Personality Science

Personality Science

summary of four psychology article
Home
Psychology homework help
summary of four psychology article
http://spp.sagepub.com/ Social Psychological and Personality Science

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/08/1948550613511502 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1948550613511502

published online 11 November 2013Social Psychological and Personality Science Shane Pitts, John Paul Wilson and Kurt Hugenberg

When One Is Ostracized, Others Loom: Social Rejection Makes Other People Appear Closer

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Association for Research in Personality

European Association of Social Psychology

Society of Experimental and Social Psychology

can be found at:Social Psychological and Personality ScienceAdditional services and information for

http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

– Nov 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/08/1948550613511502
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/08/1948550613511502
http://www.sagepublications.com
http://www.sagepublications.com
http://www.spsp.org/
http://www.spsp.org/

http://www.easp.eu
http://www.easp.eu
http://www.sesp.org
http://www.sesp.org
http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://spp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://spp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/08/1948550613511502.full.pdf
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/08/1948550613511502.full.pdf
http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml
http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml
http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
Article

When One Is Ostracized, Others Loom: Social Rejection Makes Other People Appear Closer

Shane Pitts1, John Paul Wilson2, and Kurt Hugenberg3

Abstract

Social rejection causes a host of interpersonal consequences, including increases in reaffiliative behaviors. In two experiments, we show that reaffiliation motivation stemming from rejection biases perceptions of one’s distance from a social target, making others seem closer than they are. In Experiment 1, participants who had written about rejection underthrew a beanbag when the goal was to land it at the feet of a new interaction partner, relative to control participants. In Experiment 2, rejected participants provided written underestimates of the distance to a person relative to control participants, but only when the target was a real person, and not a life-sized cardboard simulation of a person. Thus, using multiple manipulations of social rejection, and multiple measures of distance perception, this research demonstrates that rejection can bias basic perceptual processes, making actual sources of reaffiliation (actual people), but not mere images of people, loom toward the self.

Keywords

rejection, motivated perception, social exclusion, affiliation, distance perception

The human need to belong is a fundamental, pervasive motive,

which fosters the formation and maintenance of long-lasting,

positive social relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This

motive is deeply embedded in our evolutionary history owing

to our essential dependence on other people (Buss, 1990). So

vital is this urge to belong, that experiences of social rejection

can be acutely distressing, eliciting negative affect, lowered

self-esteem, and a threatened sense of belonging (Williams,

2007). Indeed, the pain of social rejection may be so palpable

because it relies on neural circuitry that has also been impli-

cated in physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams,

2003). Given the potential costs of social exclusion and the

adaptive benefits of belonging, it is unsurprising that a thwarted

sense of belonging can initiate a host of psychological pro-

cesses directed at restoration of this need in the form of social

reconnection. One way to assuage the pain of rejection is to

restore one’s sense of belonging by redoubling efforts to seek

reaffiliation with others (see Williams & Nida, 2011). For

example, rejection leads individuals to express more interest

in making new friends and working with others (Maner,

DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007; see DeWall & Richman,

2011).

To be in a position to socially reconnect with others, it

behooves us to be sensitive to and to readily perceive such

affordances. However, despite the complex downstream conse-

quences of rejection, only a handful of recent studies have

investigated how social rejection influences basic perceptual

processes. One theory that addresses this gap in the literature

posits that humans have a social monitoring system (Gardner,

Pickett, & Brewer, 2000) that constantly monitors and regu-

lates our level of social inclusion. This system is vigilant for the

experience of rejection, and when activated, it redirects atten-

tion, cognitive resources, and memory to cues that may facili-

tate reaffiliation (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004). For

example, rejection causes perceivers to become more sensitive

to signals of inclusion, with participants showing crisper dis-

tinctions between in-groups and out-groups (e.g., Sacco, Wirth,

Hugenberg, Chen, & Williams, 2011), increased selective

attention toward signals of acceptance (e.g., smiles; DeWall,

Maner, & Rouby, 2009), and increased accuracy at discriminat-

ing between genuine and fake smiles (Bernstein, Young,

Brown, Sacco, & Claypool, 2008). Other work has shown that

rejection leads to a general activation of social bonds, such that

group-related constructs become more accessible and the per-

ceived entitativity and importance of groups is heightened

(Knowles & Gardner, 2008). In sum, those with whom shared

1 Birmingham-Southern College, Birmingham, AL, USA 2 University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 3 Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Shane Pitts, Department of Psychology, Birmingham-Southern College, 900

Arkadelphia Road, Birmingham, AL 35254, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X) 1-8 ª The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1948550613511502 spps.sagepub.com

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
http://spps.sagepub.com
http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
social interaction is possible become more important to those

who have been rejected.

