ArticlePDF Available

Social Acceptance and Rejection: The Sweet and the Bitter


Abstract and Figures

People have a fundamental need for positive and lasting relationships. In this article, we provide an overview of social psychological research on the topic of social acceptance and rejection. After defining these terms, we describe the need to belong and how it enabled early humans to fulfill their survival and reproductive goals. Next, we review research on the effects of social rejection on emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and biological responses. We also describe research on the neural correlates of social rejection. We offer a theoretical account to explain when and why social rejection produces desirable and undesirable outcomes. We then review evidence regarding how people cope with the pain of social rejection. We conclude by identifying factors associated with heightened and diminished responses to social rejection.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Current Directions in Psychological
20(4) 256 –260
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/0963721411417545
Deep down even the most hardened criminal is starving
for the same thing that motivates the innocent baby:
Love and acceptance.
— Lily Fairchilde
Hardened criminals may seem worlds apart from innocent
babies. Yet, as the Fairchilde quote suggests, there is reason to
believe that most people share a similar craving for social
acceptance. Social acceptance is pleasant, rewarding, and, in
moderate amounts, associated with various indicators of well-
being. Over the past 15 years, there has been tremendous inter-
est within the social psychological literature on the flipside of
social acceptance—namely, social rejection. Social rejection
thwarts the fundamental need for positive and lasting relation-
ships, which strikes at the core of well-being. Thus, the human
need for social connection can be both a sweet blessing when
others accept us and a bitter curse when others reject us.
In this article, we provide an overview of social psycho-
logical research on the topic of social acceptance and rejec-
tion. The article is divided into five sections. First, we provide
conceptual and operational definitions of social acceptance
and social rejection. Second, we describe the need to belong
and how it enabled early humans to fulfill their survival and
reproductive goals. Third, we review research on the effects of
social rejection on emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and bio-
logical responses. We also review research on the neural cor-
relates of social rejection. Fourth, we review evidence on how
people cope with the pain of social exclusion. Fifth, we
identify factors associated with heightened and diminished
responses to social rejection.
What Are Social Acceptance
and Social Rejection?
Social acceptance means that other people signal that they
wish to include you in their groups and relationships (Leary,
2010). Social acceptance occurs on a continuum that ranges
from merely tolerating another person’s presence to actively
pursuing someone as a relationship partner. Social rejection
means that others have little desire to include you in their
groups and relationships (Leary, 2010). Social rejection also is
a complex construct, consisting of behaviors that can range
from ignoring another person’s presence to actively expelling
him or her from a group or existing relationship. People can
experience acceptance and rejection chronically or acutely.
People experience social acceptance and rejection in
numerous ways. Examples of acceptance include being chosen
for a desirable job or having a romantic partner say “yes” to a
marriage proposal. Examples of rejection include divorce or
being ignored by one’s coworkers. Psychologists have devised
several innovative manipulations of social acceptance and
Corresponding Author:
C. Nathan DeWall, 201 Kastle Hall, Department of Psychology, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044
Social Acceptance and Rejection:
The Sweet and the Bitter
C. Nathan DeWall
and Brad J. Bushman
University of Kentucky and
The Ohio State University and VU University, Amsterdam
People have a fundamental need for positive and lasting relationships. In this article, we provide an overview of social psychological
research on the topic of social acceptance and rejection. After defining these terms, we describe the need to belong and
how it enabled early humans to fulfill their survival and reproductive goals. Next, we review research on the effects of social
rejection on emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and biological responses. We also describe research on the neural correlates of
social rejection. We offer a theoretical account to explain when and why social rejection produces desirable and undesirable
outcomes. We then review evidence regarding how people cope with the pain of social rejection. We conclude by identifying
factors associated with heightened and diminished responses to social rejection.
social rejection, social exclusion, social acceptance, need to belong
Social Acceptance and Rejection 257
rejection, including leading participants to believe that every-
one or no one chose them to be in their group (Maner, DeWall,
Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007) or having confederates (real
or virtual) include or exclude them in a ball-tossing game
(Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000).
Why Is Social Acceptance Sweet and
Social Rejection Bitter?
The need to belong is defined as the desire to form and maintain
close, lasting relationships with some other individuals
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need to belong has two parts.
First, people want some kind of positive regular social contact.
Second, people want the stable framework of some ongoing
relationship in which the the individuals share a mutual concern
for each other. Having either of these without the other provides
only partial satisfaction of the need to belong.
