Talk:Social rejection

Cleanup

In my opinion, this article needs to cite some references. Right now, it seems to be a lot of unsourced, opinion statements. Are there no books on the subject that can be used?TheRingess 00:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work. This page is on my to-do list... Jcbutler 16:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just completed a major revision of the page, including various types of rejection experiences and references. --Jcbutler 21:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The experience of rejection can potentially lead to a number of adverse psychological consequences such as loneliness, reduced self-esteem, aggression, and depression. It can also lead to feelings of insecurity and a heightened sensitivity to future rejection.

Please take care, when you cite, to carry the current gist of the meaning along with you. A psychological study, if it's a worthy one, will not be mounted on the verb "can". --VKokielov 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the verb "can" does not appear in the psychological literature?! Feel free to wordsmith after you've read the source. Otherwise, please do not delete useful material. unsigned

References

Criticism

Silent treatment and shunning used to include references to psychologists and other experts that consider these acts to be psychological abuse.

But we can't have that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Long-term consequences

Though slightly mentioned in the "rejection sensitivity" part, I'd say this deserves some attention on its own. It's not hard to understand that rejection in early childhood (mainy in primary school and family) makes people sensitive to future rejection. When a child 'learns' that he is a reject (much like learning that you're smart, athletic, etc), he will likely start acting as one, even after for instance changing schools. Such patterns would be quite consistent with development of Avoidant pers. disorder/Social phobia/Paranoid PD/Borderline PD, though such diagnoses would usually not be made for children. It's not only understandable but even logical for a rejected child to become paranoid, self-defence to prevent future repetition of the past trauma.

Some may argue that rejection happens to anyone. The same however counts for most forms of abuse. Most children will get a beating at some point, most will get called names at some point. It becomes a problem if it becomes a pattern by happening a lot over an extended period of time, and when it is not properly compensated or dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.225.60 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HopperAutomat.jpg

The image Image:HopperAutomat.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored this image because Hopper's paintings reflect themes of social rejection and have been used as stimulus materials in psychological research on rejection, as mentioned in the article. For an example of this type of research, go to this website and click on "measures," then "startle slides." For a Psychology Today article that discusses this work and also specifically mentions Hopper, click here--Jcbutler (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

it is impossible to interact with everyone all the time

From the article: "Although humans are social beings, it is impossible to interact with everyone all the time. This means that some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life."

My deletion comment: "remove logical fallacy, non sequitur. also: first sentence is too obvious to be worth mentioning, second sentence isn't necessarily true but it's obvious that it's usually true"

Undo comment: "Aristotle himself, that great purveyor of logic, deemed it worthwhile to characterize us as "social animals," besides this is a useful distinction"

I agree that we're "social animals". My point was that "it is impossible to interact with everyone all the time" is obvious, and that "some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life" doesn't follow from that (even though I agree with it.) How about something like: "Although humans are social beings, some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life. Nevertheless, rejection can become a problem when ..."

Carlsotr (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your new wording is ok with me. I just wanted to make the point that everyone experiences rejection. The original wording demonstrates that it is a mathematical impossibility not to experience rejection, but it is not a necessary part of the article. I also think that it is useful to put it in the context of us being "social animals." Yes, it's common sense and everyone knows that humans are social, but not everyone appreciates the way we are defined by the fact that we live in groups. The wording was an attempt to get that point across. Thanks. --Jcbutler (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Carlsotr (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Positive?

The part about noticing the difference between a fake smile and real smile. Isn't saying that this is "positive" making a value judgement? Someone whose experienced social rejection might be better off not noticing. Fear of rejection could lead even slightest noticeable "false expression" leading them to paranoia about that person and giving up on trying to forge a social bond.35.11.207.145 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) For example later it says: "Downey has demonstrated in the laboratory that, given a high level of rejection sensitivity, an ambiguous social interaction can be perceived as rejection."

