Chapter 24

Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

The Pursuit of Interpersonal Connection

MARK R. LEARY

The science of social psychology is predicated on the As a result, interpersonal behavior is rooted in two comple-
simple fact that human thought, emotion, and behavior mentary processes by which people simultaneously seek to
are powerfully affected by the real, implied, and imag- relate with other people and try to get others to want to
ined presence of other people (Allport, 1954). Sometimes, relate with them as well. This chapter focuses on these two
people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions are affected when fundamental interpersonal processes.
they merely think about other people, wonder about their The chapter is organized as follows. The first section
intentions, imagine their reactions, or even fantasize about examines factors that motivate people to affiliate and spend
them, and a great deal of attention has been paid to how time with others. Most work in this area has focused on
people respond when they think about other people. Yet, the effects of stressful situations on affiliation, but people
much of social psychology is fundamentally concerned obviously desire to interact with others under nonstressful
with how people are influenced by those with whom they conditions as well, and we examine an array of reasons that
actually interact. Even when researchers conduct studies people affiliate with one another. As noted, people who are
in nonsocial contexts (such as when they ask participants interested in interacting with others must also induce the
to respond to hypothetical situations or react to com- others to interact with them, so we also touch on the ways
puter-administered stimuli), they are usually interested in in which people promote counteraffiliation. As discussed in
understanding psychological and interpersonal processes this chapter, much of this research was conducted in the
that they believe play out during actual social encoun- 1950s and 1960s; although social psychologists once
ters in everyday life. Indeed, most social psychological devoted a good deal of attention to understanding the bases
phenomena—even those that occur when people are by of affiliation, interest has nearly disappeared since then.
themselves—make sense only with respect to the fact that Because merely affiliating with other people is of lim-
people interact with one another, form relationships, and ited usefulness in providing many desired outcomes, people
join groups. A social psychology of the solitary individual are motivated not only to get others to affiliate with them,
who thought about, but never associated with, other people but also for others to value and accept them as well. The
would be an impoverished one indeed. chapter discusses ways in which people foster and main-
Given the centrality of social interaction in human behav- tain their relational value by showing other people that
ior, understanding how and why people seek contact with they possess attributes that make them a good relational
others is of central concern to social psychology. People partner (friend, romantic partner, group member, or what-
are highly motivated to spend time with certain other peo- ever) and monitoring their relational value in others’ eyes
ple and make choices on an ongoing basis regarding with for signs that their value to other people is low or declin-
whom they will interact. However, affiliation is a two- ing. Of course, people are often not successful in being
way street. People can sustain both single interactions and accepted as a relational partner or group member, so the
ongoing relationships with other people only to the extent chapter also examines the causes and consequences of
that they can entice others to want to relate to them as well. interpersonal rejection, with sections devoted to the effects
As a result, people are interested not only in being with and of rejection on emotion, self-esteem, and interpersonal
developing connections with other individuals but also in behavior. The chapter concludes with an examination of
showing other people that they have something to offer as the effects of interpersonal rejection on physical and psy-
social interactants, relational partners, and group members. chological well-being.

864
Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
 Affiliation 865

AFFILIATION be heard and to hear, to talk and to listen.” Theorists and

researchers have examined some of the factors that deter-
Affiliation is the act of associating or interacting with one mine the degree to which people wish to affiliate in a par-
or more other people. The concept of affiliation carries no ticular situation, although, as noted, recent research on this
indication of the quality, affective tone, or length of the topic is surprisingly sparse.
social encounter or the nature of the relationship between One perspective on why and when people will want to
the people. When people want to affiliate, they merely seek to affiliate is offered by the social affiliation model, which
be in the company of and to interact with others. Many proposes that people seek to maintain an optimal level of
theorists have suggested that being with or interacting with social contact (O’Connor & Rosenblood, 1996). As with
other people is a fundamental social behavior (Bakan, all homeostatic models, the social affiliation model sug-
1966; Hogan & Roberts, 2000; Murray, 1938; Saucier & gests that deviations from a preferred level of interpersonal
Goldberg, 1996). contact motivates people to adjust their behavior so that
At one level, the motive to affiliate appears to emerge an optimal degree of contact is restored. Thus, after an
without any special evocative circumstances. All well- episode of solitude, people will be motivated to seek out
adjusted people desire to interact with others to some additional opportunities for affiliation, whereas after hav-
degree even when doing so provides no tangible benefits ing a high amount of contact with others, people will draw
other than the experience of interacting itself. Often, people back and affiliate less for a time. Of course, people differ
who find themselves in close proximity, such as waiting in their optimal or preferred level of interaction overall,
in line or seated together on an airplane, will interact with which accounts for individual differences in affiliation ten-
one another even though there is no instrumental reason dencies (Cheek & Buss, 1981).
for doing so. Presumably, the strong and pervasive urge Research has generally supported the hypothesis that the
to affiliate has evolutionary underpinnings. In tracing the affiliation motive responds in a homeostatic fashion in human
origins of human sociality, theorists have proposed that beings (Gerwitz & Baer, 1958; O’Connor & Rosenblood,
affiliation and group living enhanced our prehistoric ances- 1996; Peay & Peay, 1983; Zeedyk-Ryan & Smith, 1983)
tors’ chances of survival and reproduction, as well as the and in rats (Latané & Werner, 1978). In fact, people
survival of their offspring (Ainsworth, 1989; Kameda & who merely expect to experience a nonoptimal level of
Tindale, 2006). Not only are solitary human beings a poor affiliation in the near future (either lower or higher than
match for most predators, but they are not likely to thrive they prefer) may adjust their behavior beforehand (Baum &
when they must single-handedly obtain food, defend them- Greenberg, 1975). Although research supports the idea that
selves against threats of various kinds, care for their children, people adjust their affiliative behavior in a homeostatic
and successfully survive occasions on which they are too fashion, one shortcoming of the social affiliation model
ill or injured to fend for themselves. As a result, natural is that it does not attempt to explain why external
selection may have forged a strong motive for affiliation as circumstances other than prior (or expected) interaction
part of the human psyche. Group living is characteristic of motivate people to seek or avoid affiliation.
our closest primate relatives—the chimpanzees, bonobos, According to the multidimensional model of affiliation
and gorillas—suggesting that it might have evolved before (Hill, 1987), people affiliate with others for four primary
the human lineage split from that leading to other mod- reasons: to obtain positive stimulation, for emotional sup-
ern great apes (De Waal, 2005). (In contrast, orangutans, port, to gain social comparison information, and to get
whose family tree diverged earlier, are notably solitary and attention from other people (see also Murray, 1938). First,
nonaffiliative.) Thus, the urge to affiliate with other people people may affiliate because contact and interaction with
probably springs from evolutionary pressures to remain others are often enjoyable (i.e., positive stimulation; Hill,
in proximity to other people for purposes of protection and 1987). People are biased to rate other people positively and
to form groups that allow people to solve recurrent adaptive to expect that other people will be rewarding (Sears, 1983),
problems more effectively (Kameda & Tindale, 2006). and brain imaging studies show that similar regions of the
brain are activated by other people as by social rewards
(Harris, McClure, van den Bos, Cohen, & Fiske, 2007; van
Situational Determinants of Affiliation
den Bos, McClure, Harris, Fiske, & Cohen, 2007). Because
Although people are motivated to affiliate with others, social interaction and harmonious relationships are inher-
their desire for social contact fluctuates across situations ently pleasant (probably because evolution rendered them
and time. As Altman (1975, p. 22) observed, “There are so as a means of inducing people to seek social connections),
times when people want to be alone and out of contact with people may desire to interact even when the encounter has
others and there are times when others are sought out, to no purpose other than to associate with others. Of course,
866 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

specific features of the interaction partner and interaction As a result, Schachter proposed that people who are uncertain
may add to the pleasure and to the desire to affiliate with about the nature of a situation and how they should react
particular people, as when people engage in particularly desire to affiliate with other people to find out.
interesting, enjoyable, or humorous encounters. Second, Schachter (1959) studied this process in the context of
people sometimes affiliate to obtain relief from stressful or ambiguous threatening events. In his first study, female
fearful situations (Hill, 1987). People who face a distressing participants were given the choice to wait alone or to wait
situation not only receive support, sympathy, compassion, with other people for 10 minutes for a study in which they
and nurturance from others, but often the mere presence of believed they would receive electric shocks that were or
other people can reduce fear or stress (Schachter, 1959). were not described as painful. His results showed that the
The third reason that people affiliate is to obtain infor- women who were waiting to receive painful shocks pre-
mation about other people’s behaviors, attitudes, and reac- ferred to wait with other people significantly more than the
tions that may reduce uncertainty, ambiguity, and confusion, women waiting for benign shocks. In a second study, women
and provide guidance for how they should respond to the who were waiting for painful shocks were given the oppor-
situation (Hill, 1987; Schachter, 1959; Veroff & Veroff, tunity to wait alone, to wait with women who were ostensi-
1980). Because people compare themselves with others to bly waiting for the same shock experiment, or to wait with
assess their opinions and reactions (Festinger, 1954), they women who were waiting to talk to their academic advi-
may seek opportunities to interact when their uncertainty sors. Whereas 60% of the women who could wait with other
is high (Buunk, van Yperen, Taylor, & Collins, 1991; women in the same experiment chose to do so, all of those
Gerard, 1963). Finally, people sometimes affiliate out of who had the opportunity to wait with women who were see-
the desire to receive attention and to be held in high regard ing their advisors chose to wait alone instead. The fact that
(Derber, 2000; Hill, 1987). Although people undoubtedly participants preferred to wait only with other women who
affiliate when they desire attention and approval, the ques- were also waiting to be shocked led Schachter to conclude
tion arises whether attention and praise are actually the that participants’ primary goal was to obtain social com-
focal goals that motivate affiliation or whether people seek parison information that they needed to assess their own
approval and praise because they ultimately desire to be reactions to the impending shocks. Because waiting with
valued and accepted, as is discussed later. women who were not in the experiment would provide no
Of the many reasons that people may affiliate, two have information about the threatening and ambiguous situation,
received the bulk of research attention—emotional support women who were given the option of being with students
and social comparison. Indeed, the earliest programmatic who were waiting for their advisors opted to wait alone.
research on affiliation focused on these two motives. The results of this study led Schachter to quip that
“misery does not love just any kind of company, it loves
miserable company” (1959, p. 24), but this conclusion is
Affiliation Under Conditions of Anxiety and
certainly an overgeneralization. Not only do people who
Stress
are distressed often desire to affiliate with people who are
The earliest systematic investigations of affiliation were not facing the same stressor, but “miserable” people some-
conducted by Schachter (1959), who published his find- times appear not to want company of any kind. In addition,
ings in an influential book, The Psychology of Affiliation. contrary to Schachter’s conclusion that this preference is
Schachter’s starting point was to note that people find it fueled by a desire for social comparison information, people
necessary to associate with one another in everyday life to who are distressed gain much more from being with similar
satisfy a variety of goals. Some of these goals are nonso- others than merely an opportunity for social comparison.
cial in nature (such as interacting with a store clerk to buy In fact, in a subsequent study designed to understand why
groceries), whereas some are inherently social in that they women chose to wait with others who were in the same
are satisfied only by other people (such as the desire for threatening situation more than those in another situation,
approval, friendship, or social support). Schachter’s initial Schachter told women in one condition that they should
interest was in people’s use of affiliation to evaluate their not talk about anything relating to the experiment and told
own reactions and to attain a state of “cognitive clarity” those in another condition that they should not talk to one
regarding the situation in which they found themselves. another at all. Results suggested that anxious women pre-
Just as people cannot easily evaluate their own opinions ferred waiting with others regardless of whether they could
and abilities without comparing themselves with other peo- talk about their common plight, which seems to cast doubt
ple (Festinger, 1954), they sometimes are unable to assess on the social comparison explanation.
whether they are responding appropriately to an ambigu- Schachter (1959) also conducted studies on the rela-
ous situation without seeing how other people are reacting. tionship between birth order and affiliation under stress.
 Affiliation 867

He hypothesized that adults who were first-born children First, as noted earlier, he suggested that people affiliate
would prefer to wait with other people when afraid more when anxious for social comparison reasons—to com-
than those who were later-born children, because first- pare the appropriateness of their emotional reactions with
born children experience faster and more consistent paren- the reactions of other people. Uncertain about whether their
tal support when they are distressed than do later-borns. reactions to a threatening situation are “correct,” people
Because parents become less concerned about minor epi- seek information about their emotions just as they do their
sodes of distress as they have more experience raising attitudes and beliefs. Second, Schachter suggested that
children and because the presence of other children in the people seek others’ company in an effort to reduce their
house interferes with parental responsiveness to any par- anxiety by talking about the situation, obtaining support,
ticular child, later-born children receive less rapid and and engaging in distracting conversation.
consistent parental support when upset, and thus learn to Soon afterward, another article claimed to refute the
manage their distress on their own. His results supported conclusion that anxiety increases affiliation by showing
this hypothesis: Participants who were first-born or only that a “fear” manipulation increased affiliation, whereas an
children were almost twice as likely to want to wait with “anxiety” manipulation reduced it (Sarnoff & Zimbardo,
other people when they were worried about the upcom- 1961). However, the induction of fear versus anxiety
ing shocks than were later-born participants. Furthermore, used in this research was based on a Freudian notion of
Schachter found a linear relationship between birth order these constructs: fear was induced by threatening partici-
and preferring to wait with others when anxious; the propor- pants with shock, whereas anxiety was induced by leading
tion of participants who wanted to wait with other people participants to believe that they would suck on infantile
decreased steadily with birth order. Interestingly, in the objects. Later research showed that this so-called anxiety
absence of anxiety, Schachter found a tendency for later- induction actually caused a concern with embarrassment
borns to prefer to wait with others more than first-borns (Teichman, 1973), which reliably causes people to disas-
and only-borns, a finding borne out by other research sug- sociate from others (Miller, 1996).
gesting that later-born children are generally more sociable Even so, later research revealed numerous exceptions to
(e.g., Beck, Burnet, & Vosper, 2006). He also found that, the general finding that people prefer to affiliate when anx-
although first-born and only children reported greater anx- ious. For example, pregnant women in one study preferred
iety about the impending shocks than later-born children, to be alone immediately before delivery (when anxiety is
differences in preferences for waiting alone versus with presumably high) but to be with other people afterward
others were obtained even when self-reported anxiety was (Rofé, Lewin, & Padeh, 1977). Similarly, people who were
statistically controlled. most upset by the assassination of President Kennedy pre-
Schachter (1959) extended his thinking about birth order ferred to be alone more than those who were less distressed
and affiliation to real-world instances in which people (Sheatsley & Feldman, 1964).
affiliate with other people to relieve their distress. Later In an effort to reconcile these contradictory patterns
research showed that people who were first-born and only regarding the relationship between stress and affiliation,
children were more likely to use psychotherapy (a means of Rofé (1984) proposed utility affiliation theory. Utility affil-
coping that requires affiliation with a counselor or psycho- iation theory suggests that the strength of people’s prefer-
therapist), whereas later-borns were more likely to abuse ence to affiliate in a stressful situation is a function of the
alcohol (a nonsocial means of coping with anxiety). He perceived benefits and costs of being with other people.
integrated all of this work on birth order by suggesting that Being with other people when under stress can result in
ordinal position is related to dependency, which is reflected both positive outcomes (such as clarifying the situation,
in higher affiliation when people are anxious or otherwise providing emotional support, or increasing safety) and
distressed. In later studies, Schachter began to wonder negative outcomes (such as embarrassment or an escala-
whether any drive that is satisfied during childhood by tion of panic). Specific features of the stressful event and
parental responsiveness would yield the same findings. In the characteristics of the others who are present, as well as
an experiment involving the effects of hunger on affiliation, personality characteristics of the person himself or herself,
participants were deprived of food for 0, 6, or 20 hours, influence the relative benefits and costs of affiliating when
then given the option of participating alone or with another one is distressed (Rofé & Lewin, 1988). So, for example,
subject. Participants who had not eaten for 20 hours were whether misery actually loves miserable company as
about twice as likely to want to participate with another Schachter (1959) suggested should depend on whether
subject as those who had eaten within the last 6 hours. people think that miserable versus nonmiserable company
Schachter (1959) explained the patterns that he observed can best help them deal with a particular situation. Also,
across these experiments with respect to two processes. whether emotional upset increases affiliation may depend
868 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

