THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REJECTION TO THE ACADEMIC
PERFORMANCE OF THE STUDENTS OF ROOSEVELT COLLEGE
INCORPORATED – CUBAO BRANCH S.Y. 2017 – 2018
A Research Study presented to the Faculty of Roosevelt
College Inc. - Cubao Branch
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
Graduation in Secondary Education
John Venson L. De Maligaya
Leader
Arturo Tubuhan
Julian Claire Evangelista
Acen Jeremy Salahuddin
Members
Grade 12 – Humanities and Social Sciences
Mrs. Emelita S. Caluma
Research Adviser
February 2018
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Chapter one includes the Background of the Study, the Statement
of
the
Problem,
The
Conceptual
Framework
of
the
study,
Hypothesis and its Scope and Delimitations together with its
Significance and the Definition of Terms.
Background of the Study
Rejection
is
one
of
the
emotional
wound
we
used
to
experience in our everyday life. Perhaps, it is one of the most
tragic and worse wound a person may experience. Being rejected
as a member is a sad thing, rejection by an entire group of
people may result to some negative effects.
The
experience
of
rejection
can
lead
to
a
number
of
adverse psychological consequences such as loneliness, low self
esteem, aggression and depression. This psychological problem is
very
visible
instance
a
when
you
person
are
who
in
teen
suffered
and
adult
from
stage.
social
For
an
rejection
deliberately excluded from a social relationship or interaction.
A person can be rejected by individuals or an entire group of
people by means of bullying, teasing or giving silent treatment.
2
Social rejection is a way to avoid someone you don’t like
or someone you can’t accept. For example, being a member of the
LGBT community or a person who had a different thinking or way
of conveying others. Social Rejection plays a vital role in an
everyday
life
of
a
person.
It
makes
a
person
distressed,
incompetent, and sad and it may affect his/her health condition
as well. But aside from the negative ones, Rejection can make a
person improved as he find ways on how to eliminate these flaws
or
make
a
different
person
types
much
of
stronger.
rejection
A
such
person
as
can
experience
“Parental
Rejection,
Rejection in School, “Rejection in Peer Group” and “Romantic
Rejection”,
These
types
of
rejection
can
affect
the
Social,
Emotional as well as the Academic Performance of a person.
Authors Julie Martin and Dr. Laura Richman pointed out that
rejection
can
cause
us
to
re-evaluate
ourselves,
questioning
everything about the mistake we committed and make the best
possible improvements to ourselves. Rejection destabilizes our
“Need to Belong”. We all have a fundamental need to belong in a
specific
group.
As
we
get
rejected,
this
need
becomes
destabilized and disconnection we feel ads to our emotional pain
we used to encounter.
This study is conducted for us to better understand the
reason behind rejection and how it affects a person as a whole,
3
hence we will be able to make some necessary recommendations in
coping up with this kind of stress.
Theoretical / Conceptual Framework
High School Students of Roosevelt College Inc. - Cubao
Social Rejection
Parental Rejection
Socio – Economic
Status
Love life
Age
Peer Group
Relationship Status
Family
Rejection in School
Rejection in Peer
Group
Romantic Rejection
Gender
Family Status
Number of Siblings
Academic Performance of the Students
Figure 1.1 Research Paradigm
The diagram states that there is a significant relationship
between the Factors, the Profile of the Respondents, and the
Type of Social Rejection they used to experience to the academic
performance of the students. Those three things contribute to
4
the social rejection that is experienced by the students and it
will help us to determine the effects of social rejection to the
academic performance of the students.
Statement of the Problem
The study aims to determine the effects of social rejection to
the academic performance of the students of Roosevelt College
Inc. – Cubao S.Y. 2017-2018. Hence, it sought to answer the
following specific questions:
1. What is the profile of the students in terms of the following?
1.1 Age
1.4 Socio-Economic Statuses
1.2 Gender
1.5 Relationship Status
1.3 Family Status
1.6 Number of Siblings
2. What is the Academic Performance of the students in the 1st
and 2nd Grading Period?
3. What type of Social Rejection is experienced by the students
based on the following?
3.1 Peer Group
4.
Is
there
Rejection
a
3.2 Family
significant
experienced
by
3.3 Love life
relationship
the
students
Performance?
5
between
and
the
their
Social
Academic
5. How does the student handle the Social Rejection they used to
experience?
6. Among the different type of social rejection, which affects
the academic performance of the students the most?
Hypothesis
1. There is no significant relationship between social rejection
and academic performance of students.
2. The types of Social Rejection they experienced have no effect
on the academic performance of the respondents.
Significance of the Study
This
study
will
be
beneficial
to
the
following
individuals/groups that are given below.
1. Students – Through this study, students will become aware of
the
different
things
about
social
rejection,
how
they
will
handle it and where to seek help if they used to experience this
kind of stress.
2.
Teachers
–
The
results
of
this
study
will
provide
some
insights and information on how they will handle their students
who are experiencing this kind of psychological backdrop and how
they will intervene and help their students.
6
3. Parents – This study could motivate them to improve their
relationship to their child and to give advice that will help
their child to get out of this kind of stress.
4.
School
–
Hopefully,
This
study
will
eventually
help
the
school by giving them ideas about social rejection for them to
come up with specific programs o activities through the guidance
counselor to improve not just to the emotional aspect but also
to the psychological aspect of their students.
Scope and Delimitation
The study is delimited to evaluate the effects of social
rejection to the students of Roosevelt College Incorporated –
Cubao Branch, Secondary Education Department. A Private, NonSectarian School located at 10th Avenue, P. Tuazon Blvd. Brgy
Socorro, Cubao Quezon City.
The
rejection
study
to
the
aims
to
academic
determine
the
performance
effects
of
the
of
social
students.
The
respondents are boys and girls form grades 7 to 12 with an age
bracket of 12 – 18 years old. It considers their Age, Family
Status,
their
Socio
Gender.
Economic
This
Status,
Study
is
Their
relationship
presented
to
the
status
High
and
School
students in the school year 2017-2018 at Roosevelt College Inc.
Cubao Branch.
7
Definition of Terms
Here are some terminologies we used in this study, together with
their definitions.
1. Social Rejection – Defined as an individual is intentionally
excluded from a peer group or a social relationship.
2. LGBT – Lesbian, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender, A Marginal
sector which consists of person’s that is belong to the third
sex.
3. Conventional Wisdom – An idea that is widely accepted by the
public
4. Ostracized Person – Person who is secluded in a particular
group
5. Cyber Bullying – Form of harassment using electronic forms of
contact, common especially among teenagers.
6. Self – Regulation – The Ability to monitor and control one’s
behavior emotions or thoughts.
8
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURE
The
Chapter
discusses
all
the
related
write
ups
and
related studies conducted as well the author’s quotations and
their opinions about the said topic.
RELATED STUDIES
According
to
a
recent
study
in
the Journal
of
Educational
Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association
(APA) (2010).
A
longitudinal
study,
conducted
over
a
five-year
period
following 380 students from age 5-years old to 11-years old,
found that children who are rejected by their peers have more
trouble engaging in school activities than children who are not
rejected by their peers. This kind of rejection can increase the
likelihood that children are victimized or excluded by peers and
impair
a
child's
participate
in
ability
classroom
to
interact
activities
with
and
other
children,
participate
in
the
social context of the classroom. It can result in long-term
maladjustment that may endure throughout a child's school years.
