Who is more willing to engage in social rejection? The roles of self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, and negative affect in social rejection decisions.

How do self-schemas and their consequences guide would-be-rejectors? When making decisions about whether to reject, individuals consider the difficulty and emotional consequences of rejecting, and both considerations are likely to involve self-schemas. In three preregistered studies, we examine the roles of self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, and symptoms of depression and anxiety in rejection decisions. In an initial set of studies (N1a = 214, N1b = 264), participants forecast their willingness to reject and their emotional responses in friendship (Study 1a) and romantic (Study 1a-1b) vignettes. In Study 2 (N2 = 259), participants who recently rejected rated that experience on the same measures. Correlates of negative self-schema were associated with negative emotions. Self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, and general distress were associated with forecasted difficulty rejecting, but only anxiety and general distress were associated with retrospectively reported increased difficulty. Taken together, psychological distress may decrease willingness to reject in a way that participants cannot predict.

Emotional experiences of ghosting.

Although ghosting (i.e., unilaterally ending a relationship by ceasing communication) has only recently entered the lexicon, it is a regularly used form of relationship dissolution. However, little research has examined the emotional experiences of ghosting, particularly the experiences of those on both sides of the ghosting process. In a multi-method study, participants who had both ghosted and been ghosted in previous romantic relationships (N = 80) provided narratives of their experiences and completed questionnaires. The narrative responses were analyzed by coders and by using LIWC. Ghosters and ghostees used similar overall levels of positively and negatively valenced words to describe their experiences, but ghosters were more likely to express guilt and relief, whereas ghostees were more likely to express sadness and hurt feelings. Ghostees also experienced more of a threat to their fundamental needs - control, self-esteem, belongingness, meaningful existence - than ghosters.

Engaging in social rejection may be riskier for women.

People often worry how others will perceive them if they socially reject others, but do women have more to fear than men? Although previous research has shown that women are perceived negatively for behaving in counter-stereotypical ways, research on backlash has focused on business settings. The present research applies backlash theory to examine how women are perceived for engaging in social rejection. The findings suggest that backlash may operate differently in social rejection because only men punish women for rejecting. Across four studies, the present research found that (1) women felt they were more likely to be penalized for engaging in social rejection than men, (2) women were less willing to endorse social rejection than men, and (3) men, but not women, viewed female rejectors in a more negative manner than male rejectors.

When Saying Sorry May Not Help: The Impact of Apologies on Social Rejections.

If you have to socially reject someone, will it help to apologize? Social rejection is a painful emotional experience for targets, yet research has been silent on recommendations for rejectors. Across three sets of studies, apologies increased hurt feelings and the need to express forgiveness but did not increase feelings of forgiveness. The investigation of hurt feelings arising from a social rejection is challenging because previous research has shown that participants are reluctant to admit they felt hurt by the rejection. The present research addressed the self-report issue in two ways. First, participants rated how much social rejections would hurt someone's feelings as a function of whether an apology was included across various social rejection scenarios (Studies 1a-e). Second, aggressive behavior was measured in response to face-to-face social rejections that were manipulated to include or exclude apologies (Studies 2a-c). More specifically, Studies 1a-e (N = 1096) found that although individuals sometimes use apologies in social rejections, social rejections with apologies are associated with higher levels of explicit hurt feelings. Studies 2a-c (N = 355) manipulated the presence of an apology in face-to-face social rejections and found that social rejections with apologies cause more aggressive behavior. As in previous research, participants are reluctant to admit to feeling hurt. Finally, Study 3 (N = 426) found that in response to social rejections with apologies, individuals feel more compelled to express forgiveness despite not actually feeling more forgiveness. Implications for the role of language in social rejections are discussed.

Softening the Blow of Social Exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion.

Social exclusion is an interactive process between multiple people, yet previous research has focused almost solely on the negative impacts on targets. What advice is there for people on the other side (i.e., sources) who want to minimize its negative impact and preserve their own reputation? To provide an impetus for research on the interactive nature of exclusion, we propose the Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion. Our theory postulates that targets and sources' needs are better maintained if sources use clear, explicit verbal communication. We propose that sources have three options: explicit rejection (clearly stating no), ostracism (ignoring), and ambiguous rejection (being unclear). Drawing on psychology, sociology, communications, and business research, we propose that when sources use explicit rejection, targets' feelings will be less hurt, their needs will be better protected, and sources will experience less backlash and emotional toil than if sources use ambiguous rejection or ostracism. Finally, we propose how the language of rejections may impact both parties.

Neural and behavioral measures of error-related cognitive control predict daily coping with stress.

This study tested the hypothesis that individual differences in cognitive control can predict individual differences in emotion regulation. Participants completed color-word and emotional Stroop tasks while an electroencephalogram was recorded, and then they reported daily stressful events, affect, and coping for 14 days. Greater posterror slowing in the emotional Stroop task predicted greater negative affect in response to stressors and less use of task-focused coping as daily stressors increased. Participants whose neural activity best distinguished errors from correct responses tended to show less stress reactivity in daily self-reports. Finally, depression levels predicted daily affect and coping independent of cognitive control variables. The results offer qualified support for an integrated conception of cognitive and emotional self-regulation.

Cognitive control in the intertrial interval: evidence from EEG alpha power.

This study used electroencephalogram (EEG) power spectrum analyses to characterize neural activity during the intertrial interval, a period during which online cognitive adjustments in response to errors or conflict are thought to occur. EEG alpha power was quantified as an inverse index of cerebral activity during the period between each response and the next stimulus in a Stroop task. Alpha power was significantly reduced following error responses compared to correct responses, indicating greater cerebral activity following errors. Reduced alpha power was also observed following Stroop conflict trials compared to no-conflict trials, suggesting that conflict engages processes of mental adjustment. Finally, hemispheric differences in alpha power during the intertrial interval supported the complementary roles of the left and right hemispheres in behavioral activation and inhibition.