DeWall Et Al.-2009-It's The Thought That Counts The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping Aggressive Responses To Social Exclusion

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 96, No. 1, 45–59 0022-3514/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013196
It’s the Thought That Counts: The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping
Aggressive Responses to Social Exclusion
C. Nathan DeWall Jean M. Twenge

University of Kentucky San Diego State University
Seth A. Gitter and Roy F. Baumeister

Florida State University
Prior research has confirmed a casual path between social rejection and aggression, but there has been
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
no clear explanation of why social rejection causes aggression. A series of experiments tested the
hypothesis that social exclusion increases the inclination to perceive neutral information as hostile, which
has implications for aggression. Compared to accepted and control participants, socially excluded
participants were more likely to rate aggressive and ambiguous words as similar (Experiment 1a), to
complete word fragments with aggressive words (Experiment 1b), and to rate the ambiguous actions of
another person as hostile (Experiments 2– 4). This hostile cognitive bias among excluded people was
related to their aggressive treatment of others who were not involved in the exclusion experience
(Experiments 2 and 3) and others with whom participants had no previous contact (Experiment 4). These
findings provide a first step in resolving the mystery of why social exclusion produces aggression.
Keywords: social rejection, social exclusion, aggression, hostile cognition, attribution
If the ideal of human social life consists of living together in harmonious coexistence difficult if not impossible. On the other
peace and harmony, then two of its biggest foes are social exclu- hand, the fact that exclusion leads to aggression is puzzling. Social
sion (which thwarts togetherness) and aggression (which prevents acceptance is central to human survival and happiness, as indicated
peace and harmony). These two problems are sometimes linked. by the pervasive and powerful need to belong (Baumeister &
Aggressive people are often excluded; aggressive children are Leary, 1995). Aggression after rejection would seem to be coun-
ostracized, and violent adults are imprisoned (Gottfredson & Hir- terproductive. In plain terms, if a person is rejected by one group,
schi, 1990; Juvonen & Gross, 2005). Social exclusion can also lead then aggressing toward others would seem a foolish, self-defeating
to aggression. Even seemingly minor or vague manipulations of strategy if one desires to gain acceptance. Why would people do
social exclusion produce significant and sometimes substantial this?
increases in aggressive behavior, even toward people other than The present investigation tested the hypothesis that social rejec-
the rejecters (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Kirkpatrick, tion or exclusion activates a hostile cognitive mindset that pro-
Waugh, Valencia, & Webster, 2002; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & motes aggression. Specifically, we predicted that hostile cognition
Stucke, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2003; Warburton, Williams, constitutes the vital link between social exclusion and aggressive
& Cairns, 2006; see Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006, for a treatment of others. That link is difficult to explain in motivational
review). The link between social exclusion and violence has been or emotional terms, but cognition offers a viable and testable
dramatized in violent incidents, such as school shootings; nearly explanation. We turn now to our hypotheses.
all of the perpetrators had previously suffered both acute and
chronic social rejection by peers or relationship partners (Leary,
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).
The Paradox of Rejection and Aggression
It is therefore not surprising that groups or individuals often Basic principles of motivation suggest that when organisms
reject violent, aggressive people because they make peaceful and become deprived of something they want or need, they should seek
it more earnestly (Geen, 1995; Shah & Gardner, 2007). In that
context, aggression is a paradoxical response to social exclusion.
C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky; Human health and happiness, and even basic biological goals of
Jean M. Twenge, Department of Psychology, San Diego State University; survival and reproduction, are difficult to achieve alone, and so
Seth A. Gitter and Roy F. Baumeister, Department of Psychology, Florida human beings are strongly motivated to form and maintain social
State University.
bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Exclusion thwarts the need to
We gratefully acknowledge support by National Institute of Mental
Health Grant MH-65559. We would like to thank J. Michael Bartels for his
belong, so rejected or excluded people ought to redouble their
help with part of the literature review. efforts to gain acceptance. Yet research has repeatedly shown that
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C. rejected people are sometimes aggressive toward partners other
Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, than the ones who rejected them, sometimes even innocent, neutral
Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY, 40506-0044. E-mail: [email protected] persons who have not provoked or offended them in any way
45
46 DEWALL, TWENGE, GITTER, AND BAUMEISTER
(Buckley et al., 2004; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Twenge et al., 2001; these investigations did not include measures of aggression, they
Warburton et al., 2006). do provide consistent evidence that social exclusion does not
One plausible— but now discredited—solution to this puzzle increase nonconscious negative affect.
involved emotion. On an a priori basis, it seemed likely that social Thus, the causal link from exclusion to aggression cannot easily
exclusion would lead to emotional distress (e.g., Baumeister & be explained by either motivation or (conscious and nonconscious)
Tice, 1990) and that this distress would promote irrational, short- emotion. We therefore turned to cognition for an explanation.
sighted, possibly even self-defeating behaviors (e.g., Grilo, Shiff-
man, & Wing, 1989; Keinan, 1987). In fact, multiple investigations Hostile Cognitive Bias
sought to show that emotional distress (measured using self-report
measures) would be the immediate consequence of social exclu- Although the history of aggression theorizing has a long tradi-
sion and might contribute to pathological behavioral responses. tion of emphasizing motivation (as in aggressive instincts) and
Yet these investigations repeatedly failed to show that emotional emotion (as in frustration), recent decades have seen an awakening
responses mediated the link between rejection and aggression. In of interest in the contribution of cognitive processes to aggression.
several studies, emotional distress was not found to be an imme- The general aggression model proposed by Anderson and Bush-
diate response to experimentally administered rejection experi- man (2002) holds that situational influences on aggression often
ences (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002; Gardner, Pickett, & operate by activating cognitive structures, and people who are
Brewer, 2000; Twenge et al., 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2003; predisposed (by state or trait) to perceive aggression may be
Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2002; Zadro, Williams, & especially prone to respond with aggression, even to neutral or
Richardson, 2004). If anything, recent work has suggested that ambiguous events. The hostile cognitive bias takes several forms,
rejection leads to a lack of both pain and emotion (DeWall & including the tendency to interpret ambiguous acts by others as
Baumeister, 2006; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). A meta-analysis reflecting aggression and hostility toward oneself (Tremblay &
by Blackhart, Knowles, and Bieda (2007) concluded that the Belchevski, 2004), to perceive aggression as common in interac-
average effect of rejection on emotional distress was small (aver- tions among others, and to expect that many social interactions will
age effect size ⫽ .26), which could not easily explain the much be characterized by hostility and aggression (Bushman & Ander-
larger increases in aggression that have been found. Moreover, and son, 2002; Dodge, 1980; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge & Frame,
crucially, even studies that have found emotional changes in re- 1982).
sponse to exclusion manipulations have not found that these emo- A recent meta-analysis concluded that there is a strong cor-
tions mediated the aggressive responses (e.g., Buckley et al., 2004; relation between hostile attribution and aggressive behavior,
Twenge et al., 2001). such that people who perceive more hostility are more aggressive
Another possibility is that social exclusion causes nonconscious than others are (Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, &
emotional distress, which may in turn increase aggression. Exclu- Monshouwer, 2002). Anderson, Benjamin, and Bartholow (1998),
sion thwarts a fundamental motivation for positive and lasting for example, showed that the mere presence of a gun increased the
relationships, and if distress is not found using measures of con- accessibility of hostile cognitions in memory. Later work con-
scious emotion, it is possible that such emotional reactions will be firmed these findings and further showed that gun primes in-
found using nonconscious emotion measures. Nonconscious re- creased aggressive responding (Bartholow, Anderson, Carnagey,
sponses often precede conscious ones (Wegner & Bargh, 1998), & Benjamin, 2005). The effect of hostile cognition on aggression
and hence, emotional responses from social exclusion may begin was conditional, however, on existing knowledge structures. Spe-
as nonconscious distress and then later show up in conscious cifically, participants who were hunters associated hunting rifles
emotion. Nonconscious measures of emotion also are not subject with positive outcomes (presumably because this type of gun was
to the possible explanation that is frequently leveled at conscious associated in memory with a positive evaluation of hunting) and
measures of emotion, namely that participants report emotional hence were less likely than were nonhunters to associate hunting
states that will make them look good (or not make them look bad) rifles with aggressive concepts. Hunters were also less aggressive
to people in their environment. than nonhunters were, presumably because seeing rifles did not
Recent evidence contradicts the alternative explanation that activate as much hostile cognition. These studies suggest that
social exclusion produces nonconscious emotional distress, how- activating hostile concepts in memory increases aggressive re-
ever. A series of studies by Twenge et al. (2008) used multiple sponding. Likewise, expecting an interaction partner to be aggres-
measures of nonconscious affect (recalling memories from child- sive or competitive can cause people to behave more aggressively
hood, giving weight to emotions in judgments of word similarity, themselves, thereby fueling an escalating cycle of hostile conflict
measures of emotional accessibility) in response to rejection ma- (Snyder & Swann, 1978). In short, hostile cognitive biases could
nipulations (including the same manipulations used in the present well contribute to elevated rates of aggression. The goal of the
studies). There was no sign of any effect on negative affect. present investigation was to show that social exclusion would
Meanwhile, there were significant increases in nonconscious pos- promote such cognitive biases.
itive affect on all measures, which indicates that the procedures Why might social exclusion foster a hostile cognitive bias?
were effective at eliciting nonconscious affect. Thus, the noncon- When offers or overtures of affiliation are rejected, it may be
scious affective response to rejection appears to be a kind of reasonable to infer that the other person is antagonistic. Indeed, a
coping by promoting positive affect. Parallel findings have begun plausible evolutionary basis could be cited, insofar as humans have
to be reported with other threats, including mortality salience depended on group cooperation for their very survival, and being
(DeWall & Baumeister, 2007) and threats of gender identity and excluded from a group could entail death. Many early civilizations,
implicit racism (Rudman, Dohn, & Fairchild, 2007). Although such as the Greeks, treated exile and death as equivalent punish-
REJECTION, HOSTILE COGNITION, AND AGGRESSION 47
ments. To be sure, rejection today rarely or never has such strong tion to ascertain whether they might contribute to the aggressive
implications, but if evolution has instilled a natural tendency to behaviors, either instead of or alongside the predicted cognitive
regard social exclusion as a profound threat to one’s welfare, then processes. We included manipulations of projected future career
rejected persons may well become predisposed to see others as failure or success alongside the manipulations of expected future
hostile. aloneness versus belongingness to ascertain whether the effects
Some previous empirical findings lend further plausibility to the were specific to exclusion or whether they might generalize to
hypothesis that social exclusion would activate knowledge struc- other forms of bad news. We sought to contrast acceptance,
tures pertaining to hostility. Correlational evidence has shown that rejection, and neutral controls to determine that the crucial impact
loneliness is associated with a hostile perception bias. Jones, came from rejection rather than acceptance.
Freemon, and Goswick (1981), for example, found moderately Thus, the current work sought to resolve the paradox of why
strong relationships between loneliness and perceiving the world socially excluded people behave aggressively. The first goal was to
and others as hostile. Loneliness is also associated with the ten- test the hypothesis that social exclusion causes an increase in
dency to perceive negative intentions in the actions of roommates, hostility-related cognitive processes. The second goal was to show
family members, professors, and medical care professionals
that the hostile cognitive bias that follows social exclusion has
(Hanley-Dunn, Maxwell, & Santos, 1985; Wittenberg & Reis, implications for aggression.
1986). Although the correlational design of these studies does not
allow causal inference, these findings do at least make it plausible
that rejection could promote hostile cognition. Experiments 1a and 1b
Experimental work has provided indirect evidence that social
exclusion increases hostile cognition. Williams, Case, and Govan Experiments 1a and 1b tested the hypothesis that social rejection
(2003), for example, showed that ostracized people responded with creates a hostile cognitive bias. Both experiments used a manipu-
higher levels of implicit racial prejudice compared to people who lation of social rejection in which participants felt personally or
had not been ostracized. In that sense, exclusion in the form of impersonally excluded. For this, we adapted a procedure devel-
ostracism fostered more negative cognitive attitudes toward others. oped by Vorauer, Cameron, Holmes, and Pearce (2003). Partici-
Furthermore, studies with the prisoner’s dilemma game, in which pants expected to interact with a same-sex partner and were
people choose between competitive and cooperative moves, have instructed that they and their partner would first send video mes-
found that participants rejected by one person will adopt a more sages back and forth. By random assignment, half of the partici-
competitive and defensive/exploitative approach in dealing with pants were told that their partner was unwilling to meet with him
others (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). or her (rejection condition). The rest of the participants were told
These findings all suggest that exclusion promotes generalized that they would be unable to meet with their partner because the
cognitive tendencies to perceive a broad range of interactions and partner had to leave the experiment early (control condition). Thus,
interaction partners as antagonistic. What these previous studies half of the participants received feedback that they had been
have not investigated, however, is whether a hostile cognitive bias rejected by another person, whereas the other half of the partici-
following social exclusion promotes aggressive treatment of oth- pants received relatively neutral feedback that their partner would
ers. The current studies did just that. not be able to work with them. The control condition of this study
thus also conveyed a kind of exclusion, as the participant was left
alone by the confederate, and in that sense this design provides a
Present Research
much more conservative test of the impact of rejection than would,
The present studies were designed to test the hypotheses that for example, a condition involving social acceptance. In this ma-
rejection or social exclusion instills a broad inclination to perceive nipulation, the difference is between being left alone as an appar-
hostility in the social environment and that this tendency in turn ently personal rejection and being left alone for reasons that seem
increases aggressive behavior. The studies reported here sought to to have nothing to do with the self.
show an increase in hostility-related cognitive processes following In Experiment 1a, the measure of hostile cognitive activation
a manipulation of social exclusion. Experiments 2– 4 also mea- consisted of rating pairs of words for similarity (Anderson, Car-
sured aggression to test whether the predicted hostile cognitive nagey, & Eubanks, 2003; Bushman, 1996). The word pairs con-
bias would promote aggressive behavior. tained one clearly aggressive word and one ambiguously aggres-
To increase confidence in the conclusions, we relied on multi- sive word. The underlying assumption is that a person with a
method convergence. Social exclusion was manipulated in three hostile mindset will see aggressive and ambiguous words as more
different ways (by having a confederate refuse to interact with the similar than someone in a neutral or positive mindset would.
participant and by using two different types of bogus feedback Experiment 1b measured activation of hostile cognition by having
manipulations). Activation of hostile knowledge structures was participants complete a series of word fragments, some of which
measured in three different ways (rated similarity between aggres- could be completed with either aggressive or nonaggressive words.
sive and ambiguous words, completion of word fragments with Previous research has shown that participants exposed to violent
aggressive words, and attributions of hostility based on an ambig- (vs. nonviolent) song lyrics rated aggressive and ambiguous words
uous vignette). Aggression was measured in two different ways as more similar and completed more word fragments with aggres-
(blasting a game opponent with aversive loud noise and giving a sive words (Anderson et al., 2003). Thus exposure to stimuli
damagingly negative evaluation to an ostensible job candidate). related to aggression causes people to perceive relatively ambig-
Several additional procedures were included to address potential uous stimuli as hostile. We predicted that personal rejection would
alternative explanations. We included measures of mood and emo- promote a hostile cognitive bias, as indicated by higher ratings of
similarity between aggressive and ambiguous words and more I am not sure what happened, but your partner doesn’t want to meet
word stems completed with aggressive words. you. . . . Um, do you guys know each other or something? [The
experimenter waited for participants to say no, which they all did.]
Well, hmm, I guess we won’t be doing the task where you meet each
Method other, because I cannot ask a participant to do something that s/he is
not comfortable with. Um, okay, then I guess you will have to do the
Participants. In Experiments 1a and 1b, 33 undergraduates next tasks alone, and we’ll just keep going with the experiment.
(26 women) and 45 undergraduates (33 women), respectively,
participated in exchange for partial course credit. Participants in the control condition, in contrast, were told the
Materials and procedure. Participants were told that they following:
would take part in a study investigating the processes involved in
meeting other people. After giving informed consent, participants I am not sure what happened, but your partner won’t be able to meet
were told they would be interacting with a same-sex partner and you. . . . I guess s/he has something s/he forgot about and will prob-
would be sending videotaped messages back and forth with their ably have to leave early. . . . well, hmm, I guess you won’t be meeting
each other. Um, okay, then I guess you will have to do the next tasks
partner before actually meeting. The experimenter explained that

