Coping with Rejection:
Core Social Motives, across Cultures and Individuals
Susan T. Fiske
Princeton University
and
Mariko Yamamoto
University of Tsukuba
Preliminary draft of chapter for K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.),
The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying. The 7th
Annual Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology.
For participants’ general information only; please do not cite or quote this rough draft.
People are right to dread rejection. Social isolates feel bad, suffering anxiety and
depression in the moment, and a general lack of well-being over the long-term
(Baumeister, 1991b; Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990; Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary,
Blevins, & Holgate, 1997; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). Social isolates damage
their immune systems and threaten their cardio-vascular health (House, Landis, &
Umbertson, 1988; Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002). Social isolates die
sooner (Berkman, 1995; Berkman & Syme, 1979; Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Throughout
human history, being banished from the group has amounted to a death sentence.
Not surprisingly, then, people care deeply about social rejection and acceptance.
Being accepted by other people represents a core motive: The motive to belong is central
(e.g., Fiske, 2004; Leary & Baumeister, 2000). People want to connect with other people
in their own group, arguably in order to survive and thrive. The core motive to belong
defines ingroup (own group) and outgroup (all other groups). Ingroup belonging matters
because the ingroup by definition shares one’s goals, which facilitates other core social
motives, for example, socially shared understanding, a sense of controlling one’s
outcomes, enhancing the self, and trusting close others (Fiske, 2004). The outgroup by
definition does not share the ingroup’s goals, being at worst indifferent and at best
hostile, so it is viewed as threatening and elicits negative affect (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993).
This approach to social behavior highlights the importance of knowing who is with “us”
and who is against “us,” in the service of furthering shared goals.
The approach has elements in common with other emphatically social
adaptationist perspectives on social cognition (e.g., Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Neuberg,
Smith & Asher, 2000), but it focuses less specifically on reproductive strategies and more
on social surviving and thriving within a group (Brewer, 1997; Caporael, 1997). People
are demonstrably healthier if they are not socially isolated. This approach also fits with a
pragmatic, goal-based analysis of social behavior (Fiske, 1992). Social perception
provides the foundation for social survival within one’s group. When people respond to
another social entity, whether a group or an individual, they do so in the service of core
social motives.
As this draft of our chapter will discuss, everyone hates interpersonal rejection,
reflecting the importance of belonging across individuals and cultures. Nevertheless,
people and cultures differ in the ways they manage the possibility of rejection,
differentially emphasizing the other core social motives, as our research is beginning to
explore.
Belonging
As indicated, we believe that the human motive to belong is essentially universal.
People all suffer under social rejection, as various contributors to this symposium have
shown in their respective programs of research. Our own empirical foray illustrates the
cultural similarity of this experience, regardless of whether the culture is individualist or
collectivist.
Comparative Study: Cultural Similarities in Belonging
We conducted a comparative experiment with a three factor between-subjects
experimental design. Participants were 57 US and 97 Japanese undergraduates.
Independent variables were nation, sex, and feedback (positive or negative evaluation). In
the experiment, American and Japanese students expected to participate in research on
intimacy processes and to interact with a randomly assigned new acquaintance. All
procedures used personal computers and a pre-programmed partner. In a "preliminary
step," they exchanged brief videotaped greetings. On a questionnaire, participants then
described themselves, and they evaluated their partners' speech, their potential
compatibility, and their preliminary impression of their partner. Using this newly
exchanged information, participants then had to decide whether to accept the other as a
partner for the intimacy processes session. To decide, they searched through answers
from their partner's preliminary questionnaire. After searching information, participants
answered some additional questions before the debriefing.
