essay about being rejected

Why rejection hurts so much — and what to do about it

Share this idea.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Psychologist Guy Winch shares some practical tips for soothing the sting of rejection.

Rejections are the most common emotional wound we sustain in daily life. Our risk of rejection used to be limited by the size of our immediate social circle or dating pools. Today, thanks to electronic communications, social media platforms and dating apps, each of us is connected to thousands of people, any of whom might ignore our posts, chats, texts, or dating profiles and leave us feeling rejected as a result.

In addition to these kinds of minor rejections, we are still vulnerable to serious and more devastating rejections as well. When our spouse leaves us, when we get fired from our jobs, snubbed by our friends, or ostracized by our families and communities for our lifestyle choices, the pain we feel can be absolutely paralyzing.

Whether the rejection we experience is large or small, one thing remains constant — it always hurts, and it usually hurts more than we expect it to.

The question is, why? Why are we so bothered by a good friend failing to “like” the family holiday picture we posted on Facebook? Why does it ruin our mood? Why would something so seemingly insignificant make us feel angry at our friend, moody, and bad about ourselves?

The greatest damage rejection causes is usually self-inflicted. Just when our self-esteem is hurting most, we go and damage it even further.

The answer is — our brains are wired to respond that way. When scientists placed people in functional MRI machines and asked them to recall a recent rejection , they discovered something amazing. The same areas of our brain become activated when we experience rejection as when we experience physical pain. That’s why even small rejections hurt more than we think they should, because they elicit literal (albeit, emotional) pain.

But why is our brain wired this way?

Evolutionary psychologists believe it all started when we were hunter gatherers who lived in tribes. Since we could not survive alone, being ostracized from our tribe was basically a death sentence. As a result, we developed an early warning mechanism to alert us when we were at danger of being “kicked off the island” by our tribemates — and that was rejection. People who experienced rejection as more painful were more likely to change their behavior, remain in the tribe, and pass along their genes.

Of course, emotional pain is only one of the ways rejections impact our well-being. Rejections also damage our mood and our self-esteem, they elicit swells of anger and aggression, and they destabilize our need to “belong.”

Unfortunately, the greatest damage rejection causes is usually self-inflicted. Indeed, our natural response to being dumped by a dating partner or getting picked last for a team is not just to lick our wounds but to become intensely self-critical. We call ourselves names, lament our shortcomings, and feel disgusted with ourselves. In other words, just when our self-esteem is hurting most, we go and damage it even further. Doing so is emotionally unhealthy and psychologically self-destructive yet every single one of us has done it at one time or another.

The good news is there are better and healthier ways to respond to rejection, things we can do to curb the unhealthy responses, soothe our emotional pain and rebuild our self-esteem. Here are just some of them:

Have zero tolerance for self-criticism

Tempting as it might be to list all your faults in the aftermath of a rejection, and natural as it might seem to chastise yourself for what you did “wrong” — don’t! By all means, review what happened and consider what you should do differently in the future but there is absolutely no good reason to be punitive and self-critical while doing so. Thinking “I should probably avoid talking about my ex on my next first date” is fine. Thinking “I’m such a loser!” is not.

Another common mistake we make is to assume a rejection is personal when it’s not. Most rejections, whether romantic, professional, and even social, are due to “fit” and circumstance. Going through an exhaustive search of your own deficiencies in an effort to understand why it didn’t “work out” is not only unnecessarily but misleading.

Revive your self-worth

When your self-esteem takes a hit it’s important to remind yourself of what you have to offer (as opposed to listing your shortcomings). The best way to boost feelings of self-worth after a rejection is to affirm aspects of yourself you know are valuable.

Make a list of five qualities you have that are important or meaningful — things that make you a good relationship prospect (e.g., you are supportive or emotionally available), a good friend (e.g., you are loyal or a good listener), or a good employee (e.g., you are responsible or have a strong work ethic).

Then choose one of them and write a quick paragraph or two (write, don’t just do it in your head) about why the quality matters to others, and how you would express it in the relevant situation. Applying emotional first aid in this way will boost your self-esteem, reduce your emotional pain and build your confidence going forward.

Boost feelings of connection

As social animals, we need to feel wanted and valued by the various social groups with which we are affiliated. Rejection destabilizes our need to belong , leaving us feeling unsettled and socially untethered.

Therefore, we need to remind ourselves that we’re appreciated and loved so we can feel more connected and grounded. If your work colleagues didn’t invite you to lunch, grab a drink with members of your softball team instead. If your kid gets rejected by a friend, make a plan for them to meet a different friend instead and as soon as possible. And when a first date doesn’t return your texts, call your grandparents and remind yourself that your voice alone brings joy to others.

Rejection is never easy but knowing how to limit the psychological damage it inflicts, and how to rebuild your self-esteem when it happens, will help you recover sooner and move on with confidence when it is time for your next date or social event.

Illustration by Dawn Kim for TED.

About the author

Guy Winch is a licensed psychologist who is a leading advocate for integrating the science of emotional health into our daily lives. His three TED Talks have been viewed over 20 million times, and his science-based self-help books have been translated into 26 languages. He also writes the Squeaky Wheel blog for PsychologyToday.com and has a private practice in New York City.

• relationships
• self-esteem

TED Talk of the Day

How to make radical climate action the new normal

6 ways to give that aren't about money

A smart way to handle anxiety -- courtesy of soccer great Lionel Messi

How do top athletes get into the zone? By getting uncomfortable

6 things people do around the world to slow down

Creating a contract -- yes, a contract! -- could help you get what you want from your relationship

Could your life story use an update? Here’s how to do it 

6 tips to help you be a better human now

How to have better conversations on social media (really!)

Let’s stop calling them “soft skills” -- and call them “real skills” instead

3 strategies for effective leadership, from a former astronaut

There’s a know-it-all at every job — here’s how to deal

5 ways to build lasting self-esteem

How to beat loneliness

Why we need to take emotional pain as seriously as physical pain

Dear Guy: "I'm in quarantine, and I'm heartbroken"

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events conversation

What Students Are Saying About Rejection, Overcoming Fear and Their ‘Word of the Year’

Teenage comments in response to our recent writing prompts, and an invitation to join the ongoing conversation.

By The Learning Network

This week on The Learning Network, our writing prompts asked teenagers to dig deep. One invited reflection on times they have benefited from rejection, another asked about how they have overcome their fears, and a third challenged them to come up with one word to encapsulate their aspirations for the year ahead.

Thank you to all those who joined the conversation this week from around the world, including teenagers from Savannah, Ga. ; Loveland, Colo. ; and Jiangsu Province, China.

Please note: Student comments have been lightly edited for length, but otherwise appear as they were originally submitted.

Have You Ever Benefited From Rejection?

An aspiring actor named Axel Webber went viral on TikTok recently — not for achieving his goal of getting into the Juilliard School, but for being rejected from it. His story led to thousands of reassuring comments from strangers and celebrities alike.

Mr. Webber’s post inspired us to ask teenagers if they had experienced rejection — and if the consequences had been different from what they expected. Over 200 told us about times when being turned down spurred them to work harder, reflect, grow and find a new path. Here is a selection.

Rejection Can Push You in a Positive Direction.

I believe that rejection is an opportunity for growth. When you are rejected it forces you to focus on what you need to work on to be better. So that if you go back, you can get the acceptance that is well deserved. Rejection motivates you to keep pushing and better yourself. Personally, I have been on my school’s dance team for 3 years, however, you have to try out to compete for our major competitions. For the first two years, I did not make the competition team. That rejection pushed me to work on my skills and work on getting myself stronger so that I can be ready. After all my hardwork, I am finally able to compete. So yes, rejection is a good thing.

— Royal, New Mexico

When I was younger, I submitted one of my Lego creations to a contest going on at the time. I unfortunately didn’t win or get any recognition whatsoever, and while that did sting at first, it ultimately gave me the opportunity to reflection on my failure. Analyze what aspects the winning entries did better than mine and through that, grow creatively going forward. At the end of the day if you wish you go forward you must prepare to occasionally be pushed backwards. So you can charge ahead stronger than your would’ve been able to before.

