Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2006 by 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2, 111-132 Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. Interpersonal Rejection as a Determinant of Anger and Aggression Mark R. Leary Department of Psychology Wake Forest University Jean M. Twenge Department of Psychology San Diego State University Erin Quinlivan Department of Psychology The Pennsylvania State University This article reviews the literature on the relationship between interpersonal rejection and aggression. Four bodies of research are summarized: laboratory experiments that manipulate rejection, rejection among adults in everyday life, rejection in child- hood, and individual differences that may moderate the relationship. The theoretical mechanisms behind the effect are then explored. Possible explanations for why rejec- tion leads to anger and aggression include: rejection as a source of pain, rejection as a source offrustration, rejection as a threat to self-esteem, mood improvement follow- ing aggression, aggression as social influence, aggression as a means of reestablish- ing control, retribution, disinhibition, and loss of self-control. As a broad category of behavior, aggression is influ- ship, poverty, or drug use. Furthermore, as we will see, enced by an array of biological, psychological, inter- rejection has been implicated in an array of other ag- personal, and cultural factors. Behavioral researchers gressive behaviors in everyday life, including domestic have examined the effects on aggression of variables as violence and school shootings. Thus, it seems impor- diverse as hormones, brain abnormalities, frustration, tant to explore whether rejection does, in fact, lead to attributions, ego-threats, observation of aggressive aggression and, if so, why. models, deindividuation, and cultural norms (for re- The purpose of this article is to review the research views, see Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, literature that deals with the relationship between inter- 1993; Geen, 1990). personal rejection and the propensity to aggress. Our re- However, one set of common influences on aggres- view focuses on two primary questions: (a) Does the re- sion have, until recently, received relatively little atten- search literature support the hypothesis that rejection tion—those associated with being rejected by other peo- reliably increases the propensity to aggress, and, if so, ple. Common observation suggests that people often (b) why does the relationship between rejection and ag- become angry, if not aggressive, when they feel that oth- gression exist? On the surface, it seems paradoxical that ers have rejected them. Jilted lovers, children ostracized a person who desired to be accepted would, upon per- by their peers, assistant professors denied tenure, and ceiving rejection, respond in angry, aggressive ways that contestants who are voted off reality game shows such further decrease his or her prospects for acceptance. as Survivor are among those in whom one may see evi- dence of aggressive impulses following events in which they feel devalued, unaccepted, or outright rejected. Conceptual Issues In fact, rejection may be one of the most common precursors to aggression. The Surgeon General's re- To begin, we must make it clear precisely what we port on youth violence (Office of the Surgeon General, mean by rejection and the propensity to aggress, and 2001) found that social rejection (conceptualized as offer a disclaimer regarding prosocial reactions to "weak social ties") was the most significant risk factor rejection. for adolescent violence, stronger than gang member- Rejection Correspondence should be sent to Mark Leary, Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109. Rejection has been a difficult construct to define for E-mail: [email protected] two reasons. First, juxtaposing rejection against accep- 111 LEARY, TWENGE, QUINLIVAN tance leads one to treat these states as if they were di- other living being. People can be hurt in numerous chotomous when, in fact, shades of acceptance and re- ways, so that deliberately inflicting physical, psycho- jection clearly exist. Second, people often feel (and logical, social, or financial harm all qualify as acts of act) rejected even though they recognize that the other aggression. person accepts them. For example, a man who knows Of course, people often have an urge to aggress that that his wife loves him dearly may nonetheless feel re- they consciously control. Indeed, people probably sup- jected, hurt, and angry when she ignores him on a par- press their urges to aggress more frequently than they ticular occasion. Similarly, a child who is not selected act on them. For our purposes, it is important to con- first for a team may feel upset even though she is, in sider the effects of rejection not only on overt aggres- fact, chosen for the team, albeit later in the draft. sion but also on aggressive urges. Whether a rejected To provide a more precise way to conceptualize re- individual will actually aggress is presumably a func- jection that avoids dichotomizing experiences into ac- tion not only of his or her psychological state but also ceptance versus rejection, Leary (2001, 2005) sug- environmental factors and internal constraints. gested that acceptance and rejection may be viewed as In many ways, anger can be viewed as the emotional points along a continuum of "relational evaluation." concomitant of the propensity to aggress. According to People value their relationships with other individuals emotion theorists, anger is associated with an action to varying degrees. Acceptance involves a state of rela- tendency toward agonistic behavior aimed at removing tively high relational evaluation in which a person re- an obstacle and asserting control (Frijda, 1986). Of gards his or her relationship with another individual to course, people do not always aggress when angry, and be very valuable or important, whereas rejection is a they may aggress even in a state of calm (as in the case state of low relational evaluation in which a person of a murder for hire). Yet, anger is a signal that bodily does not regard his or her relationship with another in- systems are prepared to take agonistic action. Thus, we dividual as particularly valuable or important. will consider literature on the link between rejection People's emotional and behavioral responses to ac- and anger in addition to that between rejection and ceptance and rejection seem to depend on their percep- overt aggression. tion of how much another person views the relation- ship as valuable or important. People feel accepted Prosocial Reactions to Rejection when perceived relational evaluation exceeds some level but rejected when perceived relational evaluation Although our review focuses on antisocial reactions falls below that criterion, regardless of how much oth- to rejection, we acknowledge at the outset that rejec- ers accept or reject them in an objective sense. Thus, tion may also lead to efforts to increase one's accept- people may feel rejected when perceived relational ability to others by behaving in socially desirable evaluation is not as high as they desire even though ways. People are strongly motivated to be accepted and they recognize that they are liked, valued, and accepted avoid rejection, and signs of low or declining relational (i.e., others' relational evaluation of them falls on the value often lead people to take steps to strengthen their positive side of neutrality). social bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, Sometimes, people perceive not only that another 2001). In fact, the most common initial response to individual does not value their relationship as much as perceived rejection may be to behave in ways that pro- they desire but also that their relational value in that in- mote acceptance, for example by doing favors for oth- dividual's eyes has declined relative to some earlier ers, ingratiating, conforming, fostering socially desir- time. Declining relational evaluation, relational deval- able impressions, and otherwise trying to show that uation, is particularly distressing and seems to lead to one has high relational value. the strongest subjective sense of rejection (Buckley, Indeed, a handful of studies have shown that people Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Leary, 2001). To use this ter- who are rejected may make efforts to enhance their ac- minology, our review will focus on the relationship be- ceptance. For example, Williams, Cheung, and Choi tween perceived low relational evaluation, and particu- (2000) showed that ostracized participants conformed larly relational devaluation, and aggression. In some of to others' incorrect judgments more than those who the studies to be reviewed, participants were explicitly were not ostracized, presumably because conformity rejected, excluded, or ostracized, but in others they re- promotes acceptance. Similarly, Williams and Sommer ceived indications that they had low relational value (1997) found that female (but not male) participants even though they were not behaviorally excluded. who were ostracized by other group members subse- quently contributed more solutions to a group task, al- though this effect occurred only if their individual con- Aggression and the Propensity tributions could not be identified. Likewise, people to Aggress who feel that their romantic partner's affection is wan- Aggression is any physical or verbal action that is ing often take positive steps to increase the strength of performed with the deliberate intention