Being motivated to have positive and lasting relationships
conferred a tremendous advantage among our evolutionary
ancestors. With no fangs, fur, or claws, and with long, vulner-
able childhoods, humans are ill-suited to fulfill their survival
and reproductive needs living in isolation. Given these vulner-
abilities, early humans survived harsh environments by
depending on small groups of other individuals to meet many
of their survival and reproductive needs. The benefits of
acceptance and group living extend beyond protection from
predators and providing mates to spread one’s genes to future
generations. Cooperative group living enabled early humans
to share and receive resources from each other, thereby mak-
ing it unnecessary for individuals to carry the entire burden of
their well-being on their own shoulders.
Therefore, social rejection is experienced as “bitter” in
order to motivate individuals to avoid a negative state in which
they do not receive the benefits of inclusion, which ultimately
decreases their survival rate. Because our ancestors evolved in
small groups, social rejection likely signified a death sentence.
Even among early civilizations, such as that of the Greeks,
exile and death were treated as equivalent punishments. In
contrast, social acceptance is experienced as “sweet” in order
to reinforce a positive state in which people enjoy the rewards
associated with inclusion.
How Do People Respond to
Social Rejection?
Because social rejection thwarts a core human need, it is not
surprising that it influences a variety of outcomes—emotional,
cognitive, behavioral, biological, and neural. In terms of emo-
tional responses, social rejection tends to increase various
types of negative emotion. Hurt feelings are the core emo-
tional marker of social rejection, but rejection also increases
anxiety, anger, sadness, depression, and jealousy (Leary,
2010). Social rejection also diminishes state self-esteem,
defined as temporary feelings of self-worth (Williams et al.,
Social rejection influences cognitive processes in two main
ways. First, it reduces performance on challenging intellectual
tasks, resulting in subpar performance (e.g., Baumeister,
Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Second, social rejection causes peo-
ple to become cognitively attuned to potential sources of social
acceptance and to potential threats, presumably as a means of
gaining acceptance from others (e.g., Williams et al., 2000).
Rejected people can also be hypersensitive to signs of threat.
For example, rejected people perceive hostility when con-
fronted with ambiguously aggressive actions of a stranger who
does not represent a source of affiliation (DeWall, Twenge,
Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009).
Social rejection affects a broad assortment of behaviors.
Although it undermines the chances of gaining acceptance,
social rejection often increases aggression. In the laboratory,
rejected people, compared to nonrejected people, blast strang-
ers with intense and prolonged white noise, dole out large
amounts of hot sauce to people who hate spicy food, and give
destructive evaluations of potential job candidates (e.g.,
Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Outside of the
laboratory, social rejection is implicated in acts of mass vio-
lence. For example, an analysis of 15 school shooters found
that social rejection was present in all but 2 of the cases (Leary,
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003). Some recent evidence
demonstrates that a hostile cognitive bias mediates the rela-
tionship between threats of social rejection and aggression
(DeWall et al., 2009).
Crucially, offering socially rejected people a small taste
of acceptance, even from one stranger, is enough to reduce
their aggression (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams,
2010). Similar effects emerge with prosocial behavior. Socially
rejected people generally behave selfishly, but they engage in
prosocial behavior when doing so can earn them acceptance
(Maner et al., 2007). Thus, antisocial and prosocial responses
to social rejection hinge partly on the prospect of social
Social rejection also undermines self-regulation—better
known as impulse control. When given the opportunity, socially
rejected people will eat over twice as many good-tasting but
unhealthy cookies as nonrejected people will, but they will con-
sume only one third as much of a bad-tasting but healthy bever-
age (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). When
socially rejected people receive an incentive for effective self-
regulation, such as money, they regain their motivation and per-
form well. Framing self-regulation performance as a means
of gaining future acceptance is also effective in undoing the
self-regulation deficits following social rejection (DeWall,
Baumeister, & Vohs, 2008). These findings again highlight the
importance of promises of acceptance in motivating socially
rejected people to engage in desirable behavior.
Social rejection influences a variety of biological responses.
When people experience social rejection, their hearts literally
slow down (Gunther Moor, Crone, & van der Molen, 2010)
and they experience motivationally tuned changes in proges-
terone, a hormone associated with social-affiliative motivation
258 DeWall, Bushman
(Maner, Miller, Schmidt, & Eckel, 2010). Social rejection and
other forms of social-evaluative threat, defined as a context in
which a person can be judged negatively by others, increases the
release of the stress hormone cortisol (Dickerson & Kemeny,
2004) and stimulates production of proinflammatory cytokines
(Dickerson, Gable, Irwin, Aziz, & Kemeny, 2009). In terms of
neural correlates, social rejection increases activation in brain
regions (e.g., dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula)
that are associated with the affective component of physical
pain (i.e., the “unpleasantness” aspect of pain, as opposed to the
sensory component on knowing that one is experiencing pain;
Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003).