— Nolan, Glenbard West

Rejection can be a fuel for success. There have been multiple times in life where I have failed, but I had to pick myself back up to accomplish what was needed. For example, there was one time where I didn’t do so good on a quiz for math. I saw the grade and knew I wanted a better one. I signed up for retakes, looked over my work, and studied. I ended up getting an100 on that retake and it brought my grade up further than what it was before. Everyone needs a little bit of failure to succeed because at the end of the day that fail can be used as fuel for success.

— Emeka, Kenwood Academy

We Can All Learn From Defeat.

Rejection hurts- whether it be from a friend group or a college, the same thoughts are always triggered: “Am I good enough?” Some may think that these thoughts are purely harmful, but I would argue otherwise. These thoughts both encourage introspection by challenging a person’s preconceived notions of themselves, and ultimately help remove the idea of worth from all that is tangible. Furthermore, rejection helps people consider what is truly meaningful to them, by testing the relationship between person and want. If something is truly desired, a single rejection should not be enough to stop a dream, while it might give pause as people consider whether their fight is worth the effort for other things. This effectively selects for the things that are most important in a person’s life, and it is precisely this rejection that, through trial, empowers someone to live their best life.

— Brandt, Glenbard West High School

Of course, getting rejected hurts. As a senior, rejection is one of my biggest fears. At times, I am anxiously waiting for an email to see if I got accepted into the colleges I have applied to. Nevertheless, rejection is not the end of the world. Personally, I feel that rejection means it is not for me or it is not for me at that time. Furthermore, I have never let rejection make me feel like a failure. When I get rejected, I take it as a lesson on what I can do better next time. A lot of people are terrified of rejection; however, I feel that rejection helps me grow as a person. For example, if I get rejected from a college, I learn that that school is not for me and I won’t succeed there.

— Keiry, Don Bosco Cristo Rey High School

Rejection is something we are all familiar with. It’s a “must” in our lives. It’s something we encounter during our journey to success. I was in the doldrums when I experienced rejection. I knew what failure tastes like, but at the same time, the rejection pushed me and motivated me to go further. I just had to try again.

We should be open with our disappointments or unfortunate times. We should not be embarrassed and we should not avoid it, but we should embrace it. Once we face rejection with optimism and determination to attempt again, we know that we have nothing to lose. There would be a fervor created, there would be adrenaline pumping, and we become our brand new selves. More resilient, more diligent, more preserver.

— Bella, Suzhou SIP, Jiangsu Province, China

Hearing “No” Is Scary.

I can’t think of a time I benefited from rejection. In my opinion, rejection is a really scary thing. I generally avoid trying out things unless I am good at them. When I try something out and I’m struggling I feel humiliated. Facing the possibility of rejection is enough to make me not try it at all. Looking at this article he faced rejection from the university of his dreams very publicly. Then his fans harassed the Instagram of the university. I feel like that’s much worse than just getting rejected regularly.

— Shealynn, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

It’s Important to Talk About Failure.

I do think that it is important to discuss failures because it’s not the end of the world. I know a lot of people who have their whole lives planned out and are so set-in-stone with the path they want to take and I’m just wondering when it’ll fall apart. The saying “no plan survives contact with the enemy” rings true in so many aspects of life and the main theme of that saying is to be adaptable, to be prepared for the worst. The people who are so stubborn with their life plan are fragile because if something goes wrong, something they can’t predict, their entire world might seem like it’s falling apart. It’s important to set goals and strive for them, sure, but life is full of complications and not being ready for things to go wrong is setting yourself up for failure. By discussing failure and showing how life continues, people can be more comfortable with it and ready in case something happens they can’t expect.

— Max, Hinsdale Central IL

I think that it is very important to openly discuss the times we fail to achieve our goals. Nobody is perfect. People make mistakes all the time. Goals can be made, but they are more often unsuccessful or failed. However, people only ever talk about their achievements to look better and feel better about themselves. If you only ever hear about all the great things other people are doing, its going to negatively affect your mental health and self esteem if and when you fail to achieve one of your goals. Sharing your bad experiences, like Mr. Webber did, normalizes the very normal concept of failure. People can relate to it and feel better about their experiences. Additionally, people can see that you can recover from failures. Many think one is the end all and don’t care to look for the bright side and good things that can come instead. Mr. Webbers experience being shared can help people see that this is not the case. Failure and rejection one time wont make for failure and rejection all the time.

— Nina, Baker High School

By sharing our stories it allows for others to not feel so alone if they are going through a similar hardship too. It has been proven in many studies that by discussing and working through failure, it will help and benefit us in the long run. Suppose all individuals who faced failure and struggle opened up to others, there would be an overflow of support and love. All this support would help to create new goals and a new path was better than before. I think Mr.Webber chose to share his experience so that he can help others realize that failure and rejection doesn’t always mean the end of an era, just the beginning of another chapter.

— Delaney, Maury High School-Norfolk, VA

Rejection Is Not the End.

A common misconception in this day and age is the understanding that rejection is an irredeemable failure, suggesting that those who have been rejected have no hope of changing. However, this could not be further from the truth. While I agree they rejection should be treated as a sign of failure, we need to rethink the popular assumption that rejection indicates the inability to improve. For most people, rejection can be incredibly discouraging, as it may feel that one’s efforts amounted to nothing in the end. Though this is understandable, this view is shortsighted. The strongest people are those who acknowledge their faults and choose to improve upon them, or find other solutions such as Webber suggests in the article. This is something that society should take into consideration when faced with rejection in the future.

— Jose, Glenbard West

This is one time when rejection can actually help you by teaching you to be patient and keep moving. You may not get what you want right away, but if you’re willing to work hard and be patient, you will eventually find yourself where you want to be. You may experience sadness in the beginning, but you will realize that this is an opportunity. You may not realize it just yet, but you may become something even better than you hoped for.

— C., Bronx

How Do You Overcome Your Fears?

In a recent guest essay for the Opinion section, the poet Amanda Gorman revealed that she almost didn’t deliver the now-famous reading of her work “The Hill We Climb” at President Biden’s inauguration. Why? “I was terrified,” she confesses.

In the essay, she tells readers how she overcame her fears and why doing so was worth it. We asked students to reflect on Ms. Gorman’s advice and to share their own. They told us about the mantras they recite, the music they listen to, and the questions they ask themselves to work through their doubts.

What Amanda Gorman Can Teach Us About Fear

Unfortunately, fear is not something we can avoid, but something we must deal with. Ms.Gordon’s recitation of her experience with fear during her big moment conveys that no one is immune to fear, not even extraordinary poets and public speakers. This article humanizes fear as something that we all go through and I found it extremely powerful as the article reveals that fear doesn’t discriminate. It is important to remove the stigma and reformulate our feelings about fear and how fear doesn’t make one weak.

— Victoria, Westbury, NY

My fears have stopped me from doing many things I wanted to do. I have missed out on social events, school, etc. I have very bad social anxiety and I have a really big fear of people judging me. This has made it really hard for me to ask for help because i feel stupid when I do, and because of this, I’ve had many missing assignments just because I was too nervous to ask for help. After reading this article, I’ve realized that many people feel the same way and that you should not let your fears take you over because in the long run, you will look back and regret the opportunities you missed.

— Mckenzie, Loveland, Colorado

Fear keeps people from living. It traps us and convinces us that we are not up to the task, that we are too weak to struggle through. But Ms. Gorman’s advice helps remind us that the only possible way to truly get over our fears is to own them and face them head on. Although it truly is a struggle to gather up the courage to own our fear, in the end, if we follow through, the reward and accomplishing feeling is worth it. Ms. Gorman’s advice reflects this idea, so in the pursuit of getting over my public speaking fear, I will own it.

— Carlin, Glenbard West High School, Glen Ellyn

I struggle with ADHD and anxiety, both these diagnoses sometimes try to scare me out of doing even the smallest of things. The anxiety-ridden voice in my head tries to talk me out of going somewhere or doing something with the “What if?” questions: “What if you fail?” What if you get hurt?” “What if it doesn’t go the way we planned?” Something I have learned so I don’t pass on stuff that would probably regret is to quiet those voices because if I didn’t I would be like the speaker, Amanda Gorman, who almost passed on delivering her poem at Biden’s inauguration because of the “What ifs.” She figured out that if she missed out on that once in a lifetime opportunity because of being scared of the possible outcomes, she might regret it forever.

