable attitudes overpower their desirable
attitude, which in turn overrides whatever positive
attitudes of traits the rejectees have. Rejection happens
especially when the romantic pursuers good attitudes and
characteristics cannot compensate for his/her undesirable
characteristics.

Likewise, similarities and differences can affect the

rejecters perception in terms of attraction. A greater
similarity between individuals varied directly with greater
attraction (Byrne, 1961). In an experiment conducted by
Byrne, Griffitt, and Stefaniak (1967), results showed that
subjects were attracted to the person who had identical
attitudes as them than those who had a very dissimilar
attitude.

In addition to this, people may have been taking into

account how a person seems to be too nice to the person
he/she is currently pursuing because of the fact that

69

according to Dunn, Biesanz, Human, and Fin (2007), selfpresentation has always been a fundamental aspect of social
behaviour driven by the desire to appear favourable in the
eyes of others. Leone and Hawkins (2006) even conducted a
study wherein they stated that the endless pursuit of humans
for love has made them device a process which can engineer
their romantic encounters into how they want it to be. And
such successful encounters entail the pursuer to be able to
present themselves as desirable, as compared to the others,
which involves the use of deception (Toma, Honcock, &
Ellison, 2008).

Being a flirt in general was also mentioned as a

perception which makes rejecters reject their pursuers. This
can be explained by Grammer, Kruck, Juette, and Finks
(2000) study wherein they claimed that flirting with more
than one person, or general flirtatiousness, cannot be
immediately interpreted as an expression of romantic
interest. According to Back, et. al (2011), flirting is
actually done by people in an attempt to make themselves
appear more attractive and make their characteristics seem

70

perfect for being a romantic partner. However, based on the

same study which is also congruent with the data the
researchers were able to gather, Back et.al (2011)
discovered that people who engaged in unique flirting, or
flirting with a specific person, increased their chances of
being chosen as a romantic partner in the future as compared
to those who flirt with more than one person.

Another perception mentioned was being too dependent.

According to Lowyck, Luyten, Demyttenaere, and Corveleyn,
(2008), individuals who are identified as dependent has a
strong need to be loved and taken care of, along with the
constant fear of being abandoned. However, although they are
capable of making people feel needed and special, there is
also a certain extent of the dependency which is also
capable of evoking irritation (Luyten et al., 2005). In an
attempt to avoid these kinds of conflicts, this may be the
reason why rejecters choose to reject the pursuit of people
whom they perceive as too dependent.

71

Being aggressive and manly was also stressed by a male

respondent that affected him to decline of romantic pursuit.
According to a study by Todosijevic, Ljubinkovic and Arancic
(2003), aggressiveness was rated by both men and women as
one of the most undesirable traits that influence their mate
choice, they explained this to be the cause of gender roles
made in society, that men are expected to be the ones with
the aggressive nature.

Being apathetic, irresponsible and lazy were also seen

as undesirable traits. Todosijevic, Ljubinkovic and Arancic
(2003), explains that such traits reflect ones potential
capability to secure resources, which is emphasized mainly
by females. Moreover, women become more willing to engage in
romantic relationships with pursuers who are ambitious and
industrious and that they are more likely to withdraw to
relationships with pursuers who lack career motivation and
pursuers who show laziness (Maliki, 2003, 168). Stagy means
having an exaggerated behaviour and being theatrical which
connotes behaving in an artificial manner. These four
undesirable behaviors that were reported by the respondents

72

may be a cause of bias; in a sense that the rejecters are

inclined to reject whoever who possesses these
characteristics; Kokko, Brooks, Jennions, and Morley (2003)
justify these biases in choosing potential mates to be
caused by evolution.

Influences from Significant Others

Friends and family has played a significant part of
providing the primary socialization environment of a person.
It appears that parents and peers specifically actually play
a major role in the development a persons social and
interpersonal competencies which in turn contributes to the
persons capacity whether or not he/she can handle future
romantic involvements (ONeil & Parke, 2000). In line with
this, a study conducted by Connolly and Johnson (1996)
discovered that adolescents, who have a large number of
friends or acquaintances and many opposite sex friends along
with individuals in the initial years of their young
adulthood, were more likely to have a romantic relationship
than others. Friends greatly influence an individual in the
early and middle years of adolescence when romantic

73

relationships are predominantly characterized by affiliative

features (Furman, 1999). A respondent of the study even
mentioned that the way his parents raised him has affected
how he thinks and how he handles romantic relationships,
(i.e. I think my parents talked sense to me since I was a
kid na anak it comes and goes so easy easy lang
(pertaining to love life)). In addition, Furman and Wehner
(1994) proposed that the characteristics of romantic
relationships are actually influenced by relationships with
friends and as well as with parents.

Revenge
Based from the data gathered, the hurt experienced from
the rejection influenced the rejecters decision to make the
pursuer feel what she made him feel when he was rejected and
inflict the same pain he had to go through. In line with
this, Stuckless and Goranson (1992) defined revenge as the
infliction of harm in return for perceived wrong. One
important motive is that revenge helps the rejecter
retribute (Fitness, 2001). Frijda (1994) noted that the
desire for revenge is not irrational as long as it is

74

moderately done. In addition, Solomon (1994) claimed that

vengeance is important in regaining ones sense of selfesteem and integrity. Lastly, according to Bies and Tripp
(1996), revenge can encourage constructive behavior change.
Although this is a very rare occurrence given that only 1 of
the respondents of the study was able to provide this
response, altogether, it can be concluded that people who
have been hurt and rejected may have the strong tendency to
requite the pain they felt (Fitness, 2001).