on whether the upset is exacerbated by the presence of other person than was first imagined (Norton, Frost, & Ariely,
people, as may be the case when one has been or expects to 2007). The positive effects of mere exposure on liking may
be embarrassed (as in Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961). When be confined to situations in which additional exposures to
the presence of other people raises concerns with social the other person do not provide new information about him
evaluation or increases the possibility of embarrassment, or her (as in Moreland & Beach, 1992). Even so, because
people prefer not to affiliate. frequent contact is typically a precondition to affiliation
and relationship formation, people who wish to continue to
affiliate must risk the hazards of overexposure and the pos-
Opportunities for Relationship Formation
sibility that familiarity might breed contempt rather than
Although theorists acknowledge that people affiliate for liking (Norton et al., 2007).
many reasons, research on affiliation tended to follow
Schachter’s (1959) lead in focusing primarily on affiliation Behaviors That Promote Affiliation in Others
under conditions of anxiety or stress as if people want to
interact with others only when they are upset. This focus Affiliation is a two-way street. When people wish to affili-
has been unfortunate in terms of understanding everyday ate, they must behave in ways that lead people to want to
affiliation because the majority of instances in which people affiliate with them. Thus, people who desire to affiliate
seek to interact with others do not involve stressful or dis- tend to display so-called immediacy behaviors that indicate
tressing circumstances. an open, friendly, interested, and pleasant interpersonal
Relationships with other people—friendships, romantic stance (Mehrabian, 1969). These “nonverbal immediacy
relationships, group memberships, and so on—typically behaviors” include smiling, an appropriate interpersonal
emerge from interactions among people. Although excep- distance (close enough to imply approachability but not so
tions exist (such as arranged marriages in some cultures), close as to be seen as imposing or threatening), eye con-
people usually view affiliation as necessary for the develop- tact, an open body position, and a body orientation toward
ment of interpersonal relationships of all kinds. As a result, the other person (McAndrew, Gold, Lenney, & Ryckman,
people may be particularly prone to affiliate when they 1984; Patterson, 1976).
desire relationships. Also, they are particularly likely to Given the role that immediacy plays in promoting affili-
affiliate with those with whom relationships are both more ation and closeness (Mehrabian, 1969), people who are
desirable and more likely. highly motivated to seek enjoyable, close interactions with
The effects of physical proximity on interpersonal attrac- others should display more immediacy behaviors. In sup-
tion and the development of relationships have been well port of this hypothesis, people who report that they talk
documented (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008; Festinger, with other people either for the pleasure of interacting or to
Schachter, & Back, 1950; Johnson, 1989). Typically, such express caring and appreciation use immediacy behaviors
findings are interpreted to show that proximity is a strong at a higher level than those who report talking to others
determinant of interpersonal attraction. Although true, this primarily to fill time or to control other people (Myers &
framing may miss the important role that affiliation plays in Ferry, 2001).
this process. That is, people are most likely to like and form One means of inducing other people to affiliate involves
relationships with people who are proximal because those prompting them to talk about themselves. Thus, people
are the people with whom they are most likely to affiliate. who are good at getting other people to talk about them-
However, ongoing social contact can have both posi- selves, so-called openers (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983),
tive and negative effects on interpersonal attraction and the more easily induce others to affiliate with them (Pegalis,
desire for continued affiliation. On one hand, research on Shaffer, Bazzini, & Greenier, 1994; Shaffer, Ruammake, &
the mere exposure effect (Bornstein, 1989; Zajonc, 1968) Pegalis, 1990). Research shows that high openers display a
suggests that people who have regular contact, even if more attentive facial expression, appear more comfortable
they merely see one another from afar, should come to during interactions, are more agreeable, and give the sense
like one another more, and this pattern has been shown of enjoying interactions with other people more (Colvin &
in laboratory and field experiments (Moreland & Beach, Longueuil, 2001; Purvis, Dabbs, & Hopper, 1984), all of
1992; Moreland & Zajonc, 1982). However, proximity and which should prompt affiliative behaviors from other people.
familiarity can also undermine attraction and the desire to Furthermore, high opener men (but not women) use more
affiliate when the other individual is socially unpleasant back-channel responses—that is, vocal utterances that
(Ebbesen, Kjos, & Konecni, 1976), when excessive contact convey attentiveness and receipt of information (such as
elicits boredom (Bornstein, 1989), or when repeated expo- “uh-huh” and “hmm”; Purvis et al., 1984). These imme-
sure reveals that one shares less in common with another diacy behaviors appear to pay off. People who score high
 Seeking Acceptance and Belonging 869

on the Opener Scale (Miller et al., 1983) are better liked are good prospects for various kinds of relationships and
than those who score low, presumably because they appear group memberships. Furthermore, once they develop a
more attentive and affirming. relationship or become a member of a group, people must
Research on nonverbal immediacy was once popular protect themselves against the possibility that they will be
in social psychology but has waned considerably in recent rejected from that relationship or group.
years. Current interest in the topic can be seen primarily Because pre-human individuals who sought to be
in education, where the effects of teachers’ immediacy accepted and to belong were most likely to survive, repro-
behaviors on students’ motivation and learning have been duce, and help their offspring reach maturity, a motiva-
studied (e.g., Christensen & Menzel, 1998). In addition, tional disposition likely evolved that orients people toward
research has investigated the impact of immediacy behav- seeking acceptance and avoiding rejection (Baumeister &
iors on doctor-patient interactions (Harrigan, Oxman, & Leary, 1995). Because rejection would have compromised
Rosenthal, 1985) and marital relationships (Hinkle, 1999). the likelihood of survival and reproduction, mechanisms
In part, social psychologists’ declining interest in probably evolved for monitoring and responding to indica-
immediacy may be because of the failure of early theories tions that one was, or was likely to be, rejected by other
to explain both when people will use particular imme- people (Ainsworth, 1989; Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, &
diacy behaviors and the separate interpersonal effects of Knowles, 2005; Leary & Downs, 1995).
particular behaviors (smiling, eye contact, stance, etc.). In Although many theorists have acknowledged that people
retrospect, the problem may have been that the theories did seek to develop and maintain social bonds with other
not account adequately for the fact that the most effective people (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Horney, 1945; James, 1890;
behaviors for sustaining a particular level of conversa- Maslow, 1968), Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested
tional interest, depth, and closeness depend on the social that social psychologists had overlooked the centrality
context, the nature of the relationship between the people, of this motive in human behavior, cognition, and emotion.
the roles in which people find themselves, and their goals They observed that people in every culture belong to small,
for the interaction (McAndrew et al., 1984). Not only do primary groups and form a variety of relationships with
these factors influence the type and intensity of particular family members, friends, mates, and others (Coon, 1946;
immediacy behaviors (such as eye contact, physical close- Fiske, 1992; Mann, 1980), and that people who lack the
ness, and facial expressiveness), but a particular behavior desire for any social connections are at risk for psychological
can have quite different effects on other people’s reactions problems (Chapman, Chapman, Kwapil, Eckblad, &
and the course of an interaction depending on these factors. Zinser, 1994; Kwapil, 1998). People typically form social
Even though it may be difficult to model the degree to bonds with individuals and groups very easily, often with-
which a particular pattern of nonverbal behaviors influ- out any special eliciting circumstances (Festinger et al.,
ences the likelihood that others will affiliate with another 1950; Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). Once they
person in a given context, certain levels of immediacy are develop relationships with others, people are reluctant to
more likely to promote affiliation than others. allow those relationships to end, even when they no longer
have any instrumental value and may even exact costs
on them. Based on evidence such as this, Baumeister and
SEEKING ACCEPTANCE AND BELONGING Leary concluded that people possess an evolved need to
“form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of last-
Although affiliating, interacting, and “hanging out” with ing, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships”
other people can provide many positive outcomes, mere (p. 497), and that this desire for acceptance and belonging
affiliation goes only so far toward helping people meet underlies a great deal of human behavior.
their physical, material, and social needs, and satisfying an Importantly, not all efforts to seek acceptance and
array of other goals that depend on other people. To capital- belonging necessarily arise from this evolved need for
ize fully on their social connections, people must not only social acceptance. Being accepted into relationships and
affiliate with others, but they also must establish interper- groups offers a wide array of benefits, and people some-
sonal relationships of various kinds. In all cultures, people times seek acceptance because they believe that it will
develop and maintain a variety of interpersonal relationships lead to specific rewards or opportunities, not because they
such as kin relationships, friendships, mating relation- are driven to do so by an evolved need for belonging. For
ships, instrumental coalitions, and so on. Because people example, a man who applies for membership in a country
are necessarily selective in the number and kinds of rela- club may do so to spend his weekends on its golf course and
tionships that they develop (Tooby & Cosmedes, 1996), not because he is seeking new interpersonal relationships.
individuals must take steps to show other people that they But whether people desire acceptance and belonging in
870 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

a particular instance because of an evolved motivational conceptual clarity and precision. Relational value refers to
impetus or because of the perceived benefits of acceptance the degree to which one person regards his or her relation-
in a specific case, they must take care to behave in ways ship with another individual as valuable or important (Leary,
that will lead others to accept them (Baumeister & Leary, 2001). People value their relationships with other people to
1995; Leary & Baumeister, 2000). varying degrees, regarding relationships with certain indi-
viduals as very valuable and important, and viewing certain
other relationships as less valuable and important or as having
Relational Value as the Basis of Acceptance and
no value at all. When people perceive that their relational
Rejection
value to a particular individual or group of individuals is
Although the terms “acceptance” and “rejection” are often acceptably high, they perceive that they are accepted. In
treated as dichotomous (i.e., one is either accepted or contrast, feelings of rejection arise when people perceive
rejected), shades of acceptance/rejection actually fall along a that their relational value to a particular person or group is
continuum (Leary, 2001). At the extreme pole of acceptance, unacceptably low—that is, when they believe that others do
a person may be actively sought after as a relational partner not value having a relationship with them as much as they
or group member, whereas moderate levels of acceptance desire the others to value it (Leary, 2001, 2005).
may involve welcoming the person (but not seeking him or The degree to which people desire to be relationally
her out), and minimal acceptance may involve merely tol- valued and the indicators that they use to assess their rela-
erating the person’s presence (Leary, 1990). Similarly, the tional value are relationship specific. For example, talking
term “belonging”—acceptance by a group of individuals to an acquaintance at a party, a person may desire that the
who include the individual as a member—is also problem- acquaintance value their transient “relationship” only to
atic, because it too is treated as a dichotomy (i.e., one either the point that he or she remains engaged in the conversa-
does or does not belong) and because people may “belong” tion for a few minutes. As long as the acquaintance seems
to a group that wishes that they were not a member. In such reasonably interested and engaged, perceived relational
cases, people may not feel that they belong or are accepted value will be sufficiently high (relative to the individual’s
even though they are technically a group member and desire), and the person will feel accepted. If, however, the
included in the group’s activities. acquaintance seems disengaged while scanning the party
Likewise, rejection can range from merely ignoring people for a more interesting conversational partner, the person
to avoiding or not including them to explicitly excluding or may experience a sense of having low relational value, and
banishing them from encounters or groups in which they are thus feel rejected.
already a participant (Leary, 1990). The term “ostracism,” Furthermore, because the psychological experience of
defined as “any act or acts of ignoring and excluding of an being accepted and rejected depends on whether relational
individual or groups by an individual or group” (Williams, value is as high as one desires, subjective experiences
2001, p. ix), is sometimes used as synonymous with rejec- of acceptance and rejection are only loosely linked to how
tion but is perhaps best regarded as a subtype of rejection accepted or rejected people are in an absolute sense. Indeed,
because people can be psychologically rejected by others people sometimes feel rejected by people who they know
without being ignored or excluded. For example, people like and accept them because they perceive that their rela-
may find themselves working or interacting with others who tional value is not as high as they would like it to be (Leary,
dislike, devalue, and despise them. Such individuals could 2001). For example, when a long-time romantic partner
not be said to be ostracized (i.e., they are not excluded or whose love and commitment are assured declines an invi-
ignored), but they certainly might feel that they are being tation to do something that one wants to do (such as go out
“rejected” despite the fact that the group fully includes to dinner, take a trip, or have sex), people may nonetheless
them. As can be seen, the terms that are used to refer to the feel rejected and hurt because, at that moment, they per-
experiences of acceptance and rejection (including belong- ceive that their relational value in the partner’s mind is not
ing and ostracism) are often insufficiently precise, and as high as they desire it to be.
people experience degrees of acceptance and rejection that
are difficult to describe using these terms (Leary, 2001). Promoting Relational Value
Furthermore, people sometimes feel rejected even though
they technically belong to a group or are included in other Being relationally valued by other people increases the
people’s activities (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001). likelihood of acceptance and access to desired social and
The subjective experiences of acceptance (and belong- material outcomes, such as companionship, friendship,
ing) and rejection may be conceptualized as areas along a group memberships, romantic relationships, social sup-
continuum of perceived relational value to provide greater port, logistical help, financial and material resources, social
 Seeking Acceptance and Belonging 871

influence, and a broad range of social, occupational, financial, friendly and likeable (ingratiation), intelligent and competent
recreational, and sexual opportunities (Baumeister & Leary, (self-promotion), responsible and morally exemplary (exem-
1995; Williams, Forgas, von Hippel, & Zadro, 2005). Put plification), helpless (supplication), and threatening (intim-
simply, people who have higher relational value accrue idation). People may use each of these self-presentational
greater benefits in life. Not surprisingly, then, people tactics to foster their relational value. First, because people
are highly motivated to maintain high relational value in who are perceived as likeable, competent, and exemplary
the minds of those with whom they desire to interact and are virtually always valued and accepted more than those
have relationships. who are viewed as unlikable, incompetent, and reprehen-
People increase their chances of forming relationships sible, people who desire to be accepted try to portray them-
and being accepted into groups when they are perceived selves in one or more of these socially desirable ways. Of
as possessing characteristics that make them a desirable course, being viewed as likable, competent, or moral can
group member, friend, romantic partner, colleague, com- have other consequences in addition to social acceptance
panion, teammate, or whatever. As a result, a great deal (such as earning a higher salary), but many of the payoffs
of human behavior appears centered on efforts to promote of conveying desirable impressions come in the form of
and maintain one’s relational value (Baumeister & Leary, interpersonal consequences such as attention, friendship,
1995; Leary, 1995; Williams, 2001). Some interpersonal group memberships, romantic relationships, and so on.
behaviors are motivated primarily by the desire to pro- Paradoxically, conveying socially undesirable images of
mote relational value and acceptance, but even when social oneself can also increase one’s relational value. For example,
acceptance is not their primary objective in a particular people who show others that they are the sort who respond
context, people typically pursue their goals in ways that do with anger and aggression to signs of disinterest or rejec-
not jeopardize their relational value in others’ eyes. In this tion may lead others to value their relationship as a means
sense, the desire for acceptance and belonging constrains of avoiding social costs. Intimidating self-presentations
much of what people do, leading them to behave in ways that may enhance relational value at the price of liking and
do not lead other people to devalue or reject them. goodwill, but nonetheless promote value via the threat
An important first step in facilitating acceptance and of punishment. Likewise, people may convey impressions of
belonging involves self-disclosure, the voluntary presen- neediness or helplessness (supplication) to enhance their
tation of personal or intimate information about oneself relational value to those who wish to be helpful.
to another person (Miller, 2002). Theories of relationship
Seeking Approval and Liking
development suggest that relationships develop and deepen
as the people involved disclose increasingly intimate infor- Theorists have traced a wide variety of behaviors to people’s
mation about themselves to one another over time (Altman & desire for social approval. Behaviors as diverse as work-
Taylor, 1973; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Unless people disclose ing hard in school, earning a good deal of money, performing
too quickly or their disclosures reveal negative information well in sports, taking drugs, practicing safe sex, cheating
about them (Berger, Gardner, Parks, Shulman, & Miller, on tests, and having an eating disorder have been attrib-
1976), self-disclosure both increases others’ attraction to uted to people’s efforts to obtain approval (Baumeister,
the individual and elicits more disclosure in return (Berg & 1990; Matell & Smith, 1970; Moulton, Moulton, & Roach,
Wright-Buckley, 1988; Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969). 1998; St. Lawrence, Eldridge, Reitman, Little, Shelby, &
In fact, self-disclosure by a member of an outgroup can Brasfield, 1998; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1987). That
also improve others’ evaluations of the person’s group in people behave in these ways to garner approval from
general (Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007). other people is beyond doubt. Yet, focusing on social
Of course, the content of people’s disclosures is criti- approval may overlook the deeper interpersonal motive
cal in promoting acceptance, and people try to establish that underlies people’s desire to seek approval from others.
and maintain their relational value by behaving in ways Learning, or even imagining, that one is evaluated posi-
that will convey particular desired impressions of them- tively or regarded approvingly is certainly satisfying, but
selves to others. People engage in self-presentation (or mere approval is functionally unimportant unless it is asso-
impression management) to achieve a variety of goals ciated with positive outcomes. Thus, people may not be
(Baumeister, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, generally motivated to seek approval per se but rather seek
1980), but a great deal of impression management appears approval because people with high relational value receive
to involve direct or indirect efforts to promote relational a variety of benefits.
value and acceptance. Jones and Pittman (1982) identified Perhaps the primary way in which people seek approval,
five primary self-presentational tactics (although there are thereby increasing their relational value and social accep-
undoubtedly more), involving efforts to be perceived as tance, is by trying to lead others to like them. Although
872 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

disliked individuals may be tolerated and even valued of other-directed behaviors increases liking not only by
if they have something special to offer a relationship or the target of these actions but by uninvolved observers
group (such as being particularly competent at an important as well (Folkes & Sears, 1977). Of course, insincere flat-
task), the emotional costs that they exact on other people tery may backfire, but research suggests that targets tend
generally lower their relational value. As a result, people typi- to accept ingratiators’ behavior at face value (whereas
cally prefer to be seen as possessing characteristics that observers tend to be more skeptical) and may appreciate
lead others to like rather than dislike them. For this reason, others’ efforts to ingratiate them even if they do not believe
people indicate that the images that they generally want that the person is being genuine (Vonk, 2002).
others to form of them include being perceived as friendly,
Achievement and Competence
sincere, caring, fun, and easy to talk to (Leary, 1995). At
the same time, people usually do not want others to regard Most theoretical discussions of achievement assume that
them as boring, conceited, obnoxious, superficial, self- people strive for competence and mastery either for their
centered, and mean (Leary, 1995), traits that reliably lead own sake or because being competent and successful
others to dislike and reject them. allows them to achieve other important outcomes. Yet,
Research also shows that people are more likely to people appear to enact a great deal of achievement-oriented
like, interact with, befriend, and fall in love with people behavior in the service of interpersonal goals, including
whom they perceive as similar to themselves (for reviews, acceptance and belonging. People often seek to be com-
see AhYun, 2002; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). petent or successful not because they intrinsically value
In the terms we are using here, a person’s relational value competence or success, or for the tangible outcomes that
increases with the degree to which others perceive him or achievement produces, but rather because excellence and
her as similar to them. Not surprisingly, people identify and achievement lead to recognition, approval, and accep-
capitalize on areas of similarity when they interact and fos- tance by other people (Baumeister, 1990). This is not to
ter impressions of similarity by conforming to others’ opin- say that all striving for competence, achievement, and
ions and behavior (Jellison & Gentry, 1978; Jones, Gergen, success is motivated by interpersonal rewards, but there
Gumpert, & Thibaut, 1965; Kacmar, Carlson, & Bratton, is little doubt that people who are seen as competent and
2004). Furthermore, people who score high in the need to successful have higher relational value than those who
belong are more likely to cooperate in group settings than are regarded as incompetent and unsuccessful. Successful
those who score low (DeCremer & Leonardelli, 2003), people are more likely to be sought for groups and rela-
presumably because others are more likely to accept those tionships, either because their skills benefit other people,
who are seen as cooperative. A great deal of conformity is the rewards of their achievements (such as a high salary)
probably enacted in the service of social acceptance. are desired by others, they are regarded as more interest-
Research suggests that people may even promote their ing interactants and relational partners, or others wish, for
similarity to others nonconsciously. For example, partici- their own reasons, to be associated with successful people.
pants in one study automatically mimicked the nonverbal Theory and research on achievement-related goals show
behaviors of an experimental confederate, shaking their that interpersonal concerns with appearing competent to
feet and rubbing their faces more when the confederate others, obtaining approval, and pleasing other people con-
shook and rubbed his (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Further- stitute one source of the motivation to perform well and
more, this effect was strongest among people who scored to achieve (see Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, &
high in the need for affiliation (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003), Nichols, 1996; Urdan & Mestas, 2006). However, the
suggesting that behavioral mimicry is at least partly deeper goal may be to enhance relational value, accep-
designed to promote social interactions. Furthermore, tance, and belonging.
people like others who behaviorally mimic them more Although people generally try to project images of
than those who do not (Chartrand & Bargh). The fact that themselves as intelligent and competent, they sometimes
behavioral mimicry operates automatically and noncon- “play dumb” instead. When they think that they can
sciously suggests that people may be hardwired to behave increase their chances of social acceptance by appearing
in ways that stimulate liking and acceptance. less competent than they really are, people may pretend
People also increase their chances of acceptance and to know less than they really do (Dean, Braito, Powers, &
belonging through behaviors that convey that they like Britton, 1975; Thornton, Audesse, Ryckman, & Burckle,
other people, such as flattery, praise, and expressing interest 2006). People play dumb for a variety of reasons, but
in the other person (Deluga & Perry, 1991; Gordon, 1996; perhaps the most common is to increase their desirability
Jones, 1964; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Stevens & Kristof, and relational value to someone who might be put off or
1995; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). Engaging in these kinds threatened by their knowledge or competence. The classic,
 Seeking Acceptance and Belonging 873

