Communicating the reasons for social rejection

JOURNAL

OF EXPERIMENTAL

SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY

18,

235-252 ( i%2)

Communicating the Reasons for Social Rejection VALERIE S. FOLKES University

of California.

Los Angeles

Received May 12, 1980

Two studies examined the pattern of reasons given for rejecting dates and how they reflect concerns of the rejector. Study One examined retrospective accounts of rejection. Rejectors often reported withholding the reason for rejection from the rejected person. A content analysis of the reasons communicated to rejected persons was performed using Weiner’s (Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 3-2.5) attributional dimensions of locus, controllability, and stability. The stated reasons were found to be primarily impersonal, uncontrollable, and unstable. Study Two examined rejectors’ willingness to communicate certain types of reasons. The true, privately held reasons for turning down dates were systematically varied as to locus, controllability, and stability. The types of reasons subjects offered to rejected persons were consistent with Study One. Reasons for refusal were less likely to be revealed when they related to the appearance or personality of the rejected person, particularly when the personal reasons were uncontrollable and stable. Rejectors were not as forthright when they controlled the reason for rejection as when they lacked control. The rejectors’ actions were interpreted as being self-presentational, reflecting concerns about rejected persons’ emotional reactions, expectancies for the future of the relationship, and blame for rejection.

Fear of rejection may be a major hurdle to the establishment of dating relationships. It has been suggested that as the probability of being rejected increases, dating attempts decrease (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). This is because there is no point in pursuing an unattainable relationship and being rejected can lead to negative feelings (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, 8z Walster, 1971; Shanteau & Nagy, 1976; Walster et al., 1966). Research generally supports the notion that when This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed at the University of California, Los Angeles, and was supported by Grant MH25687-04 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Bernard Weiner. The author is grateful to Bernard Weiner for his valuable guidance and suggestions. The helpful criticisms of L. Anne Peplau, Susan Green, and Bertram Raven are also greatly appreciated. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Valerie S. Folkes, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024. 235 0022-1031/82/030235-18$02.00/0 Copyright B 1982 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

236

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

rejection is likely, people do not attempt to form relationships with otherwise desirable others (e.g., Berscheid et al., 1971; Huston, 1973; Shanteau & Nagy , 1979). Having established how the anticipation of rejection influences choice of dating partner, a next step is to explore the rejection experience itself. The present research examines how rejectors go about refusing a date. More specifically, it explores the reasons given for refusing a date and how they reflect concerns of the rejector. Examining the reasons communicated for rejection is important because of their probable impact on relationships. Attributions, the perceived reasons for rejection, affect liking and the course of the relationship (for a review of the effect of attributions on attraction, see Regan, 1978). Furthermore, the type of reason communicated reveals the intent of the rejector. When communicating reasons for one’s behavior a person may be concerned with selfpresentation or with genuine self-disclosure. Self-Presentational

Concerns

in Communicating

Reasons

The self-presentational perspective maintains that the phenomenon of communicating reasons is limited to negative behaviors. People learn they must provide reasons for their negative actions to avoid punishment (Tedeschi & Lindskold, 1976; Tedeschi, Schlenker. & Bonoma, 1971). Thus reasons should be given when turning down dates but not when accepting dates. Rejectors give reasons to avoid negative repercussions from rejected persons. Consequently, a person may state publicly a reason that is discrepant from his or her privately held attribution for rejecting. Weiner’s (1979) attributional dimensions can be utilized as a framework for systematically examining patterns in the reasons communicated. Three underlying properties of causes have been distinguished: locus, controllability, and stability. Classifying reasons for rejection on these dimensions provides consistency with other studies classifying causes (e.g., Ickes & Kidd, 1976; Peplau, Russell, & Heim, 1979; Weiner, 1979). Moreover, Weiner’s attributional model can be used to generate predictions about the patterns reflecting self-presentational concerns. The affective reaction of the rejected person, blame for rejection, and the rejected person’s expectancies for future rejection are factors which should have repercussions for the rejector and so should influence how the rejector goes about explaining refusal of the date. Esteem affects, blame, and expectancies have been shown to be related to locus, controllability, and stability, respectively (Weiner, 1979). An examination of how self-presentational concerns are manifested in each attributional dimension follows. Self-presentational concerns should be reflected in the locus of the reason communicated for rejection (whether or not the reason for re-