Direct rejection
Throughout the study, direct rejection was one of the
prominent approaches rejecters used when rejecting a
romantic pursuit. According to the interviewees, they make
use of this approach so that the romantic pursuer will not
misinterpret everything they say during the confrontation.
For the rejecters, talking about the romantic pursuit and
how they feel towards it directly, gives them sufficient
time to comfort the rejectee in an attempt to save what they
can in the current relationship. They also reported that it
is a perfect time for them to know how the relationship will

75

be after the rejection and how they are going to act when
they are together. In connection to their statements,
according to Harvey (2003), social constructionism has
provided a framework that is able to explain how individuals
construct, change, or sustain their reality through social
exchanges with others (p.315). Like the reported intentions
of the interviewees, social constructionism has suggested
that individuals collectively attempt to create their
reality and avoid misinterpretations by means of clear
communication.

According to Duck (as cited in Harvey, 2003), talk is

the agency of social behavior through which many of the
other relational processes (of relationships) come to life
(p.315). In congruent with the data gathered, rejecters
aimed to have a dialogue with the rejectee to be able to
communicate what the current relationship is for them, what
it has been, and what it might be, or what they want it to
be, after the rejection. This is also in accordance with
Woods (as cited in Harvey, 2003) stand that relationships

76

and realities must be talked into existence before they

can be acknowledged and established by both parties (p.315).

Personal and Impersonal Confrontation

Given these, communication or talking can be regarded
as an effective means of communicating rejection (Harvey,
2003). However, based on what the researchers have gathered
there has emerged two ways of rejecting by means of
talking which are: through personal confrontations and
impersonal confrontations. Data has shown that one method
rejecters use to communicate their lack of interest in the
romantic pursuit is by telling the rejectees bluntly, in
person, how they do not reciprocate the feelings of the
pursuer. They prefer meeting with the pursuer to immediately
communicate how they do not want to reciprocate the romantic
interest. The researchers pertained this as personal
confrontation. In this method, respondents have reported
that the feelings of the pursuer, is taken into account and
that this is preferred by some rejecters because they can
immediately see the reaction of the one they are rejecting
which in turn gives them an opportunity to comfort them as

77

much as they can. Respondents of the study have also said

that this method comes across as much more sincere because
emotions are readily seen and responses, from either party,
are more natural.

On the other hand, during the analysis, there was a

trend that emerged which is the prevalent use of technology
as a medium for rejection. This method was referred to by
the researchers as the impersonal confrontation. This was
where rejecters also immediately communicate their lack of
interest by means of telling the rejectees bluntly how they
do not reciprocate the feelings however, it was only done
through text messages along with chats in social networking
sites.

Although face-to-face conversations were common, social

networking sites and mobile devices were used by a number of
interviewees of the study when rejecting a romantic pursuit.
The paper from the New Media Consortium (2007) can explain
this trend wherein they stated that the nature of
communication has been continuously changing for the past 20

78

years. It has changed in a way that communications are

shorter and more frequent than when letters were the norm;
response time has greatly diminished; we are even surprised
if someone we wish to contact does not have an email
address (p.2). Communication continued to change as text
messaging emerged wherein the style of conversation used is
usually more conversational compared to emails (The New
Media Consortium, 2007). Then, soon came the social media
sites as the latest medium of fast and easy communication.

According to the New Media Consortium (2007), the

context of which the interaction occurs greatly affects
communication. A study has reported that individuals prefer
these kinds of communication and the virtual environment
because they have time to think about what to say, and how
it is going to be received by the person they are talking to
(Urista, Dong, & Day, 2009). In addition to this, the study
also reported that people like it better because they are
not obliged to deal with the conversations immediately.
These can explain why the interviewees of the study usually
use these mediums of communication when rejecting romantic

79

pursuits. It seems that technology has paved the way for

individuals to communicate at a rate and manner they prefer
unlike face-to-face conversations wherein they are expected
to respond immediately without having time to think anything
through (Urista, Dong, & Day, 2009).

Passive Rejection
Passive Rejection is operationally defined as the method
of refusing an aspiring romantic partner in an ambiguous
way; the rejecter also makes use of action/s which may be
interpreted differently by the rejectee. This is one of the
results that were generated from the data. The experience
shared by the rejecters is that they were unable to reject
their romantic pursuers in an explicit way because they were
inept to communicate their feelings towards their romantic
pursuer. It may take form in the use of humor, use of
reasons and excuses, and an avoidance of having a
confrontation with their romantic pursuers.