In learning how to search their partner’s responses via computer, they saw their
partner's evaluation of their introductory speech. Half of the participants were randomly
assigned to encounter negative feedback and half positive, as one of the independent
variables. In negative condition, participants learned that their partner’s evaluation was,
on a 5-point scale, “2. not very good” and described thus: “I thought you did not express
yourself well. I did not think you had any intention of making me understand you. I
couldn’t tell what kind of person you are from your speech.” In the positive condition,
they learned their evaluation was “4. quite good” and described thus: “I thought that you
expressed yourself well. I thought that you were trying to make me understand you. I
could tell you what kind of person you are from your speech.” Recall that this
information would be diagnostic for predicting whether their partner was likely to accept
or reject them as a partner for the second part of the study on intimacy processes.
The manipulation check showed that the manipulation of feedback was
successful. The participants in the positive condition gave higher scores to a question
about their partner’s evaluation of their speech, and the participants in the negative
condition gave lower scores. This happened identically in both countries; no one denied
the feedback (and potential rejection).
Under negative feedback, all participants reported feeling bad, and under positive
feedback, all reported feeling good. Moreover, under negative feedback, half
subsequently rejected their negative partners. None of the positive-feedback partners did.
These results imply that negative social feedback commonly makes all of us—East or
West—feel bad. Reciprocity of rejection also commonly occurs in both countries.
Understanding
People are demonstrably motivated to develop a socially shared understanding of
each other and their environment (Fiske, 2002, 2004). A shared information framework
allows people to function in groups and in any kind of relationship. It informs their
assessment of their own rejection and acceptance. This understanding is likely to operate
along particular dimensions that facilitate belonging, and these dimensions will be, we
suggest, pancultural. But people’s strategies for understanding will also show some
cultural variation, consistent with Western emphasis on autonomy and unvarnished
honesty or with Eastern emphasis on interdependence and social harmony.
The Important Information: Cultural Similarities in Primary Dimensions of Groups
When people encounter another social entity (individual or group), they want to
know immediately if the other is friend or foe. That is, they first want to know the other’s
intent, for good or ill. If the other’s intent is benign, the other is ingroup or a close ally
and less likely to be rejecting. But intentions are meaningless without capability, so
people also must learn whether the other is able or unable to enact them.
If the core motive of belonging matters so much, then people’s central concern
when trying to understand another person or group will be the other person’s group
membership. We have argued in previous theoretical work and research on the
Continuum Model (CM) that such social category-based responses are rapid and primary,
coming before more individuated, person-specific responses (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg,
1990; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999).
Our subsequent and current work more closely examines the nature of those social
categories. We proceed from the premise that the crucial categories essentially answer:
friend or foe? And then: able or unable? That is, when people encounter strangers, they
first want to know the strangers’ intentions (good or ill) and their ability to enact them
(capability). If the intentions are good, then the social other’s goals are at least
compatible, and the other is ingroup or a close ally. Otherwise, the other entity is unsafe.
And whether the goals are compatible or not, people want to know whether the other
entity actually matters (if capable) or not (if incapable).
The Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999, Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) proposes that societal groups are universally perceived along
two primary dimensions, warmth and competence. The two proposed primary dimensions
of general stereotype content—warmth (e.g., friendly, good-natured, warm, and sincere)
and competence (e.g., capable, confident, competent, and skillful)—respectively answer
the friend-foe and able-unable questions. They have received copious support from
several areas of psychology. These dimensions emerge in classic person perception
studies (Asch, 1946; Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968). And in more recent
person perception research, these two dimensions account for more than 80% of the
variance in global impressions of individuals (Wojciszke, Baryla, & Mikiewicz, 2003;
Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998). Similar twin dimensions appear in work on
social-value orientations (e.g., self- and other-profitability, Peeters, 1983; Peeters, 1992,
1995), in construals of others' behaviors (Wojciszke, 1994), and in voters' ratings of
political candidates in the U.S. (Kinder & Sears, 1985) and Poland (Wojciszke & Klusek,
1996). Related dimensions also describe national stereotypes (e.g., competence and
morality, Alexander, Brewer, & Hermann, 1999; Phalet & Poppe, 1997; Poppe, 2001;
Poppe & Linssen, 1999) and surface in numerous in-depth analyses of prejudices toward
specific social groups (e.g., Glick, 2002; Glick, Diebold, Bailey Werner, & Zhu, 1997;
Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997; Hurh & Kim, 1989; Kitano & Sue, 1973; Helmreich, Spence,
& Wilhelm, 1981). People in many circumstances want to know who is with them
(acceptance) or against them (rejection) and what they can do about it.