COMMUNICATING

REASONS

237

jection reflects personally on the rejected person). Rejectors may state impersonal reasons (e.g., “I’m going out of town”) rather than personal reasons (“You’re a boring conversationalist”) to avoid hurting the rejected person’s feelings. People should be less distressed by rejection when it is due to impersonal reasons than when it is due to their own characteristics. This is suggested by several studies linking negative affects to the locus of the attribution (for reviews, see Jones & Wortman, 1973; Weiner, 1979). Rejectors may perceive a link among giving reasons that reflect on the personal characteristics of the rejected person, the rejected person’s negative reaction, and subsequent unpleasant interaction. If so, self-presentational concerns should lead to withholding personal reasons for rejection and communicating impersonal reasons. Self-presentational concerns should also be reflected in the controllability dimension because it is related to blame. A function of communicating reasons is to deny responsibility for a negative action or to place the blame for a negative action on the victim (Scott & Lyman, 1968). Rejectors must avoid the blame for rejecting or place the blame on rejected persons if they want rejected persons to feel fairly treated. This should be reflected in the controllability of the reason. People can be blamed for those negative events which they voluntarily bring about but not for those that are not under their control (Ickes & Kidd, 1976; Weiner, 1980a). Therefore, lack of control over the reason for turning down a date should decrease responsibility for rejection. For example, a person cannot be blamed for turning down a date because she is ill that night, but would be blamed if she preferred to watch a television show. An alternative way controllability can reflect self-presentational concerns is blaming the victim for being rejected. The person who is turned down for having a sloppy appearance can control it but the person who is turned down for having an unattractive physical disability cannot. The former’s control over his or her appearance makes him or her responsible for being rejected. When people have control over the reasons for rejection, they may be perceived as deserving rejection or bringing it upon themselves. In contrast, rejecting someone for a reason that is uncontrollable (e.g., physical disability) may seem unfair. If it is important to justify rejecting someone, a person should feel freer to state reasons when they are controllable by the rejected person than when they are uncontrollable. Personal reasons should be revealed more when controllable than when uncontrollable, but the reverse should be true for impersonal reasons. Rejectors should reveal reasons they cannot control more than those they control. Self-presentational concerns may also be reflected in the third dimension, stability. Stability refers to whether causes are perceived as relatively permanent and unchanging or are temporary and fluctuating. Re-

238

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

jectors may state unstable reasons rather than stable reasons to present an optimistic picture of the future of the relationship. Attributions to unstable reasons lead to uncertainty about future outcomes, whereas stable reasons lead a person to expect the same outcome in the future (McMahan, 1973; Weiner, 1979; Weiner, Nierenberg, & Goldstein, 1976). Thus rejection for unstable reasons (e.g., the rejector is ill) should lead to more uncertainty about future rejection than rejection for stable reasons (e.g., the rejector is engaged to be married). Honesty Concerns in Communicating Reasons The self-presentational perspective on communicating reasons for rejection has been explored above. The alternative is that people reveal reasons for rejection that reflect their own attributions. Communication about reasons may serve the purpose of creating causal understanding. People who anticipate a dating relationship with an unfamiliar other have been shown to actively engage in the attribution process (Berscheid, Graziano, Monson. & Dermer, 1976). Despite the importance of attributions, people in the early stages of relationships may lack the past history information that facilitates causal analysis. To fill this void, people may often provide explicit communications about the reasons for their actions. Rejectors may want to make it clear when liking is reciprocated that temporary obstacles have interfered with accepting the date. People may also want to make it clear when rejection is because liking is not reciprocated to stop any future attempts to form a relationship. In addition, lying is stressful whereas self-disclosure is intrinsically gratifying (Jourard, 1971). If people want potential partners to know where they stand in the relationship they should state reasons for rejection that are congruent with their own attributions. In contrast to self-presentational predictions, no specific pattern in the attributional dimensions of communicated reasons is suggested by this position. No prediction as to whether acceptance or rejection will more often be accompanied by reasons is indicated by this position either. Overview In sum, there are two general concerns of the rejector. On the one hand, people have presentational concerns which lead to certain discrepancies between the stated reasons and their own attributions for their behavior. On the other hand, people want to be honest, in which case there is congruency between the stated reason and their own attribution. Thus, it is necessary to explore the pattern of reasons given to determine which concerns are most important to rejectors, and so reveal the nature of the rejection experience. Two studies were done to examine the kinds of reasons given when rejecting dates.

