By: Ian Mckay
Baumeister and Leary (1995) examined a large body of evidence showing that human behavior, emotion, and thought are widely influenced by a fundamental interpersonal motive to obtain acceptance and to avoid rejection by other people—what they called the need to belong. Additionally, A basic tenet of their theory is that achieving a sense of acceptance and belonging is necessary for psychological and physical well-being. According to theorists (e.g., Baumiester and Leary, 1995 & Smart Richman and Leary, 2009) this need to belong has been postulated to serve an evolutionary purpose, developing out of our need for dependence on cooperative social relationships and group memberships for survival and reproductive success & Smart Richman and Leary, 2009).
To date, extensive research efforts have been conducted to understand the effects of negative interpersonal experiences. However, such efforts have received criticism for grouping various behaviors such as ostracism, exclusion, rejection, discrimination, prejudice, etc. (Smart Richman and Leary, 2009). Moreover, limited research has been done to understand various patterns of behavior and the full range of consequences that occur when people experience negative interpersonal events. Interestingly, although rejection is often considered a negative experience, positive consequences of rejection have been documented (e.g., increased perspective taking, increases in positive affect, increases in attempts to fit in with others, assistance from others, pleasure-seeking, highlighting positive values in oneself, and identity management (Knowles, 2014, DeWall et al., 2011, Mead et al., 2010 & Bastian, Jetten, Hornsey, 2014)).
To illustrate a framework for understanding the wide range of reactions to threats to one’s need for social acceptance and belonging, Richman and Leary (2009) proposed the multimotive model. The following model is premised on the assertion that feeling valued and accepted by others leads to a secure sense of relational value (Smart Richman and Leary, 2009). The value of one’s relationship is said to be threatened by negative interpersonal experiences like ostracism, criticism, humiliation, and intimidation. Such experiences are associated with three main types of emotional and behavioral responses: (a) lowered empathy and pro-social behavior, (b) anger and aggression, and (c) fear and withdrawal. Furthermore, perception of fairness, possibility of relationship repair, value of the relationship, possibility of supporting relationships, duration of rejection, and perceived consequences of the rejection were suggested as factors that determine the reactions of the victims. For example, high perceived cost of rejection, low possibility of alternative relationships, and high expectations of emotional repair would lead to prosocial responses, while a higher perceived unfairness, lower expectations of relationship repair, and less valuable relationships predict antisocial responses (See Figure 1). Though it is largely theoretical in nature, researchers’ attempts to test the validity of the multimotive model have proven unsuccessful (Sinclair, Goldberg, May, McCleon, Richardson, 2019).
Swearer and Hymel (2015) also proposed what appears to be a more robust model to explain the complex and dynamic outcomes of negative interpersonal experiences (i.e., bullying). Unlike the multimotive model, Swearer and Hymel’s proposed model is a diathesis-stress model incorporating social-ecological factors (e.g., home, neighborhood, school, community, society). Further, Swearer and Hymel note that the presence of social stressors does not fully explain the development of psychological problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, and aggression) (Swearer and Hymel, 2015). By including individual differences in their model, outcomes of stressful events can be conceptualized by differences in biological vulnerabilities and cognitive vulnerabilities, which each impact the significance, onset, and intensity of the outcomes one engages in after being rejected (Swearer and Hymel, 2015). For example, Swearer and Hymel note that if negative events are attituded to global, stable, and internal cognitive schemas, and negative beliefs about self, world, and future, individuals are at an increased risk for developing behavioral problems.
Of note, Swearer and Hymel’s model appears to be missing an important component: The model does not account for the positive and prosocial outcomes that have been empirically shown to surface at times following the experience of rejection. Additionally, Swearer and Hymel note the importance of biological and genetic vulnerabilities, however, only briefly mention the influence of cortisol (a major stress hormone), an increased heart rate, and serotonin (a brain chemical that helps relay signals in the brain) in explaining individual differences in variable outcomes of rejection. Because such research is frequently conducted in the behavioral sciences, complex biological interactions are often excluded.
In future efforts, research should focus on testing a model which not only attempts to explain how various positive and negative behavioral, cognitive, and emotional outcomes differ by the type of rejection but include the impacts of individual differences, social-ecological factors, and genetic predispositions. Additionally, as the influence of biology in understanding psychology is becoming more popular, researchers might benefit from recruiting physiologists and or biologists to further explore the influence of physiological and or genetic factors on outcomes of rejection. Such an exploration might aid in developing more comprehensive and preventative means of avoiding horrific reactions postulated to have resulted from the experience of rejection (e.g., school-shootings, homicides, suicides, etc.). Though a costly effort, the impacts of such research at a societal level should certainly be considered.
- Bastian, B., Jetten, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Leknes, S. (2014). The Positive Consequences of Pain: A Biopsychosocial Approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(3), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314527831
- Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
- DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245–258.
- Knowles, M.L.,(2014). Social rejection increases perspective-taking. Journal of experimental Social Psychology, 55. 126-132.
- Nicole L. Mead, Roy F. Baumeister, Tyler F. Stillman, Catherine D. Rawn and Kathleen D. Vohs. Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 37, No. 5 (February 2011), pp. 902-919
- Photograph of woman being ostracized (Top left) (2019). Received from: https://www.psycholawlogy.com/2014/04/09/ignoring-excluding-others-personal-consequences-ostracizing/
- Photograph of cartoon character dealing with rejection (Top right) (2019). Received from: https://amyjoberman.com/dealing-with-rejection-in-acting-for-actors/
- Sinclair, Goldberg, May, McCleon, Richardson, (2019). When does rejection trigger aggression? A multi-method examination of a multi-motive model. Manuscript in preparation
- Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive model. Psychological review, 116(2), 365-83.
- Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038929
- Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Press