We have recently found that these dimensions also generalize across cultures
(Cuddy, Fiske, Kwan, Glick, et al., 2003). In a dozen cultures, using their own societal
groups, we find substantially the same patterns, supporting the contention that the
dimensions represent universal human concerns about societal groups . The pancultural
model was tested in 3 studies comprising 12 international samples. If the SCM describes
universal human principles, they should not be limited to American perceivers or groups
in an individualistic, multicultural context. As expected, across culturally varied
perceivers and target groups: (a) perceived warmth and competence do differentiate
group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive evaluatively-mixed stereotypes, high on
one dimension but low on the other; and (c) higher-status groups are stereotyped as
competent, while competitive groups are stereotyped as lacking warmth.
These studies suggest group understanding reflecting pancultural principles not
limited to the American context. The findings support the idea that people are deeply
concerned with information of acceptance and rejection, namely the other groups’
warmth (intent for good or ill) and ability to act on it (competence).
The Important Information: Cultural Similarities for Individual Interactions
Recently, we conducted an American pilot study to see whether participants’
open-ended concerns about one-on-one interactions spontaneously parallel the warmthcompetence dimensions we have repeatedly found for groups (Wright & Fiske, 2004). In
a questionnaire, Opinions on Social Roles, participants described their expectations about
people in four types of relationships, two with unequal status (boss-employee, doctorpatient) and two with equal status (romantic partners, friends). They were asked either
about the high-status or the low-status role in the first two instances, for example:
“Describe your view of the responsibility of a boss in the relationship between a boss and
an employee. What is expected of the boss? What kinds of things are important for a boss
to do and not do? What do you expect to be the duration of this relationship? To what
contexts does this relationship apply?” Preliminary coding indicates that high-status roles
are differentially expected to display competence (be knowledgeable, lead, set example,
give clear instructions), whereas low-status roles are expected to display less competent,
more dependent behavior (follow rules, ask questions, report). In equal-status
relationships, competence is not the issue; warmth is. Relative to the unequal-status
relationships, equal relationships more often evoke being supportive, loyal, faithful,
dependable, and fun. Thus, one-on-one status disparities evoke competence concerns, but
peers evoke acceptance concerns.
The second half of the pilot study more directly addressed rejection. After
responding to the four initial relationships, which manipulated only status, a second set of
questions revisited the same four relationships, but introduced an element of conflicting
goals, namely one person delivering bad news to the other, severing the interdependent
relationship. Respondents had to describe expectations of a boss firing an employee, a
romantic partner ending the relationship, or a friend ending the friendship. (The doctorpatient manipulation, relaying bad news about the patient’s health, does not fit this
analysis in terms of rejection.) In the three relevant cases, when interdependence is
severed, respondents’ concerns appear overwhelmingly related to the warmth dimension;
suddenly, competence is less a concern. For the boss firing the employee, boss and
employee expect the boss to be compassionate, feel bad, be private, and explain; for the
partners or friends breaking off, both expect the rejecting partner to be compassionate,
feel bad, and explain. Notice that the strong theme here is warmth, being as kind as
possible under the circumstances. On the part of the rejected person (the fired employee
or spurned partner/friend), the expectation still concerns warmth, but in a negative light:
being upset, being angry, and demanding an explanation. The data and method are
preliminary, but the trends are promising. We hope to replicate these data in Japan.