COMMUNICATING

REASONS

239

STUDY ONE In the first study people were asked to recall reasons given when turning down a date. A content analysis of the reasons was performed using Weiner’s (1979) attributional dimensions. In addition, the discrepancy between the stated reason and the person’s own attributions for rejection was determined. To confirm the rejectors’ reports, the reasons communicated for rejection were also examined from the perspective of persons rejected for dates. Whereas the main purpose of Study One was to examine rejectors’ communications, a secondary purpose was to explore the rejected person’s perceptions. Discrepencies between the stated reason and the rejected person’s reports of why the date was turned down were examined. An additional secondary purpose of Study One was to compare the prevalence of reasons for rejection to that of reasons given in the alternative response to a request for a date, acceptance of the date. As noted earlier, the self-presentational perspective maintains that explanations are stated for rejection but not for acceptance. Confirmation of this difference would provide additional evidence that rejectors state reasons for impression management purposes and sets boundaries on the phenomenon of communicating reasons. Method Participants were 64 male and 64 female UCLA students who fulfilled a course requirement by serving in the experiment. Procedure. Students were given four questionnaires asking about the most recent time they had been the rejector of a date, rejected for a date, the acceptor of a date, and accepted for a date. The stated purpose of the study was to learn about dating experiences. The examples given (e.g., having a meal together, engaging in a sports activity together, studying together) implied a fairly broad definition of dating. However, the experiences were specifically restricted to heterosexual encounters and excluded those with whom they already had a relationship previous to the request. In the “rejector” questionnaire the students described the most recent time someone whom they had not been close to previously but who seemed to have a romantic interest in them asked for a date. Those who had not had this type of experience within the last year skipped to the next questionnaire. Those who had turned down a date were asked to “write a few sentences in the space below describing this experience.” They were then asked: “When you said no, did you tell the person a reason why you turned him/her down?” If the answer was “yes,” the “reason (or reasons) that you told the person” were to be specified. After reporting any “public” or stated reasons for turning down the date, the rejector’s “true” or “private” attributions were determined. It was noted that the stated reason may have been the real reason, may have been different from the real reason, or may not have been the only reason. Students could list five “private” reasons for turning down the date. When the students had been turned down as dates, they were asked questions parallel to those described above, but with the form of the questions changed. Subjects described the most recent time someone whom they had not been close to previously turned down

240

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

their suggestion to accompany them in some activity. The students reported any reason(s) they were told for being turned down, the reason(s) they thought they were turned down, and the influence of each reason leading to the other person’s decision to turn down the date. In the acceptance questionnaires the students were asked the same questions from the perspective of the acceptor and the accepted person. The order in which the questionnaires were given was randomized. Questionnaires were administered in mixed-sex groups of two to seven persons. Anonymity of responses was assured. Coding of reasons. Most of those reporting public reasons decribed them in single sentences (93% of the rejectors who communicated reasons and 97% of the rejected who reported a reason was communicated). Rejectors’ ” true” or “privately” held reasons were also typically described in single sentences (93% of the rejectors). The number of reasons given by each subject was determined by the author. The attributional coding of reasons was based on that used by Weiner (1979) for achievement situations. On the locus dimension reasons were coded as personal (related to the rejected person) or impersonal (related to the rejector). Reasons were also classified as controllable (discretionary) or uncontrollable (nondiscretionary). In view of locus, this means that personal-uncontrollable reasons are involuntary characteristics of the rejected that lead to rejection. They are nondiscretionary qualities of the person (e.g., hereditary factors). Personal-controllable reasons are voluntary characteristics of the rejected, qualities that are under his or her discretion (e.g., attitudes). Impersonal-uncontrollable reasons pertain to reasons which do not allow the rejector to exercise discretion in turning down the date. These compel the date’s rejection (e.g., the rejector is engaged to be married). Impersonal-controllable reasons are under the rejector’s discretion and are voluntary. The rejector is free from forces compelling rejection (e.g., the rejector prefers to watch television over a movie). As to stability, reasons that are relatively fixed and unchanging were classified as stable and reasons that are temporary and fluctuating, were classified as unstable. The 2 x 2 x 2 classification system yields eight cells or types of reasons. An example of each type of reason is given in Table 2. The two coders, the author and a male undergraduate, agreed on the coding of 99% of the “public” reasons on the locus dimension, 87% on the controllability dimension, and 93% on the stability dimension. The proportion of agreement after chance agreement is removed was 93%, 64%, and 82%. respectively (Cohen, 1960). Agreement on the rejectors’ “private” reasons for rejection was 96% for locus, 76% for controllability, and 89% for stability. After chance agreement is removed, agreement was 92%, 46%, and 7%, respectively. (Cohen’s K is not entirely appropriate for the above data due to the lack of independence of the reasons. Some reasons were given by the same subjects.)

Results

Not all students had each type of dating experience: 75% had refused a date, 59% had been turned down, 77% had accepted a date, and 88% had been accepted. Consistent with cultural norms, men were more likely to have requested dates, women to have received the invitation (Table 1). More women than men had turned down dates, while more men then women had been turned down for dates. Thus, data to be presented on rejectors are more representative of women’s responses and data to be presented on rejected persons draw more heavily on men’s experiences. Stating a reason to explain one’s behavior toward the other person is much more common in the rejection conditions than in the acceptance

COMMUNICATING TABLE

241

REASONS 1

PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS HAVINGEACH TYPE OF DATING EXPERIENCE Role Rejector

Male

Female

61

89 (57) 45 (29) 83 (53) 83 (53)

(39)

Rejected (ii) Acceptor

72

(46) Accepted

92 (59)

Note. The number of persons corresponding each percentage is in parentheses.