— Olivia, Block 4, Hoggard High School

Advice for Getting Through Scary Moments

Whenever my paranoid thoughts take over my mind, I say loudly to myself mentally, “Stop talking. Everything will be okay,” repeatedly. It works well when there is something I can distract myself with (like a crowd), but when there are times when I’m alone by myself, it does not work as well. I try my best to think positively and look at the good sides. “My parents will be proud of me. I will be proud of myself. This will be good for me.”

— Yang, J.R Masterman Philadelphia, PA

Presenting in front of the class or preparing for a presentation brings me anxiety; consequently, I use several techniques that help me remain relaxed so that these nervous feelings do not hinder my presentation. Like Ms. Gorman, I recite words of confidence and encouragement. This is an effective strategy because it allows me to realize that I am prepared for what is ahead. Additionally, I remind myself that the presentation will last for a small period of time. After it is over, the pressure will no longer be a burden. Another effective tool I use while talking to large groups of people is focusing on one spot in the crowd. This prevents me from directly reading off notecards, and forces me to face the audience I am speaking to. These approaches have aided to ease my anxiety and allowed me to present more comfortably in front of my classes.

— Javier, Maury High School, Norfolk VA

Learning to Deal With Fear or Anxiety

I was about 12 years old. I remember driving up to the Disney parks and seeing the biggest roller coaster of my life, and saying that I would never ride on it. Well, I was wrong. My mom had different plans for me. As we approached the ride, I was fine waiting for my family to do their thing, I even went as far as waiting by a churro stand as they were in line. But then my mom called me to at least wait in line with them, then I was ready to go, and she asked me to at least go to the front of the line, then to at least wait on the side as they went on the ride, then by some magical persuasion, I sat in the seat of my first roller coaster. I will admit, it was fun, and that I have never stapled my feet as hard to anything, but it was nice to separate myself from my fears, and experience something that I would have never predicted would happen, not die.

— Belle, Atrisco Heritage Academy

If I am dealing with anxious thoughts and doubt at a certain time, I think to myself, “What am I doing?” and “Does this really matter?” If the answer is yes, then I try not to think about it, as it would just lead to more stress accumulation or I try and relax before I make a decision. It is my personal belief that a decision made with emotions is a very rushed and illogical decision. After all that is done, I regroup and start to think of a solution and if I don’t think it’ll work, I’ll ponder a while more. Then I ask myself, “What’s the worst that could happen?” Then I go ahead with the decision. If I am overcome with fear and severe anxious thoughts, then I go with a obviously different approach. As much as this seems far-fetched, I tend to have an easier time with dealing with fear when I simply tell myself it’s just my head.

— David, Glenbard West High School

I always had this constant fear that something was lurking in the dark rather than fearing the darkness itself. To overcome this fear, I had to force myself to approach it logically and treat it as any other scenario. For example, if I were venturing into the basement of my house, I would say to myself that nothing was lurking in the dark and that it was unnecessary to think that way. Another example would be my fear of failure, which I still haven’t fully recovered from. This kept me from a critical opportunity when I scheduled to take the SAT, and I canceled the day before. I don’t regret this, but it was still saddening that my stress hindered me from following through. Moving forward, I plan to focus my efforts on reducing stress by facing these fears head-on with this mentality.

— Evan, Farmington High School

To overcome my feelings of dread or fear, I just turn on my favorite music from the 60-80’s. This tactic usually works, and I am able to get rid of any fears or dread by jamming out to these songs. Even though I don’t state my fears out loud or recite mantras, like Ms. Gorman, I am able to overcome them through joy and music. These approaches have been very effective for me and I have been able to lighten other people’s day because of it.

— MiKayla, Colorado

What’s Your Word of the Year?

A recent Well section newsletter shared the words readers had sent in that represent the positive changes they would like to make in their lives in the next year.

It inspired the Picture Prompt, “ Your Word of the Year ,” in which we asked students, too, to choose a word to represent their hopes for 2022, and to explain why they chose it. Here are some of the answers.

“Incandescent”

The past two years were filled with darkness and hopelessness, waiting for the pandemic to end, mourning the loss of those who have passed due to the virus, or any other tragedy that has The sense of loneliness and isolation hung in the air whenever we walked outside after being trapped indoors for so long with minimal contact and communication. This year, I hope for a bright, incandescent year filled with success and happiness. I hope for liveliness and energy, having the strength to reach new limits that have never been reached in the past. I hope to discover new fascinations, and rediscover old passions after two years of being bored and uninspired.

— Maria, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Through this year I hope to embrace both the good and bad in my life. I hope to embrace both success and failure with open arms and cherish each experience. I want to embrace myself and those around me with nothing but love and acceptance. The last few years have been plagued with uncertainty and sorrow—making it challenging to focus on embracing all aspects of our lives. To heal this cycle, I’m dedicated to embracing everything 2022 has to offer, and truly appreciating life.

— Lucy, Glenbard West High School

“Adoration”

This is the first word that came to mind when I chose my word at the beginning of 2022. Adoration, as defined by dictionary.com, is “deep love and respect.” I want to adore my life, not just tolerate it. I want to live each day with intention, not merely surviving, but passionately living. I want this year, and every year moving forward, to be filled with feelings of adoration. I want to deeply love the people I surround myself with, not just tolerate them. I want to adore my sport, my school life, my routines, and my daily adventures. The pursuit to adore my life, to fall in love with every good thing it entails- adventure, joy, laughter, faith, fullness and goodness- will help me to have gratitude when life gets tough. There is always room to adore life and with that adoration comes great gratitude for life, even in long days and hard circumstances.

— Winn, Hoggard High School in Wilmington NC

“Satisfied”

There is no point in nitpicking our lives and finding a flaw in every little thing. To be satisfied is to be happy and content. Nobody likes to be around a complainer and nobody likes to be around the person who would clearly rather be somewhere else. Being satisfied with where you are and who you are with is the most important thing in my eyes. Make the people around you feel comfortable and enjoy your time with them, wherever you are.

— Clare, Glenbard West High School

“Improvement”

This year, I want to try and focus on myself the best I can and improve who I am mentally and physically. I want to focus on improving my health habits, finding the rights friends, and taking more breaks from toxic people and social media. I want to improve and become a better me for 2022 and just keep getting better. I am going to work hard in school, dance, and my mental health to improve who I am as a person. I want to find myself again and make my life better eventually.

— Kate, Syracuse, NY

This is the year where I will improve my skills and grow them. I have a bad habit of procrastinating, and I plan on growing out of it this year. I am also in a running sport and would like to run faster and grow out of my old self. This is the year we all have to step up and get onto the task. The pandemic has taken away a lot of our productivity these past two years, and we have to get back on track. We certainly won’t be going back to normal, but that is why we have to grow into something new and better.

— Rithvik, Mission San Jose

“Persevere”

I think during these times especially, we all need this the most. We all need to remember to keep going even when things get tough. As a junior in high school, my life right now is pretty stressful. I’m preparing to apply to colleges, getting ready to take the SAT, balancing a job and school, all while being in a pandemic. Although things are really hard for everyone right now, I always tell myself to persevere. Even though sometimes I just want to give up, I remind myself of my goals, and what I want to accomplish. I know that giving up will prevent me from accomplishing my goals. Overall, this year will be extremely stressful and scary, but I think we all need to do one thing—persevere.

— Marissa, Glenbard West HS

“Pragmatic”

This word, other than being the word for this year, is my favorite word. According to the Google definition, pragmatic means “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations”. I want to dive into 2022 realistically and sensibly, especially as my junior year in high school comes to an end and I start to plan my life out moving forward. I don’t want to overwork or dissappoint myself this coming December, but I also don’t want to regret anything I didn’t do.

— Elizabeth, Glenbard West High School Glen Ellyn, IL

I believe if you stay calm and relaxed you can achieve so much more. You could also have less stress, less anxiety, depression and so much more. By staying calm you can just think about the good and never the bad, you can be around more people and not be anxious. Staying calm can also improve relationships with others. When being calm with people you won’t be so quick to think about something the wrong way, and can take that information and process it to where you understand it better. You can also manage your energy, and not always burn yourself out, and you won’t be nervous about a lot of stuff. Calmness can improve your creativity and how you may have seen things before, you may see them totally differently than how you see things now.

