Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter

For proof that rejection, exclusion, and acceptance are central to our lives, look no farther than the living room, says Nathan Dewall, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky. "If you turn on the television set, and watch any reality TV program, most of them are about rejection and acceptance," he says. The reason, DeWall says, is that acceptance—in romantic relationships, from friends, even from strangers—is absolutely fundamental to humans.

In a new paper published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, DeWall and coauthor Brad J. Bushman of Ohio State University review recent psychological research on and . "Although psychologists have been interested in close relationships and what happens when those relationships go awry for a very long time, it's only been about 15 yrs that have been doing this work on exclusion and rejection," DeWall says. The results have highlighted how central acceptance is to our lives.

DeWall thinks belonging to a group was probably helpful to our ancestors. We have weak claws, little fur, and long childhoods; living in a group helped early humans survive harsh environments. Because of that, being part of a group still helps people feel safe and protected, even when walls and clothing have made it easier for one man to be an island entire of himself.

But acceptance has an evil twin: rejection. Being rejected is bad for your health. "People who feel isolated and lonely and excluded tend to have poor physical health," DeWall says. They don't sleep well, their immune systems sputter, and they even tend to die sooner than people who are surrounded by others who care about them.

Being excluded is also associated with poor mental health, and exclusion and mental health problems can join together in a destructive loop. People with depression may face exclusion more often because of the symptoms of their disorder—and being rejected makes them more depressed, DeWall says. People with social anxiety navigate their world constantly worried about being socially rejected. A feeling of exclusion can also contribute to suicide.

Exclusion isn't just a problem for the person who suffers it, either; it can disrupt society at large, DeWall says. People who have been excluded often lash out against others. In experiments, they give people much more hot sauce than they can stand, blast strangers with intense noise, and give destructive evaluations of prospective job candidates. Rejection can even contribute to violence. An analysis of 15 school shooters found that all but two had been socially rejected.

It's important to know how to cope with rejection. First of all, "We should assume that everyone is going to experience rejection on a semi-regular basis throughout their life," DeWall says. It's impossible to go through your entire life with everyone being nice to you all the time. When you are rejected or excluded, he says, the best way to deal with it is to seek out other sources of friendship or acceptance. "A lot of times, people keep these things to themselves because they're embarrassed or they don't think it's that big of a deal," he says. But our bodies respond to rejection like they do to physical pain; the pain should be taken seriously, and it's fine to seek out support. "When people feel lonely, or when people feel excluded or rejected, these are things they can talk about," he says.

Related Stories

Handling rejection: New study sheds light on why it hurts

Dec 09, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Rejection is one of those universal experiences we can all relate to. Whether it's family or social, through business or a romantic rejection, that feeling of exclusion, or a lack of acceptance, is something ...

Could acetaminophen ease psychological pain?

Dec 22, 2009

Headaches and heartaches. Broken bones and broken spirits. Hurting bodies and hurt feelings. We often use the same words to describe physical and mental pain. Over-the-counter pain relieving drugs have long been used to alleviate ...

Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold?

Sep 15, 2008

When we hear somebody described as "frosty" or "cold", we automatically picture a person who is unfriendly and antisocial. There are numerous examples in our daily language of metaphors which make a connection between cold ...

Recommended for you

Blood test spots adult depression

6 hours ago

(HealthDay)—A new blood test is the first objective scientific way to diagnose major depression in adults, a new study claims.

Job stress not the only cause of burnouts at work

9 hours ago

Impossible deadlines, demanding bosses, abusive colleagues, unpaid overtime—all these factors can lead to a burnout. When it comes to mental health in the workplace, we often forget to consider the influence of home life.

Web technology offers mental health support

12 hours ago

A web based application connecting people with potential mental health issues to clinical advice and support networks has been created by researchers at Aston and Warwick universities.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Too late, too little for this insight.
_nigmatic10
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
Reality Tv is retarded. I'd rather watch re-re-re-reruns of MASH.

Also, this guys insight is as yesterday as they come. His insights come off no better than some 1st yr paper over the subject.
noxcovenant
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
Breakthrough research.
nmtucson
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2011
@nigmatic10 "Knowing" something because we think we have observed it is not the same as doing the scientific research. There are plenty of studies like this that show that our "commonsense" understanding of something is wrong, or full of baseless assumptions. That this study validates what we think we all know means this was a good study. Furthermore, some people wont' take an issue seriously until a study shows that the problem is consistent and widespread. Now psychologists can incorporate counseling on loneliness into their regular repertoire. And maybe somebody who reads this will realize that they are not unique or different from everybody else--a symptom of the problem--and seek aid and comfort from somebody who does not reject them. That's not yesterday--that's very much today.
Telekinetic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2011
A case in point is this very forum we're using. I think it's a fascinating sociological study of how men of varying ages, strangers who share a common interest in the sciences, relate to one another. The exchange of views goes beyond the topics of discussion, with wrangling for hierarchical dominance in 'rightness' with a scoring system that accounts for personality likes and dislikes, far from the ideas expressed. Personally, I think it's fantastic, and satisfies an ancient need for connection, like the discussions of Plato and Aristotle, with other minds grappling with similar quandaries that sometimes yields genuine answers. I'm happy to be 'accepted' and 'included' in this forum, even when targeted by opposing reactions.

