Abstract

The behavioral and neural responses to social exclusion were examined in women randomized to four conditions, varying in levels of attractiveness and friendliness. Informed by evolutionary theory, we predicted that being socially excluded by attractive unfriendly women would be more distressing than being excluded by unattractive women, irrespective of their friendliness level. Our results contradicted most of our predictions but provide important insights into women's responses to interpersonal conflict. Accounting for rejection sensitivity, P300 event-related potential amplitudes were largest when women were excluded by unattractive unfriendly women. This may be due to an expectancy violation or an annoyance with being excluded by women low on social desirability. An examination of anger rumination rates by condition suggests the latter. Only attractive women's attractiveness ratings were lowered in the unfriendly condition, indicating they were specifically punished for their exclusionary behavior. Women were more likely to select attractive women to compete against with one exception-they selected the Black attractive opponent less often than the White attractive opponent when presented as unfriendly. Finally, consistent with studies on retaliation in relation to social exclusion, women tended to rate competitors who rejected them as being more rude, more competitive, less attractive, less nice, and less happy than non-competitors. The ubiquity of social exclusion and its pointed emotional and physiological impact on women demands more research on this topic.