One of the trends that were observed when the results

were analyzed is that most of the rejecters who applied this

80

method of rejecting were towards romantic pursuers whom they

were not intimately close with (i.e. acquaintance). Reasons
for doing so were because of the rejecters disregard of the
relationship they had with the romantic pursuer (i.e. wala
namang mawawala ; hindi ganon kainvested yung feelings;
walang emotional attachment). As compared to the reasons
for rejecting the romantic pursuit from a friend who showed
how they value their current relationship (e.i. Sayang
yung friendship).

Use of Humor and Use of Reasons and Excuses

Examples of verbal indirect messages were the two themes
created, the use of humor and the use of reasons and
excuses. The use of humor is employed when the rejecter
tells her feelings but passes it off as a joke. Although the
rejecter tries to talk the talked into existence (Wood, as
Harvey, 2003), the message was only clear in the rejecters
part

This would be the same with making reasons and

excuses; this is so the rejecter would not feel entirely

accountable for creating hurt or discomfort in the
relationship.

81

In western cultures, this phenomenon can be explained by

the mum effect this is the reluctance of an individual
to transmit bad news to people, in this case, trying to
converse ambiguously to the receiving end that one is not
interested in committing to a romantic relationship with
them, especially to the unattractive others (Rosen,
Johnson, Johnson, & Tesser, 1973 as cited in Baumeister,
Wotman, and Stillwell 1993, p.380).

Although literature states that this is manner of

rejecting a romantic pursuit is done to avoid hurting the
romantic pursuer, most of the rejecters who rejected their
acquaintance have no intentions of continuing or sustaining
the relationship in any way. Moreover, based from the data,
the rejecters did not give consideration to the feelings of
their romantic pursuer when they made the decision of
declining the romantic pursuit.

In a way, there is also observed passive rejection with

the use of technological devices, such as not replying to

82

texts, or not answering the calls of the romantic pursuer,

the use of humor and excuses also apply here, joking in
chats about the intentions of the rejecter. Technology
seemed to have made rejection convenient and easy. Because
of this modernization, the culture of indirect communication
for Filipinos envelops a new perspective of the current
generation of young Filipinos who experience rejection.

Avoidance of Confrontation
This method of rejecting a romantic pursuit may be a
result of the Filipino construct pakikiramdam, a concept
that the rejecter expects from the romantic pursuer;
pakikiramdam implies that being able to understand or to
feel non-verbal cues is be innate in the Filipino culture.
Because of this, the rejecters expect their romantic
pursuers to be sensitive to the hints they give that they
are uninterested to take the relationship to a romantic
level (e.i. Hindi naman manhid yung isang tao para hindi
maintindihan.) (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).

83

Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000) refers to

pakikiramdam as a skill in social interaction; it is a
shared feeling, a kind of emotional a priori. This has
been said to lead to understatements in the verbal exchange
between Filipinos which denotes the Filipinos expressive
body language and voice intonations which mean more than
what is showed (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).

Nonetheless, the passive way of sending a message to a

romantic pursuer is often misunderstood by the receiver or
by a third party. These actions may be thought of as being
dishonest. However, to the rejecters, this is their way of
rejecting the offer of their romantic pursuers; it is a
means of conveying their feelings in a non-verbal way.
Moreover, it is already a part of the etiquette of Filipinos
to not be blunt in showing emotions, feelings and/or
intentions (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).

Another thing that is observed from the experience of

the rejecters is that despite the signs that their romantic
pursuer is giving about taking the relationship to a

84

romantic level, the rejecters do not immediately assume that

the actions that their romantic pursuer is showing means
anything. According to the data rejecters would often than
not initiate a passive rejection when their romantic
pursuers only show indirect signs of romantic pursuit. Thus,
in a way the romantic pursuer also assumes that the rejecter
would be sensitive to the hints they give. Subsequently,
based from the data, the rejecters would only reject
directly when the romantic pursuit is said directly and
verbally. This implies that the rejecter only reciprocates
or mirrors the way of showing each others feelings and
intentions. Reading these passive messages which as
communicated indirectly or non-verbally poses as a challenge
not only for the romantic pursuers but also for the
rejecters.
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
Summary
This paper aimed to study rejection from the rejecters
perspective, particularly their reasons and manner of
rejection. The result of this study is beneficial for

85

rejectees for it would enable them to discern their place

within their existing relationship, whether in an
acquaintance or friend relationship. It illustrated the
importance of the different contributing reasons and
processes that lead to direct and passive rejection in preromantic relationships, particularly between acquaintances
and cross-sex friends.

The study adopted a qualitative approach which utilized

thematic analysis in determining the reasons and ways the
participants consider when rejecting romantic pursuits from
individuals in their pre-romantic relationships.
Participants were individuals with ages ranging from 18 to
25 years old that have experienced rejecting either a
romantic pursuit from a friend or an acquaintance during
their high school or college years. Purposive sampling
technique was used in choosing the participants of this
study. Additionally, the study used semi-structured
interviews to be able to elicit data from the participants.
Based from the results, it is said that several factors are
to be considered by the rejecter in rejecting the romantic