alone, and we’ll just keep going with the experiment.

this would allow the experimenters to study how restrictions on
initial meeting situations influence social communication. Partic-
Participants then completed the Brief Mood Introspection Scale
ipants were told that their partner had arrived early and was
(BMIS; Mayer & Gaschke, 1988), which is a 16-item self-report
making the first video message with another experimenter down measure that includes Mood Valence (positive-negative) and
the hall. The experimenter then exited the participant’s room, Arousal (calm-aroused) subscales. Next, participants were given
ostensibly to check on the status of the partner’s videotape. the measure of hostile cognition. In Experiment 1a, participants
After approximately 5 min, the experimenter returned to the rated the similarity of pairs of ambiguous and aggressive words.
participant’s room with a videotape supposedly made by the other Bushman (1996) identified 10 words that had an unambiguously
participant. The experimenter instructed participants to view the aggressive connotation (blood, butcher, choke, fight, gun, hatchet,
video message their partner had recorded. The contents of the hurt, kill, knife, and wound) and 10 words that could be perceived
video message were modeled after a procedure developed by as either aggressive or nonaggressive (alley, animal, bottle, drugs,
Vorauer et al. (2003). The video message was approximately 3 min movie, night, police, red, rock, and stick). Participants were pre-
in length and portrayed a same-sex confederate answering a series sented with all possible pairs of these 20 words and were instructed
of interview questions related to his or her personal and career to rate how much each pair was “similar, associated, or related.”
goals (e.g., “What personal qualities are important to how you see All ratings were made using a 1 (not at all similar, associated, or
yourself?”). Confederates expressed a warm and friendly de- related) to 7 (extremely similar, associated, or related) scale. We
meanor throughout the video message. The experimenter left the computed the average similarity scores for the ambiguous–
room while the participant viewed the videotaped message. aggressive pairs. Scores ranged from 1 to 7, with higher scores
After participants viewed the message, the experimenter re- indicating greater activation of hostile cognition. In Experiment
turned and instructed the participant that he or she would record a 1b, participants were given a word-completion task consisting of
video reply to the partner. Participants were asked to look directly 22 word fragments. Half of the word fragments could be com-
into the camera as if they were actually talking to the other person pleted to form aggressive or nonaggressive words (e.g., “r _ pe”
and were told that they could respond to things that their partner can become rape or ripe). The other half of the word fragments
had said during his or her first message. The experimenter ex- were fillers and could only be completed to form nonaggressive
plained that because most people are not used to being videotaped, words (e.g., “e x _ e_ _” can become exceed or extend). Partici-
the participant would make a warm-up recording so that they could pants were instructed to fill in the missing letters to form a word.
become accustomed to talking comfortably while being video- Hostile cognitive bias was measured by calculating the number of
taped. During the warm-up recording, the experimenter asked the word stems participants completed to form aggressive words.
participant what their hometown was and what year they were in When participants had completed the hostile cognition measure,
school. To bolster the credibility of the cover story, participants participants were debriefed and then dismissed.
were shown their warm-up recording to make certain they believed
that the experimenter was recording their responses. The experi-
menter then recorded the participant’s responses to the same set of Results and Discussion
questions that were asked of the partner. When the participant had Hostile cognitive bias. To assess whether rejection produced a
finished his or her responses, the experimenter said she was going hostile cognitive bias, word-similarity rating scores were com-
to take the participant’s video response to his/her partner to watch. pared using the average similarity rating participants made on
The experimenter explained that it would take a few minutes for aggressive–ambiguous word pairs (Experiment 1a) or the number
the participant’s partner to watch the video; while they waited, of word stems participants completed to form aggressive words
participants completed a demographic questionnaire. (Experiment 1b). Rejected participants (M ⫽ 5.15, SD ⫽ 1.44)
After approximately 5 min, the experimenter returned to the made higher similarity ratings for the aggressive–ambiguous word
participant’s room and delivered the rejection manipulation (based pairs compared to control participants (M ⫽ 4.09, SD ⫽ .90), F(1,
on Bushman, Bonacci, Van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003). For par- 31) ⫽ 6.45, p ⬍ .02. Compared to control participants (M ⫽ 4.32,
ticipants assigned to the rejection condition, the experimenter said SD ⫽ 1.29), rejected participants (M ⫽ 5.83, SD ⫽ 1.15) com-
the following: pleted more stems with aggressive words, F(1, 43) ⫽ 17.16, p ⬍
.001. Thus, rejected participants showed a bias to perceive neutral To test whether increased hostile cognition promoted aggression
or ambiguous stimuli as more hostile than did control participants. following rejection, participants were given the opportunity to
Mood and emotion. Rejected participants did not differ from aggress toward a person not involved in the rejection experience.
control participants in their reported mood valence or mood Participants were told that the author of the essay they had just
arousal (all Fs ⬍ 1, ns). Thus, the observed hostile cognitive bias read was applying for a competitive research assistantship and that
among rejected participants was not due to differences in emotion. they would be able to evaluate whether the author of the essay
The findings of Experiment 1a and 1b provided preliminary would be a viable candidate for the job. Participants were therefore
evidence that rejection leads to a hostile cognitive bias in percep- given a chance to thwart another person’s opportunity for acquir-
tion. Control participants in this study experienced random exclu- ing a desirable job, which constituted the measure of aggression.
sion in that they did not complete the anticipated interaction with The first prediction was that social exclusion would increase
their partner, yet they showed less activation of hostile cognition hostile cognition and aggression. The second prediction was that
than did rejected participants. The independent variable was there- increased hostile cognition would promote aggression.
fore not rejection, per se, but rather personal versus random
exclusion. Participants in the rejection condition completed the

Method
hostile cognitive measure alone ostensibly because of something

negative about himself or herself, whereas participants in the Participants. Thirty undergraduates (22 women) participated
control condition completed the hostile cognitive measures alone in exchange for partial course credit.
because of factors unrelated to him or her. Thus, the results of Materials and procedure. Participants arrived at the laboratory
Experiments 1a and 1b suggest that people who are rejected individually for an experiment ostensibly concerned with the re-
supposedly due to some fault of their own show increased activa- lationship between personality and performance. After giving in-
tion of hostile cognitions. formed consent, participants completed a brief demographic ques-
tionnaire and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ;
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975). All participants then received accurate
Experiment 2 feedback regarding their extraversion score. Following a procedure
developed by Twenge et al. (2001), participants were randomly
The results of Experiments 1a and 1b demonstrated that social
assigned to one of three social feedback conditions: future alone,
exclusion produced a hostile cognitive bias. Experiment 2 was
future belonging, and control. Future-alone condition participants
designed to test whether the increased hostile cognition following
were told that they could anticipate a future devoid of meaningful
rejection led to aggression.
relationships, whereas future-belonging condition participants
The first procedural change of Experiment 2 was in the manip-
were informed that they could anticipate positive and lasting
ulation of social exclusion. Participants in Experiment 2 completed
relationships. Control condition participants did not receive any
a personality test and were given bogus feedback regarding the
additional personality feedback other than their extraversion score.
implications of their personality type for the future belongingness
Participants then completed the BMIS mood measure. The ex-
status. In the crucial condition (future-alone condition), partici-
perimenter then returned and said that there was another experi-
pants were told that they possessed a personality type in which it
ment being conducted in the same laboratory in which one partic-
was likely that they would end up alone in life. Two control groups ipant writes an essay and another participant reads and responds to
were also included. In one (future-belonging condition), partici- the essay. The experimenter explained that one of the other par-
pants were told that they had a personality type that was associated ticipants did not show up for the experiment and asked the partic-
with having many lasting and meaningful relationships in life. ipant to read and respond to the essay. Participants were given a
Participants in the other group (no-feedback control condition) large manila folder labeled “Partner Study” that contained an essay
were not given any feedback about their personality. We thought and essay rating sheet. The contents of the essay were adapted
that this manipulation of social exclusion would provide an espe- from the Donald essay used in Srull and Wyer (1979), in which a
cially conservative test of our hypothesis, as participants in the person’s behavior is presented in a manner in which the person can
future-alone condition did not actually experience rejection by be perceived as either assertive or hostile. To facilitate sympathy
another person; they merely received ostensibly diagnostic feed- and identification, the essay’s author’s gender was matched to the
back that they would likely end up alone in the future. participant’s. The essay read as follows:
The second change was in the measure of hostile cognitive bias.
The major theoretical claim of the current investigation is that I ran into an old friend Lisa the other day, and she came over and
rejected people behave aggressively because they perceive neutral visited me, since by coincidence we live in the same apartment
or ambiguous information as relatively hostile. The previous ex- complex. Right after she arrived, a salesman knocked at the door, but
periments did not measure how participants perceive information I wouldn’t let him come in. I also told Lisa that I refused to pay my
about other people in their immediate environment, however. In rent until my landlord repaints my apartment. Me and Lisa talked for
Experiment 2, participants rated the degree to which they per- a while, had lunch, and then went out for a ride. We used Lisa’s car,
since my car broke down that morning, and I told the garage mechanic
ceived the ambiguous actions of a person in their immediate
that I would have to go somewhere else if he couldn’t fix my car that
environment as hostile. Participants read an essay that was osten- same day. We went to the park for about an hour and then stopped at
sibly written by another participant in the laboratory, in which the a grocery store. I bought a mechanical toothbrush but had to get my
author described behaviors that could be perceived as assertive or money back right away from the clerk because it wasn’t the right one.
hostile in nature. Participants then rated the author on traits related I couldn’t find what I was looking for, so we left and walked a few
to hostility. blocks to another store. The Red Cross had set up a stand by the door
and asked us to donate blood. I lied by saying that I had diabetes and Aggressive responding. Participants who believed they would
therefore couldn’t give blood. It’s funny that I hadn’t noticed it before, end up alone later in life responded more aggressively toward the
but when we got to the store, we found that it had gone out of job candidate than did participants in the other two conditions.
business. It was getting kind of late, so Lisa took me to pick up my car Results showed significant variation between the three experimen-
(which was finally ready) and we agreed to meet again as soon as
tal groups, F(2, 27) ⫽ 7.43, p ⫽ .003. A 2 ⫺1 ⫺1 a priori contrast
possible.
confirmed that future-alone participants evaluated the prospective
Participants then rated their impression of the other participant job candidate significantly more negatively than did both future-
on a series of adjectives related to hostility (i.e., angry, hostile, belonging and no-feedback control participants, F(1, 27) ⫽ 14.82,
dislikable, unfriendly) on a scale from 0 (does not describe the p ⫽ .001. Planned comparisons showed that future-alone partici-
author of the essay at all) to 10 (describes the author of the essay pants (M ⫽ 46.00, SD ⫽ 14.52) were significantly different from
very well). When the participant had completed his or her rating of future-belonging participants (M ⫽ 70.60, SD ⫽ 19.64), F(1,
the other participant, the essay and essay rating sheet were placed 27) ⫽ 10.51, p ⫽ .003. Similarly, future-alone participants (M ⫽
in the manila folder and given back to the experimenter. The 46.00, SD ⫽ 14.52) were significantly different from no-feedback
control participants (M ⫽ 72.00, SD ⫽ 16.35), F(1, 27) ⫽ 11.74,
experimenter then left, ostensibly to take the envelope back to the

p ⫽ 001. Future-belonging participants and no-feedback control
person in charge of the other experiment, returning with an enve-

