28 Acceptance, Rejection, and the Quest for Relational Value

MARK R. LEARY AND JENNIFER ACOSTA

situations in ways that promote acceptance (Baumeister &

People’s lives are filled with a wide array of interpersonal
Leary, 1995; Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, & Knowles, 2005;
relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships,
Leary, Tambor, Downs, & Terdal, 1995).
kinships, group memberships, task-oriented relation-
Based on an extensive review of the evidence at the time,
ships, acquaintanceships, and so on. Although relation-
Baumeister and Leary (1995) concluded that human
ships differ on many dimensions, all are characterized by
beings possess a fundamental need to “form and maintain
people’s ongoing concerns regarding the degree to which
at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and sig-
they are accepted by the other people involved. People’s
nificant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497) and that this
efforts to maintain a desired level of acceptance and to
motive underlies a great deal of thought, emotion, and
avoid being rejected exert a pervasive influence on their
behavior. Some researchers have implicitly attributed all
interpersonal behaviors, and indications that others do
efforts to be accepted to this evolved need for acceptance
not adequately value people’s relationships have strong
and belonging, but not all efforts to be accepted arise from
effects on their emotions, behaviors, and self-views.
the need to belong. Being accepted by other people pro-
Our focus in this chapter is on the central role that
vides numerous tangible benefits and positive outcomes,
concerns with acceptance and rejection play in virtually
so people sometimes seek acceptance to obtain specific
all adult relationships, from the most superficial and
rewards in a particular context – not because they are
unimportant to the deepest and most meaningful.
driven to do so by an evolved need to belong.
We begin by examining the nature of people’s concerns
Although researchers commonly write about people
with acceptance, showing that at the most basic level,
being motivated to be “accepted” and to avoid “rejection,”
people are chronically concerned about their “relational
the concepts of acceptance and rejection have proven pro-
value” in the eyes of those with whom they have – or want
blematic. Most importantly, acceptance and rejection are
to have – relationships. After examining the motivational
usually treated as a dichotomy – a person is either
bases of these concerns, we describe ways in which people
accepted or rejected – even though variations in accep-
maintain their relational value, explore emotional reac-
tance/rejection exist along a continuum, and people
tions to having lower-than-desired relational value, exam-
experience degrees of acceptance and rejection (Leary,
ine the effects of acceptance and rejection on self-esteem,
2001). The construct of “belonging” is equally problematic
and discuss how people behave when they feel inade-
both because it is also treated as a dichotomy and because
quately valued.
a person may technically belong to an unaccepting group
that wishes that he or she was not a member. Indeed,
THE MOTIVATION TO BE ACCEPTED AND TO AVOID people sometimes feel that they are not accepted even
REJECTION though they are included in other people’s activities
Many theorists have noted that homo sapiens is a highly (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001). Thus, for purposes of scientific
social species and that human beings are strongly moti- theorizing and research, acceptance and rejection experi-
vated to develop and maintain connections with other ences are often difficult to describe and quantify using
people. Because social acceptance and belonging these terms.
increased the likelihood that our prehuman ancestors For our purposes, acceptance and rejection may be fruit-
could survive, reproduce, and promote the survival of fully conceptualized along a continuum of relational value
their offspring, a psychological system likely evolved that (Leary, 2001). In this view, people who seek acceptance are
motivates people to seek acceptance and avoid rejection; fundamentally interested in establishing, maintaining, or
monitors the social environment for signs that one is, or is increasing their relational value to other people – the
likely to be, rejected by other people; and responds to such degree to which others value having a relationship with

378

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 379

them. Being relationally valued means not only that the relational value or necessarily project images that they
person will be “accepted” (in the everyday use of the term) have valued characteristics that they do not actually pos-
but also that the person is likely to receive desirable out- sess. Of course, people sometimes engage in deceptive self-
comes from people who value them as a relational partner. presentations to increase their likelihood of acceptance
For example, having high relational value increases the (Feldman, Forrest, & Happ, 2002; Weiss & Feldman,
probability of being sought out for friendships, romantic 2006), but more often they manage their impressions to
relationships, group memberships, casual acquaintance- ensure that others perceive valued characteristics that
ships, and other kinds of relationships. And, once these they do, in fact, possess as well as concealing attributes
relationships form, having high relational value is asso- that might undermine their relational value.
ciated with greater companionship, social support, logis- Viewed broadly, most characteristics that promote rela-
tical help, access to material resources, and general tional value fall into four categories that involve social
goodwill than having low relational value. Even in rela- exchange characteristics, likeability, competence, and
tively superficial, role-bound relationships – as with physical appearance. Some characteristics and behaviors
a coworker, one’s hairstylist, or a neighbor – being more (such as being honest and trustworthy) increase one’s
relationally valued provides benefits that being less valued relational value across a wide range of relationships,
does not. Importantly, the concept of relational value whereas other characteristics (such as being sexy, athletic,
allows us to examine nuanced gradations between the or a risk-taker) are valued in some relationships but not in
poles of enthusiastic acceptance and abject rejection. others.
Although people seek to be valued as a relational partner
by a wide assortment of people, the desire for relational
Fundamental Social Exchange Characteristics
value is particularly acute in intimate relationships. Two
essential requirements for a successful close relationship The most general set of characteristics that promote rela-
are that the partners value their relationship with one tional value involve attributes that show one to be a good
another and each person recognizes that the partner relational partner who generally follows basic rules of
values the relationship. Much of the appeal of being social exchange. Interdependent interactions and relation-
loved may lie in the fact that caring and affection indicates ships are guided by rules and norms regarding how indi-
that another person greatly values having a relationship viduals are expected to behave and treat one another
with us, and likewise, having others act in ways that indi- (Emerson, 1976). Theorists have suggested that social
cate that we have high relational value – for example, by exchange rules exist involving reciprocity, fairness,
being highly responsive to our needs – suggests that we are dependability, honesty, cooperation, rationality, and
loved. a minimal concern for other people’s needs, among others
In contrast, perceiving that one’s relational value is low (Blau, 1960; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Cottrell, Neuberg, &
leads people to experience feelings of rejection. Put differ- Li, 2007; Gouldner, 1960). Interpersonal interactions and
ently, people feel rejected when they perceive that their relationships are mutually beneficial and rewarding only
relational value to a particular person (or group of people) when people abide by basic rules of social exchange.
in a particular context is not as high as they want it to be. People are highly sensitive to violations of these rules
Of course, the standards for assessing one’s relational because those who break social exchange rules are likely to
value differ across relationships – one would desire (and disadvantage others over time and, thus, are not good
expect) to have greater relational value to a friend or candidates for any kind of interdependent relationship
romantic partner than to one’s great uncle or plumber – (Leary, Diebels, Jongman-Sereno, & Fernandez, 2015).
and the criteria that people use to assess relational value In contrast, people who follow social exchange rules (or
differ across relationships as well. But, in all cases, people at least appear to follow them) have higher relational value
desire to have a minimum level of relational value that is than those who don’t follow them. In fact, social exchange
commensurate with the nature and importance of the rules are enforced primarily through the implied threat of
relationship and feel rejected when relational value falls rejection for people who violate them (see Cotterell,
below that level. Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992). Thus, people increase
their relational value by appearing to play by the rules.