stereotypic case of playing dumb involves women who of rejection for those who fail to reciprocate (Cotterell,
underplay their intelligence to avoid threatening men Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992). A great deal of interper-
(Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1980; Thornton et al.), but sonal reciprocity, as well as modes of social influence that
men also play dumb to play up the intelligence and ability are based on reciprocity, such as the reciprocal concessions
of their bosses (Dean et al.; Gove et al.). Interestingly, technique (in which people in a dispute are more likely
people who tend to play dumb also tend, in other contexts, to offer concessions when their opponent does; Cialdini,
to claim more knowledge than they actually have, suggest- Vincent, Lewis, Catalan, Wheeler, & Darby, 1975; Hale &
ing that both self-enhancing and self-effacing tactics are Laliker, 1999), are undergirded by people’s concerns with
motivated by concerns with other people’s evaluations and being accepted by others.
acceptance (Thornton et al.).
Physical Appearance
Being a Good Relational Partner or Group Member Although a few exceptions exist, physically attractive
A third set of images that promote relational value involves people are typically better liked and more highly sought as
being viewed as a responsible, trustworthy, loyal, coop- companions, friends, group members, and romantic part-
erative, and dedicated individual who supports the goals ners than people who are less attractive. Meta-analyses
and norms of the relationship or group. Often, the issue show that attractive children and adults are judged and
is only whether the person demonstrates these character- treated more positively than unattractive people, even by
istics in the context of a particular group or relationship. those who know them well (Feingold, 1990; Langlois,
We are often willing to form relationships with those who Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000).
are less than fully honest and dependable in their dealings Some physical features, such as facial symmetry and
with others as long as we believe that they are truthful and unblemished skin, appear to be universally regarded as
responsible with us. attractive, and thus associated with greater social accep-
Given that people devalue, dislike, and reject those who tance, possibly because of their role in signaling genetic
do not conform to their judgments, decisions, and behaviors fitness and an absence of pathogens and illness (Jones et al.,
(Schachter, 1951), people understandably conform to others’ 2001; Rhodes, 2006). However, other criteria for attrac-
views (see Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Insko, Smith, tiveness differ across groups and social contexts so that
Alicke, Wade, & Taylor, 1985). They are particularly likely people who wish to be accepted by a particular individual
to conform when they see others being ridiculed for non- must abide by the prevailing norms regarding appearance.
conformity (Janes & Olson, 2000) and less likely to con- Viewed in this way, virtually anything that people do to
form when other nonconformists are present (Asch, 1956; enhance their physical appeal is done primarily to promote
Insko et al., 1985). Furthermore, people who score high in relational value and acceptance. Many people in Western
the need to belong are more likely to cooperate in group set- cultures try to maintain their weight within an acceptable
tings than those who score low (DeCremer & Leonardelli, range (with varying degrees of success) and exercise to
2003). All of these findings reflect people’s efforts to show appear slim and fit. Not only do those who exercise regularly
others that they should be regarded as trustworthy members- develop a physique that others view as more attractive, but
in-good-standing to minimize the likelihood of losing also the mere fact that someone exercises can lead others to
relational value and being rejected from the group. draw more positive inferences about the person’s personal
Many social psychological phenomena can be explained and social qualities (Martin Ginis, Lindwall, & Prapavessis,
in terms of people going along with others to avoid jeop- 2007). Likewise, people with light skin may strive to main-
ardizing their position in the group. For example, because tain a tan despite knowing of the health risks of excessive
many people desire to avoid conflict and do not wish to sun exposure because they believe (correctly, as it turns out)
rock the boat, they may censor their objections to options that being tan will enhance their attractiveness to others
being discussed by the group, withhold information that (Leary & Jones, 1993). The multibillion-dollar cosmetics,
might undermine group harmony or make them appear personal grooming, and cosmetic surgery industries are
oppositional, and conform to emerging group decisions. based on the notion that enhancing one’s appearance (and
Thus, many of the factors that undermine effective group one’s scent) leads to greater social acceptance and the atten-
deliberations (and promote groupthink) reflect people’s dant social outcomes (Davis & Vernon, 2002).
concerns with their acceptance by other members of the One of the most conscious and deliberate ways in which
group (McCauley, 1989). people try to enhance their appearance involves the clothes
Even reciprocity, which many theorists consider to be that they choose to wear. People desire to wear clothing that
the foundation of any mutually satisfying interpersonal they believe, correctly or incorrectly, enhances their appear-
encounter, is enforced chiefly through the implied threat ance and that conforms to the accepted wardrobe of their
874 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

primary social groups (Peluchette, Karl, & Rust, 2006). monitor their relational value, two perspectives—sociometer
Although people’s clothing preferences are also influenced theory and social monitoring theory—have described the
by an array of nonsocial factors, including comfort and features that this monitoring system might have.
price, concerns with social image and, ultimately, social
acceptance are undoubtedly involved (Frith & Gleeson, The Sociometer
2004; Simpson & Littrell, 1984).
Sociometer theory proposes that people possess a psycho-
Self-presentation and Relational Value logical system—a sociometer—that monitors the social
As we have seen, people pursue relational value and accep- environment for cues relevant to relational value (i.e., accep-
tance primarily through the images that they convey of tance and rejection), alerts the individual via negative affect
themselves to other people. Fostering images of being lik- and lowered self-esteem when signs of low or declining
able, competent, an exemplary partner or group member, relational value are detected, and motivates behaviors that
or physically attractive increases people’s relational value attempt to maintain or, if necessary, increase relational value
compared with being regarded as unlikable, incompetent, (Leary, 2006; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary & Downs,
an undesirable partner or group member, and unattractive. 1995). This system appears to operate nonconsciously in
Although people sometimes misrepresent themselves to background mode until indications of low or declining rela-
others to increase their relational value (Feldman, Forrest, & tional value are detected. Then the system prompts the indi-
Happ, 2002; Tyler & Feldman, 2004; Weiss & Feldman, vidual to consider the situation consciously.
2006), their self-presentations are more-or-less accurate Evidence suggests that people are highly sensitive to
representations of their characteristics when overly posi- information that might be relevant to their relational value,
tive self-presentations are held in check by the possibility processing such information quickly, automatically, and
of detection (Schlenker, 1975). Being caught misrepre- often nonconsciously. In a classic article on dichotic lis-
senting one’s characteristics, abilities, or personal history tening, Cherry (1953) described what has become known
invariably reduces people’s relational value and the likeli- as the cocktail party phenomenon. Even when people are
hood of acceptance. consciously attending closely to certain stimuli (such as
The lure of relational value is so strong that people a conversation that they are having at a lively party) and
sometimes do things that are dangerous to themselves or to seemingly oblivious to everything else in their environ-
others to make the kinds of impressions that they believe ment (such as the myriad other conversations around
will lead others to value and accept them. For example, them), they nonetheless can detect and respond to extrane-
teenagers and young adults may ingest large quantities of ous stimuli that are self-relevant (such as the mention of
alcohol, take drugs, engage in excessive suntanning, drive their name in another conversation) (Moray, 1959; Wood &
recklessly, show-off by performing dangerous stunts, and Cowan, 1995). At the time this work was published, the
fail to practice safe sex to gain others’ approval and accep- central conclusion was that the brain processes the content
tance (Hingson & Howland, 1993; Leary, Tchividjian, & of information outside of conscious awareness even while
Kraxberger, 1994; Martin & Leary, 1999, 2000). Even older people consciously attend to other things (Cherry, 1953).
adults may engage in risky behaviors, such as refusing For our purposes, it is noteworthy that people are particu-
to use aids to help them walk safely, because they are con- larly attuned to self-relevant information, such as their
cerned with making undesired impressions on other people name, but no one addressed the broader question of why
(Martin, Leary, & Rejeski, 2000). people are peculiarly sensitive to such cues aside from the
broad conclusion that they are “self-relevant.”
From a social psychological standpoint, the answer
MONITORING RELATIONAL VALUE AND would seem to be not just that such stimuli are self-relevant
SOCIAL CONNECTIONS but rather that they are relevant to one’s image and stand-
ing in the minds of other people. When people experience
Given the importance of cooperative group living to human the cocktail party effect while engaged in conversation at
survival and reproduction, natural selection favored indi- an actual party, they not only hear and orient toward who-
viduals who sought the company of others and behaved ever mentioned their name, but they often wonder, if not
in ways that led others to value and accept them. Because inquire, what was being said about them. Given the impor-
social acceptance was literally vital, a psychological system tance of others’ impressions and evaluations of them, peo-
likely evolved to monitor and respond to cues relevant to ple must be attuned to any information that might provide
interpersonal acceptance and rejection. Although research- information about their relational value and particularly
ers have devoted little attention to precisely how people to indications that their relational value might be low.
 Monitoring Relational Value and Social Connections 875

Thus, the brain processes such information below the level traditionally been regarded as a mechanism that helps people
of conscious awareness and alerts the person when infor- maintain high self-esteem (e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1988). In
mation that might be relevant to their public image and contrast, sociometer theory proposes that, when people do
relational value is detected. things that appear intended to maintain or raise their self-
More recent evidence shows more clearly that people esteem, their goal is usually to protect and enhance their
process information regarding others’ judgments of them relational value to increase their likelihood of interpersonal
vis-à-vis acceptance and rejection automatically and non- acceptance. Thus, many behaviors that have been attributed
consciously. A variety of priming manipulations, including to a motive to maintain self-esteem, such as self-serving
guided visualizations (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996) and sub- attributions, self-handicapping behaviors, biased social
liminal presentations of a significant other’s face (Baldwin, judgments, prejudices, and ego-defensive reactions, may
Carrell, & Lopez, 1990) or name (Baldwin, 1994), have reflect efforts to promote acceptance rather than to raise
produced effects on people’s self-judgments and emotions self-esteem per se (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). The theory
that resemble the effects of explicit rejection. This research acknowledges that people sometimes try to feel good about
has shown that minimal cues can activate relational knowl- themselves in their own minds but maintains that the funda-
edge in memory in ways that lead people to feel and act as mental function of the self-esteem system is to monitor and
if they are devalued or rejected (Baldwin & Main, 2001). respond to threats to relational value and social acceptance.
According to sociometer theory, one output of the soci- Presumably, people monitor cues relevant to relational
ometer system is state self-esteem, people’s feelings about value in all types of interpersonal encounters, including inter-
themselves at a particular moment in time, which rises and actions with friends, romantic partners, fellow group mem-
falls with changes in perceived relational value (Leary & bers, acquaintances, family members, and even strangers.
Baumeister, 2000). Changes in state self-esteem alert people The question has been raised, however, of whether people
to real and potential rejection, and motivate actions that have a single sociometer that monitors cues that are relevant
maintain relational value and social acceptance. A good to acceptance and rejection across all relationships or a
deal of research shows that state self-esteem fluctuates like set of sociometers, each of which deals specifically with
a gauge of acceptance and rejection in response to social acceptance/rejection in a particular kind of relationship. An
feedback (for a meta-analysis, see Blackhart, Knowles, & evolutionary analysis suggests that people might possess
Bieda, 2009). Not only does explicit rejection decrease different sociometer systems to monitor their acceptance
state self-esteem, but people’s feelings about themselves in fundamentally different types of social relationships
when they perform certain behaviors mirror the degree (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001). First, people form into mac-
to which they think their actions will lead others to accept rolevel groups, such as tribes, villages, communities, or
or reject them. In one study (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & nations. They may or may not have direct contact with all
Downs, 1995), participants rated how they would feel other members, but these collectives offer benefits such
about themselves if they performed each of several behav- as access to resources and defense against other groups.
iors that varied in social desirability (e.g., I saved a drown- Second, people form instrumental coalitions, that is, groups
ing child; I cheated on a final exam), as well as the degree of people who work together toward mutually desired
to which other people would accept or reject them if they goals. The earliest instrumental coalitions may have been
knew about each behavior. Results showed a strong con- hunting parties, but people today join committees, teams,
cordance between participants’ feelings about themselves gangs, work groups, civic organizations, neighborhood
(i.e., state self-esteem) and the degree to which they associations, and other task-oriented groups. Third, people
thought other people would accept or reject them. seek mating relationships that range from one-time liaisons
Furthermore, people’s self-evaluations on particular to permanent monogamous pairings. Fourth, people have
dimensions predict their self-esteem primarily to the degree many kin relationships that are based on genetic related-
to which they believe that those dimensions are relevant to ness. A fifth type of relationship involves supportive friend-
their social acceptance and rejection by other people ships that provide ongoing companionship and support that
(MacDonald, Saltzman, & Leary, 2003). For example, span time, roles, and tasks, and provide an interpersonal
people who think that they are physically unattractive insurance policy for occasions when one is in dire need and
have lower self-esteem if they believe that their relational has nowhere else to turn (Tooby & Cosmedes, 1996).
value to others depends on their physical appearance than People are accepted into, and rejected from, these various
if they think that appearance is less important for social kinds of relationships for different reasons (Kirkpatrick &
acceptance. Ellis, 2001). Community memberships are typically based
Sociometer theory also offers a novel conceptualiza- on shared heritage or attitudes, instrumental coalitions on
tion on the nature of the self-esteem motive, which has one’s ability to contribute to the group, mating relationships
876 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

on mate value, kin relationships on genetic relatedness, socially relevant information about another person but
and friendships on the basis of being a reliable source of not nonsocial information (Gardner et al., 2000), support-
companionship and support. Given that different adaptive ing the hypotheses that the system increases the degree to
problems require different solutions and that a separate which people are attuned to the social matrix when social
mechanism is needed for each qualitatively different prob- acceptance is at risk. Similarly, people who are experienc-
lem (see Symons, 1992), it seems unlikely that a single ing a chronic deficiency in perceived belonging by virtue
mechanism could have evolved to monitor one’s value of being lonely show greater selective memory for social
in all types of relationships (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001, information (Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, & Knowles, 2005).
2006), although some bases of acceptance and rejection Likewise, people who scored high on a measure of the
seem to apply across all types of relationships. For example, dispositional need to belong were more accurate in iden-
a person who behaves in a selfish, untrustworthy, or duplici- tifying facial expressions and vocal tone, and displayed
tous manner is not valued as a relational partner no matter greater empathic accuracy than people who scored lower
what type of relationship we might imagine. Thus, people on the need to belong (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004).
might have a general sociometer and specific systems that Similarly, participants who were primed with rejection by
monitor particular kinds of relationships. writing about a time that they were rejected were more
accurate at distinguishing Duchenne (true) smiles from
feigned smiles than participants who wrote about accep-
Social Monitoring System
tance or a control topic (Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, &
Gardner, Pickett, and Brewer (2000; see also Pickett & Gardner, Claypool, in press).
2005) extended the concept of the sociometer to suggest that Together, sociometer theory and social monitoring the-
people possess a social monitoring system that responds ory suggest that people possess systems that monitor and
specifically in instances in which people become particu- respond to indications that their relational value is low or
larly concerned with their acceptance or belonging. They declining. These systems monitor cues that are relevant
proposed that an increase in belonging need increases to acceptance and rejection on an ongoing basis, alert the
people’s sensitivity to social information in ways that help individual when potential threats to relational value are
them navigate their social worlds more successfully. The detected, motivate behaviors that protect or restore rela-
social monitoring system is hypothesized to be activated tional value, and increase people’s sensitivity to social
whenever people become concerned about rejection. For information that will enhance the probability that they will
example, a recently rejected person may become more be accepted.
attuned to cues regarding his or her relational value, show
greater sensitivity to other people’s thoughts and feelings
about him or her, and devote more cognitive resources VARIETIES OF REJECTION-RELATED
to thinking about social situations. (Although the theory EVENTS
suggests that sensitivity to social information increases
when belonging needs are heightened, it is probably more People’s efforts to affiliate, to be accepted, and to belong are
accurate to say that sensitivity increases in response to not always successful. Other people are not always inter-
perceived threats to acceptance and belonging even if the ested in interacting or maintaining relationships with us,
person’s need for belonging remains constant.) and even when they are, our relational value in their eyes is
Concerns with acceptance and rejection may become sometimes not as high as we desire it to be. Interestingly,
salient because people have detected cues that their rela- social psychologists have long been interested in situa-
tional value is low in a particular situation, they are dis- tions and events that lead people to feel rejected, although
positionally high in traits that are associated with wanting they have not always recognized the common role that low
to be accepted (e.g., they are high in the need to belong relational value and rejection play in them. This section
or desire for approval), or they chronically feel that their focuses on interpersonal phenomena that involve low rela-
social relationships are deficient (as in the case of loneli- tional value, and the subsequent section examines the psy-
ness) (Gardner et al., 2000). Whatever their source, high chological reactions to rejection-related phenomena.
concerns about social acceptance and belonging lead
people to become particularly sensitive to cues regarding Explicit Rejection and Ostracism
how others feel about them, as well as information that
might help them maintain or restore their social connec- When people think of rejection, they typically envision
tions. Experimental manipulations that lead people to feel receiving explicit indications that others do not wish to
socially excluded cause them to selectively remember associate with a person—deliberate actions in which one
 Varieties of Rejection-Related Events 877

or more people ignore, exclude, or reject the individual. members of outgroups that are perceived to be in competition
Being purposefully excluded from a social gathering, fired for resources with one’s own group, and those whose appear-
from a job, rejected by a romantic partner, or not chosen ance or manner suggest that they might be infected with con-
for a team each involve explicit indications that others do tagious parasites (e.g., people with skin lesions, behavioral
not wish to associate with or have a relationship with the abnormalities, or obvious psychological problems). In each
individual. A number of experimental paradigms have been instance, stigmatization may serve to protect people from
used to cause participants to experience explicit rejection costs associated with contact with the stigmatized person
(also called “active disassociation”) by leading them to (Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Neuberg & Cottrell, 2008). Of
believe that other participants had voted not to include course, people are sometimes stigmatized for reasons that
them in a laboratory group (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & have nothing to do with actual costs or risks, but even then
Schaller, 2007), they were chosen last for a laboratory team the rejector typically believes that the stigmatized person
(Bourgeois & Leary, 2001), another person was disinter- poses some sort of threat, should be devalued, and is not a
ested in what they were saying about themselves (Snapp & viable relational partner.
Leary, 2001), others had excluded them from a real or com- Stigma-by-association is particularly interesting in this
puterized ball-tossing game (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & regard. People are sometimes stigmatized merely because
Williams, 2003; Williams & Sommer, 1997), other par- of their association with a stigmatized individual—for
ticipants indicated that they preferred to work alone rather example, when a heterosexual is stigmatized for having a
than with the participant (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004, homosexual friend (Neuberg, Smith, Hoffman, & Russell,
Study 1), or that others had little interest in getting to know 1994). Thus, people’s relational value can be influenced by
the participant better (Buckley et al., 2004, Study 2). the relational value of those with whom they associate.

