Start making sense. Disjunction is dead. The fragment, which ruled poetry for the past one hundred years, has left the building. Subjectivity, emotion, the body, and desire, as expressed in whole units of plain English with normative syntax, has returned. But not in ways you would imagine. This new poetry wears its sincerity on its sleeve . . . yet no one means a word of it. Come to think of it, no one’s really written a word of it. It’s been grabbed, cut, pasted, processed, machined, honed, flattened, repurposed, regurgitated, and reframed from the great mass of free-floating language out there just begging to be turned into poetry. Why atomize, shatter, and splay language into nonsensical shards when you can hoard, store, mold, squeeze, shovel, soil, scrub, package, and cram the stuff into towers of words and castles of language with a stroke of the keyboard? And what fun to wreck it: knock it down, hit delete, and start all over again. There’s a sense of gluttony, of joy, and of fun. Like kids at a touch table, we’re delighted to feel language again, to roll in it, to get our hands dirty. With so much available language, does anyone really need to write more? Instead, let’s just process what exists. Language as matter; language as material. How much did you say that paragraph weighed?
Our immersive digital environment demands new responses from writers. What does it mean to be a poet in the Internet age? These two movements, Flarf and Conceptual Writing, each formed over the past five years, are direct investigations to that end. And as different as they are, they have surprisingly come up with a set of similar solutions. Identity, for one, is up for grabs. Why use your own words when you can express yourself just as well by using someone else’s? And if your identity is not your own, then sincerity must be tossed out as well. Materiality, too, comes to the fore: the quantity of words seems to have more bearing on a poem than what they mean. Disposability, fluidity, and recycling: there’s a sense that these words aren’t meant for forever. Today they’re glued to a page but tomorrow they could re-emerge as a Facebook meme. Fusing the avant-garde impulses of the last century with the technologies of the present, these strategies propose an expanded field for twenty-first-century poetry. This new writing is not bound exclusively between pages of a book; it continually morphs from printed page to web page, from gallery space to science lab, from social spaces of poetry readings to social spaces of blogs. It is a poetics of flux, celebrating instability and uncertainty.
Yet for as much as the two movements have in common, they are very different. Unlike Conceptual Writing, where procedure may have as much to do with meaning as the form and content, Flarf is quasi-procedural and improvisatory. Many of the poems are “sculpted” from the results of Internet searches, often using words and phrases that the poet has gleaned from poems posted by other poets to the Flarflist e-mail listserv. By contrast Conceptual Writers try to emulate the workings and processes of the machine, feeling that the results will be good if the concept and execution of the poetic machine are good; there is no tolerance for improvisation or spontaneity.
Flarf plays Dionysus to Conceptual Writing’s Apollo. Flarf uses traditional poetic tropes (“taste” and “subjectivity”) and forms (stanza and verse) to turn these conventions inside out. Conceptual Writing rarely “looks” like poetry and uses its own subjectivity to construct a linguistic machine that words may be poured into; it cares little for the outcome. Flarf is hilarious. Conceptual Writing is dry. Flarf is the Land O’Lakes butter squaw; Conceptual Writing is the government’s nutritional label on the box. Flarf is Larry Rivers. Conceptual Writing is Andy Warhol. No matter. They’re two sides of the same coin. Choose your poison and embrace your guilty pleasure.—KG
Social rejection occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a social relationship or social interaction. The topic includes interpersonal rejection (or peer rejection), romantic rejection and familial estrangement. A person can be rejected by individuals or an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either active, by bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive, by ignoring a person, or giving the "silent treatment". The experience of being rejected is subjective for the recipient, and it can be perceived when it is not actually present. The word ostracism is often used for the process (in Ancient Greece ostracism was voting into temporary exile).[not in citation given]
Although humans are social beings, some level of rejection is an inevitable part of life. Nevertheless, rejection can become a problem when it is prolonged or consistent, when the relationship is important, or when the individual is highly sensitive to rejection. Rejection by an entire group of people can have especially negative effects, particularly when it results in social isolation.
The experience of rejection can lead to a number of adverse psychological consequences such as loneliness, low self-esteem, aggression, and depression. It can also lead to feelings of insecurity and a heightened sensitivity to future rejection.
Need for acceptance
Rejection may be emotionally painful because of the social nature of human beings and the need of social interaction between other humans is essential. Abraham Maslow and other theorists have suggested that the need for love and belongingness is a fundamental human motivation. According to Maslow, all humans, even introverts, need to be able to give and receive affection to be psychologically healthy.