This present study is similar to that of Carrie Masten, PhD(2008)
in terms of her key findings
that revealed that adolescents
display unique neural patterns when they feel distress during
9
peer
rejection.
For
example,
adolescents
appear
to
regulate
emotional responses to peer rejection using neural regions that
develop earlier than those typically engaged by adults. This
difference might help explain why teens feel more distress when
they are rejected by their peers. Masten's study provided an
important first step toward understanding peer rejection in the
context of the developing adolescent brain, and contributed new
evidence regarding the underlying processes that might support
individuals' responses to rejection. Masten's findings suggest
that responsivity in some regions of the brain may serve as a
marker of adolescents' risk for future depression. The work is
the first to demonstrate a neural link between peer rejection
and depressive symptoms during adolescence. Masten has published
this
research
in
several
journals,
including Development
and
Psychopathology and Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
The study conducted by Roy Baumeister, PhD, of Florida State
University(2002),
rejection
and
suggests
his
colleagues
such
rejection
provide
also
a
framework
dampens
for
people's
willingness to self-regulate their actions. In the study's first
experiment,
36
undergraduate
participants
completed
a
personality questionnaire. The researchers told a third of the
students--selected at random--that their scores indicated that
they would likely end up alone in life (socially rejected).
10
Another
third
were
told
that
they
would
have
rewarding
relationships throughout life. In a control condition that was
negative but not based on social rejection, the final third were
told that they would be accident-prone as they got older, and
that this would negatively affect their life. Then, to measure
self-regulation,
participant
a
the
researchers
nickel
for
every
said
ounce
they'd
they
could
give
each
drink
of
a
healthy but bad-tasting beverage flavored with vinegar. People
who
can
self-regulate
well
are
more
likely
to
perform
such
unpleasant tasks for future rewards, the researchers theorized.
As it turned out, people who were told they'd be alone in life
were less able to regulate their actions--they drank 2.23 ounces
on
average
less
than
those
who
anticipated
future
social
acceptance, and 2.15 ounces less than those who were told they'd
be accident-prone.
The study conducted by Guy Winch(2006)provide a framework for
Studies
involving
a
functional
neuroimaging
procedure
called
functional magnetic resonance imaging or "fMRI" show that the
same areas of the brain become activated when you experience
rejection as when you experience physical pain he explained,
"Ten Surprising Facts About Rejection." This is why rejection
"hurts" so much, because it appears to mimic physical pain.
Winch
further
connects
this
theory
11
by
sharing
information
gathered from a test conducted by scientists. Participants of
the test group took specific drug before the scientists asked
them to recall a memory of rejection, and they reported that
they felt less emotional pain than participants who took the
placebo.
The
study
of
Lisa
M.
Jaremka(2008)
provide
a
framework
for
rejection, mentally reviews the research on how to offer him
what he needs. "If he's asking for a solution to a problem,
effective support would be providing a solution," says Jaremka,
a
social
psychology
graduate
student
at
the
University
of
California at Santa Barbara. "If he just wants to get something
off his chest, effective support would be to listen."Jaremka
knows
such
romantic
support
is
crucial
relationships.But
to
many
the
long-term
partners,
survival
however
of
well-
intentioned, often don't give their loved ones what they need.
"There is no objective 'good' support," says Jaremka. "You have
to tailor the support to what the person needs."Thinking about
such relationship matters isn't just a way to keep her 7-yearold marriage strong; relationships are also the focus of her
research. "When I was trying to decide whether I wanted to be a
clinical psychologist or a social psychologist, knowing that my
research could really help people helped me make the decision to
go into social psychology," she says. "I want to be in that role
12
of
improving
people's
lives,
of
helping
people
have
good
relationships."
RELATED LITERATURE
T. De Agelis (2009) pointed out that many studies find a higher
rate of health and mental health problems among lesbian, gay and
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens than in heterosexual youth,
often fingering social rejection as the culprit. A new study of
lesbians, gays and bisexuals, however, suggests another major
possible cause: parental rejection
"Because
families
adolescent
punitive
play
development,
and
traumatic
such
it
a
is
critical
not
reactions
role
surprising
from
parents
in
child
that
and
and
adverse,
caregivers
would have such a negative influence on [young people's] risk
behaviors and health status as young adults," the authors write.
Eric Buhs, Ph.D., of the University of Nebraska (2006) stated
that," exclusion, although not as visible as verbal or physical
forms of abuse, may be particularly detrimental to children's
participation in many school activities".
Relative to other
types of peer relationships, peer group rejection appeared to be
one of the strongest predictors of a child's likely or unlikely
success in academics. Those children who suffered rejection were
13
more
likely
to
avoid
school
and
were
less
engaged
in
the
classroom setting.
"Once children experience this kind of maltreatment or rejection
from their peers, they avoid most classroom peer activities.
"Children
become
less
active
participants
in
classroom
activities because their opportunities to do so are increasingly
restricted
as
a
result
of
peer
exclusion.
Children
who
are
harassed (picked on or teased) or excluded from activities by
peers tend to try to avoid classrooms (and school) as a means of
escaping further abuse
While
conventional
wisdom
tells
us
that
socially
withdrawn
children tend to be victimized and/or excluded by peers, this
study
found
that
rejection
more
strongly
and
consistently
predicted peer abuse and exclusion. The research findings also
showed
that
students
who
interaction
activities
and
avoiding
peer and classroom activities. The findings from this research
are
consistent
with
the
premise
that
peer
abuse
and
peer
exclusion function as distinct forms of peer maltreatment that
have
unique
effects
on
children's
engagement
and
adjustment
patterns. This study raises the issue that physical or verbal
bullying is not the only harmful form of peer maltreatment.
While the study did not test specific interventions, the results
indicate that future researchers may want to closely examine the
14
role of peer exclusion and explore possible ways of countering
the negative effects of this form of peer maltreatment.
Kirsten Weir (2012)
Said that anyone who lived through high
school gym class knows the anxiety of being picked last for the
dodge ball team. The same hurt feelings bubble up when you are
excluded from lunch with co-workers, fail to land the job you
interviewed for or are dumped by a romantic partner. Rejection
feels lousy.
Mark Leary, PhD, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at
Duke University (2003)
missed
this
centrally
said that “It’s like the whole field
important
part
of
human
life”.
That’s
changed over the last decade and a half, as a growing number of
researchers
have
turned
their
eyes
toward
this
uncomfortable
fact of life. “People have realized just how much our concern
with
social
acceptance
spreads
its
fingers
into
almost
everything we do,” he says. As researchers have dug deeper into
the roots of rejection, they’ve found surprising evidence that
the pain of being excluded is not so different from the pain of
physical injury. Rejection also has serious implications for an
individual’s
Social
psychological
rejection
can
state
influence
and
for
emotion,
society
in
cognition
general.
and
even
physical health. Ostracized people sometimes become aggressive
and can turn to violence.