But could such perceptual sensitivity for reaffiliative cues

actually bias perception of the physical world when experien-

cing social rejection? In the current research, we address just

such a question. From the New Look perspective, perception

is influenced not just by the objective qualities of the environ-

ment but also by one’s mental representations of and motives

toward the environment (see Dunning & Balcetis, 2013). For

instance, desired objects often appear to loom closer than they

actually are, likely in service of goal pursuit. Impoverished

children see coins as larger than do wealthy children (Bruner

& Goodman, 1947), a bottle of water appears closer to the

thirsty than to the satiated perceiver (Balcetis & Dunning,

2010), and beloved locales seem closer than disliked locales

(Alter & Balcetis, 2011). Similarly, climbers who lack the

physical stamina to climb estimate a hill’s incline as steeper

than do those with sufficient energy or capability (Proffitt, Ste-

fanucci, Banton, & Epstein, 2003; Bhalla & Proffitt, 1999),

whereas hills are seen as less steep when a socially supportive

friend is nearby (or imagined) relative to those who are alone

when making estimates (Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, &

Proffitt, 2008). Taken together, these numerous demonstra-

tions reliably establish that our current motivational states

and physical capacities can bias our perceptual experience.

Importantly, such motivated misperceptions of our environ-

ment appear to be functional. Perceiving a desired target as

closer may potentiate approach behavior (acquiring the valued

coin, grabbing the water bottle, visiting New York) in the ser-

vice of goal fulfillment. Thus, our perceptual system may be

biased in ways to regulate action in the service of goal fulfill-

ment (see Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013). Indeed, prior

research has shown that bodies prepare for action to achieve

rewards. Heart rates and galvanic skin conductance rates

increase in anticipation of impending financial payoffs and

escalate as sizable payoffs draw closer (Low, Lang, Smith, &

Bradley, 2008). Further, as desirable objects loom closer, this

physiological preparation triggers and intensifies actual

approach behavior (Crespi, 1942; Dollard & Miller, 1950;

McGinty, Lardeux, Taha, Kim, & Nicola, 2013; see Neumann,

Förster, & Strack, 2003, for a review). However, demonstrating

that this perceptual motivationally triggered distance distortion

is in service of goal fulfillment, Balcetis and Dunning (2010)

demonstrated that only attainable desired objects loom. For

example, money that can be gained (e.g., won in a contest)

appears closer to the self than does physically identical but

unattainable cash (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010)—in short, desire

alone is insufficient.

Based on the logic that perception is sensitive to activated

motivations and is biased to promote beneficial action, we pro-

pose that socially rejected individuals will tend to act on the

environment in order to reinstate a sense of belonging via social

reconnection. Thus, it may behoove those excluded to perceive

a person with whom they can affiliate as physically closer,

thereby rendering more attainable means of restoring their fru-

strated sense of belonging. Just as water is a basic need for the

thirsty, so too is social connectedness a basic need for the ostra-

cized (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Misperceiving the environ-

ment in service of goal attainment, with achievable desiderata

perceived as closer, is equally functional for both thirsty and

rejected perceivers.

The Current Research

In the current research, we extend previous work on the social

monitoring system to demonstrate that perceivers may experi-

ence distorted perceptions of the physical environment in ser-

vice of reaffiliation. To do so, we leverage recent advances

in the revitalized New Look perspective (Balcetis & Dunning,

2007, 2010; Bruner & Goodman, 1947; Dunning & Balcetis,

2013) to demonstrate that the need for reaffiliation in the after-

math of rejection can make other people, but only those who

can fulfill the need for affiliation, appear closer. Ample

research has demonstrated that the need to belong is a funda-

mental human motive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams,

2007) and that when this need is impeded, a strong desire to

reinstate social connectedness can initiate basic, early-stage

perceptual sensitivity to signals of social reconnection (e.g.,

Bernstein et al., 2008; Maner et al., 2007; Sacco et al., 2011).

Given these findings, we suggest that the desire to seek social

reaffiliation may also manifest in motivated distance percep-

tion in a manner consistent with achieving that goal. We

hypothesized that rejected individuals would misperceive pos-

sible targets of reaffiliation—other people—as closer than

would nonrejected individuals. In two experiments, we provide

novel evidence supporting this hypothesis.