— MW, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

I have found that focusing on one’s own self - as in their interests, hobbies, and personality brings so much peace and ease to their life. Since quarantine, other people’s choices and opinions have been affecting me in different ways, to where I started questioning everything I do and say. After months of isolation, returning to the ‘real world’ had come with difficulties, but with this new year, I pursue a future of confidence and perseverance. I will continue doing the things I have recently found and loved, as well as embrace and discover new interests I’ve been too scared to try. 2021 was a good year for me, and a huge leap from 2020. Everyone started gradually returning to their lives, jobs, school, and more. I started enjoying life as it is and gained so much confidence in myself this year, and I am so grateful for all the blessings it has brought me. 2022, on the other hand, will hopefully be a better year of discovery and hard work. As The editor of the Well newsletter states, 2022 should be a year of “focusing on the things that are most meaningful to you.” From meeting new people, visiting family, and doing what I love, I will further shift my focus to me, myself, and I.

— Lara, Cary High School

“Compassion”

Not just compassion towards others, but compassion to myself. During the last few years- especially with Covid and quarantines- I have struggled to find self-love while isolated from the people who love me most. And although school is in session, isolation is over, and I can see friends each day, that feeling of self-love isn’t always around. This is why my 2022 word is “compassion.” I want to learn how to be compassionate to myself and help anyone else who may feel similarly…That is what my year will be about. I will strive to be understanding, fair, and compassionate to myself, as well as to those I care about most.

— Anonymous, Glenbard West High School

“Monophobia”

My word means the fear of being alone. I choose this word because during 2021, life was very lonely and none of my friends were around. I want to fix that and make 2022 less lonely than 2021.

— Makayla, Mission San Jose High

Every single one of us went through a lot these past two years during lockdown like having mental health problems, physical health problems or financial problems, but we couldn’t do anything about it because of lockdown and all of us were silenced. We were silenced because even if we wanted to find a solution, there wasn’t any. Our mental health everyday was getting worse because we couldn’t go outside and we had minimal to no communication with others, we were silenced. Our physical health was being compromised because we couldn’t go outside to exercise and see the sun and we couldn’t feel better, we were silenced. Our financial problems were increasing because many people had lost their jobs and the economy was subsiding, and yet we were silenced.

These past two years have been nothing but silence, but with 2022 we should break that with sound. Sound can be the solution to our problems that we’ve faced through these past two years. We can break that silence with sound when we go outside, communicate with others, and we have opportunities to get jobs. We, together, can break the silence that we’ve faced with sound.

— Hana, Mission San Jose High School

Learn more about Current Events Conversation here and find all of our posts in this column .

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Overcome a Fear of Rejection

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Stavros Constantinou / Getty Images

How to Overcome Fear of Rejection

• Common Behaviors

Psychological Outcomes

Frequently asked questions.

The fear of rejection is a powerful feeling that often has a far-reaching impact on our lives. Most people experience some nerves when placing themselves in situations that could lead to rejection, but for some people, the fear becomes overwhelming.

This fear can have many underlying causes. An untreated fear of rejection may worsen over time, leading to greater and greater limitations in a person's life.

This article discusses how to overcome your fear of rejection, and also how rejection sensitivity can affect your life and behavior.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

If you are experiencing a fear of rejection, there are steps you can take to learn how to cope better and stop this fear from negatively impacting your life. You may find the following strategies helpful for learning how to overcome a fear of rejection.

Improve Your Self-Regulation Skills

Self-regulation refers to your ability to identify and control your emotions and behaviors. It also plays an important role in overcoming your fear of rejection. By identifying negative thoughts that contribute to feelings of fear, you can actively take steps to reframe your thinking in a way that is more optimistic and encouraging.

Face Your Fears

Avoidance coping involves managing unpleasant feelings by simply avoiding the things that trigger those emotions. The problem with this approach is that it ultimately contributes to increased feelings of fear. Instead of getting better at dealing with your fear of rejection, it makes you even more fearful and sensitive to it.

So instead of avoiding situations where you might experience rejection, focus on putting yourself out there and tackling your fear. Once you have more experience facing your fear , you'll begin to recognize that the consequences are less anxiety-provoking than you anticipated. You'll also gain greater confidence in your own abilities to succeed.

Cultivate Resilience

Being resilient means that you are able to pick yourself up after a setback and move forward with a renewed sense of strength and optimism. Strategies that can help foster a greater sense of resilience include building your confidence in your own abilities, having a strong social support system, and nurturing and caring for yourself. Having goals and taking steps to improve your skills can also give you faith in your ability to bounce back from rejection.

Taking steps to overcome your fear of rejection can help minimize its detrimental impact on your life. Learning how to manage your emotions, taking steps to face your fears, and cultivating a strong sense of resilience can all help you become better able to tolerate the fear of rejection. 

Where It Can Impact Your Life

Although not every person experiences the fear of rejection in the same way, it tends to affect the ability to succeed in a wide range of personal and professional situations.

Job Interviews

Fear of rejection can lead to physical symptoms that can sometimes be interpreted as a lack of confidence. Confidence and an air of authority are critical in many positions, and those experiencing this fear often come across as weak and insecure. If you have a fear of rejection, you may also have trouble negotiating work-related contracts, leaving valuable pay and benefits on the table.

Business Dealings

In many positions, the need to impress does not end once you have the job. Entertaining clients, negotiating deals, selling products, and attracting investors are key components of many jobs. Even something as simple as answering the telephone can be terrifying for people with a fear of rejection.

Meeting New People

Humans are social creatures, and we are expected to follow basic social niceties in public. If you have a fear of rejection, you may feel unable to chat with strangers or even friends of friends. The tendency to keep to yourself could potentially prevent you from making lasting connections with others.

First dates can be daunting, but those with a fear of rejection may experience significant anxiety. Rather than focusing on getting to know the other person and deciding whether you would like a second date, you might spend all of your time worrying about whether that person likes you. Trouble speaking, obsessive worrying about your appearance, an inability to eat, and a visibly nervous demeanor are common.

Peer Relationships

The need to belong is a basic human condition, so people often behave in ways that help them fit in with the group. While dressing, speaking, and behaving as a group member is not necessarily unhealthy, peer pressure sometimes goes too far. It could lead you to do things you're not comfortable with just to remain part of the group.

The fear of rejection can affect many different areas of life, including your success in the workplace and your relationships with friends and romantic partners.

How It Affects Your Behavior

When you have a fear of rejection, you may engage in behaviors focused on either covering up or compensating for this fear.

Lack of Authenticity

Many people who are afraid of rejection develop a carefully monitored and scripted way of life. Fearing that you will be rejected if you show your true self to the world, you may live life behind a mask. This can make you seem phony and inauthentic to others and may cause a rigid unwillingness to embrace life’s challenges.

People-Pleasing

Although it is natural to want to take care of those we love, those who fear rejection often go too far. You might find it impossible to say no, even when saying yes causes major inconveniences or hardships in your own life.

If you are a people-pleaser , you may take on too much, increasing your risk for burnout . At the extreme, people-pleasing sometimes turns into enabling the bad behaviors of others.

People with a fear of rejection often go out of their way to avoid confrontations. You might refuse to ask for what you want or speak up for what you need. A common tendency is to try to simply shut down your own needs or pretend that they don’t matter.

The fear of rejection may stop you from reaching your full potential. Putting yourself out there is frightening for anyone, but if you have a fear of rejection, you may feel paralyzed. Hanging onto the status quo feels safe, even if you are not happy with your current situation.

Passive-Aggressiveness

Uncomfortable showing off their true selves but unable to entirely shut out their own needs, many people who fear rejection end up behaving in passive-aggressive ways . You might procrastinate, "forget" to keep promises, complain, and work inefficiently on the projects that you take on.

The fear of rejection might drive you to engage in behaviors like passive-aggressiveness, passivity, and people-pleasing. It can also undermine your authenticity and make it difficult to be yourself when you are around others.

The fear of rejection leads to behaviors that make us appear insecure, ineffectual and overwhelmed. You might sweat, shake, fidget, avoid eye contact, and even lose the ability to effectively communicate. While individuals react to these behaviors in very different ways, these are some of the reactions you might see.

Ironically, the fear of rejection often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is well-known in pop psychology that confidence enhances attractiveness. As a general rule, the lack of self-confidence that is inherent in a fear of rejection makes us more likely to be rejected.

Research shows that confidence is nearly as important as intelligence in determining our income level.

Manipulation

Some people prey on the insecurities of others. Those who suffer from a fear of rejection may be at greater risk of being manipulated for someone else’s personal gain.

