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,
... From an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to repair or form new relationships after rejection to protect against further exclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Weerdmeester & Lange, 2019;Williams & Nida, 2011). Yet, ample evidence from the playground to the pub demonstrates that rejection commonly elicits aggression (Chester & DeWall, 2016;DeWall & Bushman, 2011;Leary et al., 2003). Using meta-analytic techniques, we sought to answer a critical debate in the literature: Does social rejection more commonly elicit prosocial behavior or aggressive behavior? ...
... Despite these differences, we believe there is utility to quantifying the extent to which aggressive and prosocial behavior are elicited by social events that broadly threaten the fundamental need to belong (DeWall & Bushman, 2011). For the purpose of this manuscript, we refer to these social events, which include social rejection, exclusion, and ostracism, as "rejection" or "social rejection." ...
... Rejection resulted in more aggressive, or less prosocial, behavior with effect sizes that were medium in size. This contradicts the theory that individuals behave prosocially to reduce the likelihood of future rejection (DeBono et al., 2017;DeWall & Bushman, 2011;Leary et al., 2003). This discrepancy may be linked to the fact that rejectionelicited prosocial behavior has often been operationalized as affiliative behavior (e.g., nonverbal mimicry; Lee & Shrum, 2012), rather than behavior that directly confers explicit personal benefit. ...
Full-text available
Social rejection elicits profound feelings of distress. From an evolutionary perspective, the best way to alleviate this distress is to behave prosocially, minimizing the likelihood of further exclusion. Yet, examples ranging from the playground to the pub suggest rejection commonly elicits aggression. Opposing theoretical perspectives and discordant empirical results have left a basic question unanswered: does rejection more commonly elicit prosocial or aggressive behavior? We conducted three meta‐analyses (one with studies measuring aggressive behavior; one with studies measuring prosocial behavior; and one with studies measuring both aggressive and prosocial behavior; N = 3864) to quantify: (1) the extent to which social rejection elicits prosocial or aggressive behavior and (2) potential moderating effects on these relations. Random‐effects models revealed medium effects such that social rejection potentiated aggressive behavior (k = 19; d = 0.41, p < .0001) and attenuated prosocial behavior (k = 7; d = 0.59, p < .0001), an effect that remained consistent even when participants were given the option to behave prosocially or aggressively (k = 15; d = 0.71, p < .0001). These results cast doubt on the theory that rejection triggers prosocial behavior, and instead suggest it is a robust elicitor of aggression. Statement of Relevance: To our knowledge, these meta‐analyses are the first to directly test whether social rejection elicits aggressive or prosocial behavior. By including a comprehensive collection of both published and unpublished research studies, and examining a wide variety of previously untested moderators, we show that social rejection robustly elicits aggressive behavior and inhibits prosocial behavior. Additionally, we demonstrate that aggressive behavior following social rejection is not simply a function of limited choices in response options. In fact, aggressive behavior was evoked even when the option to engage in prosocial behavior was provided. Furthermore, we conducted a comprehensive narrative review of the neural mechanisms underlying social rejection‐elicited aggressive and prosocial behavior to supplement primary analyses. Overall, we believe that our work makes a critical theoretical contribution to the field.
... We do so in the context of career inclusion to elucidate the psycho-social processes that VIs use to overcome and transcend the barriers of stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination. We also observe that, to date, researchers have not explored what VIs and other PWDs do to foster acceptance by co-workers, and how they do this, which is a key factor in the success of PWDs (DeWall and Bushman, 2011;McLaughlin et al., 2004). The contribution of the study will further expand the existing literature on career ecosystem theory and career sustainability and integrate both literature streams in the light of 'downplaying' strategies adopted by PWDs (which also included some VIs) aimed at gaining improved evaluations from others (managing impressions of others for positive evaluations from the non-disabled) (Lyons et al., 2016). ...