ROUTES TO RELATIONAL VALUE

Likeability
When people desire to be accepted, they are motivated to
convey that they possess characteristics that make their Disliked individuals are sometimes valued if they other-
relationship valuable to other people. Thus, establishing wise provide a benefit to another person or group (such as
and maintaining relational value is fundamentally an exer- being competent in an important domain), but their rela-
cise in self-presentation (or impression management) as tional value is lower than that of an equally beneficial
people try to maintain public images that convey that they person who people like. Likeable people both enhance
are a valuable social interactant and relationship partner. the value of their relationships by providing positive out-
This is not to say that people only pretend to have comes and lower the emotional costs charged by

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 380 LEARY AND ACOSTA

unlikeable people. Thus, being liked is a primary predictor Wanting to increase one’s relational value – and accep-
of high relational value and interpersonal acceptance tance by others – may be an important, understudied
across most relationships. Knowing this, people generally motivator of achievement-related behavior and ambition
want others to view them as friendly, sincere, caring, (Urdan & Mestas, 2006). When people fail in school or at
enjoyable, and interested and do not want other people work, they sometimes worry about what close others will
to perceive them as boring, obnoxious, superficial, self- think of them even though the domain in which the failure
centered, or mean (Leary, 1995). occurred is irrelevant to the relationship and of no tangible
We have known for many years that liking is facilitated benefit to the relational partner.
by perceived similarly and undermined by perceived dis-
similarity (for reviews, see AhYun, 2002; Montoya,
Physical Appearance
Horton, & Kirchner, 2008) and that people who do not
conform to others’ judgments and behaviors are more Attractive people are more highly valued as companions,
likely to be devalued and rejected (Schachter, 1951). Not friends, group members, and romantic partners than less
surprisingly, then, among the strategies that people use to attractive people (Feingold, 1990). Of course, the value of
foster liking (Daly & Kreiser, 1994), people who desire to attractiveness differs across relationships, but attractive-
be accepted stress their similarities with other people and ness sometimes confers relational value even in contexts in
conform to others’ viewpoints and behaviors (Jellison & which it would seem not to be relevant. (This might be the
Gentry, 1978; Kacmar, Carlson, & Bratton, 2004). case because certain features – such as unblemished skin
Interestingly, people are particularly likely to conform and facial symmetry – signal genetic fitness and
when they see other people being devalued for not con- a resistance to pathogens; Rhodes, 2006.) Although rarely
forming (Janes & Olson, 2000). conceptualized in this way, the wide array of tactics that
People also tend to like those who they believe like them people use to enhance their attractiveness – such as daily
(Curtis & Miller, 1986). In the terms we are using here, grooming, dieting, and cosmetic surgery – can be regarded
people value having relationships with those whom they as efforts to maintain or enhance relational value. Of the
believe value their relationship. Thus, people promote primary criteria on which relational value is based,
their own relational value by behaving in ways that convey appearance is arguably the least objectively important,
that they like others, such as through apparent interest, raising the question of whether people who are valued
compliments, and other signs of positive evaluation for their appearance feel differently about being accepted
(Gordon, 1996; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Of course, insin- than those who are valued because they are competent,
cere flattery may backfire, but targets of flattery tend to likeable, or good exchange partners.
accept ingratiation at face value and sometimes appreciate
others’ efforts to garner favor even if they don’t believe that
PERCEIVING REJECTION
the praise is genuine (Vonk, 2002). Simply trying to be
liked often conveys that the person values one’s Despite their best efforts to maintain relational value, peo-
relationship. ple sometimes perceive that their relational value is not as
high as they want it to be. In some cases – as when
a romantic partner says that he or she never wants to see
Competence us again or we fail to be selected for a team – rejection is
People who appear to be broadly competent have higher explicit and easy to detect. In most instances, however,
relational value than those who are viewed as incompe- people assess their relational value on the basis of cues
tent. Not only do intelligent and competent people have that do not provide definitive information about the degree
knowledge and skills that directly benefit relationship to which others value having a relationship with them.
partners (such as knowing how to fix a computer or The fact that these cues tend to be ambiguous, mixed, or
cook a delicious meal), but in the long run, competent even absent means that people sometimes err in the infer-
people may accrue resources that their friends, family, ences they draw about their relational value. Because
and partners may enjoy. Even when competence in others often do not express their evaluations explicitly,
a particular domain is irrelevant in a relationship, it is people may both fail to detect the fact that their relational
generally better to be seen as competent than incompe- value has declined and interpret ambiguous, benign beha-
tent. Not only may observers draw assumptions about viors as evidence of low relational value. In the first
one’s general competence from specific instances, but instance, people do not realize that steps should be taken
also being associated with a more competent individual to repair their relational value or that explicit rejection is
may increase others’ relational value by association. right around the corner. In the second instance, people
Of course, some displays of intelligence and competence perceive that they have lower relational value than is the
are evaluated negatively by other people – as when case and feel more rejected than conditions warrant.
competence is viewed as threatening or connotes mem- Evidence suggests that false positives – perceiving more
bership in a disliked outgroup – but overall, competence rejection than actually exists – is probably more common
increases relational value. than failing to detect explicit indications of low or