Expert manipulators generally come across as charming, suave, and caring—they know what buttons to push to make others trust them. They also know how to keep someone with a fear of rejection feeling slightly on edge, as if the manipulator might leave at any time. Almost invariably, the manipulator does end up leaving once they have gotten what they want out of the other person.

Frustration

Most people are decent, honest, and forthright. Rather than manipulating someone with a fear of rejection, they will try to help. Look for signs that your friends and family are trying to encourage your assertiveness, asking you to be more open with them, or probing your true feelings.

Many times, however, people who fear rejection experience these efforts as emotionally threatening. This often leads friends and family to walk on eggshells , fearful of making your fears worse. Over time, they may become frustrated and angry, either confronting you about your behavior or beginning to distance themselves from you.

A Word From Verywell

If you find that fear of rejection is negatively affecting your life and causing distress, it may be time to seek out psychotherapy . This can help you explore and better understand some of the underlying contributions to your fear and find more effective ways to cope with this vulnerability.

Past experiences with rejection can play a role in this fear. People who experience greater levels of anxiety or who struggle with feelings of loneliness , depression, self-criticism, and poor self-esteem may also be more susceptible. 

Talking to people can be challenging if you have a fear of rejection. The best way to deal with it is to practice talking to others regularly. Remind yourself that everyone struggles with these fears sometimes and every conversation is a learning opportunity that improves your skills and confidence.

Some signs that you fear rejection include constantly worrying about what other people think, reading too much into what others are saying, going out of your way to please others, and avoiding situations where you might be rejected. You might also avoid sharing your thoughts and opinions because you fear that others might disagree with you.

Fear of rejection might be related to mental health conditions such as anxiety or depression. If your fear is affecting your ability to function normally and is creating distress, you should talk to your healthcare provider or a mental health professional.

Ding X, Ooi LL, Coplan RJ, Zhang W, Yao W. Longitudinal relations between rejection sensitivity and adjustment in Chinese children: moderating effect of emotion regulation . J Genet Psychol . 2021;182(6):422-434. doi:10.1080/00221325.2021.1945998

Ury W. Getting to Yes With Yourself and Other Worthy Opponents . HarperOne.

Epley N, Schroeder J. Mistakenly seeking solitude . J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(5):1980-99. doi:10.1037/a0037323

Houghton K. And Then I’ll Be Happy! Stop Sabotaging Your Happiness and Put Your Own Life First . Globe Pequot Press.

Potts C, Potts S. Assertiveness: How to Be Strong in Every Situation . Capstone.

Brandt A. 8 Keys to Eliminating Passive-Aggressiveness: Strategies for Transforming Your Relationships for Greater Authenticity and Joy . W.W. Norton & Company.

Leary MR. Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection . Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2015;17(4):435-41.

Judge TA, Hurst C, Simon LS. Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income . J Appl Psychol . 2009;94(3):742-55. doi:10.1037/a0015497

Hopper E. Can helping others help you find meaning in life? . Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders  (5th Ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

By Lisa Fritscher Lisa Fritscher is a freelance writer and editor with a deep interest in phobias and other mental health topics.

A Psychology Professor Explains The Best Way To Deal With Rejection

Psychologist mark leary deconstructs the pain we feel when we experience rejection and how to feel better about it..

By Mark Travers, Ph.D. | April 18, 2022

A new study published in Advances In Motivation Science examines the root causes behind the pain of rejection and our relentless pursuit to be accepted by other people .

I recently spoke to psychologist Mark Leary, a former faculty member at Duke University and co-author of the new research, to understand how our value fluctuates depending on our need to belong. Here is a summary of our conversation.

What inspired you to investigate the topic of acceptance and belonging and how did you study it?

My original interest in graduate school involved self-presentation — how people's behavior and emotions are affected by their concerns with others' impressions of them. After studying self-presentation for several years, it dawned on me that, although people manage their impressions for many practical reasons, such as to get a job or repair an embarrassing event, one primary reason that people are concerned with what others think of them is that they want to be accepted and belong to groups.

Making "bad" impressions on other people lowers the likelihood that we will be accepted, develop friendships and romantic relationships , be valued as a group member, and obtain other social rewards.

This realization led me to pivot toward studying how people seek social acceptance and belonging and the impact of acceptance and rejection on people's emotions, behaviors, and views of themselves. Over the past 30 years, we have conducted dozens of research studies that dealt in one way or another with acceptance and rejection, using several research methodologies.

For example, we have conducted controlled laboratory experiments in which we led participants to feel accepted or rejected and measured their responses. We also used questionnaires to ask people about their personal experiences with rejection, and we have studied personality variables that are related to differences in how people seek acceptance and react to rejection.

What sorts of things did you find in this research?

Let me mention just two things that consumed a good deal of our attention after we accidentally stumbled on them.

Being rejected obviously evokes strong negative emotions. However, as we studied emotional reactions to rejection, we realized that researchers had more-or-less overlooked a very important response to rejection: the emotion that we commonly call "hurt feelings."

After conducting several studies of hurt feelings, we concluded that, in fact, hurt feelings is the primary emotional response to rejection, the emotion that occurs most reliably when people feel rejected.

Our research showed that people's feelings are hurt by six primary kinds of events:

• Active disassociation (for example, a romantic breakup)
• Passive disassociation (not being included)
• Being unappreciated
• Being teased

All of these are events that make people feel rejected. Put simply, hurt feelings are the "rejection emotion."

Of course, people who are rejected often have other emotions as well, such as sadness , anxiety , and anger .

Our research showed that these emotions are not reactions to rejection itself but rather to the nature or implications of the rejecting event. For example, rejections that produce a sense of loss cause sadness, rejections that include a threat to well-being or uncertainty about the future cause anxiety, and rejections that are viewed as unjustified cause anger. Only hurt feelings are caused by perceived rejection itself.

A second set of unexpected findings involved self-esteem. As we studied reactions to acceptance and rejection, we found that rejection consistently lowered people's state self-esteem — how they felt about themselves at the moment.

Changes in self-esteem were so strongly and consistently associated with rejection that we concluded that self-esteem is part of the psychological system that monitors and responses to social feedback.

We proposed a new theory, sociometer theory, that suggested that state self-esteem is a subjective gauge of interpersonal acceptance and rejection, an internal reflection of others' feelings about the person.

Not only does state self-esteem reflect people's perceptions of the degree to which they have relational value to others, but increases and decreases in state self-esteem may calibrate people's interpersonal aspirations.

Acceptance increases self-esteem, emboldening people to be more socially confident, whereas rejection lowers self-esteem, leading people to be more socially cautious.

Taking this idea one step further suggests that, contrary to the popular view, people do not need or seek self-esteem for its own sake. Rather, people are motivated to behave in ways that increase acceptance and avoid rejection, and those behaviors are precisely those that raise self-esteem.

So, self-esteem is a psychological meter or gauge. Just as people don't put gas in their cars to simply make their fuel gauge move away from empty and toward full, people don't do things simply to make their self-esteem go up.

Can you briefly describe what makes a person accepted?

People feel accepted when they perceive that they have "relational value" to another person or group of people.

Other people value their relationships with us to varying degrees. Some people value their relationship with us very much, invest a great deal in their connection to us, and would be very distressed if the relationship ended. Other people value their relationship with us only moderately; they may like interacting with us but would be only mildly bothered if they never saw us again. Other people don't value having a relationship with us at all.

We experience "acceptance" when we think our relational value to other people is sufficiently high, but feel "rejected" when our relational value is not as high as we wish. Of course, we all know that some people naturally value us more than other people do, and not everyone values having a relationship with us. We feel rejected when we perceive that our relational value in a particular situation or to a particular person is not as high as we want it to be.

Importantly, people don't need to be actually rejected in order to have the subjective experience of rejection.

For example, people may feel rejected even when they know the other person accepts or even loves them if they believe that their relational value to the person is not as high as they wish at that moment. So our romantic partners can make us feel rejected and hurt our feelings in a particular situation even though we know that they accept and love us.

Your research talks about the far-reaching impact of acceptance and belonging motivation on human behavior. Can you expand a bit on the same? What behaviors did you analyze and what did you find?