... While there is limited research on the acceptance of PWDs by co-workers, the VI population and how they can gain acceptance among co-workers is excluded from this debate (DeWall and Bushman, 2011;McLaughlin et al., 2004). This is particularly important because co-workers and employers may suffer from a higher aesthetic anxiety (commonly referred to as anxiety arising out of the negative perceptions that visual impairment may bring to the business and organization) in the presence of a VI colleague (Colella and Bruyère, 2011). ...
... Third, this study acknowledges the critical role of acceptance orchestrated by the VIs (personal agency) in achieving their career goals (DeWall and Bushman, 2011;Kirton and Greene, 2019;McLaughlin et al., 2004;Vornholt et al., 2013) extending the literature on acceptance of PWDs by the co-workers in the workplace. The high career attainment participants through high performance at work refute stereotypes of low competence and low performance leading to their positive evaluations by their coworkers (Bengisu and Balta, 2011). ...
Visual impairment, as a form of disability, remains understudied in the context of employment and careers. Drawing on career ecosystem and career sustainability theories, we explore factors that lead to career success and sustainability of visually-impaired individuals. We collected qualitative data from 66 visually-impaired individuals from India who had experienced varying degrees of career attainment. We applied grounded theory to study their deep-seated attitudes and ingrained behaviors that help build successful and sustainable careers. High-career-attainment participants were extremely resilient, able to bounce back after rejection, and willing to adopt key psycho-social processes such as non-acceptance of rejection, relatability (forging positive relations with the sighted), family support, enabling self through technology, and influence mindset change which led them to be ‘masters of circumstance.’ Low-career-attainment participants were characterized by unquestioning acceptance of fate, skepticism, and obligation to support the family, making them ‘victims of circumstance’. We contribute to the career ecosystems and career sustainability literature by expanding it to wider populations and crystalizing processes that influence careers, and offer policy implications. Individuals should challenge conventional norms, be persistent and improve self-efficacy. Organization should think out of the box in order to win the war for talent by employing hidden talent.
... Scholars conducting similar research have typically examined social exclusion in juxtaposition to the long-established universal human need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and form enduring positive relationships (Dewall & Bushman, 2011). This desire to form mutual relationships and belong to a group, however, also gives rise to pain associated with rejection or nonacceptance. ...
... Social rejection can range from subtly ignoring a person seeking involvement in a group or relationship to outright expulsion of an existing group member or termination of a relationship (Leary, 2010;Dewall & Bushman, 2011). Unlike family member marginalization, social rejection does not always entail difference of those who experience exclusion, though often stigma precedes social rejection. ...
Full-text available
Despite burgeoning research about family distancing, researchers have yet to operationalize any family distancing construct. This paper describes the development and validation of a new measure operationalizing three components of family member marginalization (i.e., difference, disapproval, and exclusion). We evaluated the Family Member Marginalization Measure (FM3) using data from college students (Study 1; N = 191) and self-identified marginalized family members (Study 2; N = 285). Confirmatory factor analyses verified the three dimensions of perceived family member marginalization and the 39-item FM3 proved both reliable and valid. Potential applications of the scale and avenues for future research are discussed.
In conceptualizing Social Concern Theory, Robert Agnew argued that social concern can serve as a protective factor against crime and influence the relationship between traditional correlates of crime (e.g., low self-control) and patterns of criminal offending. The current study provides a partial test of Social Concern Theory by examining the effect of one element of social concern (i.e., empathy) on online harassment perpetration among a sample of 1091 South Korean adolescents. Consideration is given to both the direct and indirect effects of social concern (i.e., empathy) on online harassment perpetration, as well as the potential interaction effects between social concern and low self-control. Consistent with theoretically-driven propositions, the results from multivariate modeling show that there are direct and indirect effects of social concern (i.e., empathy) on online harassment perpetration. Inconsistent with theoretical underpinnings, results suggest that social concern has no effect on the relationship between low self-control and online harassment perpetration.
