By: Jenna Kilgore
Do you remember the first time you were rejected by someone? Do you remember how it felt or how you responded? Everyone at some point in their lives has had this experience; however, we vary in our response to being rejected. Recently, media coverage of responses to rejection has focused on outcomes like school shootings or murder. However, these extreme responses are not how most people respond. So, the question stands: what exactly determines how individuals respond to rejection?
First, it is important to recognize the various types of rejection. Rejection can take the form of being excluded, ignored, left out, actively rejected, or ostracized. Behaviors associated with rejection by others may include receiving the silent treatment, not getting likes on your online profile, not being picked for a team, or being bullied in person to online. These forms of rejection can actually make people feel both psychological and physical pain, resulting from our fundamental need for belonging, control, trust, and meaning. Additionally, individuals can experience psychological pain by simply reliving a time when they felt social rejection (Meyer, Williams, & Eisenberger, 2015).
Now, how do people usually respond? Research has focused mainly on negative responses to rejection. Studies suggest that people will engage in behaviors they otherwise would not support in order to fit in, such as using illicit drugs, going into debt to go on vacation with the popular crowd, or paying too much for chicken feet. However, change as a result of potential exclusion is not only limited to behaviors: individuals may also change their attitudes in order to fit in (DeWall, 2010). Individuals may also engage in emotional eating (Baumeister et al., 2005), self-harm (Cawley et al., 2019), and various other aggressive behaviors. Research has also examined the dynamics of internalizing behaviors associated with rejection, such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness, which appear to be present both prior to and after continuous social rejection (Reijntjes et al., 2010).
Despite the focus on problematic outcomes, rejection is not always negative. One man even gave a ted talk about what he learned after seeking out rejection every day for a year. Research even supports that rejection can lead to an increase in automatic, positive emotion regulation (Dewall et al., 2011) and perspective taking (Knowles, 2014). Additionally, one study that examined gender differences in response to bullying found that females were more likely than males to attempt to befriend others for social support rather than engage in asocial behaviors (Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2017).
In a society where rejection is viewed as innately bad, how does science explain the differences in outcome? Researchers Richman and Leary (2009) suggest a motivation-based theory to explain various rejection outcomes. They proport that factors such as perceived cost of rejection, alternative relationships, expectations of reparation for relationship, value of relationships, pervasiveness of rejection, and perceived unfairness group together in ways that lead to prosocial, withdrawal, or antisocial responses. Meanwhile, Swearer and Hymel (2015) suggest a social-ecological diathesis-stress model, which proposes than negative outcomes of rejection result from an interaction of a person’s biological and cognitive vulnerabilities paired with a stressful environment. Finally, Wesselmann and colleagues (2012) propose that responses to rejection be examined through an evolutionary lense, suggesting that humans’ ability to detect ostracism may lead to adaptation.
Although these theories provide a substantial basis for examination, they are either incomplete or do not wholly account for the various responses to social rejection. Moving forward, I suggest that rejection outcomes may be explained by an expanded social-ecological diathesis-stress model. Rather than focusing the model on negative outcomes, this model may also be able to explain prosocial outcomes by generalizing the included factors. I propose that a model which includes both positive and negative individual biological, cognitive, affective, and environmental factors, including buffers for stress, may be able to account for all types of rejection outcomes. Within these generic groups, more specific factors such as group belonging (environmental), experience of emotion (affective), brain activation (biological), and interpretation of rejection (cognitive) may be examined to explain differential behaviors.
In conclusion, rejection is an un-avoidable human experience that targets basic human needs and triggers both psychological and physical pain. Although current media coverage and anecdotal experiences suggest that rejection is innately negative and leads to behaviors such as school shootings or murder, the experience of rejection can lead to both positive (prosocial) and negative (harmful) effects. Studies have found rejection may result in an increase in positive emotion, desire to seek out friendships for support, and increase in perspective taking, while others found responses of self-harm, overspending, or aggression toward others. Research suggests that predicting an individuals’ response to rejection is difficult. Behavioral and internalized individual responses stem from a variety of potential factors and may involve environmental, biological, emotional, and cognitive factors. It is important to note that each person experiences rejection differently, and outcomes vary drastically across individuals.
First, it is important to recognize the various types of rejection. Rejection can take the form of being excluded, ignored, left out, actively rejected, or ostracized. Behaviors associated with rejection by others may include receiving the silent treatment, not getting likes on your online profile, not being picked for a team, or being bullied in person to online. These forms of rejection can actually make people feel both psychological and physical pain, resulting from our fundamental need for belonging, control, trust, and meaning. Additionally, individuals can experience psychological pain by simply reliving a time when they felt social rejection (Meyer, Williams, & Eisenberger, 2015).
