Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol 9, No 2, 1990, pp 221 -229

RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION:

SOCIALANXIETY, JEALOUSY, LONELINESS,
DEPRESSION, AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM
MARK R. LEARY
Wake Forest University

Baumeister and Rice's (this issue) social exclusion theory of anxiety proposes that a

primary of anxiety is perceived exclusion from important social groups. Rhis

source

article elaborates the basic propositions of social exclusion theory, then applies the
theory to a broader
analysis of affective reactions to exclusion. Specifically, the article
examines the relationship between perceived social exclusion and social anxiety,
jealousy, loneliness, and depression. Rhe function of self-esteem and its role in
moderating reactions to perceived exclusion are also discussed.

Baumeister and Tice (this issue) proposed that a

primary cause of anxiety
is exclusion from important social groups. The essence of their argument
is straightforward: because being part of a social group increases the
individual's likelihood of survival, human beings possess an innate drive
to avoid being excluded by others and experience anxiety whenever they

perceive important group to be in jeopardy.

their status within an

Although much of the evidence

they muster is admittedly indirect
and circumstantial, their perspective has considerable merit, both as a

theory of anxiety in its own right and in terms of its ability to integrate
and subsume existing perspectives on anxiety. It is important that their

approach incorporates several areas of behavioral research that have

been largely ignored by contemporary social psychologists.
Inlight of my basic agreement with their thesis, my objective in
this article is not to systematically critique the Baumeister-Tice model
per se. Rather, my goal is to extend their ideas about anxiety to a broader
analysis of affective responses to social exclusion.

CENTRAL PROPOSITIONS

Beforedoing so,however, I will begin by elaborating on three fundamental

propositions ofsocial exclusion theory, propositions on which the re
mainder of the paper is based.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Mark R. Leary, Department of Psychology,

Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109.

221
222 LEARY

Proposition 1. Hitman beings possess a fundamental motive to avoid exclusion

from important social groups. In social species, inclusion in a group serves
a
protective function and provides a wealth of other social, material,
psychological, and physical benefits (Barash, 1977; Cohen & Wills, 1985;
Hill, 1987). Thus, as Ainsworth (1989) concluded, it is "reasonable to
believe that there is basic behavioral system that has evolved in
some

social species that leads individuals to seek to maintain proximity to

conspecifics, even to those to whom they are not attached or otherwise

bonded" (p. 713).
However, people are not simply motivated to coexist in the presence
of others. Rather, they seek to attain and maintain membership in selected
family, occupational, peer, and social groups and to avoid involuntary
exclusion from these important social relationships (cf. Hogan, Jones,
& Cheek, 1985). I should stress that people do not indiscriminately seek
inclusion in all groups but are selective regarding those groups in which
they desire to be included. The behavioral system implicated in social
exclusion theory can be distinguished from systems that mediate indis-
criminant sociality or proximity-seeking on one hand and selective at
tachment or bonding on the other.
Like Baumeister and Tice, I will sometimes speak of "inclusion" and
"exclusion" as if these relational states reflect a dichotomy. However,

they may be viewed more fruitfully as a continuum (see Table 1). At

one
pole is maximal inclusion, instances in which the individual is actively
sought for inclusion in the group. At the other pole is maximal exclusion
in which the person is excluded, ostracized, abandoned, or banished.
Between these extremes we may distinguish gradations of inclusion and
exclusion.
I will use the term perceived inclusionary status to refer to the degree
to which the individual perceives he or she is (or is likely to be) included

RABLE 1
Rhe Inclusionary-Status Continuum

Maximal inclusion Others seek out the individual

Active inclusion Others welcome the individual (but do not seek out
him or her)
Passive inclusion Others allow the individual to be included
Ambivalence Others do not care whether the individual is included
or excluded

Passive exclusion Others ignore the individual

Active exclusion Others avoid the individual
Maximal exclusion Others physically reject, ostracize, abandon, or

banish the individual

RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION 223

or excluded his or her perceived standing on this inclusion-exclusion

continuum. In my view, motivated not to avoid exclusion
people are only
per se (as Baumeister and Tice discussed) toward maximal
but to move

inclusion and away from maximal exclusion. Most of the benefits of

social inclusion are more pronounced the more included or integrated
the individual is in the group or
relationship. The importance of distin
guishing among levels of inclusion and exclusion will become apparent
below.