86

pursuit, this includes: reluctance to lose the friendship,

weak foundation of the relationship, physical appearance,
perception of rejecter towards the rejectee and influences
from significant others. Throughout the study, direct
rejection was one of the prominent approaches rejecters used
when rejecting a romantic pursuit from a friend. Rejecters
who rejected their romantic pursuers in a passive manner
take the form of humor, reasons and excuses when they
reject, and avoid having confrontations with their romantic
pursuers. During the analysis, there was a trend that
emerged which is the prevalent use of technology as a medium
for rejection.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the reasons for rejecting a romantic
pursuit of a friend or an acquaintance are: (1) Reluctance
to lose the friendship, (2) weak foundation of the
relationship, (3) physical appearance, (4) Perception of
rejecter towards the rejectee, the (5) the influence of

87

significant others, and (6) Revenge. However, the reasons

for rejection are not limited to the results of this study.
Moreover, the study revealed two manners for rejecting a
romantic pursuit; Direct Rejection and Passive Rejection.
Under direct rejection emerged two ways, the personal and
impersonal confrontation. Passive Rejection may be in a form
of the use of humor, use of reasons and excuses and an
avoidance of the confrontation of which reflects the
Filipino construct pakikiramdam. The forms and reasons for
rejection in pre-romantic relationships have been recognized
to emerge differently from culture to culture.

Recommendation
In light of the results of the study, it would of be of
benefit to attempt to capture the direct and passive
rejection and how it occurs from the receivers point of
view, in other words research on the experiences of the
romantic pursuer to be able to gain more insight of what how
the two types of rejection come across to them, this can
contribute to the very essence of the rejection experience.
Future researchers may also want to look at the rejection

88

experiences of different developmental stages such as

adolescence and adulthood. As this study only researched on
emerging adulthood, it may yield different results to see
the rejection experiences of people age ranging from 25-30,
to be able to see if a variety of age produces a distinction
with the reasons and processes in rejecting a romantic
pursuit. Future researchers may also want to research on a
more in-depth perspective of rejection in the context of the
Filipino culture.

References
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for
friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females
friendliness? Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 830838.

89

Altman, I., & Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social Penetration: The

development of interpersonal relationships. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Annis, D. (1987). The meaning, value and duties of
friendship. American Philosophical Quarterly, 24 (4),
349-355.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of
development from the late teens through the twenties.
American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood in Europe: a
response to bynner. Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 122136.
Ashman, D., Brown, D., & Zwick, E. (1998). The strength of
strong and weak ties: Building social capital for the
formation and governance of civil society resource
organizations. Institute of Development Research, 14
(2), 1-11.
Back, M.D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S.C., Sachse, K.,Borkenau,
P., & Asendorpf, J.B.(2011). Why mate choices are not as
reciprocal as we assume: The role of personality,

90

flirting and physical attractiveness. European Journal

of Personality, 25, 120-132.
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on
creativity: A comprehensive examination and extension.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (3), 592-601.
Bargh, J. A. (in press). The automaticity of everyday life.
In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition
(Vol.10).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity
of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2),
230-244.
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts:
The two sides of unrequited love. New York: Guilford
Press.
Baumeister, R. F. & Finkel, E. J. (2009). Attraction and
rejection. Advance Social Psychology. New York: Oxford
Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002).
Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes:
Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought.

91

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4),

817-827.
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993).
Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt,
scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 64, 377-394.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism.
Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust:
Getting even and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer
& T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers
in theory and research (pp. 246-260). Thousand Oaks: CA:
Sage.
Bleske, A. & Buss, D. (2000). Can men and women be just
friends? Personal Relationship, 7,131-151.
Bleske, A., Somers, E., Micke, C., Erickson, L., Matteson,
L., Stocco, C., Schumacher, B., & Ritchie, L. (2012).
Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5),
569-596.

92

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude

similarity. Journal of abnormal and social psychology,
62(3), 713-715.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. (1967). Attraction
and similarity of personal characteristics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1) 82-90.
Chan, D., & Cheng, G. (2004). A comparison of offline and
online friendship qualities at different stages of
relationship involvement. (3), 305-320.
Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47 (3), 549-557.
Collins, A.W., Sroufe, A.L.(1999). Capacity for intimate
relationships: A developmental construction. In Furman,
W., Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (Eds.), The development
of romantic relationships in adolescence (125-147).

New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, N.L., & Miller, L.C.(1994). Self-disclosure and
liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,
116 (3), 457-475.

93

Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R.(2000). The roles of

peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic
relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71 (5),
1395-1408.
Connolly, J., & Johnson, A. (1996). Adolescnets romantic
relatinships and the structure and quality of their
close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships, 3,
185-195.
Dindia, K. (1994). A multiphasic view of relationship
maintenance strategies. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford
(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp.
91112). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dindia, K. (2003). Definitions and perspectives on
relational maintenance communication. In D. J. Canary &
M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through
communication (pp. 128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Duck, S. (1992). Human relationships (2nd ed). London: Sage.
Dunn, E.W., Biesanz, D.C., Human, L.J., & Finn, S.(2007).
Misunderstanding the affective consequences of everyday
social interactions: The hidden benefits of putting

94

ones best face forward. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology,92,(6), 9901005.
Fingerman, K.L.(2009). Consequential strangers and
peripheral ties: The importance of unimportant
relationships. Journal of Family Theory and Review. 1
(2), 69-86.
Fitness, J. (2001). Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and
forgiveness: An interpersonal script approach.
Interpersonal rejection, 73-103.
Frijda, N. (1994). The Lex Talionis: On vengeance. In S. H.
van Goozen, N. E. van de Poll, & J. Sergeant (Eds.),
Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 263-289). New
Jersey: Erlbaum.
Fuhrman, R., Flannagan, D., Mataramos, M. (2009). Behavior
expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex
friendship, and romantic relationships. Personal
Relationships, 16, 575-596.
Furman, W. (1999). The role of peer relationships in
adolescent romantic relationships. In W.A. Collins & B.
Laursen (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child
Development: Vol 29.