Stigmatization Prejudice and Discrimination

Traditionally, stigmatization has been conceptualized Although prejudice and discrimination are usually con-
in terms of the possession of a negative attribute or “mark” ceptualized in terms of negative attitudes and behavior,
that taints, spoils, or discredits a person’s social identity respectively, they also typically involve low relational
(Crocker & Major, 1989; Fiske, this volume; Goffman, value. When people are prejudiced against members of a
1963; Swann & Bosson, volume 1). However, the central particular group, they not only evaluate those individuals
feature of stigmatization may involve not merely a tainted negatively, but often place a low value on interacting and
identity but also low relational value and, possibly, outright developing relationships with them (unless the individual
rejection. One conceptualization suggests that stigmatiza- provides some desired commodity such as sex or cheap
tion occurs “when a shared characteristic of a category of labor). Similarly, the targets of discrimination are people
people becomes consensually regarded as a basis for dis- whose relational value is perceived to be low. (People do
associating from (that is, avoiding, excluding, ostracizing, not discriminate against those whose relationships they
or otherwise minimizing interaction with) individuals who value.) In some cases, the prejudiced person may even
are perceived to be members of that category” (Leary & acknowledge that the target possesses what most people
Schreindorfer, 1998, p. 15). According to this conceptu- view as socially desirable attributes but nonetheless har-
alization, people are not stigmatized simply because they bors negative feelings toward the target, devalues him or
have a spoiled identity or are evaluated negatively, but her as a viable relational partner or group member, and acts
rather because others view them as possessing a character- in discriminatory ways.
istic for which they should be avoided or excluded. In many ways, the psychological impact of prejudice
When one examines the reasons that people are typi- and discrimination on their targets may come more from
cally stigmatized, they mostly involve reasons that, in relational devaluation and rejection than from negative
the eye of the stigmatizer, qualify the target for devalu- evaluations or prejudicial attitudes. Although people may
ation, avoidance, and possibly rejection. In fact, many be frustrated or angered when others perceive them nega-
instances of stigmatization may involve evolved disposi- tively, being avoided, excluded, and ostracized may take
tions to distance oneself from others who are perceived a larger toll on people’s well-being (Richman & Leary,
to pose a threat to one’s well-being (Kurzban & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007). Given that people possess a strong
2001; Neuberg et al., this volume; Neuberg & Cottrell, and pervasive motive to be accepted, chronic deprivation
2008). Specifically, people tend to stigmatize and exclude of acceptance and belonging produces a number of nega-
those who are perceived as poor social exchange partners tive effects that go beyond negative emotion. For example,
(e.g., homeless people, convicted felons, known cheaters), studies of people who are targets of ongoing prejudice and
878 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

discrimination find strong support for an association relational value even if they recognize that the criticism is
between self-reports of discrimination and lower psy- accurate and justified.
chological well-being (Dion & Earn, 1995; Kessler,
Bullying
Mickelson, & Williams, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1996;
Sellers & Shelton, 2003; Thompson, 1996). For example, Bullying and malicious teasing also connote that the target
among immigrants, perceived discrimination in the new has low relational value in the eyes of the bully. As in the
country was the strongest single predictor of stress and case of criticism, people who are bullied may conclude,
homesickness (Tartakovsky, 2007). quite reasonably, that people do not bully and harass those
Laboratory analogues of ethnic discrimination and whose relationships they value, and thus bullying is prima
mistreatment are also associated with cardiovascular reac- facie evidence of low relational value. Thus, whatever other
tions that mirror the effects of explicit rejection (Armstead, effects bullying may have—humiliation, fear of physical
1989; Harrell, Hall, & Taliaferro, 2003; Merritt, Bennett, harm, and lowered status, for example—being bullied has
Williams, Edwards, & Sollers, 2006). Chronic experiences many of the same effects as “purer” forms of rejection,
of mistreatment and discrimination may also increase such as depression, social withdrawal, avoidant behav-
the degree to which people react to subsequent stressors. iors, anger, and lowered self-esteem (Vernberg, Abwender,
Research shows, for example, that past experiences of Ewell, & Beery, 1992; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).
subtle mistreatment (e.g., being ignored or treated with Interestingly, children who are bullied suffer less severe
less courtesy and respect than other people) were related psychological consequences if they witness other children
to higher diastolic blood pressure reactivity among African being bullied as well (Nishina & Juvonen, 2005), possibly
Americans, but not European Americans, during a speech because widespread bullying does not connote that one has
task (Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001). Such find- uniquely low relational value.
ings suggest that pervasive and chronic rejection may have
Betrayal
long-term effects on physiological responses to socially
stressful events. Betrayal undermines relationships in a number of ways, but
one source of its potency involves the fact that being
betrayed connotes that one has low relational value to
Implicit Devaluation and Rejection
the betrayer. Based on her review of the literature on
Relational devaluation is often subtle, and people some- betrayal, Fitness (2001) concluded that “every betrayal
times feel rejected when other people treat them in ways implies interpersonal rejection and/or a devaluation of the
that, although not explicitly rejecting, convey that they relationship between two parties” (p. 77). Put simply, people
have low relational value. typically do not engage in acts of betrayal with respect to
people whose relationships they value greatly. Thus, when
Criticism a spouse has an affair, the betrayed partner cannot help but
Although criticism is not necessarily explicitly rejecting, to conclude that the partner did not sufficiently value the
it can hurt people’s feelings and make them feel rejected marital relationship.
because it connotes low relational value in two ways
Interpersonal Favoritism
(Feeney, 2004; Leary, Springer, et al., 1998). First, criticism
inherently conveys that another person believes that the People also experience lower-than-desired relational value
target possesses some undesirable characteristic, and as when they perceive that another person favors some other
discussed in this chapter, possessing undesirable attributes person, whom they regard as an equal or even inferior,
undermines one’s relational value. Therefore, although a over them. For example, an employee who perceives that
criticism may contain no explicit suggestion of relational the boss unjustly favors another worker or a child who
devaluation or rejection, the fact that another person believes that a parent favors a sibling over him or her will
regards something about the target negatively may con- likely feel rejected.
note that the target’s relational value is lower than he or In a study of perceived favoritism within families (Fitness,
she desires it to be. 2005), nearly 69% of college students perceived that there
Second, the fact that another person voiced a criticism had been a favorite in their family, and about half of those
might be interpreted as an indication of low relational indicated that the family favorite was a sibling rather than
value. Even among close friends, critical comments can them. Given that the average family size is larger than two,
lead people to reason that “If you really valued our relation- this pattern suggests a bias to assume that the family favorite
ship, you wouldn’t say such a thing.” People may view the was oneself more than is probably the case, but overall,
expression of a criticism as reflecting lower-than-desired about a third of all respondents thought that their parents
 Reactions to Rejection 879

had favored a brother or sister over them. In addition, about see Williams, 2001, 2007). In addition to constituting a
80% of the respondents indicated that their family also had threat to these important predictors of psychological well-
a “black sheep”—someone who was not approved of, liked, being, being rejected often has other implications for other
or included as much as other family members—and 21% aspects of people’s lives, such as their safety (as when a
indicated that they were the black sheep of their family. young adult is kicked out of the house by his or her parents
According to respondents, other family members reacted and has nowhere else to go), financial security (as when a
toward black sheep with responses that included chilly person’s well-paid spouse ends the marriage or a person is
politeness (7%), coldness (9%), and total exclusion (51%). fired from a job), and reputation (as when public breakups
The consequences of being a family nonfavorite, or worse, the bring information to light that damages one’s social image).
black sheep, have not been widely studied in adults (see, Because rejections often threaten more than a person’s
however, Brody, Copeland, Sutton, Richardson, & relational value, acceptance, and belonging, researchers
Guyer, 1998; Fitness, 2005), but they presumably resemble must be careful to distinguish the effects of rejection per
the consequences of other types of rejection. se from the effects of other factors that may accompany or
result from rejection.
The Common Link
Emotional Responses
As can be seen, interpersonal rejection can take many
forms that include not only explicit indications that one is A clear example of the importance of determining whether
not accepted but also phenomena such as stigmatization, certain effects are caused by rejection or by other factors,
discrimination, bullying, betrayal, favoritism, and so on. involves the array of strong emotions that people expe-
These various manifestations of rejection differ in impor- rience when they are rejected. Rejection experiences
tant ways, but they share low relational value as a common typically evoke negative emotions such as hurt feelings,
feature. Whatever other implications these events may sadness, anger, and loneliness. However, the question
have, they convey to people that others do not regard their arises whether each of these emotions arises from rejec-
relationships to be as valuable or important as the person tion per se or whether some arise from other factors that
desires them to be. Unfortunately, researchers who study may accompany episodes of rejection.
each of these phenomena have rarely considered ways
Hurt Feelings
in which each one resembles and differs from the others.
More integration across social psychological phenomena The emotion that is most closely associated with perceiving
in which low relational value is involved would be useful. that one’s relational value is lower than desired is hurt feel-
ings. Cognitive appraisals of low or declining relational
value reliably cause people’s feelings to be hurt (Buckley,
REACTIONS TO REJECTION Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Snapp & Leary, 2001). Thus, the
situations that cause hurt feelings invariably involve events
Perceiving that one is rejected by other people is a potent that lead people to infer that others do not value their rela-
experience, with widespread effects on emotions, self- tionship as much as they would like them to.
perceptions, social judgments, and interpersonal behavior. A content analysis of people’s descriptions of instances
In attempting to understand the ways in which real and in which their feelings had been hurt identified six catego-
imagined rejections affect people, theorists have stressed ries of hurtful events, all of which connoted low relational
that rejection episodes are typically complex and mul- evaluation: active disassociation (i.e., explicit rejection),
tifaceted events that have important implications for the passive dissociation (i.e., being ignored or avoided), criti-
person beyond the fact that he or she merely has low rela- cism, betrayal, teasing, and feeling unappreciated or taken
tional value or suffered the loss of a social relationship. for granted (Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998).
Williams’s (2001) model of ostracism directly addresses Similarly, a study of hurt feelings in romantic relationships
this point, noting that rejection poses a threat not only to identified five categories of hurtful events that occur specif-
belonging but also to self-esteem, perceived control, and ically in close relationships: active disassociation, passive
one’s sense of having a meaningful existence. A number disassociation, criticism, infidelity, and deception (e.g., lying
of studies have confirmed this notion, showing that and breaking promises) (Feeney, 2004). In each instance,
people who have been rejected, even in relatively trivial interpreting such events as indications that their partner
ways (such as not being included in an online ball-tossing does not adequately value their relationship leads people
game), consistently report lowered belonging, self-esteem, to experience hurt feelings. Along the same lines, most of
control, and sense of having a meaningful life (for reviews, the categories of hurtful events identified in another study
880 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

of hurt feelings connoted that another person does not its emotionally aversive qualities (MacDonald & Leary,
adequately value one’s relationship, as when one is explic- 2005a, b).
itly rejected, betrayed, or personally attacked (Vangelisti, Growing evidence supports this hypothesis. An experi-
Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, 2005). In other ment in which participants’ brains were imaged using
cases, low relational evaluation is implicit but nonetheless functional magnetic resonance imaging while they were
present, as when others damage one’s self-concept, shatter ostracized showed that social exclusion activated the ante-
one’s hopes, say insulting things, or use inappropriate or rior cingulate cortex and right ventral pre-frontal cortex
spiteful humor (Vangelisti et al.). In a study of hurt feel- (Eisenberger et al., 2003), areas that are also involved in
ings in parent-child relationships, most of the events that the pain affect system (Rainville, 2002). Furthermore,
children and mothers considered hurtful involved relational certain personality characteristics, such as extraversion,
devaluation, such as being disparaged or disregarded (Mills, trait anxiety, aggressiveness, and depression, moderate
Nazar, & Farrell, 2002). reactions to physical and social sources of pain in similar
Experimental investigations also show that inducing ways (see MacDonald & Leary, 2005a). Additional evi-
a sense of low relational value—for example by leading dence from animal models implicates similar areas of
the participant to believe that others do not wish to inter- the neuroendocrine system and brain in reactions to both
act with or get to know them—elicits hurt feelings. When physical injury and social separation (Panksepp, 1998).
research participants have been led to believe that they Furthermore, being rejected lowers people’s tolerance for
were selected last for a team (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001), physical pain (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006), and analgesics
that another person was disinterested in what they were that are typically taken for physical pain may attenuate hurt
saying (Snapp & Leary, 2001), that others excluded them feelings that are caused by rejection (DeWall, MacDonald,
from a ball-tossing game (Eisenberger et al., 2003), or that Webster, Tice, & Baumeister, 2007). Together, these find-
others did not want to work with them (Buckley et al., ings suggest that the hurt feelings that people experience
2004), participants reported feeling hurt (compared with when they feel relationally devalued and rejected may
participants who received feedback indicating that others arise from some of the same neurological mechanisms as
valued and accepted them). Furthermore, participants’ rat- those involved in processing physical pain. The evolu-
ings of how accepted or valued they felt, whether in labo- tionary reason for this link seems clear: just as physical
ratory experiments or when reporting on real-life rejection pain warns people of threats to their physical well-being
episodes, correlated strongly with how hurt they reported and motivates actions that minimize further injury to their
feeling (e.g., Buckley et al., 2004; Leary, Springer, et al., bodies, social pain (i.e., hurt feelings) warns people of threats
1998). Also, the greater the discrepancy between people’s to their social connections, which during evolutionary history
ratings of desired and perceived relational value, the more would have had negative consequences for their physical
hurt they felt (Leary & Leder, 2009). survival as well.
An intriguing question that has garnered considerable Although feeling devalued reliably elicits hurt feelings,
interest is why hurt feelings “hurt” in ways that other rejection can also evoke other emotions such as sadness and
aversive emotions, such as sadness or anxiety, do not (see anger. However, whereas hurt feelings result from perceived
Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2005; MacDonald, in press). low relational value per se, the other emotions that often
Theorists have speculated that, during the course of mam- accompany hurt appear to be caused by other features of the
malian evolution, the neurological system that responds to situation. Rejection episodes typically involve multiple out-
threats to social connections was built on top of more prim- comes in addition to relational devaluation, and these other
itive systems that are involved the experience of physical features may evoke other emotions. For example, if a rejec-
pain (MacDonald, in press; MacDonald & Leary, 2005a; tion event frustrates the person’s efforts to obtain certain
MacDonald, Kinsbury, & Shaw, 2005; Panksepp, 1998). outcomes, particularly in an unjustified manner, the person
The experience of physical pain involves activity in two might feel angry because appraisals of unjustified harm elicit
distinct neurological systems (Craig & Dostrovsky, 1999; anger (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). Similarly, because appraisals
Price, 2000). The pain sensation system transfers sen- of loss elicit sadness, interpersonal rejections that involve
sory information from the site of a physical injury to the the loss of an existing or potential relationship should cause
brain. At the same time, the pain affect system mediates people to feel sad. Likewise, a rejection episode that puts
the emotional and motivational features of pain—creating the person in danger of harm might cause anxiety. Research
emotional distress and a desire to terminate the painful sen- shows that, although rejection consistently causes hurt feel-
sations. The “hurt feelings” that result from rejection may ings, whether other emotions also occur depends on how
be painful because the sting of social rejection is processed people appraise the causes and implications of the rejection
via the pain affect system that imbues physical injury with episode (Leary & Leder, 2009).
 Reactions to Rejection 881