Coping With Social Rejection
If social rejection produces such varied (and often negative)
outcomes, it is incumbent upon psychological scientists to
identify how people can cope with the pain it causes. To be
sure, many of the previously mentioned responses to social
rejection may represent coping responses. Rejected people
may behave aggressively, for example, because they believe
doing so may make them feel better. In addition, striving to
identify and form bonds with new friends represents another
way that people cope with the pain of rejection.
Recent research suggests that social rejection sets in motion
an automatic emotion regulation process in which positive
emotions become highly accessible (DeWall et al., in press).
Socially rejected participants, compared to nonrejected par-
ticipants, recalled more positive childhood memories, com-
pleted more word stems with positive emotion words, and
made biased judgments to include more positive emotion in
their perception of word similarity. These findings offer initial
evidence that social rejection produces strong positive emo-
tional responses at an implicit level, possibly as a means of
warding off later distress.
People also cope with social rejection by turning to religion
(Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010). Compared to nonrejected peo-
ple, socially rejected people express greater religious affilia-
tion and greater intentions to engage in religious activities.
Priming rejected people with religious thoughts reduces their
aggression. Crucially, coping with social rejection through the
use of religion was found among both Christians and Muslims.
Apparently the use of religion as a means of coping with social
rejection does not depend on the teachings of a particular
Because there is some shared overlap in neural regions
associated with physical pain and social rejection, numbing
people to physical pain may also diminish the pain of social
rejection. In a test of this hypothesis, participants took a daily
dose of acetaminophen (the active ingredient in Tylenol) or a
placebo and reported their daily hurt feelings (DeWall, Mac-
Donald, et al., 2010). As predicted, the pain reliever reduced
daily hurt feelings compared to the placebo. A follow-up study
showed that compared to placebo, acetaminophen reduced
neural activation to a social rejection manipulation in the
dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and anterior insula
(see Fig. 1). Thus, an over-the-counter analgesic commonly
used to treat physical pain was effective in reducing emotional
responses and neural correlates of social rejection.
Individual Factors Associated With
Heightened and Diminished Responses to
Social Rejection
Social rejection means different things to different people.
Although social rejection poses a basic threat to most people,
enduring patterns of inner experience and behavior are
associated with heightened or diminished responses. For
example, behavioral and emotional responses to social rejec-
tion are particularly pronounced among people high in rejec-
tion sensitivity (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008) and high
in anxious attachment (Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, & Pearce,
2003). Neural correlates of rejection and social disapproval
are strongest among people high in rejection sensitivity
(Burklund, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007) and low in self-
esteem (Onoda et al., 2010).
Although rejection-sensitive people behave quite aggres-
sively when there is no possibility of gaining acceptance, they
can also show hormonal and behavioral responses reflecting a
strong desire for affiliation. After experiencing social rejec-
tion, highly rejection-sensitive people experience increases in
their progesterone levels and go out of their way to make a
good impression on potential affiliates (e.g., Maner et al.,
2010). In contrast, socially anxious people respond to social
rejection with hormonal and behavioral responses indicative
of a weak desire for affiliation (Maner et al., 2007, 2010).
To our knowledge, only one study thus far has identified an
individual risk factor associated with relative immunity to
social rejection (Wirth, Lynam, & Williams, 2010). In that
study, socially rejected participants who scored highly on a
configuration of traits descriptive of Cluster A personality dis-
orders (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal) experienced less
reductions in their feelings of belonging, self-esteem, control,
meaningful existence, and positive affect relative to partici-
pants who scored low on these traits. Future work may explore
other individual factors associated with relative immunity to
social rejection.
Fifteen years ago, there was almost no social psychological
research investigating how social acceptance and rejection
affect people. As shown in this review, an explosion of theo-
rizing and research has filled this void. This work has clarified
how social rejection influences a broad range of outcomes—
emotional, cognitive, behavioral, biological, and neural. It has
shed light on how desirable and undesirable responses to
social rejection often hinge on the prospect of acceptance or
some other enticing benefit. It has examined ways that people
Social Acceptance and Rejection 259
cope with social rejection and how medications designed to
diminish physical pain can also diminish the pain of rejection.
And it has identified individual factors that predispose people
to react harshly or weakly to social rejection.
As this research literature enters its second generation, it is
critical for researchers to consider the impact of social accep-
tance and rejection within the context of ongoing relation-
ships. Thus far, researchers have focused almost entirely on
social acceptance and rejection experienced from strangers,
leaving open the question of whether these results relate to
existing relationships. Examining the time course of responses
to social acceptance and rejection is also significant, as most
research thus far offers a snapshot of immediate responses and
does not investigate how responses strengthen or decay over
time. Thus, the social acceptance and rejection literature offers
fertile ground for psychological scientists to unlock the mys-
teries underlying the need to belong—and how satisfying or
thwarting this need gives insight into human nature.
