Self-esteem, Social Inclusionary Status, and Inhibition of Rejection

Abstract

Two studies examined the activation of acceptance and rejection cognitions following inclusion and exclusion for high self-esteem (HSEs) and low self-esteem individuals (LSEs). In Study 1, participants were primed with inclusion and exclusion words via words on a computer screen, whereas, in Study 2, participants were included or excluded from a laboratory work group. In both studies, participants completed a lexical decision task (LDT) with acceptance and rejection words as the targets of interest. We found that HSEs inhibited thoughts of rejection following both exclusion and inclusion; they were slower at recognizing rejection words following inclusion and exclusion primes compared to control primes. For LSEs, we found that rejection and acceptance words were equally accessible across prime conditions suggesting that they are vigilant for signs related to how others view them across situations.

Keywords:

• Belonging
• Exclusion
• Inhibition
• Rejection
• Self-esteem

Study 1 was conducted as a class project and Study 2 was conducted as an honors thesis by the second author under the guidance of the first author. The research was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Tanya Lentz is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Victoria.

We are grateful to Jessica Cameron, Geoff MacDonald, Ian Newby-Clark, and Paul Trapnell for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Notes

Research that has measured acceptance/rejection as a dependent variable has primarily examined performance as the independent variable, most notably feedback to success and failure (e.g., Baldwin, Baccus, & Fitzsimons, 2004; Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996; Murray, Griffin, Rose, & Bellavia, 2006). In the current research, rather than focusing on performance, we were solely interested in the literature that has examined the relationship between acceptance/rejection and inclusion and exclusion. Furthermore, we make a distinction between inclusionary status and acceptance/rejection. Being included in a group does not necessarily mean acceptance by the group. For example, one can be made a member of a group because a family member or a friend is a member of the group and that individual orchestrates your inclusion. Yet, this does not guarantee that group members will welcome the new member with open arms and show accepting behavior towards the person.

For a more detailed explanation of the procedures, see Baldwin and Sinclair (1996).

Following Baldwin and colleagues (Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996; Baldwin et al., 2004), we adopted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) rather than a regression approach in order to maintain consistency with their analyses and because of the fairly complex patterns of mean reaction times for the predicted effects.