Psychologists believe that simple contact or social interaction with others is not enough to fulfill this need. Instead, people have a strong motivational drive to form and maintain caring interpersonal relationships. People need both stable relationships and satisfying interactions with the people in those relationships. If either of these two ingredients is missing, people will begin to feel lonely and unhappy. Thus, rejection is a significant threat. In fact, the majority of human anxieties appear to reflect concerns over social exclusion.
Being a member of a group is also important for social identity, which is a key component of the self-concept. Mark Leary of Duke University has suggested that the main purpose of self-esteem is to monitor social relations and detect social rejection. In this view, self-esteem is a sociometer which activates negative emotions when signs of exclusion appear.
Social psychological research confirms the motivational basis of the need for acceptance. Specifically, fear of rejection leads to conformity to peer pressure (sometimes called normative influence), and compliance to the demands of others. Our need for affiliation and social interaction appears to be particularly strong when we are under stress.
Peer rejection has been measured using sociometry and other rating methods. Studies typically show that some children are popular, receiving generally high ratings, many children are in the middle, with moderate ratings, and a minority of children are rejected, showing generally low ratings. One measure of rejection asks children to list peers they like and dislike. Rejected children receive few "like" nominations and many "dislike" nominations. Children classified as neglected receive few nominations of either type.
According to Karen Bierman of Pennsylvania State University, most children who are rejected by their peers display one or more of the following behavior patterns:
- Low rates of prosocial behavior, e.g. taking turns, sharing.
- High rates of aggressive or disruptive behavior.
- High rates of inattentive, immature, or impulsive behavior.
- High rates of social anxiety.
Bierman states that well-liked children show social savvy and know when and how to join play groups. Children who are at risk for rejection are more likely to barge in disruptively, or hang back without joining at all. Aggressive children who are athletic or have good social skills are likely to be accepted by peers, and they may become ringleaders in the harassment of less skilled children. Minority children, children with disabilities, or children who have unusual characteristics or behavior may face greater risks of rejection. Depending on the norms of the peer group, sometimes even minor differences among children lead to rejection or neglect. Children who are less outgoing or simply prefer solitary play are less likely to be rejected than children who are socially inhibited and show signs of insecurity or anxiety.
Peer rejection, once established, tends to be stable over time, and thus difficult for a child to overcome. Researchers have found that active rejection is more stable, more harmful, and more likely to persist after a child transfers to another school, than simple neglect. One reason for this is that peer groups establish reputational biases that act as stereotypes and influence subsequent social interaction. Thus, even when rejected and popular children show similar behavior and accomplishments, popular children are treated much more favorably.
Rejected children are likely to have lower self-esteem, and to be at greater risk for internalizing problems like depression. Some rejected children display externalizing behavior and show aggression rather than depression. The research is largely correlational, but there is evidence of reciprocal effects. This means that children with problems are more likely to be rejected, and this rejection then leads to even greater problems for them. Chronic peer rejection may lead to a negative developmental cycle that worsens with time.
Rejected children are more likely to be bullied and to have fewer friends than popular children, but these conditions are not always present. For example, some popular children do not have close friends, whereas some rejected children do. Peer rejection is believed to be less damaging for children with at least one close friend.
An analysis of 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that peer rejection was present in all but two of the cases (87%). The documented rejection experiences included both acute and chronic rejection and frequently took the form of ostracism, bullying, and romantic rejection. The authors stated that although it is likely that the rejection experiences contributed to the school shootings, other factors were also present, such as depression, poor impulse control, and other psychopathology.
There are programs available for helping children who suffer from social rejection. One large scale review of 79 controlled studies found that social skills training is very effective (r = .40 effect size), with a 70% success rate, compared to 30% success in control groups. There was a decline in effectiveness over time, however, with follow-up studies showing a somewhat smaller effect size (r = .35).
In the laboratory
Laboratory research has found that even short-term rejection from strangers can have powerful (if temporary) effects on an individual. In several social psychology experiments, people chosen at random to receive messages of social exclusion become more aggressive, more willing to cheat, less willing to help others, and more likely to pursue short-term over long-term goals. Rejection appears to lead very rapidly to self-defeating and antisocial behavior.
Researchers have also investigated how the brain responds to social rejection. One study found that the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is active when people are experiencing both physical pain and "social pain," in response to social rejection. A subsequent experiment, also using fMRI neuroimaging, found that three regions become active when people are exposed to images depicting rejection themes. These areas are the posterior cingulate, the parahippocampal gyrus, and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. Furthermore, individuals who are high in rejection sensitivity (see below) show less activity in the left prefrontal cortex and the right dorsal superior frontal gyrus, which may indicate less ability to regulate emotional responses to rejection.