Recommended Reading
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). (See References). A key
theoretical piece on how people have a fundamental need to
DeWall, C.N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G.D., Masten, C., Baumeister,
R.F., Powell, C., et al. (2010). (See References). Provides the first
evidence that acetaminophen, a physical pain killer, can reduce the
pain of social rejection.
Leary, M.R. (2010). (See References). A comprehensive review for
readers wishing to expand their knowledge on the field of social
acceptance and rejection.
Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K.T., & Choi, W. (2000). (See Refer-
ences). Introduction and validation of the most widely used
manipulation of social rejection: Cyberball.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Activity During
Exclusion vs. Inclusion
Activity During
Exclusion vs. Inclusion
Acetaminophen Acetaminophen
Placebo Placebo
Anterior Insula (45, 21, –9)dACC (9, 27, 21)
t = 0
Fig. 1. Activation in regions associated with the pain of social rejection—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC; a) and anterior
insula (b)—in response to social exclusion (vs. inclusion) in those receiving acetaminophen and those receiving a placebo. The illustration
above each graph shows change in intensity of neural activity that was greater for participants who took placebo than for those who took
acetaminophen (see the color bar); results are averaged across both conditions. The circled regions are those for which results are given
in the bar graphs. Source: DeWall, C.N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G.D., Masten, C., Baumeister, R.F., Powell, C., et al. (2010). Acetaminophen
reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science, 21, 931–937.
260 DeWall, Bushman
Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turning to God in the face
of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 742–753.
Ayduk, O., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences
in the rejection–aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The
case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 44, 775–782.
Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Ciaracco, N.J., & Twenge, J.M.
(2005). Social exclusion impairs self–regulation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M., & Nuss, C.K. (2002). Effects of
social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness
reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 817–827.
Burklund, L.J., Eisenberger, N.I., & Lieberman, M.D. (2007). The
face of rejection: Rejection sensitivity moderates dorsal anterior
cingulate activity to disapproving facial expressions. Social Neu-
roscience, 2, 238–253.
DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. (2008). Satiated with
belongingness?: Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task fram-
ing on self–regulatory performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 1367–1382.
DeWall, C.N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G.D., Masten, C., Baumeister,
R.F., Powell, C., et al. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces social
pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psychological Science, 21,
DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Bushman, B.J., Im, C., & Williams,
K.D. (2010). Acceptance by one differs from acceptance by none:
Applying social impact theory to the rejection–aggression link.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168–174.
DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Gitter, S.A., & Baumeister, R.F. (2009).
It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognitions in shap-
ing aggression following rejection. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 45–59.
DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Koole, S.L., Baumeister, R.F.,
Marquez, A., & Reid, M.W. (in press). Automatic emotion regu-
lation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity. Emotion.
Dickerson, S.S., Gable, S.L., Irwin, M.R., Aziz, N., & Kemeny, M.E.
(2009). Social-evaluative threat and proinflammatory cytokine
regulation: An experimental laboratory investigation. Psycho-
logical Science, 20, 1237–1244.
Dickerson, S.S., & Kemeny, M.E. (2004). Acute stressors and corti-
sol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of labora-
tory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 355–391.
Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Does
rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302,
Gunther Moor, B., Crone, E.A., & van der Molen, M.W. (2010). The
heartbrake of social rejection: Heart rate deceleration in response to
unexpected peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21, 1326–1333.
Leary, M.R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In S.T. Fiske,
D.T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology
(5th Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864–897). New York, NY: Wiley.
Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teas-
ing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings.
Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.
Maner, J.K., DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R.F., & Schaller, M. (2007).
Does social exclusion motivate withdrawal or reconnection?
Resolving the “porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 92, 42–55.
Maner, J.K., Miller, S.L., Schmidt, N.B., & Eckel, L.A. (2010). The
endocrinology of exclusion: Rejection elicits motivationally tuned
changes in progesterone. Psychological Science, 21, 581–588.
Onoda, K., Okamoto, Y., Nakashima, K., Nittono, H., Yoshimura, S.,
Yamawaki, S., et al. (2010). Does low self–esteem enhance social
pain? The relationship between trait self–esteem and anterior cin-
gulate cortex activation induced by ostracism. Social Cognitive &
Affective Neuroscience, 5, 385–391.
Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M., & Stucke, T.S. (2001).
If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on
aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 81, 1058–1069.
Vorauer, J.D., Cameron, J.J., Holmes, J.G., & Pearce, D.G. (2003).
Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification
bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 793–812.
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.
