By: Ashley Coleman
Methods of Rejection
Rejection can take various forms. For example, it may be explicit or ambiguous, or it may involve ignoring (Freedman, Williams, & Beer, 2016). Furthermore, the method of rejection may influence its impact; explicit rejection may have a less negative impact (Freedman et al., 2016). A possible explanation is that explicit rejection is communicated clearly and a reasonable explanation for rejection may be provided, which may be related to perceived fairness of rejection. If rejection is perceived to be fair or justified, it is less likely to be associated with negative outcomes for the rejected individual (Richman & Leary, 2009). Ambiguous rejection or rejection that involves ignoring may be associated with a more negative impact due to perceived unfairness of rejection stemming from the lack of communication.
Negative Consequences of Rejection
Negative consequences related to rejection are often social in nature. For example, Twenge et al. (2001) found that rejection increased aggressive behavior toward others. Aggressive behavior can be seen as retaliating against being rejected, or simply expressing anger and other negative emotions; however, aggressive behavior may lead to the more rejection in the future. In addition, many negative consequences of rejection also impact people in domains other than social inclusion. For example, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, and Twenge (2005) found that rejection caused self-regulation to decrease, as demonstrated by less self-control and less perseverance during experimental tasks of rejection. Decreased self-regulation can negatively impact several domains of people’s lives, including future social rejection.
Positive Consequences of Rejection
Although rejection is often regarded as a negative experience, there can be positive consequences associated with being rejected. For example, Knowles (2014) found that rejection promotes a shift from focus on the self to focus on others. This shift may be an adaptive prosocial response, given that too much focus on the self is likely lead to rejection by peers, and increased focus on others is likely to build relationships. Furthermore, DeWall et al. (2011) found that temporary rejection increased automatic positive affect, such that people were more likely to have a positive bias after brief rejection. However, this finding is related to acute, rather than long-term, rejection. Thus, long-term rejection may have different effects, and the length of exposure to rejection may be one of many factors that influences the impact of rejection on behavior.
The Multimotive Model
Richman and Leary (2009) described a multimotive model for understanding the effects of rejection and related social experiences. They found that immediate reactions of increased negative affect and decreased self-esteem are common across contexts, but how people interpret being rejected influences how they respond. Specifically, people can respond in ways that are consistent with prosocial (e.g., attempting to rejoin group), antisocial (e.g., attempting to retaliate), and socially avoidant (e.g., attempting to stay away from group) motives. Richman and Leary (2009) claimed that these behavioral motives are driven by people’s interpretation of several factors, including perceived unfairness of rejection, cost of rejection, expectations about relationship repair, value of relationships, possibility of other relationships, and pervasiveness of rejection.
In Richman and Leary’s (2009) model, high perceived cost of rejection, high expectations of relationship repair, high value of relationships, and low possibility of other relationships predict prosocial responses. Socially avoidant responses are predicted by high possibility of other relationships and increased pervasiveness of rejection, as well as low expectations of relationship repair and low value of relationships. The relationship between pervasiveness of rejection and socially avoidant responses indicates that rejection occurring over a longer period of time or across situations is more likely to lead to negative consequences, unlike brief rejection (see DeWall et al., 2011). Antisocial responses are predicted by high perceived unfairness, low value of relationships, and low expectations of relationship repair (Richman & Leary, 2009). In sum, a variety of factors can influence how people respond to rejection.
Consequences of Rejection
As previously described, rejection can have both negative and positive consequences. However, the specific consequence a particular instance of rejection can vary based on several factors involving an individual’s interpretation of the rejection and the relationship in which the rejection occurred. Thus, it appears that consequences of rejection are highly context-dependent and the interpretation process is individualized, though many consequences are common among people.
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), 589-604. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
- 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), 623-636. doi:10.1037/a0023534
- Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Softening the blow of social exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion. Frontiers In Psychology, 7.
- Knowles, M. L. (2014). Social rejection increases perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 126-132. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.008
- Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365-383. doi:10.1037/a0015250
- Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058