A follow-up study (DiChiara & Fiske, 2004) is investigating people’s closedended expectations about individual relationships that vary systematically in status and
competition, and it focuses specifically on people’s concerns: what they want to know
about the other person, under a variety of status and competition combinations. On a
questionnaire, respondents read: “We are interested in what people want to know most
about other people when they are going to meet and interact with them. If you were going
to have many interactions with a superior [subordinate] who is competing [cooperating]
with you, what would you want to know about that person?” A 2 x 2 between-subjects
design manipulates status (superior/subordinate) and competition (yes/no). An additional
control group provides neither kind of information, saying merely, “in a variety of
contexts.”
We expect that people will prioritize warmth (good or bad intentions) and
competence (ability to enact), compared to other trait dimensions. To best evaluate the
priority of our proposed competence and warmth dimensions, respondents will rate the
importance of knowing a variety of traits drawn not only from the SCM dimensions but
also the Big Five Trait dimensions (extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, neurotic, open
to experience) and their synonyms. While some dimensions overlap (e.g., agreeable and
warm), we predict that people’s concerns will boil down to the two dimensions.
Preliminary factor analyses seem to support the first hypothesis that coherent warmth and
competence dimensions will appear.
For the second hypothesis, the 2-way between-subjects ANOVA will have as
repeated measures the different factors. (We can also analyze the data as a one-way fivelevel ANOVA, including the no-information control group, and use orthogonal contrasts
to tease out the control comparison, interactions, and main effects.) Effects on the
repeated measure will differentiate the importance of the different factors. That is, part of
what we want to know is whether people prioritize warmth and competence over other
dimensions, and then whether it varies as a function of relative status and competition.
Ultimately, the next step is to measure the content of expectations about people in
different status-competition roles. That is, we are also replicating the previous study, but
using as dependent measures the likelihood of the low or high status, competitive or
noncompetitive other person actually having those traits. Our predictions for this measure
follow the SCM: status confers competence and competition denies warmth. Moreover,
we are asking people their likelihood of feeling the SCM emotions and behaviors
uniquely predicted for each quadrant. We expect that both Japanese and American
participants would prioritize the same dimensions.
The Important Information: Cultural Differences for Individual Interactions
Despite fundamental similarities in people’s motives to understand each other
along the rejection-relevant dimensions of warmth and competence, we also expect some
cultural nuances. In our previously described comparative study, the participants could
chose to search for information related to their partner’s impression of them. American
participants tried to confirm both positive and negative feedback, as if seeking a clear
understanding of the nature of the rejection. The Japanese showed quite a different
tendency, namely that they seem to confirm the evaluation they received only when it
was negative. Participants in the two countries thus showed different search strategies
when they were rejected or received negative feedback.
In a similar vein, the Americans seemed to emphasize an unvarnished form of
honesty, taking the feedback at face value. Americans accepted the feedback as a valid
expression of the other person's opinion. The positive feedback was accepted as positive,
and the negative feedback was accepted as negative. In contrast, the Japanese could not
accept the feedback as necessarily valid, whether it was negative or positive. They
evaluated the feedback as neutral. The Japanese judged the negative evaluator as more
serious than the positive one, searched for information related to potential compatibility,
and seemed to confirm that they were rejected by their partner through searching for
items about mutual compatibility. These results supported our hypothesis that Americans
believe the feedback as a valid expression of their partner’s own attitude, and the
Japanese think that their partner does not necessarily show a valid expression of his or
her own attitude.
Controlling
Being rejected violates one’s feeling of control (Williams et al., 2000). People are
highly motivated to know the contingencies between their own actions and their
outcomes (Fiske, 2002, 2004). Feelings of control reflect feeling effective in one’s
environment. Feeling efficacious promotes both individual health and group life, so
people try to restore lost control, but cultures and individuals vary on this motive.