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 381

declining relational value. For example, moderate, neu- their relational value that are not captured by explicit self-
tral, and ambivalent reactions from other people are gen- report measures. Using the Implicit Association Test,
erally interpreted as more rejecting than they objectively Mikami, Schad, Teachman, Chango, and Allen (2015) had
are (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004). Like most systems participants make me/not-me judgments with respect to
that monitor the environment for threats, the sociometer terms associated with acceptance and rejection (e.g.,
system that monitors the social environment is biased rejected, liked, unwanted, popular) and also obtained rat-
toward false positives. Because failures to detect real rejec- ings of the participants’ close relationships from the parti-
tions generally have more serious implications than inter- cipants themselves and from their friends and romantic
preting benign events as rejecting, the sociometer may be partners. Overall, participants’ explicit self-ratings of rejec-
adaptively biased toward false positives (Haselton & Buss, tion were associated with poorer self-reported interperso-
2000). nal functioning, whereas participants’ implicit rejected-
People who are high in rejection sensitivity are particu- related associations were related to poorer functioning as
larly inclined to underestimate their relational value. rated by their friends and partners. For example, partici-
Those who are highly rejection-sensitive are not only vig- pants’ implicit rejection-related self-perceptions were asso-
ilant for signs of rejection (Downey, Mougios, Ayduk, ciated with romantic partners’ ratings of poorer
London, & Shoda, 2004; Norona, Salvatore, Welsh, & communication in the relationship and with ratings of
Darling, 2014) but they also react more strongly when the participants’ controlling behaviors, but explicit self-
they perceive that they have been rejected than people reports of rejection were not. In another study (Murray,
who are low in rejection sensitivity (Ayduk et al., 2000; Lupien, & Seery, 2012), implicit trust in one’s romantic
Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Feldman, & Ayduk, partner was related to more resilient reactions to perceived
2000; Downey, Freitas, et al., 1998). negative evaluations from the partner among a subset of
Of course, people may also perceive more acceptance participants. In showing that explicit and implicit percep-
than is actually the case. Because people are reluctant to tions of rejection and trust predict different outcomes,
reject other people explicitly (Joel, Teper, & MacDonald, these studies open new territory in the study of rejection.
2014), they may inadvertently convey that they value
another person’s relationship more than they actually do.
THE EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF REJECTION
For example, people may believe that they are sending
a strong message to discourage another person’s romantic Interpersonal rejection – whether real, anticipated, or ima-
interest that is not perceived accurately by the pursuer gined – evokes strong emotional reactions. Clearly, having
(Sinclair & Frieze, 2005). Interestingly, people who are low or declining relational value posed a significant
low in rejection sensitivity may be biased to perceive that enough threat to our prehuman ancestors that human
they have higher relational value than is the case. Romero- beings possess a strong aversion to rejection, and evidence
Canyas and Downey (2013) asked participants to write an suggests that a dedicated psychological system evolved to
autobiographical essay that would be shown to potential monitor and respond to cues relevant to acceptance and
dating partners. After watching video recordings of how rejection. This sociometer alerts people to signs of possible
these potential partners reacted to their and others’ pro- rejection and motivates behaviors that maintain or
files, participants who were low in rejection sensitivity increase relational value (Leary, 2006; Leary &
tended to underestimate other people’s negative reactions Baumeister, 2000). The sociometer operates noncon-
to their own profiles but did not show this bias when sciously until it detects signs of low or declining relational
judging reactions to other people’s profiles. value, at which time the system evokes emotional reac-
Importantly, people assess their relational value on an tions and prompts the person to consider the situation
ongoing basis and thus can experience momentary rela- consciously (Wood & Cowan, 1995).
tional devaluation even within the context of By definition, rejection poses a threat to relational value,
a relationship in which they know that they are valued, which in itself evokes negative emotions, but rejection can
accepted, and even loved (Leary, 2001). For example, peo- have other effects as well, such as threatening people’s
ple may feel shunned by a long-time best friend or rejected safety (as when parents abandon their children), financial
by a romantic partner whose love and commitment should security (as when a person is fired from a job or gets
be unquestionable. Given the costs of failing to maintain a divorce), and reputation (as when a public expulsion,
relational value, the sociometer seems designed to alert breakup, or firing damages a person’s social image).
people to any and all indications that a relationship may be In considering the emotional impact of rejection, we
in jeopardy. must distinguish the emotional and behavioral effects of
Not surprisingly, most research has assessed perceptions different aspects of the rejecting event.
of rejection via participants’ ratings of other people’s eva-
luations of them or their own subjective feelings of rejec-
Hurt Feelings
tion. Yet work on the divergence between explicit and
implicit measures of psychological constructs suggests Of the myriad emotions that people may experience when
that people may have implicit associations regarding they are rejected, hurt feelings are most closely associated

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 382 LEARY AND ACOSTA

with perceptions of low or declining relational value Other Emotions

(Buckley et al., 2004; Leary & Leder, 2009; Snapp &
Leary, 2001). Analyses of people’s descriptions of Although hurt feelings are due directly to the appraisal
instances when their feelings were hurt show that hurt that one has low relational value, people who feel rejected
feelings arise when people believe that their relational often experience other emotions as well. For example,
value is lower than they desire. Leary, Springer, Negel, people experience loneliness when their social relation-
Ansel, and Evans (1998) identified six categories of hurtful ships are less adequate or satisfying than they desire (de
events, all of which strongly connote low relational evalua- Jong Gierveld, Van Tilburg, & Dykstra, Chapter 29, this
tion. Specifically, people’s feelings were hurt when they volume; Dykstra, Van Tilburg, & de Jong Gierveld, 2005;
were ignored or avoided (passive disassociation); expli- Olson & Wong, 2001; Peplau & Perlman, 1982), but they
citly rejected, ostracized, or expelled (active disassocia- feel hurt only if their loneliness occurs because of per-
tion); criticized; betrayed; maliciously teased; or ceived rejection or low relational value. Likewise, because
unappreciated or taken for granted (see also Feeney, appraisals of loss elicit sadness (Smith & Lazarus, 1993),
2004). And most of the causes of hurt feelings identified rejections that involve the loss of an existing or potential
in another study also connoted low relational value, such relationship cause people to feel sad, and chronic rejection
as explicit rejection, betrayal, or personal attack is associated with depression, particularly among people
(Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, who are high in rejection sensitivity (Ayduk et al., 2001).
2005). Likewise, most of the events that mothers and chil- Likewise, children who feel rejected by their peers tend to
dren regard as hurtful involve relational devaluation, such be depressed (Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991), and
as disparagement or disregard (Mills, Nazar, & Farrell, changes in the degree to which children are rejected pre-
2002). dict corresponding changes in depression (Boivin, Hymel,
Laboratory experiments have also shown that perceived & Bukowski, 1995). Interestingly, the relationship
low relational value causes hurt feelings. In various stu- between rejection and depression is mediated by chil-
dies, participants have been told that they were selected dren’s awareness of their own rejection: children who did
last for a team (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001), that other peo- not recognize (or refused to admit) that they were rejected
ple did not want to work with them (Buckley et al., 2004), were not depressed (Panak & Gerber, 1992).
that another person was disinterested in what they were If a rejection frustrates a person’s efforts to obtain
saying (Snapp & Leary, 2001), or that other participants desired outcomes, particularly in a manner that seems
excluded them from a ball-tossing game (Eisenberger, unjustified, the person might become angry because
Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). In each instance, partici- appraisals of unjustified harm elicit anger (Smith &
pants who believed that others did not adequately value Lazarus, 1993). And a rejection episode that puts the per-
interacting with them reported feeling more hurt than son in danger of harm might create anxiety. As can be seen,
participants who were led to believe that others valued rejection can elicit many emotions, but only one – hurt
and accepted them. In addition, participants’ ratings of feelings – is associated with low relational value per se.
how accepted or valued they felt correlated strongly with The others are caused by the perceived causes or implica-
their ratings of how hurt they felt (Buckley et al., 2004; tions of the rejection (Leary & Leder, 2009).
Leary, Springer et al., 1998). The impact of rejection on Although most studies show that rejection causes nega-
hurt feelings is so strong that people are hurt even when tive emotions (Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister,
rejected by people that they detest, such as members of the 2009), some experiments seem to show that rejection may
Ku Klux Klan (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). cause “emotional numbing” instead (Twenge, Catanese, &
The feelings that rejection evokes may literally “hurt” Baumeister, 2003). However, most studies that find evi-
because they are partly mediated by the same brain dence of numbing used a paradigm in which participants
system that makes physical pain aversive (Cacioppo, received feedback that they are likely to “end up alone later
Chapter 16, this volume; MacDonald & Leary, 2005a, in life” (Twenge et al., 2003, p. 416). This you-will-be-alone
2005b). During mammalian evolution, the system that -later-in-life manipulation raises the possibility that parti-
responds to social threats seems to have been an out- cipants will be without relationships at an unspecified
growth of existing systems involved in physical pain time in the future, but it does not reject people or cause
(MacDonald, 2009; MacDonald & Leary, 2005b; them to believe that they currently have low relational
Panksepp, 1998). An experiment in which participants’ value. Thus, participants’ reactions to this manipulation
brains were imaged using fMRI showed that social may reflect concerns about an undesired future event or
exclusion activated areas involved in the experience of puzzlement about receiving such feedback. Although a few
pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003). Rejection also lowers other studies have also found no effects of rejection on
people’s tolerance for physical pain (DeWall & emotion, the dominant finding is that people react emo-
Baumeister, 2006), and analgesics attenuate the effects tionally to rejection (Blackhart et al., 2009).
of rejection on hurt feelings (DeWall et al., 2010), sup- Although people generally have a negative response to
porting the idea that hurt feelings involve some of the rejection, they may consciously decide not to care about
same brain regions that process physical pain. a particular snub, dismissive behavior, or outright