lope and evaluation form. The experimenter explained that the participants did not differ in terms of their job candidate evalua-
participant whose essay he or she had just read was applying for a tions (F ⬍ 1, ns).
research assistant position. As the research assistant position was Mood and emotion. There was no significant variation among
quite competitive, the other participant was trying to get as many the three experimental groups in mood valence, F(2, 27) ⫽ 1.12,
evaluations as possible from people he or she had come into p ⫽ .34, or arousal (F ⬍ 1, ns). Thus, the hostile cognitive bias and
contact with. Participants were then given a candidate evaluation aggressive behavior among future-alone participants was not due
form. Participants rated the candidate from 1 (strongly disagree) to to differences in reported mood.
10 (strongly agree) on 10 separate statements (e.g., “The applicant Did cognition promote aggression? We used regression to test
would be a dependable employee”). The internal reliability of the whether ratings of hostility had consequences for aggressive re-
10 statements was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .96), so responding among socially excluded participants. For ease of inter-
sponses were summed to create an index of aggressive responding. pretation, we reversed the scoring so higher scores on the total
Higher scores indicated a positive evaluation of the job candidate evaluation index indicated higher levels of aggression. As noted
and a low expression of aggression. A low score, in contrast, above, exclusion increased hostile cognition and aggression. Hos-
indicated a negative evaluation of the job candidate and a high tile cognition uniquely predicted aggression (␤ ⫽ .67), t(27) ⫽
expression of aggression. After participants had completed the 5.78, p ⬍ .001. When hostile cognition was included simulta-
evaluation form, they placed it in an envelope with Department of neously with exclusion in the regression model, the relationship
Psychology letterhead, sealed it, and gave it to the experimenter. between exclusion and aggression was no longer significant (␤ ⫽
Participants were then given a thorough debriefing and were .10), t(27) ⫽ .50, p ⫽ .62. A Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) confirmed
dismissed. that the aggressive responding among socially excluded partici-
pants was mediated by their hostile perceptions of the author of the
essay (z ⫽ 2.96, p ⫽ .003; see Figure 1).
Results and Discussion
Thus, future-alone participants perceived the ambiguous actions
Hostile cognitive bias. Participants who received a future di- of another person as more hostile than did participants in the other
agnostic forecast of social exclusion perceived the ambiguous conditions, and this hostile cognitive bias led rejected participants
actions of another person as significantly more hostile than par- to behave aggressively toward this person.
ticipants in the other conditions did. A hostility index was created
by summing responses to the adjectives hostile, unfriendly, angry, Experiment 3
and dislikable (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .83) Results revealed signifi-
cant variation among the three experimental groups, F(2, 27) ⫽ The findings from the previous studies provided consistent
17.19, p ⬍ .001. A 2 ⫺1 ⫺1 a priori contrast showed that evidence that social rejection led to a hostile cognitive bias. This
future-alone condition participants rated the author of the essay as
significantly more hostile than did both future-belonging and no-
feedback control participants, F(1, 27) ⫽ 34.37, p ⬍ .001. Planned
Hostile Cognition
comparisons showed that future-alone participants (M ⫽ 27.00,
SD ⫽ 4.19) were significantly different from future-belonging β= .75*** β= .67***
participants (M ⫽ 13.10, SD ⫽ 6.74), F(1, 27) ⫽ 25.97, p ⬍ .001.
In addition, future-alone participants (M ⫽ 27.00, SD ⫽ 4.19)
were significantly different from no-feedback control participants
β= .60***
(M ⫽ 13.20, SD ⫽ 6.97), F(1, 27) ⫽ 25.59, p ⬍ .001. Future-
Social Exclusion Aggression
belonging participants and no-feedback control participants did not (β= .10, n.s.)
differ in their hostility ratings of the author (F ⬍ 1, ns). Thus,
social exclusion led people to perceive the ambiguous actions of
another person as hostile, even when that person was not involved Figure 1. Hostile cognition fully mediates the link between social
in the social exclusion experience. exclusion and aggression (Experiment 2). ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001.
hostile cognitive bias, in turn, accounted for the link between iar with the meaning of extraversion and, if they stated that they
rejection and aggression. Still, there are several possible alterna- were unfamiliar with its meaning, were given a short definition of
tive explanations for these findings. The purpose of Experiment 3 the meaning of extraversion. Next, participants were instructed to
was to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 2 using read a brief article ostensibly published in the magazine Psychol-
methods and measures that would allow us to rule out these ogy Today regarding the personality trait surgency while the ex-
possible alternative explanations. perimenter scored the personality test. By random assignment,
One possible alternative explanation for the results of Experi- participants were assigned to one of three personality feedback
ment 2 is that the social exclusion feedback (i.e., anticipating a conditions: interpersonal failure, individual failure, or control.
lonely future) merely constituted a form of undesirable feedback For participants in the interpersonal-failure condition, the article
compared to the other feedback conditions (i.e., anticipating a read (in part) as follows:
future filled with positive relationships or no feedback), as op-
posed to being responses specific to social exclusion. To address A new study conducted at Washington University (WU) in St. Louis
shows how an individual’s future success can be predicted by mea-
this possibility, we modified a procedure from Carvallo and Gab-
suring how high or low they are on surgency. An individual’s level of
riel (2005). Some participants received personality feedback in
surgency, for example, can tell us how they will generally perform in
which they could anticipate individual success (i.e., professional individual tasks. People who score high on surgency often accomplish
success) and interpersonal failure (i.e., lack of relationship fulfill- a great deal, publish books, discover new things, or make contribu-
ment), whereas other participants received the opposite feedback tions to whatever their professions are. It does not, however, tell us
(i.e., that they could anticipate interpersonal success in the future how they will function with others. We cannot measure surgency to
but would experience failure in their professional life). Thus one predict future relationship satisfaction or interpersonal failure. A
group anticipated interpersonal failure and the other individual person who scores high on surgency will most likely become an
failure. A third group of participants (control condition) did not accomplished individual, but he or she may or may not experience
receive any personality feedback related to their future interper- relationship fulfillment.
sonal or individual failure.
Participants in the individual-failure condition, in contrast, read
A second possible alternative explanation for the results is that
the following:
the previously used measure of mood and emotion (BMIS) did not
tap specific emotions relevant to rejection and aggression. From A new study conducted at Washington University (WU) in St. Louis
this perspective, the lack of mediation by mood in the previous shows how an individual’s future individual failure can be predicted
studies could have been due to participants reporting their mood on by measuring how high or low they are on surgency. An individual’s
measures that might not assess rejection- and aggression-relevant level of surgency, for example, can tell us how they will generally fare
affects (e.g., anger, hostility). In Experiment 3, we included mea- in interpersonal relationships. A person who scores high on surgency
sures of both positive–negative and aroused affect (using the will often have lots of friends and long lasting fulfilling romantic
relationships. It does not, however, tell us how they will function
BMIS) and hostile affect using the State Hostility Scale (Anderson,
independently. We cannot measure surgency to predict future profes-
Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). If the lack of mood mediation in the sional accomplishments. A person who scores high on surgency will
previous studies was due to activation of affect directly related to most likely experience fulfilling relationships, but he or she may or
rejection and aggression (as opposed to general positive, negative, may not become an accomplished individual.
or aroused affect), then interpersonal-failure condition participants
should experience the highest level of hostile affect, and this Participants in the control group received no information regard-
should mediate the link between social exclusion and aggression. ing surgency. The experimenter then provided participants with
If emotional response (including hostile affect) plays no role in their personality feedback. Interpersonal-failure participants were
mediating the link between social exclusion and aggression, how- given accurate feedback regarding their extraversion level (high or
ever, then interpersonal-failure condition participants should not low) and were informed that research had confirmed that the
report increased levels of hostile affect compared to individual- participant’s level of extraversion is not a good thing for relation-
failure and control condition participants. ships and is linked to difficulties keeping relationships together in
life. Interpersonal-failure participants were then told that they
scored high on surgency and therefore could anticipate a future
Method
filled with professional accomplishment but may experience a
Participants. Fifty undergraduates (32 women) participated in dearth of long and lasting interpersonal relationships. Individual-
this study in exchange for partial course credit. failure participants, in contrast, were given accurate extraversion