A recent experiment at the University of California at Berkeley found that individuals with a combination of low self-esteem and low attentional control are more likely to exhibit eye-blink startle responses while viewing rejection themed images. These findings indicate that people who feel bad about themselves are especially vulnerable to rejection, but that people can also control and regulate their emotional reactions.
A study at Miami University indicated that individuals who recently experienced social rejection were better than both accepted and control participants in their ability to discriminate between real and fake smiles. Though both accepted and control participants were better than chance (they did not differ from each other), rejected participants were much better at this task, nearing 80% accuracy. This study is noteworthy in that it is one of the few cases of a positive or adaptive consequence of social rejection.
Ball toss / cyberball experiments
A common experimental technique is the "ball toss" paradigm, which was developed by Kip Williams and his colleagues at Purdue University. This procedure involves a group of three people tossing a ball back and forth. Unbeknownst to the actual participant, two members of the group are working for the experimenter and following a pre-arranged script. In a typical experiment, half of the subjects will be excluded from the activity after a few tosses and never get the ball again. Only a few minutes of this treatment are sufficient to produce negative emotions in the target, including anger and sadness. This effect occurs regardless of self-esteem and other personality differences.
Gender differences have been found in these experiments. In one study, women showed greater nonverbal engagement whereas men disengaged faster and showed face-saving techniques, such as pretending to be uninterested. The researchers concluded that women seek to regain a sense of belonging whereas men are more interested in regaining self-esteem.
A computerized version of the task known as "cyberball" has also been developed and leads to similar results. Cyberball is a virtual ball toss game where the participant is led to believe they are playing with two other participants sitting at computers elsewhere who can toss the ball to either player. The participant is included in the game for the first few minutes, but then excluded by the other players for the remaining three minutes. This simple and short time period of ostracism has been found to produce significant increases to self-reported levels of anger and sadness, as well as lowering levels of the four needs. These effects have been found even when the participant is ostracised by out-group members, when the out-group member is identified as a despised person such as someone in the Ku Klux Klan, when they know the source of the ostracism is just a computer, and even when being ostracised means they will be financially rewarded and being included would incur a financial cost.
People feel rejected even when they know they are playing only against the computer. A recent set of experiments using cyberball demonstrated that rejection impairs will power or self-regulation. Specifically, people who are rejected are more likely to eat cookies and less likely to drink an unpleasant tasting beverage that they are told is good for them. These experiments also showed that the negative effects of rejection last longer in individuals who are high in social anxiety.
Psychology of ostracism
Most of the research on the psychology of ostracism has been conducted by the social psychologist Kip Williams. He and his colleagues have devised a model of ostracism which provides a framework to show the complexity in the varieties of ostracism and the processes of its effects. There he theorises that ostracism can potentially be so harmful that we have evolved an efficient warning system to immediately detect and respond to it.
In the animal kingdom as well as in primitive human societies, ostracism can lead to death due to the lack of protection benefits and access to sufficient food resources from the group. Living apart from the whole of society also means not having a mate, so being able to detect ostracism would be a highly adaptive response to ensure survival and continuation of the genetic line.
It is proposed that ostracism uniquely poses a threat to four fundamental human needs; the need to belong, the need for control in social situations, the need to maintain high levels of self-esteem, and the need to have a sense of a meaningful existence. A threat to these needs produces psychological distress and pain. Thus, people are motivated to remove this pain with behaviours aimed at reducing the likelihood of others ostracising them any further and increasing their inclusionary status.
In contrast to the study of childhood rejection, which primarily examines rejection by a group of peers, some researchers focus on the phenomenon of a single individual rejecting another in the context of a romantic relationship. In both teenagers and adults, romantic rejection occurs when a person refuses the romantic advances of another, ignores/avoids or is repulsed by someone who is romantically interested in them, or unilaterally ends an existing relationship. The state of unrequited love is a common experience in youth, but mutual love becomes more typical as people get older.
Romantic rejection is a painful, emotional experience that appears to trigger a response in the caudate nucleus of the brain, and associated dopamine and cortisol activity. Subjectively, rejected individuals experience a range of negative emotions, including frustration, intense anger, jealousy, hate, and eventually, resignation, despair, and possible long-term depression.