In 1995, Roy Baumeister and I wrote an article in which we suggested that the desire for acceptance and belonging may be the most fundamental interpersonal motive — the motive that affects our social behavior more than any other motive. This doesn't mean that we are motivated to be accepted all of the time or by everybody we meet. But concerns with acceptance and belonging underlie a great deal of human behavior, motivating certain behaviors and constraining others.

After publication of this article, many researchers dove into how the motivation to be accepted and to belong affects people's behavior. This motive influences human behavior in many ways, but let mention just five important domains in which our behavior is affected by concerns with acceptance and belonging.

• First, everything people do to enhance their physical attractiveness is aimed toward increasing acceptance, whether that's daily grooming, getting a haircut, trying to lose weight, or cosmetic surgery.
• Likewise, almost everything people do to be liked is motivated by a desire for relational value and acceptance. Most conformity to group norms and social pressure is also motivated by a desire to belong. In order to be viewed as an acceptable, valuable group member, people must conform to basic group norms.
• Although many researchers have viewed achievement motivation as quite distinct from the motive to be accepted, in fact, a great deal of achievement-related behaviors are motivated by a desire to increase one's relational value and be accepted. Think of what would happen if achievement was met with criticism, devaluation, and rejection instead of praise and acceptance.
• Perhaps the most ongoing and pervasive effect of approval and belonging motivation is on all of the things we do to be viewed as a good friend, partner, employee, group member, or member of society. Interpersonal interactions and relationships are guided by social exchange rules regarding how the individuals are expected to treat one another. A number of such rules have been identified including reciprocity, honesty, fairness, dependability, cooperation , and some minimal level of concern for other people's needs.
• People obviously prefer to have connections with those who abide by social exchange rules because people who violate these rules are viewed as poor social exchange partners who might disadvantage other people. So, concerns with acceptance and belonging underlie a great deal of polite, civil, ethical, and prosocial behavior.

Note that I'm not saying that a desire for acceptance is the only reason people behave in ways that enhance their appearance, help them be liked, conform to group pressure, lead them to achieve, or follow social exchange rules. (Sometimes they do these things to manipulate or take advantage of other people, for example.) But a concern with acceptance and belonging appears to be the primary driver of these behaviors.

In this world of judgments, how do you advise people to start feeling more accepted in their own skin?

Although being accepted is exceptionally important for people's well-being, simply feeling accepted can create its own problems unless people's feelings of acceptance and rejection are accurately calibrated to their actual relational value to other people.

Like all monitoring systems, the psychological systems that monitor and respond to social cues work best when they provide reasonably accurate information about what other people think of us.

So, simply trying to feel more accepted in one's skin isn't necessarily helpful.

The problem, of course, is that it's very difficult to determine how valued and accepted you actually are. Other people usually don't provide explicit social feedback, and the social cues we use to infer what other people are thinking about us are often quite ambiguous. This leaves a great deal of room for people to either overestimate or underestimate their relational value in other people's eyes, both of which can create behavioral miscalculations and emotional problems.

To make matters worse, our research shows that people tend to underestimate their relational value, interpreting relatively neutral social feedback as if it is rejecting.

For example, we tend to have negative, rather than neutral, reactions to learning that someone feels neutral about us. What this means is that most people probably go through life feeling more rejected than they actually are.

And, a history of actual rejection — by neglectful parents or rejecting peers, for example — seems to increase people's tendency to underestimate their relational value.

Viewed in this way, the first step in addressing one's concerns with acceptance and rejection is to examine the evidence as objectively as possible, trying not to either sugar-coat others' reactions or read too much negativity into them.

With that information in hand, we can bolster our feelings of acceptance in three ways:

• By learning to dismiss the negative reactions of people whose opinions of us really don't matter,
• Seeking connections with people to whom we would have higher relational value,
• Or, if needed, making changes in ourselves that might increase the degree to which other people value having connections with us.

How does this fear of judgments impact the psychological health of a person?

Excessive concerns about negative evaluations and possible rejection obviously undermine psychological well-being.

People who have a high fear of negative evaluation tend to score higher in social anxiety because social anxiety arises from the belief that one will not be perceived in ways that promote acceptance.

Fear of negative evaluation also makes people particularly vigilant to cues that might reflect rejection and to a tendency to give a worst-case reading to cues and feedback that might convey low relational value.

These concerns also lead to reticence and inhibition, to shyness, in an effort not to say or do things that might lower one's relational value further.

Can this have physical impacts as well?

Anything that increases anxiety and stress can certainly have undesired physical effects, so people who are excessively concerned with rejection have some sorts of problems as people with other ongoing sources of anxiety and stress, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal problems.

How can medical professionals like therapists and psychologists help in such cases?

When helping people deal with rejections, mental health professionals, as well as friends, parents, and others, can help the person work through a couple of issues.

First, is the person's perception of the situation accurate? Is his or her relational value as low as he or she thinks it is? If the answer is "no" — that is, the person is perceiving rejection where none exists — then steps can be taken to try to correct the misperception.

However, if the answer is "yes," the best response depends on the nature of the situation, the cause of the rejection, and whether the rejection was a one-time thing (a romantic breakup, for example) or an ongoing pattern of being excluded, ignored, or bullied by others.

We can help the person troubled by rejection understand the nature of the rejection and his or her role in it, then formulate a plan both to deal emotionally with the rejection and, if needed, to take practical steps to reduce the likelihood of similar events in the future.

Did something unexpected emerge from your research? Something beyond the hypothesis?

We certainly knew from the beginning that people are universally concerned with being accepted and react strongly when they experience rejection. What surprised me is how little it takes to make people feel relationally devalued and rejected.

In our experimental studies in which we led research participants to feel rejected, we obviously had to use very weak methods to induce rejection for ethical reasons. In almost all of these studies, the participants did not know one another and had no reason to think they would ever meet again.

In fact, in some studies, participants never saw one another or learned each others' identities, and they interacted over an intercom or by exchanging written answers on sheets of people. And the nature of the rejections was quite minor.

For example, participants were told that another participant preferred to work with another person rather than them on a laboratory task or received feedback that another participant had rated them as average rather than positively. Importantly, none of these minor "rejections" had any consequences on the participants' lives.

But even though these were seemingly meaningless rejections with no consequences whatsoever by people the participants didn't know and would never see again, we consistently got strong effects.

Participants who were rejected in our studies consistently experienced more negative emotions (hurt feelings, sadness, anxiety, and sometimes anger), showed a loss of state self-esteem and had very negative views of those who had rejected them.

Given that such trivial rejection experiences had such powerful effects, it's not surprising that concerns with rejection permeate our lives.

Why getting better about being rejected can help you succeed in life

Getting the thin instead of thick envelope from the college admissions office. Picked last for the kickball team. Being told, “let’s just be friends.”

Rejection hurts no matter if it’s the big kind (not getting that job that was so right for you) or less significant ( getting turned down by a Tinder match ).

Our feelings are hurt, our self-esteem takes a hit, and it unsettles our feeling of belonging, says Guy Winch, PhD , psychologist and author of " Emotional First Aid: Healing Rejection, Guilt, Failure, and Other Everyday Hurts ". “Even very mild rejection can really sting,” he tells NBC News BETTER.

But there are ways we can handle it, so that the fear of rejection doesn’t stop us from putting ourselves out there.

“Concern with rejection is perfectly normal,” explains Mark R. Leary, PhD , professor of psychology and neuroscience at the Interdisciplinary Behavioral Research Center at Duke University, where he researches human emotions and social motivations. “But being excessively worried about it — to the point that we do not do things that might benefit us — can compromise the quality of our life,” Leary says.

Rejection actually fires up a pain response in the brain

Leary defines rejection as when we perceive our relational value (how much others value their relationship with us) drops below some desired threshold. What makes the bite in rejection so particularly gnarly may be because it fires up some of the same pain signals in the brain that get involved when we stub our toe or throw out our back, Leary explains.

Research , for example, in which functional MRI scans compared brain activity in people who’d experienced rejection with brain activity in people who’d experienced physical pain, found that many of the same regions of the brain lit up (and those regions had previously been linked to physical pain).

Subsequent research found that the pain we feel from rejection is so akin to that we feel from physical pain that taking acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) after experiencing rejection actually reduced how much pain people reported feeling — and brain scans showed neural pain signaling was lessened, too.

The pain we feel from rejection is part of what’s helped humans survive

Psychologists suspect all of this hurt is likely a relic of our evolutionary past — and something that’s helped mankind survive for millennia.