Loneliness and Homesickness When the possibility of rejection is salient, people who
already feel lonely become particularly attuned to signs
Two additional emotional experiences that are closely
of social acceptance and rejection (Gardner et al., 2005;
linked to perceived deficiencies in one’s social connec-
Pickett et al., 2004). However, their greater attentiveness
tions are loneliness and homesickness. Loneliness and
to social cues does not necessarily lead lonely people to
homesickness are not always caused by rejection, but they
perceive other people’s reactions more accurately. In fact,
sometimes are, as when a person is abandoned by his or her
people who feel lonely are less accurate at decoding facial
romantic partner soon after the couple moves to a new city.
and postural expressions of emotion than less lonely people
Both loneliness and homesickness are tied to the percep-
(Pickett & Gardner, 2005; Pitterman & Nowicki, 2004).
tion that one’s social network is inadequate, and there may
Whether this effect is due to the fact that being lonely biases
be good reasons for considering homesickness a special
people’s perceptions of other people or reflects pre-existing
case of loneliness with the added feature that the lonely
differences in emotional intelligence among people who
person longs for home.
are predisposed versus are not predisposed to be lonely is
People feel lonely when their social relationships are
unclear. Given that this finding contradicts other research
less satisfying than they desire (Peplau & Perlman, 1982).
showing that people who feel rejected are more accurate
Loneliness is not the same as being alone, and it is not
in their perceptions of others (Bernstein et al., in press;
necessarily attenuated by being with other people. Even
Gardner et al., 2005; Pickett et al., 2004), more research is
so, people tend to feel lonelier when their social networks
needed on this question.
are small, and when they have fewer interactions with
In contrast with loneliness, which has been studied
friends and family members (Dykstra, van Tilburg, & de
extensively, research on homesickness is in its infancy.
Jong Gierveld, 2005; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003). Thus,
People who are homesick feel sad and lonely, are apathetic
factors that reduce the opportunity for social interactions
and listless, ruminate about their relationships back home, and
with close others increase loneliness (Shaver, Furman, &
long to return to a more familiar environment (Fisher &
Buhrmester, 1985), and the quality of people’s social rela-
Hood, 1987; Van Tilberg, 2005). Much of the distress of
tionships is more important in predicting loneliness than
homesickness arises from the loss of regular contact with
the frequency or length of social interactions (Pinquart &
family and friends in one’s previous environment, but
Sörensen, 2003). For example, close marriages that satisfy
some of the feelings associated with homesickness may
the partners’ needs for a confidant reduce loneliness more
also come from being in an unfamiliar, unpredictable envi-
than marriages that are less close even if the amount of
ronment in which one has less control than one had in the
interaction between the partners is the same in both cases
“home” environment, and experiencing changes in one’s
(Olson & Wong, 2001).
roles and self-concept. People who feel homesick also may
Once people feel lonely, they react more strongly to
experience a conflict between the desire to acclimate to and
negative social events and experience fewer benefits from
take advantage of the new situation, and the desire to flee
positive interpersonal experiences (Hawkley, Preacher, &
the new situation and return home (Fisher, 1989). The inten-
Cacioppo, 2007). As a result, lonely people tend to per-
sity of homesickness is further increased when the person
ceive social exchanges, even supportive ones, as less ful-
genuinely dislikes his or her new social environment
filling (Hawkley, Burleson, Berntson, & Cacioppo, 2003)
(Archer, Ireland, Amos, Broad, & Currid, 1998).
and believe that they do not have control over their abil-
ity to fulfill their needs for acceptance and social contact
Emotional Numbing
(Solano, 1987). Furthermore, people who feel lonely often
act in ways that are seen by others as anxious and nega- As we have seen, most studies show that rejection episodes
tive in tone, which can lead other people to view them less cause an array of negative emotions, some of which are due
positively (Lau & Gruen, 1992). For example, studies to perceiving that one has low relational value and some of
showed that lonely people are less accepting of other which are due to the perceived causes and consequences
people than are the nonlonely (Rotenberg & Kmill, 1992; of being rejected. (For a meta-analysis of findings involv-
Wittenberg & Reis, 1986), and that lonely students were ing the effects of laboratory-manipulated rejection on
less responsive to their classmates during class discus- negative affect, see Blackhart et al., 2009). However, some
sions and provided less appropriate and less effective feed- experiments have found evidence that rejection may cause
back than nonlonely students (Anderson & Martin, 1995). “emotional numbing” instead (Baumeister & DeWall,
Paradoxically, then, the behaviors of lonely people often 2005; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003).
lead others to distance themselves, further lowering per- Most (although not all) of the studies that have failed to
ceived acceptance, diminishing interpersonal contact, and find emotional effects of rejection have used a paradigm
increasing loneliness (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005). in which participants are told, on the basis of a measure
882 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

that they completed earlier, that they are the type of person state self-esteem when they receive devaluing feedback
“who will end up alone later in life” and that “when you’re from other people (Leary, Gallagher, et al., 2003). (See
past the age where people are constantly forming new Blackhart et al., 2009, for a meta-analysis of the effects of
relationships, you’ll end up being alone more and more” rejection on self-esteem.)
(Twenge et al., 2003, p. 416). Unlike paradigms that lead Many researchers have been surprised to find that rejec-
participants to feel rejected by people in the current situa- tion can evoke negative emotions and lower self-esteem
tion, the you-will-be-alone-later-in-life manipulation pre- regardless of the identity of the rejector and whether the
sumably does not make participants feel rejected at the rejection has any meaningful consequences for the rejected
present time, but rather raises the specter of future social person. People are distressed and deflated when rejected by
isolation at some unspecified time in the future. Thus, people whose acceptance is inconsequential and even
this method of inducing rejection should not be expected by people whom they dislike (Gonsalkorale & Williams,
to evoke precisely the same emotional reactions as when 2007). Most laboratory-based experiments that have shown
people feel devalued or rejected in their current situation. effects of rejection on emotions and state self-esteem have
Furthermore, the unexpected, vague, and distal nature of not only involved rejections by strangers, but often partici-
the feedback may cause people to be puzzled or conster- pants never actually meet the person who ostensibly rejected
nated rather than to feel relationally devalued. them (the feedback was conveyed via written rating or by
A few other studies that have induced rejection more computer). Furthermore, rejection causes changes in emo-
directly have also found no effects of acceptance versus tion and state self-esteem even when others have little or no
rejection on emotion, but null effects are always difficult to basis for judging the target as an individual and, thus, the
interpret. Clearly, rejection sometimes fails to evoke nega- devaluing feedback does not reflect in any way on the tar-
tive emotions, but the dominant finding is that it usually get’s personal qualities. For example, effects of rejection of
does (Blackhart et al., 2009). In fact, even when efforts are emotion and self-esteem have been obtained when partici-
made to counterbalance the negative emotions that arise pants are left out of an online ball-tossing computer game
from rejection, by offering financial gain for being ostra- with anonymous people located in other parts of the world
cized for example, participants still report negative feel- (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) and when the rejector
ings (Van Beest & Williams, 2006). has only superficial information about the rejectee, such as
his or her name, hometown, and favorite class (Snapp &
Leary, 2001). Even rejection by a computer can reduce self-
State Self-esteem
esteem and elicit negative emotions (Zadro, Williams, &
Perceiving that one is devalued or rejected reliably causes Richardson, 2004).
changes in state self-esteem—how people feel about and Perhaps more surprisingly, people can be as affected by
evaluate themselves at the present time. In laboratory rejections by members of outgroups as by members of their
experiments, manipulations that convey low relational own group (Williams et al., 2000) and are even hurt when
value through rejection, disapproval, disinterest, or ostra- rejected by members of outgroups that they despise (such as
cism consistently reduce participants’ state self-esteem the Ku Klux Klan; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Also,
(Leary, Cottrell, & Phillips, 2001; Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & when inconsequential ostracism (being ignored during
Chokel, 1998; Leary et al., 1995; Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, a computer ball-tossing game) was paired with financial
Blevins, & Holgate, 1997; Williams, Govan, Croker, rewards and inclusion led to financial loss, participants
Tynan, Cruickshank, & Lam, 2002; Zadro, Williams, & still experienced threats to belonging and self-esteem, and
Richardson, 2005). Similarly, rejecting events in everyday reported negative affect (van Beest & Williams, 2006).
life, such as unrequited love and being bullied, are associ- The fact that people are affected by inconsequential
ated with negative self-feelings (Baumeister, Wotman, & rejections by strangers who the person will not meet and
Stillman, 1993; Nishina & Juvonen, 2005), and longitudinal who have no information about him or her as an individual
research shows that perceived relational value prospec- suggests that people are predisposed to react to cues indi-
tively predicts changes in self-esteem over time (Murray, cating low relational value regardless of their source, at
Griffin, Rose, & Bellavia, 2003; Srivastava & Beer, 2005). least initially. Williams and Zadro (2005) suggested that the
Even imagining being rejected can lower state self-esteem early warning system that alerts people to possible threats
(Vandevelde & Miyahara, 2005). Although some people to belonging is indiscriminate with respect to the identity
claim that their feelings about themselves are not affected of the rejector. Although people may be able to override
by whether others value and accept them, research shows their initial response by telling themselves that the other
that even people who claim to be wholly unconcerned with person’s acceptance of them is irrelevant and inconsequen-
other people’s approval and acceptance show changes in tial, their first response is to experience negative affect and
 Dealing With Threats to Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging 883

lowered self-esteem. This feature of the sociometer may rejection episodes can also lead to a decrease in meaning
reflect the fact that, in the ancestral environment in which (Zadro et al., 2004).
human evolution occurred, virtually all of a person’s inter- The fact that rejection episodes threaten more than one’s
actions were with members of one’s own clan, individuals relational value, acceptance, and belonging suggests that
whose acceptance and good will always mattered. Thus, some of the emotional and behavioral consequences of rejec-
psychological mechanisms did not evolve to distinguish tion are not due to relational devaluation per se but rather
important from unimportant rejections; any indication that to the effects of rejection on other psychological processes.
one had low relational value had to be taken seriously. In For example, the depression that may arise in the aftermath
contrast, people living in modern industrialized societies of an important rejection might not be merely because one
interact regularly with scores of people whose acceptance is not relationally valued but also because of the learned
does not matter in any way, but the early warning system helplessness that arises from a perceived lack of control
that Williams and Zadro described was designed to respond over the situation (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
to any and all signs of possible rejection. Similarly, some of the ways in which people react after
being rejected may arise from their sense that life has lost
Ancillary Effects of Rejection some (or all) of its meaning rather than from low relational
Fundamentally, rejection threatens people’s desire to be rela- value per se (Williams, 2007; Zadro et al., 2004).
tionally valued and accepted, and yet, as noted earlier, rejec-
tion episodes can have other consequences as well. Williams
(2001) suggested that rejection threatens four fundamental DEALING WITH THREATS TO AFFILIATION,
needs: for belonging (acceptance), self-esteem, control, and ACCEPTANCE, AND BELONGING
meaningful existence. We have already dealt in depth with
the impact of rejection on acceptance and belonging, and as People’s behavioral reactions when they perceive that
we have seen, rejection invariably lowers state self-esteem they are insufficiently accepted are quite complex. When
(although proponents of sociometer theory would suggest rejected, people often seek ways to strengthen their social
that this is because self-esteem is an aspect of the system that connections with those who have rejected them or with
monitors acceptance and belonging, and not because people other people who were not involved in the rejection episode,
have a “need” for self-esteem; Leary, 2006). or both, but they may also withdraw socially or behave in
In addition, being rejected undermines people’s sense antisocial fashion, reactions that undermine rather than
of control over important outcomes (Williams, 2001). restore their social connections. Overall, people’s reactions
Rejection usually reflects a unilateral decision by one or to rejection seem to reflect a mixture of three goals: to
more people to distance themselves from the target indi- increase relational value and acceptance, to protect them-
vidual, and the target typically has no recourse or control. selves from further rejection and hurt, and to exact revenge
Furthermore, people’s sense of control may be lowered fur- on those who have devalued or rejected them. How people
ther when the cause of the rejection is unclear, as if often the respond in any particular moment after a rejection epi-
case because rejectors do not always provide full and true sode reflects which of these goals is dominant at the time
reasons for the rejection. Consistent with the suggestion (Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007).
that lack of interpretative control makes it more difficult
for people to cope with stressful events, rejections that are Restoring Social Connections
causally unclear are more distressing (Sommer, Williams,
Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Interpersonal rejection appears to stimulate a desire to
Williams’s (2001) model also suggests that rejection affiliate and connect with other people. People who are
undermines people’s sense of having a meaningful exis- rejected cooperate more with others (Ouwerkerk, Kerr,
tence because social connections are essential for the sense Galluci, & Van Lange, 2005), conform more to other
that one’s life has meaning (James, 1890). The effects of people’s opinions (Williams et al., 2000), work harder in
rejection on meaningfulness are obvious in extreme cases group settings (Williams & Sommer, 1997), and allocate
in which people are shunned by everyone in their commu- higher cash awards to other people (Maner et al., 2007),
nity or chronically ostracized by significant others. Case all of which may reflect efforts to increase relational value
studies of people who have been given the silent treatment, and social acceptance. Furthermore, priming participants
banished, or ostracized by a large number of people sug- to think about a time that they had been excluded increased
gest that wholesale ostracism leads people to feel that they their desire to meet new people and to make new friends
do not exist and that their life has no meaning (Williams, (Maner et al., 2007, Study 1). In another study, participants
2001). However, research evidence shows that even minor who were given feedback, ostensibly based on a personality
884 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

inventory they had completed earlier, that they were likely People may engage in social snacking by rereading e-mail
to end up alone later in life showed an increased preference to messages or letters from friends and loved ones, recalling
work with others rather than alone on a subsequent task pleasant social connections, daydreaming about significant
(Maner et al., 2007, Study 2). However, as noted earlier, others, or looking at photographs that remind them of their
this experimental manipulation may not induce a sense of social relationships. Research shows that people who score
being currently rejected as opposed to opening the pros- high in the need to belong engage in social snacking more
pect of being rejected many years in the future. often than those who score low in the need to belong, pre-
Being rejected may also increase the degree to which sumably as a means of maintaining a subjective sense of
people perceive that others who were not involved in the acceptance. Furthermore, participants who imagined being
rejection are nicer, friendlier, and more desirable (Maner et al., alone all day showed a higher tendency to engage in social
2007, Study 3). Similarly, people who are high in the need snacking (Gardner, Jefferis, & Knowles, 2009).
to belong appear to downplay the degree to which they Social snacking and other reminders of one’s interper-
have personally experienced discrimination (Carvallo & sonal connections appear to ameliorate some of the negative
Pelham, 2006). Such biases in perceptions of other people effects of being rejected. For example, thinking and writing
may make it easier for people who feel inadequately about one’s friends lowered people’s reactions to being
accepted to seek out alternative sources of acceptance. rejected (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels,
However, under certain circumstances, being rejected by 2007). Likewise, parasocial relationships—attachments
one person or group may lead people to regard other peo- to movie stars, television personalities, musicians, sports
ple as potentially more threatening and rejecting as well. figures, and other favorite celebrities—may provide com-
For example, people who are high in fear of negative eval- fort and a sense of social connection even though the “rela-
uation do not perceive other people as nicer and friendlier tionship” is distal and nonreciprocated (Gardner et al.,
after being rejected (Maner et al., Study 4). Research is 2005; Koenig & Lessan, 1985). Parasocial relationships
needed to identify the conditions under which people who may provide these emotional benefits because evolution
are rejected perceive others as more versus less friendly had no reason to design the human brain to distinguish real
and approachable. people from televised images.
Some of the behaviors that rejected people enact to Companion animals can also provide social connec-
strengthen social connections may be automatic and noncon- tions and a sense of acceptance. Relationships with pets
scious. As noted earlier, behavioral mimicry—the tendency give many people an ongoing source of social contact that
to imitate the behavior of others without awareness— reduces loneliness, provides emotional support, and pro-
increases after rejection. Participants who were excluded motes well-being (Collis & McNicholas, 1998; Krause-
from an online ball-tossing game nonverbally mimicked a Parello, 2008; Serpell, 2002). Research also shows that
confederate more than those who were included (Lakin & human-pet relationships promote physical health among
Chartrand, 2003). Given that nonconscious mimicry individuals, such as the elderly, who lack sufficient social
enhances the target’s liking for the mimicker and ratings of contacts with other people (Staats, Pierfelice, Kim, &
the positivity of the interaction (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), Crandell, 1999).
this effect may reflect a nonconscious tactic for increasing When people lose relational value because they have
acceptance after being rejected. Indeed, the experimental behaved in a way that has damaged their image as a desir-
confederate in a behavioral mimicry study rated interac- able interpersonal partner or group member, they may
tions with excluded participants who mimicked him more engage in an array of remedial behaviors that attempt to
positively than interactions with participants who had been repair their social image and restore their relational value.
included (Lakin & Chartrand). Often, people’s first remedial step involves apologizing.
Presumably, people who perceive that they have been Apologies have historically been conceptualized as tactics
rejected would prefer to restore their acceptance and that repair one’s social image (Schlenker & Weigold,
belonging by building social connections with real people. 1992), but they may be viewed more broadly as ways of
However, in instances in which people who feel rejected reestablishing one’s relational value in the aftermath of an
are unable to increase their relational value and acceptance undesired behavior or outcome that has lowered the person’s
by other people, they may use cognitive means to restore a relational value to other people. A sincere apology con-
subjective sense of belonging. For example, people who veys that people recognize that their behavior has violated
feel inadequately connected with others sometimes foundational conditions of social acceptance, and are con-
“snack” on symbolic reminders of their social connections, cerned enough about its impact and others’ judgments to
just as people who cannot eat a meal may snack to hold off acknowledge and correct it. In contrast, the person who
their hunger (Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, & Knowles, 2005). does not apologize after misbehaving conveys either that
 Dealing With Threats to Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging 885