Wirth, J.H., Lynam, D.R., & Williams, K.D. (2010). When social pain
isn’t automatic: Personality disorders buffer ostracism’s imme-
diate negative impact. Journal of Research in Personality, 44,
... These results, strengthened by their ecological validity, contribute to an emerging neuroimaging literature suggesting a dedicated neural substrate for complex representations of both positive and negative social signals 17,18,20,37,38 . While it has hitherto been established that depressed individuals exhibit heightened interpersonal rejection sensitivity and systematic biases in emotional processing at both the behavioural and neural level 39,40 , such prior studies have focused on the experience of negative social experiences, frequently elicited under less ecologically valid conditions. However, the ability to monitor both socially inclusive and exclusive salient cues is central to the notion of a more sophisticated index of social processing underscored by our fundamental need to belong 1 . ...
... This is supported by empirical evidence that individuals high in interpersonal rejection sensitivity tend to modify their interpersonal behaviour to avoid social exclusion and maintain social acceptance 41 . Finally, our results are in line with wider literature suggesting that social cues involving social acceptance may elicit higher levels and greater intensity of positive affect in depressed individuals, contrary to previous assumptions 36,39,42 . This suggests that depressive symptoms may increase sensitivity to both past and present experiences of both social acceptance. ...
Full-text available
Cues of social rejection and affiliation represent proximal risk and protective factors in the onset and maintenance of depression. Such cues are thought to activate an evolutionarily primed neuro-cognitive alarm system, alerting the agent to the benefits of inclusion or the risk of social exclusion within social hierarchies focused on ensuring continued access to resources. In tandem, autobiographical memory is thought to be over-general and negatively biased in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) which can contribute to maintenance and relapse. How memories of social rejection and affiliation are experienced and processed in MDD remains unexplored. Eighteen participants with recurrent and chronic MDD and 18 never-depressed controls listened to and vividly revisited autobiographical social experiences in an ecologically valid script-driven imagery paradigm using naturalistic memory narratives in an fMRI paradigm. Memories of Social Inclusion and Social Rejection broadly activated a common network of regions including the bilateral insula, thalamus and pre/postcentral gyrus across both groups. However, having a diagnosis of MDD was associated with an increased activation of the right middle frontal gyrus irrespective of memory type. Changes in positive affect were associated with activity in the dorsal ACC in the MDD group and in the insular cortex of the Control group. Our findings add to the evidence for complex representations for both positive and negative social signals in MDD and suggest neural sensitivity in MDD towards any socially salient information as opposed to selective sensitivity towards negative social experiences.
... According to the results of the present study, single and married midwives obtained a higher WCCS-MSR score than their divorced midwives. This can probably be attributed to the fact that women have to grapple with more changes and challenges compared to men after divorce [30], including economic problems, depression, reduced level of life satisfaction, playing various roles, impaired social interactions, child custody problems, callousness, and declining mental and physical health [31,32]. Therefore, divorced midwives seem to be under more pressure and stress as they face the above problems and professional issues, which negatively affects their WCCS-MSR score. ...
Full-text available
Abstract Background Woman-centered care (WCC) is the cornerstone of the midwifery profession. However, no study has been conducted on WCC provided by Iranian midwives and its associated factors. Thus, this study aimed to determine WCC and factors associated with midwives’ WCC for midwives working in urban health centers and public and private hospitals in Tabriz, Iran. Methods This cross-sectional study was the first part (i.e., the quantitative phase) of a sequential explanatory mixed-method study conducted on 575 midwives working in urban health centers and public and private hospitals in Tabriz-Iran from November 2022 to January 2023. The required data was collected by distributing a socio-demographic and job characteristics questionnaire and woman-centered care scale-midwife self-report (WCCS-MSR). To determine the factors associated with WCC, an independent t-test or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in bivariate analysis, and a general linear model (GLM) was employed in multivariate analysis to control possible confounding variables. Results The statistical population consisted of 575 midwives, with a response rate of 88.2%. According to the GLM, the total mean WCCS-MSR score of single [β (95% CI) 23.02 (7.94 to 38.10)] and married [β (95% CI) 21.28 (6.83 to 35.72)] midwives was significantly higher than that of divorced midwives after adjusting their demographic and job characteristics. Also, the total mean WCCS-MSR score of midwives with sufficient income was significantly higher than those with insufficient income [β (95% CI) 8.94 (0.12 to 17.77). In addition, the total mean WCCS-MSR score of midwives with
Background: Previous research has consistently shown that social exclusion increases the proclivity for risk-taking. However, theoretical approaches like the Social Risk Hypothesis suggest that this relationship flips when confronted with social risks. Accordingly, the current study hypothesized that social exclusion decreases the propensity for social risks, in contrast to that for risks of other domains. Methods: To investigate this hypothesis, we conducted a correlational pre-study and an experimental main study. In the latter, we tested our assumption manipulating exclusion vs. inclusion using the Cyberball and Future-Life paradigms. Results: Results of the pre-study revealed that exclusion was linked to some forms of risk-taking, however, not to risk-taking in social domains. The main study showed that an experimental induced instance of social exclusion dampened the propensity for social risks. It further disclosed this effect’s boundary condition: When individuals were socially excluded to a more severe extent, they did not demonstrate such a risk-averse reaction. Moreover, we identified low dominance as a mediator for the dampening effect of exclusion on social risk-taking. Conclusions: These findings indicate that social risk aversion in the aftermath of social exclusion might be an adaptive strategy in the short-term because the prevention of social risks and humble behaviors reduce signals of threat and elicit signals of support. However, this strategy might also produce a vicious circle of exclusion and, thus, higher costs in the long-term.