Materials and procedure. Participants arrived at the laboratory feedback and were told that the participant’s level of extraversion
for a study ostensibly concerning the relationship between person- is a good thing for relationships and is linked to having an easy
ality and performance. After giving informed consent, participants time keeping relationships together. Individual-failure participants
completed a brief demographic questionnaire and the EPQ (Ey- were then informed that their high surgency score meant they
senck & Eysenck, 1975). After participants had completed the could anticipate successful interpersonal relationships but might
demographic questionnaire and the EPQ, the experimenter in- experience a lack of professional accomplishment. Control partic-
formed participants that they would score their test on a series of ipants were given their extraversion score, but they did not receive
dimensions and that it was important for the participant to under- any information regarding the implications of their extraversion
stand the dimensions that would be scored. One of these dimen- score for their future interpersonal relationships. Hence,
sions was extraversion and the other was a personality trait called individual-failure and interpersonal-failure participants received
“surgency.” Participants were first asked whether they were famil- unambiguous feedback regarding the relationship between their
level of extraversion and their future belongingness. The main Results and Discussion
difference was that interpersonal-failure participants (whose extra-
Hostile cognitive bias. Interpersonal-failure participants per-
version score was linked to difficulty keeping relationships to-
ceived the author of the essay as more hostile than did both
gether) anticipated a large number of professional accomplish-
individual-failure and control participants. A hostility index was
ments, whereas individual-failure participants (whose extraversion
created by summing responses to the adjectives hostile, unfriendly,
scores were linked to having an easy time keeping relationships
angry, and dislikable (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .87). Results revealed
together) were led to believe that they may or may not experience
significant variation between the three groups, F(2, 47) ⫽ 6.77,
professional accomplishments.
p ⬍ .01. A 2 ⫺1 ⫺1 a priori contrast confirmed that interpersonal-
Results from a validation study confirmed that the interpersonal- failure participants rated the author of the essay as significantly
failure and individual-failure feedback had the intended effects. In more hostile than did both individual-failure and control partici-
the validation study, 65 participants were given the interpersonal- pants, F(1, 47) ⫽ 13.54, p ⬍ .001. Planned comparisons demon-
failure feedback sheet and individual-failure feedback sheet. They strated that interpersonal-failure participants (M ⫽ 27.47, SD ⫽
then rated how much the feedback would make them feel excluded 5.54) perceived the author of the essay as more hostile than did
and accepted, and how much the feedback would cause them to individual-failure participants (M ⫽ 19.14, SD ⫽ 8.94), F(1, 47) ⫽
anticipate professional success and professional failure. Compared 10.26, p ⫽ .002. Interpersonal-failure participants (M ⫽ 27.47,
to the individual-failure feedback, participants rated the SD ⫽ 5.54) also perceived the author of the essay as more hostile
interpersonal-failure feedback as more likely to make them feel than did control participants (M ⫽ 19.94, SD ⫽ 7.79), F(1, 47) ⫽
excluded (Ms ⫽ 4.87 vs. 2.82) and less likely to make them feel 9.33, p ⫽ .001. Individual-failure participants did not differ from
accepted (Ms ⫽ 4.45 vs. 7.72, both ps ⬍ .001). Participants also control participants in their hostility ratings (F ⬍ 1, ns). Thus,
rated the interpersonal-failure feedback, compared to the participants who anticipated a future filled with professional suc-
individual-failure feedback, as more likely to cause them to antic- cess and a lack of flourishing relationships perceived an ambigu-
ipate professional success (Ms ⫽ 7.85 vs. 5.48) and less likely to ous person’s behaviors as more hostile than did participants who
cause them to anticipate professional failure (Ms ⫽ 2.79 vs. 3.55, expected an interpersonally successful, though professionally un-
both ps ⬍ .01). successful, future.
After receiving their personality feedback, participants com- Aggressive responding. Interpersonal-failure participants
pleted the State Hostility Scale and the BMIS. The experimenter gave lower job candidate evaluations than did participants in
then returned and said there was another experiment being both of the other conditions. Results showed significant varia-
conducted in the same laboratory in which one participant tion between the three groups, F(2, 47) ⫽ 8.18, p ⫽ .001. A 2
writes an essay and another participant reads and responds to ⫺1 ⫺1 a priori contrast confirmed that interpersonal-failure
the essay. As in Experiment 2, the experimenter explained that participants responded more aggressively than both individual-
one of the other participants did not show up and asked the failure and control participants did, F(1, 47) ⫽ 15.82, p ⬍ .001.
participant to read and respond to the other person’s essay. Planned comparisons showed that interpersonal-failure partici-
Participants were then handed a large manila envelope labeled pants (M ⫽ 37.71, SD ⫽ 13.69) gave significantly lower job
“Partner Study” that contained the same participant essay and candidate evaluations than individual-failure participants did
rating sheet as in Experiment 2. The essay writer’s gender was (M ⫽ 53.50, SD ⫽ 18.69), F(1, 47) ⫽ 9.23, p ⫽ .004. In
matched to the participant by having one version of the essay addition, interpersonal-failure participants (M ⫽ 37.71, SD ⫽
13.69) rated the job candidate more negatively than control
written in male handwriting and another version written in
participants did (M ⫽ 56.59, SD ⫽ 19.09), F(1, 47) ⫽ 14.05, p ⬍
female handwriting. This was done to facilitate sympathy and
.001. Individual-failure participants did not differ from control
identification with the participant.
participants in terms of their job candidate evaluations (F ⬍ 1, ns).
After completing his or her rating of the other participant, the
Thus, participants who expected to have professional success but
essay and essay rating sheet were placed in the manila folder and
unsuccessful relationships behaved more aggressively than both
were given back to the experimenter. The experimenter then left,
control participants and participants who anticipated individual
ostensibly to take the envelope back to the other experimenter. failure but a lack of professional success did.
When the experimenter returned, the participant was informed that Did cognition promote aggression? We used regression anal-
the author of the essay was applying for a research assistant ysis to test whether hostile perceptions promoted aggression fol-
position. Participants then completed the same candidate evalua- lowing anticipated interpersonal failure. Conditions were coded
tion form used in Experiment 2. The internal reliability of the 10 with interpersonal failure assigned a “1” and the individual-failure
statements was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .96), and therefore and control conditions combined assigned a “0.” For ease of
responses were summed to create an index of aggressive respond- interpretation, we reversed the scoring so that higher scores on the
ing. Higher scores indicated a positive evaluation of the job can- total evaluation index indicated higher levels of aggression. As
didate and a low expression of aggression. A low score, in contrast, noted above, anticipated interpersonal failure increased hostile
indicated a negative evaluation of the job candidate and a high cognition and aggression. Hostile cognition uniquely predicted
expression of aggression. After participants completed the evalu- aggression (␤ ⫽ .35), t(47) ⫽ 2.62, p ⬍ .02. When hostile
ation form, they placed it in an envelope with Department of cognition was included simultaneously in the regression model, the
Psychology letterhead, sealed it, and gave it to the experimenter. relationship between rejection and aggression was still statistically
Participants were then given a thorough debriefing and were significant (␤ ⫽ .34), t(47) ⫽ 2.55, p ⬍ .02. Results from a Sobel
dismissed. test confirmed that the hostile cognitive bias partially mediated the
link between the interpersonal-failure condition and aggression Participants in Experiments 2 and 3 were given an opportunity to
(z ⫽ 2.14, p ⫽ .03; see Figure 2). Partial mediation suggests the aggress toward a person who was not involved in the social
operation of multiple mediating factors (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. exclusion experience, but the aggression was directed toward the
1176). It is therefore likely that one or more factors other than person whose ambiguous actions were perceived as relatively
hostile cognition served as partial mediators of the link between hostile. Thus, a hostile cognitive bias might predict aggressive
the interpersonal-failure condition and aggression. Thus, a hostile responding following social exclusion only when the excluded
cognitive bias partially mediated the link between anticipated person has had an opportunity to perceive the person toward whom
interpersonal failure and aggression. he or she is aggressing as hostile. In the current study, participants
Hostile affect, mood valence, and mood arousal. The three received social exclusion feedback from one source (i.e., the
conditions differed significantly in hostile affect, F(2, 47) ⫽ 3.58, experimenter), rated the degree to which they perceived the am-
p ⬍ .04. In post hoc comparisons, interpersonal-failure (M ⫽ biguous actions of another participant as hostile, and then were
57.47, SD ⫽ 12.51) participants reported less hostile affect than given an opportunity to aggress toward a different participant with
control participants did (M ⫽ 68.12, SD ⫽ 12.66), F(1, 47) ⫽ 6.82, whom they had had no previous contact. Participants were led to
p ⫽ .01, and showed a trend toward less hostile affect than believe that they were playing a competitive reaction-time game
individual-failure participants did (M ⫽ 60.88, SD ⫽ 10.07), F(1,