hush1
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
Isolation and sensory depravity have been known for centuries.
The problem is consistent and widespread. In fact, so well known and studied, that methods were developed to exploit the effects of this on subjects or victims.

"Psychologists (have long)* incorporated counseling on loneliness into their regular repertoire". - nmtucson

* Correction to your statement and wording in parenthesis.

All prisons, without exception, have isolation areas.
The reasons are well studied, well researched and the use widespread.

Your baseless assumption that psychologists "can NOW incorporate this" to counseling on loneliness" remains a baseless assumption and misleads your readers.

This study 'validates' nothing. The study offer further support and evidence to treatment and counseling existing long before this study published a repeat to the standard protocol of established treatment and counseling.

The reader who reads this will realize "aid and comfort" was never a question of availability.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2011
This explains why so many won't challenge socialism, until a critical mass is achieved.
First it was talk radio that gave a voice to anti-socialist discussion and now it's the internet.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
"A case in point is this very forum we're using." - Telekinetic
Yes. You are correct.

In fact, my first comment here displays the mode of human psychic most prevalent on this websites' commentary.
Super-ego mode. 90% use and are not self aware of this mode.

Your description of this mode and the effects are accurate.
It is a mode that does the greatest mutual 'disservice' to discourses of an article's subject matter - if the intended purpose - discussion/commentary - is of importance to the reader. Yes, a basic need is satisfied which has nothing to do the posted articles.

A 'good' thread addresses the subject, never the person.
The exception, not the rule here.

I do not rate whenever possible. You have describe the rating system's exploited weaknesses very well. And, of course, your good predisposition towards your participation here is well received - regardless or despite ratings.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
"This explains why so many won't challenge socialism, until a critical mass is achieved." - ryggesogn2

The theories of mutual human social intercourse are found in the life sciences. Socialism is political science.

In the life sciences, the premise is:
Any social intercourse (about anything, anywhere, anytime, and anyone) whatever, has a biological advantage over no intercourse at all.

We all take advantage of this, regardless of whether the mutual exchange of social intercourse has understanding for those participating.

I understand your need. To address socialism here means to leave the topic addressed by the article posted here.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2011
In the life sciences, the premise is:
Any social intercourse (about anything, anywhere, anytime, and anyone) whatever, has a biological advantage over no intercourse at all.

Really? Socialist tyranny is better than not have any social interaction?
hush1
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
In answer to your question: Yes.
Your question harbors only two states of 'existence:
Life or death.

Life = 'Socialist tyranny'
Death = no social intercourse at all.

This implies any life is a 'biological advantage', no matter how bad, over any 'non living state' of existence.

This is controversial. Science can sustain a human body without a brain. Is the body without a brain life or death?
hush1
not rated yet Aug 13, 2011
The answer to:
Is a body without a brain life?
The answer is to be found in the life sciences.
Sea squirts continue to 'lead a life' without a brain.

Sea squirts are not humans. So the controversy continues.
iPan
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
Read a story somewhere about some form of crustacean, that after losing a competition to mate, will bury itself in the sand and it's brain produces so much of a certain anxiety causing neurotransmitter (I think it might have been cortisol - but I'm not 100% sure of that) that it actually killed itself by causing it's brain to shut down.

This story stuck with me because I have both General Anxiety Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder (which is basically just chronic PTSD).

It often feels like I'm being "attacked" by my brain when I'm under too much anxiety. My thoughts begin to attack each other.

It's really uncomfortable. At the worst moments, I've actually tried to kill myself through thought alone - thinking that if I could 'meditate' and increase levels of anxiety, it might choke my brain off and end my suffering. Didn't work though, I could never master that much control.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2011
Life = 'Socialist tyranny'
Death = no social intercourse at all.