Replicated evidence shows that adolescents enrolled in high-achieving schools exhibit elevated mental health problems relative to national norms, reflecting risk factors such as achievement and social pressures. The frequency of digital media use is similarly a potential risk factor for poor youth mental health, although mediators of this association have not been identified. 2952 youth from three high-achieving U.S. high schools reported the frequency of their digital media use as well as internalizing and externalizing problems and substance use. Using a multiple mediation framework, the frequency of social comparison, receiving negative feedback, and risky self-presentation online each uniquely mediated the association of digital media use with internalizing and externalizing problems in boys and girls; for substance use, risky self-presentation mediated this association in both boys and girls and negative feedback mediated substance use in girls only. Measurable online behaviors in the form of social comparison, negative feedback, and self-presentation may crucially underlie the association of digital media use frequency with socio-emotional development in adolescents. Implications for intervention focused on impacting online behaviors for improving youth mental health are discussed.
Shame and dissociation have been implicated theoretically and empirically in trauma exposure and its sequelae, with shame understood as an intense negative emotion and dissociation as a reaction to intense negative emotions. Understanding the connection between shame and dissociation is important for theory and practice; however, the strength of this association remains unclear. For example, in therapy, both shame and dissociation serve as a barrier to engaging with emotion. Theoretically, these two states should be distinct, as one (dissociation) confers low affective intensity and the other (shame) high intensity. The present meta‐analysis focused on the magnitude of the association between these two phenomena and investigated the extent to which gender, trauma exposure, psychiatric comorbidities, and demographic characteristics influence this association given their independent links to shame and dissociation. An initial search of six databases identified 151,844 articles. Duplicates were removed, and additional articles were excluded based on abstract and title screening. After contacting authors for missing data, a full‐text screen yielded 25 articles for the present analysis. The results indicate that shame and dissociation were moderately correlated (k = 33, n = 4,705), r = .42, 95% CI [.35, .48], p < .001, but no clear clinical moderators emerged. Despite this association, very few studies utilized experimental designs to examine the association between these constructs. Future research should focus on experimental study designs to investigate the extent to which shame induces dissociation or vice versa.
Self-regulation is a process that may affect the degree of peer rejection but may also be determined by the degree of peer rejection, whereby the degree of acceptance/rejection can influence the processes that lead to the strengthening or weakening of self-regulation. In this study, we concentrate on self-regulatory mechanisms (self-regulated behavior and strategies for emotional regulation) in peer-rejected students compared to non-rejected students. With the aid of structural equation modeling, we identified models of self-regulation mechanisms in three groups of students according to their acceptance/rejection. These groups differ in the degree of peer rejection, the structure of the regulation of emotional relations, and the degree of self-regulation behavior. The results suggest that peer-rejected students do not form a monolithic group from the perspective of self-regulation mechanisms, as it is possible to identify diverse structures of relations between the self-regulation mechanisms that probably depend, inter alia, on the degree of peer rejection.
Full-text available
With the increasingly crowded shopping environment, social crowding has become an important factor that affects consumers’ psychology and behavior. However, the impact of social crowding on consumers’ preference for green products hasn’t been focused on. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to empirically investigate the influence of social crowding on consumers’ preference for green products. With four studies, the present research examines how social crowding influences consumers’ preferences and uncovers the underlying psychological mechanism. The research shows that consumers prefer green products more under the condition of high social crowding than low, and safety needs mediate the impact of social crowding on green products preference. However, the impact of social crowding on the preference for products is only significant in green products. It also demonstrates the moderating effect of introversion-extraversion personality traits between social crowding and green products preference. For extraverted consumers, social crowding won’t affect their preference for green products, while for introverted consumers, social crowding is more likely to increase their preference for green products. This study contributes to marketing research by proposing and testing a new mechanism that underlies social crowding.