by computer with another person in the laboratory. In the game,

47) ⫽ 3.09, p ⬍ .09. Individual-failure participants did not differ the loser of each trial was forced to listen to a blast of white noise
from control participants in their reported hostile affect (F ⬍ 1, through a set of headphones. Participants were informed that they
ns). There was no significant variation in either mood valence or would be given the opportunity to set the intensity level and
mood arousal on the BMIS (both Fs ⬍ 1, ns). duration of the blast of white noise to which the other person
Although the drop in hostile affect among interpersonal-failure would be forced to listen to if the other person lost the trial. This
participants was not predicted, this finding is consistent with recent method of measuring aggression has been used in numerous ex-
work that has shown that social exclusion produces decreased periments (e.g., Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006; Bushman &
physical and emotional sensitivity (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). Baumeister, 1998; see Giancola & Chermack, 1998) and has been
To test the possibility that reduced hostile affect mediated aggres- shown to have good construct validity (e.g., Giancola & Zeichner,
sion, we used regression analysis. Conditions were coded with 1995). We predicted that socially excluded participants would rate
interpersonal failure assigned a “1” and the individual-failure and the ambiguous actions of another participant as more hostile than
control conditions combined assigned a “0.” As noted above, would participants in the other conditions, and this hostile cogni-
anticipated interpersonal failure was negatively associated with tive bias would promote aggressive responding even toward a new
hostile affect. Hostile affect did not uniquely predict aggression, person.
however (␤ ⫽ .06), t(47) ⫽ 0.43, p ⫽ .63. This precludes the
possibility that hostile affect mediated the relationship between
Method
anticipated interpersonal failure and aggression (Baron & Kenny,
1986). Including hostile affect and hostile cognition simulta- Participants. Thirty-two undergraduates (22 women) partici-
neously in the regression model left the coefficients for hostile pated in this study in exchange for partial course credit.
cognition (␤ ⫽ .35), t(46) ⫽ 2.56, p ⬍ .02, and interpersonal Materials and procedure. Participants arrived at the laboratory
failure (␤ ⫽ .35), t(46) ⫽ 2.56, p ⬍ .02, essentially unchanged. individually for a study ostensibly concerning the relationship
These findings suggest that the results related to hostile cognition between personality and performance. After giving informed con-
and aggression cannot be attributed to differences in hostile, neg- sent, participants were led to believe that they had a same-sex
ative, or aroused affect. partner with whom they would play a reaction-time game later in
the study. Participants then completed the EPQ and were exposed
Experiment 4 to the same social exclusion manipulation as in Experiment 3
(modeled after that used in Carvallo & Gabriel, 2005). Specifi-
Experiment 4 was a conceptual replication of Experiment 3 that cally, some participants read a bogus article describing the trait
allowed us to address a possible limitation of Experiments 2 and 3. surgency, were given accurate extraversion/introversion feedback,
were told that they scored high on surgency, and were led to
believe that they could expect to have professional success but
interpersonal failure (interpersonal-failure condition) or that they
could expect to have interpersonal success but professional failure
Hostile Cognition
(individual-failure condition). A third group of participants simply
β= .47*** β= .35*
received accurate extraversion/introversion feedback (control con-
dition).
Participants then completed the State Hostility Scale and BMIS.
The experimenter then returned to the room and, as in Experiments
β= .50***
2 and 3, informed the participant that they would read and respond
Social Exclusion Aggression
(β= .34*) to an essay written by a same-sex participant from a different
study. Participants were then handed a large manila envelope
labeled “Partner Study” that contained the same participant essay
Figure 2. Hostile cognition partially mediates the link between social and rating sheet used in Experiments 2 and 3. As in Experiments
exclusion and aggression (Experiment 3). ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⱕ .001. 2 and 3, the other person’s gender was matched to the participant’s
gender by having one version of the essay written in male hand- .02, and had higher composite aggression scores, F(1, 29) ⫽ 13.20,
writing and another version written in female handwriting. p ⫽ .001, than both individual failure and control participants did.
After reading and responding to the essay, participants were Thus, participants in the interpersonal-failure condition behaved
informed that their partner had to leave the experiment unexpect- more aggressively than participants in the other two conditions did.
edly and that they were going to play the reaction-time game with Hostile affect, mood valence, and arousal. There was no sig-
a same-sex person who was making up credit for a missed study. nificant variation among the three experimental groups on hostile
In actuality, the computer was programmed to mimic a person’s affect, mood valence, or arousal (all Fs ⬍ 1, ns). The null effect for
responses. The experimenter explained that participants would hostile affect suggests that the tendency for interpersonal-failure
have to press a button as quickly as possible on a series of trials participants to report less hostile affect in Experiment 3 was not a
and that whoever responded slower on a given trial would hear a reliable effect. These findings contradict the alternative explana-
blast of white noise. Each participant set the level of noise to be tion that differences in hostile affect, mood valence, or arousal
heard by the other person, including both volume (a level ranging contributed to the hostile cognition and aggression that accompa-
from 0 to 10) and duration (determined by holding down the nied anticipated interpersonal failure.
mouse button). Did cognition promote aggression? The main purpose of Ex-
A Macintosh computer controlled the events in the reaction-time periment 4 was to test whether anticipated interpersonal failure
task and recorded the duration and volume of white noise that would lead to hostile perceptions of another person’s ambiguous
participants administered for each of 25 trials. Previous research actions and whether this hostile cognitive bias would be related to
has shown that the first trial provides the best measure of unpro- aggressive behavior toward another person with whom they had
voked aggression because participants have not yet received aver- had no previous contact. As in Experiment 3, conditions were
sive blasts of noise from their opponent (Bushman & Baumeister, coded with interpersonal failure as “1” and individual failure and
1998; Twenge et al., 2001). Therefore, the standardized noise control conditions combined under “0.” A regression analysis
intensity and duration levels from the first trial were summed and revealed that, as reported above, interpersonal failure predicted
used as the composite measure of aggression. Once participants hostile cognitive bias scores (␤ ⫽ .61), t(30) ⫽ 4.19, p ⫽ .001, and
had completed the reaction-time game, they were debriefed and composite aggression scores (␤ ⫽ .55), t(30) ⫽ 3.65, p ⫽ .001. As
then dismissed. predicted, hostile cognitive bias scores predicted aggression (␤ ⫽
.38), t(30) ⫽ 2.27, p ⫽ .03. The association between hostile
cognition and aggression was not significant when condition was
Results and Discussion
included in the model, however (␤ ⫽ .07, t ⬍ 1, ns). Hence the
Hostile cognitive bias. As in Experiment 3, participants who hostile cognitive bias that accompanied anticipated interpersonal
anticipated interpersonal failure perceived the ambiguous actions failure promoted aggressive responding, but hostile cognition did
of the essay author as more hostile than participants in the other not mediate the relationship between anticipated interpersonal
conditions did. A hostility index was created by summing re- failure and aggression. These findings provide further evidence
sponses to the adjectives hostile, unfriendly, angry, and dislikable that hostile cognition relates to aggression in response to social
(Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .63). Results revealed significant variation exclusion, even toward a person with whom participants had no
among the three experimental groups, F(2, 29) ⫽ 8.50, p ⫽ .001. previous contact.
A 2 ⫺1 ⫺1 a priori contrast confirmed that interpersonal-failure
participants perceived the author of the essay as more hostile than General Discussion
both individual-failure and control participants did, F(1, 29) ⫽
16.92, p ⬍ .001. Planned comparisons demonstrated that the Social exclusion and aggression are often linked. People who
interpersonal-failure participants (M ⫽ 25.45, SD ⫽ 6.59) rated the behave aggressively are often excluded from groups. At the same
essay author as more hostile than individual-failure participants time, social exclusion frequently causes increases in aggressive
did (M ⫽ 15.64, SD ⫽ 6.83), F(1, 29) ⫽ 13.50, p ⫽ .001. behavior. Rejection poses a serious and fundamental threat to
Interpersonal-failure participants (M ⫽ 25.45, SD ⫽ 6.59) also human existence and meaning, and it seems logical that rejected
rated the essay author as more hostile than control participants did people would behave in a way that would garner future acceptance.
(M ⫽ 16.10, SD ⫽ 5.11), F(1, 29) ⫽ 11.73, p ⫽ .002. Individual- Against that line of reasoning, psychologists have amassed a large
failure and control participants did not differ in terms of their body of evidence confirming a causal path from social rejection to
hostility ratings (F ⬍ 1, ns). Thus, these findings replicate those of aggression (Buckley et al., 2004; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Twenge
Experiment 3, showing that interpersonal-failure participants per- et al., 2001; Warburton et al., 2006). It is less clear, however, why
ceived the ambiguous actions of another person as more hostile rejection causes aggression. Previous work has suggested that the
than both individual-failure and control participants did. link from exclusion to aggression cannot easily be explained by
Aggression. Interpersonal-failure participants behaved more either motivation or emotion (e.g., Buckley et al., 2004; Twenge et
aggressively than both individual failure and control participants al., 2001). One possibility is that rejection leads to increased
did, blasting a higher level of painful noise. Results revealed activation of hostile cognitions, which in turn has consequences for
significant variation on the noise intensity, F(2, 29) ⫽ 4.02, p ⬍ aggressive treatment of others. The experiments reported here
.03, noise duration, F(2, 29) ⫽ 3.27, p ⫽ .05, and composite provide consistent support for this hypothesis.
aggression measures, F(2, 29) ⫽ 6.77, p ⫽ .004. Using 2 ⫺1 ⫺1 a Participants who experienced social exclusion, compared with
priori contrasts, we confirmed that interpersonal-failure partici- socially accepted and control participants, showed substantial in-
pants administered a higher level of noise intensity, F(1, 29) ⫽ creases in hostility-related cognitive processes. This took the form
7.73, p ⫽ .009, a longer duration of noise, F(1, 29) ⫽ 6.45, p ⬍ of rating aggressive and ambiguous words as similar (Experiment
1a), completing word fragments with aggressive words (Experi- to social exclusion, whether in the form of ostracism by childhood
ment 1b), and rating the ambiguous actions of another person as peers (Kupersmidt, Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995; McDougall,
hostile (Experiments 2– 4). Hostile cognition was found only Hymel, Vaillancourt, & Mercer, 2001) or formal imprisonment as
among participants who experienced or anticipated social exclu- a criminal (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Conversely, laboratory
sion. Among participants who anticipated interpersonal success manipulations of social exclusion cause people to lose the will to
but individual failure, no hostile cognitive bias emerged. Thus, regulate their behavior according to external standards (Baumeis-
social exclusion promoted a generalized cognitive tendency to ter, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; DeWall, Baumeister, &
perceive a broad range of information as antagonistic. Vohs, in press; Oaten, Williams, Jones, & Zadro, 2008). Applied
The second goal of the current investigation was to demonstrate to the present investigation, these results suggest that social ex-
that the hostile cognitive bias that accompanied social exclusion clusion creates a sense that one has been betrayed by others, as
had implications for aggression. Replicating previous research, one’s efforts to behave properly and seek acceptance have been
socially excluded participants were more aggressive; in addition, met instead with rejection and exclusion. This sense of betrayal
the hostile cognitive bias that followed the exclusion consistently causes excluded people to perceive neutral information in the
predicted aggressive responding. In Experiments 2 and 3, the environment as relatively hostile, which then has consequences for
relationship between social exclusion and aggression was medi- their aggressive treatment of others.
ated by hostile cognition. Experiment 4 showed that the hostile
cognition bias following social exclusion predicted aggression Alternative Explanations, Limitations, and