Experiment 1 tests this hypothesis directly by having both

socially rejected and control participants toss a beanbag toward

the feet of a future interaction partner. Past work has reliably

demonstrated that motivated proximity effects in the literature

do not appear to be mediated purely by a numeric error; embo-

died measures of proximity also demonstrate that the subjec-

tively valued objects seem closer. For example, a beanbag is

tossed shorter toward valued objects than toward nonvalued

objects, indicating the subjective proximity of those valued

objects (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Slepian, Masicampo,

Toosi, & Ambady, 2012). It was based on this research that

we used a beanbag toss as the measure of distance perception

in Experiment 1. As predicted, socially rejected participants

undertossed the beanbag, relative to control participants. Criti-

cally, we also predicted that this rejection-driven distortion of

the proximity of others would only be true for target persons

who could actually provide reaffiliation (i.e., real people) but

not for virtually identical targets who could not afford reaffilia-

tion (i.e., life-size image of a real person). Experiment 2 tests

this hypothesis by having both socially rejected and control

participants make distance judgments to either a confederate

or a life-sized ‘‘standee’’ of that same confederate. As pre-

dicted, rejected individuals judged another person, but not an

inanimate representation of the same person, as closer than did

nonrejected individuals.

2 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, we sought to provide an initial demonstration

that socially rejected individuals perceive a seemingly objec-

tive aspect of the physical environment—distance—in a biased

manner in the service of social reconnection. That is, socially

rejected individuals may perceive potential sources of reaffilia-

tion, in our case future interaction partners, as closer than do

individuals who are not rejected. To test this hypothesis, parti-

cipants were randomly assigned to a rejection or a control con-

dition in which they wrote about a past rejection experience, or

about their morning routine, respectively. All participants then

completed an ostensibly unrelated task wherein they tossed a

beanbag toward the location of a confederate—a possible

source of reaffiliation. In actuality, this beanbag toss served

as an action-based, behavioral measure of the perceived dis-

tance to the confederate. Just as participants tend to undertoss

beanbags toward valued versus nonvalued stimuli, we pre-

dicted that socially rejected participants would undertoss a

beanbag toward a potential outlet for reaffiliation (a confeder-

ate), relative to nonrejected participants (see Balcetis &

Dunning, 2010; Rieser, Pick, Ashmead, & Garing, 1995).

Participants

A convenience sample of 35 female undergraduates partici-

pated for partial course credit.

Design and Procedure

Our methodology was adapted from Balcetis and Dunning

(2010; study 3a). Participants arrived in the laboratory singly,

supposedly for a memory study, and were randomly assigned

to either the rejection or the control condition. In each condi-

tion, participants were asked to write for 5 min either about

‘‘a time that you have been rejected or excluded by someone

else, and to describe the event and how it felt’’ (Rejection);

or ‘‘what you did when you got up this morning, including what

you did and how you felt’’ (Control Condition; see Sacco,

Young, Brown, Bernstein, & Hugenberg, 2012 for a similar

manipulation). All participants then completed this paper and

pencil writing task alone.

Afterward, as participants were led to another room for an

ostensibly unrelated study, the experimenter explained that par-

ticipants would now have an opportunity to have a conversation

with a fellow participant. Upon entering the new experimental

room, a female confederate waited across the room from the

entrance. The experimenter prompted the participant and the

confederate to introduce themselves to one another from across

the room, and then the participant was asked to stand with toes

on a tape line on the floor. The confederate stood 1 ft. to the

right of another tape line, 12 ft. from the participant. The

experimenter handed the confederate a beanbag and said,

‘‘Before your interaction, I’d like you to do one thing for an

unrelated study. Please toss this beanbag underhanded and try

to land it as close to the tape beside your partner as possible.

That tape represents the distance between you and your part-

ner.’’ The beanbag was coated with soft, sticky plastic to

attenuate skidding.

After tossing the beanbag and while waiting for the pending

interaction with the confederate, participants were led to the

original experimental room to complete the Brief Mood Intro-

spection Scale (BMIS; Mayer & Gaschke, 1988). Meanwhile,

an experimenter measured the distance of the beanbag toss.