15
Williams,
Eric
Wesselmann
(2012),
pointed
out
that
when
participants passed a stranger who appeared to look “through”
them rather than meeting their gaze, they reported less social
connection than did people who made eye contact with a passing
stranger. In fact, it’s remarkably hard to find situations in
which
rejection
isn’t
painful,
Williams
says.
He
wondered
whether people would be hurt if they were rejected by a person
or group they disliked. Using his Cyberball model, he found that
African-
American
students
experienced
the
same
pain
of
rejection when they were told that the people rejecting them
were members of the Ku Klux Klan, a racist group. In other
studies, participants earned money when they were rejected, but
not when they were accepted. The payments did nothing to dampen
the pain of exclusion. “No matter how hard you push it, people
are hurt by ostracism,” he says.
C. Nathan DeWall (2012) said that physically, too, rejection
takes a toll. People who routinely feel excluded have poorer
sleep quality, and their immune systems don’t function as well
as those of people with strong social connections, he says. Even
brief,
seemingly
innocuous
episodes
of
rejection
can
sting.
Cyber bullying, Facebook “befriending” and reality shows that
kick contestants to the curb week after week. Has rejection
become more common in our modern world? Not necessarily online
16
rejection may simply be more noticeable than social snubs of the
past. “The advent of social media opens opportunities for people
to feel both more included and more excluded,” DeWall noted.
The rise of rejection-based television, however, is indisputable.
“Survivor” and other such shows may be the adult version of
children’s games such as musical chairs and monkey in the middle,
Williams says. “I think we’re attracted to those things because
it’s sort of a safe danger,” he says. “We can feel what it feels
like [to be ostracized], but also pull away and remind ourselves
it’s not happening to us.”
When it comes to understanding modern rejection — whether it’s
getting voted off the island or defriending a Facebook pal —
there’s still a lot to learn. But one thing is clear: The pain
of rejection has always been a part of life, and probably always
will be.
Roy
Baumeister,
played
an
PhD
(2002)
important
discussed
role,
perhaps
that
by
social
rejection
triggering
negative
emotions that were then expressed as aggression. That hypothesis
led him into a series of studies on the psychological effects of
social
rejection
importance
of
that
social
is
providing
relationships
new
for
insights
into
self-regulation.
the
"Our
initial theory about this was that rejection would cause a great
deal
of
emotional
distress,"
said
17
Baumeister
at
APA's
2002
Annual Convention in Chicago. "We thought, OK, we're going to
reject people in the laboratory, they'll have anxiety and other
emotions,
and
then
after
that
they'll
show
all
sorts
of
behavioral side effects. “After a number of studies, however, it
has become clear that while social rejection does have powerful
effects on behavior, those effects are unlikely to be mediated
by emotion. "We've gotten all the behavioral effects, but we
haven't
social
gotten
the
rejection
emotional
seems
to
part,"
said
undermine
Baumeister.Instead,
self-regulation,
making
negative behaviors more likely. "Functioning in a social group
requires
a
whole
behavior,"
set
explained
of
inner
processes
Baumeister.
to
regulate
"Prosocial
your
behavior--for
example, helping others, making sacrifices--often involves doing
something
that's
against
your
immediate
self-interest.
Your
selfish inclinations have to be held in check.
All
these
benefits
sacrifices
of
belonging
are
to
compensated
the
to
some
group."Without
extent
those
by
the
benefits,
self-regulation can fall apart.”A great deal of psychological
functioning is predicated on belonging to the group and enjoying
the benefits, both direct and indirect, of that belongingness,"
said
Baumeister.
"Social
exclusion
undermines
the
basis
for
these sacrifices--it ceases to be worth it. The whole purpose of
controlling
yourself,
behaving
18
appropriately
and
making
sacrifices is defeated. And so behavior may become impulsive,
chaotic, selfish, disorganized and even destructive.
Bernardo
Carducci,
PhD
andKristin
TerryNethery,
BA
(2004)
examined the cases involving eight individuals between 1995 and
2004 who had committed shootings at their high schools. They
examined the news accounts of these shootings for personal and
social
indicators
of
cynical
shyness--lack
of
empathy,
low
tolerance for frustration, anger outbursts, and social rejection
from
peers,
results
bad
indicate
family
that
relations
the
and
individuals
access
to
involved
weapons."Our
in
the
seven
deadly high school shootings within the last decade clearly had
characteristics
of
cynical
shyness.
Most
of
what
we
see
in
individuals with this extreme form of shyness is that they tend
to be male and desperately want to be socially engaged with
other
people.
But
often
lacking
in
social
skills,
these
individuals get rejected by their peers and then avoid social
connections because of the resulting pain," said the authors.
This rejection repeated over time can intensify feelings of hurt
that can ultimately turn into anger. To handle the rejection,
says Carducci, these males create what he calls a "cult of one."
"They end up alone and start hating the people who reject them.
This allows the cynically shy person to distance himself from
the hurt but also makes it easier for him to retaliate with
19
violence,
as
in
intervene
early
the
on
case
and
of
these
prevent
school
future
shootings.
violence
in
“To
schools,
teachers, parents and mental health professionals need to be on
the lookout for those students whose shyness is a source of
anger and hostility, said Carducci. “Most young people who are
shy do not experience their shyness as a source of anger and
hostility. But for those shy students who are seemingly isolated
and angry, we need to provide ways for them to learn how to
engage
with
others
and
create
a
sense
of
community
for
themselves.
Kimberly
rejection
Liby
(2006)
letter
suggested
from
a
that
romantic
“No
one
partner."
wants
The
to
get
effects
a
of
romantic rejection and the loss of a relationship can have you
going
through
the
five
stages
of
grief:
denial,
anger,
bargaining, depression and finally acceptance. It's important
for you to know that even though it may not feel like it at the
time, most people do recover from romantic rejection, do regain
their
sense
of
worth
and
do
start
to
feel
happy
again,
so
there's no reason why you can't do the same.
Julie Martin (2006) and Dr. Laura Richman (2006) pointed out
that
Rejection
can
cause
you
to
re-evaluate
yourself,
questioning everything you do in a relationship explains. In
their "Science of Relationships" article, "Does Rejection Lower
20
Self-Esteem,"
Martin
and
Richman
explain
that
self-esteem
represents an internal monitor of your acceptance level in your
social world. When your acceptance is high, you feel good about
yourself, but when you experience rejection, you're much more
critical of yourself. Martin and Richman claim that self-esteem
is adaptive and although you might defend yourself at the moment
of rejection, you might be dwelling on the pain of rejection
later. Then again, you could take the rejection as constructive
criticism and work on bettering that aspect of yourself.
John Grohol, Psy.D. (2006) said that Setbacks after rejection
are
real
and
he
talks
about
these
setbacks
in
his
"Psychocentral" article, "Reeling from Rejection." He discusses
the idea that some people seem to socially isolate themselves to
avoid future rejection, instead of reaching out to others after
being
rejected.
In
fact,
Grohol
says
that
nowhere
is
this
clearer than when that rejection is of a romantic nature. Men
and women both swear off romantic involvements for weeks, months
and in some cases -- for years.
Psychologist
"Relationship
OffraGerste(2006)
Matters"
website
pointed
article,
out
that
"How
to
in
her
Overcome
Rejection in Romantic Love," offers some practical steps for
overcoming
rejection.