toward a third person who was not involved in the exclusion Future Directions
experience and with whom participants had had no previous con-
tact. The results from Experiment 4 demonstrated a crucial bound- These results provide consistent evidence that social exclusion
ary condition to the effects observed in Experiments 2 and 3: The causes a hostile cognitive bias, which has direct implications for
effect of hostile cognition in mediating the relationship between aggression. Despite the consistency and strength of these effects,
rejection and aggression was conditional upon the opportunity to there are several alternative explanations that deserve consider-
perceive hostility in the target of aggression. When the hostile ation. A first possibility is that social exclusion simply constitutes
cognitive bias was directed toward the target of aggression (as in a form of bad news. If this is true, then participants who received
Experiments 2 and 3), hostile cognition mediated the rejection– any form of positive feedback should not show a hostile cognitive
aggression link. In contrast, when the hostile cognitive bias was bias or aggressive behavior. The results from the interpersonal-
directed at a person other than the target of aggression, hostile failure and individual-failure conditions in Experiments 3 and 4
cognition was related to— but did not mediate—aggression toward contradict this explanation. Interpersonal-failure participants were
another target. The implication is that hostile cognition plays a informed that they would have successful professional accom-
mechanistic role in the rejection–aggression link when that cogni- plishments later in life, but they would also experience difficulty
tion is directed toward the target of aggression, whereas hostile having successful interpersonal relationships. Individual-failure
cognition that is not directed toward the target of aggression relates participants anticipated a future marked by interpersonal success
to later aggression but is not independent of whether a person has but possible professional failure. Although participants in the
been rejected. interpersonal-failure condition received positive feedback regard-
How might the current findings be reconciled with other evi- ing their future professional accomplishments, these participants
dence suggesting desirable, prosocial responding following social showed a pronounced hostile cognitive bias and behaved quite
exclusion? Past findings have shown that excluded people are aggressively. Social exclusion appears to be such a basic threat that
eager to connect with potential sources of renewed affiliation but it increases hostile cognitive biases and aggression even in the
only with individuals who appear to represent immediate and presence of anticipated professional success.
promising prospects for social acceptance (Maner, DeWall, It is also possible that the effects of social exclusion on hostile
Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). When others appear to be less cognition and aggression could be attributed to differences in
promising in terms of the potential for social connection, excluded emotional response. According to this perspective, social exclu-
people behave in a relatively hostile manner (e.g., Twenge et al., sion produces increased negative emotions, which in turn causes
2001). This depiction of the excluded person is consistent with the hostile cognition and aggression. In each experiment, participants
findings from the current experiments, in which the targets that completed the BMIS, which provided measurements of mood
excluded people were perceived as hostile and toward whom valence and arousal. Negative emotion and arousal have both
excluded people behaved aggressively did not represent potential played prominent roles in classic social psychological theories of
sources of social acceptance. Excluded people might not show aggression (Berkowitz, 1982; Zillman, 1983). It was still possible,
such a strong hostile cognitive bias toward others for whom the however, that the BMIS may not have measured emotional re-
likelihood of renewed affiliation was relatively high. sponses that were theoretically relevant to aggressive responses.
More broadly, writers dating back at least to Freud (1930/1961) To address this possibility, we included the State Hostility Scale in
have emphasized the idea that human social life depends on an Experiments 3 and 4 (Anderson et al., 1995). However, these
implicit bargain. Individuals must restrain their impulses, sacrifice experiments provide no support for a mood mediation explanation.
some of what they want, and effortfully bring their behavior into In all but one case, excluded participants did not report emotional
agreement with social standards; in exchange, they reap the re- states that differed from socially accepted and control participants.
wards of belonging to the group. Recent work has begun to The only exception was Experiment 3, in which excluded partic-
confirm that this bargain can break down on either side. Failing to ipants reported somewhat less hostile affect than nonexcluded
control oneself and to behave in a socially prescribed fashion leads participants. Thus, the current findings suggest that hostile cogni-
tion is a far better predictor of aggression following social exclu- that size effect simply fails to reach significance without very large
sion than negative emotion is. samples.) If the lack of emotion were due to the weakness of this
We hasten to add that the current investigation was limited in manipulation, then persons who imagine experiencing it ought to
the number of emotions that were measured and the type of spot its weakness and say they would not feel upset. That is not
emotion measurement technique that was used. We did not test what they say. Instead, people expect that this manipulation will be
whether our social-exclusion manipulations influenced the amount very upsetting, but in reality it turns out to be much less so.
of shame participants felt nor did we include measures of shame Moreover, this pattern is hardly unique to our manipulations and,
proneness, both of which may have had implications for aggres- in fact, conforms to what has repeatedly been shown in research on
sion (see Tangney, Wagner, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, affective forecasting, which is that people predict strong, lasting
1996). Some prior work has shown that social exclusion does not emotional reactions when imagining a broad variety of events—
increase shame (Twenge, et al., 2003, Experiment 1), but it is still but they experience much less emotion when these events actually
possible that future work may benefit from considering state or occur (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003).
trait shame as a potential mediator or moderator of the rejection– In short, we cannot completely rule out that emotion might
aggression link. Also, we relied solely on self-report measures of mediate between rejection and aggression in some other studies
emotion. Using physiological measures (e.g., electroencephalo- with other procedures, but we by now have ample evidence that
gram, electromyography, functional magnetic resonance imaging) multiple manipulations of social exclusion produce strong aggres-
may have allowed for more fine-grained measurements of partic- sive reactions without any sign of emotional mediation. We sym-
ipants’ current emotional state compared to self-report measures. pathize with those who may still advocate the emotional mediation
Prior work, for example, has shown that anger correlates with theory because it was our own initial hypothesis, but we have
greater left than right frontal electroencephalographic activity abandoned it after repeated failures. More generally, accumulating
(Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Although not all anger leads to evidence has come to question the widespread assumption that
aggression (Averill, 1982), recent evidence indicates that this emotion is the common mediator between situational events and
frontal cortical asymmetry can play a causal role in predicting behavioral responses (for review, see Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall,
aggressive behavior (Peterson, Shackman, & Harmon-Jones, & Zhang, 2007; also Schwarz & Clore, 2007). Emotion is undoubt-
2008). It is possible that asymmetrical frontal cortical activity or edly a vitally important part of human functioning, but its func-
other physiological responses may play a mediating role in the tions may be other than the direct causation of behavior.
rejection–aggression link (in addition to hostile cognition). Future researchers may investigate how hostile cognitive biases
One might also question whether our manipulations provided develop and shape aggressive behavior within the context of close
sufficiently impactful forms of social rejection to produce the personal relationships. As is typical with much of the empirical
requisite emotional reactions. Possibly other, more direct forms of work in the social exclusion literature, our studies were conducted
rejection would produce greater emotional distress than what we with individuals who were unacquainted with each other before
found (e.g., Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008; Twenge et al., entering the laboratory. Of course, people often experience social
2001). To be sure, we have used the terms rejection and social exclusion within the context of longer lasting—and presumably
exclusion somewhat interchangeably, and the total set of manipu- more meaningful—relationships than the exclusion our partici-
lations used in these studies would be more precisely described as pants experienced at the hands of a stranger. Experiencing social
social exclusion rather than rejection per se. Only the procedure of exclusion from close friends, family members, or a romantic
Experiments 1a and 1b included a direct personal rejection of the relationship partner may promote a hostile cognitive bias and
participant, in the sense that the partner ostensibly decided not to aggression, but such responding will likely depend on the impor-
interact with the participant after viewing the participant’s video. tance of the relationship and the specific interpersonal domain that
The other manipulations (e.g., bogus feedback predicting a lone- has been threatened (see Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2001). If someone
some future) might not be regarded as actual rejection per se. experiences social exclusion from an important romantic relation-
There are, however, several arguments to be made in support of ship partner, for example, then the excluded person may perceive
the present procedures. First, in the present studies and in other hostility and hence behave aggressively toward others who appear
investigations that have used them, they have repeatedly produced similar to the relationship partner and who represent no potential
large effects on behavior, so they are highly impactful, even source of reconnection.
though the impact may not include emotion. Second, the future- Another possible avenue for future inquiry may involve identi-
alone manipulation has consistently produced results that parallel fying other types of hostile cognition that play a role in promoting
a direct and immediate group-rejection manipulation (e.g., Twenge aggression following social exclusion. We found evidence of par-
et al., 2001). Third, as noted earlier, a meta-analysis combining tial mediation in Experiment 3, which by definition indicates that
results from many studies has found at best only a small average other processes were involved in fostering aggressive responses to
effect of exclusion on emotion (Blackhart et al., 2007). social exclusion. Also, we found no evidence that hostile cognition
Fourth, another recent investigation by some of the present mediated the rejection–aggression link when the hostile cognition
authors (Twenge et al., 2008) included a study in which some was not directed toward the target of aggression (Experiment 4).
participants were asked to intuitively imagine how they would The current investigation measured accessibility of hostile cogni-
respond to the same future-alone manipulation that was used here, tion (Experiment 1a) and hostile attribution bias (Experiments
and they predicted strong emotional distress—whereas those who 1b– 4), but it is possible that other types of hostile cognition may
actually experienced it reported no significant increase in distress. have impacted the aggression we observed. One possibility is that
(Note: The effect size in our studies has been in the neighborhood social exclusion primes aggressive behavioral scripts. Scripts refer
of the .26 effect found in Blackhart et al.’s [2007] meta-analysis; to concepts stored in memory that guide actions, plans, and social
interactions (Schank & Abelson, 1977). Social exclusion and ag- Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and
gressive behavioral scripts may be closely linked in memory, Social Psychology, 88, 589 – 604.
which would give rise to aggression when people experience social Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
exclusion. interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion.
Concluding Remarks Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.
The current investigation sought to resolve the paradox of why Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social
exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces in-
socially excluded people behave aggressively. Although one might
telligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
expect (and hope) that social exclusion would promote desirable
817– 827.
