We propose that the self-expansion model offers a unique perspective on what it means to be excluded from dyadic relationships and social groups—why exclusion is generally an aversive experience—and offers specific predictions regarding the consequences of exclusion.
To the extent that the formation of successful bonds with others and groups is indeed an important avenue for self-expansion, exclusion from an interper- sonal relationship or a group involves a direct loss to the present self as well as the loss of opportunities for future self-expansion. When we lose a valued rela- tionship, for example, we not only lose the person’s affection, but all the bene- fits that are and could potentially be provided by the partner. In addition, being rejected may make us feel less confident about our attractiveness to potential future relationship partners. Finally, along with the former partner people can also lose the social network associated with this partnership (Albrecht, 1980). According to one study, approximately 40% of the social network men and women had during marriage was lost upon separation (Rands, 1980), and the shrinking of one’s social network in turn results in fewer new chances for social participation (Milardo, 1987). This is significant because the stability of a person’s personal network ultimately impacts the individual’s sense of self (McCall, 1982). Each person within the network provides a potential source of
self-expansion. Therefore, the loss of each person in the network carries consequences for the self-concept similar in kind (if not in magnitude) to the loss of the partner.
The same logic applies to situations in which a person is excluded or rejected by a group. Being expelled from a group will result in a loss of all the psychological and material benefits that group offers. The predicted loss in potential self-efficacy would be exacerbated if this group is also a source of close interpersonal relationships. Thus, the self-expansion model predicts that social exclusion, whether by a relationship partner or a group, represents an attack on one’s sense of self, and it is this assault on the self and the associated blow to one’s sense of efficacy that, in part, account for the negative feelings associated with exclusion.
Cognitive Consequences of Social Exclusion
The self-expansion model suggests that targets of social exclusion lose access to important benefits provided by a relationship partner or group. To the extent that a relationship partner or group is included in one’s conception of self, rejection is expected to result in reduced self-expansion, a stagnation of per- ceived self-expansion, or even negative self-expansion (a contraction of self). Usually focused on seeking out new opportunities for growth, excluded indi- viduals must deal with a reduction in expansion potential or even a net loss in their sense of self. We propose that targets of social exclusion will be acutely aware of these changes in the self. They will feel less prepared to face present and future challenges and achieve future goals, and will experience decreases in perceived self-efficacy.
Research on relationship dissolution provides a vivid example of how people experience the predicted contraction of self. Recent divorcees commonly report feeling that they have “lost a part of themselves,” “don’t know who they are anymore,” or feel “incomplete as people” because they no longer have access to the partner (Haber, 1990). Kohen (1981), for example, found that 60% of divorced women who were interviewed less than a year after relation- ship dissolution, used descriptors such as “nonperson,” “not a part of life,” or “depersonalized.” Thus, relationship dissolution is painful because the loss of our partner quite literally deprives us of some of the resources, perspectives, and identities we use to construct our sense of self and thereby threatens our personal identity (Weigart & Hastings, 1977).
In a direct test of the self-expansion model in the context of social exclusion by a desired group, McLaughlin-Volpe (2002) hypothesized that students who had just found out that they had not been accepted into the sorority or frater- nity of their choice would experience a contraction of self. Compared to stu- dents who had been accepted, they were expected to describe themselves with fewer self-attributes and report lower levels of self-efficacy. Indeed, taking into
account each person’s possibly self-expanding (experiences of acceptance) and contracting (experiences of rejection) events during the previous month, it was found that students with a negative balance (experiences of rejection out- weighed experiences of acceptance) spontaneously listed significantly fewer unique self-descriptions, a smaller proportion of positive to negative self- descriptions, and reported significantly lower levels of self-efficacy. Thus, experiencing social exclusion had long-term consequences on a person’s self- concept, and was associated with a much less diverse and expanded sense of self, more negative perceptions of self, and reduced levels of potential self-effi- cacy. In addition to changes in self-concept, rejected students also reported sig- nificantly more negative mood overall, as well as lower levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction. Affective consequences of social exclusion will be discussed in the next section.
Affective Consequences of Social Exclusion
The self-expansion model predicts that all forms of social exclusion are affec- tively unpleasant because they threaten the fulfillment of a basic drive. Deprived of their vehicle for self-expansion, targets of exclusion are unable to experience the pleasurable emotions that typically accompany self-expanding activities. To the extent that a relationship partner or group is seen as providing psychological and physical resources important for the achievement of goals (and/or as having the potential to provide these resources in the future), exclu- sion can seriously diminish present and potential self-efficacy. This loss of self- efficacy in turn can serve to undermine one’s sense of control, a state that has been shown to be associated with a variety of negative outcomes, including feel- ing helpless, anxious, frustrated, and angry (e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Skinner, 1992).
Additionally, negative feelings such as sadness, anger, and possibly shame could result when the loss of acceptance spawns self-doubt as to whether one will be attractive to other desirable partners or groups. Finally, any nega- tive effects resulting from social exclusion will likely be multiplied when a person is excluded from a group that also serves as a source of interpersonal relationships.