95

Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic

relationships: A developmental perspective. In S.
Shulman & W.A. Collins (Eds.), New directions for child
development: Adolescne romantic relationships (pp. 2136). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Granovetter, M.(1983). The strength of weak ties: A network
theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Nonverbal behavior as courtship and choice in selecting
partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 371390.
Guerrero, L. & Chavez, A. (2005). Relational maintenance in
cross-sex friendships characterized by different types
of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western
Journal of Communication, 69 (4), pp. 339-358.
Harvey, V.(2003).Were just friends: Myth construction as
a communication strategy in maintaining cross-sex
friendships, The Qualitative Report, 8 (2), 314-332.
Hays, R.B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship
development. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 48 (4), 909-924.

96

Hill, C. T., Peplau, L. A., & Rubin, Z. (1981). Differing

perceptions in dating couples. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 5(3), 418-434.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal
relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: WileyInterscience.
Lang, F.R., & Fingerman, K.L.(Eds.).(2003). Growing
together: Personal relationships across the life span.
UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leary, M. R. (2001). Interpersonal rejection. Oxford:
University Press.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L.
(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The
sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Leone, C., & Hawkins, L. B. (2006). Self-monitoring and
close relationships. Journal of Personality, 74, 739777. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20
(10), 1-14.
Lichtman, M. (2013).
users guide. (3rd

Qualitative research in education.: A

ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

97

Lowyck, B., Luyten, P., Demyttenaere, K., & Corveleyn, J.

(2008). The role of romantic attachment and selfcriticism and dependency for the relationship
satisfaction of community adults. Journal of Family
Therapy, 30, 7895.
Luyten, P., Corveleyn, J. and Blatt, S. J.(Eds.).
(2005). The Theory and Treatment of Depression: Towards
a Dynamic Interactionism Model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lydon, J., Holmes, J., Jamieson, D. (1997). The Meaning of

Social Interactions in the Transition from Acquaintance

to Friendship. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73 (3), 536-548.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social
exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and
physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223.
Maliki, A.E. (2003). Determinants of mate selection choice
among university students in south-south zone of
Nigeria. Edo Journal of Counseling, 2(2), 165-174.

98

Monsour, M., Harris, B., & Kurzweil, N. (1994). Challenges

in confronting cross-sex friendships: much ado about
nothing. Sex roles, 31(1-2), 55-77.
Monsour, M. (2002). Women and men as friends: relationships
across the lifespan in the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
ONeil, R., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Family-Peer
relationships: the role of emotion regulation, cognitive
understanding, and attachment processes as mediating
processes. In K. A. Kerns, J. M. Contreas & A. M. NealBarnett (Eds.), Family and Peers. Linking Two Social
Worlds (pp. 195-226). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Owens, E. (2006). The sociology of love, courtship, and
dating.The 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook.
SAGE Publications.
Pe-Pua, R. & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang
Pilipino (Filipino Psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G.
Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 49-71.
Pinnegar, S. & Daynes, J. G. (2006). Locating narrative
inquiry historically: thematics in the turn of

99

narratives. In D. J. Clabdinin (ed.), Handbook of

Narrative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schleicher, S. S. & Gilbert, L. A. (2005). Heterosexual
dating discourses among college students: Is there still
a double standard? Journal of College Student
Psychotherapy. 19 (3), 7-23.
Sinclair, C. & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship
persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: Comparing
rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited
attraction. Sex Roles, 52 (11), 839-853.
Sinclair, H. C., Borgida, E., & Collins, W. A. (2002).
Exploring the antecedents and consequences of courtship
persistence. Paper presented as part of invitation to
participate in a symposium on Stalking and Courtship:
Classifications and Social-Personality Predictors to be
presented at the Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Issues conference, Toronto, Canada.
Solomon, R. C. (1994). Sympathy and vengeance: The role of
emotions in justice. In S. H. van Goozen, N. E. van
dePoll, & J. Sergeant (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on
emotion theory (pp. 291-311). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

100

Sponcil, M., & Gitimu, P.(2012). Use of social media by

college students: Relationship to communication and
self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1-13.
Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale:
Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 25-42.
Swertz, C. (2007). Courtship patterns in the information
age. Theoretical reflections on the impact of computer
technology on human grouping. In Hasebrook, J. & Muhr,
G._eCulture (in press).
The New Media Consortium.(2007). Social networking, the
"Third Place," and the evolution of communication.
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Todosijevic, B., Ljubinkovic, S., & Arancic, A. (2003). Mate
selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment
study of sex differences in serbia. Evolutionary
Psychology, 1, 116-126.
Turner, L., & West, R. (1998). Perspectives on family
communication. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco,
N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion

101

decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 92(1), 5666.
Urista, M.A., Dong, Q., & Day, K.D. (2009). Explaining why
young adults use myspace and facebook through uses and
gratifications theory. Human Communication, 12(2), 215229.
Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B.L.(2011). Strangers
in sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared
movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
48, 399-402.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., Choi, W. (2000).
Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the
Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79, 748-762.
Wood, J. T. (1982). Communication and relational culture:
Bases for the study of human relationships.
Communication Quarterly, 30, 75-83.