The physical pain you feel when you grab the handle of a pot of boiling water, is a signal to tell you to let go (so you don’t continue to burn your hand). Similarly, the sting of rejection sends a signal that something is wrong in terms of your social wellbeing, Leary says. In prehistoric times, social rejection could have had dire consequences.

“When our prehistoric ancestors lived in small nomadic bands on the plains of Africa, being rejected from the clan would have been a death sentence,” Leary explains. “No one would have survived out there alone with just a sharp rock.”

Therefore the people who were more likely to be sensitive to rejection and more likely to take it as a signal to change their behavior before being shunned, would have been the ones who were more likely to survive and reproduce.

So, we exist today, thousands of years later, as descendants of those prehuman “cool kids” — the ones who were more successful at being valued and accepted (because the kids who didn’t have anyone to eat lunch with wouldn’t have made it).

So even today, Leary says, “rejection gets our attention and forces us to consider our social circumstances.”

It’s the likely explanation as to why we tend to feel more stung by rejection, even, than by failure, Winch adds. Failure is very task-specific (we don’t complete a goal or achieve something) , whereas there’s an interpersonal dynamic to rejection, he says.

'Forget Willpower' Why planning for failure can help you reach your goals

When it comes to better dealing with rejection, you’re going to have to turn off autopilot mode.

The problem is that we tend to face more opportunities to be rejected than ever before in human history (thanks to technology like social media and the Internet). And even though there’s still an interpersonal dynamic, most of the online and real-life rejections most of us face today don’t threaten our survival so much as they did thousands of years ago, Leary says.

The problem is that we tend to face more opportunities to be rejected than ever before in human history (thanks to technology like the social media and the Internet).

But, we’re still wired to react as though they do. “Our brains don’t easily tell the difference between rejections that matter and those that don’t unless we consciously think about it and override our automatic reactions,” Leary says.

You override that response by recognizing when the hurt we’re feeling is rejection, and better responding to the inevitable hurt we feel. “It’s up to us — how we respond and how we handle it in our heads and in our actions,” Winch explains.

Taking these steps can help:

1. Focus on what you do bring to the table

Because most rejection won’t leave you doomed to survive alone in the wilderness, the natural rejection reaction — to withdraw and not put ourselves out there again — isn’t an adaptive response, Winch says. Instead make efforts to revive self-esteem, focus on our positive qualities, and remember why our attributes might be appreciated by someone else in a different situation. All of those things build resilience, so you’ll be better prepared to cope going ahead, he says.

2. Ask yourself if it really matters or you really care

“Responses to rejection are often automatic, even when it doesn’t matter,” Leary says. Research shows we tend to feel a similar hurt after getting rejected by people we don’t necessarily care about — or even those we don’t like — as we do after being rejected by people who matter to us. (One study found that even when the group doing the rejecting was a reviled one — in this case the Klu Klux Klan — rejection still hurt.)

We need to get better at distinguishing whose rejection matters to us (whose we should care about, like that by family or a close friend) versus the inconsequential kind, Leary says.

3. Remember, a lot of times rejection isn’t personal

Most of the rejections we face aren’t personal, Winch says. You didn’t get the job because someone else had previously known and worked with the team, not because you weren’t good enough. Your friend didn’t “like” your Instagram post because she didn’t see it — or didn’t have a free finger to click that button.

Sometimes rejection can be personal, Winch says. “But a lot of times it’s not.”

4. Choose to assume the best rather than the worst

We need to train ourselves to make allowances, rather than assume the worst. Maybe he didn’t text for a second date because he got a job offer out of state or his on-again-off-again ex got back in touch. Maybe it had nothing to do with not liking you.

We oftentimes have no idea what’s going on on the other side of the situation, Winch says. And to be more resilient, we need to sometimes choose the assumption that’s less painful and less hurtful.

5. And do get back out there

The “don’t pay attention to what other people think” lecture parents give when a kid doesn’t get invited to the popular kid's party in middle school doesn’t really help, Winch says. “Now you’re not only feeling bad, you’re now feeling like a major loser for feeling bad.”

Planning something else with friends goes much farther to reinforce you you’re not actually a loser — and you are part of your tribe. We need to reteach ourselves and those around us to get back out there after rejection (whether it’s applying for other jobs or not taking a dating hiatus). Withdrawing doesn’t help the overall goal, Winch says.

MORE FROM BETTER

• How to manage stress so that it doesn't hurt your health
• Stressed? Here's how to tap into a zen feeling (almost) instantly
• How to bounce back from 'headline stress disorder'
• Why the simple act of being in nature helps you de-stress

Want more tips like these? NBC News BETTER is obsessed with finding easier, healthier and smarter ways to live. Sign up for our newsletter and follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Everyone Gets Rejected — Here’s How to Move On

Resilience is the key to your success.

The key to achieving your career ambitions comes down to one question: How many times are you willing to pick yourself up after falling down?

• The rate at which you achieve your goals is always going to be a combination of volume, probability, timing, luck, and resilience. In other words, you need to be resilient in the face of rejection.
• The next time you face a setback try using an exercise, titled G.R.O.W., to overcome it.
• Ground yourself in the situation; recognize what you can control; organize your resources; work with your community for support.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Rejection sucks. Always has, always will.

• Raj Tawney is a freelance writer in New York . He’s currently working on a memoir about his multiracial American identity.

Partner Center

Afraid of Being Rejected?

Fear of failure or rejection.

Posted October 19, 2009

One of the central problems for you if you are anxious is your fear of making a mistake and your fear of being rejected. I don't know about you, but I sure have a long history of rejection---only because, I think, I have constantly been trying to be productive. When I was single I was rejected by girlfriends-but accepted by some. I have had book proposals and articles rejected. I view rejection as part of the cost of playing the game. You won't be able to win unless you can tolerate losing some.

If you wonder if other people have made mistakes, here is a list of authors and books that have been rejected by publishers when first submitted. The authors include James Joyce, Vladimir Nabokov, Sylvia Plath, Jack Kerouac, Jorge Luis Borges, Isaac Bashevis Singer (who won the Nobel Prize), Marcel Proust, Stephen King, Oscar Wilde, and George Orwell. Famous books that have been rejected include The Diary of Anne Frank, War and Peace, The Good Earth, Gone with the Wind, Dr. Seuss, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam, Watership Down, Lolita, Angela's Ashes, Harry Potter and The Hobbitt. The editor who rejected the classic book, Animal Farm, by George Orwell had this piece of wisdom : ‘It is impossible to sell animal stories in the USA'. Another brilliant observation-and a classic mistake- was the following: "Everything that can be invented has been invented", claimed the forgettable Charles Duell, Commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899. Or consider this: "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."(Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943). Or, one of my favorites: "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out" by Decca Recording Company when they rejected the Beatles in 1962.

Well, it's not just publishers and business people who make mistakes-we all do. Here's how you can find out. Ask every one of your friends about mistakes that they have made. If they are honest, they will reveal some great stories.

Mistakes are the pathway to success---if you persist and learn from them.

Robert L. Leahy, Ph.D. , is the author of The Jealousy Cure, Anxiety Free, The Worry Cure , and Beat the Blues . He is a clinical professor of psychology at Weill-Cornell Medical School.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Joan Didion Essay About Being Rejected by Her Top College

• February 23, 2021

David Bersell

By Joan Didion

This piece, about the author’s college rejection from her first-choice college, appeared in The Saturday Evening Post April 16, 1968.

“Dear Joan,” the letter begins, although the writer did not know me at all. The letter is dated April 25, 1952, and for a long time now it has been in a drawer in my mother’s house, the kind of back-bedroom drawer given over to class prophecies and dried butterfly orchids and newspaper photographs that show eight bridesmaids and two flower girls inspecting a sixpence in a bride’s shoe. What slight emotional investment I ever had in dried butterfly orchids and pictures of myself as a bridesmaid has proved evanescent, but I still have an investment in the letter, which, except for the “Dear Joan,” is mimeographed. I got the letter out as an object lesson for a 17-year-old cousin who is unable to eat or sleep as she waits to hear from what she keeps calling the colleges of her choice.

Here is what the letter says: “The Committee on Admissions asks me to inform you that it is unable to take favorable action upon your application for admission to Stanford University. While you have met the minimum requirements, we regret that because of the severity of the competition, the committee cannot include you in the group to be admitted. The Committee joins me in extending you every good wish for the successful continuation of your education. Sincerely yours, Rixford K. Snyder, Director of Admissions.”