This research identifies a surprising downside to using crowdsourcing to generate new product ideas: participants who do not win an idea generation contest temporarily disengage from the contest-hosting brand. When people lose a crowdsourcing contest, the experience of losing negatively affects the participants’ word-of-mouth and short-term purchase behaviors. Reframing the contest as a community activity (e.g., “Join the crowd and help us find a name for our new restaurant”) rather than a competition (e.g., “Compete with the crowd to be the one who names our new restaurant”) is found to positively affect a losing customer's subsequent engagement with the contest-hosting brand. Community framing shifts attention away from losing the contest (i.e., it reduces negative affect) and toward collectively creating a superior outcome (i.e., it increases one's perceived contribution), without changing the nature of the contest itself (i.e., participants continue to submit ideas). Community framing positively affects subsequent participant engagement, but it does not influence the effort the participant invests in the contest or the quality of the idea the participant submits. The evidence consists of lab experiments, field experiments, and a large-scale field study that measured actual purchase behavior.
Displaced aggression refers to aggressive retaliation toward a target other than an initial provocateur. Meta‐analytic evidence confirms its reliability and robustness (mean effect size = +0.54) and indicates moderation by intensity of provocation, similarity of displacement target to provocateur, and negativity of the displaced aggression setting. Experimental research strongly supports this latter correlational finding, (1) confirming the importance of minor negative target actions to its elicitation, (2) showing no instances of it in the absence of a trigger, and (3) thereby establishing the construct validity of triggered displaced aggression. In this chapter, we review several additional moderators of displaced aggression as well as the effects of individual differences in the propensity to engage in it (viz., trait displaced aggression). We also emphasize rumination's role in eliciting it. Finally, we discuss the application of triggered displaced aggression to intergroup violence and the experimental evidence supporting the construct validity of vicarious retribution.
Purpose The increasing number of online courses in higher education has provided students with convenience and flexibility. However, some adverse effects also come with online learning, including negatively affecting student beliefs in themselves and their perceptions of the instructor. Both are important factors for academic success. Grounded in media richness theory, this study aims to examine the impact of medium choices by investigating instructor messages on student beliefs and perceptions in an online course. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a survey methodology using validated items to assess university student perceptions following faculty interactions (video versus customized email). Findings The authors find that videos and personalized emails, using mass distribution Excel features, help increase student beliefs, including social belongingness and self-efficacy, and improve students' perceptions of the instructor and learning environment. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by establishing that the richness of media of faculty messages can impact student beliefs, which in turn, may help with student success and retention. The activities used in this study are low-effort for the instructor and may have lasting effects on the students. In addition, this study fills a gap in the literature by examining multiple forms of the richness of media and their impact on multiple aspects of students' beliefs and perceptions of the instructor.
Why do people fall in love? Does passion fade with time? What makes for a happy, healthy relationship? This introduction to relationship science follows the lifecycle of a relationship – from attraction and initiation, to the hard work of relationship maintenance, to dissolution and ways to strengthen a relationship. Designed for advanced undergraduates studying psychology, communication or family studies, this textbook presents a fresh, diversity-infused approach to relationship science. It includes real-world examples and critical-thinking questions, callout boxes that challenge students to make connections, and researcher interviews that showcase the many career paths of relationship scientists. Article Spotlights reveal cutting-edge methods, while Diversity and Inclusion boxes celebrate the variety found in human love and connection. Throughout the book, students see the application of theory and come to recognize universal themes in relationships as well as the nuances of many findings. Instructors can access lecture slides, an instructor manual, and test banks.