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 383

rejection, telling themselves that the other person’s evalua- own emotions. Results showed that feeling than one had
tion does not really matter (Williams & Zadrow, 2005). more social power relative to one’s partner was associated
In these cases, people may appear unresponsive or with weaker emotional responses to the partner’s hostility.
“numb,” when in fact, they have merely relinquished the This study is particularly interesting in showing how the
goal of being relationally valued by a particular individual strength of people’s reactions to signs of low relational
or group. value fluctuate as a function of ongoing events in the
relationship.
Moderators of Emotional Reactions
People differ greatly in how they react to rejection, which SELF-ESTEEM
has prompted researchers to examine possible moderators Laboratory experiments that lead participants to believe
of these effects. We have already mentioned the fact that that they have low relational value – for example, through
people who are high in rejection sensitivity react more disapproval, disinterest, or outright rejection or ostra-
strongly to perceived rejection than those who are low cism – consistently affect how participants feel about and
(Ayduk et al., 2000; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey evaluate themselves (Leary, Cottrell, & Phillips, 2001;
et al., 2000; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998; Leary et al.,
Other moderators that have been studied include attach- 1995; Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997;
ment style (Mikulincer & Shaver, Chapter 13, this Williams et al., 2002; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson,
volume), traits associated with negative cognitions, and 2005). Likewise, episodes in people’s daily lives that lead
perceived social power. them to feel relationally devalued, such as unrequited love
For example, in a study of 5,000 Internet respondents, and being a target of bullying, are associated with lowered
Davis, Shaver, and Vernon (2003) examined the relation- self-esteem (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillman, 1993;
ship between attachment style and reactions to the disso- Nishina & Juvonen, 2005). Longitudinal studies also
lution of romantic relationships. Using the two- show that perceived relational value prospectively predicts
dimensional model that characterizes attachment along changes in self-esteem over time (Murray, Griffin, Rose, &
the dimensions of attachment-related anxiety and attach- Bellavia, 2003). Even people who adamantly claim to be
ment-related avoidance, results showed that attachment- unconcerned with acceptance by other people experience
related anxiety was associated with greater emotional dis- lowered state self-esteem when they believe that other
tress, including anger, and greater perseverative rumina- people have devalued them (Leary, Gallagher, et al., 2003).
tion about the breakup and the former partner. Rather than merely reflecting a passive effect of other
In contrast, attachment-related avoidance was related to people’s judgments on the rejected person’s self-views,
lower distress, albeit weakly. Not surprisingly, partici- decreases in state self-esteem appear to alert people to
pants who fell in the securely attached quadrant, with real and potential rejection and motivate actions that
low scores on both the anxiety and avoidance dimensions, maintain relational value and social acceptance.
coped most successfully with romantic breakups. According to sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister,
Not surprisingly, characteristics that are associated 2000), state self-esteem functions like a psychological
with negative emotional reactions – such as neuroticism – gauge of acceptance and rejection, mirroring the degree
predict reactions to perceived rejection (Brookings, to which people perceive that others accept or reject them
Zembar, & Hochstetler, 2003). Along these lines, Boelen and facilitating reactions to perceived losses of relational
and Reijntjes (2009) found that negative cognitions, parti- value (Leary, 2006). Because one’s relational value is
cularly catastrophizing thoughts and self-blame, predicted usually based on the individual’s characteristics or beha-
depression and anxiety after a romantic breakup. viors, perceiving that one’s relational value is unaccepta-
Furthermore, most of the effects remained significant bly low instigates a critical examination of oneself that is
even when controlling for whether the participant or the experienced as a drop in self-esteem.
partner initiated the breakup, the length of the relation- Although state self-esteem rises and falls with perceived
ship, and other relevant variables such as neuroticism and changes in relational value, people have an average or
attachment anxiety. general level of “trait” self-esteem that can be conceptua-
People’s emotional reactions to rejection are also mod- lized as the resting point on the sociometer when no feed-
erated by perceptions of their social power relative to the back regarding one’s relational value is currently being
other person. In three studies, Kuehn, Chen, and Gordon received. Viewed in this way, trait self-esteem reflects peo-
(2015) showed that social power (whether self-rated or ple’s general sense of their relational value and acceptabil-
experimentally induced) was associated with weaker reac- ity. Given that people with higher trait self-esteem
tions to explicit and implicit rejection. In a daily diary generally believe that they have greater relational value
study, participants who were in romantic relationships than people with lower trait self-esteem do, it is not sur-
rated whether they or their partners had more power in prising that trait self-esteem moderates reactions to inter-
their relationships each day for ten days, along with their personal rejection (Leary & MacDonald, 2003; Nezlek
partners’ level of hostility on that particular day and their et al., 1997).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 384 LEARY AND ACOSTA