102

Appendix 1
Interview Guide
Pre-Interview
Good Morning/Afternoon (name). Thank you for taking the
time to participate in this interview.
Small Talk
-How are you, how was your day/last class, have you
eaten...
-Year, course, name, age
Introduction
Hi! So Im (interviewer name). We are students from De
La Salle University, and we are currently doing a thesis
about rejection in pre-romantic relationship. Were going
to talk about your experiences in rejecting romantic
pursuits. We would like to know the reasons for rejection
so as to discover its implications in the dyadic
relationships such as friendship and acquaintance
relationships.

1. What is your relationship with person who you rejected?

Can you describe your relationship?
- Friends?
- Acquaintances?

2. Know more about the relationship. How long was the

103

relationship before the romantic pursuit?

Actual Interview Guide

Research Question #1

1. Since you have experienced rejecting a romantic pursuit

from a friend/an acquaintance, can you briefly share to us
how it happened? Ask prompting and clarifying questions to
be able to understand the story.
2. What influences the participant to reject someone?
Ask probing questions which can make the participant
elaborate his/her answers and clarify ambiguous statements.

3. What process did the participant go through which led to

the decision?
-was it a conscious/unconscious effort?
-did you consider pros and cons?
-consider anything in the rejectees behalf?

7. What are the specific reasons for rejecting someone? Ask

probing questions which can make the participant elaborate
his/her answers and clarify ambiguous statements.

104

8. How do you usually reject a romantic pursuit?

9. Overall, how was the whole rejection experience?

Debriefing Script
During your session, you were asked to disclose your
experiences and opinions. We can assure that all the
information we have gathered in the interview will remain
confidential and will only be use for the sole purpose of
this research.
If you have any concerns about your participation or the
data you have given, you are free to discuss this with us.
We will be more than happy to attend to all your questions
about this study.
If you have questions about your participation in the
study, you can contact any of the researchers.
Thank you!

105

Appendix 2
Sample Transcription
Interviewer: Kamusta ka na?
Interviewee: Anong kamusta ka na?
Interviewer: Ok ka lang?
Interviewee: oo
Interviewer: kaya ka nandito kasi interested kami sa ano
kung nakaexperience ka nan g rejection. Nakareject ka nan g
romantic ppursuit, tama ba?
Interviewer: oo
Interviewer: Gusto lang naming malaman yung reasons kung
bakit yung mga tao ginagawa un tsaak kung ano yung
implication sa mga romantic relationships.
Interviewer: ilan na nareject mo?
Interviewee: hindi ko na maalala..as in buo?
Interviewer: estimate lang.
Interviewee: tatlo
Interviewer: nangyari to nung college lang?
Interviewee: iba iba
Interviewer: yung pinakrecent kelan?
J: pinakarecentlast December
Interviewer: so ano yung relationship mo dun sa tao na
nireject mo?
Interviewee: friends
Interviewer: friends kayo nunpero yung previous?
Interviewee: oo friends ko lahat.
Interviewer: pano mo nasabing friends?
Interviewee: sabay kaming umuuwi, sabay kaming pumapasok
kasi magkalapit lang kami ng bahay tapos magkamajor din
kami. Tapos yun.
Interviewer: so pano mo masasabi na ang friend mo ang isang
tao?
Interviewee: hmmm parang ikaw. (laughs). Hindi naman sa
finifilter peroyung nakakapagshare ka sa kanya na hindi ka
natatakot na ijujudge ka or. Tsaka like ko.
Interviewer: so pag di mo na like yung tao di mo na friend?

106

Interviewee: hindi, depende din un.