to

conditions. Most rejectors report having given at least one explanation and most rejected persons report being given at least one (84% in both cases). Conversely, few acceptors report having given one or more explanations and few accepted report explanations (19% and 24%, respectively). Because reasons for acceptance are not of central concern and the few reasons communicated suggest it is the atypical response, the acceptance data are not detailed further. The patterns observed from the content analysis of the reasons suggest self-presentational concerns are important. The types of public reasons reported from both rejection perspectives are largely impersonal (Table 2). Impersonal reasons are commonly uncontrollable (e.g., the rejector has to study that night) rather than controllable (e.g., the rejector would rather go to a dance than to a movie). Few personal reasons are reported, but rejectors report more personal and uncontrollable reasons (e.g., rejection due to the rejected person’s age) than personal and controllable reasons (e.g., rejection due to the rejected person’s religious beliefs). Rejected persons report the same number of both types. For both rejectors and rejected, reasons are predominantly unstable rather than stable. The most common reason is classified as impersonaluncontrollable-unstable (e.g., the rejector has to study that night). In sum, there is consistency in reports about reasons communicated for rejection (Table 2) and these reports suggest self-presentational concerns are present. The rejectors and rejected persons do differ, however, in the relationship between the reasons stated and their own, “private” attributions for why the date was turned down. Looking at reasons reported by the rejected, 74% of the communicated reasons are also given as a “real” reason for rejection (n = 50). In contrast, 54% of the communicated

242

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

TABLE PERCENTAGE CLASSIFICATION

2 OF REJECTORS’ REASONS“

Type of reason Impersonal-uncontrollable-unstable (e.g., the rejector had to study for finals.) Impersonal-uncontrollable-stable (e.g., the rejector was seriously involved with someone.) Impersonal-controllable-unstable (e.g., the rejector would rather go to a dance that night than go to the movies.) Impersonal-controllable-stable (e.g., the rejector did not want to mess up a relationship with someone else she was dating.) Personal-uncontrollable-unstable (e.g.. the rejected person was in a bad mood.) Personal-uncontrollable-stable (e.g.. the rejected person was too old for the rejector.) Personal-controllable-unstable (e.g., the rejected person had a lot of nerve calling up the rejector the same night to ask her out.) Personal-controllable-stable (e.g., the rejector did not agree with the rejected person’s religious beliefs.) Total Mean number of reasons reported

--.~~

Public Reasons reported by reasons rejectors reported by rejected persons Public Private ___59 64 30 (40) (61) 63 7 9 8 16) (8) (14) 22 15 12 (15) (14) (25) I (1)

3 (3)

3 (2) 1 (I) 3 (2)

(0) 8 I (1)

5 (11) 26 (54) 2 (3

I (1)

I (1)

14 (28)

(8)

100

100

(68)

(96)

I.1

1.2

4

(8)

100

(207) 2.6

Note. The number of reasons corresponding to each percentage is in parentheses. ” Includes only those who reported a public reason.

reasons reported by rejectors are also reported as a “real” reason for rejection (n = 52). Communicating a reason that does not reflect one’s own attributions is consistent with a self-presentational perspective. Examining the attributional classifications of the rejectors’ private attributions for turning down dates provides additional evidence of selfpresentational concerns. The contrast between public and private reasons is most notable for certain types of reasons (Table 2). For example, rejectors’ public reasons are typically impersonal, but only about half of the private reasons are impersonal (90 vs 53%, respectively). The majority of public reasons are impersonal-uncontrollable-unstable (@I%), yet this type accounts for only 30% of the rejectors’ private reasons. In contrast, personal-stable reasons account for only 9% of the public reasons, but 40% of the rejectors’ private reasons (Table 2). Additional

COMMUNICATING

REASONS

243

evidence that rejectors conceal reasons for turning down dates is in the number of public and private reasons. Rejectors report more private reasons for turning down dates than they reveal publicly (Table 2), t(80) = 9.5, p < .OOOl. This is true even of rejectors who did not state a false reason (M = 1.1 public reasons versus M = 2.6 private reasons for rejection, t(40) = 7.3, p < .OOl). Discussion

