Stigma-Based Rejection and the Detection of Signs of Acceptance

Abstract

After people experience social rejection, one tactic to restore a sense of belonging is to selectively attend to and readily perceive cues that connote acceptance. The multimotive model of responses to rejection suggests that contextual features of the rejection are important determinants of how people are motivated to respond. According to this model, when rejection is construed as pervasive and chronic, people will be less likely to adopt strategies that promote belonging. Across two studies, we found that chronic rejection-in the context of stigmatization-predicted a slower response time to smiling faces and less recognition of affiliation-related words as compared to a nonstigmatized control group. These results suggest that, unlike more transitory forms of rejection, stigmatization leads to slower detection of signs of acceptance. These responses may hinder belonging repair and thus have important negative implications for health and well-being.

The effects of social exclusion on processing of social information – A cognitive psychology perspective

“…Other studies have found an opposite pattern of results reporting that excluded participants viewed social stimuli particularly negatively, instead. Excluded participants, compared to control groups, rated ambiguous actions as more hostile (DeWall, Twenge, et al ., , Experiments 2–4), were slower to judge faces as happy when the expression turned from neutral to a smile (Smart Richman et al ., ), and were biased to view others as portraying averted gaze (Syrjämäki, Lyyra, & Hietanen, ).…”

“…Theoretical models that describe the effects of exclusion on motivation (Smart Richman & Leary, ; Williams, ) might therefore offer a useful framework for understanding why excluded individuals sometimes judge social stimuli as positive and affiliative (Maner et al ., ), and sometimes as exclusive and threatening (DeWall, Twenge, et al ., ). To thoroughly understand this issue, future research should carefully investigate how different situational factors (Syrjämäki et al ., ), individual traits (Smart Richman et al ., ), and characteristics of the target stimuli (Brown, Sacco, & Medlin, ) moderate the effects of exclusion on judgements.…”

“…For instance, researchers do not always make a clear distinction between perceptual and attentional level processes (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, ; Tanaka & Ikegami, ), or between perception and the entailing judgements (Knowles et al ., ; Pitts et al ., ). Moreover, some terms are vaguely used as follows: For instance, ‘sensitivity’ has been used to refer to discrimination accuracy (as the term is typically used in signal detection theory [SDT]; Bernstein et al ., ), but also to attentional biases (Xu et al ., ) and biased judgements (Smart Richman, Martin, & Guadagno, ). We hope that by providing a cognitive psychology framework, we will help readers form a more detailed understanding of the different phenomena involved in social information processing.…”

The dual path of the rejection (dis)identification model: A study on adolescents with a migrant background

“…Rejection is often described as a form of social exclusion, primarily characterized by direct negative attention, suggesting one is not wanted (and this is different from ostracism, primarily characterized by the experience of being ignored; Riva & Eck, 2016). Minority groups often experience social rejection via discrimination and stigmatization (Branscombe et al, 1999; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Smart Richman, Martin, & Guadagno, 2016) and when rejection persists over time, its effects can be detrimental for individuals' health and well‐being (Bernstein, 2016).…”

Exploring Microaggressions Among Trans Populations: Effects on Feelings of Social Exclusion

“…Additionally, some theorists also argue that other types of negative social experiences can involve being socially excluded, such as discrimination and stigmatization (Goffman, 1963;Kerr & Levine, 2008;Kurzban & Leary, 2001;Richman, Martin, & Guadagno, 2016).…”