See also: borderline personality disorder
Karen Horney was the first theorist to discuss the phenomenon of rejection sensitivity. She suggested that it is a component of the neurotic personality, and that it is a tendency to feel deep anxiety and humiliation at the slightest rebuff. Simply being made to wait, for example, could be viewed as a rejection and met with extreme anger and hostility.
Albert Mehrabian developed an early questionnaire measure of rejection sensitivity. Mehrabian suggested that sensitive individuals are reluctant to express opinions, tend to avoid arguments or controversial discussions, are reluctant to make requests or impose on others, are easily hurt by negative feedback from others, and tend to rely too much on familiar others and situations so as to avoid rejection.
A more recent (1996) definition of rejection sensitivity is the tendency to "anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact" to social rejection. People differ in their readiness to perceive and react to rejection. The causes of individual differences in rejection sensitivity are not well understood. Because of the association between rejection sensitivity and neuroticism, there is a likely genetic predisposition. Others posit that rejection sensitivity stems from early attachment relationships and parental rejection; also peer rejection is thought to play a role. Bullying, an extreme form of peer rejection, is likely connected to later rejection sensitivity. However, there is no conclusive evidence for any of these theories.
Social rejection has a large effect on a person’s health. Baumeister and Leary originally suggested that an unsatisfied need to belong would inevitably lead to problems in behavior as well as mental and physical health. Corroboration of these assumptions about behavior deficits were seen by John Bowlby in his research. Numerous studies have found that being socially rejected leads to an increase in levels of anxiety. Additionally, the level of depression a person feels as well as the amount they care about their social relationships is directly proportional to the level of rejection they perceive. Rejection affects the emotional health and well being of a person as well. Overall, experiments show that those who have been rejected will suffer from more negative emotions and have fewer positive emotions than those who have been accepted or those who were in neutral or control conditions.
In addition to the emotional response to rejection, there is a large effect on physical health as well. Having poor relationships and being more frequently rejected is predictive of mortality. Also, as long as a decade after the marriage ends, divorced women have higher rates of illness than their non-married or currently married counterparts. In the case of a family estrangement, a core part of the mother’s identity may be betrayed by the rejection of an adult child. The chance for reconciliation, however slight, results in an inability to attain closure. The resulting emotional state and societal stigma from the estrangement may harm psychological and physical health of the parent through end of life.
The immune system tends to be harmed when a person experiences social rejection. This can cause severe problems for those with diseases such as HIV. One study by Cole, Kemeny, and Taylor investigated the differences in the disease progression of HIV positive gay men who were sensitive to rejection compared to those who were not considered rejection sensitive. The study, which took place over nine years, indicated significantly faster rate of low T helper cells, therefore leading to an earlier AIDS diagnosis. Interestingly, they also found that those patients who were more sensitive to rejection died from the disease an average of 2 years earlier than their non-rejection sensitive counterparts.
Other aspects of health are also affected by rejection. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure increase upon imagining a rejection scenario. Those who are socially rejected have an increased likelihood of suffering from tuberculosis, as well as dying by suicide. Rejection and isolation were found to affect levels of pain following an operation as well as other physical forms of pain. Social rejection may cause a reduction in intelligence. MacDonald and Leary theorize that rejection and exclusion cause physical pain because that pain is a warning sign to help us survive. As we developed into social creatures, social interactions and relationships became necessary to our survival, and the physical pain systems already existed within our bodies.
In fiction, film and art
Artistic depictions of rejection occur in a variety of art forms. One example of rejection in art is Gian Lorenzo Bernini's sculpture of the Greek deity, Apollo. In this work, the mythical nymph, Daphne, depicts the act of rejection. Apollo had been filled with passion for Daphne, but she repeatedly rejected his advances. The sculpture portrays the moment when Daphne cries out for safety from Apollo and as a result is transformed into a laurel tree. Apollo has been defeated and turns away, rejected.
Depictions of rejection also occur in film. One genre of film that most frequently depicts rejection is romantic comedies. In the film He's Just Not That Into You, the main characters deal with the challenges of reading and misreading human behavior. This presents a fear of rejection in romantic relationships as reflected in this quote by the character Mary, "And now you have to go around checking all these different portals just to get rejected by seven different technologies. It's exhausting."
Social rejection is also depicted in theatrical plays and musicals. For example, the film Hairspray shares the story of Tracy Turnblad, an overweight 15-year-old dancer set in the 1960s. Tracy and her mother are faced with overcoming society's expectations regarding weight and physical appearances.
- ^McCausland, Shane (2003), First Masterpiece of Chinese Painting: The Admonitions Scroll, British Museum Press, p. 75, ISBN 978-0-7141-2417-9
- ^ostracize. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ostracize (accessed: November 17, 2013).