Proposition 2. Much of social behavior reflects attempts to improve one's

mclusionary status. I should not be interpreted as suggesting that inter
personal behavior involves nothing but attempts to seek inclusion and
to avoid exclusion. However, much behavior emerges from this fun
damental motive, and even when
people are motivated by other goals,
they typically pursue those goals in a manner that does not jeopardize
their standing in valued groups and relationships.
As Baumeister and Tice point out, people tend to be excluded from

groups for three sets of reasons: failing to contribute to the welfare of

the group, violating group rules, and possessing socially undesirable
attributes. Thus, people may lower the likelihood that they will be excluded

through achievement-oriented behaviors (demonstrating their ability and

willingness to contribute to the group), accommodating to the group's
standards (conforming), and behaving in socially desirable ways. A mo
ment's thought shows that these three sets of behaviors encompass a

great deal of human social behavior, suggesting that many seemingly

disparate interpersonal behaviors may, in fact, be functionally equivalent
in terms of their role in fostering inclusion and avoiding exclusion.

Proposition 3. The perception that one's inclusionary status in important

social groups is less than desired results in negative affective states. Baumeister
and Tice emphasized the effects of exclusion on anxiety, but, as we will
discuss below, anxiety is but one dysphoric response to perceived ex
clusion.
important to note that people's reactions are a function of more
It is
than simply whether they feel excluded or included. Their specific perceived
inclusionary status has a bearing on the nature and strength of their
reactions. Clearly, an individual who feels passively excluded will respond
in a different fashion, both qualitatively and quantitatively, from a person
who feels maximally excluded.
Furthermore, people may experience negative reactions even when
they are not "excluded" at all in an objective sense. Even people who
are "included" may experience anxiety or other dysphoric reactions if

they believe that their inclusionary status vis-a-vis a particular person

or
group is below the level they desire. Thus, a woman who wants her
husband to maximally include her (e.g., seek her out) may feel anxious
224 LEARY

and distressed when he inclusion. As I noted

responds with only passive
above, distinguishing among levels of inclusion and exclusion allows a
more
fine-grained analysis of people's responses to perceived exclusion
than regarding these states as a
dichotomy.

AFFECTIVE REACTIONS TO LOW INCLUSIONARY STATUS

Baumeister and Tice focused on the effects of exclusion on anxiety, and

there may be reasons to regard anxiety as the most general affective

response to exclusion. However, threats to inclusion may cause other
dysphoric reactions that do not involve anxiety. Indeed, social exclusion
theory provides a broad framework for examining the connections among
several common
dysphoric states, all of which appear to involve responses
to threats to inclusionary status.
Specifically, social exclusion appears to
be a common link between social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, and
depression. I will
briefly discuss the
relationship between exclusion and
each of these phenomena.
Social Anxiety. The self-presentational theory proposes that people

experience social anxiety when they are motivated to make particular

impressions on others but doubt that they will do so (Leary, 1983b;
Schlenker & Leary, 1982). The theory is based on the assumption that
perceived self-presentational failures result in anxiety because failing to
make desired impressions on others (or worse, making undesired

impressions) interferes with the accomplishment of many desired goals

(making friends, getting jobs, winning promotions, etc.).
However, many people experience social anxiety even in situations
in which no explicit outcomes are contingent on their social performances;
some
people feel uncomfortable talking to checkout clerks or being seen
in their swimsuits by perfect strangers, for example. Although some

episodes of social anxiety stem from the potential loss of specific desired
outcomes that may result from self-presentational failure, social exclusion

theory suggests that the threat may run deeper, evoking concerns with
one's worthiness for remaining a member of important groups. Anytime
a
person appears before others, he or she runs the risk, however slight,
of being rejected or excluded.
But why are people worried about being rejected by checkout clerks
or
strangers at the beach, individuals with whom they have no intention
of entering relationships? One
possibility is that people often assess their
inclusionary status not in terms of their standing in a real group or
relationship but in terms of their potential for inclusion/exclusion. People
seem to evaluate their
inclusionary status within the context of "what
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION 225

if I did want this

person or group to include me?" At a general and
abstract level, people may even
worry about being "excluded" as an
undesirable member of
society-at-large and thus worry about being per
ceived in ways that would make them
potentially excludable by the kinds
of people with whom they
identify. (The role of impression management
in exclusion avoidance should be obvious & Kowalski, 1990].)
[Leary
Furthermore, imagining that one has not attained a desired
inclusionary
status with one
person, even an
inconsequential one, may make people
question their ability to be included by more important others, resulting
in social anxiety.
fealousy. Jealousy, or more
specifically, social-relations
jealousy arises
when an individual perceives that a
relationship is threatened
valued
by someone else (Salovey & Rodin, 1988). Jealousy tends to be characterized
by diffuse emotional distress, including anxiety, depression, and anger
(Pines & Aronson, 983; Salovey & Rodin, 1988; White, 1981).
The connection between jealousy and social exclusion is straight
forward: at its heart, jealousy arises from the belief that one's inclusionary
status in a specific valued relationship is threatened. Indeed, respondents
to Pines and Aronson's (1983) extensive survey indicated that a primary
reason for
jealousy was "feeling excluded." Similarly, White (1981) found
that people who interpret their partner's friendships with others as a
rejection of themselves are particularly prone to jealousy. Thus, jealousy
appears to be a response to perceived exclusion.
Loneliness. Loneliness reflects "an individual's subjective perception
of deficiencies in his or her social relationships" (Russell, Cutrona, Rose,
& Yurko, 1984, p. 1313). In terms of exclusion theory, loneliness results
from the individual's perception that his or her inclusionary status is
below desired levels in most or all relationships with others. People feel

