Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored.

Abstract

Social exclusion evokes powerful motivations and emotions. The present studies examined how these motivations and emotions might differ following exclusion that is explicit, active, and direct (i.e., when one is rejected) versus implicit, passive, and indirect (i.e., when one is ignored). It was hypothesized that being rejected should produce a sense of social loss and lead to more prevention-focused responses, including withdrawal from social contact, thoughts about actions one should not have taken, and increased feelings of agitation. In contrast, being ignored should produce a sense of failure to achieve social gain and lead to more promotion-focused responses, including reengagement in social contact, thoughts about actions one should have taken, and increased feelings of dejection. These hypotheses were supported across 4 studies in which people recalled or underwent experiences of being rejected or ignored. Past research on active versus passive exclusion is reexamined and found to be consistent with these hypotheses as well.

Culture, Social Interdependence, and Ostracism

“…So far we know very little about how cultures shape how individuals in different cultural groups engage in ostracism (also see Freedman, Williams, & Beer, 2016), which ostracism strategies individuals find most effective and painful (see Kerr & Levine, 2008), how they react when other individuals are ostracized (see Over & Uskul, 2016), and how individuals react to different types of ostracism (e.g., ignoring someone versus actively excluding them, see Molden et al, 2009). Thus, examining ostracism across different cultural groups focusing on different aspects of the ostracism experience from the target, the source and witness perspective will provide a more comprehensive understanding into the culture-ostracism link.…”

The social pain of Cyberball: Decreased pupillary reactivity to exclusion cues

“…Research on ostracism has shown that threats to people belonging evoke a variety of emotional and motivational responses. One of these responses is an enhanced state of vigilance during which there is a stronger concern for preventing further losses of social connection (Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). Possibly as a result of having just played the ostracism game, Study 2 participants became more wary and were specifically impacted by the uncertain period during which a ball was tossed.…”

Adding insult to injury: effects of interpersonal rejection types, rejection sensitivity, and self‐regulation on obsessive relational intrusion

“…Few studies have examined whether the type of rejection affects the impact of rejection [Gerber and Wheeler, 2009; Note: Factors in parentheses represent those of interest to the present research. 504 Sinclair et al Molden et al, 2009;Romero-Canyas et al, 2010b]. Yet within the stalking literature, victims are advised that they should not let pursuers ''down easy'' by providing indirect, passive, rejections, but rather to explicitly reject stalkers [e.g., Carll, 1999;Cupach and Spitzberg, 2004;de Becker, 1997].…”

“…Direct rejection has previously been defined as one that clearly communicates to individuals that they were rejected because they were not liked [Molden et al, 2009]. Paralleling our operationalization of an external rejection, we defined a direct rejection as one that uses an internal attribution, such that the rejection is attributed to the characteristics of the person being rejected.…”