Rejecting a date, but not accepting a date, seems to call for an explanation. The majority of reasons communicated for rejection are impersonal-uncontrollable-unstable. The pattern of discrepancies in the attributional classification of public and private reasons combined with the fact that the reasons stated for rejection are frequently not listed as the rejectors’ own attributions for rejection suggest that the rejector has strong self-presentation concerns. However, some caution must be attached to this conclusion. The reasons for rejection were allowed to vary naturally in this study. This leads to some interpretational ambiguities. For example, few personal-controllable-unstable reasons are reported as public or private reasons (Table 2). Therefore, evidence about tendencies to conceal these reasons is inconclusive. Another ambiguity arises because of multiple reasons for rejection. Even those who refrain from “false” communications do not reveal all the reasons for turning down the date. These persons typically have multiple reasons for rejection of which they communicate only one. Thus, it is not entirely clear which reasons rejectors reveal to and conceal from rejected persons. A second study was designed to explore patterns of communication in which a broad spectrum of single reasons for rejection was manipulated. STUDY TWO Study Two investigated rejectors’ willingness to communicate specific categories of reasons by systematically manipulating the reason for rejection. The ambiguity caused by multiple reasons for rejection in Study One is avoided. Subjects were provided with the broadest range (in terms of locus, controllability, and stability) of actual reasons for rejection. Consistent with a self-presentational perspective, rejectors were expected to conceal stable reasons, personal reasons, and particularly personal reasons that are uncontrollable. A secondary goal was to determine whether rejectors want to communicate a reason for their actions and whether they want the reasons they state to be believed. If the purpose of communicating reasons for refusing dates is to avoid negative repercussions from the rejected, rejectors should volunteer reasons even when not requested to give them and to intend that the reasons be believed by the rejected person. However, whether the rejectors volunteer reasons or merely provide them

244

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

on rejected persons’ urging could not be determined from Additionally, rejectors may not have intended their reasons seriously. This possibility is not examined in Study One. issues were explored using a role play methodology instead rospective reports used in Study One.

Study One. to be taken The above of the ret-

Method Subjects. Fifty women undergraduates from UCLA were paid for participating in the study. Two students did not complete the entire questionnaire, leaving 48 subjects for the final analysis. Women were selected as subjects for the study because Study One shows they are more typically the rejectors in dating situations, and so are more likely to be familiar with the role of rejector. Experimental design. The design was entirely within-subject. There were eight situations in which the private reason for rejection was varied on the three attributional dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability. Procedure. Subjects were given two questionnaires. The first questionnaire asked the students to imagine themselves “in several different dating situations where you must turn someone down for a date.” After reading the specified private reason for rejection, the subject was to suppose that the man asked her why she turned him down. The woman then wrote down the public reason they would give. After writing the public reason, ratings were made on four 11-point scales. The first was to determine “how important would it be to you that he believes” the public reason (anchored by “not important” and “very important”). Next the subject rated how different the public and private reasons are (“completely different, ” “exactly the same”). The third scale concerned the likelihood that the woman would tell him the private reason for rejection (“definitely would,” “definitely would not”). Finally, if she was not asked for a public reason: “How likely is it that you would tell him a reason anyway?” (“definitely would not,” “definitely would”). The women answered these questions about each of the eight situations. Private reasons. Two specific reasons were generated for each category. Subjects read eight of the private reasons (one from each category) in one of 16 possible sequences. Which ones subjects received were randomly determined. A Latin Square was used to create the sequences so that the order of presentation and the specific reason was varied. Examples of the types of reasons are as follows: “You turn him down because you are ill” (impersonal-uncontrollable-unstable). “Your religion forbids you to go out with someone of a different faith. You turn him down because you can’t go out with someone outside “He has tickets to a concert and of your religion” (impersonal-uncontrollable-stable). asks you to go with him. But there is a program on television that you really want to see. You turn him down because you want to see the television program” “He dated your girlfriend. You don’t want to go out (impersonal-controllable-unstable). with someone who has dated a close friend of yours so you turn him down” (impersonal-controllable-stable). “He is in the last month of a medical treatment for a certain illness. The drug treatment makes him tired and he can’t help being irritable. You turn him down because, for another week or so, he is very tired and irritable” (personal-uncontrollable-unstable). “His face and body type are not attractive. You turn him down because he is physically unattractive” (personal-uncontrollable-stable). “He just got a traffic ticket for speeding and all he does is gripe about it. You turn him down because he is in such a bad frame of mind at this time” (personal-controllable-unstable). “He has told you that he has always liked to eat and has always been overweight. He doesn’t like to exercise either, so he is physically unattractive. You turn him down because his weight makes him physically unattractive” (personal-controllable-stable). Pilot studies were conducted to confirm that the above reasons were indeed classified

COMMUNICATING

245

REASONS

properly. Judges were female UCLA undergraduates. They were provided with 16 situations and asked to classify them on the three dimensions. On the locus dimension, reasons were either “internal to the guy (something about his qualities or characteristics)” or “external to the guy (something unrelated to the guy; something about you or your situation).” Controllable reasons were something the woman or the man have a “choice or preference about; are voluntary or discretionary,” while uncontrollable reasons were described as something imposed on the woman or the man, that they have “little choice about.” As to stability, reasons were either “stable (fairly permanent, not likely to change)” or “unstable (temporary, circumstantial, very likely to change).” The criterion for including each reason was that its classification was uniform across 9 of 10 judges. All 16 private reasons met this criterion. Classifcntion ofpublic reasons. Public reasons were classified by the author and a male undergraduate. On the locus dimension, 97% of the reasons were classified identically, on the controllability dimension, 85% were the same, and on stability, 94%. The proportion of agreement after chance agreement is removed is 90% for locus, 64% for controllability, and 70% for stability (Cohen, 1960). (This analysis is not entirely appropriate due to the lack of independence of the reasons.)

