Social rejection amplifies the value of choice.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emotion Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1037/emo0001456
Jordan M Dejoie, Melanie Ruiz, Emily G Brudner, Dominic S Fareri
{"title":"Social rejection amplifies the value of choice.","authors":"Jordan M Dejoie, Melanie Ruiz, Emily G Brudner, Dominic S Fareri","doi":"10.1037/emo0001456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social rejection has been routinely associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes. However, less is known about how social rejection impacts cognitive processes, including our decision-making abilities. This is critical to understand, given how ubiquitous experiences of rejection have become in the current era of social media. In this preregistered study, we hypothesized that social rejection would amplify the value of choice. Participants made choices about whether to participate in a lottery themselves or defer the choice to a computer across a series of interactions with purported anonymous peers who provided varying degrees of positive (e.g., likes) and negative (e.g., dislikes) feedback to simulate experiences of rejection and acceptance. Subjective experiences of affect and the likelihood of future social engagement with peers were measured. Following experiences of rejection, results revealed that participants were more likely to want to choose for themselves rather than defer the choice to the computer. However, negative affect modulated this pattern, such that when participants reported feeling worse during the task after rejection, they were more likely to defer choice to the computer. Further, negative affect significantly predicted participant's willingness to engage in future social behavior with their partners and individual differences in social symptoms (e.g., social anxiety and the need to belong) were significantly related to choice behavior. Taken together, our findings suggest that experience of social rejection can negatively impact our affective states, perceptions of others, and the degree to which we value choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001456","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social rejection has been routinely associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes. However, less is known about how social rejection impacts cognitive processes, including our decision-making abilities. This is critical to understand, given how ubiquitous experiences of rejection have become in the current era of social media. In this preregistered study, we hypothesized that social rejection would amplify the value of choice. Participants made choices about whether to participate in a lottery themselves or defer the choice to a computer across a series of interactions with purported anonymous peers who provided varying degrees of positive (e.g., likes) and negative (e.g., dislikes) feedback to simulate experiences of rejection and acceptance. Subjective experiences of affect and the likelihood of future social engagement with peers were measured. Following experiences of rejection, results revealed that participants were more likely to want to choose for themselves rather than defer the choice to the computer. However, negative affect modulated this pattern, such that when participants reported feeling worse during the task after rejection, they were more likely to defer choice to the computer. Further, negative affect significantly predicted participant's willingness to engage in future social behavior with their partners and individual differences in social symptoms (e.g., social anxiety and the need to belong) were significantly related to choice behavior. Taken together, our findings suggest that experience of social rejection can negatively impact our affective states, perceptions of others, and the degree to which we value choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

社会排斥放大了选择的价值。
社会排斥通常与负面的身心健康结果有关。然而,对于社会排斥如何影响认知过程,包括我们的决策能力,我们知之甚少。考虑到在当前的社交媒体时代,被拒绝的经历无处不在,理解这一点至关重要。在这项预先登记的研究中,我们假设社会排斥会放大选择的价值。参与者在与匿名同伴的一系列互动中选择是自己参加彩票还是将选择推迟给计算机,这些匿名同伴提供不同程度的积极(例如,喜欢)和消极(例如,不喜欢)反馈,以模拟被拒绝和接受的经历。主观情感体验和未来与同伴交往的可能性被测量。在经历了拒绝之后,结果显示,参与者更愿意自己做出选择,而不是把选择交给电脑。然而,负面影响调节了这种模式,当参与者在被拒绝后报告在任务中感觉更糟时,他们更有可能把选择推迟给电脑。此外,负面情绪显著预测了参与者未来与伴侣进行社交行为的意愿,社交症状(如社交焦虑和归属需要)的个体差异与选择行为显著相关。综上所述,我们的研究结果表明,被社会排斥的经历会对我们的情感状态、对他人的看法以及我们重视选择的程度产生负面影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信