Now, how do people usually respond? Research has focused mainly on negative responses to rejection. Studies suggest that people will engage in behaviors they otherwise would not support in order to fit in, such as using illicit drugs, going into debt to go on vacation with the popular crowd, or paying too much for chicken feet. However, change as a result of potential exclusion is not only limited to behaviors: individuals may also change their attitudes in order to fit in (DeWall, 2010). Individuals may also engage in emotional eating (Baumeister et al., 2005), self-harm (Cawley et al., 2019), and various other aggressive behaviors. Research has also examined the dynamics of internalizing behaviors associated with rejection, such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness, which appear to be present both prior to and after continuous social rejection (Reijntjes et al., 2010).
Despite the focus on problematic outcomes, rejection is not always negative. One man even gave a ted talk about what he learned after seeking out rejection every day for a year. Research even supports that rejection can lead to an increase in automatic, positive emotion regulation (Dewall et al., 2011) and perspective taking (Knowles, 2014). Additionally, one study that examined gender differences in response to bullying found that females were more likely than males to attempt to befriend others for social support rather than engage in asocial behaviors (Stubbs-Richardson et al., 2017).
In a society where rejection is viewed as innately bad, how does science explain the differences in outcome? Researchers Richman and Leary (2009) suggest a motivation-based theory to explain various rejection outcomes. They proport that factors such as perceived cost of rejection, alternative relationships, expectations of reparation for relationship, value of relationships, pervasiveness of rejection, and perceived unfairness group together in ways that lead to prosocial, withdrawal, or antisocial responses. Meanwhile, Swearer and Hymel (2015) suggest a social-ecological diathesis-stress model, which proposes than negative outcomes of rejection result from an interaction of a person’s biological and cognitive vulnerabilities paired with a stressful environment. Finally, Wesselmann and colleagues (2012) propose that responses to rejection be examined through an evolutionary lense, suggesting that humans’ ability to detect ostracism may lead to adaptation.
Although these theories provide a substantial basis for examination, they are either incomplete or do not wholly account for the various responses to social rejection. Moving forward, I suggest that rejection outcomes may be explained by an expanded social-ecological diathesis-stress model. Rather than focusing the model on negative outcomes, this model may also be able to explain prosocial outcomes by generalizing the included factors. I propose that a model which includes both positive and negative individual biological, cognitive, affective, and environmental factors, including buffers for stress, may be able to account for all types of rejection outcomes. Within these generic groups, more specific factors such as group belonging (environmental), experience of emotion (affective), brain activation (biological), and interpretation of rejection (cognitive) may be examined to explain differential behaviors.
In conclusion, rejection is an un-avoidable human experience that targets basic human needs and triggers both psychological and physical pain. Although current media coverage and anecdotal experiences suggest that rejection is innately negative and leads to behaviors such as school shootings or murder, the experience of rejection can lead to both positive (prosocial) and negative (harmful) effects. Studies have found rejection may result in an increase in positive emotion, desire to seek out friendships for support, and increase in perspective taking, while others found responses of self-harm, overspending, or aggression toward others. Research suggests that predicting an individuals’ response to rejection is difficult. Behavioral and internalized individual responses stem from a variety of potential factors and may involve environmental, biological, emotional, and cognitive factors. It is important to note that each person experiences rejection differently, and outcomes vary drastically across individuals.
References
- Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589.
- DeWall, C. N. (2010). Forming a basis for acceptance: Excluded people form attitudes to agree with potential affiliates. Social Influence, 5(4), 245-260.
- DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W. (2011). Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity. Emotion, 11(3), 623.
- Knowles, M. L. (2014). Social rejection increases perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 126-132.
- Meyer, M. L., Williams, K. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2015). Why social pain can live on: Different neural mechanisms are associated with reliving social and physical pain. PloS one, 10(6), e0128294.
- Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 244-252.
- 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.
- Stubbs-Richardson, M., Sinclair, H. C., Goldberg, R. M., Ellithorpe, C. N., & Amadi, S. C. (2018). Reaching out versus lashing out: Examining gender differences in experiences with and responses to bullying in high school. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 39-66.
- Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344.
- Wesselmann, E. D., Nairne, J. S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). An evolutionary social psychological approach to studying the effects of ostracism. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 309-328.