Gerstein
says
you
should
respect
and
admire yourself by focusing on your previous successes. Get out
21
of the victim role and take responsibility for your part in the
break-up. Seek self-knowledge from your experience. For example,
if your partner says you weren't very affectionate, admit to it;
then, take that information and use it as an opportunity to work
on that aspect of yourself. Also, surround yourself with friends
and family for support.
According to Guy Winch, Ph.D. (2012) Rejection really hurts but
most rejections inflict damage to our psychological well-being
that goes way beyond mere emotional pain. Here are ten lesser
known
facts
that
describe
the
various
psychological
impacts
rejections have on our emotions, thinking, and behavior. Let’s
begin by examining why rejection hurts as much as it does.

Rejection piggybacks on physical pain pathways in the brain:
fMRI studies show that the same areas of the brain become
activated
when
we
experience
rejection
as
when
we
experience physical pain. This is why rejection hurts so
much (neurologically speaking). In fact our brains respond
so similarly to rejection and physical pain

Rejection served a vital function in our evolutionary past.
In
our
hunter
gatherer
past,
being
ostracized
from
our
tribes was akin to a death sentence, as we were unlikely to
survive for long alone. Evolutionary psychologists assume
the brain developed an early warning system to alert us
22
when
we
important
were
at
to
risk
get
for
our
ostracism.
Because
attention—those
it
who
was
so
experienced
rejection as more painful (i.e., because rejection mimicked
physical
pain
in
their
brain)
gained
an
evolutionary
advantage—they were more likely to correct their behavior
and consequently, more likely to remain in the tribe.

We can relive and re-experience social pain more vividly
than we can physical pain. Try recalling an experience in
which you felt significant physical pain and your brain
pathways will go, ‘meh’. In other words, the memory alone
won’t
elicit
physical
pain.
But
try
reliving
a
painful
rejection (actually, don’t—just take my word for it), and
you will be flooded with many of the same feelings you had
at the time (and your brain will respond much as it did at
the time too). Our brain prioritizes rejection experiences
because we are social animals who live in ‘tribes’. This
leads to the next aspect about rejection we often overlook:

Rejection destabilizes our ‘Need to Belong’. We all have a
fundamental need to belong to a group (or tribe). When we
get
rejected,
disconnection
Reconnecting
this
we
with
need
becomes
destabilized
and
feel
adds
to
our
emotional
those
who
love
us,
reaching
the
pain.
out
to
members of groups to which we feel strong affinity and who
value us and accept us, has been found to soothe emotional
23
pain
after
a
rejection.
Feeling
alone
and
disconnected
after a rejection has another often overlooked impact, this
time, on our behavior:

Rejection creates surges of anger and aggression. In 2001,
the Surgeon General of the U.S. issued a report that stated
rejection was a greater risk for adolescent violence than
drugs, poverty, or gang membership. Countless studies have
demonstrated that even mild rejections lead people to take
out
their
aggression
on
‘innocent’
bystanders.
School
shootings, violence against women, and fired postal workers
going…postal, are other examples of the strong link between
rejection and aggression. However, much of the aggression
rejection elicits is also turned inward:

Rejections send us on a mission to seek and destroy our
self-esteem.
We
often
respond
to
romantic
rejections
by
finding fault in ourselves, bemoaning all our inadequacies,
kicking ourselves when we’re already down, and smacking our
self-esteem into a pulp. Most romantic rejections are a
matter of poor fit and a lack of chemistry, incompatible
lifestyles or wanting different things at different times
and
other
such
mutual
dynamics.
Blaming
ourselves
and
attacking our self-worth only deepens the emotional pain we
feel and makes it harder for us to recover emotionally. But
before you rush to blame yourself for blaming yourself,
24
consider that you might not be thinking clearly in those
moments:

Rejection temporarily lowers our IQ. Being asked to recall
a recent rejection experience and relive the experience was
enough
for
people
to
score
significantly
lower
on
subsequent IQ tests, tests of short-term memory, and tests
of decision making. Indeed, when we are reeling from a
painful rejection, thinking clearly is not that easy. This
explains why:

Rejection does not respond to reason. Participants were put
through
an
experiment
in
which
they
were
rejected
by
strangers. However the experiment was rigged—the strangers
were confederates. Surprisingly,being told the ‘strangers’
did
not
actually
reject
them
did
little
to
ease
the
emotional pain they felt. Even being told the strangers
belonged
to
a
group
they
despised
such
as
the
KKK
did
little to soothe their hurt feelings. But not all the news
is bad because:
There
are
ways
to
treat
the
psychological
wounds
rejection
inflicts. It is possible to treat the emotional pain rejection
elicits and to prevent the psychological, emotional, cognitive,
and relationship fallouts that occur in its aftermath. To do so
effectively we must address each of our psychological wounds
(i.e.,
soothe
our
emotional
pain,
25
reduce
our
anger
and
aggression, protect our self-esteem, and stabilize our need to
belong).
26
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOODOLOGY
The
chapter
presents
the
methods
used
in
research,
the
respondents, the instruments used to gather the data and the
statistical tools/treatment of data.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
Descriptive Research is used as the method of research, it is
under the quantitative approach which is centered on objective
measurements and numerical analysis of data collected through
questionnaires
or
surveys
and
generating
the
results
across
groups of people. It involves the collection of data to either
Test the hypothesis or describe the variables mentioned in the
study.
Most
researches
in
this
field
are
about
Science
and
Technology, Engineering and Social Sciences.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptiveresearch
it
is
a
method
used
to
describe
the
characteristics
of
a
population or phenomenon being studied. It does not answer the
questions about how/when/why the questions occurred. Rather it
addresses
the
“What”
question.
The
characteristics
used
to
describe the situation or populations are usually some kind of
categorical scheme also known as descriptive categories.
27
RESPONDENTS OF THE STUDY
The respondents of the study are students from Grades 7 – 12
with an age gap of 12-18 years of age which is composed of 42
boys, 43 girls and 2 members of the third sex from different
sections for a total of 87 respondents. Stratified sampling w/
proportional allocation is used as a sampling technique as a
method to get the number of respondents per section. By using
this kind of method, the researchers are able to get the number
of
respondents
section
is
Bonifacio–
as
8,
per
section.
follows:
Sampaguita
The
Camia
–
–
number
6,
of
Rizal
6, 11 STEM
–
respondents
–
9,
Rose
3, Molave
–
per
–
6,
9, 11
HUMSS/ABM – 6, Narra – 8, 12 STEM – 5, Makiling – 8, 12 HUMSS –
5, Banahaw – 8, With a total of 87 respondents.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
In a research study, the researchers cannot conduct a survey
without applying a research instrument, research instrument is
used to gather data needed for the study, the questionnaire is
an example of a research instrument and it serves as a weapon to
identify the results of a research topic.
The research questionnaire is divided into two parts; the
first Part is the respondent’s profile which contains the Socio
-Economic Status, Gender, Type of Family, Relationship Status,
28
and Age of the Respondents. While the second part contains the
questions which will determine the effects of Social Rejection
to the Academic Performance of the Respondents, The Questions is
divided into three factors (Family, Peer Group, Love life) the
three factors is subdivided into 4 types of rejection namely;
Rejection in School, Rejection in Family, Romantic Rejection and
Rejection in peer group it contains different questions that is
is equivalent to 15 questions and answerable by checking the
checklist that contains the choices (Always, Often, Sometimes,
Seldom, Never).