Our previous program of research on interdependence showed that people do
attend to those who control their outcomes, reflecting a basic motive for a sense of
control (Dépret & Fiske, 1999; Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg & Fiske, 1987; Ruscher &
Fiske, 1990; Stevens & Fiske, 2000). Americans, at least, search for information that will
restore a sense of personal prediction and control when their outcomes depend on another
person. Similarly, when their sense of control is threatened generally, they search for
information about others in their environment (Pittman & Pittman, 1980). A comparative
study in Japan replicated the Stevens-Fiske paradigm, finding instead increased attention
under positive expectations (Yamamoto & Miyamoto, 2003; more details to come).
Cultural differences in control reflect an greater emphasis on social harmony,
whereby the individual cedes control to ingroup others, seeking to create and maintain
collective compatibility. For example, a scale of harmony control (Morling & Fiske,
1997) included items such as feeling secure in friends taking care of oneself, getting
one’s own needs met by meeting the needs of others, and going along with intangible
forces larger than the self. As one cultural contrast, for example, Latinos (collectivists)
score higher than Anglos (individualists). One would predict that Japanese would tend to
score higher than Americans, and this will be the subject of a future study.
In the comparative context, we (Miyamoto, Yamamoto, et al., 2004) are
developing a scale to contrast an orientation toward autonomy (friendships as one-onone, independent, potentially temporary) or toward unit-relations (friendships as
embedded in larger networks, interdependent, life-long). Both the autonomous and unit
orientations express people’s orientations to relationships, in which people seek a form of
control, but the American context focuses on independent actors coming together and the
Japanese context focuses on people coming together within a network of relationships.
The contrast between autonomy and interdependence fits the broader literature in
cultural psychology on bases of well-being (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000) and
on individualism-collectivism or independence-interdependence generally (A. P. Fiske,
Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998). The implications for experiences of rejection are
that in the American instance, it violates a relationship between two individuals, but in
the Japanese context, it violates an entire network of relationships. In effect, the stakes
are raised by diffusing control across two networks (each partner’s network), not just
between two people. As the next section indicates, the social network encourages people
to be cautious (cf. Adams & Plaut, 2003).
Enhancing Self
The self plays a special role in people’s lives. Westerners tend to enhance
themselves relative to other people or relative to other people’s view of them (Kwan et
al., 2003). Easterners tend to be more modest, and view the self more in the context of
group memberships (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Some have posited that Easterners view
the self with a special sympathy, despite its admitted flaws (Heine, Lehman, Markus, &
Kitayama, 1999).
Our studies of rejection do not yet examine self-enhanced distortions. Earlier
work showed that people engage in wishful thinking when they are being evaluated by
their partner, hoping the person would be competent and nice (Goodwin, Fiske, Rosen, &
Rosenthal, 2002; Stevens & Fiske, 2000). However, the data from our comparative study
reinforce the idea that the self is special in both countries: Upon receiving feedback, all
participants focused on information about self. Both American and Japanese participants
in both feedback conditions searched for information about their partners’ judgments of
them (that is, self-related information).
The motives in both cases concern evaluations of self, but the Americans
apparently operate in the context of objective understanding, as described earlier. (The
feedback was so unambiguous that they could not easily deny it and simply selfenhance.) The Japanese also searched for self-relevant information, but the self in context
of relationships. Although both looked at the partner’s evaluations of them, the
Americans and the Japanese used different strategies for searching self-related
information. Americans showed more interest in the evaluation of their own speech,
consistent with their focus on objective understanding. On the other hand, the Japanese
showed more interest in mutual compatibility, especially in the positive feedback
conditions. Americans showed much less interest in compatibility compared to the
Japanese. This result confirms our hypothesis that the Japanese put more focus on the self
within the interpersonal relationship than Americans do.
Trusting
Americans generally have positive expectations about other people, as a baseline
(Fiske, 2002, 2004). This is one of the reasons that rejection rankles as much as it does.
Americans trust other people in general not to create unprovoked negative outcomes for
themselves. In Japan, trust operates more narrowly, within the ingroup, and then based on
the assurance of knowing the other person’s incentive contingencies (Yamagishi, 1998).