Toss distance was measured in inches, only in the y-dimension

relative to the target (i.e., bags landing 2 in. short but 8 in. wide

were marked as 2 in. short), with positive numbers representing

an overthrow and negative an underthrow. Both confederate

and experimenter remained blind to condition until participants

completed the study. We predicted that if rejected participants

perceived their partner as physically closer, they should behave

accordingly and throw the beanbag a shorter distance than

would participants who did not experience social rejection.

Results and Discussion

As anticipated, rejected participants threw the beanbag a

shorter distance (M ¼ �4.6; SD ¼ 13.08) than did control participants (M ¼ 9.27; SD ¼ 21.46), t(33) ¼ 2.29, p ¼ .028, d ¼ .78. Although the current data provide prima facie evi- dence that rejected participants’ actions were biased in accord

with the misperception of physical proximity to another person

(Balcetis & Dunning, 2010), it is also important to consider

other alternative explanations. For example, social exclusion

can result in a deconstructed state, which is in part character-

ized by flat affect and lethargy (Twenge, Catanese, & Baume-

ister, 2003), and in the current context, lethargy could translate

into a shorter bag toss. Alternately, it could be that acute rejec-

tion could elicit arousal, which could also influence perfor-

mance (Henchy & Glass, 1968).

To examine whether the effects of social rejection on bag

tossing can be explained by changes in mood or arousal, we

submitted the bag tossing distances to an additional analysis

of covariance (ANCOVA), with mood and arousal (as mea-

sured by the BMIS) entered as covariates, respectively.

Rejected participants were descriptively, though not reliably,

more aroused (M ¼ 27.94; SD ¼ 3.51) than were control parti- cipants (M ¼ 26.11, SD ¼ 26.11), t(33) ¼ 1.51, p ¼ .14. How- ever, arousal did not serve as a significant covariate of the

observed beanbag tossing effects, F(1, 32) ¼ 2.56, p ¼ .147. Further, mood was not influenced by rejection condition

(p ¼ .724) and was not a significant covariate (p ¼ .926). Based on these data, there is no evidence that alterations

in mood or arousal can account for the effect of rejection

condition on perceived proximity, as measured via bag toss

distance.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2, we sought to conceptually replicate and

extend the previous findings using a different manipulation

of social rejection and measure of distance perception. In the

Pitts et al. 3

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
second study, participants were led to believe their partner left

the experiment early (see DeWall et al., 2009). Rejection was

manipulated by telling participants that their partner left

because the partner did not want to work with the participant

(rejection condition), or for an unrelated reason (irrelevant

departure condition). In an ostensibly unrelated task, all parti-

cipants then reported the distance that a confederate stood from

them.

Experiment 2 was also designed to test the hypothesis that

rejected individuals’ misperception of others as closer would

only occur for people who could actually provide reaffiliation.

In Experiment 2, participants judged the distance to an actual

confederate (social condition) or to a life-sized image (a stan-

dee) of the same confederate (nonsocial condition). Just as val-

ued objects only loom when they are attainable (Balcetis &

Dunning, 2010), we hypothesized that only the real confeder-

ate, but not a life-sized image of the confederate, would appear

to loom toward the rejected perceivers.

Finally, including this manipulation of social versus nonso-

cial in the design of Experiment 2 also permitted us to directly

address whether the effects observed in Experiment 1 are spe-

cific motivational effects in service of goal pursuit (Balcetis &

Dunning, 2010) or whether they are more generalized effects of

rejection (e.g., mood, arousal). Here, if rejection-related arou-

sal or mood can account for altered distance estimates (or for

altered bag tossing, as in Experiment 1), it should do so in both

the social and nonsocial conditions. If our effects, however, are

driven by motivated perceptions of a social target following

rejection, altered distance estimates among rejected partici-

pants should only occur in the social condition.

Method

Participants

Eighty-four undergraduates (39 female) participated for partial

course credit.

Design and procedure

The procedure was a 2 � 2 between-subjects factorial design adapted closely from DeWall, Maner, and Rouby (2009). Par-

ticipants arrived at the laboratory individually for a study on

perception. After providing informed consent, participants

were informed that they would complete two separate experi-

ments. In the first experiment, all participants were to work

with a partner, first exchanging video messages and then work-

ing face-to-face. Participants were informed that the partner

had arrived early and would send the first video message.

While the experimenter was presumably recording the part-

ner’s message, participants completed a ‘‘perception task,’’

finding 3D illusions embedded in ‘‘Magic Eye’’ images (Magic

Eye, 2004). After 5 min, the experimenter returned with the

‘‘partner’s’’ recording, which was a 3-min clip of a same-sex,

similar age confederate responding to three questions regarding

his or her personal and career goals, and describing his or her

performance on the illusion task.