Another
research
instrument
is
the
grades
of
the
respondents in the first and second grading period obtained from
the guidance office for us to determine the academic performance
of the students.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
In
every
study,
there
should
be
procedures
that
are
needed to be followed. The researchers indicate the procedure
that is done on gathering data which is vital to the creation of
conclusion of the study.
In Gathering the data needed, the researchers develop a
questionaire
and
consulted
the
29
research
adviser
in
order
to
identify the errors regarding to the constructions of survey
questionnaires which is essential to the gathering of needed
data. The researchers requested an approval to the directress in
order to initiate the gathering of data because without the
approval of the directress, the researchers cannot conduct a
survey to the respondents. After the gathering of data through
the
questionaires,
using
tabular
guidance
the
method.
counselor
to
result
After
is
treated
these
obtain
the
and
researchers
data
interpreted
by
approach
the
regarding
to
the
respondent’s academic performance which is the first and second
grading period grades, finally, the researchers can now be able
to formulate a conclusion and make a recommendations based on
the results of the research topic.
STATISTICAL TOOLS
To answer the specific questions stated in the first chapter,
several statistical tools were used. Notations were drawn from
the quotations. The following are the statistical tools used by
the researchers to treat the data.
1. ) Percentage
Percentage is a measure of a portion in relation to a whole,
often expressed in relation to how many of something there are
per 100. Also expressed as a number between 0 and 100 rather
30
than as a fraction, all of something is 100 percent, half of it
is 50 percent, none of something is 0 percent. To determine a
percentage, divide the portion of the whole by whole itself then
multiply by 100.
Also defined as a number represented as a fraction of 100,
Percentage is used to express numbers between zero and one. It
is used to compare things and also used in ratios. It is denoted
by symbol %.
%=
𝒇
𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝒏
% - Percentage
F – Frequency
N – Total Number of respondents
2. ) Mean
The statistical mean refers to the mean or average that is used
to derive the central tendency of the data in question. It is
determined by adding all the data points in a population and
then dividing the total by the number of points. The resulting
number is known as the mean or the average. Arithmetic mean is
preferred over simply "mean" because it helps to differentiate
between
other
means
such
as
geometric
31
and
harmonic
mean.
Statistical mean is the most common term for calculating the
mean of a statistical distribution.
𝚺𝒙
×=
𝑵
X – Mean
Ex – Sum of all observations
N – Number of observations
3.) Standard Deviation
The Standard
Deviation (SD,
also
represented
by
the
Greek letter sigma σ or the Latin letter s) is a measure that is
used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set
of data values.[1] A low standard deviation indicates that the
data
points
tend
to
be
close
to
the mean (also
called
the
expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation
indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range
of values.
According to https://statistics.laerd.com/statisticalguides/measures-of-spread-standard-deviation.php
Standard
deviation is a measure of the spread of scores within a set of
data. Usually, we are interested in the standard deviation of a
32
population. However, as we are often presented with data from a
sample only, we can estimate the population standard deviation
from a sample standard deviation. These two standard deviations
- sample and population standard deviations - are calculated
differently. In statistics, we are usually presented with having
to calculate sample standard deviations. The standard deviation
is
used
in
conjunction
summarize continuous data,
not
the
like
standard
deviation,
with
categorical
the mean,
the
data.
is
mean
In
to
addition,
normally
only
appropriate when the continuous data is not significantly skewed
or has outliers.
𝒏𝚺𝐟𝐝𝟐 − (𝚺𝐟𝐝)𝟐
𝑺=√
𝒏
N – Total Frequency
D – Deviation from the mean
F – Frequency
C – Class size
33
4.) Pearson’s Product Correlation
According
to
www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-
statistics/correlation-coefficient-formula/
it
is
the
correlation between sets of data and measures how well they are
related. It is most common measure of correlation in statistics
it shows the linear relationship between two sets of data. In
simple terms, it answers the question; can I draw a line graph
to represent the data? Two letters are used to represent the
Pearson correlation: Greek letter rho (ρ) for a population and
the letter “r” for a sample.
As
stated
in
the
website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_correlation_coefficient
is
a
measure
of
the
linear correlation
between
it
two
variables X and Y. It has a value between +1 and −1, where 1 is
total positive linear correlation, 0 is no linear correlation,
and −1 is total negative linear correlation. It is widely used
in the sciences. It was developed by Karl Pearson from a related
idea introduced by Francis Galton in the 1880s.
34
r – Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
x – Values in first set of data
y – Values in second set of data
n – Total number of values
35
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
The
Chapter
shows
the
table
and
computations
of
the
data
gathered by the researchers. Data that had been gathered is
shown
and
organized
in
tables.
Each
table
has
its
own
interpretation so that the readers will be able to understand
the
data
shown.
The
analysis
of
data
gathered
and
its
interpretation is arranged the same way the specific questions
stated in the chapter one is arranged.
1.) RESPONDENT’S PROFILE
The profile of the respondents serves as their description
and
identity.
researchers
be
The
able
data
to
of
find
the
out
respondents
the
kinds
will
of
make
the
respondents
involved this research. This part shows the distribution as well
as their percentage according to their profile such age, gender,
socio economic status, kind of family and their relationship
status.
36
Table 1.1
Distribution of Respondents According to Age
Age Group
Frequency
Percentage(%)
12 – 13 Years Old
27
31.03%
14 – 15 Years Old
46
52.87%
16 – 18 Years Old
14
16.09%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.1 shows the distribution of respondents according
to age with a total population of 87 respondents. 27 respondents
came from the ages 12 – 13 years old with a total percentage of
31.03%. 46 of the respondents or 52.87% of the population are 14
– 15 years of age and the remaining 14 respondents or 16.09% of
the respondents came from 16 -18 years of age. Based on the data
presented
in
the
table,
the
researcher
concludes
majority of the respondents are from 14 – 15 years old.
37
that
the
Table 1.2
Distribution of Respondents According to Gender
Gender
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Male
42
48.28%
Female
43
49.43%
Others
2
2.30%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.2 presents the Distribution of the Respondents
According to their Gender. 42 of the respondents or 48.28% of
the respondents are male, while 43 of 87 respondents or roughly
49.43% of the respondents are female. The remaining 2.30% or 2
respondents came from the third sex (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender). With all this, the researcher implies that the
majority of the respondents are Females.
38
Table 1.3
Distribution of the Respondents according to Family Status
Family Type
Frequency
Percentage
Nuclear
58
66.67%
Extended
26
29.89%
Others
3
3.45%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.6 shows the distribution of respondents according
to Family Status. 58 respondents have a nuclear type of family
with a total percentage of 31.03%. 26 of the respondents or
29.89% of the population have an extended type of family while
remaining 3 respondents or 3.45% came from the other type of
family (Single Parent and Living with their guardian). Based on
the data presented in the table, the researcher concludes that
the majority of the respondents came from the nuclear type of
family.