Full-text available
z Travma sonrası stres belirtilerinin sürdürülmesinde önemli bir role sahip olduğu bilinen travma sonrası utanca ait bir ölçme aracının hem araştırma hem de klinik değerlendirme amacıyla kullanılabilmesi önemlidir. Bu araştırmanın amacı travma sonrası utancı ölçen Travma Sonrası Utanç Ölçeği'nin (TSUÖ; Øktadalen ve ark., 2014) cinsel travma yaşantısı olan kadın örnekleminde Türkçe psikometrik özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmaya cinsel travma yaşantısına sahip olan 18-55 yaş arasındaki 604 kadın katılmıştır. Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 32.5'tir. (Ss=10.0). TSUÖ'nun Türkçe formunun yapı geçerliğini test etmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Elde edilen DFA değerlerine göre (RMSEA [root-mean-square error of approximation]= 0.07, S-RMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99) TSUÖ'nun iki düzeyli iki boyutlu yapısının model uyumu kabul edilebilir olarak raporlanmıştır. Travma sonrası gelişen utancı içsel/ kınama, dışsal/ kınama, içsel/ duygusal-davranışsal, dışsal/ duygusal-davranışsal utanç boyutları ile değerlendiren TSUÖ toplam puanları ile korku kontrol kaybı (r= 0.64) ve travmatik stres belirtileri (r= 0.69) arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur. Travma Sonrası Stres Bozukluğu tanısı alan katılımcıların almayan katılımcılara kıyasla TSUÖ puanları anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek bulunmuştur (t (459.90) = 18.106, p< 0.01). TSUÖ'nün güvenirliği için Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı incelenmiştir. Faktörlere ait Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısının 0.84 ile 0.92 arasında değiştiği, ölçeğin tamamına ait iç tutarlık katsayısının ise 0.97 olduğu görülmüştür. Bu bulgular ışığında TSUÖ'nün Türkçe formunun cinsel travma yaşantısı olan kadın örnekleminde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu görülmüştür. Anahtar Kelimeler: travma sonrası utanç, cinsel travma, travma sonrası stres bozukluğu Abstract Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Trauma Related Shame Scale in a Sample of Women with Sexual Trauma It is important to use a measurement tool for post-traumatic shame, which is known to have a crucial role in maintaining the symptoms of post-traumatic stress, both in research and in clinical evaluation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Turkish psychometric properties of the Post Traumatic Shame Scale (TRSI; Øktadalen et al., 2014), which measures post-traumatic shame, in a sample of women who have experienced sexual trauma. Six hundred four women between the ages of 18-55 who had a sexual trauma experience participated in the study. The mean age of the participants is 32.5. (Ss=10.0). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the construct validity of the Turkish version of the TRSI. The DFA values (RMSEA = 0.07, S-RMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99) showed that the model fit of the two-level two-dimensional structure of the TRSI is excellent. The positive significant relationships were found between total scores of TRSI, which evaluate post-traumatic shame with internal/condemnation, external/condemnation, internal/emotional-behavioral, external/emotional-behavioral shame dimensions, and loss of fear control (r= 0.64) and traumatic stress symptoms (r= 0.69). Participants who diagnosed with PTSD had significantly higher PTSD scores than those who did not (t (459.90) = 18.106, p< 0.01). The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was examined for the reliability of the TRSI. It is found that the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of the factors varied between 0.84 and 0.92, the internal consistency coefficient of the whole scale was 0.97. In the light of these findings, it has been seen that the Turkish version of the TRSI is a valid and reliable measurement tool in the sample of women who have experienced sexual trauma.
Full-text available
The immediate impact of ostracism is painful. Thus far, no published studies find evidence for the moderation of ostracism’s immediate impact by individual difference variables. We explore meaningful configurations of personality traits, specifically personality disorders, as potential moderators of ostracism’s immediate impact. We focused on traits descriptive of Cluster A personality disorders, characterized by severe interpersonal distrust, detachment, and/or discomfort. We assessed personality disorder scores using individuals’ Five Factor Model profiles. Participants were ostracized during a virtual ball-toss game, Cyberball, and immediately after, completed measures of social pain, basic need satisfaction, and affect. Only traits characteristic of Cluster A personality disorders, not Cluster B or C disorders, buffered ostracism’s impact on social pain, basic need satisfaction, and positive affect.
Full-text available
Media commentators have suggested that recent school shootings were precipitated by social rejection, but no empirical research has examined this claim. Case studies were conducted of 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 to examine the possible role of social rejection in school violence. Acute or chronic rejection—in the form of ostracism, bullying, and/or romantic rejection—was present in all but two of the incidents. In addition, the shooters tended to be characterized by one or more of three other risk factors—an interest in firearms or bombs, a fascination with death or Satanism, or psychological problems involving depression, impulse control, or sadistic tendencies. Implications for understanding and preventing school violence are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 29:202–214, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Full-text available
Social relationships are vitally important in human life. Social rejection in particular has been conceptualized as a potent social cue resulting in feelings of hurt. Our study investigated the psychophysiological manifestation of hurt feelings by examining the beat-by-beat heart rate response associated with the processing of social rejection. Study participants were presented with a series of unfamiliar faces and were asked to predict whether they would be liked by the other person. Following each judgment, participants were provided with feedback indicating that the person they had viewed had either accepted or rejected them. Feedback was associated with transient heart rate slowing and a return to baseline that was considerably delayed in response to unexpected social rejection. Our results reveal that the processing of unexpected social rejection is associated with a sizable response of the parasympathetic nervous system. These findings are interpreted in terms of a cardiovagal manifestation of a neural mechanism implicated in the central control of autonomic function during cognitive processes and affective regulation.
