nson, Abrahams, & Rottman 1966). Once again the issue of how attractive one person is to another is a personal assessment it is a matter of taste per say. So in that case the "Would be Lover" may not be attractive to the "Rejector" and therefore the outcome of the proposal will be negative.Pervasiveness of Social influence is the second of the Overarching themes discussed in the text. It is defined as, the axiom that other people influence virtually all of our thoughts, feelings, and behavior, whether those others are physically present or not (Smith & Mackie 1995). This idea has a great deal of relevance in attempting to understand unrequited love. Research has shown that people overwhelmingly tend to reciprocate (return) positive feelings and evaluations directed toward them by others (Jones & Wortmn, 1973; Kenny & Nasby 1980). It would seem that in the case of unrequited love the "Rejector" has become immune, or rather developed a tolerance to the actions of the "Would be Lover " such that the positive feelings and evaluations have no effect on the "Rejector". But this is not the case the "Rejector" is affected by the barrage of emotion from the "Would be Lover" although it is not positive rather the opposite, the actions of the "Would be Lover" cause frustration, resentment, and irritation not the desired effect but an effect just the same. Likewise the "Rejector" also has an effect on the "Would be Lover" by rejecting the "Would be Lover" the "Rejector" causes disappointment, humiliation and a lowered self-esteem. Striving for Mastery is the third of the overarching themes, it is described as the motivational principle that people seek to understand and predict events in the social world in order to obtain rewards.(Smith & Mackie 1995) In the study the subjects, namely the "Would be Lovers" are attempting to gain a reward, the "Rejectors", although there is not a great deal of tact involved, that is why I believe ...