Results and Discussion Revealing the reason for rejection. Figure 1 shows that the women are much more likely to conceal some types of reasons than others. Analysis of variance reveals highly significant main effects for locus and stability, F(1, 47) = 235.2, p < .OOOl, and F(1, 47) = 36.0, p -C .OOl, II Definitely Would

_---

_---

Likelihood Revealing

of Cause

Controllable (Impenonal)

by the Rejector

Controllable (Personal)

by the Rejected

\ ’

\ \

5

Uncontrollable (Personal)

Unstable

by the Rejected

Stable Stability

Dimension

FIG. 1. Likelihood of revealing the true reason for rejection as a function of the attributional dimensions of locus, stability, and controllability.

246

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

respectively. Rejectors conceal personal reasons (those related to the rejected person’s appearance or personality). Rejected persons are also unlikely to be told the date was turned down because of some unchangeable (stable) factor. However, the significant locus by stability interaction may account for the stability main effect, F( 1, 47) = 34.3, p < .OOOl. The stability of the reason influences revelation much more when it is personal than when it is impersonal (Fig. 1). Stable and personal reasons (e.g., being unintelligent) are concealed more often than unstable and personal reasons (e.g., being in a bad mood). Finally, there is a locus by controllability interaction, F(l,47) = 19.4, p < .OOl. Reasons uncontrollable by the rejector (i.e., impersonal) are more likely to be revealed than those that are controllable (Fig. 1). For example, a woman is more likely to explain that she is sick than to say she prefers to watch a television program. The converse is true when reasons are personal. Then, reasons are more likely to be revealed when they are controllable than when uncontrollable. For example, rejectors conceal that the person’s lack of intelligence is the reason for rejection, but less often conceal that he is rejected because of his unwillingness to diet or improve his appearance. Each student also rated the degree of similarity between the private reason that was stipulated and the reason she gave. The analysis of variance of these ratings is very similar to the ratings for the likelihood of revealing the private reasons. That is, the same conditions that lead an actor to want to conceal a reason make the actor present a different reason publicly. Analysis of variance reveals a large main effect for locus and a smaller, but highly significant effect for stability, F(1, 47) = 139.6, p < .OOOl, and F(1, 47) = 17.2, p < .OOOl, respectively. Locus and stability interact, F(1, 47) = 12.8, p < .OOl, as do locus and controllability, F(1, 47) = 17.8, p < .OOOl. This confirms that discrepancies between the public and private reasons are linked to attributional dimensions, as was suggested by Study One. The next step is to examine the public reasons themselves. Attributional dimensions of the public reasons. Consistent with the above ratings, the classification of public reasons indicates rejectors have self-presentational concerns. Impersonal reasons are much more common than personal reasons (83 vs 17%) (Table 3). Furthermore, most impersonal reasons are uncontrollable (e.g., “being ill”) (60 vs 23%). The single most commonly stated type of reason is impersonaluncontrollable-unstable (e.g., “I’m busy that night”). Contrary to prediction and what is implied by the subjects’ ratings (Fig. l), the relatively few personal reasons are more often uncontrollable than controllable (12 vs 5%) (Table 3). As to stability, 65% of the public reasons are unstable. Consistent with the ratings (Fig. l), rejectors state fewer per-

COMMUNICATING TABLE PERCENTAGE

3

CLASSIFICATION PUBLIC

247

REASONS

OF STUDY

Two

REASONS”

Impersonal-uncontrollable-unstable Impersonal-uncontrollable-stable Impersonal-controllable-unstable Impersonal-controllable-stable Personal-uncontrollable-unstable Personal-uncontrollable-stable Personal-controllable-unstable

& 13 (49) 10 (39) 8 (30) 4 (14) 4 (17)

Personal-controllable-stable

(6) Total

100

(384) ’ Each type of reason was “true” (specified as a private reason) 13% (l/8) of the time.

sonal-stable reasons (e.g., being unintelligent) than personal-unstable reasons (e.g., being in a bad mood) (5 vs 12%) (Table 3). The presentation of the public reason. Two final points were examined with regard to the notion that rejectors try to avoid negative reactions from rejected persons by stating reasons for turning down dates. To confirm that rejectors state reasons without prodding from the rejected persons, subjects were asked to rate the likelihood of communicating a reason even if the rejected man did not ask for one. In only one condition does the mean rating fall slightly below the midpoint. The ratings indicate that rejectors typically want to state explanations for their behavior, or at least that the act of rejection demands an explanation. If rejectors intend to influence others’ attributions to their own advantage, they should also want their reasons to be believed. This is confirmed. The means in all conditions are above the midpoint. GENERAL

DISCUSSION

The results of the studies consistently reflect rejectors’ concern with self-presentation. This is suggested by the types of reasons that are reportedly communicated to rejected persons. The explanations are quite similar in terms of their attributional dimensions, generally being impersonal, uncontrollable, and unstable. These reasons are often stated by rejectors instead of the actual reason for rejection. Thus, people are typically shielded from the negative aspects of being rejected.