Socialist tyranny IS death.
No social intercourse is not death.
Telekinetic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
@iPan,
Your condition isn't hopeless, though, as a sufferer of something similar, I can attest to the eventual easing of its severity over time. That piece of information may not be helpful in the present, but I assure you, things get better. In the meantime, seek the things that have real meaning, which to me are love and imagination, all the rest is a construct of someone else's agenda. I hope I've been helpful.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
'Exclusion isn't just a problem for the person who suffers it, either; it can disrupt society at large, DeWall says. People who have been excluded often lash out against others. In experiments, they give people much more hot sauce than they can stand, blast strangers with intense noise, and give destructive evaluations of prospective job candidates. Rejection can even contribute to violence. An analysis of 15 school shooters found that all but two had been socially rejected."
This is the part I find worrisome with our present political regime. Recall the response to the attack on the member of Congress in Tucson. The immediate, popular reaction was to attack those who opposed the current political regime.
That did not happen when a biology professor was rejected by her peers at the University of Alabama Huntsville a few years ago.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2011
@ryggesogn2
Sociology=Socialism?
You insist on this equation. The common denominator are humans.
Mutual social interaction/intercourse is a human biological necessity.

No social intercourse is not death - ryggesogn2


This makes no sense. Before I can address your statement, I need a definition from you - any definition you adhere to:

What is social intercourse?
Simply provide any definition you are willing to accept.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 14, 2011
@iPan
Thks for sharing your thoughts.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2011
Life = 'Socialist tyranny'
Death = no social intercourse at all.

Hush, you created the term, you define it.
What do you mean by 'social intercourse'?
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2011
http://en.wikiped...relation
Replace "social intercourse" with 'social relation'.

I treat the words synonymously.

Death = no social relation at all.

You do not make sense.
"No social intercourse is not death" - ryggesogn2
Your answer implies whatever 'no social intercourse' is, 'no social intercourse' can be anything, except death.

Simply explain how life exists without social relation.
Forget about my usage of 'social intercourse' used synonymously with 'social relation'. I define social intercourse with the definition given to 'social relation'.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2011
Hush, what is 'social relation' to you?
Of course a male and female are needed to begin a family unit.
Did you know that in the final communist days of Romania, the socialist tyrant banned birth control and tried to promote his victims to have more children. They did, but then didn't have the resources to care for them, because of their communist economy. That's why there were so many Romanian orphans for adoption. After communist rule, that leader was executed.
So, is that kind of social relation better than death?

VD, why do you keep asking the same question? I gave my answer many days ago. Since all you can do is insult, why should I bother?
hush1
not rated yet Aug 17, 2011
Social relation is a biological prerequisite, and thereafter, a constant biological, physiological basic need. If I put you in total isolation you die. If the only objects you receive remotely in an isolation box is food and water, with literally no other external sensory stimuli, then you die. If I deprive you of all of your senses and provide only for hunger and thirst, you die. You deteriorate biologically through starvation of the senses.

In answer to your question:

Yes, that kind of 'social relation' in the context you are using 'social relation' in your own context is better than death.

With...

"Of course a male and female are needed to begin a family unit. " - R2

...you have begun to clasp, grasp, fathom, guess, imagine,...and harbor an inkling of a premonition that to avoid death, shelter (in prison in isolation), food and water are insufficient.

I expect flashes of insight and brilliance from everyone.
Never have I been disappointed. And you will be no exception.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
freethinking
not rated yet Aug 18, 2011
VD, why are you so consumed by hate? I'm waiting for your answer?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2011
Hush, can you agree some forms of social interaction are deadly?
The Stalinist state of North Korea or the Khmer Rouge for example.
Sensory deprivation is not equivalent to social interaction.
There are people who survive and thrive without being around other humans.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2011
"VD, why are you so consumed by hate?" - FreeDumb

I wasn't aware that asking Libertarian/Randites questions constituted hate.

But I guess in their retarded minds, it does.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
"Hush, can you agree some forms of social interaction are deadly?" - R2

Yes. I agree. For example, if I assign myself only one single sole purpose in my life and to my life - to kill -, then any social interaction with me is deadly.

"The Stalinist state of North Korea or the Khmer Rouge for example." - R2

Any political form of life has more that only one sole purpose in life. Even the most deadly and detrimental political forms of life adhere to biological absolutes. You must allow at least one of each gender to live. If killing all others is the main political purpose.

"Sensory deprivation is not equivalent to social interaction." - R2
I disagree.