The experimenter left the room while the participant

watched the video. The experimenter then returned and

recorded a video response to the partner using the same ques-

tions. While the experimenter ostensibly took the participant-

made video to the partner to watch, the participant continued

working on the illusion task. Approximately 5 min later, the

experimenter, who was previously blind to condition, returned

and delivered the manipulation. Participants randomly assigned

to the irrelevant departure condition (not rejected) were told:

I am not sure what happened, but your partner won’t be able to

meet you . . . I guess s/he has to leave suddenly to go do some-

thing s/he forgot about . . . well, hmm, I guess you won’t be

meeting each other.

Participants in the rejection condition were told:

I am not sure what happened but your partner doesn’t want to

meet you . . . Um, do you know each other or something? (after

participant says ‘no’) . . . well, hmm, I guess we won’t be doing

the task where you meet each other, because I can’t ask a par-

ticipant to do something that s/he isn’t comfortable with.

All participants then completed the BMIS and were then led

to the ostensibly unrelated additional study by a second experi-

menter who was blind to experimental condition.

In the second phase of the study, we manipulated between sub-

jects the presence of an actual confederate (social condition) ver-

sus the presence of a life-sized image (i.e., a standee) of the same

confederate (nonsocial condition). Participants in the social con-

dition were told that another participant had arrived to take part in

the second study, and this person (a same-sex confederate) would

be their new partner. The experimenter introduced the participant

to the confederate as she led both to an adjacent room to complete

their final task. Participants and confederates stood behind prede-

termined lines 10 ft. away from one another. Participants and con-

federates were then given 1 in. reference lines and asked to record

the distance to their new partner in inches, feet, or a combination.

Participants in the nonsocial condition were also informed that

another partner had arrived for a subsequent task (holding constant

the expectation of a subsequent interaction) but were asked first to

judge the distance to a standee for an unrelated study. Participants

were led to a room where a life-sized, cardboard cutout of a person

(a standee picture of the confederate) was standing 10 ft. away. Par-

ticipants then judged the distance to this life-sized picture. Finally,

participants were debriefed and dismissed. Due to the time needed

to construct the standee, nonsocial condition data collection began

only after social condition data were collected.

Results and Discussion

To assess whether the effect of social rejection on distance per-

ception is unique to social targets, we conducted a between-

subjects 2 (rejected/not rejected) � 2 (social/nonsocial Target) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on distance estimates. We

observed a marginally significant main effect of rejection

4 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
condition, F(1, 80) ¼ 2.95, p ¼ .09, which was qualified by the predicted Rejection� Target type interaction, F(1, 80)¼ 4.05, p ¼ .047.

Decomposing the interaction, we conducted planned com-

parisons within each target type. As predicted, within the social

target condition, rejected participants estimated their new

partner as significantly closer (M ¼ 84.25; SD ¼ 29.42) than did participants in the irrelevant departure condition

(M¼ 108.05; SD¼ 33.59), t(39)¼ 2.41, p¼. 021, d¼ 0.75 (see Figure 1). However, rejection had no effect on distance estimates

to the nonsocial target, t(41)¼. 23, p¼ .817, d¼ .07. Consistent with the social reconnection hypothesis, the effect of rejection on

distance estimates was limited to entities that afford an opportu-

nity for social affiliation. Rejected participants estimated their

partner (but not a cardboard facsimile of the same partner) as

nearly 2 ft. (23.8 in.) closer than nonrejected participants.

To rule out arousal and mood as potential influences on dis-

tance estimates, we also analyzed the data via an ANCOVA,

entering mood and arousal as indexed by the BMIS as covari-

ates. Although mood scores on the pleasant–unpleasant sub-

scale of the BMIS differed on average between those rejected

(M ¼ 42.72; SD ¼ 6.57) and those not rejected (M ¼ 46.95; SD ¼ 5.67), t(82) ¼ 3.17; p ¼ .002, mood did not serve as a significant covariate for the effects, p ¼ .587. Arousal did not differ as a function of whether participants

were rejected, (M ¼ 26.40; SD ¼ 3.95) or not (M ¼ 26.70; SD ¼ 3.10), t(82) ¼ .382; p ¼ .703, nor did arousal serve

as a significant covariate for the observed effects, p ¼ .763. Again, there is no evidence that alteration in mood or arousal

accounts for the substantial perceived closer proximity to

social targets among those rejected relative to those not

rejected.