he or she is unaware that the action might undermine social behavior or outcome occurred but try to reduce one’s
acceptance or, worse, simply does not care. This functional perceived responsibility for it (Snyder & Higgins, 1988). If
understanding of apologies appears at a young age, pre- others accept them, excuses reduce the person’s perceived
sumably because most parents are adamant about ingrain- responsibility for the behavior in question, and thus reduce
ing in their children the importance of saying “I’m sorry” somewhat the degree to which people draw negative infer-
when they do something wrong. Children as young as 3 ences about the person from his or her actions. Put differently,
years old evaluate those who apologize for a wrongdoing successful excuses help to mitigate damage to the person’s
more favorably than those who do not apologize (Darby & relational value.
Schlenker, 1982). Whereas excuses minimize one’s responsibility for nega-
When the infraction is minor, a casual and brief apology tive outcome, justifications reduce the perceived negativity
is usually sufficient to repair the damage to one’s image of the event itself (Schlenker, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968).
and to restore relational value. However, when trans- A justification accepts personal responsibility for the out-
gressions are more serious, people must apologize more come but offers reasons why the outcome was not as bad as
strongly and accompany their apologies with expressions others believe it to be. For example, people can claim that
of distress and remorse. The more severe the incident, the misbehavior was really not serious (direct minimiza-
the more effortful apology the perpetrator is expected to tion), that the negative event was the result of an otherwise
express before the apology is accepted by other people positive action (claimed beneficence), that the behavior
(Schlenker & Darby, 1981). Of course, in extreme cases of was not as bad as what other people do (comparative
antisocial behavior, even strong, sincere apologies cannot justification), or that behaving appropriately took a back
repair the person’s image sufficiently to restore relational seat to some superordinate goal (principled justification)
value to its pre-infraction level. (Schlenker, 1980). When successful, these various forms
Most research has focused on apologies that are made of justification help to protect the person’s public image
after one has behaved in a way that damaged one’s image and relational value by decreasing the perceived negativity
and undermined relational value. However, people some- of his or her behavior.
times apologize before or at the same time that the undesired In addition to repairing one’s relational value verbally
behavior occurs (ex ante apologies). For example, people through apologies, excuses, and justifications, people may
may apologize in advance for negative outcomes that they engage in nonverbal behaviors that convey that they recog-
will create in the future (e.g., “I’m sorry, but I will be late nize that they performed an action that may result in unde-
for our meeting tomorrow.”) or apologize concurrently with sired impressions and relational devaluation (Castelfranchi &
performance of an action that may lead others to devalue Poggi, 1990). These nonverbal appeasement behaviors
them (e.g., “I’m sorry that I have to do this, but you’re include facial blushing, gaze aversion, and nervous smil-
fired.”). Research suggests that apologies offered before- ing. People who enact such behaviors after a transgres-
hand may have different effects than those offered afterward sion, whether intentionally or automatically, elicit more
on perceptions of the apologizer, judgments of fairness, and favorable reactions from observers. For example, parents
motives for revenge (Skarlicki, Folger, & Gee, 2004), but are less likely to punish children for a wrongdoing if the
more research on ex ante apologies is needed. children appear embarrassed than if they do not (Semin &
People also reduce the impact of undesirable behav- Papadopoulou, 1990), and people who appear embarrassed
iors on interpersonal acceptance through accounts, which after behaving clumsily are liked more than people who do
are explanations for why one engaged in an unacceptable not seem to be embarrassed (Semin & Manstead, 1982).
behavior (Gonzales, Pederson, Manning, & Wetter, 1990; Thus, although people’s first inclination may be to hide
Schlenker, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968). Theorists have dis- their embarrassment, they may benefit by conveying to
tinguished among three primary types of accounts: refusals, others that they recognize their misbehavior and feel badly
excuses, and justifications (Austin, 1956; Schlenker, 1980; about it. At some level, people seem to realize that non-
Turnbull, 1992). (Other, less frequently used types of verbal signs of embarrassment help to repair their social
accounts include concessions, requests, and disclaimers.) images and protect belonging because believing that others
The refusal account, also known as a defense of innocence, know that one is embarrassed reduces people’s distress and
involves a denial that the person was responsible for a reduces their efforts to repair their public image in other
wrongdoing or, often, that a wrongdoing even occurred. ways (Leary, Landel, & Patton, 1996; Miller, 1996).
When successful, a refusal account immediately restores The nonverbal behaviors that accompany embarrass-
the person’s relational value to its pre-incident level. ment, guilt, and shame may reflect human analogues of the
When people cannot plausibly maintain their innocence, appeasement displays that are observed in certain nonhu-
they often offer excuses. Excuses admit that a negative man primates. When threatened socially, many nonhuman
886 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

primates perform a set of stereotypic actions that diffuse the so their motivation to affiliate with those individuals is low.
threat, and features of these actions can be seen in the non- People who are low in self-esteem are particularly likely to
verbal behaviors of people who have behaved in an undesired engage in defensive withdrawal when they believe that they
fashion that potentially damaged their relational value. For are not as accepted as they would like to be (Murray, Holmes,
example, the lowered gaze and appeasement grins of chim- MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998; Sommer et al., 2001).
panzees resemble the averted eyes and nervous smiling that Although little research has examined the effects of
human beings display after a public blunder (Leary, Britt, rejection on social withdrawal and avoidance, shreds of evi-
Cutlip, & Templeton, 1992). Although primatologists have dence support the idea that people who are concerned about
stressed that the function of appeasement is to reduce conflict acceptance sometimes distance themselves from others by
and aggression (which it does), appeasement also reduces the physically leaving the situation in which they feel rejected
likelihood that the offending individual will be ostracized or or withdrawing socially and psychologically even while
ignored (De Waal, 2000; Kutsukake & Castles, 2004). remaining physically present (Maner et al., 2007, Study 4).
In some instances, a stronger means of demonstrating One experiment that explicitly examined behavioral reac-
one’s remorse and goodwill is needed, and the transgressor tions to rejection found that participants who interacted with
may be required to provide compensation or penance for a person who had previously been disinterested in them
the wrongdoing (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, dreaded interacting with the person, reported a lower desire
2002). Rituals of apology often require some form of repay- to communicate, sat farther away from the person, and ori-
ment or the presentation of a gift (Arno, 1976), and today, ented their bodies more away from him or her (Waldrip &
people often pay a penance when they have behaved in Jensen-Campbell, 2007). People who are rejected may also
an inappropriate manner (in terms of buying the offended display a “sour grapes” reaction (as in the fable of the fox and
party a gift, doing favors, or paying fines, among other the grapes) in which they downplay the degree to which they
examples). Offers of penance convey that the transgressor wish to be accepted (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001), a tactic
is willing to sacrifice something to be accepted back into that may both reduce the sting of rejection and make it easier
the relationship (Bottom, Gibson, Daniels, & Murnighan, for them to withdraw from further efforts to be accepted.
2002). Other people are more likely to forgive others’ mis- Similar effects can be seen in social encounters in
deeds when the perpetrator admits that he or she caused which the possibility of devaluation and rejection is
harm and offers to compensate for it (Schmitt, Gollwitzer, salient, as when one person in the interaction is stigma-
Förster, & Montada, 2004). Offers of compensation may tized or belongs to a marginalized social group (Shelton &
be particularly beneficial when they involve a clear sac- Richeson, 2006; Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005). In
rifice on the part of the individual (Van Lange, Rusbult, a study in which Latino and Asian American participants
Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox, 1997; Wieselquist, believed that an interaction partner held prejudiced beliefs
Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999). about their group, participants not only reported feeling
more anxious and hostile about an upcoming interaction
with that person, but were also less positive about inter-
Social Withdrawal
acting with outgroup members in general compared with
Although people who perceive that their relational value participants who expected to interact with someone who
is low often wish to restore their social connections with held race-neutral beliefs (Tropp & Wright, 2003).
the rejector or others, they sometimes behave in ways that Of course, members of majority groups are also often
undermine rather than increase the probability of future concerned about rejection by minorities and, thus, feel
acceptance (Richman & Leary, 2009). As Maner and col- anxious about real or impending intergroup interactions
leagues (2007) observed, people who have been recently (Hyers & Swim, 1998; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1997),
rejected can be characterized as “vulnerable but needy” particularly when they are concerned about appearing
(p. 52). Although they feel a strong need to foster their bonds prejudiced (Shelton, 2003). However, unlike members of
with other people, their feelings of vulnerability may lead minority groups, who can often not avoid having to inter-
them to distance themselves from others to avoid being hurt act with majority group members, members of majority
further (Vangelisti, 2001; Vangelisti et al., 2005). Not only groups sometimes try to avoid intergroup interactions alto-
does continued interaction with the rejector raise the specter gether (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993; Swim et al., 1997).
of further rejection and hurt, but once they are rejected by
one person, people may lose confidence in their acceptability Antisocial Responses
to other people as well. Furthermore, even if they are not
worried about being hurt again, people often see little value A great deal of research has shown that children and
in interacting with those who do not adequately accept them, adults who feel rejected often react in antisocial, if not
 Dealing With Threats to Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging 887

blatantly aggressive ways (e.g., Asher & Coie, 1990; Asher, that undermine cognitive performance on a self-control
Rose, & Gabriel, 2001; Buckley et al., 2004; Kupersmidt, task (Campbell et al., 2006). Interestingly, ostracizing
Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995; McDougall, Hymel, Vaillan- another person can similarly deplete self-control resources
court, & Mercer, 2001; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, (Ciarocco, Sommer, & Baumeister, 2001).
2001; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). Likewise, As noted earlier, angry and aggressive reactions to signs
certain instances of real-world violence appear to be pre- of rejection are more common among people who are
cipitated by rejection, such as when estranged husbands high rather than low in rejection sensitivity. Downey and
kill their wives (Barnard, Vera, Vera, & Newman, 1982; her colleagues (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey,
Crawford & Gartner, 1992), ostracized students shoot their Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998) conceptualized rejec-
classmates (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003), and tion sensitivity as a cognitive-affective processing dispo-
people attack those who have treated them disrespectfully sition whereby people anxiously expect, readily perceive,
(Cohen, Nisbett, & Bowdle, 1996). People who score high and intensely react to cues of rejection in the behavior of
in rejection sensitivity are particularly prone to respond other people. Highly rejection-sensitive people are hyper-
antisocially when they feel rejected (Ayduk, Downey, vigilant for cues of rejection when entering interpersonal
Testa, Yen, & Shoda, 1999). situations where rejection is possible (Downey, Mougios,
These patterns are intriguing because anger, aggression, Ayduk, London, & Shoda, 2004). When signs of rejec-
and other antisocial actions usually fracture rather than tion are detected, rejection-sensitive people feel rejected,
repair people’s interpersonal relationships. Why, then, are judge others negatively (Ayduk et al., 1999), and react
people prone to aggress when rejected? After reviewing the with hostility, avoidance, depression, or socially inappro-
literature on the relationship between rejection and aggres- priate efforts to avoid rejection (Ayduk, Mendoza-Denton,
sion, Leary, Twenge, and Quinlivan (2006) offered sev- Mischel, Downey, Peake, & Rodriguez, 2000; Downey &
eral plausible hypotheses that might explain why people Feldman, 1996; Downey, Feldman, & Ayduk, 2000;
sometimes sacrifice acceptance to hurt others. Some such Downey et al., 1998). Paradoxically, these reactions tend
explanations involve processes that are not specific to to elicit rejecting responses from other people, making the
rejection, such as the possibility that the pain or frustra- feared outcome a reality.
tion that results from rejection may lead people to aggress. In diary studies of romantic couples, rejection-sensitive
Other explanations are more directly social-psychological, women were more likely to become embroiled in conflicts
involving the possibility that people use aggression in an with their partners on days that followed a day on which
effort to influence others not to abandon them or to con- they felt more rejected (Ayduk et al., 1999; Downey et al.,
trol other people (some domestic violence appears to fall 1998). Similarly, rejection sensitivity predicted greater
into this category; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000), or merely to relationship violence by male college students who were
punish those who have hurt them or treated them unfairly. highly invested in their relationships (Downey et al.,
Another possibility is that rejection lowers the normal 2000). Highly rejection-sensitive people are also more
restraints against antisocial reactions. People ordinarily likely to aggress against strangers who reject them (Ayduk,
hesitate to aggress against those with whom they have Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2007). Similarly, in a study of singers
relationships because aggression would damage those in auditions, rejection sensitivity predicted contestants’
social bonds. But once people are rejected, the potential aggression and derogation of judges after rejection,
costs of aggression are reduced and people are more likely as well as indirect efforts to sabotage other singers’ success
to behave antisocially when they feel inclined to do so. in the audition (DiBenigno, Romero-Canyas, & Downey,
Research also suggests that rejection may interfere with 2007). The rejection-hostility link is also evident in rejection-
self-regulation so that rejected people more easily lose sensitive people’s reactions to distant, powerful others who
control when provoked (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & they believe have treated them unfairly. Rejection sensi-
Twenge, 2005; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2002). tivity predicts people’s withdrawal of support from poli-
Not only do experimental rejection inductions reduce intel- ticians who they feel betrayed them (Romero-Canyas &
ligent thought (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002), but Downey, 2003), and hostility toward and distancing from
merely making people’s stigmatized status salient, even God among religious people who are facing personal dif-
without explicitly rejecting them, can undermine cogni- ficulties (Anderson, Romero-Canyas, & Downey, 2008).
tive performance in ways that might impair self-control People who are high in rejection sensitivity have a stronger
(Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson, 2006; Schmader & Johns, cognitive association between rejection and hostile thoughts.
2003). An experiment that used magnetoencephalography In sequential priming-pronunciation paradigms, rejection-
to image participants’ brains showed that social exclu- related words facilitate pronunciation of hostility-related
sion compromises executive control of attention in ways words among people who are high in rejection sensitivity but
888 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

not among people who are low in rejection sensitivity (Ayduk for long periods with a chronic deficit in acceptance and
et al., 1999; Romero-Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk, & belonging. For example, people who are stigmatized, who
Kang, in press), suggesting an automatic link between rejec- lack the social skills or personal characteristics needed to
tion and hostile cognitions. These hostile thoughts presum- attract relational partners, or who have little to offer as group
ably translate to a higher incidence of anger and aggression members may perceive that others do not value having
among highly rejection-sensitive people. relationships with them, or worse, that others actively
As noted earlier, antisocial reactions to rejection are par- avoid having anything to do with them at all.
adoxical in that they often undermine one’s relational value Such chronic perceptions of low relational value can
and cause others to withdraw. This self-fulfilling cycle can have detrimental effects on both psychological well-being
be seen in the context of conflicts in dating relationships and physical health. Most notably, a chronic sense that
(Downey et al., 1998). When embroiled in a conflict with one is not valued and accepted by other people predicts
their dating partner, high (compared with low) rejection- depression. For example, although the symptoms of lone-
sensitive women engaged in more negative behaviors such liness and depression are conceptually and empirically
as using a negative tone of voice, criticizing or mocking distinct, being lonely strongly predicts depression (Nolen-
their partner, and using nonverbal gestures that convey dis- Hoeksema & Ahrens, 2002). Furthermore, loneliness
approval or disgust. Not surprisingly, such responses tended predicts depression longitudinally in prospective studies
to lead their partners to distance themselves, which fueled (Heikkinen & Kauppinen, 2004) even when certain risk
further overreactions from the women. Importantly, women factors that are common to both loneliness and depres-
high in rejection sensitivity reacted with greater hostility sion are controlled (Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, &
than women low in rejection sensitivity only when the Thisted, 2006). Not surprisingly, people who are high in
situation involved feeling rejected, demonstrating that rejection sensitivity are particularly prone to becoming
the effect is specific to rejection and not to negative events depressed when they feel rejected (Ayduk, Downey, &
in general (Ayduk et al., 1999). Kim, 2001). Unfortunately, once people are depressed,
Although Downey and colleagues (1998) did not find they react more strongly to indications that they are not
this pattern in men, they did find that men who were both being accepted (Nezlek et al., 1997), which may compro-
high in rejection sensitivity and very invested in their mise their relationships further and fuel further loneliness
romantic relationships were more likely to behave vio- and dysphoria.
lently toward their dating partners than men who were low Similarly, children who feel rejected by their peers tend
in rejection sensitivity or men who were high in rejection to be depressed, and changes in their status—to more or
sensitivity but less invested in their relationships. Thus, less rejected—prospectively predict corresponding changes
the degree of commitment and investment in a relation- in depression (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Boivin,
ship may moderate rejection-sensitive men’s reactions to Poulin, & Vitaro, 1994). In fact, some evidence suggests that
perceived rejection (Downey et al., 1998; Levy, Ayduk, & perceived rejection is the primary predictor of childhood
Downey, 2001). It is unclear why people who are most depression (Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991). This relation-
worried about rejection and invested in their relation- ship between chronic rejection and depression in children
ships are most likely to behave in ways that damage those is mediated by awareness of their own rejection. That is,
relationships when they feel relationally devalued, and this children who were objectively rejected by their peers
self-defeating pattern deserves further attention. but who did not recognize (or refused to admit) that they
were rejected did not show signs of depression (Panak &
Gerber, 1992).
LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF People who feel chronically disconnected from other
REJECTION people experience physical health problems as well. For
example, indices of social isolation—such as living alone,
As discussed in this chapter, transient episodes in which reporting low social support, feeling lonely, and experienc-
people perceive that others do not adequately value having ing chronic ostracism—are associated with negative health
a relationship with them are highly distressing. Although outcomes such as high blood pressure (Uchino, Cacioppo, &
negative reactions to permanent rejections from close rela- Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996), increased likelihood of heart attack
tionships can linger for some time (Leary, Springer, et al., (Case, Moss, Case, McDermott, & Eberly, 1992), and
1998; Vangelisti & Maguire, 2002; Williams, 2001), as long increased levels of stress-related hormones that are related
as people eventually restore the damaged relationship or find to immunological function.
others to replace it, the hurt is temporary and people show What is unclear is whether these effects are due to hav-
few, if any, long-term effects. However, some people live ing a chronically low sense of relational value, belonging,
 References 889

and social support or to the effects of explicit rejection. SUMMARY

Rejection elicits a stresslike response that involves increased
systolic and diastolic blood pressure (Stroud, Tanofsky- Human life is predicted on social interaction and the main-
Kraff, Wilfley, & Salovey, 2000), and the release of cortisol tenance of a variety of interpersonal relationships. People’s
(Blackhart, Echel, & Tice, 2007). Even situations that efforts to affiliate and to be accepted underlie a great deal
involve the potential for negative evaluations by other peo- of their behavior, and failures to be relationally valued
ple, such as giving a speech or performing a difficult task and to foster desired relationships have a strong impact on
in front of an evaluative audience, elicit cortisol release people’s emotions, self-views, social behavior, psycholog-
(Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson & ical well-being, and physical health. Although processes
Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson, Mycek, & Zaldivar, in press). that involve affiliation, acceptance, and belonging were
Similarly, feelings of loneliness (which, as noted, arise from understudied for most of the 20th century, we have seen a
perceived deficits in people’s social relationships) are asso- marked increase in interest in these topics more recently,
ciated with greater levels of cortisol on the following day not only by social and personality psychologists but by
(Adam, Hawkley, Kudielka, & Cacioppo, 2006). Cortisol is developmental and clinical psychologists as well. Even so,
beneficial in helping people deal with immediate threats, but research on these fundamental interpersonal processes is in
ongoing threats to social acceptance may lead to excessive its infancy, and the far-reaching impact of people’s efforts to
cortisol activity that puts the person at risk for cardiovas- develop and maintain social connections remains a ripe
cular damage, compromised immune function, and other topic for future theorizing and research.
health problems over the long run (Miller, Chen, & Zhou,
2007). Even events that connote relational devaluation more
subtly, such as being treated unfairly, are related to elevated
blood pressure readings (Matthews, Salomon, Kenyon, & REFERENCES
Zhou, 2005). Laboratory analogues of ethnic discrimination
and mistreatment are also associated with immediate physi- Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of
ological arousal (see Harrell et al., 2003 for review; see also Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Armstead, 1989; Guyll et al., 2001; Merritt et al., 2006). Adam, E. K., Hawkley, L., Kudielka, M. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2006).
The persistence or chronicity of stressors over time con- Day-to-day dynamics of experience-cortisol associations in a
tributes to more negative cardiovascular outcomes than the population-based sample of older adults. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 103, 17058–17063.
experience of an acute event or series of discrete events
AhYun, K. (2002). Similarity and attraction. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss,
(Williams, Spencer, & Jackson, 1999). Even so, repeated B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication
activation of these physiological pathways increases the research (pp. 145–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
risk for cardiovascular outcomes such as hypertension Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
(Krieger, 2000). Thus, people who perceive themselves Psychologist, 44, 709–716.