"There are people who survive and thrive without being around other humans." - R2

Yes. I agree. Correct. Those people enjoy a habitat void of humans.
The senses of humans will not deteriorate, despite lack of human contact.
Anything your senses perceive as stimulus will prevent biological deterioration.
cont...
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
cont...
You don't need humans to be social. In fact, if you are not held in captivity, all humans must be social, regardless if you are the only human being on earth or not.
You must be social. You have only one choice. Be social or die.
That is the definition of the word social:
http://en.wikiped...i/Social

"SOCIAL ALWAYS refers to the INTERACTION of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence, irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not, and irrespective of whether the interaction is voluntary or involuntary."
With or without humans, SOCIAL ALWAYS refers to the INTERACTION of organisms (you) with other organisms(ALL OTHER LIFE FORMS).
Social interaction is the ONLY source your senses have and need to survive and thrive on. Without social interaction your senses are deprived. You die.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
Even the most deadly and detrimental political forms of life adhere to biological absolutes.

If you mean by 'adhere' they accept and understand the laws of nature, that is not correct.
Socialists beleive they do not have to follow the laws of nature. Which why those systems fail.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
Logically flawed is your reasoning.
If "the laws of Nature" are to be absolute, then the word "follow" is meaningless.

Absolute laws can not be changed.
Absolute laws must be followed.
Absolute laws offer no choice:
(Your wording "they do not have to follow the laws..." is meaningless. There is no choice. You must follow)

By "adhere" I mean 'must follow', 'no choice', no acceptance necessary, no understanding necessary.

ALL systems stemming from humans fail. If you said God does not fail you, that is a system that does not stem from humans. There is no evidence for the words 'fail-safe'.
There is no 'fail-safe' event, work, or state of being (existence) for humans.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
ALL systems stemming from humans fail.

Now you need to define 'fail'.
A system that respects individual liberty and respects personal property rights has been demonstrated to succeed, not fail.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2011
"As a result of expanding cooperation, human beings compete to produce, not to consume (as other animals do). Mises expressed this with my favorite sentence in Human Action: The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier. The expansion of cooperation also necessarily means we can deal with strangers at great distance a further incentive for peace."
"We libertarians might have an easier time persuading others if we emphasized that freedom produces ever-more innovative ways to cooperate for mutual benefit and that when government dominates life, social cooperation is imperiled."
http://www.thefre...eration/
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
"Now you need to define 'fail'." - R2
Any system stemming from humans that is static will fail.

The assumption that humans will always be materialistic is just that. An assumption. Even if the assumption is correct, the materialistic beliefs change from day to day.

There is no political human system 'equation' that holds true always, no matter how many variables,parameters and degrees of freedom you stuff into it.

For most, their imagination short circuits, when asked:
Can there be order without hierarchy?
The imagination falls short.
(Mathematicians excluded)

A political human system that stems from "the laws of Nature" (which we established here in this thread can not be broken)
must accept that 'social relation' is a "law of Nature".
The social is paramount and foremost.
Providing for needs, not wants.
All else follows. As..., "in the pursuit of..." whatever.
As laws of humankind - the laws of wants.
Far removed from the laws of Nature.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
Any system stemming from humans that is static will fail.

Now you added static.
What human system is ever static?
There is no political human system 'equation' that holds true always,

Systems that are based upon recognizing the inherent, unalienable rights of the individual human have been demonstrated not to fail. This is a fundamental principle of the 'equation'.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
You are advocating or suggesting 'fail-safe'. An unfailing, continuous never-ending "demonstration" of non failure has never existed, nor will any unfailing, continuous, never-ending non failure demo ever occur.

And that, regardless of fundamentals, God, Allah, unalienable rights, self evident truths, principles, death, war, peace, ...regardless of any 'part' of the infinite equation.

Fail: Definition;
To be human
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
Hush, why haven't you committed suicide if failure is your life?
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
Suicide is not a part of life. Suicide is a part of death.

Failure and failing belongs to life.
Success and succeeding belongs to life.

R2, why do you ask this question?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
Suicide is not a part of life. Suicide is a part of death.

Failure and failing belongs to life.
Success and succeeding belongs to life.

R2, why do you ask this question?


NOW you say success is part of life when earlier all you could say is that to be human is to FAIL.

hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2011
"...all you could say..." is presumptuous.
The false assumption is:
You assumed that is all I could say.
The assumption is baseless.
No amount of reasoning can conclusively lead you to only this one unique, all exclusive conclusion.

It is all that I stated, not all that was possible to say.
What is the purpose of your question?

We are not here to test logic. We are here to point out the difference between two words:
Socialism
Sociology
for the benefit of your understanding.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
RyggTard... I asked two questions (among many) and you have continued to refuse to answer them.

Here they are again...

---
So you would agree then that children have the same rights as adults. They are part of your "all" category aren't they? Or are rights not universal for all people in contradiction of your Randite ideology?

I take it that you believe - as do all other Libertarian/Randites that laws against drug use, prostitution and so called "victim-less" crimes are also illegitimate and should be abolished?
---

I continue to await your answer.