Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Nov;48(6):529-545.
doi: 10.1002/ab.22026. Epub 2022 Mar 29.

Testing effects of social rejection on aggressive and prosocial behavior: A meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Testing effects of social rejection on aggressive and prosocial behavior: A meta-analysis

Megan Quarmley et al. Aggress Behav. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

Social rejection elicits profound feelings of distress. From an evolutionary perspective, the best way to alleviate this distress is to behave prosocially, minimizing the likelihood of further exclusion. Yet, examples ranging from the playground to the pub suggest rejection commonly elicits aggression. Opposing theoretical perspectives and discordant empirical results have left a basic question unanswered: does rejection more commonly elicit prosocial or aggressive behavior? We conducted three meta-analyses (one with studies measuring aggressive behavior; one with studies measuring prosocial behavior; and one with studies measuring both aggressive and prosocial behavior; N = 3864) to quantify: (1) the extent to which social rejection elicits prosocial or aggressive behavior and (2) potential moderating effects on these relations. Random-effects models revealed medium effects such that social rejection potentiated aggressive behavior (k = 19; d = 0.41, p < .0001) and attenuated prosocial behavior (k = 7; d = 0.59, p < .0001), an effect that remained consistent even when participants were given the option to behave prosocially or aggressively (k = 15; d = 0.71, p < .0001). These results cast doubt on the theory that rejection triggers prosocial behavior, and instead suggest it is a robust elicitor of aggression. Statement of Relevance: To our knowledge, these meta-analyses are the first to directly test whether social rejection elicits aggressive or prosocial behavior. By including a comprehensive collection of both published and unpublished research studies, and examining a wide variety of previously untested moderators, we show that social rejection robustly elicits aggressive behavior and inhibits prosocial behavior. Additionally, we demonstrate that aggressive behavior following social rejection is not simply a function of limited choices in response options. In fact, aggressive behavior was evoked even when the option to engage in prosocial behavior was provided. Furthermore, we conducted a comprehensive narrative review of the neural mechanisms underlying social rejection-elicited aggressive and prosocial behavior to supplement primary analyses. Overall, we believe that our work makes a critical theoretical contribution to the field.

Keywords: aggression; meta-analysis; prosocial; review; social rejection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart showing selection of studies for meta-analysis on social rejection elicited aggressive and prosocial behavior.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Standard Difference in Means by Study for a) Meta-Analysis 1: Effect of Social Rejection on Aggressive Behavior; b) Meta-Analysis 2: Effect of Social Rejection on Prosocial Behavior; c) Meta-Analysis 3: Effects of Social Rejection on Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior. Note: Effect sizes < 0.00 reflect attenuated aggressive/potentiated prosocial behavior; effect sizes > 0.00 demonstrate potentiated aggressive/attenuated prosocial behavior.
Figure 3
Figure 3
P-curve analysis of evidential value. Binomial Tests: Studies contain evidential value (right skew): p < 0.01 Studies’ evidential value inadequacy (Flatter than 33% power): p = 0.87 Continuous Tests: Studies contain evidential value (right skew): Z = −8.36, p = 0.00 Studies’ evidential value inadequacy (Flatter than 33% power): Z = 4.69, p > 0.99 Note: The p-curve analysis included all studies (k = 41) across the three separate meta-analyses.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of Standard Error by Standard Difference in Means. Note. The funnel plot includes all studies (k=41) across the three separate meta-analyses for ease of interpretation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Achterberg M, van Duijvenvoorde ACK, van der Meulen M, Euser S, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, & Crone EA (2017). The neural and behavioral correlates of social evaluation in childhood. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 107–117. 10.1016/j.dcn.2017.02.007 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ajzen I, Brown TC, & Carvajal F (2004). Explaining the Discrepancy Between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation. PSPB, 30(9), 1108–1121. - PubMed
    1. Anderson CA, & Bushman BJ (2002). Human Aggression (The GAM theory). Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Andreoni J, & Miller J (2002). Giving according to Garp: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.
    1. Averill J (2012). Anger and Aggression: An Essay on Emotion. In Springer Series in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Springer US.