lonely when they do not feel adequately included in supportive groups

and relationships.
Research on specific causes of loneliness is consistent with this inter
pretation (for reviews, see Hojat & Crandall, 1987; Peplau & Perlman,
1982). For example, lonely and nonlonely people do not differ in the
total amount of time they interact with other people, suggesting that
social contact does not, by itself, reduce loneliness. However, lonely

people spend more time with strangers and acquaintances and less time
with friends and family than the nonlonely (Jones, 1981). Of course,
one's inclusionary status is typically lower in encounters with strangers
and acquaintances than with friends and family, who thus provide a
buffer against loneliness.
Depression. Depression may be precipitated by a large variety of
events, both social and nonsocial, but being excluded is certainly among
226 LEARY

them (as anyone who has been divorced, kicked out of a club, or denied
tenure can attest). Social exclusion generally causes depression, although

not alldepression results from exclusion.

The actual loss of another person evokes perhaps the deepest
depression: grief. The experience of grief is, in large part, not a response
to the loss of a person per se as much as to the loss of a linkage with
another person (Lofland, 1982). As Baumeister and Tice discuss, people's
reactions to the death of loved ones are, in part, reactions to exclusion,
defined. the bereaved often consoled by the
loosely Interestingly, are

belief that will be reunited with their loved ones in an afterlife

they
that is, by the belief that the exclusion is only temporary.
Inclusion as a Buffer. Aside from the fact that perceived exclusion
causes these affective reactions, feeling included mitigates against them.

Having a social support network reduces anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,

and depression, even when the individual does not take advantage of
when the is irrelevant to the
any tangible support and even support
Cohen & Wills, 1985; Peplau & Perlman,
original cause of dysphoria (e.g.,
1982; Sarason & Sarason, 1985).

SELF-ESTEEM AND REACTIONS TO EXCLUSION

In addition to providing an integrative conceptual framework for examining

the relationships among these four reactions, social exclusion theory
provides a novel perspective on three sets of empirical findings. First,
social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, and depression tend to occur together:
socially anxious people are often lonely and depressed, jealous people
tend to be anxious and lonely, lonely people are typically anxious and

depressed, and so on (Anderson & Harvey, 1988; Jones, Freemon, &

Goswick, 1981; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980).
Second, each of these four reactions is related negatively to self-
esteem. Compared to persons with high self-esteem, low-self-esteem

persons are more likely to experience social anxiety (Leary, 1983a), jealousy
(Pines & Aronson, 1983; White, 1981), loneliness (Russell et al., 1980),
and depression (Kuiper, Derry, & MacDonald, 1982).
Third, social neglect, rejection, and exclusion, whether by parents
or peers, is implicated both in the development of low dispositional self-
esteem and in loneliness, shyness, and depression (e.g., Maccoby &

Martin, 1983).
From the perspective of social exclusion theory, self-esteem may be

conceptualized as an internal, subjective "marker" that reflects an ongoing

assessment of the individual's inclusionary status. Virtually all events
that raise self-esteem maintain or improve the individual's chances of
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION 227

being included, whereas events that lower self-esteem decrease inclusion

likelihood. Furthermore, what have been viewed previously as threats
to self-esteem are, at a more basic level, events that make the
possibility
of exclusion salient. events are aversive because they
Ego-threatening
signal a
possible deterioration in one's inclusionary status. Self-esteem,
then, is a reflection of the individual's assessment of the implications of
his or her behavior for social inclusion and exclusion. "State" self-esteem
is tied to one's assessment of inclusion in the immediate situation; "trait"
self-esteem is a
compilation of the individual's history of experienced
inclusion and exclusion.
To the extent that self-esteem is an internal representation of inclu
sionary status, persons with low self-esteem are more likely to perceive
real and imagined threats to inclusion than are those with high self-
esteem, which explains why low-self-esteem persons are more likely to
be anxious, lonely, jealous, and depressed than those with high self-
esteem. Furthermore, these reactions tend to occur together because

they are all reactions to low perceived inclusion likelihood.