Importantly, trait self-esteem moderates reactions to about the possibility of rejection, they become more sensi-
interpersonal problems only to the extent that the problem tive to social information regarding how they are viewed by
reflects on one’s relational value. In two studies that exam- others, and think more about their interpersonal encoun-
ined people’s reactions to the dissolution of actual or ters and relationships, which presumably helps them
hypothetical romantic relationships, Waller and respond in ways that increase their relational value
MacDonald (2010) found that participants who scored (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000; Pickett & Gardner,
lower in trait self-esteem exhibited more emotional dis- 2005). For example, people who feel rejected (Gardner
tress when they were rejected than when they initiated the et al., 2000) or lonely (Gardner et al., 2005) remember
breakup themselves (see also Leung, Moore, Karnilowicz, socially relevant information about other people better
& Lung, 2011). However, participants with higher trait than those who are not rejected or lonely; however, memory
self-esteem did not react differently as a function of for nonsocial information is not affected. People who score
whether they or their partner ended the relationship, pre- high in the need to belong identified other people’s facial
sumably because they did not interpret breakups as expressions and vocal tone more successfully and had
a reflection of their overall relational value. greater empathic accuracy than people who were lower in
Although self-esteem fluctuates in response to changes the need to belong (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), and
in acceptance/rejection in interactions with friends, participants who were experimentally primed with rejec-
romantic partners, fellow group members, acquaintances, tion distinguished true from fake smiles more successfully
family members, and even strangers, an evolutionary ana- than participants who were primed with acceptance or
lysis suggests that people might possess different socio- a control topic (Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, &
meter systems that monitor their acceptance in Claypool, 2008). Rejection may also lead people to perceive
fundamentally different types of social relationships others who were not involved in the rejection as nicer and
(Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001, 2006). People are valued as friendlier, which may make it easier for them to approach
relational partners in various kinds of relationships for others. These findings suggest that rejection influences how
different reasons, and the most functional responses to people process social information in ways that facilitate
low or declining relational value differ somewhat across interpersonal interactions and promote acceptance.
relationships as well. For example, one’s relational value in In addition, people who feel rejected often behave more
task-oriented groups depends mostly on one’s ability to positively toward other people in an apparent effort to
contribute to the group, whereas value in a friendship increase their relational value. Such behaviors are some-
depends on the degree to which one is a reliable source times directed toward the person who rejected them, but
of companionship and support. In support of the hypoth- when the perceived likelihood of reconciliation is low, they
esis that people have different sociometers to monitor may direct such behaviors toward other people. For exam-
relational value in different types of relationships, ple, people who are rejected may conform more to other’s
Kavanagh, Fletcher, and Ellis (2014) found that accep- opinions (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), cooperate
tance and rejection by someone of the other sex influenced more (Ouwerkerk, Kerr, Galluci, & Van Lange, 2005),
relationship satisfaction and commitment with respect to work harder in group settings (Williams & Sommer,
intimate relationships but not to friendships. 1997), and behave more generously (Maner, DeWall,
Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007), all of which may reflect
efforts to increase relational value. When people are
INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR
rejected because they did something that undermined
People’s reactions to perceived rejection fall roughly into their value as a desirable interpersonal partner or group
three broad categories. People who are rejected may member, they also try to repair their image to restore their
behave in ways that increase their relational value and relational value.
acceptance (to the person who rejected them and/or to
other people), distance themselves from others in an effort
to avoid further rejection and hurt, and/or respond aggres- Social Distancing and Withdrawal
sively toward those who rejected them (Smart Richman & Despite their desire for acceptance, people who have been
Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007). Interestingly, these three rejected are sometimes more concerned with avoiding
modes of responding are not mutually exclusive. In the future rejection than with obtaining acceptance
aftermath of a rejection episode, people may move (Vangelisti, 2001; Vangelisti et al., 2005). People are under-
among them or display multiple reactions at the same standably not motivated to interact with people who do
time. not adequately accept them, and they may also lose con-
fidence in their relational value more generally. When this
happens, they may distance themselves from other people
Increasing Relational Value and Acceptance
to avoid further devaluation and hurt (Maner et al., 2007).
Rejection typically increases people’s motivation to People who are concerned about acceptance sometimes
increase their relational value. When people do not feel report being less motivated to interact with other people,
adequately accepted, or even when they become concerned display nonverbal behaviors that increase social distance

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 385

(such as sitting further away and orienting away from normal reluctance to behave antisocially, which is usually
people; Waldrip & Jensen-Campbell, 2007), refrain from held in check by a concern with damaging one’s relation-
interacting fully even while remaining physically present, ships. After people perceive they have been rejected – and
and sometimes leave situations in which they feel inade- particularly when the rejection appears to be permanent –
quately accepted (Maner et al., 2007). They also downplay the interpersonal costs of aggression are lower (Smart
the degree to which they wish to be accepted (Bourgeois & Richman & Leary, 2009).
Leary, 2001), which may attenuate the sting of rejection Angry and aggressive reactions to rejection are more
and demotivate efforts to be accepted. In close relation- common among people who are high in rejection sensi-
ships, these distancing behaviors are more common tivity (Ayduk et al., 2000; Downey & Feldman, 1996;
among people who have lower trust in the degree to Downey et al., 1998; Downey et al., 2004; Downey et al.,
which their partner cares for them. Murray, Gomillion, 2000). Diary studies showed that rejection-sensitive
Holmes, and Harris (2015) found that, among participants women were more likely to have conflicts with their
who were lower in self-esteem, implicit trust in partners’ romantic partners after days on which they felt rejected
caring was related to less distancing and reciprocal rejec- (Ayduk, Downey, Testa, Yen, & Shoda, 1999; Downey,
tion when participants perceived that their partners were Freitas et al., 1998), and rejection sensitivity also pre-
rejecting or selfish. dicted relationship aggression among men who were
Interestingly, social distancing and withdrawal can highly invested in their relationships (Downey et al.,
occur alongside the affiliation-seeking behaviors 2000). Rejection-sensitive people are also more likely to
described earlier. In a study by Sommer and Bernieri aggress against strangers who devalue or reject them
(2015), participants were either accepted or rejected by (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2007; DiBenigno, Romero-
one person and then interacted with a second individual. Canyas, & Downey, 2007). Such findings led Romero-
Analyses revealed that interactions involving a previously Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk, and Kang (2010) to
rejected participant displayed greater evidence of proxi- conclude that rejection sensitivity is essentially
mity-seeking than interactions with a previously accepted a defensive motivational system and to speculate regard-
participant. At the same time, however, rejected partici- ing the attentional and inferential processes that lead to
pants also showed signs of interpersonal distancing, rating greater aggression.
their interaction partners as less kind and reporting less Paradoxically, antisocial reactions to rejection generally
rapport and liking for the person (see also Maner et al., lower one’s relational value and cause other people to
2007, study 4). Furthermore, these effects were mediated distance themselves. In dating relationships (Downey
by participants’ expectations of rejection. Thus, rejected et al., 1998; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010), high (compared
participants appeared to seek acceptance while being to low) rejection-sensitive women engaged in more nega-
especially vigilant of the possibility of rejection. tive behaviors (such as a negative tone of voice, criticism,
mocking their partners, and gestures that convey disgust)
during conflicts, which led their partners to distance them-
Antisocial and Aggressive Behaviors
selves, which fueled stronger reactions from the women.
Rejection can also lead to antisocial, aggressive behaviors Importantly, women high in rejection sensitivity reacted
(Asher, Rose, & Gabriel, 2001; Buckley et al., 2004; with greater hostility than women low in rejection sensi-
Kupersmidt & Patterson, 1991; Twenge, Baumeister, tivity only when the situation involved feeling rejected
Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, (Ayduk et al., 1999).
2006). Perceived devaluation and rejection underlie Davis et al. (2003) also found that people who scored
many instances of domestic violence (Barnard, Vera, higher in attachment-related anxiety responded to rela-
Vera, & Newman, 1982), school shootings (Leary, tionship breakups with desperate, exaggerated efforts to
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003), and culture of honor reestablish the relationship and with angrier and more
violence (Cohen, Nisbett, & Bowdle, 1996). Although vengeful behavior. In contrast, people who scored higher
rejection in parent–child relationships has not been widely in attachment-related avoidance were more likely to
studied, paternal and maternal rejection predict aggres- respond to breakups with avoidant, distancing reactions.
sion in adolescents (Miranda, Affuso, Esposito, & Aggressive reactions to romantic rejection are also pre-
Bacchini, 2016). dicted by social dominance orientation (SDO). SDO is
Leary, Twenge, and Quinlivan (2006) offered several generally regarded as a broad attitudinal orientation that
explanations for why rejection increases aggressive urges reflects whether one prefers intergroup relations to be
even though aggression certainly lowers people’s rela- equal (low SDO) versus hierarchical (high SDO).
tional value. In addition to processes that are not specific However, Kelly, Dubbs, and Barlow (2015) found that
to rejection, such as the effects of frustration on aggres- SDO is also relevant to interpersonal relationships in that
sion, people may behave aggressively in an effort to influ- men who scored higher on SDO blamed women more
ence others not to abandon them, to get others to do what strongly for romantic rejection and reported that they
they desire, or to punish those who have hurt them or reacted to past romantic rejections with greater persis-
treated them unfairly. Rejection may also lower people’s tence, manipulation, threats, and violence.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 386 LEARY AND ACOSTA