39
Table 1.4
Distribution of Respondents According to Socio – Economic Status
Range
Frequency
Percentage (%)
10,000 – Below
8
9.20%
11,000 – 15,000
13
14.94%
16,000 – 20,000
24
27.59%
21,000 – Above
42
48.28%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.4 shows the distribution of respondents according to
their socio-economic status, 42 respondents or 48.28% of the
respondents have a combined family income of 21,000 – above,
27.59% of the respondents or 24 out of 87 respondents have a
family of income of 16,000-20,000, 13 respondents or 14.94% of
the respondents had an income of 11,000-15,000 and 9.20% of the
respondents or the remaining 8 respondents have a family of
income
of
10,000
and
below,
therefore
the
majority
of
the
respondents have a combined family income of 21,000 and above.
40
Table 1.5
Distribution of Respondents According to Number of Siblings
Number of Siblings
Frequency
Percentage (%)
0 – 3
82
94.25%
4 – 6
4
4.60%
6 and above
1
1.15%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.3 shows the Distribution of Respondents According to
Number of their Siblings, 82 respondents or 94.25% of the total
respondent population have 0 – 3 siblings. 4 of the respondents
or
4.60%
of
the
respondent
have
4
–
6
siblings,
and
the
remaining 1 respondent or 1.15% of the respondent population
have 6 or more siblings. Based on the data shown in the table,
the majority of the respondents have 0 – 3 siblings.
41
Table 1.6
Distribution of Respondents According to Relationship Status
Status
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Single
73
83.91%
In a Relationship
14
16.09%
Total
87
100.00%
Table 1.5 shows the distribution of respondents according
to
their
relationship
status
as
it
serves
as
one
of
the
important key data to determine the effects of social rejection
to the students. 73 of the 87 respondents or roughly 83.91% of
the respondents are single while the remaining 14 respondents or
16.09% of the respondents are in a relationship. As shown in the
table, it clearly shows that the majority of the respondents are
single.
2. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF RESPONDENTS
This
part
shows
the
academic
performance
of
the
respondents in the first and second grading period during the
school year 2017 – 2018.
42
Table 2.1
Over-all grades of the respondents (First and Second Grading)
during the School Year 2017 - 2018
Scale
Frequency
Percentage
74 and below
1
1.15
75 – 79
9
10.34
80 – 84
85 – 90
27
35
31.03
40.23
90 and above
15
17.24
Total
87
100.00
Table
2.1
shows
the
distribution
of
the
respondents
according to their academic performance in the first and second
grading period during the second grading period of school year
2017 – 2018. 35 out of 87 respondents or 40.23% had a grade of
85 – 90, 27 respondents or 31.03% have a grade of 80 – 84, 9
respondents or 10.34% of the respondents have a grade of 75 – 79
and 1 respondent or 1.15% of the respondent population have a
grade of 74 and below, as presented in the table the majority of
the respondents have a grade of 85 – 90.
43
3.) Student’s Perception
This part shows the student’s perception and response regarding
to the three factors.
Table 3.1
The Over-All Responses of the Students
Factor
Mean
Verbal
Interpretation
Family
(Parental Rejection)
2.92
Sometimes
Peer Group
(Rejection in Peer Group)
Rejection in School
2.37
Rarely
Love life
(Romantic Rejection)
2.73
Sometimes
Table 3.4 shows the over-all responses of the students
in the three factors (Family, Peer Group, Love life). The Family
factor
has
a
mean
of
2.92
and
a
verbal
interpretation
of
sometimes, Peer Group factor has a mean of 2.37 and a verbal
interpretation of rarely, and lastly the Love life factor has a
mean of 2.73 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes. Based on
the data presented in the table, the rejection in the peer group
that
the
students
experienced
rarely
affects
the
academic
performance of the students while rejection in the family and
love
life
sometimes
affects
the
students.
44
academic
performance
of
the
Table 3.2
The Respondent’s Answer to the questions about family
Question
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
Mean
I feel excitement if my
brother/sister have a new
gadget
I tell my everyday
experiences to my parents
I understand my parents
when there are times that
they will scold me
My Siblings sees me as a
model in the family
My siblings sees me as a
good example in the
family
12
17
26
13
19
3.11
Verbal
Int.
Sometimes
10
22
25
16
14
3.02
Sometimes
23
21
36
5
2
2.33
Rarely
12
22
22
14
17
3.02
Sometimes
9
17
31
14
16
3.12
Sometimes
2.92
Sometimes
Table
3.2
shows
the
answer
of
the
respondents
to
the
questions about family. It is shown that question 1 has a mean
of 3.11 with a verbal interpretation of sometimes; it implies
that the respondent feels the sense of excitement sometimes if
their sibling receives a new gadget. Question number 2 has a
mean of 3.02 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes, it means
that
the
respondents
don’t
usually
tell
their
everyday
experiences to their parents maybe because they don’t have any
much time to talk about those things. Question number 3 has a
mean of 2.3 which is interpreted as rarely, it means that the
respondents rarely understands their parents if there will be
times that their parents will be mad at them. Question number 4
has a mean of 3.02 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes, it
implies that they feel sometimes that their parents sees them as
45
a model in their family, maybe because of their achievement or
the good things that they did. And lastly, Question 5 has a mean
of 3.12 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes, it means that
the family members of the respondents sometimes sees them or
treats them as a very good example in the family. In the overall
response to the question in terms of family with a mean of 2.92
with
a
verbal
interpretation
of
sometimes,
it
means
that
parental rejection moderately affects the academic performance
of the respondents.
Table 3.3
The Answers of the Respondents to the Questions about Peer Group
Question
My Classmates Treats me
nice because of my
personality
My Classmates asks my
assistance as we do our
group activities
My Classmates recognized
me as a popular figure
My Classmates noticed me
because of my friends
I Consider myself as a
friendly person
I Communicate with my
friends during my free
time
I am motivated by my
friends to do better
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
Mean
24
7
50
6
0
2.43
Verbal
Int.
Rarely
22
14
44
6
1
2.42
Rarely
5
32
25
15
10
2.91
Sometimes
11
27
32
9
8
2.72
Sometimes
35
8
39
4
1
2.17
Rarely
54
3
27
2
1
1.77
Never
37
10
33
4
3
2.14
Rarely
2.36
Rarely
Table 3.3 shows the answers of the respondents in
peer group. In question number 6 it has a mean of 2.43 and a
46
verbal interpretation of rarely. It means that there
is
a
little chance that the respondent’s classmate treats them nice
because of their personality. Question number 7 has a mean of
2.42 with a verbal interpretation of rarely. It expresses that
there is a little chance that the respondent’s classmate ask
his/her
assistance
as
they
do
their
group
activities.
In
question number 8 has a mean of 2.91 and a verbal interpretation
of sometimes it means that the classmate of the respondents
recognized him/her as a popular figure. Question number 9 has
mean of 2.72 and has verbal interpretation of sometimes it Means
that the respondents is being noticed because of his/her friends.
