Social Rejection Biases Estimates of Interpersonal Distance

Abstract

Given the power of belonging needs to shape individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior, we posited that people’s desire for reconnection even influences judgments of physical distance. We hypothesized that rejection motivates individuals to distance themselves from sources of rejection and draw near those who are accepting. We tested this hypothesis in five studies. Participants recalled someone who had rejected or accepted them previously (Study 1), tossed a ball with inclusive and exclusive confederates (Study 2), and relived a past rejection, acceptance, or failure in the presence of an uninvolved other (Studies 3–5). Participants provided retrospective estimates of distance to rejecting and accepting others (Studies 1–2) and to uninvolved others (Studies 3–5). Participants reported that (1) accepting others were closer than rejecting others and (2) uninvolved others were closer than nonsocial targets after rejection but not acceptance or failure. Findings suggest that individuals distort perceptions of distance to serve belonging needs.

Perceiving the World Through Group-Colored Glasses: A Perceptual Model of Intergroup Relations

“…People in these experiments judged accepting individuals to be physically closer than rejecting individuals, and judged uninvolved individuals to be closer than nonsocial objects, after rejection but not after acceptance (Knowles et al, 2013). These researchers thus argue that people's desire for connection and belongingness influences judgments of physical distance, such that rejection motivated people to create physically distance from sources of rejection and draw near those who were more accepting.…”

“…Researchers manipulated acceptance and rejection by having people recall such experiences or by having a confederate act in an inclusive or exclusive manner in a cyberball-type task (Knowles, Green, & Weidel, 2013). People in these experiments judged accepting individuals to be physically closer than rejecting individuals, and judged uninvolved individuals to be closer than nonsocial objects, after rejection but not after acceptance (Knowles et al, 2013).…”

Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason

“…The following two dozen studies will provide a sense of how robust the phenomenon is: Fishy smells induce suspicion, negative moral evaluation lessens the value of money, wiping the slate clean allows one to ignore past mistakes, unburdening yourself of a secret lowers the estimation of the upward slant of hills, and many more cases where metaphor circuitry linking two brain areas leads to behavior deriving from the physical metaphor linkage. Enjoy these: (Boroditsky, 2000; Singer et al, 2004, 2006; Aziz-Zadeh et al, 2006; Gibbs, 2006; Wilson and Gibbs, 2007; Casasanto, 2008; Boulenger et al, 2009; IJzerman and Semin, 2009; Schubert and Koole, 2009; Landau et al, 2010; Sapolsky, 2010; Desai et al, 2011; Lee and Schwarz, 2011, 2012; Saygin et al, 2011; Fay and Maner, 2012; Mattingly and Lewandowski, 2013; Pitts et al, 2013; Deckman et al, 2014; Galinsky et al, 2014; Knowles et al, 2014; Masicampo and Ambady, 2014; Sassenrath et al, 2014; Schoel et al, 2014; Slepian et al, 2014; Stellar and Willer, 2014). …”

When Physical and Social Distances Produce An Analogical Perceptual Bias in the Ebbinghaus Illusion

“…More particularly, it appears that physical-distance cues are intrinsically linked to social distance concepts (Knowles, Green, & Weidel, 2014;Williams & Bargh, 2008). For instance, an ostracized individual is both socially and physically kept away from the ostracizing group; this why an ostracized individual tend to perceive the rejecting people as more distant than accepting ones (Knowles et al, 2014).…”

“…More particularly, it appears that physical-distance cues are intrinsically linked to social distance concepts (Knowles, Green, & Weidel, 2014;Williams & Bargh, 2008). For instance, an ostracized individual is both socially and physically kept away from the ostracizing group; this why an ostracized individual tend to perceive the rejecting people as more distant than accepting ones (Knowles et al, 2014). In the same vein, it was shown that to live or represent an experiment of social power leads to perceive others as smaller (Yap et al, 2013), which is not surprising insofar as the social concept of power is embodied within a vertical spatial dimension (Robinson, Zabelina, Ode, & Moeller, 2008;Schubert, 2005).…”