As a result of the more narrow trusting motive and the embedding of self in a network,
caution is more evident in our Japanese data.
In our comparative study, factor analyses separated impression items into three
factors: warmth, competence, and compatibility. Consistent with the idea of generalized
trust in others, American participants showed positive impressions of their partner on all
three factors before they received positive or negative feedback. Consistent with the idea
of less trust and more caution, the Japanese participants showed a lower score in
compatibility even before they received feedback. This result implies that the Japanese
are cautious about whether or not they will be accepted by (and accept) their partners.
For the American participants, negative feedback lowered the impressions of their
partners on all three aspects of impression; these results fit the idea of initially optimistic
Americans responding to what they perceive as objective feedback. These results imply
that Americans have a positivity bias toward a new acquaintance and that the positive
impression of the person will change if the person reacts negatively toward them.
For the Japanese participants, on the other hand, the negative feedback made only
the warmth impressions worse; the compatibility and competence scores stayed about the
same under negative feedback. The Japanese seem not to make a quick decision but
instead keep their attitude toward a new acquaintance neutral. That is why the impression
of compatibility started low and stayed neutral even under negative feedback.
Another comparative study, currently in progress, also highlights Japanese
caution. Participants read a hypothetical scenario involving an encounter with the friend
of a friend. They were asked a series of open-ended questions designed to tap their metaexpectations about the relationship. Apart from the minimal social requirements of
greeting the other person, their expected response was cautious, minimizing contact and
waiting to see what the other would do. They were reserved, noncommittal, and
awkward. Similarly, they expected that the other person would not be either too friendly
or too rude. That is, rejection is definitely unexpected, reflecting a degree of trust, but not
as much optimism as Americans. We are currently asking Americans the same questions,
for comparison.
Conclusion
Our comparative results give us a hypothesis that people in the two countries
sometimes have different motives and meta-expectations about interpersonal
relationships. American people are supposed to have a basic motive of understanding and
believe in people being direct and speaking the truth. Thus they were more strongly
interested in how they were perceived by their partner, and thought that their partner gave
their true opinion.
The Japanese apparently have slightly different motives and meta-expectations.
They prioritize social harmony, relation-oriented motives, and do not mind saying
different things in different situations. Thus, they were more interested in whether they
were accepted or not by their partner, and did not think the feedback was necessarily true,
even if their partner evaluated them positively. To the Japanese, to say positive words
means only that they want to show they are not actively refusing the other person or they
are just saying flattering things.
We assume that a few core motives can help explain in both cultures people’s
reactions to the threat of rejection and to actual rejection. We have used five motives
drawn from personality and social psychology’s most common themes over their history
(Stevens & Fiske, 1993). The core motive of belonging, most violated by rejection, is
posited to be universal and relatively invariant. The other four vary by culture and by
individual, though they are present to some degree regardless of the form they take.
References
Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in
North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333-347.
Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Hermann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: A
functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 78-93.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 41, 1230-1240.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165-195.
Berkman, L. F. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 57, 245-254.
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration
to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine, 51,
843-857.
Berkman, L. F. & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host resistance, and morality.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 109, 186-204.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2,
pp. 193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brewer, M. B. (1997). On the social origins of human nature. In C. McGarty & S. A.
Haslam (Eds.), The message of social psychology (pp. 54-62). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Caporael, L. R. (1997). The evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations
model. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 276-298.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., et al. (2004). Toward pancultural
principles of stereotyping. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.
Dépret, E. F., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Perceiving the powerful: Intriguing individuals
versus threatening groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 461480.
DiChiara, J., & Fiske, S. T. (2004). Unpublished data, Princeton University.
Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709-726.
Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of
social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 915-981). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from
daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
877-889.
Fiske, S. T. (2002). Five core social motives, plus or minus five. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein,
M. P. Zanna, & J. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 9, pp. 233-246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New
York: Wiley.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)
stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived
status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878902.