to be regularly devalued or rejected because of ongoing Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of modern social psy-
chology. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1,
discrimination, rejection, or ostracism are presumably pp. 3–56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
at greater risk. In support of this hypothesis, research on Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA:
loneliness and chronically low levels of acceptance or Brooks/Cole.
belonging finds increased morbidity and premature mor- Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The develop-
tality (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005). ment of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston.
To make matters worse, chronic experiences of rela-
Anderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1995). The effects of communication
tional devaluation and discrimination may heighten reac- motives, interaction involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction. Small
tivity to subsequent stressors so that pervasive and chronic Group Research, 26, 118–137.
rejection may have long-term effects on physiological Anderson, V. T., Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2008). Rejection sen-
responses to socially stressful events, possibly paving the sitivity predicts attributing distressing events to powerful others. It’s
all in God’s hands and he doesn’t love me. Unpublished manuscript,
way for pathogenic processes associated with heightened Columbia University, New York.
physiological reactivity. For example, past experiences of Archer, J., Ireland, J., Amos, S. L., Broad, H., & Currid, L. (1998).
subtle mistreatment (e.g., being ignored or being treated Derivation of a homesickness scale. British Journal of Psychology, 89,
with less courtesy and respect than other people) were 205–221.

related to higher diastolic blood pressure reactivity among Armstead, C. (1989). Relationship of racial stressors to blood pressure
responses and anger expression in Black college students. Health
African American women during a speech task, whereas Psychology, 8, 541–556.
this effect was not observed among European Americans Arno, A. (1976). Ritual reconciliation and conflict management in Fiji.
(Guyll et al., 2001). Oceania, 47, 49–65.
890 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and submission to group intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
pressure: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psycho- 817–827.
logical Monographs, 70(9, Whole No. 417). Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation.
Cambridge University Press. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 377–394.
Asher, S. R., Rose, A. J., & Gabriel, S. W. (2001). Peer rejection in every- Beck, E., Burnet, K. L., & Vosper, J. (2006). Birth-order effects on facets of
day life. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 105–142). extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 953–959.
New York: Oxford University Press. Berg, J. H., & Wright-Buckley, C. (1988). Effects of racial similarity
Austin, J. L. (1970). Philosophical papers (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford and interviewer intimacy in a peer counseling analogue. Journal of
University Press. Counseling Psychology, 35, 377–384.
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensitivity and Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. B., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R.
depressive symptoms in women. Personality & Social Psychology (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In
Bulletin, 27, 868–877. G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp.
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Testa, A., Yen, Y., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Does rejec- 149–171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
tion elicit hostility in rejection sensitive women? Social Cognition, 17, Bernstein, M., Young, S., Brown, C., Sacco, D., & Claypool, H. (2008).
245–271. Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detec-
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2007). Individual differences in the tion of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983.
rejection-aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection Blackhart, G. C., Echel, L. A., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Salivary cortisol in
sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775–782. response to acute social rejection and acceptance by peers. Biological
Ayduk, Ö., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake, P. K., & Psychology, 75, 267–276.
Rodriguez, M. (2000). Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self- Blackhart, G. C., Knowles, M. L., & Bieda, K. (2009). A meta-analytic
regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity. Journal of Personality & review of affective reactions and self-esteem in response to social
Social Psychology, 79, 776–792. rejection: Support for the belongingness and sociometer theories.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by Manuscript submitted for publication.
chance. Psychological Science, 19, 439–440. Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Boston: Beacon. withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predict-
ing loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and
Baldwin, M. W. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-
Psychopathology, 7, 765–785.
evaluative reaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13,
380–403. Boivin, M., Poulin, F., & Vitaro, F. (1994). Depressed mood and peer rejec-
tion in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 483–498.
Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming relationship
schemas: My advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis
my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 435–454. of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.
Baldwin, M. W., & Main, K. J. (2001). Social anxiety and the cued acti- Bottom, W., Gibson, K. S., Daniels, S., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When
vation of relational knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in
Bulletin, 27, 1637–1647. rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13, 497–513.
Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Self-esteem and “if . . . then” con- Bourgeois, K. S., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with rejection: Derogating
tingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and those who choose us last. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 101–111.
Social Psychology, 71, 1130–1141. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Barnard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I., & Newman, G. (1982). Till death do
us part: A study of spouse murder. Bulletin of the American Academy Brody, L., Copeland, A., Sutton, L., Richardson, D., & Guyer, M. (1998).
of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271–280. Mommy and daddy like you best: Perceived family favoritism in
relation to affect, adjustment, and family process. Journal of Family
Baum, A., & Greenberg, C. I. (1975). Waiting for a crowd: The behavioral
Therapy, 20, 269–291.
and perceptual effects of anticipated crowding. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 671–679. Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to accep-
tance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evalua-
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena.
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14–28.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.
Buunk, B. P., van Yperen, N. W., Taylor, S. E., & Collins, R. L. (1991). Social
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Motives and costs of self-presentation in organi-
comparison and the drive upward revisited: Affiliation as a response to
zations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression manage-
marital stress. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 529–546.
ment in the organization (pp. 57–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2005). Social isolation and health, with
Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). Inner disruption following an emphasis on underlying mechanisms. Perspectives in Biology and
social exclusion: Reduced intelligent thought and self-regulation fail- Medicine, 46, 839–852.
ure. In K. D. Williams & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast:
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R.
Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 53–73). New
(2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms
York: Psychology Press.
in older adults: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Psychology
Baumeister, R. F., Dewall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). and Aging, 21, 140–151.
Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and
Campbell, W. K., Krusemark, E. A., Dyckman, K. A., Brunell, A. B.,
Social Psychology, 88, 589–604.
McDowell, J. E., Twenge, J. M., et al. (2006). A magnetoencephalog-
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire raphy investigation of neural correlates for social exclusion and self-
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. control. Social Neuroscience, 1, 124–134.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Carvallo, M., & Pelham, B. W. (2006). When fiends become friends: The
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.
exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 94–108.
 References 891

Case, R. B., Moss, A. J., Case, N., McDermott, M., & Eberly, S. (1992). DeCremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social dilemmas
Living alone after myocardial infarction impact on prognosis. Journal and the need to belong: The moderating effect of group size. Group
of the American Medical Association, 267, 515–519. Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 168–174.
Castelfranchi, C., & Poggi, I. (1990). Blushing as a discourse: Was Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1991). The relationship of subordinate upward
Darwin wrong? In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment: influence behavior, satisfaction, and perceived superior effectiveness
Perspectives from social psychology (pp. 230–254). Cambridge: with leader-member exchanges. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Cambridge University Press. 64, 239–252.
Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., Kwapil, T. R., Eckblad, M., & Zinser, M. C. Derber, C. (2000). The pursuit of attention. New York: Oxford University
(1994). Putatively psychosis–prone subjects 10 years later. Journal of Press.
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 171–183. De Waal, F. (2000). Primates: A natural heritage of conflict resolution.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception- Science, 289, 586–590.
behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social De Waal, F. (2005). Our inner ape. New York: Riverhead Books.
Psychology, 76, 893–910.
DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain:
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain thresh-
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339. old, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of
Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15.
and with two ears. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979. DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F.
Christensen, L. J., & Menzel, K. E. (1998). The linear relationship between (2007). Acetaminophen reduces psychological hurt feelings over
student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of time. Manuscript under review, Lexington, KY: University of
state motivation and of cognitive, affective, and behavioral learning. Kentucky.
Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79. DiBenigno, J., Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2007). Do rejection
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of nor- sensitivity and performance predict extreme reactions to rejection for
mative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of performing artists? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
norms in human behavior. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN.
social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201–234). New York: Academic Press. Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the
Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of
Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing Personality, 72, 1192–1216.
compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol
and Social Psychology, 31, 206–215. responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory
Ciarocco, N. J., Sommer, K. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Ostracism research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 355–391.
and ego depletion: The strains of silence. Personality and Social Dickerson, S. S., Mycek, P. J., & Zaldivar, F. (2008). Negative social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1156–1163. evaluation—but not mere social presence—elicits cortisol responses to
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., & Bowdle, B. F. (1996). Insult, aggression, and a laboratory stressor task. Health Psychology, 27, 116–121.
the southern culture of honor: An ‘experimental ethnography.’ Journal Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1995). The phenomenology of being a tar-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960. get of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,
Collis, G. M., & McNicholas, J. (1998). A theoretical basis for health ben- 944–950.
efits of pet ownership: Attachment versus psychological support. In Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensi-
C. C. Wilson & D. C. Turner (Eds.), Companion animals in human tivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
health (pp. 105–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Colvin, C. R., & Longueuil, D. (2001). Eliciting self-disclosure: The per- Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and
sonality and behavioral correlates of the Opener Scale. Journal of male violence in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 7,
Research in Personality, 35, 238–246. 45–61.
Coon, C. S. (1946). The universality of natural groupings in human societ- Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-
ies. Journal of Educational Sociology, 20, 163–168. fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and
Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social
of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Psychology, 75, 545–560.
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 658–668. Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, O., London, B. E., & Shoda, Y. (2004)
Craig, A. D., & Dostrovsky, J. O. (1999) Medulla to thalamus. In P. Wall & Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system: Insights
R. Melzack (Eds.), Textbook of pain (pp. 183–214). New York: from the startle response to rejection cues. Psychological Science, 15,
Churchill Livingstone. 668–673.
Crawford, M., & Gartner, R. (1992). Women killing: Intimate femicide in Dykstra, P. A., van Tilburg, T. G., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2005). Changes
Ontario, 1974–1990. Toronto: Women We Honour Action Committee. in older adult loneliness: Results from a seven-year longitudinal study.
Research on Aging, 27, 725–747.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-
protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Ebbesen, E. B., Kjos, G. L., & Konecni, V. J. (1976). Spatial ecology: Its
effects on the choice of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental
Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Children’s reactions to apologies. Social Psychology, 12, 505–518.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 742–753.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2005). Why it hurts to be left
Davis, D., & Vernon, M. L. (2002). Sculpting the body beautiful: out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In
Attachment style, neuroticism, and use of cosmetic surgeries. Sex K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast:
Roles, 47, 129–138. Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 109– 127).
Dean, D. G., Braito, R., Powers, E. A., & Britton, B. (1975). Cultural con- New York: Psychology Press.Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., &
tradictions and sex roles revisited: A replication and reassessment. The Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social
Sociological Quarterly, 16, 201–215. exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.
892 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards inte- Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W. (1990).
grative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on
Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508. accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 610–621.
Feeney, J. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evalua-
role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal tions: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social
Relationships, 12, 253–272. Psychology, 71, 54–70.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractive- Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Geerken, M. R. (1980). Playing dumb: A
ness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research para- form of impression management with undesirable side effects. Social
digms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993. Psychology Quarterly, 43, 89–102.
Feldman, R. S., Forrest, J. A., & Happ, B. R. (2002). Self-presentation Guyll, M., Matthews, K. A., & Bromberger, J. T. (2001). Discrimination and
and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie more? Basic and Applied unfair treatment: Relationship to cardiovascular reactivity among African
Social Psychology, 24, 163–170. American and European American women. Health Psychology, 20,
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human 315–325.
Relations, 7, 117–140. Hale, J. L., & Laliker, M. (1999). Explaining the door-in-the-face: Is it
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. W. (1950) Social pressures in really time to abandon reciprocal concessions? Communication
informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Studies, 50, 203–210.
Harper. Harrell, J. P., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. (2003). Physiological responses to
Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition, and health. London: racism and discrimination: An assessment of the evidence. American
Erlbaum. Journal of Public Health, 93, 243–248.
Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: Harrigan, J., Oxman, T., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Rapport expressed through
A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 95–110.
and vulnerability to homesickness. British Journal of Psychology, 78, Harris, L. T., McClure, S. M., van den Bos, W., Cohen, J. D., & Fiske,
425–441. S. T. (2007). Regions of MPFC differentially tuned to social and non-
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework social affective evaluation. Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7,
for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 309–316.
689–723.
Hawkley, L. C., Burleson, M. H., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T.
Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and preju- (2003). Loneliness in everyday life: Cardiovascular activity, psycho-
dice: Whence the affect? In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), social context, and health behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group Psychology, 85, 105–120.
perception (pp. 239–268). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hawkley, L. C., Preacher, K. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). Multilevel modeling
Fitness, J. (2001). Betrayal, rejection, revenge, and forgiveness. In of social interactions and mood in lonely and socially connected indi-
M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 73–103). New York: viduals: The MacArthur Social Neuroscience Studies. In A. D. Ong &
Oxford University Press. M. H. M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive
Fitness, J. (2005). Bye bye, black sheep: The causes and consequences of psychology (pp. 559–575). New York: Oxford University Press.
rejection in family relationships. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & Heikkinen, R., & Kauppinen, M. (2004). Depressive symptoms in late life:
W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, A 10-year follow-up. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 38,
rejection, and bullying (pp. 263–276). New York: Psychology Press. 239–250.
Folkes, V. S., & Sears, D. O. (1977). Does everybody like a liker? Journal Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people . . . but
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 505–519. in different ways. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing 1008–1018.
body image and appearance. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, Hingson, R., & Howland, J. (1993). Promoting safety in adolescents. In
40–48. S. G. Milllstein, A. C. Petersen, & E. O. Nightingale (Eds.), Promoting
Gardner, W. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Social snacking: the health of adolescents (pp. 305–327). New York: Oxford University
The use of social symbols in sustaining subjective social connection. Press.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia. Hinkle, L. L. (1999). Nonverbal immediacy communication behaviors and
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion liking in marital relationships. Communication Research Reports, 16,
and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory 81–90.
for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2000). A socioanalytic perspective on
486–496. person/environment interaction. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, &
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the R. H. Price (Eds.), New directions in person-environment psychology
outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1549–1560. Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton.
Gerard, H. B. (1963). Emotional uncertainty and social comparison. Hyers, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). A comparison of the experiences of
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 568–573. dominant and minority group members during an intergroup encounter.
Gerwitz, J. S., & Baer, D. M. (1958). The effect of brief social deprivation Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 143–163.
on behavior for a social reinforcer. Journal of Abnormal and Social Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, T. J., & Taylor, S. (1985).
Psychology, 56, 49–56. Conformity and group size: The concern with being liked and the con-
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. cern with being right. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 41–50.
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion:
Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of How being the target of prejudice affects self-control. Psychological
Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186. Science, 17, 262–269.
 References 893

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (2 vols.). New York: Kutsukake, N., & Castles, D. L. (2004). Reconciliation and post-conflict
Henry Holt. third-party affiliation among wild chimpanzees in the Mahale
Janes, L., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects Mountains, Tanzania. Primates, 45, 157–165.
of observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology Kwapil, T. R. (1998). Social anhedonia as a predictor of the development of
Bulletin, 26, 474–485. schizophrenia–spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,
Jellison, J. M., & Gentry, K. W. (1978). A self-presentational interpretation 558–565.
of the seeking of social approval. Personality and Social Psychology Lakin, J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Increasing nonconscious mimicry to
Bulletin, 4, 227–230. achieve rapport. Psychological Science, 27, 145–162.
Johnson, M. A. (1989). Variables associated with friendship in an adult Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A mea-
population. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 379–390. sure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168.
1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., &
948–963. Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
Perrett, D. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgments of apparent health: Latané, B., & Werner, C. (1978). Regulation of social contact in laboratory
Support for a ‘good genes’ explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry rats: Time, not distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 417–429. 36, 1128–1137.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Lau, S., & Gruen, G. E. (1992). The social stigma of loneliness: Effect of
Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., Gumpert, P., & Thibaut, J. (1965). Some conditions target person’s and perceiver’s sex. Personality & Social Psychology
affecting the use of ingratiation to influence performance evaluation. Bulletin, 18, 182–189.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 613–625. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jeal-
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic ousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social
self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229.
the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional interpersonal behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview.
approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Leary, M. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection.
Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Bratton, V. K. (2004). Situational versus In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 3–20). New York:
dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organi- Oxford University Press.
zational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 309–331. Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams,
Kameda, T., & Tindale, R. S. (2006). Groups as adaptive devices: Human J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 35–51).
docility and group aggregation mechanisms in evolutionary context. New York: Psychology Press.
In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and Leary, M. R. (2006). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational
social psychology (pp. 317–341). New York: Psychology Press. value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social
Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The preva- Psychology, 16, 75–111.
lence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimi- Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-
nation in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
208–230. mental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). San Diego: Academic
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2001). An evolutionary-psychological Press.
approach to self-esteem: Multiple domains and multiple functions. Leary, M. R., Britt, T. W., Cutlip, W. D., & Templeton, J. L. (1992). Social
In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of blushing. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 446–460.
social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 411–436). Oxford:
Blackwell. Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding the
effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. Journal of
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2006). The adaptive functions of self-
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898–909.
evaluative psychological mechanisms. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem:
Issues and answers (pp. 334–339). New York: Psychology Press. Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-
esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M. Kernis
Koenig, F. & Lessan, G. (1985). Viewers’ relationship to television person-
(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). New York:
alities. Psychological Reports, 57, 263–266.
Plenum.
Krause-Parello, C. A. (2008). The mediating effect of pet attachment sup-
Leary, M. R., Gallagher, B., Fors, E. H., Buttermore, N., Baldwin, E., Lane,
port between loneliness and general health in older females living in
K. K., et al. (2003). The invalidity of personal claims about self-esteem.
the community. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25, 1–14.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 623–636.
Krieger, N. (2000). Discrimination and health. In L. F. Berkman &
I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 36–75). New York: Oxford Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998).
University Press. Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal
appraisals and state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental
Psychology, 74, 1290–1299.
patterns of childhood peer relation as predictors of externalizing behav-
ior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 825–843. Leary, M. R., & Jones, J. L. (1993). The social psychology of tanning and
sunscreen use: Self-presentational variables as a predictor of health
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer rejection,
risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1390–1406.
aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competence as predictors of self-
reported behavior problems in preadolescence. Journal of Abnormal Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature
Child Psychology, 19, 437–449. review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatiza- Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing,
tion: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive
187–208. Behavior, 29, 202–214.
894 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