A large body of research has documented that people are generally very sensitive to social exclusion and respond to it with a range of negative emotions, including diminished self-esteem (Parkes, 1972; Spanier & Casto, 1979), depression (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978; Spanier & Casto, 1979; Sprecher, 1994), anger (Hetherington et al., 1978), anxiety, frustration, and despair (e.g., Leary, 1990). When anger is experienced it is often directed at the source of the exclusion (Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960). In a powerful illustration of the effects of even brief instances of social exclusion by two strangers, Geller, Goodstein, Silver, and Sternberg (1974) found that participants who were ignored by two
confederates subsequently described themselves as alone, withdrawn, shy, anxious, and frustrated.
Other evidence for the affective consequences of social exclusion is pro- vided by studies on the effects of perceived discrimination. Discrimination can be considered a form of social exclusion because experiences of discrimination communicate to their targets that they are not part of the ingroup and not val- ued as potential group members (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Affective responses to discrimination are strikingly similar to the responses documented in studies on the effects of rejection and ostracism. For example, Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (2001) reported that daily experiences with sexism were associated with feeling angry, anxious, and depressed as well as with lower social state self-esteem. Similarly, experiences of racism are generally associ- ated with anger, anxiety, hopelessness, resentment, and fear (e.g., Armstead, Lawler, Gorden, Cross, & Gibbons, 1989; Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999).
In sum, experiences of any kind of rejection and social exclusion are gener- ally painful and associated with a variety of negative emotions. Self-expansion theory proposes that these emotions are in part the result of the realization that one is denied access to the resources, perspectives, and identities of another or a group, which would have been available to the self had one not been excluded. Thus, exclusion represents the frustration of one’s desire to expand the self, enhance potential self-efficacy, and experience the positive affect that accompanies this process.
Behavioral Consequences of Social Exclusion
The self-expansion model proposes that people are motivated to engage in rela- tionships and join groups that function as stable and reliable vehicles for self- expansion. When faced with the possibility of social exclusion, people may therefore try to safeguard access to the benefits associated with relationships or groups and to self-expansion opportunities more generally by engaging in a number of relationship maintaining behaviors. We propose that people will respond to potential exclusion (a) by attempting to maintain or improve the threatened relationship or group membership as these represent existing opportunities for self-expansion, (b) by seeking out new relationships with indi- viduals or groups that can replace the expansion opportunities threatened by the possible exclusion, (c) by reemphasizing other existing relationships or group memberships and thereby maximizing access to the expansion opportu- nities these provide, or (d) by any combination of these strategies. Any of these can be employed as preventive strategies before exclusion actually occurs (Vaughan, 1983) or as coping strategies during and after exclusion. While it is possible that some people will try to regain a sense of self-expansion in more individualistic ways by, for example, focusing on the development of personal
resources (e.g., career, education), the present discussion will focus on social ways of responding to exclusion.
Maintenance and Improvement of the Threatened Relationship/ Group Membership Considering that people often have substantial invest- ment in existing relationships and group memberships, we would expect to see a bias in favor of behaviors directed at relationship repair and the associated maintenance of access to existing expansion opportunities. This strategy to deal with the threat of exclusion makes sense for a variety of reasons. First, we often value and get attached to the benefits we are used to, and may see them as espe- cially important in the face of potential loss. Second, when confronted with possible loss, we may become risk-averse, preferring to focus on relationships we know rather than risk the uncertainty of new relationships. Third, if the other or group is highly included in the self, it may be difficult to find an equivalent sub- stitute. And, finally, in the face of potential exclusion we may not feel confident that we will be able to attract a new relationship partner or group.
The self-expansion model thus predicts that people respond to threats of exclusion with attempts to prevent or reverse the exclusion in order to be able to hold on to the resources, perspectives, and identities provided by the part- ner or group. A strategy that may be useful in preventing exclusion is to empha- size one’s loyalty to the relationship partner or group. In a close relationship, for example, one may be especially attentive or accommodating. Group members may demonstrate their group-worthiness by behaving like prototypical group members or by working especially hard on behalf of the group.
These predictions are supported by the finding that targets of social exclu- sion typically respond with creative attempts to ingratiate themselves to the partner or group. For example, people have been shown to respond to social exclusion by increasing their conformity to group norms, avoiding conflict, working especially hard on collective tasks that benefit the group, and generally trying to present themselves in the best possible light (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer & Pickett, 1999; Ezrakhovich et al., 1998; Geller et al., 1974; Snoek, 1962; Williams & Somner, 1997). Compared to people with high social status in a particular group, peripheral group members are more likely to engage in strategic self-presentation to gain or regain acceptance by the group. They have been shown, for example, to engage in outgroup derogation (Noel et al., 1995) and to increase their liking for prototypical group members (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001). Targets of social exclusion also sometimes find ways to attach themselves to the group symbolically. For example, Ko (1994) found that compared to included high school students, socially excluded stu- dents were more likely to use the pronoun “we” when asked to recall football games of their high school team.