General Discussion

Social rejection triggers reaffiliative needs in a variety of con-

texts (Williams, 2009; Williams & Nida, 2011). However,

though some work has shown that rejection leads to improve-

ment in extracting social cues signaling affiliative intent

(e.g., Bernstein et al., 2008), the current research is the first

to demonstrate that these needs distort basic distance percep-

tions of the environment. Potential sources of reaffiliation—

other people—seem closer to the self after rejection. Further,

this distance distortion is in a functional direction; when others

seem more proximate to us, this may facilitate the onset of reaf-

filiative behavior (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950).

Although its roots remain in the classic New Look perspec-

tive, using one’s current energetic or motivational state as an

embodied means by which to judge the distances in the world

has become an increasingly important theme in perception (see

Dunning & Balcetis, 2013; Proffitt, 2006, for reviews). Indeed,

the motivational and the perceptual systems appear deeply

interconnected, with current bioenergetic states (Schnall,

Zadra, & Proffitt, 2010), physical capacities (e.g., Lessard,

Linkenauger, & Proffitt, 2009; Linkenauger, Witt, Stefanucci,

Bakdash, & Proffitt, 2009), fears (Cole et al., 2013; Teachman,

Stefanucci, Clerkin, Cody, & Proffitt, 2008; Vagnoni, Lourenco,

& Longo, 2012), and desires (Alter & Balcetis, 2011; Balcetis &

Dunning, 2010), all influencing our perceptions of the physical

world. In this vein, the current work also makes a unique theo-

retical contribution by bridging the well-established tendency

to seek reaffiliation with this burgeoning literature on motivated

perception. The abiding human need for social affiliation can

make desired others appear closer than when this need is not

activated. Indeed, given the central role of social affiliation to

human survival, it may well behoove rejected individuals to see

a genuine source of reaffiliation as physically closer, in order to

prioritize reaffiliation after rejection (see Brown, Young,

Sacco, Bernstein, & Claypool, 2009). Perception potentiates

behavior, and one will be more likely to engage with a

social target that is closer than one that is farther away (see

Festinger et al., 1950).

Critically, although rejection motivates reaffiliative

responses, it will do so only to the extent that others are per-

ceived as realistic sources of renewed connection (Maner

et al., 2007). In fact, much previous research has shown

that people who are rejected can be more aggressive (Twenge,

Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001) and less prosocial (Twenge,

Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007); however,

such aggression is typically reserved for the perpetrators of

social rejection, or for people who will not afford future reaffi-

liation (Maner et al., 2007).

Figure 1. Mean distance estimates as a function of rejection condition and target condition demonstrate that rejection can cause other people, but not otherwise identical images of people to loom toward perceivers. Error bars represent +/- 1 standard error.

Pitts et al. 5

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
Further, we believe that one potential benefit of the current

research is that it demonstrates that reaffiliative behavior may

have its initial roots in lower level perceptions of the environ-

ment. That is, if another person seems physically closer, reaffi-

liation may seem easier. The current research is also congruent

with recent studies demonstrating the specificity of biases in

favor of reaffiliation. For example, the threat of social rejection

is associated with increased attention to signs of social positiv-

ity, such as smiling faces in a crowd, but not to disapproving

faces or positive nonsocial stimuli (DeWall et al., 2009). In our

Experiment 2, we found that only targets that could afford an

authentic source of social reconnection (an actual person)

would bias distance perception, whereas a nonsocial target

(a cardboard standee of the person) had no motivated percep-

tual effects on distance estimates. This also mirrors Balcetis

and Dunning’s (2010) findings that only valuable targets per-

ceived to be attainable loomed toward to the self. This is

important, as it speaks against the possibility that rejection

merely causes our perceptions of the world to be indiscrimi-

nately warped or distorted by negative affect or arousal.

Rather, the motivated perceptual consequences of rejection

are adaptive and selective.

Moreover, the current work also links well to the recent

findings in the embodiment literature demonstrating that our

perception of the physical world is intimately linked with our

motives. For example, Ijzerman and Semin (2010) found evi-

dence that the concept of warmth is linked with the experience

of physical proximity, with warmer objects seeming more

proximate to the self (and vice versa). Further, recent work

by Fay and Maner (2012) has demonstrated that even being

primed with warmth can trigger affiliative goals and that warm

objects appear closer to the self (again, presumably because of

their link with affiliative goals). Although the current work did

not directly test an embodiment hypothesis, it is certainly con-

gruent with the broader perspective that biases in the perceptual

system can emerge from activated goals and concepts.