Competing Motives behavioral reactions to rejection, the impact of rejection

on people’s self-views, the effects of perceived rejection on
Various studies of reactions to rejection have obtained
momentary interactions and ongoing relationships, and the
what appear to be contradictory findings, showing that
role of rejection in larger social issues such as domestic
people who felt rejected were somehow more sociable,
violence and school shootings. Although much of this
more detached, more pleasant, and more aggressive, and
work has focused on generic rejection, some studies have
viewed other people as both nicer and meaner. Smart
explored particular phenomena in which low relational
Richman and Leary (2009) offered a multi-motive model
value is a central feature, such as unrequited love, ostra-
that attempted to identify the conditions under which
cism, bullying, romantic dissolution, stigmatization,
people react in prosocial, antisocial, and/or asocial ways
betrayal, and being the “black sheep” in a family
in the aftermath of rejection. This model suggests that
(Baumeister et al., 1993; Fitness, 2005; Nishina &
many factors combine to influence the degree to which
Juvonen, 2005; Williams, 2001). Most early studies were
people respond in a prosocial, antisocial, and/or avoidant
either laboratory experiments in which acceptance and
manner. For example, the likelihood of prosocial
rejection could be experimentally manipulated or question-
responses after rejection is heightened when people highly
naire studies of reactions to real or imagined rejection, but
value the relationship, perceive that the probability of
researchers have also used longitudinal designs, experience
restoring the relationship is high, and judge the costs of
sampling and daily diary studies, and neuroscience meth-
losing the relationship as high as well. In contrast, anti-
odologies to explore these topics.
social reactions are most likely when people perceive that
As we survey the burgeoning literature, we see four
they were treated unfairly, and they tend to withdrawal
particularly promising directions for the next wave of
when they perceive that they have alternative relationships
research on acceptance and rejection. First, we know
and the rejection is chronic.
virtually nothing about how people assess their relational
These motives, and thus the construals that underlie
value and thus almost nothing about the factors that
them, have important implications for people’s relation-
instigate emotional and behavioral reactions to perceived
ships in the aftermath of perceived rejection. Not only do
rejection. Even when rejection seems to be explicit (as
prosocial, antisocial, and avoidant motives have direct
when a romantic partner ends a relationship), people do
implications for how people respond to those who reject
not necessarily assume that their relational value has
them, but these motives may influence people’s behaviors
dropped to zero in the former partner’s eyes but only
toward individuals who were not involved in the precipi-
that their value has slipped below some critical threshold.
tating rejection as well. For example, people who feel rela-
In instances in which people assess their relational value
tionally devalued because of their membership in
based on less explicit information, the inferential pro-
marginalized groups may increase their identification
blem is even more challenging (see Fletcher, Overall,
with the group in order to shore up their interpersonal
Friesen, & Nicolls, Chapter 17, this volume). What factors
connections (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002).
determine people’s inferences about their relational value
The motivational consequences of having low relational
to other people, and how does the precise nature of their
value deserve a great deal of research attention.
inferences relate to how they respond emotionally and
behaviorally?
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Second, attention should be directed toward the dyadic
The management of relational value is a central element of processes that are often involved in rejection episodes.
every interpersonal relationship. Even in role-bound and Although some rejections are unilateral affairs that end
relatively superficial encounters, people prefer that their a relationship with no discussion, in many cases indivi-
relational value is high rather than low, and they want duals parley about the issue as one person tries to explain
other people to accept rather than reject them. Relational his or her rejecting behavior to a person who does not
value is certainly more important in some relationships understand or is unwilling to accept it. This exchange
than in others, but people are rarely indifferent to being can become a protracted discussion that, in many ways,
relationally devalued and rejected. resembles a negotiation of relational value. Understanding
Although developmental psychologists have studied peer both the rejector’s and the rejectee’s perspectives, motives,
rejection in childhood since the 1970s (for reviews, see and emotions in this process would provide insight into
Asher & Coie, 1990; Asher & Weeks, Chapter 9, this volume; the ways in which people manage their relational value
Hymel, Closson, Caravita, & Vaillancourt, 2010), wide- and, when the event involves the actual dissolution of
spread interest in acceptance and rejection in adults did a close relationship, how the exchange can result in bene-
not arise until publication of Baumeister and Leary’s ficial outcomes for both rejectors and rejectees.
(1995) article that examined the broad and pervasive A third topic that would extend our understanding of
importance of acceptance and belonging. Since then, thou- rejection and close relationships more generally involves
sands of studies have examined the motivational bases of ongoing relationships in which a person perceives that his
people’s concerns with acceptance, emotional and or her relational value to the partner is unacceptably low.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 387