- ^Williams, Kipling D.; Joseph P. Forgas; William von Hippel (2005). The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying. Psychology Press. p. 366 pages. ISBN 1-84169-424-X.
- ^ abMcDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of childhood rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection. (pp. 213-247). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- ^Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper.
- ^ abBaumeister RF, Leary MR (1995). "The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation". Psychol Bull. 117 (3): 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. PMID 7777651.
- ^Baumeister, R. F.; Tice, D. M. (1990). "Anxiety and social exclusion". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 9: 165–195. doi:10.1521/jscp.19188.8.131.52.
- ^Leary, M. R., Downs, D. L., (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M. H. Kernis, Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 123-144.
- ^ abBierman, K. L. (2003). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.
- ^Cillessen, A., Bukowski, W. M., & Haselager, G. (2000). Stability of sociometric categories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- ^Hymel, S., Wagner, E., & Butler, L. J. (1990). Reputational bias: View from the peer group. In S. R. Asher, & J. D. Coie, (Eds.). Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge University Press.
- ^Coie, J. D. (1990). Toward a theory of peer rejection. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds). Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 365-401). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- ^Leary, M. R.; Kowalski, R. M.; Smith, L. (2003). "Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings". Aggressive Behavior. 29: 202–214. doi:10.1002/ab.10061.
- ^Schneider, B. H. (1992). "Didactic methods for enhancing children's peer relations: A quantitative review". Clinical Psychology Review. 12: 363–382. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(92)90142-u.
- ^Twenge JM, Catanese KR, Baumeister RF (2002). "Social exclusion causes self-defeating behavior". J Pers Soc Psychol. 83 (3): 606–15. doi:10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2066. PMID 12219857.
- ^Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD (2003). "Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion". Science. 302 (5643): 290–2. doi:10.1126/science.1089134. PMID 14551436.
- ^Kross E, Egner T, Ochsner K, Hirsch J, Downey G (2007). "Neural dynamics of rejection sensitivity". J Cogn Neurosci. 19 (6): 945–56. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.6.945. PMID 17536965.
- ^Gyurak A, Ayduk O (2007). "Defensive physiological reactions to rejection: the effect of self-esteem and attentional control on startle responses". Psychol Sci. 18 (10): 886–92. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01996.x. PMID 17894606.
- ^Bernstein MJ, Young SG, Brown CM, Sacco DF, Claypool HM (2008). "Adaptive responses to social exclusion: social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles". Psychol Sci. 19 (10): 981–3. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x. PMID 19000206.
- ^Williams, K. D.; Sommer, K. L. (1997). "Social ostracism by one's coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 23: 693–706. doi:10.1177/0146167297237003.
- ^Williams, K. D. & Zadro, L. (2001). Ostracism. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection. (pp. 21-53). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- ^Zadro, Lisa; Williams, Kipling D; Richardson, Rick (30 June 2004). "How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 40 (4): 560–567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006.
- ^Smith, A; Williams, K (2004). "R U There? Effects of ostracism by cell phone messages". Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice. 8: 291–301. doi:10.1037/1089-26220.127.116.111.
- ^Williams, Kipling; Cheung, C.; Choi, W. (2000). "CyberOstracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 79: 748–762. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688.
- ^Gonsalkorale, K; Williams, K (2007). "The KKK won't let play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts". European journal of social psychology. 37: 1176–1186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.392.
- ^Zadro, Lisa; Williams, K; Richardson, R (2004). "How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem and meaningful existence". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 40: 560–567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006.
- ^Van Beest, Ilja; Williams, K. "When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 42: 213–220. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.005.
- ^Oaten, M.; Williams, K. D.; Jones, A.; Zadro, L. (2008). "The effects of ostracism on self-regulation in the socially anxious". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 27: 471–504. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.5.471.
- ^ abWilliams, Kipling D. (2002). Ostracism : the power of silence. New York: Guilford. ISBN 1-57230-831-1.
- ^Leary, edited by Mark R. (2007). Interpersonal rejection. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 21–54. ISBN 978-0-19-513015-7.
- ^Gruter, M; Masters, R (1986). "Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An introduction". Ethology and socio-biology. 7: 149–158. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(86)90043-9.