Leary, M. R., Landel, J. L., & Patton, K. M. (1996). The motivated expres- Matell, M. S., & Smith, R. E. (1970). Approval motive and academic
sion of embarrassment following a self-presentational predicament. behaviors: The self-reinforcement hypothesis. Journal of Consulting
Journal of Personality, 64, 619–636. and Clinical Psychology, 35, 229–232.
Leary, M. R., & Leder, S. (2009). The nature of hurt feelings: Emotional Matthews, K. A., Salomon, K., Kenyon, K., & Zhou, F. (2005). Unfair
experience and cognitive appraisals. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling treatment, discrimination, and ambulatory blood pressure in Black and
hurt in close relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press. White adolescents. Health Psychology, 24, 258–265.
Leary, M. R., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (1998). The stigmatization of HIV and McAndrew, F. T., Gold, J. A., Lenney, E., & Ryckman, R. M. (1984).
AIDS: Rubbing salt in the wound. In V. Derlega & A. Barbee (Eds.), HIV Explorations in immediacy: The nonverbal system and its relationship
infection and social interaction (pp. 12–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. to affective and situational factors. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8,
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The 210–228.
causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink:
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225–1237. Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self- Psychology, 57, 250–260.
esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The conse-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–530. quences of childhood peer rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal
Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1994). Self-presen- rejection (pp. 213–247). New York: Oxford University Press.
tation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the commu-
health risk. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 461–470. nication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71,
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejec- 359–372.
tion as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Merritt, M. M., Bennett, G., Williams, R. B., Edwards, C. L., & Sollers, J. J.
Psychology Review, 10, 111–132. (2006). Perceived Racism and cardiovascular reactivity and recovery
Levy, S., Ayduk, O., & Downey, G. (2001). The role of rejection sensitiv- to personally relevant stress. Health Psychology, 25, 364–369.
ity in people’s relationships with significant others and valued social Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Zhou, E. S. (2007). If it goes up, must it come
groups. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 251–289). down? Chronic stress and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocorticol
New York: Oxford University Press. axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 25–45.
MacDonald, G. (in press). Social pain and hurt feelings. In P. J. Corr & Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals
G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality & Social
New York: Cambridge University Press. Psychology, 44, 1234–1244.
MacDonald, G., Kingsbury, R., & Shaw, S. (2005). Adding insult to injury: Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory.
Social pain theory and response to social exclusion. In K. D. Williams, Journal of Social Issues, 58, 387–410.
J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 77–90). Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G., Ravindran, B. & Nichols, J.
New York: Psychology Press. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005a). Roles of social pain and defense consequences, pleasing others and perceived ability. Contemporary
mechanisms in response to social exclusion: Reply to Panksepp (2005) Educational Psychology, 21, 388–422.
and Corr (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 237–240. Miller, R. S. (1996). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005b). Why does social exclusion hurt? New York: Guilford.
The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent
Bulletin, 131, 202–223. perceptions of hurtful messages. Journal of Social and Personal
MacDonald, G., Saltzman, J. L., & Leary, M. R. (2003). Social approval Relationships, 19, 731–754.
and trait self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 23–40. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived simi-
social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the larity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922.
“porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and
92, 42–55. the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Mann, L. (1980). Cross-cultural studies of small groups. In H. Triandis & Psychology, 11, 56–60.
R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social psy-
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom:
chology (Vol. 5, pp. 155–209). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental
Martin, K. A., & Leary, M. R. (1999). Would you drink after a stranger? The Social Psychology, 28, 255–276.
influence of self-presentational motives on willingness to take a health
Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person per-
risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1092–1100.
ception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental
Martin, K. A., & Leary, M. R. (2000). Self-presentational determinants of Social Psychology, 18, 395–415.
health risk behavior among college freshmen. Psychology and Health,
16, 17–27. Moulton, P., Moulton, M., & Roach, S. (1998). Eating disorders: A means
for seeking approval? Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment &
Martin, K. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (2000). Self-presentational
Prevention, 6, 319–327.
concerns in older adults: Implications for health and well-being. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 169–179. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford
Martin Ginis, K. A., Lindwall, M., & Prapavessis, H. (2007). Who cares University Press.
what other people think? Self-presentation in sport and exercise. In G. Murray, S. L., Griffin, D. W., Rose, P., & Bellavia, G. (2003). Calibrating
Tenenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd the sociometer: The relational contingencies of self-esteem. Journal of
ed., pp. 136–157). New York: Wiley. Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 63–84.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. (1998). Through
Van Nostrand Reinhold. the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship
 References 895

insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Risk factors for loneliness in adult-
1459–1480. hood and old age: A meta-analysis. Advances in Psychology Research,
Myers, S. A., & Ferry, M. F. (2001). Interpersonal communication motives 19, 111–143.
and nonverbal immediacy behaviors. Communication Research Pitterman, H., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (2004). A test of the ability to identify
Reports, 18, 182–191. emotion in human standing and sitting postures: The diagnostic analy-
Neuberg, S. L., & Cottrell, C. A. (2008). Managing the threats and oppor- sis of nonverbal accuracy-2 posture test (DANVA-POS). Genetic,
tunities afforded by human sociality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 146–162.
Research, and Practice, 12, 63–72. Price, D. D. (2000). Psychological and neural mechanisms of the affective
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When dimension of pain. Science, 288, 1769–1772.
we observe stigmatized and ‘normal’ individuals interacting: Stigma by Purvis, J. A., Dabbs, J. M., & Hopper, C. H. (1984). The ‘opener’: Skilled
association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196–209. user of facial expression and speech pattern. Personality and Social
Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. Psychology Bulletin, 10, 61–66.
(1997). Personality moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Rainville, P. (2002). Brain mechanisms of pain affect and pain modulation.
Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 195–204.
Bulletin, 23, 1235–1244. Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In
Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and expe- S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389).
riencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
435–450. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Ahrens, C. (2002). Age differences and similarities Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.
in the correlates of depressive symptoms. Psychology and Aging, 17, Richman, L. S., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stig-
116–124. matization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of multi-motive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383.
ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality Rofé, Y. (1984). Stress and affiliation: A utility theory. Psychological
and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105. Review, 91, 235–250.
O’Connor, S. C., & Rosenblood, L. K. (1996). Affiliation motivation in Rofé, Y., & Lewin, I. (1988). Social comparison or utility: An experimental
everyday experience: A theoretical comparison. Journal of Personality examination. Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 5–10.
and Social Psychology, 70, 513–522.
Rofé, Y., Lewin, I., & Padeh, B. (1977). Affiliation before and after child
Olson, K., & Wong, E. H. (2001). Loneliness in marriage. Family Therapy, delivery as a function of repression-sensitization. British Journal of
28, 105–111. Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 311–315.
Ouwerkerk, J. W., Kerr, N. L., Gallucci, M., & Van Lange, P. (2005). Romero-Canyas, R., & Downey, G. (2003, February). Sensitivity to rejec-
Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism and cooperation in tion by groups (rejection sensitivity-G) as a predictor of political
social dilemmas. In K. D. Williams & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The behavior. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality
social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying and Social Psychology, Los Angeles.
(pp. 321– 332). New York: Psychology Press.
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, J. (in
Panak, W. F., & Gerber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection, and attri- press). Rejection sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic
butions in the prediction of depression in children. Development and relationships. Journal of Personality.
Psychopathology, 7, 145–165.
Rotenberg, K. J., & Kmill, J. (1992). Perception of lonely and non-lonely
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience. New York. Oxford University persons as a function of individual differences in loneliness. Journal of
Press. Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 325–330.
Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Sarnoff, I., & Zimbardo, P. (1961). Anxiety, fear and social affiliation.
Psychological Review, 83, 235–245. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 356–363.
Peay, M. Y., & Peay, E. R. (1983). The effects of density, group size, and Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical
crowding on behavior in an unstructured situation. British Journal of perspectives on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-
Social Psychology, 22, 13–18. factor model of personality (pp. 21–50). New York: Guilford.
Pegalis, L. J., Shaffer, D. R., Bazzini, D. G., & Greenier, K. (1994). On the Schachter, S. (1951). Deviance, rejection, and communication. Journal of
ability to elicit self-disclosure: Are there gender-based and contextual Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.
limitations on the opener effect? Personality and Social Psychology
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Bulletin, 20, 412–420.
University Press.
Peluchette, J., Karl, K., & Rust, K. (2006). Dressing to impress: Beliefs
Schlenker, B. R. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression
and attitudes regarding workplace attire. Journal of Business and
of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement.
Psychology, 21, 45–63.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1030–1037.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social
L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current
theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–20). New York: John Wiley & Sons. identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Pickett, C. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The social monitoring system: Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. (1981). The use of apologies in social pre-
Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response to social dicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 271–278.
exclusion. In K. Williams, J. Forgas, and W. von Hippel (Eds.), The Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes
social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of
(pp. 213–225). New York: Psychology Press. Psychology, 43, 133–168.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype
need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and threat reduces working memory capacity, Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.
896 Affiliation, Acceptance, and Belonging

Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Förster, N., & Montada, L. (2004). Effects of Srivastava, S., & Beer, J. S. (2005). How self-evaluations relate to being
objective and subjective account components on forgiving. Journal liked by others: Integrating sociometer and attachment perspectives.
of Social Psychology, 144, 465–485. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 966–977.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of St. Lawrence, J. S., Eldridge, G. D., Reitman, D., Little, C. E., Shelby, M. C., &
chronic peer victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Development, Brasfield, T. L. (1998). Factors influencing condom use among
64, 1755–1772. African American women: Implications for risk reduction interven-
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological tions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 7–28.
Review, 33, 46–62. Staats, S., Pierfelice, L., Kim, C., & Crandell, R. (1999). A theoretical
Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and model for human health and the pet connection. Journal of American
Social Psychology. 44, 233–250. Veterinary Medical Association, 214, 483–487.
Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). An 8-year study of
perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality & Social multiple influences on drug use and drug use consequences. Journal of
Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1094–1105.
Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1982). The social implications of Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A
embarrassment displays and restitution behaviour. European Journal field study of applicant impression management during job interviews.
of Social Psychology, 12, 367–377. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587–606.
Semin, G. R., & Papadopoulou, K. (1990). The acquisition of reflexive Stroud, L. R., Tanofsky-Kraff, M., Wilfley, D. E., & Salovey, P. (2000).
social emotions: The transmission and reproduction of social control The Yale Interpersonal Stressor (YIPS): Affective, physiological, and
through joint action. In G. Duveen & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Social represen- behavioral responses to a novel interpersonal rejection paradigm.
tations and the development of knowledge (pp. 107–125). New York: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 204–213.
Cambridge University Press. Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1997). Experiencing every-
Serpell, J. A. (2002). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection— day prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds),
Beyond the “cute response.” Society and Animals, 10, 437–453. Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Shaffer, D. R., Ruammake, C., Pegalis, L. J. (1990). The “opener”:
Highly skilled as interviewer or interviewee. Personality and Social Symons, D. (1992). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of
Psychology Bulletin, 16, 511–520. human behavior. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby J (Eds.),
The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of
Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Transition to college:
culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Network changes, social skills, and loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. F. (1971). Social cat-
approach (pp. 193–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. egorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 149–177.
Sheatsley, P. B., & Feldman, J. J. (1964). The assassination of President
Kennedy: A preliminary report on public reactions and behavior. Public Tartakovsky, E. (2007). A longitudinal study of acculturative stress and
Opinion Quarterly, 28, 189–215. homesickness: High-school adolescents immigrating from Russia
and Ukraine to Israel without parents. Social Psychiatry and
Shelton, J. N. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 485–494.
majority and minority group members. Group Processes & Intergroup
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psy-
Relations, 6, 171–185.
chological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial interactions: A rela- 193–210.
tional approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
Teichman, Y. (1973). Emotional arousal and affiliation. Journal of
121–181.
Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 591–605.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Salvatore, J. (2005). Expecting to be the
Thompson V. L. (1996). Perceived experiences of racism as stressful life
target of prejudice: Implications for interethnic interactions. Personality
events. Community Mental Health, 32, 223–233.
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1189–1202.
Thornton, B., Audesse, R. J., Ryckman, R. M., & Burckle, M. J. (2006).
Simpson, M. M., & Littrell, M. A. (1984). Attitudes toward clothing of
Playing dumb and knowing it all: Two sides of an impression manage-
elderly men. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 3, 171–180.
ment coin. Individual Differences Research, 4, 37–45.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts back-
Tooby, J., & Cosmedes, L. (1996). Friendship and the banker’s paradox:
fire: Effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair Other pathways in the evolution of altruism. Proceedings of the British
outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 322–341. Academy, 88, 119–143.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core rela- Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2003). Evaluations and perceptions of self,
tional themes and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269. ingroup, and outgroup: Comparisons between Mexican-American and
Snapp, C. M., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Hurt feelings among new acquain- European-American children. Self and Identity, 2, 203–221.
tances: Moderating effects of interpersonal familiarity. Journal of Turnbull, W. (1992). A conversation approach to explanation, with empha-
Personal and Social Relationships, 18, 315–326.
sis on politeness and accounting. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, &
Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective role in the S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining oneself to others: Reason-giving in a
negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23–35. social context (pp. 105–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Solano, C. H. (1987). Loneliness and perceptions of control: General Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and
traits versus specific attributions. Journal of Social Behavior and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The
Personality, 2, 201–214. mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388.
(2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M.
intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of
and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 225–243. Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56–66.
 References 897

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostra-
you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggres- cism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control depriva-
sive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 213–220.
1058–1069. Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression man-
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclu- agement on the performance appraisal process. Organizational and
sion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, Human Decision Processes, 48, 70–88.
lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it:
and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423. Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews.
Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004). Truth, lies, and self-presentation: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070–1086.
How gender and anticipated future interaction relate to deceptive Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999).
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2602–2615. Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relation-
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The rela- ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942–966.
tionship between social support and physiological processes: A review Williams, D. R., Spencer, M. S., & Jackson, J. S. (1999). Race, stress,
with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. and physical health: The role of group identity. In R. J. Contrada &
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488–531. R. D. Ashmore (Eds.), Self, social identity, and physical health:
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Interdisciplinary explorations (pp. 71–100). New York: Oxford
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354–365. University Press.
Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostra- Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York:
cism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Guilford Publications.
Psychology, 91, 918–928. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
van den Bos, W., McClure, S. M., Harris, L. T., Fiske, S. T., & Cohen, J. D. 425–452.
(2007). Dissociating affective evaluation and social cognitive pro- Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). CyberOstracism:
cesses in ventral medial prefrontal cortex. Cognitive and Behavioral Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and
Neuroscience, 7, 337–346. Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.
Vandevelde, L., & Miyahara, M. (2005). Impact of group rejections from Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., von Hippel, W., & Zadro, L. (2005). The social
a physical activity on physical self-esteem among university students. outcast: An overview. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel
Social Psychology of Education, 8, 65–81. (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 1–16). New York: Psychology Press.
Vangelisti, A. L. (2001). Making sense of hurtful interactions in close Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M., &
relationships: When hurt feelings create distance. In V. Manusov & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differences between social- and
J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close Cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
relationships: Advances in personal relations (pp. 38–58). New York: 6, 65–77.
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s
Vangelisti, A. L., & Maguire, K. (2002). Hurtful messages in family rela- coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality
tionships: When the pain lingers. In J. H. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
A clinician’s guide to maintaining and enhancing close relationships
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early
(pp. 43–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel
Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K., & Alexander, A. L. (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 19–34). New York: Psychology Press.
(2005). Why does it hurt? The perceived causes of hurt feelings.
Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1986). Loneliness, social skills, and social
Communication Research, 32, 443–477.
perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 121–130.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B.,
Wood, N., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revis-
Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close
ited: How frequent are attention shifts to one’s name in an irrelevant
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
auditory channel? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
1373–1395.
Memory, and Cognition, 21, 255–260.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L. (2005). The psychological context of home- Worthy, C. B., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an
sickness. In M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.), exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13,
Psychological aspects of geographical moves: Homesickness and 59–63.
acculturation stress (pp. 35–48). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go?
University Press.
Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of
Vernberg, E. M., Abwender, D. A., Ewell, K. K., & Beery, S. H. (1992). belonging, control, self-esteem and meaningful existence. Journal of
Social anxiety and peer relationships in early adolescence: A prospec- Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.
tive analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 189–196.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2005). Riding the ‘O’ train:
Veroff, J., & Veroff, J. B. (1980). Social incentives: A life-span develop- Comparing the effects of ostracism and verbal dispute on targets and
mental approach. New York: Academic Press. sources. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 125–143.
Vonk, R. (2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why ingratiation Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of
works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 515–526. Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9(2 Pt 2), 1–27.
Waldrip, A., & Jensen-Campbell, L. (2007). Why do I feel so bad after Zeedyk-Ryan, J., & Smith, G. F. (1983). The effects of crowding on hos-
being excluded? The mediational effects of threatened needs on social tility, anxiety, and desire for social interaction,” Journal of Social
exclusion. Manuscript under review. Psychology, 120, 245–252.