Of course, people do not simply monitor their self-esteem. Rather,
are motivated to maintain, if not enhance it. The function of this
they
motive remains a
point of contention, however.
Why do we have a
"need" to evaluate ourselves positively?
One reason a
purely intrapsychic function was discussed by
Baumeister and Tice. They suggested that people strive to evaluate them
selves positively to buffer themselves against the anxiety associated with

contemplating personal shortcomings that might provide grounds for

social exclusion (e.g., incompetence, unattractiveness, immorality).

Perhaps more important, people behave in ways that maintain self-

esteem, not because of a need to preserve self-esteem per se but because
such behaviors decrease the likelihood that they will be ignored, avoided,
or
rejected. Behaviors that have been
conceptualized previously as attempts
to maintain self-esteem-approval seeking, self-handicapping, self-serving

attributions, and the like are, at a more basic level, ways of maintaining
or
improving one's inclusionary status. Rather than originating from a
free-standing motive to maintain self-esteem, such behaviors serve to
decrease the likelihood of exclusion.

GENERALITY OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION THEORY

Baumeister and Tice's model of anxiety and the present discussion of

other dysphoric reactions focus primarily on the affective consequences
The of social exclusion
of perceived exclusion. purview theory is much
broader, however. To the extent that much behavior is designed to
228 LEARY

facilitate inclusion or is constrained by the individual's desire to avoid

exclusion, social exclusion theory identifies a fundamental interpersonal
motive. Indeed, many behaviors that, on phenotypic level, appear a

quite different mav be functionally equivalent wavs of regulating inclu

sionary status. Furthermore, many of the behavioral and emotional prob
lems for which people seek professional help mav represent inept or
inappropriate attempts to avoid exclusion. In brief, social exclusion theory
provides an important perspective for both social and clinical psychology.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments bevond infancy. American Psychologist 44,, 709-

716.
Anderson, C. A , & Harvev, R. J. (1988) Discriminating between problems
in
living: An
examination of of
depression, loneliness, shvness, and social anxiety, journal
measures

of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 482-491.

Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology and behavior New York1 Elsevier.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Rhe stress buffering hypothesis of social support Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 310-357
Hill, C. A (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people but in different
wavs Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1008 1018

Hogan, R., Jones, \V H., & Cheek, J. M (1985). Socioanalytic theory An alternative to
armadillo psychology In B. R. Schlenker (Ed ), The self and social life (pp. 175-198)
New York. McGraw-Hill.
Hojat, M ,
& Crandall, R. (Eds ) (1987). Loneliness: Rheory, research and applications.
San Rafael, CA Select Press.
Jones, W H. (1981). Loneliness and social contact, journal of Social Psychology, 113, 295-
296

Jones, \V H., Freemon, J. E , & Goswick, R. A (19S1). The persistence of loneliness Self
and other determinants, journal of Personality, 49, 27-48.

Kuiper, N A Deny, P. A & MacDonald, M. R. (1982). Self-reference and person perception

, ,

in depression: A social cognition perspective. In G. Wean' & H. L. Mirels (Eds),

Integrations of clinical and social psychology (pp. 79-103). New York: Oxford
Leary, M R. (1983a) Social anxiousness The construct and its measurement. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 47, 66-75
Leaiy, M R (1983b). Understanding social anxiety. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage.
Leary, M R., & Kowalski, R. M (1990). Rhe two components of impression management:
A literature review and theoretical integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Lofland, L. H. (1982) Loss and human connection. An exploration into the nature of the
social bond. In VV Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds ), Personality, roles, and social behavior

(pp 219-242). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Maccoby, E E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization m the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction In E. M Hethenngton (Ed ), Handbook of child
psychology (Vol. 4,
pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1982) Loneliness A sourcebook of current theory, research,
and therapy. New York: Wiley.
Pines, A , & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual
jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108-136.
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION 229

Russell, D., Cutrona, C, Rose, J , & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness:
An examination of Weiss'
typology of loneliness, journal oj Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 1313-1321.
Russell, D., Peplau, L A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale:
Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 472-480.
and Clinical
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1988). Coping with envy and jealousy, journal of Social
Psychology, 7, 15-33.
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (Eds.). (1985). Social support: Theory, research, and applications.
The Hague, Rhe Netherlands: Martinus Nijhof.
Schlenker, B R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A concep

tualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.

White, G. L (1981) Some correlates of romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality, 49, 127-
147.