Question
number
10
has
a
mean
interpretation of rarely, it implies
chance
that
the
respondents
of
2.17
and
a
verbal
that there is a little
consider
himself/herself
as
a
friendly person. While question number 11 has a mean of 1.77 and
a verbal interpretation of never, it means that the respondents
has a low chance that the respondents communicate with their
friends during their free time. Lastly in question number 12 has
a mean of 2.14 and a verbal interpretation of rarely it means
that there is a little chance that the respondents motivated
him/herself to do better. And according to the table presented,
the highest and the lowest mean is on question number 6 and 11
with a mean of 2.91 and 1.77 with a verbal interpretation of
sometimes and never. According to this table the overall answers
47
of the respondents in the questions about peer group has a mean
of 2.36 and has a verbal interpretation of rarely, it means that
there is a little chance that the respondents encountered and
experienced social rejection in terms of peer group.
Table 3.4
The Respondent’s Answer to the Questions about Lovelife
Question
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
Mean
I am motivated to
continue despite my
heartbreak
I feel inspired to do
better
because
of
my
crush
I can tell confidential
things to the person I
like.
26
12
26
8
15
2.7
Verbal
Int.
Sometimes
27
19
16
13
12
2.58
Rarely
19
15
25
11
17
2.9
Sometimes
2.72
Sometimes
Table 3.4 summarized the computation of mean of the answers of
the
respondents
rejection.
This
regarding
table
the
shows
questions
the
answer
involved
of
the
in
social
respondents.
Question number 13 has a mean of 2.7 and a verbal interpretation
of sometimes, it means that the respondents moderately motivated
to continue despite his/her heartbreak. Question number 14 has a
mean of 2.58 and a verbal interpretation of rarely means that
the respondents has a little chance of feeling inspired to do
better because of his/her crush. Question number 15 has a mean
of 2.9 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes, it means that
the
respondents
moderately
tells
48
confidential
things
to
the
person they like. According to overall mean of love life which
is 2.72 and a verbal interpretation of sometimes, it means that
the social rejection in love life moderately affect the academic
performance of the respondents.
4.) The relationship between the academic performance of the
students and the three factors
This section provides the statistical treatment of data
to determine the significant relationship between the academic
performance of the students and the three factors stated in the
research topic.
Table 4.1
The Relationship between the Academic Performance of the
Students and the Family
Mean
Standard Deviation
Family
2.92
Academic Performance
85.66
Computed – r
-0.031
Critical – r
0.207
4.73
The null hypothesis
is accepted
Table 4.1 shows the significant relationship between the
Academic Performance of the Students and the Family Factor. The
Family factor has a mean of 2.92
while the academic performance
has a mean of 85.66 and a standard deviation of 4.73. As shown
49
in the table, the critical –r is 0.207 and the computed –r is 0.031. Based on the data presented, the computed –r which is 0.031 is less than the critical –r of 0.2017 therefore, the null
hypothesis is hereby accepted.
Table 4.2
The Relationship between the Academic Performance of the
Students and Peer Group
Mean
Standard Deviation
Peer Group
2.37
Academic Performance
85.66
4.73
Computed –r
-0.155
The Null hypothesis
Critical –r
0.207
is accepted
Table 4.2 shows the significant relationship between the
Academic Performance of the Students and the Peer Group Factor.
The Peer Group factor has a mean of 2.37 while the academic
performance has a mean of 85.66 and a standard deviation of 4.73.
As shown in the table, the critical –r is 0.207 and the computed
–r is -0.108. Based on the data presented, the computed –r which
is -0.155 is less than the critical –r of 0.052 therefore, the
null hypothesis is hereby accepted.
50
Table 4.3
The Relationship between the Academic Performance of the
Students and Love life
Mean
Standard Deviation
Love life
2.73
Academic Performance
85.66
4.73
Computed –r
-0.061
The Null hypothesis
Critical –r
0.207
is accepted
Table 4.3 shows the significant relationship between the
Academic Performance of the Students and the Love life Factor.
The Love life factor has a mean of 2.73 and a standard deviation
of 1.00 while the academic performance has a mean of 85.66 and a
standard deviation of 4.73. As shown in the table, the critical
–r is 0.207 and the computed –r is -0.061. Based on the data
presented, the computed –r which is -0.061 is less than the
critical –r of 0.146 therefore, the null hypothesis is hereby
accepted.
51
Table 4.4
The Relationship between the Academic Performance of the
Students and Social Rejection experienced by the students
Mean
Standard Deviation
Social Rejection
2.63
0.483
Academic Performance
85.66
4.73
Computed –r
-0.122
The Null hypothesis
Critical –r
0.207
is accepted
Table 4.4 shows the significant relationship between the
Academic Performance of the Students and the Social Rejection
experienced by the students. The Social Rejection has a mean of
2.63
and
a
standard
deviation
of
0.483
while
the
academic
performance has a mean of 85.66 and a standard deviation of 4.73.
As shown in the table, the critical –r is 0.207 and the computed
–r is -0.122. Based on the data presented, the computed –r which
is -0.085 is less than the critical –r of 0.122 therefore, the
null hypothesis is hereby accepted.
52
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The
chapter
discusses
the
summary
of
the
practical
generalization of facts acquired in the study, the significant
findings and the conclusions drawn based on the results of the
study.
This
also
includes
the
recommendation
in
which
the
researchers would like to recommend to the concerned persons and
the
future
researchers
for
the
possible
improvements
of
the
study.
SUMMARY
Creating a topic is very essential to the study; it is the
first step on how the researchers come up with this study. Many
topics were considered. The researchers think of a topic that is
prevalent in the society today, the result is a study about how
social
rejection
affects
the
academic
performance
of
the
respondents. The researchers think that the result of the study
would further benefit the respondents, especially the millennial.
The study is entitled, The Effects of Social Rejection to
the Academic Performance of Students of Roosevelt College Inc.Cubao S.Y. 2017 – 2018, The goal of the researchers is to better
find out the effects of the social rejection to the academic
53
performance of the students, Set of questions were created to
get the desired data.
Before proceeding to the gathering of data, the researchers
sought the approval of the proper authorities concerned before
initiating the gathering of data. After the data is gathered,
the researcher analyzes and interprets the data to formulate a
set of conclusions and recommendation to be presented to the
proper authorities.
SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS
The following are the significant findings based on the data,
gathered, analyzed and interpreted by the researchers.
1.1.) the majority of the respondents has an age of 14 – 15
years of age which is translated to 52.87% or 46 of the total
respondent population.
1.2.) the
majority of the respondents are the females which
constitutes the 49.43% of the whole respondent population.
1.3.) the majority of the respondents have a sibling between the
range of 0-3 or 82 out of the 87 respondents.
54
1.4.) Most of the respondents have a monthly family income of
21,000 and above.
1.5.) based on the data shown, 83.91% or 73 of the respondents
are single while the remaining 16.09% of the respondents are in
a relationship.
2.) Based on the findings of the researchers, most number of the
respondents has a grade range of 85 – 90 which constitutes the
40.23% of the whole respondent population.
3.) Based on the data presented in the tables, the rejection in
the three factors does affect the academic performance of the
students.
the rejection in the peer group that the students
experienced
rarely
affects
the
academic
performance
of
the
students while rejection in the family and love life sometimes
affects the academic performance of the students.
3.1.) based on the data presented in the table, the rejection in
the
family
sometimes
affects
students.
55
academic
performance
of
the
3.2.) based on the data presented in the table the rejection in
the peer group moderately affects the academic performance of
the students.