Interviewer: depende.
Interviewer: yung last mo, nashashare mo lahat sa kanya?
Interviewee: oo. Kasi diba devt stud kami, 5 subjects
kaklase kami.
Interviewer: so gano na kayo katagal na naging friends
before siya nagsabi siya sayo.
Interviewee: yung last to diba?
Interviewer: oo
Interviewee: less than a year siguro, mga 8 months.
Interviewer: yung mga previous mo?
Interviewee: yung isa mga 3 years
Interviewer: yun ung una or pangalawa?
Interviewee: pangalawa. Pero yung first hindi pala kami
friends nung first pero nag uusap. Pero hindi yung close
close.
Interviewer: share mo yung experience nung last.
Interviewee: omg nahiya ako bigla.
Interviewer: kahit walang name.
Interviewee: yung lastano ba hindi talaga kami friends
2012 magkaklase kami pero di tlaga kami super close. Then
nalaman namin na magkalapit bahay naming then sabay kami
umuwi. Ang bilis naming maging close parang 2 weeks lang.
yun nga yung medyo weird kasi ang bilis tapos may isang
guy sa accounting class na nagtetext sakin. Nagkwekwento
ako sa kanya nung friend ko. Tapos parang yung friend ko
sinasabi..wag mo na itext yan. Alam mo yung mga jokes na
nahiya ako (laughs). Yung mga jokes na patama. Halimbawa
mag aral ka na. tapos sabi niya anong pag aaralan ko? Yung
lessons. Sabi nya hindi ba pwedeng ikaw nalang pag aralan
ko. Yung mga ganung tipo. Tapos one time yung doorbell
malapit sa bahay naming. Tapos nung nagpara na ako sajeep
nun, bumaba din siya hinatid niya ako. Tapos one time
tinext niya ako sabay daw kami pumasok. Ayun basta parang
lagi siyang nagtetext-sabay tayo umuwi, sabay tayo pumasok.
To the point na yung mga kamajors naming parang iniisuue na
as in pagtalikod naming parangalam mo yung nakikita mo the
way na tumingin sila sayo. Tapos yung mga friends ko
nagtatanong na kung anong meron.
Interviewer: ano nang nangyari?

107

Interviewee: habinabara ko na siya.hindikasi nakakainis

pag friends lang talaga tingin mo. Yung friends lang tapos
gumagawa ng move. Naiinis ako to the point na minsan
nababara ko na. hindi ko naman sinasadya. Hindi naman ako
mataray na tao.
Interviewer: so ano yung nag influence sayo na ireject
siya?
Interviewee: hindi ko siya gusto e.
Interviewer: pano mo ba siya nireject? As in sinabi mo or
Interviewee: paghalimbawa nagaasar nakasi sabi ng ibang
tao sobrang sakit naman daw pag diretsuhan. Pag mga joke
daw, dun daanin. Hindi naman manhid yung isang tao para
hindi maintindihan.
Interviewer: ano bang nangyari nung dec para sinabi niya
sayo pwede ba manligaw or ganun.
Interviewee: yun na yung super close to the point na yung
sa lrt, late na ako ng 30 mins pero nag antay siya sa lrt
para sabay kami. Parang ako, nauuna ako, kunwari di ko
narereceive text niya tapos nagtatago ako. Tapos ano ba
yan.gets mo?
Interviewer: anong ginagawa mo, iniiwan mo siya,
pinapatayan mo siya?
Interviewee: oo parang ang sama ko. Pero sobrang bait nung
tao. As in pwede talaga yung qualities kasihindi siya
talaga e. tapos nagkwekwento kasi tapos nagaaral kami
lahat then wala siyang ginagawa
Interviewer: so sa tingin mo un lang down side niya?
Interviewee: oo
Interviewer: pero the rest ok na? so wineigh mob a yung mga
pros and cons sa bago mo siya nireject?
Interviewee: alam mo unang beses ko siyang frinendzone nag
offline ako. Ed diba lagi akong online. So feeling ko
naramdaman niya kasi parang lumayo siya.
Interviewer: ano yun, kelan un?
Interviewee: mga mayseptembet
Interviewer: pano mo sinabi na ayaw mo sa kanya?
Interviewee: Sa jokeso halimbawa sabi niya ang landi
ko..sabi ko oo nga e. aoo sa mgataong masama tlaga. Yung
mga tipo na sinasabi ko na wag mo na akong tabihan.
Interviewer: sa tingin mo gumana naman?

108

Interviewee: oo. Di na niya akong tinatabihan. Pero

nagtetext padin
Interviewer: may iba pa bang reasons kung bakit mo siya
nireject or un lang talaga?
Interviewee: hindi ko kasi alam siya tlaga. Tapos may
influence din nung friends. Alam kasi nila yung taong un.
Yung attitude towards studies ganun
Interviewer: pero in general ano yung reasons na
kinoconsider mo sa pagreject ng isang tao? Ano yung
kinoconsider mo kung bakit kita irereject?
Interviewee: importante sakin yung attitude talaga.
Responsibility sa mga bagay tapos syempre hindi gwapo pero
ok lang. hindi naman ako naghahanap ng gwapo e. diyos ko
lordsa dami ba naman ng tapos third yung ugali niya sa
pag iinteract niya with other people. Yung sabi ko nga yung
sa parents. Pag hinrap mo ba sa parents, sasabihin ban g
parents mo.
Interviewer: pero hindi mo sinasbai sa parents mo yung
about sa ganito? Like hindi ka open sa parents mo?
Interviewee: minsan nahahalata nila tapos nakikita nila
madalas kami magkasama. Tapos tinatanong bakit kayo
magkasama?
Interviewer: pero ok naman sila. Like sinasabi ba nila
layuan? Mga ganun?
Interviewee: hindi kasi nila kilala mismo pero kilala nila
yung mga names. Like kayo nila brent
Interviewer: so nung nangreject k aba kinonsider mo yung
feelings nung rejectee?
Interviewee: parang hindi. Sobrang selfish ko. Pero nung
unang una. Nung una kasi diba nainis ako so sarili ko muna.
Then after nung bumabawi ako
Interviewer: pano kabumabawi?
Interviewee: like trinatry ko pa din maging friends kami
kahit na alam kong medyo awkward na.
Interviewer: pero kinoconsider mo yung feelins nung
nireject mo?
Interviewee: oo syempre, iniisip ko kung tamab ba yung
ginawa ko, iniisip ko kung sakin ba ginawa yun
Interviewer: so bakit ganun mo nireject yung tao that way?
Interviewee: kasi sobrang bait niya, di ko kayang sabihin