Strictly speaking, the person is not being rejected: the Barnard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I., & Newman, G. (1982). Till
relationship is intact, and the individuals have an ongoing death do us part: A study of spouse murder. Bulletin of the
interdependent relationship. Yet, in perceiving that one’s American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271–280.
partner does not value the relationship as much as one Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
desires, the individual lives with a pervasive sense of not
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
being adequately accepted, which is likely accompanied
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993).
by frequent hurt feelings and other negative emotions. Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness,
Many relationships exist in this state between acceptance and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
and rejection, sometimes indefinitely, and understanding 64, 377–394.
the dynamics of such relationships and their impact on the Bernstein, M., Young, S., Brown, C., Sacco, D., & Claypool, H.
partners would be of great interest. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection
Finally, the fact that people are strongly and pervasively improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological
motivated to have high relational value does not imply that Science, 19, 981–983.
they always desire to be relationally valued. We can imagine Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., &
cases in which people wish that another person valued their Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions
but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem:
relationship less than he or she does, or may even wish that
A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion.
one’s relational value to a person was zero. Being relationally
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269–309.
valued by people with whom does not want a relationship Blau, P. (1960). A theory of social integration. American Journal of
can create awkwardness, impositions, undesired expecta- Sociology, 65, 545–556.
tions, and, in cases of obsessive relational intrusions (such Boelen, P. A., & Reijntjes, A. (2009). Negative cognitions in emo-
as stalking), perceived threat. Research is needed on the tional problems following romantic relationship break-ups.
conditions under which people do not desire to be relation- Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the
ally valued and how they react when their relational value to Investigation of Stress, 25, 11–19.
another person is higher than they desire. Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of
Concerns with acceptance, rejection, and relational social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in
value are a central feature of most interpersonal relation- predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765–785.
ships. People devote a great deal of effort to maintaining
Bourgeois, K. S., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with rejection:
their relational value in their various relationships, and
Derogating those who choose us last. Motivation and Emotion,
occasions when people believe another person does not 25, 101–111.
adequately value their relationship as much as they desire Brookings, J. B., Zembar, M. J., & Hochstetler, G. M. (2003).
create challenges that must be resolved. An interpersonal circumplex/five-factor analysis of the
Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 449–461.
REFERENCES
Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary M. R. (2004). Reactions to
AhYun, K. (2002). Similarity and attraction. In M. Allen, acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of rela-
R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. A. Burrell (eds.) Interpersonal tional evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
communication research (pp. 145–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 14–28.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. (eds.) (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., & Bowdle, B. F. (1996). Insult, aggres-
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. sion, and the Southern culture of honor: An “experimental eth-
Asher, S. R., Rose, A. J., & Gabriel, S. W. (2001). Peer rejection in nography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
everyday life. In M. R. Leary (ed.) Interpersonal rejection (pp. 945–960.
105–142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensitivity exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (eds.)
and depressive symptoms in women. Personality and Social The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 868–877. of culture (pp. 163–228). New York, NY: Oxford University
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Testa, A., Yen, Y., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Press.
Does rejection elicit hostility in rejection sensitive women? Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting
Social Cognition, 17, 245–271. effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2007). Individual differ- relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
ences in the rejection–aggression link in the hot sauce para- 658–668.
digm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people
Social Psychology, 44, 775–782. desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the impor-
Ayduk, Ö., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., tance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality
Peake, P. L. K., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Regulating the inter- and Social Psychology, 92, 208–223.
personal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dis-
sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, likes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of
776–792. Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284–290.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 388 LEARY AND ACOSTA

Daly, J. A., & Kreiser, P. O. (1994). Affinity seeking. In J. A. Daly & Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L, Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005).
J. M. Wiemann (eds.) Strategic interpersonal communication On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring.
(pp. 109–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1549–1560.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emo- Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me
tional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European
gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871–884. Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and
DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of
pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54–70.
pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15. statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C. L., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory:
Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., . . . Eisenberger, N. I. (2010). A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal
Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91.
evidence. Psychological Science, 21, 931–937. http://dx.doi.org Hymel, S., Closson, L. M., Caravita, S. C. S., & Vaillancourt, V.
/10.1177/0956797610374741 (2010). Social status among peers: From sociometric attraction
DiBenigno, J., Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G. (2007). to peer acceptance to perceived popularity. In P. K. Smith &
Do rejection sensitivity and performance predict extreme reac- C. H. Hart (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social
tions to rejection for performing artists? Paper presented at the development (2nd edn., pp. 375–392). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Blackwell.
Memphis, TN. Janes, L., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection effects of observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social
sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 26, 474–485.
Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343. Jellison, J. M., & Gentry, K. W. (1978). A self-presentational inter-
Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitiv- pretation of the seeking of social approval. Personality and
ity and male violence in romantic relationships. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 227–230.
Relationships, 7, 45–61. Joel, S., Teper, R., & MacDonald, G. (2014). People overestimate
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). their willingness to reject potential romantic partners by over-
The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection looking their concern for other people. Psychological Science,
sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of 25, 2233–2240.
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560. Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Bratton, V. K. (2004). Situational
Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, O., London, B. E., & Shoda, Y. versus dispositional factors as antecedents of ingratiatory beha-
(2004) Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational sys- viors in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
tem: Insights from the startle response to rejection cues. 65, 309–331.
Psychological Science, 15, 668–673. Kavanagh, P. S., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). The mating
Dykstra, P. A., Van Tilburg, T. G., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (2005). sociometer and attractive others: A double-edged sword in
Changes in older adult loneliness: Results from a seven-year romantic relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 154,
longitudinal study. Research on Aging, 27, 725–747. 126–141.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Kelly, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). Social domi-
Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, nance orientation predicts heterosexual men’s adverse reac-
302, 290–292. tions to romantic rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44,
Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of 903–919.
Sociology 2, 335–262. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2001). An evolutionary-
Feeney, J. (2004). Hurt feelings and couple relationships: Towards psychological approach to self-esteem: Multiple domains and
integrative models of the negative effects of hurtful events. multiple functions. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (eds.)
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 487–508. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical (pp. 411–436). Oxford: Blackwell.
attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2006). The adaptive functions of
five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social self-evaluative psychological mechanisms. In M. H. Kernis (ed.)
Psychology, 59, 981–993. Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 334–339). New York, NY:
Feldman, R. S., Forrest, J. A., & Happ, B. R. (2002). Self- Psychology Press.
presentation and verbal deception: Do self-presenters lie Kuehn, M. M., Chen, S., & Gordon, A. M. (2015). Having a thicker
more? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 163–170. skin: Social power buffers the negative effects of social
Fitness, J. (2005). Bye bye, black sheep: The causes and conse- rejection. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6,
quences of rejection in family relationships. In K. D. Williams, 701–709.
J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (eds.) The social outcast: Kupersmidt, J. B, & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peer rejec-
Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. tion, aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competence as pre-
263–276). New York, NY: Psychology Press. dictors of self-reported behavior problems in preadolescence.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 437–449.
exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influ- Leary, M. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal
ences memory for social events. Personality and Social rejection. In M. R. Leary (ed.) Interpersonal rejection (pp. 3–20).
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 ACCEPTANCE, REJECTION, AND RELATIONAL VALUE 389