and prosocial responses, an abundance of evidence suggests that Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How
social exclusion frequently results in aggression. Explanations emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather
based on motivational or emotional processes have been consis- than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
tently discredited. Psychologists have therefore been left wonder- 167–203.
ing what, if any, process may help to explain the link between Berkowitz, L. (1982). Aversive conditions as stimuli to aggression. In L.
social exclusion and aggression. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15,
The current findings may offer a first step in resolving the pp. 249 –288). New York: Academic Press.
mystery of processes that promote aggression following social Blackhart, G. C., Knowles, M. L., & Bieda, K. (2007). A meta-analytic
exclusion: Excluded people see the world through blood-colored review of affective reactions and self-esteem in response to social
rejection: Support for the need to belong and sociometer theories.
glasses. Socially excluded people find words related to violence
Manuscript submitted for publication.
and aggression easily accessible and perceive others as antagonis-
Buckley, K., Winkel, R., & Leary, M. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and
tic and hostile. Moreover, the activation of hostile cognition is rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal
directly related to the aggression that is so often observed in people of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14 –28.
who have been rejected. Though it is potentially disturbing to Bushman, B. J. (1996). Individual differences in the extent and develop-
observe the relative ease with which rejected participants in our ment of aggressive cognitive-associative networks. Personality and So-
studies abandoned their normal inclination toward cooperative and cial Psychology Bulletin, 22, 811– 819.
prosocial behaviors, it is also encouraging to understand one Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and
reason why they became aggressive. It is our hope that the present hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model. Person-
findings lead to a better understanding of why rejection causes ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679 –1686.
aggression and what measures can be taken to prevent such un- Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcis-
wanted and harmful behavior. sism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or
self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 75, 219 –229.
References Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Van Dijk, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003).
Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reac-
pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and tance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social
weapon names. Psychological Science, 9, 308 –314. Psychology, 84, 1027–1040.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Carvallo, M., & Gabriel, S. (2005). No man is an island: The need to
Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. belong and dismissing avoidant attachment style. Personality and Social
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to Psychology Bulletin, 32, 697–709.
violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain:
thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold,
960 –971. affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot temperatures, and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15.
hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). From terror to joy: Automatic
affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, tuning to positive affective information following mortality salience.
434 – 448. Psychological Science, 18, 984 –990.
Averill, J. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (in press). Satiated with
Springer-Verlag. belongingness? Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task framing
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable on self-regulatory performance. Journal of Personality and Social
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and Psychology.
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior.
51, 1173–1182. Child Development, 51, 162–170.
Bartholow, B. D., Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Benjamin, A. J. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information processing factors
(2005). Interactive effects of life experience and situational cues on in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of
aggression: The weapons priming effect in hunters and nonhunters. Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146 –1158.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 48 – 60. Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits
Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620 – 635.
video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck
event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: EDITS.
chology, 42, 532–539. Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents (J. Strachey, Trans.). New
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). York: Norton. (Original work published 1930).
Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., & O’Mara, E. M. (2008). When rejection by one consequences of early childhood rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Inter-
fosters aggression against many: Multiple-victim aggression as a con- personal rejection (pp. 213–247). New York: Oxford.
sequence of social rejection and perceived groupness. Journal of Exper- Oaten, M., Williams, K. D., Jones, A., & Zadro, L. (2008). The effects of
imental Social Psychology, 44, 958 –970. ostracism on self-regulation in the socially anxious. Journal of Social
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer. M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and Clinical Psychology, 27, 471–504.
and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., &
social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486 – 496. Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive
Geen, R. G. (1995). Human motivation: A social psychological approach. behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916 –934.
Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Peterson, C. K., Shackman, A. J., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). The role of
Giancola, P. R., & Chermack, S. T. (1998). Construct validity of laboratory asymmetrical frontal cortical activity in aggression. Psychophysiology,
aggression paradigms: A response to Tedeschi and Quigley (1996). 45, 86 –92.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 237–253. Rudman, L. A., Dohn, M. C., & Fairchild, K. (2007). Implicit self-esteem
Giancola, P. R., & Zeichner, A. (1995). Construct validity of a competitive compensation: Automatic threat defense. Journal of Personality and
reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 199 –204. Social Psychology, 93, 798 – 813.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and under-
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. standing: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Oxford, En-
Grilo, C. M., Shiffman, S., & Wing, R. R. (1989). Relapse crises and gland: Erlbaum.
coping among dieters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences.
57, 488 – 495. In A. Kruglanski & E. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
Hanley-Dunn, P., Maxwell, S. E., & Santos, J. F. (1985). Interpretation of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385– 407). New York: Guilford.
interpersonal interactions: The influence of loneliness. Personality and Shah, J., & Gardner, W. L. (2007). Handbook of motivation science. New
Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 445– 456. York: Guilford.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). When actions reflect attitudes: The
activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left prefrontal activation is politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social
associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Person- Psychology, 34, 1034 –1042.
ality and Social Psychology, 80, 797– 803. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in
Jones, W., Freemon, J., & Goswick, R. (1981). The persistence of loneli- structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological method-
ness: Self and other determinants. Journal of Personality, 49, 27– 48. ology 1982 (pp. 290 –312). Washington, DC: American Sociological
Juvonen, J., & Gross, E. F. (2005). The rejected and the bullied: Lessons Association.
about social misfits from developmental psychology. In K. D. Williams, Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1979). The role of category accessibility
J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants
social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 155–170). New York: and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
Psychology Press. 1660 –1672.
Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D., Marschall, D. E., &
under controllable and uncontrollable threats. Journal of Personality and Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of shame and guilt to constructive versus
Social Psychology, 52, 639 – 644. destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2001). Evolutionary perspectives on and Social Psychology, 70, 797– 809.
self-evaluation and self-esteem. In G. Fletcher & M. Clark (Eds.), The Tremblay, P. F., & Belchevski, M. (2004). Did the instigator intend to
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Interpersonal pro- provoke? A key moderator in the relation between trait aggression and
cesses (pp. 411– 436). Oxford, England: Blackwell. aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 409 – 424.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G. D. (2002). Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., &
The functional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differential Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior.
prediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56 – 66.
82, 756 –767. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Marquez, A., Reid,
Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. (1995). Developmental M. W., & Koole, S. L. (2008). Automatic emotion regulation and
patterns of childhood peer relations as predictors of externalizing be- nonconscious coping after social exclusion: Why rejection doesn’t hurt
havior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 825– 843. as much as you think. Manuscript in preparation.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If
rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive
Behavior, 29, 202–214. behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058 –1069.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t it fun to get the respect
rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and that we’re going to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggres-
Social Psychology Review, 10, 111–132. sion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261–272.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social
The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bul- exclusion increases self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personality and
letin, 131, 202–223. Social Psychology, 83, 606 – 615.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social
Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? “”Resolv- exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaningless-
ing the “porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- ness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Person-
chology, 92, 42–55. ality and Social Psychology, 85, 409 – 423.
Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta- Vorauer, J. D., Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Pearce, D. G. (2003).
experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Invisible overtures: Fears of rejection and the signal amplification bias.
102–111. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 793– 812.
McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When
ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control depri- Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1986). Loneliness, social skills, and
vation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 213–220. social perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12,
Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social 121–130.
life. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How long can you
social psychology: Vols. 1 & 2 (4th ed., pp. 446 – 496). New York: go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of
McGraw-Hill. belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of
Williams, K. D., Case, T. I., & Govan, C. (2003). Impact of ostracism on Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560 –567.
social judgments and decisions: Explicit and implicit responses. In J. Zillman, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. Donner-
Forgas, K. Williams, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), Responding to the social stein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp.
world: Implicit and explicit processes in social judgments and decisions 75–101). New York: Academic Press.
(pp. 325–342). New York: Psychology Press.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. Zanna Received September 12, 2007
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 35 (pp. 345– Revision received April 18, 2008
411). New York: Elsevier. Accepted June 17, 2008 䡲
New Editors Appointed, 2010 –2015