109

directly. Sobrang bait niya tsaka feeling ko din sa

pagtataray kopaulit ulit nalang may pagkamahid na tao.
Interviewer: so mas preferred mo talaga joke nalang? Hindi
facebook or text?
Interviewee: meron din facebook.
Interviewer: pero sabi mo di mo kaya direct?
Interviewee: oo puro patama lang.
Interviewer: bakit?
Interviewee: sa friends naming. Like halimabaw nag jojoke
sila yung boyfriend mo inaantay ka na. ano ba ang tanda
tanda na yung mga ganun. Syempre wala siya dun.
Interviewer: e bakit mo papatamain kung wala naman siya?
Interviewee: feeling ko kasi nagkwekwento siya dun sa
friends niya.
Interviewer: na may gusto siya sayo?
Interviewee: oo kasi yung mga jokes ng friends niya yung
mga kwento ko sa guy. Although friends ko din yung friends
niya.
Interviewer: yung sa iba mong mga nireject, yung 2nd one,
diba friend mo pano mo siya nireject?
Interviewee: never naman siya nagsabi e. narinig ko lang sa
iba.
Interviewer: ahhh
Interviewee: pero un di ko siya masyado kinakausap
Interviewer: Hindi siya nagsabi na pwede bang manligaw?
Interviewee: Oo pero nagsasabi siya sa ibang taoumamin
naraw siya pero wala naman akong natanggap.
Interviewer: ah hindi niya sinabi sayo?
Interviewee: yung 1st oo, nagsabi siya.
Interviewer: pano mo siya nireject?
Interviewee: diretso.
Interviewer: hindi mo siya friend?
Interviewee: kakilala lang, hindi yung friends na close
friend.
Interviewer: parang kilala niyo yung isat isa
Interviewee: oo yung parang pag nagkasalisi..uy hi!
Interviewer: anong nangyari?
Interviewer: pano mo lang siya nireject?
Interviewee: wala sinabi ko lang kasi alam kong walang
patutunguhan e. sobrang layo ng perspectivenag usap kami.

110

Interviewer: personal?
Interviewee: oo
Interviewer: bakit ganun yung pag kaksabi mo?
Interviewee: mas mahirap kasi pag friends mo e. (laughs).
May pinagsamahan na kayo e. mas marami na yung relationship
mo. Nag cacare ka dun sa tao.
Interviewer: kapag friends?
Interviewee: oo
Interviewer: bakit ka maingat?
Interviewee: pano ba sabihin yun, syempre parang.kasi in a
way parang hindi mo love pero may concern sa tao unlike sa
kakilala mo lang na medyo ilang ka pa. ayun.
Interviewer: so uhmmmso yung last na sinabi mo diba
dinadaan mo sa jokes jokes, wala nang ibang way?
Interviewee: ah nagtatanong siya about sa lovelife tapos
nagkwento ako about sa kapatid ko. Sabi ko sa lahat ng ayw
ko yung tamad. Tapos sabi niya ah so hindi pala ako pwede
sayo. Tamad ako e. Tapos may onetime sabi nung guy sa harap
ng friends namin, Ako nalang magpapasaya sayo tapos sabi
ko Yoko, ang pangit pangit mo kaya, paano ako sasaya non,
joke lang!
Interviewer: so overall, how was the rejection experience?
Interviewee: ha? (laughs)
Interviewer: I mean may narealize k aba? So far???
Interviewee: na ano, parang..ano bang narealize ko? Feeling
ko importante yung friendship hindi lang dahil sa rejection
pwede mo siya itapon kasi somehow may pinagsamahan kayo.
Yung yung parang pinakapinopoint out ko na kahit anong
mangyari may pinagsamahan kayo. So kahit na na friendzone
ko yung isang guy, hindi naman ibig sabihin porket ibang
sabihin na nanafriendzone di na tayo friends. So ayun
pinapilit ko parin ibalik yung dati.
Interviewer: meron ka bang ibang pursuit sayoI mean hindi
kayo friends pero nagkagusto sayo?
Interviewee: may isa pa.
Interviewer: yung una sabi mo kasi medyo friends mo sila?
Interviewee: oo
Interviewer: pero meron bang tao na hindi mo tlaaga
friends?
Interviewee: oo. Matagal na. siya yung pinaka unang una

111

boom. Gradeschool to highschool.

Interviewer: naaalala mo pa kung paano mo siya nireject?
Interviewee: oosinabi ko dun..text at personal. Directly
personalgusto ko siya kaso gradeschool palang at high
school. Lagi kong dinadahilan kasi bata pa ako.
Interviewer: ayun thats it. Thank you!

112