248

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

Before approaching a stranger for a date, people take the likelihood of being refused into account (e.g., Shanteau & Nagy, 1979). When dates are turned down, Study One indicates rejected persons often use rejectors’ statements to explain it. This apparently is the intention of rejectors, as suggested by Study Two. However, the importance of explanations for rejection may diminish in more established relationships than those examined here. Over time, a rejected person should gain more information about the rejector so that communications about reasons would be relied on less and past history relied on more. For example, a rejected person may become skeptical of the rejector who always has plans that night. To the extent that people refused for a personal reason continue to be misled by the false explanations they are given, painful experiences are avoided. However, these rejected persons will also lack accurate feedback about their desirability as a dating partner. If people have a poor sense of their social attributes, they may have difficulty “matching” themselves to an equivalently desirable partner. This might simply lead to more rejection. Methodological

Considerations

Although the major findings are consistent across two studies with different methodologies, it is possible that they do not reflect rejectors’ behaviors in more naturalistic interactions. Both studies rely on verbal reports of reasons, though this fact does not necessarily render the results invalid (see Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Study One relies on memories of dating requests and so the data are subject to long-term memory distortions. Subjects may have recalled not what they said, but what they thought they said. This could be derived from the subjects’ typical behavior (e.g., the rejector always states he or she has to study that night) or from conventions about rejection (e.g., peopIe should say they are busy when they don’t want to go out). However, asking about what was said in a specific event should have facilitated an accurate report (Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Instead of the retrospective methodology employed in Study One, Study Two followed a role-playing methodology. Thus, it is not subject to the same disadvantages but may be flawed in other ways. One criticism of the research strategy in Study Two might be that the women do not know what they would do. This type of criticism seems particularly applicable to unusual situations (e.g., the Milgram obedience study). In contrast, dating is a common experience for college students, so they are likely to have a fairly good idea of what is important to them in this situation. Indeed, the women frequently mentioned they recently had similar experiences. However, the women’s responses may have been derived from their knowledge of conventions for rejecting others (e.g., Alexander & Striven, 1977). What might be the degree of discrepancy

COMMUNICATINGREASONS

249

between one’s conventions about communicating rejection and one’s typical rejecting communications remains to be determined, but seems unlikely to be great. A second criticism might be that even though the women know how they respond when asked for dates, they might not reveal it in the experiment. This could be due either to a lack of involvement in the study or to self-presentational concerns. Although role-playing need not necessarily be uninvolving (Alexander & &riven, 1977), this could have been a problem. Evidence against this possibility comes from two sources. Postexperimental debriefing indicated most subjects found the questionnaires relevant and interesting. In addition, the data indicate subjects were not simply answering in a way that would reguire the least effort. The easiest response would be to state a public reason identical to the private reason. Yet, different public reasons were common. In addition, the women often wrote quite detailed public reasons. For example, they often elaborated on how they felt when being ill was the reason for refusal. The Nature

of The Rejector’s

Impression

Management

Goals

Although the results of the studies indicate that rejectors value selfpresentation more than self-revelation, the precise nature of the impression management attempt remains to be determined. Three somewhat related concerns can be distinguished: concerns related to the rejected person, to the rejector, and to conventions about rejecting others for dates. In this research the emphasis has been placed on concerns related to the rejected person. First, rejectors are thought to withhold personal reasons because the rejected person will feel hurt. Second, rejectors are thought to avoid personal-uncontrollable reasons and impersonalcontrollable reasons so that rejection will seem fair and justified. Finally, rejectors are thought to conceal stable reasons because they imply future rejection of dates. The attributional patterns of reasons withheld and revealed are consistent with these assumptions with a few exceptions. One unpredicted result is that personal public reasons in Studies One and Two were more often uncontrollable than controllable (Tables 2 and 3). However, these differences may not be significant. Furthermore, Study One rejectors reported more personal-uncontrollable than personal-controllable private reasons for rejecting (31 vs 16%, respectively, Table 2). The greater frequency of personal-uncontrollable than personal-controllable public reasons in Study One is therefore not too inconsistent. It is not clear why subjects in Study Two reported less willingness to reveal personal-uncontrollable reasons than personal-controllable reasons (Fig. I) but stated more personal-uncontrollable reasons than personalcontrollable reasons (12 vs 5%, respectively, Table 3).