Social exclusion was manipulated by telling people that they would end up alone later in life or that other participants had rejected them. These manipulations caused participants to behave more aggressively. Excluded people issued a more negative job evaluation against someone who insulted them (Experiments 1 and 2). Excluded people also blasted a target with higher levels of aversive noise both when the target had insulted them (Experiment 4) and when the target was a neutral person and no interaction had occurred (Experiment 5). However, excluded people were not more aggressive toward someone who issued praise (Experiment 3). These responses were specific to social exclusion (as opposed to other misfortunes) and were not mediated by emotion.
Three studies examined the effects of randomly assigned messages of social exclusion. In all 3 studies, significant and large decrements in intelligent thought (including IQ and Graduate Record Examination test performance) were found among people told they were likely to end up alone in life. The decline in cognitive performance was found in complex cognitive tasks such as effortful logic and reasoning: simple information processing remained intact despite the social exclusion. The effects were specific to social exclusion, as participants who received predictions of future nonsocial misfortunes (accidents and injuries) performed well on the cognitive tests. The cognitive impairments appeared to involve reductions in both speed (effort) and accuracy. The effect was not mediated by mood.
Ostracism is such a widely used and powerful tactic that the authors tested whether people would be affected by it even under remote and artificial circumstances. In Study 1, 1,486 participants from 62 countries accessed the authors' on-line experiment on the Internet. They were asked to use mental visualization while playing a virtual tossing game with two others (who were actually computer generated and controlled). Despite the minimal nature of their experience, the more participants were ostracized, the more they reported feeling bad, having less control, and losing a sense of belonging. In Study 2, ostracized participants were more likely to conform on a subsequent task. The results are discussed in terms of supporting K. D. Williams's (1997) need threat theory of ostracism.
Social rejection hurts, causing aggression even against innocent people. How can the sting of social rejection be reduced? Based on social impact theory, the authors predicted that aggression would decrease as a power function of the number of people accepting the participant. In Experiment 1, participants included by 0, 1, 2, or 3 players in an online ball-tossing game could aggress against an innocent stranger by requiring him or her to eat very spicy hot sauce. In Experiment 2, participants socially accepted by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 other people could aggress against an innocent stranger by administering loud noise. In both experiments, aggression and unpleasant emotions decreased as a power function according to the number of people accepting the participants, with each additional acceptor having a decreasing incremental effect. Acceptance from others numbs the pain of social rejection, making rejected people less likely to lash out against innocent others.
Affiliation2Seeking Acceptance and Belonging3Monitoring Relational Value and Social Connections4Varieties of Rejection-Related Events5Reactions to Rejection6Dealing With Threats to Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging7Long-Term Consequences of Rejection8Summary
Ostracism is such a widely used and powerful tactic that the authors tested whether people would be affected by it even under remote and artificial circumstances. In Study 1, 1,486 participants from 62 countries accessed the authors' on-line experiment on the Internet. They were asked to use mental visualization while playing a virtual tossing game with two others (who were actually computer generated and controlled). Despite the minimal nature of their experience, the more participants were ostracized, the more they reported feeling bad, having less control, and losing a sense of belonging. In Study 2, ostracized participants were more likely to conform on a subsequent task. The results are discussed in terms of supporting K. D. Williams's (1997) need threat theory of ostracism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved). (from the journal abstract)
Nine experiments tested competing hypotheses regarding nonconscious affective responses to acute social exclusion and how such responses may relate to positive mental health. The results strongly and consistently indicated that acute social exclusion increased nonconscious positive affect. Compared to nonexcluded participants, excluded participants recalled more positive memories from childhood than did accepted participants (Experiment 1), gave greater weight to positive emotion in their judgments of word similarity (Experiments 2 and 3), and completed more ambiguous word stems with happy words (Experiments 4a and 4b). This process was apparently automatic, as participants asked to imagine exclusion overestimated explicit distress and underestimated implicit positivity (Experiment 3). Four final experiments showed that this automatic emotion regulation process was found among participants low (but not high) in depressive symptoms (Experiments 5 and 6) and among participants high (but not low) in self-esteem (Experiments 7 and 8). These findings suggest that acute exclusion sets in motion an automatic emotion regulation process in which positive emotions become highly accessible, which relates to positive mental health.