Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter

People have a fundamental need for positive and lasting relationships. In this article, we provide an overview of social psychological research on the topic of social acceptance and rejection. After defining these terms, we describe the need to belong and how it enabled early humans to fulfill their survival and reproductive goals. Next, we review research on the effects of social rejection on emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and biological responses. We also describe research on the neural correlates of social rejection. We offer a theoretical account to explain when and why social rejection produces desirable and undesirable outcomes. We then review evidence regarding how people cope with the pain of social rejection. We conclude by identifying factors associated with heightened and diminished responses to social rejection. © The Author(s) 2011

Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: Hot temperature primes increase aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions

To describe mental states that precede aggression and violence, people frequently use words related to hot temperatures. Two experiments examined whether exposure to words related to hot temperatures increases aggressive thoughts, even in the absence of heat. In both experiments, participants were first exposed to words related to either heat, cold, or neutral concepts. Next, participants completed measures that assessed aggressive cognition. In Experiment 1, participants completed a word stem completion task in which some word stems (e.g., "ki _ _") could be completed with either aggressive (e.g., "kill") or nonaggressive (e.g., "kiss") words. In Experiment 2, participants were presented with an ambiguous description of a person and then provided ratings regarding that person's hostility. In both studies, exposure to hot temperature words, relative to cold temperature and neutral words, increased aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions. These findings show a strong link in memory between words related to hot temperatures and aggressive thoughts and biases. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Sweet revenge: Diabetic status as a predictor of interpersonal forgiveness

Conflict pervades social life. To forgive others, people must control their vengeful impulses. The efficiency by which the body uses glucose, an indicator of self-control, might have direct implications for interpersonal forgiveness. In four studies (N= 693), we tested the hypothesis that a physiological marker of deficient glucose use (i.e., type 2 diabetic symptoms) relates to less forgiveness. Higher type 2 diabetic symptoms correlated negatively with a dispositional tendency to forgive others (Study 1) and correlated positively with unforgiving motivations toward hypothetical transgressors (Study 2) and actual transgressors (Study 3). Diabetic symptoms correlated negatively with cooperative behavior in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (Study 4). These findings provide the first evidence that forgiveness depends on how efficiently the body uses glucose. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd

How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence depletion, and disdain

When leaders perform solitary tasks, do they self-regulate to maximize their effort, or do they reduce effort and conserve their resources? Our model suggests that power motivates self-regulation toward effective performance-unless the task is perceived as unworthy of leaders. Our 1st studies showed that power improves self-regulation and performance, even when resources for self-regulation are low (ego depletion). Additional studies showed that leaders sometimes disdain tasks they deem unworthy, by withholding effort (and therefore performing poorly). Ironically, during ego depletion, leaders skip the appraisal and, therefore, work hard regardless of task suitability, so that depleted leaders sometimes outperform nondepleted ones. Our final studies replicated these patterns with different tasks and even with simple manipulation of framing and perception of the same task (Experiment 5). Experiment 4 also showed that the continued high exertion of leaders when depleted takes a heavy toll, resulting in larger impairments later. The judicious expenditure of self-control resources among powerful people may help them prioritize their efforts to pursue their goals effectively

A little acceptance goes a long way: Applying social impact theory to the rejection-aggression link

Social rejection hurts, causing aggression even against innocent people. How can the sting of social rejection be reduced? Based on social impact theory, the authors predicted that aggression would decrease as a power function of the number of people accepting the participant. In Experiment 1, participants included by 0, 1, 2, or 3 players in an online ball-tossing game could aggress against an innocent stranger by requiring him or her to eat very spicy hot sauce. In Experiment 2, participants socially accepted by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 other people could aggress against an innocent stranger by administering loud noise. In both experiments, aggression and unpleasant emotions decreased as a power function according to the number of people accepting the participants, with each addi-tional acceptor having a decreasing incremental effect. Acceptance from others numbs the pain of social rejection, making rejected people less likely to lash out against innocent others. Keywords aggression, emotion, social exclusion, ostracism, interpersonal processes ‘‘Deep down even the most hardened criminal is starving for the same thing that motivates the innocent baby: Love and acceptance.’’ —Lily Fairchilde Regardless of who they are, people want to be accepted by others. Positive and lasting relationships endow life with mean-ing, emotional stability, and physical health. Accordingly, the need to belong is among the most fundamental of all human needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Given the basic need for social connection, one might expect that people would respond to social exclusion with behaviors that would increase the chances of gaining future acceptance. Paradoxically, people tend to do the opposite—they respond to social exclusion with high levels of aggression (e.g., Buckley, Winkel, & Leary