250

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

The second exception relates to the stability dimension. Consistent with the prediction, Study One rejectors state impersonal-unstable public reasons more than impersonal-stable public reasons (79% of public reasons are unstable vs 11% are stable, Table 2). However, in Study Two impersonal-stable reasons are not concealed more than impersonal-unstable reasons although stability does influence revelation of personal reasons (Fig. 1). Perhaps the difference between the two studies is due to multiple reasons for rejection in Study One but single reasons for rejection in Study Two. People may prefer to give an unstable-impersonal reason over a stable-impersonal reason when both are true. But this preference is not strong enough to lead the rejector to give a false reason. However, some Study Two rejectors state impersonal-uncontrollable-stable reasons even when untrue (Table 3). These findings cast doubt on the degree of rejectors’ concern with rejected persons’ expectancies for the relationship. It is also possible that the consequences for the rejected person hypothesized here are not those which lead people to conceal reasons for rejection. For example, people may conceal personal-stable reasons for rejection to avoid feelings of apathy and depression on the part of rejected persons (cf. Weiner, 1980b). On the other hand, self-presentational concerns may be more directly related to the rejector than to the rejected. Perhaps the rejector aims to create the most favorable “situated identity” in the encounter (Alexander & Knight, 1971). For example, rejectors may withhold personal reasons because they do not want to appear cruel and inconsiderate. To give personal-controllable reasons for rejection would make a person seem unfair. A third and related possibility is that rejection is largely governed by social conventions. Rejectors may be fairly oblivious to the specific consequences of their actions (e.g., the rejected person’s feeling hurt). They may evaluate the “real” reason for rejection for its consistency with social rules for rejection, substituting a more conventional one (e.g., “I’m busy that night”) when necessary (cf., Collett, 1977). In sum, the self-presentational stategies evidenced in Studies One and Two may stem from concerns related to the rejected persons, the rejector, or conventions about rejecting others. The same concerns have been distinguished in a related body of research, the “MUM” effect. People are reluctant to communicate bad news due to “(a) the communicator’s self-concern, (b) his concern with the recipient, and (c) his concern with norms” (Tesser & Rosen, 1975, p. 226). Just as each of these factors seems to contribute to the MUM effect, it seems likely that each also influences communications about rejection. Situational and relationship variables may moderate the importance of each concern. For example, face-to-face interaction may elicit concerns over the rejected person’s emotional reaction more than a telephone

COMMUNICATING

REASONS

251

conversation. Similarly, the rejected person’s reaction should be more important when future interaction is anticipated than when one has some anonymity. In addition, social skills may influence the communication of reasons. Those inexperienced at rejecting dates, such as adolescents and the newly divorced, may be unfamiliar with rejected persons’ reactions, the “situated identity” of rejectors, and conventions on rejecting. Lack of impression management skill may even lead to revealing the “real” reasons for rejection. Under what conditions self-presentational strategies are minimized or maximized is a question for future research. REFERENCES Alexander, C. N., & Knight, G. W. Situated identities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry, 1971, 63-82. Alexander, C. N., & Striven, G. C. Role playing: An essential component of experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 455-466. Berscheid. E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster. G. W. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971. 7, 173-189. Berscheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer, M. Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976. 34, 978-989. Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20, 37-46. Collett, P. The rules of conduct. In P. Collett (Ed.). Social rules and social behavior. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 215-251. Huston, T. L. Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 9, 32-42. Ickes, W. J., & Kidd, R. F. An attributional analysis of helping behavior. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976. Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. B. Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1973. Jourard, S. M. Self disclosure. New York: Wiley, 1971. McMahan, I. D. Relationships between causal attributions and expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 108-l 14. Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. The experience of loneliness. In I. Frieze, D. Bar-tal, & J. Carroll (Eds.), Nenj approaches to social problems. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1979. Regan, D. T. Attributional aspects of interpersonal attraction. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. Accounts. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 46-62. Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. Decisions made about other people: A human judgment analysis of dating choice. In J. Carroll & J. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Potomac, Md: Erlbaum, 1976. Shanteau, J., & Nagy, G. Probability of acceptance in dating choice. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1979. 37, 522-533.

252

VALERIE

S. FOLKES

Tedeschi, J. T., & Lindskold, S. Social psychology: Interdependence, interaction and influence. New York: Wiley, 1976. Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 685-69s. Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. The reluctance to communicate bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press, 1975. Walster, E., Aronson. V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508-516. Weiner, B. A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1979, 71, 3-25. Weiner, B. A cognitive (attributional)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 186-200. (a) Weiner, B. The role of affect in rational (attributional) approaches to human motivation. Educational Researcher, 1980, July-August, 4-11. (b) Weiner, B., Nierenberg, R., & Goldstein, M. Social learning (locus of control) versus attribution (causal stability) interpretations of expectancy of success. Journal of Personality, 1976, 44, 52-68.