Taken together, the experiments reported in this article pro-

vide consistent, albeit initial evidence that social exclusion

causes basic perceptual properties of the environment to shift

in a manner that may facilitate goal attainment. There are, how-

ever, remaining questions to be considered. First, one limita-

tion of these studies is that, while we have made a case that

social reaffiliation was a driving motive in the misperceptions

of physical proximity, we manipulated rather than measured

the desire to affiliate. For instance, it may bolster future studies

to attempt to correlate distance estimates with a more direct

measure of the desire to reaffiliate (e.g., desire to work further

with the partner on a task). Nevertheless, given the extensive

and compelling evidence that rejection can powerfully trigger

the need to affiliate (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Maner

et al., 2007; Williams, 2007, 2009; Williams & Nida, 2011),

it seems quite likely that the motive to affiliate is implicated

in the current studies. Further, the results of Experiment 2 also

comport closely with the activation of a reaffiliation motive.

The robust bias in distance estimates toward social targets that

could offer a social connection, along with no such bias in

estimates to the similar inanimate target strongly implicates a

social reaffiliation motive.

Second, we also think it is important to consider carefully

our dependent measures across the two experiments. In Experi-

ment 1, we employed a bag toss measure, which is typically

interpreted as an embodied measure of distance perception

(Balcetis & Dunning, 2010; Slepian et al., 2012). Although

we favor this interpretation of our results, it is possible that the

rejection-driven shorter tosses observed here were not due to

motivated distance perception, but instead to hesitance to acci-

dentally strike confederates with an errant beanbag toss.

Although this is possible, it does not comport easily with the

verbal distance measure employed in Experiment 2. Further,

by employing multiple measures across the two studies, this

work is less vulnerable to recent methodological critiques of

similar studies of distance perception (e.g., Woods, Philbeck, &

Danoff, 2009).

In closing, the current work demonstrates that interpersonal

rejection, in addition to enhancing acuity for important social sig-

nals, has consequences even for basic distance perception. Valued

social targets loom closer, and to the rejected perceiver, there is

great value in social reconnection, and in those who can provide it.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Caitlin Moran for her assistance with stimu-

lus construction and data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Alter, A., & Balcetis, E. (2011). Fondness makes the distance grow

shorter: Desired locations seem closer because they seem more

vivid. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 16–21.

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2007). Cognitive dissonance reduction

and perception of the physical world. Psychological Science, 18,

917–921.

Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired

objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147–152.

doi:10.1177/0956797609356283

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire

for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.

Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., &

Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion:

Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles.

Psychological Science, 19, 981–983.

Bhalla, M., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual–motor recalibration in

geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1076–1096. doi:10.

1037/0096-1523.25.4.1076

6 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
Brown, C. M., Young, S. G., Sacco, D. F., Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool,

H. M. (2009). Social inclusion facilitates interest in mating. Evolu-

tionary Psychology, 7, 11–27.

Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing

factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

42, 33–44. doi:10.1037/h0058484

Buss, D. M. (1990). The evolution of anxiety and social exclusion.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 196–201.

Cole, S., Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2013). Affective signals of threat

increase perceived proximity. Psychological Science, 24, 34–40.

Crespi, L. P. (1942). Quantitative variation of incentive and perfor-

mance in the white rat. The American Journal of Psychology, 55,

467–517.

DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion

and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to

signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

96, 729–741. doi:10.1037/a0014634

DeWall, C. N., & Richman, S. B. (2011). Social exclusion and the

desire to reconnect. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,

5, 919–932.

Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences

shape visual perception. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-

ence, 22, 33–37. doi:10.1177/0963721412463693

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does

rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302,

290–292.

Fay, A. J., & Maner, J. K. (2012). Warmth, proximity, and social

attachment: The embodied perception of a social metaphor. Jour-

nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1369–1372. doi:10.

1016/j.jesp.2012.05.017

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). The spatial ecology of

group formation. In L. Festinger, S. Schachter, & K. Back (Eds.),

Social pressure in informal groups (pp. 141–161).Palo Alto, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclu-

sion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences

memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-

letin, 26, 486–496.

Henchy, T., & Glass, D. C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and the

social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 446–454.