Full-text available
Inklusion ist als Thema aus dem deutschen Bildungssystem nicht mehr wegzudenken und trotzdem stellt sie weiterhin eine Herausforderung auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen dar. Die Qualifizierung der pädagogischen Fachkräfte ist dabei neben der Bereitstellung adäquater Rahmenbedingungen als ein besonders wichtiges Handlungsfeld zu betrachten. Die Bände der Reihe „Qualifizierung für Inklusion“ greifen den bestehenden Forschungs- und Entwicklungsbedarf auf und geben einen Überblick über die Ergebnisse der vom BMBF im Rahmen des Programms „Qualifizierung der pädagogischen Fachkräfte für inklusive Bildung“ geförderten Forschungsprojekte. Adressiert werden damit sowohl Wissenschaftler:innen als auch mit dem Themenfeld Inklusion befasste Personen und Institutionen der Aus-, Fort- und Weiterbildung, der Bildungsadministration und der Bildungspolitik. Der zweite Band der Reihe versammelt die Vorstellung von Projekten, Ergebnissen und Materialien, die sich dem Bildungsbereich der Grundschule zuordnen lassen. Die Reihe besteht aus drei weiteren Bänden, in denen die Ergebnisse zur Qualifizierung für Inklusion im Elementarbereich (Band 1), in der Sekundarstufe (Band 3) sowie in der Berufsschule, Hochschule und Erwachsenenbildung (Band 4) vorgestellt werden.
Full-text available
Zusammenfassung Mit der zunehmenden Veränderung des Arbeitsortes förderpädagogischer Lehrkräfte gehen aus steuerungs-, organisations- und professionstheoretischer Sichtweise zahlreiche Fragen einher: Wie sind die Rahmenbedingungen der Tätigkeit? Wie sieht der konkrete Einsatz aus? Erfolgt eine Weiterentwicklung der sonderpädagogischen Profession? Bisherige Forschungen zeigen u. a., dass förderpädagogische Lehrkräfte in Regelschulen unterschiedliche Rollen (Generalist:innen und Spezialist:innen) einnehmen und die Kooperation zwischen den Lehrkräften häufig auf einem oberflächlichem Niveau stattfindet. Für die sonderpädagogische Profession wird zudem auf einen (möglichen) Verlust von professionellen Orientierungsmustern hingewiesen. Im Projekt FoLis (Förderpädagogische Lehrkräfte in inklusiven Schulen) wurden von 2018 bis 2021 in vier Bundesländern Expert:innen aus der Schulverwaltung sowie Grundschulleitungen und förderpädagogische Lehrkräfte mit qualitativen und quantitativen Methoden zu den o.g. Themen befragt. Die Ergebnisse deuten unter anderem auf teilweise ungünstige Rahmenbedingungen des Einsatzes der förderpädagogischen Lehrkräfte sowie auf eine Trennung der Zuständigkeiten zwischen den Grundschullehrkräften und der förderpädagogischen Lehrkräfte entlang des Etiketts „sonderpädagogischer Förderbedarf “ hin. Insgesamt sind die förderpädagogischen Lehrkräfte mit der Unterstützung durch die Schulleitung und im Kollegium und auch mit ihrer erlebten pädagogischen Wirksamkeit zufrieden, berichten aber gleichzeitig von einem hohen Belastungserleben. Schlüsselworte: Grundschule, Lehrkräfte, Inklusion, sonderpädagogische Förderung, Kooperation, Zufriedenheit Abstract The increasing change in the work place of teachers for special education is accompanied by numerous questions from the perspective of control, organisation and professional theory: What are the framework conditions of the activity? What does the concrete assignment look like? Is there further development of the special education profession? Previous research shows, among other aspects, that special education teachers in mainstream schools take on different roles (generalists and specialists) and that cooperation between teachers often takes place on a superficial level. For the special education profession, a (possible) loss of professional orientation patterns is also pointed out. In the project FoLis, experts from school administration as well as elementary school principals and special education teachers were interviewed on the above topics in four federal states from 2018 to 2021 using qualitative and quantitative methods. The results indicate, among others, partly unfavorable framework conditions for the deployment of special needs teachers as well as a separation of responsibilities between elementary school teachers and special needs teachers along the label “special educational needs”. On the whole, the teachers with special educational needs are satisfied with the support they receive from the school management and the teaching staff, as well as with the pedagogical effectiveness they experience. At the same time, however, they report a high level of stress. Keywords: Elementary school, teachers, inclusion, special education, cooperation, job satisfaction
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.