Leary, M. R. (2006). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of rela- reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.” Journal of
tional value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55.
of Social Psychology, 16, 75–111. Mikami, A. Y., Schad, M. M., Teachman, B. A., Chango, J. M., &
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function Allen, J. P. (2015). Implicit versus explicit rejection self-
of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (ed.) perceptions and adolescents’ interpersonal functioning.
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 390–393.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent
Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding perceptions of hurtful messages. Journal of Social and Personal
the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem. Relationships, 19, 731–754.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898–909. Miranda, M. C., Affuso, G., Esposito, C., & Bacchini, D. (2016).
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Hall, A., & Parental acceptance–rejection and adolescent maladjustment:
Duong-Fernandez, X. (2015). Why seemingly trivial events Mothers’ and fathers’ combined roles. Journal of Child and
sometimes evoke strong emotional reactions: The role of social Family Studies, 25, 1352–1362.
exchange rule violations. Journal of Social Psychology, 155, Montoya, R. M. Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual
559–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1084985 similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual
Leary, M. R., Gallagher, B., Fors, E. H., Buttermore, N., and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal
Baldwin, E., Lane, K. K., & Mills. A. (2003). The invalidity of Relationships, 25, 889–922.
personal claims about self-esteem. Personality and Social Murray, S. L., Gomillion, S., Holmes, J. G., & Harris, B. (2015).
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 623–636. Inhibiting self-protection in romantic relationships: Automatic
Leary, M. R., Haupt, A. L., Strausser, K. S., & Chokel, J. T. (1998). partner attitudes as a resource for low self-esteem people.
Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interper- Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 173–182.
sonal appraisals and state self-esteem. Journal of Personality Murray, S. L., Griffin, D. W., Rose, P., & Bellavia, G. (2003).
and Social Psychology, 74, 1290–1299. Calibrating the sociometer: The relational contingencies of
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school 63–84.
shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214. Murray, S. L., Lupien, S. P., & Seery, M. D. (2012). Resilience in
Leary, M. R., & Leder, S. (2009). The nature of hurt feelings: the face of romantic rejection: The automatic impulse to trust.
Emotional experience and cognitive appraisals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 845–854.
In A. Vangelisti (ed.) Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., &
15–33). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Holgate, S. (1997). Personality moderators of reactions to inter-
Leary, M. R., & MacDonald, G. (2003). Individual differences in personal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality
self-esteem: A review and theoretical integration. In M. R. Leary and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235–1244.
& J. P. Tangney (eds.) Handbook of self and identity (pp. Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and
401–418). New York, NY: Guilford Press. experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). Development, 76, 435–450.
The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt Norona, J. C., Salvatore, J. F., Welsh, D. P., & Darling, N. (2014).
feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Rejection sensitivity and adolescents’ perceptions of romantic
1225–1237. interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 1257–1267.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Olson, K., & Wong, E. H. (2001). Loneliness in marriage. Family
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer Therapy, 28, 105–111.
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, Ouwerkerk, J. W., Kerr, N. L., Gallucci, M., & Van Lange, P.
518–530. (2005). Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism and
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal cooperation in social dilemmas. In K. D. Williams, & W. von
rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality Hippel (eds.) The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,
and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111–132. rejection, and bullying (pp. 321–332). New York, NY:
Leung, C., Moore, S., Karnilowicz, W., & Lung, C. L. (2011). Psychology Press.
Romantic relationships, relationship styles, coping strategies, Panak, W. F., & Gerber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection,
and psychological distress among Chinese and Australian and attributions in the prediction of depression in children.
young adults. Social Development, 20, 783–804. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 145–165.
MacDonald, G. (2009). Social pain and hurt feelings. In P. J. Corr Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience. New York, NY: Oxford
& G. Matthews (eds.) Cambridge handbook of personality psy- University Press.
chology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005a). Roles of social pain and In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (eds.) Loneliness: A sourcebook of
defense mechanisms in response to social exclusion: Reply to current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1–20). New York, NY:
Panksepp (2005) and Corr (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, John Wiley & Sons.
237–240. Pickett, C. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The social monitoring
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005b). Why does social exclu- system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive
sion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. response to social exclusion. In K. Williams, J. Forgas, &
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. W. von Hippel (eds.) The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclu-
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. sion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 213–225). New York, NY:
(2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal Psychology Press.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030
 390 LEARY AND ACOSTA

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting In V. Manusov & J. H. Harvey (eds.) Attribution, communica-
a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social tion behavior, and close relationships: Advances in personal rela-
cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. tions (pp. 38–58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K., &
Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it hurt? The perceived causes
Romero-Canyas R., & Downey, G. (2013). What I see when I think of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443–477.
it’s about me: People low in rejection-sensitivity downplay cues Vonk, R. (2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery: Why
of rejection in self-relevant interpersonal situations. Emotion, ingratiation works. Journal of Personality and Social
13, 104–117. Psychology, 82, 515–526.
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., & Ayduk, O., & Waldrip A., & Jensen-Campbell, L. (2007). Why do I feel so bad
Kang, N. J. (2010). Rejection sensitivity and the after being excluded? The mediational effects of threatened needs
rejection–hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of on social exclusion. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Personality, 7(8), 119–148. Texas at Arlington.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Waller, K. L., & MacDonald, T. K. (2010). Trait self-esteem mod-
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207. erates the effect of initiator status on emotional and cognitive
Schmitt M. T., & Branscombe, N. L. (2002). The meaning and responses to romantic relationship dissolution. Journal of
consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged Personality, 78, 1271–1299.
and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When
Psychology, 12, 167–199. ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
becomes intrusive pursuit: Comparing rejecter and pursuer 213–220.
perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839–852. Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimi- it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job
nation, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interper- interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070–1086.
sonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York,
116, 365–383. NY: Guilford Publications.
Smith, C. A. & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology,
relational themes and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 58, 425–452.
233–269. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyber-
Snapp, C. M., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Hurt feelings among new ostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal
acquaintances: Moderating effects of interpersonal familiarity. of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.
Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 18, 315–326. Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D.,
Sommer, K., & Bernieri, F. (2015). Minimizing the pain and Cruickshank, M., & Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differ-
probability of rejection: Evidence for relational distancing and ences between social- and cyber-ostracism. Group Dynamics:
proximity seeking within face-to-face interactions. Social Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 65–77.
Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 131–139. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. 1995. Making the right impression: coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation?
A field study of applicant impression management during job Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587–606. Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism:
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. The indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams,
(2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (eds.) The social outcast (pp.
exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and 19–34). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069. Wood, N., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social revisited: How frequent are attention shifts to one’s name in an
exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, mean- irrelevant auditory channel? Journal of Experimental
inglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 255–260.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D.,& Richardson, R. (2004). How low can
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354–365. self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem and mean-
Vangelisti, A. K. (2001). Making sense of hurtful interactions in ingful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,
close relationships: When hurt feelings create distance. 560–567.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 90.95.157.231, on 13 Nov 2018 at 11:57:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.030