However, other research has found that targets of social exclusion, when given the opportunity to do so, sometimes retaliate against the source of
exclusion (Geller et al., 1974; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Because our model predicts that in most situations targets of social exclusion will prefer to accommodate to the group and save the threatened relationship, it is important to consider the circumstances that would favor retaliation. In general, people are surprisingly reluctant to give up on relationships (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995), preferring not to burn bridges and even maintaining relation- ships that are currently not central in our lives. This makes sense because future changes in life circumstances may lead one to desire or need benefits that are not provided by current relationships, but could potentially be provided by one’s less central relationships or group memberships. Furthermore, a person’s sense of potential self-efficacy is likely to be linked, in part, to the number of potential friends and potential ingroups that he or she can call upon. Thus, we predict that expressions of aggression against relationship partners and groups should be limited to situations in which social exclusion is experienced as defi- nite, irreversible, and possibly illegitimate. In situations where one feels power- less to prevent exclusion, retaliation may serve to at least reestablish a sense of personal control. For example, in studies where participants are directly rejected, given an explicit reason for the social exclusion, and realize that they can do nothing to change the situation, they tend to express hostility toward and show little motivation to interact with the sources of rejection or to remain in the group (Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960; Snoek, 1962).
Many, if not most, instances of social exclusion, however, are rather ambiguous. Judging from informal conversations with U.S. college students, social exclusion is frequently experienced as a sense that friends or group mem- bers seem to have withdrawn slightly, are not calling as much as they used to, or seem less loyal. However, these subtle cues never quite add up to a feeling of explicit rejection. Ambiguity of this kind may allow the target of social exclu- sion to maintain the belief that not all is lost, that one’s relationship or group status could improve. As long as targets perceive some hope for renewed inclu- sion, they should be motivated to appease the partner or group. In support of this idea, Ezrakhovich et al. (1998) found that ostracized participants worked harder on a subsequent group task when the reason for the ostracism was unclear, but not when it was clear. Similarly, Somner, Williams, Ciarocco, and Baumeister (2001) examined how much control participants felt they had over a situation depending on whether or not they knew why they were ostracized, and found that compared to participants who knew the reason for the ostracism, those who did not know it reported a greater sense of control. In sum, ambiguity in situations of social exclusion (e.g., the partner did not explic- itly break off the relationship), while certainly stressful, may leave the target hope that the other(s) may be receptive to efforts to repair the relationship.
Seeking Out New Social Relationships with Individuals and Groups A person, however, whose relationship has completely dissolved or
who has been explicitly expelled from a group would be expected to direct any attempts to restore a sense of potential self-efficacy at alternative sources of self-expansion. In cases where social exclusion is not ambiguous, we would therefore expect people to seek out new social relationships with individuals or groups, in an effort to maintain potential self-efficacy by acquiring new sources of self-expansion. There is some evidence that this is a fairly common strategy in the face of relationship dissolution: People often recover from heartbreak by engaging in a new romantic relationship (Baumeister & Dhavale, 2001). Hetherington et al. (1978) report that the year following divorce is often filled with a flurry of social activity during which men emphasize new social relation- ships, and that the most important factor for postdivorce adjustment is the establishment of new intimate relationships.
An experiment by Williams, Cheung, and Choi (2001) showed that people who are excluded by groups may use similar strategies. Participants playing a computer game in which they believed to be tossing a virtual flying disk with two other participants, were systematically excluded by the other players. In a subsequent perceptual judgment task with a different group, those people who had been excluded were more likely to conform to the new group, presumably in an effort to ingratiate themselves to this group. In other experiments, par- ticipants openly expressed that they would rather join a different group than engage in a group task with the ostracizing group (Predmore & Williams, 1983; Snoek, 1962). Also relevant are studies that suggest that targets of social exclu- sion appear to actively scan their environment for social opportunities. For example, Zadro & Williams (1998) found that participants who had been ostra- cized during a role-playing paradigm were more likely to overestimate the extent to which they thought that other people would agree with their attitudes and behaviors. While this finding has been interpreted as an attempt to regain a sense of belonging and control by assuming similarity, it could also simply be a way of signaling that one is available for a new relationship. Similarly, Gardner, Pickett, and Brewer (2000) demonstrated that regardless of whether participants were excluded from a dyad or a group in a simulated computer chat-room, they developed a memory bias for social events (both interpersonal and collective social events) when asked to recall events from a diary of an unknown person. That is, only those participants who had been excluded (and not those who had been accepted) selectively remembered explicitly social events, suggesting that when expansion of self is prevented, people seem moti- vated to redirect energies toward the fulfillment of this need (cf. Williams & Sommer, 1997).
Reemphasizing Already Existing Relationships/Group Memberships A third strategy for maintaining expansion opportunities in the face of exclusion may be to emphasize already existing relationships with indi- viduals and groups. To explain how existing relationships can serve to maintain
self-expansion, we have to first reiterate that the potential for self-expansion in relationships hinges on two variables: the attractiveness of the other or group in terms of the benefits they can provide and the willingness of the other or group to facilitate or at least permit perceived access to these benefits. (Some of the benefits provided by others and groups only require the partner or group to not actively interfere with the experience of the benefit, such as the benefit of iden-