- ^Baumeister, R. F. & Dhavale, D. (2001). Two sides of romantic rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection. (pp. 55-72). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- ^Fisher, H. (2006) Lost Love: The Nature of romantic rejection, In Cut Loose: (mostly) midlife and older women on the end of (mostly) long-term relationships. Nan Bauer-Maglin (Ed.) New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
- ^Downey, G. (2008). The disregulating effect of social threat in people with borderline personality disorder. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Feb. 7-9, 2008.
- ^Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
- ^Mehrabian, A (1976). "Questionnaire measures of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection". Psychological Reports. 38: 199–209. doi:10.2466/pr0.1922.214.171.124.
- ^ abDowney G, Feldman SI (1996). "Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships"(PDF). J Pers Soc Psychol. 70 (6): 1327–43. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997. PMID 8667172. Archived from the original(PDF) on July 31, 2013.
- ^ abcdeButler, J. C.; Doherty, M. S.; Potter, R. M. (2007). "Social antecedents and consequences of interpersonal rejection sensitivity"(PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 43: 1376–1385. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.006.
- ^London, B.; Downey, G.; Bonica, C.; Paltin, I. (2007). "Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity". Journal of Research on Adolescence. 17: 481–506. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00531.x.
- ^Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:Basic Books.
- ^Barden. R. C, Garber, J., Leiman, B., Ford, M. E., & Masters, J. C. (1985). Factors governing the effective remediation of negative affect and its cognitive and behavioral consequences. ‘’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,’’ 1040-1053..
- ^Baumeister, R. F.; Tice, D. M. (1990). "Point-counterpoints: Anxiety and social exclusion". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 9 (2): 165–195. doi:10.1521/jscp.19188.8.131.52.
- ^ abBesser, A.; Priel, B. (2009). "Emotional Responses to a Romantic Partner's Imaginary Rejection: The Roles of Attachment Anxiety, Covert Narcissism, and Self-Evaluation". Journal of Personality. 77 (1): 287–325. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00546.x.
- ^ abTambor, E. S., & Leary, M. R. (1993). Perceived exclusion as a common factor in social anxiety, loneliness, jealousy, depression, and low self-esteem. Unpublished manuscript. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake Forest University.
- ^Blackhart, G. C.; Nelson, B. C.; Knowles, M. L.; Baumeister, R. F. (2009). "Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13 (4): 269–309. doi:10.1177/1088868309346065.
- ^Orth-Gomer, K.; Johnson, J. V. (1987). "Social network interaction and mortality: a six year follow-up study of a random sample of the Swedish population". Journal of chronic diseases. 40 (10): 949–957. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90145-7.
- ^Lorenz, F. O.; Wickrama, K. A. S.; Conger, R. D.; Elder, G. H. (2006). "The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on women's midlife health". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 47 (2): 111–125. doi:10.1177/002214650604700202.
- ^Agllias, K. (2011a). Every family: Intergenerational estrangement between older parents and their adult-children. (Doctoral dissertation, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan).
- ^Agllias, Kylie. (Sep 2013). Family Estrangement. Encyclopedia of Social Work. Subject: Couples and Families, Aging and Older Adults, Children and Adolescents. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.919
- ^Bowling, A.; Gabriel, Z. (2007). "Lay theories of quality of life in older age". Ageing and Society. 27 (6): 827–848. doi:10.1017/s0144686x07006423.
- ^Gabriel, Z.; Bowling, A. (2004). "Quality of life from the perspectives of older people". Ageing and Society. 24 (5): 675–691. doi:10.1017/s0144686x03001582.
- ^MacDonald, M (2007). "Social support for centenarians' health, psychological well-being, and longevity". Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 27: 107–127.
- ^Dickerson, S. S.; Gruenewald, T. L.; Kemeny, M. E. (2004). "When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health". Journal of Personality. 72 (6): 1191–1216. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x.
- ^ abcCole, S. W.; Kemeny, M. E.; Taylor, S. E. (1997). "Social identity and physical health: Accelerated HIV progression in rejection-sensitive gay men". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72 (2): 320–335. doi:10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2060.
- ^Sommer, K. L.; Kirkland, K. L.; Newman, S. R.; Estrella, P.; Andreassi, J. L. (2009). "Narcissism and cardiovascular reactivity to rejection imagery". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 39 (5): 1083–1115. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00473.x.
- ^Cassel, J (1976). "The contribution of the social environment to host resistance". American Journal of Epidemiology. 104 (2): 107–123.
- ^Lidderdale, J. M.; Walsh, J. J. (1998). "The effects of social support on cardiovascular reactivity and perinatal outcome". Psychology and Health. 13 (6): 1061–1070. doi:10.1080/08870449808407450.