Ijzerman, H., & Semin, G. R. (2010). Temperature perceptions as a

ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-

chology, 46, 867–873.

Knowles, M. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2008). Benefits of membership: The

activation and amplification of group identities in response to social

rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1200–1213.

Lessard, D. A., Linkenauger, S. A., & Proffitt, D. R. (2009). Look

before you leap: Jumping ability affects distance perception. Per-

ception, 38, 1863–1866.

Linkenauger, S. A., Witt, J. K., Stefanucci, J. K., Bakdash, J. Z., &

Proffitt, D. R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability

on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1649–1660.

Low, A., Lang, P. J., Smith, J. C., & Bradley, M. W. (2008). Both pre-

dator and prey: Emotional arousal in threat and reward. Psycholo-

gical Science, 19, 865–873.

Magic Eye Inc. (2004). Magic eye 3D hidden treasures: A collec-

tion of 3D illusions. Kansas City, MI: Andrews McMeel

Publishing.

Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007).

Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resol-

ving the ‘‘porcupine problem’’. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92, 42–55.

Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-

experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 55, 102–111.

McGinty, V. B., Lardeux, S., Taha, S. A., Kim, J. J., & Nicola,

S. M. (2013). Invigoration of reward seeking by cue and

proximity encoding in the nucleus accumbens. Neuron, 78,

910–922.

Neumann, R., Förster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor compatabil-

ity: The bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation.

In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evalua-

tion (pp. 371–391). London, England: Earlbaum.

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue:

The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107.

Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of

action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110–122.

Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The

role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14,

106–112. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01427

Rieser, J. J., Pick, H. L., Ashmead, D. H., & Garing, A. E. (1995).

Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-

motor organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human

Perception and Performance, 21, 480–497.

Sacco, D. F., Wirth, J. H., Hugenberg, K., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D.

(2011). The world in black and white: Ostracism enhances the cate-

gorical perception of social information. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 47, 836–842.

Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Bernstein, M. J., & Hugen-

berg, K. (2012). Social exclusion and female mating behavior:

Rejected women show strategic enhancement of short-term mating

interest. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 573–587.

Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008).

Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1246–1255.

Schnall, S., Zadra, J. R., & Proffitt, D. R. (2010). Direct evidence for

the economy of action: Glucose and the perception of geographical

slant. Perception, 39, 464–482.

Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., Toosi, N. R., & Ambady, N. (2012).

The physical burdens of secrecy. Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: General, 141, 619–624.

Teachman, B. A., Stefanucci, J. K., Clerkin, E. M., Cody, M. W., &

Proffitt, D. R. (2008). A new mode of fear expression: Perceptual

bias in height fear. Emotion, 8, 296–301.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bar-

tels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56–66.

Pitts et al. 7

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001).

If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on

aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 81, 1058–1069.

Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social

exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaning-

lessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423.

Vagnoni, E., Lourenco, S. F., & Longo, M. R. (2012). Threat modu-

lates perception of looming visual stimuli. Current Biology, 22,

R826–R827.

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,

425–452.

Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat

model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279–314). New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and

coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75.

doi:10.1177/0963721411402480

Woods, A. J., Philbeck, J. W., & Danoff, J. V. (2009). The various per-

ceptions of distance: An alternative view of how effort affects dis-

tance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human

Perception and Performance, 35, 1104–1117.

Author Biographies

Shane Pitts is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Bir-

mingham-Southern College in Birmingham, AL. His research inter-

ests include motivated social cognition, stereotyping and prejudice,

social rejection, and face perception.

John Paul Wilson is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psy-

chology at the University of Toronto. He received his PhD from

Miami University in 2013. His research interests include person per-

ception and social cognition.

Kurt Hugenberg is a Professor in the Psychology Department at

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He received his PhD from North-

western in 2003. His research interests include face perception, stereo-

typing and prejudice, and motivated cognition.

8 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

at UNIV TORONTO on February 6, 2014spp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spp.sagepub.com/
http://spp.sagepub.com/
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 200 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 200 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

Blog ArchiveCopyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com Read More
Applied SciencesArchitecture and DesignBiologyBusiness & FinanceChemistryComputer ScienceGeographyGeologyEducationEngineeringEnglishEnvironmental scienceSpanishGovernmentHistoryHuman Resource ManagementInformation SystemsLawLiteratureMathematicsNursingPhysicsPolitical SciencePsychologyReadingScienceSocial Science

"Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now