3.3.) based on the data presented in the table, social rejection
in love life moderately affects the academic performance of the
respondents.
4.)The
Findings
performance
of
in
the
the
relationship
students
and
between
family
are
the
as
academic
follows;
The
family factor has a mean of 2.92, with regards to the academic
performance of the respondents, it has a mean of 85.66 and a
standard deviation of 4.73. Based on the calculations of the
researchers, the computed –r which is -0.031 is less than the
critical –r which is 0.207, with all of these, the researchers
hereby concludes that the null hypothesis is accepted.
4.1)The
Findings
in
the
relationship
between
the
academic
performance of the students and peer group factor are as follows;
The Peer Group factor has a mean of 2.37, with regards to the
academic performance of the respondents, it has a mean of 85.66
and a standard deviation of 4.73. Based on the calculations of
the researchers, the computed –r which is -0.155 is less than
the
critical
–r
which
is
0.207,
56
with
all
of
these,
the
researchers
hereby
concludes
that
the
null
hypothesis
is
accepted.
4.2)
The Findings in the relationship between the academic
performance of the students and Love life are as follows; The
Love
life
factor
has
a
mean
of
2.73,
with
regards
to
the
academic performance of the respondents, it has a mean of 85.66
and a standard deviation of 4.73. Based on the calculations of
the researchers, the computed –r which is -0.061 is less than
the
critical
researchers
–r
which
hereby
is
0.207,
concludes
that
with
all
the
null
of
these,
the
hypothesis
is
analyzed
and
accepted.
4.3)
Based
on
the
data
that
is
gathered,
interpreted, the over-all significant findings are as follows;
social rejection has a mean of 2.64, the academic performance
has a mean of 85.66 and both of them has a standard deviation of
4.73. As computed by the researchers, the computed –r is -0.122
which is less than the critical –r of 0.207, therefore, the
given null hypothesis is accepted.
CONCLUSION
After
interpreting,
analyzing,
and
discussing
the
data
gathered by the researchers, the researchers can now formulate a
57
conclusion; The Conclusion is needed to come up with an answer
to the different set of problems identified in the study. Here
are the conclusions raised from the computations and the data
gathered by the researchers.
1. The respondents are the selected students from grades 7-12
with an age group of 12-18 years of age. Based on the
acquired data, the common age of the respondents is 14 to
15 years of age, whereas the majority of the respondents
are female with a percentage of 49.43% or 43 respondents,
followed by the males with 48.28% or 42 respondents and the
remaining
2.29%
comes
from
the
third
sex
or
the
LGBT
community.
1.1
As shown in the data gathered by the researchers, the
majority of the respondents have a family income ranging
from
21,000-above.
Which
comprises
the
46.26%
of
the
total respondent population or 42 out of 87 respondents;
it also shows that the majority of the respondents have
a number of siblings ranging from 0-3 which represents
the 94.25% of the whole respondent population or 82 out
of 87 respondents.
1.2
As pre determined by the researchers, family status as
well as the relationship status is one of the important
profile of the respondents that the researchers must be
58
able to acquire. With respect to the relationship status,
83.91% or 73 respondents are single while the remaining
percentage
of
16.09%
relationship,
which
or
means
14
respondents
that
the
are
majority
in
of
a
the
respondents are single.
2. With the conclusion for the second problem stated in the
statement of the problem, most of the respondents have a
final grade of 85-90 which can be translated as 40.23% of
the
whole
respondent
population
or
35
respondents.
It
implies that the respondents are just average learners and
can perform sufficiently in school.
3. As interpreted by the researchers and as experienced by the
researchers, the students might have experienced 3 types of
social rejection, Specifically; Peer Group, Family and Love
life, based on the data acquired, the researchers concludes
that most of the students experienced social rejection in
terms
of
family
which
might
affect
their
academic
performance in school.
4. Based on the Garnered, Tallied and Interpreted Results, the
social
rejection
significant
performance
or
of
experienced
direct
the
by
the
relationship
students,
meaning
students
have
to
academic
they
the
can
no
perform
better in school even though they are used to experience so
such problems in life.
59
5. As observed by the researchers, students who experience
social rejection tends to just ignore the hardships they
used to feel and used this as a method or fuel to further
improve their academic performance in school.
6. As interpreted and analyzed by the researchers, based on
the
data
gathered,
most
of
the
respondents
experienced
parental rejection
Recommendation
Based on the conclusions formulated, the researchers are able
to come up with these different recommendations.
1. The students- They need to be knowledgeable in order to
find solutions to the stress they have been encountered,
also they need to open up and seek for help to lessen the
burden cause by the social rejection and most important
that they know how to express and explain what is happening
in order to be understand by others.
2. The
parents-
they
should
guide
their
children
in
every
decision they make. They must know the real feelings of
their children, if it is contented or having a hard time
and understand why this stresses affects their children. By
talking to them or having some quality time with each other
60
for
them
to
cope
for
office
-
the
stress
their
children
are
experiencing.
3. The
guidance
they
should
create
a
program
or
activity in order to make the students active and sociable
for them to avoid any kind of rejection or stress, to build
up the confidence of the students and the same time the
students are enjoying and having fun and also conduct a
counseling for those students who have been experiencing
stress.
4. Parents
–
The
researchers
should
make
an
effort
their
child
so
the
problems
to
their
to
child
parents
recommends
improve
will
thus,
the
be
that
parents
relationship
able
they
the
to
will
tell
be
with
their
able
to
resolve all of their problems.
5. Teacher – The researchers suggests that the teachers must
observe the student that is not active in class so that
they will be able to know the problems of their students
and how it will affect their academic performance in school.
6. The Future Researchers – The researcher suggests that if
they will utilize this study, they should improve the scope
of the study to create much effective result and use more
61
reference that is connected to the topic to have a more
accurate basis for their research.
62
The Effects of Social Rejection to the Academic Performance of the students of
Roosevelt College Incorporated – Cubao Branch
S.Y. 2017 – 2018
Questionaire # ____
Name: ___________________________________________________Age: ______________
Grade & Section: _________________________________________Gender: ____________
Part 1: Respondent’s Profile
1. Family Income
3. Number of siblings: ___________
10,000 below ________
4. Family Type
5. Relationship Status
10,001 – 15, 000 ________
Nuclear ________
Single _________
15,001 – 20,000 ________
Extended _______
In a relationship_______
20,000 above ________
Others _________
Part 2: Question Proper
Directions: The following questions depicts the social rejection you’ve experienced,
please answer each questions carefully and with honesty, feel free to ask the researchers if
you have questions with regards to the questions. Goodluck
Always
1
I feel excitement if my brother/sister have a new gadget
I tell my everyday experiences to my parents
I understand my parents when there are times that they
will scold me
My siblings sees me as a model in the family
My siblings sees me as a good example in the family
My Classmates….
Treats me nice because of my personality
Asks my assistance we do our group activities
Recognized me as a popular figure
Notice me because of my friends
I….
Consider myself as a friendly person
Communicate with my friends during my free time
Am motivated by my friends to perform better
Am motivated to continue despite my heartbreak
Feel inspired to do better because of my crush
Can tell confidential things to the person I like
63
Often
2
Sometimes
3
Seldom
4
Never
5
64