Heterogeneity of Social Rejection Experiences: Further Exploration of Physiological, Affective and Behavioral Responses
Advisor Information
Jeff French
Location
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
Presentation Type
Poster
Start Date
2-3-2018 9:00 AM
End Date
2-3-2018 10:15 AM
Abstract
Due to the fundamental need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), social rejection threatens wellbeing. Yet, there has been inconsistency in physiological (stress hormone; Blackhart et al., 2007 vs. Bass et al., 2014), affective (Baumeister et al., 2017 vs. Gerber & Wheeler, 2009), and behavioral responses (prosocial or antisocial; Maner et al., 2007 vs. Twenge et al., 2007). Previous research suggests this may be accounted for by differences in severity of rejection experiences (Cyberball vs. Future Life laboratory manipulations; Bernstein & Claypool, 2012a, 2012b). However, this is the first study to compare physiological, affective, and behavioral responses (and interrelations) to two different rejection experiences within a single study. Ongoing experimental research involves 19 participants (university students; 85% female) randomly assigned to one of two social rejection manipulations that differ in severity (Cyberball or Future Life) and to either be accepted or rejected. Participants also provided saliva samples for stress hormone analyses (cortisol and alpha amylase) and engaged in a simulated social experience with the opportunity to be prosocial or antisocial. Current results demonstrate that rejection was associated with a significant reduction in positive affect (Future Life only) and decreased satisfaction of all basic needs (stronger for Cyberball): belonging, self-esteem, meaningfulness, and control. Participants rejected in Future Life (only) displayed more antisocial behavior, especially when they also experienced a reduction in sense of control. Results support that rejection has negative effects on well being, which depend on the type of experience, and suggests that these effects may explain social responses to rejection.
Heterogeneity of Social Rejection Experiences: Further Exploration of Physiological, Affective and Behavioral Responses
Dr. C.C. and Mabel L. Criss Library
Due to the fundamental need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), social rejection threatens wellbeing. Yet, there has been inconsistency in physiological (stress hormone; Blackhart et al., 2007 vs. Bass et al., 2014), affective (Baumeister et al., 2017 vs. Gerber & Wheeler, 2009), and behavioral responses (prosocial or antisocial; Maner et al., 2007 vs. Twenge et al., 2007). Previous research suggests this may be accounted for by differences in severity of rejection experiences (Cyberball vs. Future Life laboratory manipulations; Bernstein & Claypool, 2012a, 2012b). However, this is the first study to compare physiological, affective, and behavioral responses (and interrelations) to two different rejection experiences within a single study. Ongoing experimental research involves 19 participants (university students; 85% female) randomly assigned to one of two social rejection manipulations that differ in severity (Cyberball or Future Life) and to either be accepted or rejected. Participants also provided saliva samples for stress hormone analyses (cortisol and alpha amylase) and engaged in a simulated social experience with the opportunity to be prosocial or antisocial. Current results demonstrate that rejection was associated with a significant reduction in positive affect (Future Life only) and decreased satisfaction of all basic needs (stronger for Cyberball): belonging, self-esteem, meaningfulness, and control. Participants rejected in Future Life (only) displayed more antisocial behavior, especially when they also experienced a reduction in sense of control. Results support that rejection has negative effects on well being, which depend on the type of experience, and suggests that these effects may explain social responses to rejection.