Would seem to show that noticing potentially "bad" expressions might not lead to favorable results.35.11.207.145 (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

What is "externalizing behavior"? Jargon-laden POS I think is the technical term in wikipedia.152.16.225.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Merger proposal

Erm... Yeah... I don't have any well-thought-out reasons for merging them, but the topics seem to overlap a lot. Hello71 03:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 (talk • contribs)

I think they are different enough to warrant separate articles. --Jcbutler (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Catholic religious orders

I am interested in hearing personal experiences and learning of published references about the rejection by some Catholic religious orders of their former members, referring to at least some of the latter as "departed," "defections," and the like. Also relevant would be stories of exceptions in which even some religious founders accept and support former members. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Wigal (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalker comments sound misandric

It says

"""Men are significantly more likely than women to react with rage and aggression when rejected. Every year over a million American women are stalked, and the majority are stalked by a former boyfriend, husband, or live-in partner. 80% of these women are physically attacked by their stalker.[23] Researchers in a variety of countries have demonstrated that stalkers are more likely to be male, and that male stalkers are more likely to become violent.[23]""

It doesn't mention anywhere just how much rejection men get, in other words, it's written to imply that men are these evil vicious creatures that just like to lash out on rejection. But it doesn't mention that men take most of the rejection in society, and that's not accounted for.

Also, there's no criticism on the sources which themselves are biased and misandric. --46.217.110.55 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, these sounds like the words of a feminist man hater, I really wish Wikipedia was impartial. Trumpy (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: Romantic rejection

I won't go as far as to say it sounds misandric, but I would at least like to see the statistics on the percentage of men who are stalked show up in the same paragraph.Crossark (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Social rejection. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130731044210/http://www.ffri.uniri.hr/~ibrdar/komunikacija/seminari/Downey,%201996%20-%20Rejection%20Sensitivity%20for%20intimate%20relationsh.pdf to http://www.ffri.uniri.hr/~ibrdar/komunikacija/seminari/Downey,%201996%20-%20Rejection%20Sensitivity%20for%20intimate%20relationsh.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071018204324/http://psychologytoday.com:80/articles/pto-19951101-000034.html to http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19951101-000034.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080311082154/http://www.duke.edu:80/~leary/lab.htm to http://www.duke.edu/~leary/lab.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

First image

The description on the first image says, "This scene of the Admonitions Scroll shows an emperor turning away from his consort," but this same image at the China Online Museum is described as Admonitions of the Instructress who guides the ladies of the imperial harem. Unless the Chinese text on the image mentions that, it seems incorrect to describe the female as a consort when her job is instructress. http://www.comuseum.com/painting/masters/gu-kaizhi/admonitions-of-instructress/ CryMeAnOcean (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Languages

The languages link to the Swedish page leads to an article that is not on the same topic, but rather about sociopolitical marginalisation. When I tried to change it to another article that is more in line with this topic, I got an error since a different English Wiki page already directs to that page. This is a problem of a wider selection of related pages in English than in Swedish and I have tried reading the guides on how to solve this, but can't figure it out. The closest existing page in Swedish would be Exklusion (sociologi). Saffran (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"See Also" section is long and confusing

The Wikipedia style manual suggests that See Also sections should be "relevant and limited to a reasonable number," that they "should not repeat links that appear in the article's body," and that if they are not clearly relevant there should be "brief annotations" to explain their relevance. I feel that the See Also section for this article is long and confusing, and is not adhering to these guidelines. Certainly some of them, like conformity and unemployment are very tangential indeed. Jcbutler (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed some links. Most of them were redundant, having already appeared one or more times in the article (see the style guide for a full rationale). It's still a bit long and redundant (e.g. Conformity AND Social influence, In-group and out-group AND In-group favoritism), but it seems somewhat better curated now. We can continue to discuss additional deletions, or possibly neglected additions, here on this talk page. Jcbutler (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: I believe it is now a manageable list. Jcbutler (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)