Fiske, S. T., Lin, M. H., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The Continuum Model: Ten years
later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology
(pp. 231-254). New York: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from
category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and
motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence
the affect? In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 239-268). San Diego
CA: Academic Press.
Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. S. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus
(dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of
competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.
Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves' clothing: Envious prejudice,
ideology, and the scapegoating of Jews. In L. S. Newman & R. Erber (Eds.)
Understanding genocide: The social psychology of the Holocaust. (pp. 113 142).
London: Oxford University Press.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam:
Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating
hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
491-512.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal
need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric analysis of the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7, 1097-1108.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health.
Science, 241, 540-545.
Hurh, W. M., & Kim, K. C. (1989). The "success" image of Asian Americans: Its validity
and its practical and theoretical implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12, 512538.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., McGuire, L., Robles, T. F., & Glaser, R. (2002). Emotions,
morbidity, and mortality: New perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology. In S.
T. Fiske, D. L. Shacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology
(Vol. 53, pp. 83-107). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus
racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,
414-431.
Kitano, H. H. L., & Sue, S. (1973). The model minorities. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 19.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being:
Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93-124.
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The
functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187-208.
Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond, M. H., & Robins, R. W. (in press).
Reconceptualizing individual differences in self enhancement bias: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Review.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9,
221-229.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Miyamoto, S., Yamamoto, M., et al. (2004). Unpublished data.
Morling, B., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Defining and measuring harmony control. Journal of
Research in Personality, 33, 379-414.
Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation:
Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431-444.
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a
biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull
(Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31-61). New York: Guilford.
Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997).
Personality moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and
trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235-1244.
Peeters, G. (1983). Relational and informational patterns in social cognition. In W. Doise
& S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (pp. 201237). UK: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and Cambridge University Press.
Peeters, G. (1992). Evaluative meanings of adjectives in vitro and in context: Some
theoretical implications and practical consequences of positive-negative
asymmetry and behavioral-adaptive concepts of evaluation. Psychologica
Belgica, 32, 211-231.
Peeters, G. (1995). What's negative about hatred and positive about love? On negation in
cognition, affect, and behavior. In H. C. M. de Swart & L. J. M. Bergman (Eds.),
Perspectives on negation (pp. 123-133). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Phalet, K., & Poppe, E. (1997). Competence and morality dimensions of national and
ethnic stereotypes: A study in six eastern-European countries. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 27, 703-723.
Pittman, T. S., & Pittman, N. L. (1980). Deprivation of control and the attribution
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 377-389.
Poppe, E. (2001). Effects of changes in GNP and perceived group characteristics on
national and ethnic stereotypes in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31, 1689-1708.
Poppe, E., & Linssen, H. (1999). In-group favouritism and the reflection of realistic
dimensions of difference between national states in Central and Eastern European
nationality stereotypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 85-102.
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach
to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9, 283-294
Ruscher, J. B., & Fiske, S. T. (1990). Interpersonal competition can cause individuating
processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 832-843.
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1995). Motivation and cognition in social life: A social
survival perspective. Social Cognition, 13, 189-214.
Stevens, L. E., & Fiske, S. T. (2000). Motivated impressions of a powerholder: Accuracy
under task dependency and misperception under evaluation dependency.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 907-922.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). CyberOstracism: Effects of being
ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748762.
Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of
competence or morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222232.
Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., & Mikiewicz, A. (2003). Two dimensions of interpersonal
attitudes: Liking is based on self-interest, respect is based on status. Unpublished
manuscript, Polish Academy of Science.
Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral
categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 1251-1263.
Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political
perception. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 319-325.
Wright, R., & Fiske, S. T. (2004). Unpublished data, Princeton University.
Yamagishi, T. (1998). The structure of trust: An evolutionary game of mind and society.
Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo University Press.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and
Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.
Yamamoto, M., & Miyamoto, S. (2004). Unpublished data, Tsukuba University.