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