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of 4 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2010. As of January 1,
2009, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
● Psychological Assessment (http://www.apa.org/journals/pas), Cecil R. Reynolds, PhD, De-
partment of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, 704 Harrington Education
Center, College Station, TX 77843.
● Journal of Family Psychology (http://www.apa.org/journals/fam), Nadine Kaslow, PhD,
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Grady Health System, 80 Jesse Hill Jr.
Drive, SE, Atlanta, GA 30303.
● Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes (http://www.apa.org/
journals/xan), Anthony Dickinson, PhD, Department of Experimental Psychology, University
of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom
● Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differ-
ences (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp), Laura A. King, PhD, Department of Psychological
Sciences, University of Missouri, McAlester Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2009, manuscripts should be submitted
electronically via the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website listed above with
each journal title).
Manuscript submission patterns make the precise date of completion of the 2009 volumes
uncertain. Current editors, Milton E. Strauss, PhD, Anne E. Kazak, PhD, Nicholas Mackintosh,
PhD, and Charles S. Carver, PhD, will receive and consider manuscripts through December 31,
2008. Should 2009 volumes be completed before that date, manuscripts will be redirected to the new
editors for consideration in 2010 volumes.

DeWall Et Al.-2009-It's The Thought That Counts The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping Aggressive Responses To Social Exclusion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeWall Et Al.-2009-It's The Thought That Counts The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping Aggressive Responses To Social Exclusion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeWall Et Al.-2009-It's The Thought That Counts The Role of Hostile Cognition in Shaping Aggressive Responses To Social Exclusion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 96, No. 1, 45–59 0022-3514/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013196

C. Nathan DeWall Jean M. Twenge

Seth A. Gitter and Roy F. Baumeister

Keywords: social rejection, social exclusion, aggression, hostile cognition, attribution

partner before actually meeting. The experimenter explained that

alone, and we’ll just keep going with the experiment.

exclusion. Participants in the rejection condition completed the

hostile cognitive measure alone ostensibly because of something

experimenter then left, ostensibly to take the envelope back to the

person in charge of the other experiment, returning with an enve-

individual-failure participants did (M ⫽ 60.88, SD ⫽ 10.07), F(1,

by computer with another person in the laboratory. In the game,

New Editors Appointed, 2010 –2015

You might also like