I remember quite clearly the afternoon I opened that letter. I stood reading and re-reading it, my sweater and my books fallen on the hall floor, trying to interpret the words in some less final way, the phrases “unable to take” and “favorable action” fading in and out of focus until the sentence made no sense at all. We lived then in a big dark Victorian house, and I had a sharp and dolorous image of myself growing old in it, never going to school anywhere, the spinster in Washington Square . I went upstairs to my room and locked the door and for a couple of hours I cried.

For a while I sat on the floor of my closet and buried my face in an old quilted robe and later, after the situation’s real humiliations (all my friends who applied to Stanford had been admitted) had faded into safe theatrics, I sat on the edge of the bathtub and thought about swallowing the contents of an old bottle of codeine-and-Empirin.  I saw myself in an oxygen tent, with Rixford K. Snyder hovering outside, although how the news was to reach Rixford K. Snyder was a plot point that troubled me even as I counted out the tablets.

Of course I did not take the tablets. I spent the rest of the spring in sullen but mild rebellion, sitting around drive-ins, listening to Tulsa evangelists on the car radio, and in the summer I fell in love with someone who wanted to be a golf pro, and I spent a lot of time watching him practice putting, and in the fall I went to a junior college a couple of hours a day and made up the credits I needed to go to the University of California at Berkeley. The next year a friend at Stanford asked me to write him a paper on Conrad’s Nostromo , and I did, and he got an A on it.  I got a B- on the same paper at Berkeley, and the specter of Rixford K. Snyder was exorcised.

So it worked out all right, my single experience in that most conventional middle-class confrontation, the child vs. the Admissions Committee. But that was in the benign world of country California in 1952, and I think it must be more difficult for children I know now, children whose lives from the age of two or three are a series of perilously programmed steps, each of which must be successfully negotiated in order to avoid just such a letter as mine from one or another of the Rixford K. Snyders of the world.

An acquaintance told me recently that there were ninety applicants for the seven openings in the kindergarten of an expensive school in which she hoped to enroll her four-year-old, and that she was frantic because none of the four-year-old’s letters of recommendation had mentioned the child’s “interest in art.” Had I been raised under that pressure, I suspect, I would have taken the codeine-and-Empirin on that April afternoon in 1952. My rejection was different, my humiliation private: No parental hopes rode on whether I was admitted to Stanford, or anywhere. Of course my mother and father wanted me to be happy, and of course they expected that happiness would necessarily entail accomplishment, but the terms of that accomplishment were my affair.

Their idea of their own and of my worth remained independent of where, or even if, I went to college. Our social situation was static, and the question of “right” schools, so traditionally urgent to the upwardly mobile, did not arise. When my father was told that I had been rejected by Stanford, he shrugged and offered me a drink.

I think about that shrug with a great deal of appreciation whenever I hear parents talking about their children’s “chances.” What makes me uneasy is the sense that they are merging their children’s chances with their own, demanding of a child that he make good not only for himself but for the greater glory of his father and mother. Of course there are more children than “desirable” openings. But we are deluding ourselves if we pretend that desirable schools benefit the child alone. (“I wouldn’t care at all about his getting into Yale if it weren’t for Vietnam,” a father told me not long ago, quite unconscious of his own speciousness; it would have been malicious of me to suggest that one could also get a deferment at Long Beach State.)

Getting into college has become an ugly business, malignant in its consumption and diversion of time and energy and true interests, and not its least deleterious aspect is how the children themselves accept it. They talk casually and unattractively of their “first, second and third choices,” of how their “first-choice” application (to Stephens, say) does not actually reflect their first choice (their first choice was Smith, but their adviser said their chances were low, so why “waste” the application?); they are calculating about the expectation of rejections, about their “backup” possibilities, about getting the right sport and the right extracurricular activities to “balance” the application, about juggling confirmations when their third choice accepts before their first choices answers. They are wise in the white lie here, the small self-aggrandizement there, in the importance of letters from “names” their parents scarcely know. I have heard conversations among 16-year-olds who were exceeded in their skill at manipulative self-promotion only by applicants for large literary grants.

And of course none of it matters very much at all, none of these early successes, early failures. I wonder if we had better not find some way to let our children know this, some way to extricate our expectations from theirs, some way to let them work through their own rejections and sullen rebellions and interludes with golf pros, unassisted by anxious prompting from the wings. Finding one’s role at 17 is problem enough, without being handed somebody else’s script.

Joan Didion is an iconic American writer who launched her career in the 1960s after winning an essay contest sponsored by Vogue magazine. Her writing during the 1960s through the late 1970s engaged audiences in the realities of the counterculture of the ’60s and the Hollywood lifestyle. For more info about Joan Didion, you can visit her website. 

Recent Articles

College essay faqs for professionals, how to turn challenging experiences into effective college essays, the easiest way to write your college application personal statement (#classof2025), help your students write standout college essays, embrace the college essay cliché, learn more about college entrance essays.

• November 18, 2021

Top 5 College Essay Myths & Facts

• June 15, 2023

Tell Your Child to Trust Themself!

• July 31, 2023

How to Answer Any Supplemental College Essay

Get the inside scoop, stick with us, and we'll help take some of the pressure off with relevant, helpful (but not too frequent) emails..

© Wow Writing Workshop

Why Do Children Become Rejected by Their Peers? A Review of Studies into the Relationship Between Oral Communicative Competence and Sociometric Status in Childhood

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 19 March 2019
• Volume 31 , pages 699–724, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Femke van der Wilt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-6653 1 ,
• Chiel van der Veen 1 ,
• Claudia van Kruistum 1 &
• Bert van Oers 1  

26k Accesses

14 Citations

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Being rejected by peers has devastating consequences for a child’s future social-cognitive development. It is therefore important to investigate factors that contribute to childhood peer rejection. In doing so, the present review specifically focused on sociometric status, a concept that refers to a child’s position within the peer group (e.g., liked or disliked). Although previous studies indicated that children’s ability to communicate effectively might partly determine their sociometric status, much was still unclear about this relation. Therefore, in the present review, a total of 25 studies into the relation between children’s (aged 1 to 12 years) level of oral communicative competence and their sociometric status was systematically reviewed. Results generally pointed to a significant relation between the two variables. Specifically, rejected children communicate less responsive compared with popular children. However, several gaps in previous research were identified, resulting in five recommendations for future studies. First, the complexity of the construct of oral communicative competence asks for an approach in which multiple methods are combined (i.e., mixed methods). Second, future studies should be conducted in non-western countries as well to study possible cross-cultural differences. Third, as the majority of researches were small-scale exploratory studies, future research should include larger samples in order to generalize the findings outside the sample. Fourth, future studies should adopt longitudinal and experimental designs to investigate the direction of the relation of interest. And finally, as previous research showed that the interactional context, gender, and age might influence the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status, future studies could take these factors into account.

Similar content being viewed by others

Development and Validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q)

“putting on my best normal”: social camouflaging in adults with autism spectrum conditions.

Piaget and Vygotsky’s Play Theories: The Profile of Twenty-First-Century Evidence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The developmental significance of peer relationships.

Over the past few decades, a considerable amount of research has been conducted into childhood peer relationships (Bukowski et al. 2018 ). The concluding message is clear: Peers are of vital importance for children’s social and emotional functioning in almost every aspect of their lives, including school. This is partly due to the fact that meaningful contacts with peers offer children unique opportunities for getting acquainted with the social norms involved in interpersonal relationships, and for practicing prosocial behavior (Shonkhoff and Phillips 2000 ). As a consequence, being rejected by the peer group, and thereby being excluded from meaningful contacts with peers, has devastating effects on a child’s future development. In fact, compared with children who are accepted by their peers, rejected children have been found to experience higher levels of anxiety, loneliness, and depression (for a meta-analysis, see (Reijntjes et al. 2010 )). Beside these internalizing problems, childhood peer rejection has also been associated with higher rates of aggressive behavior, conduct problems, and substance abuse in adolescence (Dodge et al. 2003 ; Miller-Johnson et al. 2002 ; Prinstein and La Greca 2004 ). In addition, correlations have been found between peer rejection and academic failure: Rejected children are more likely to get low grades and, ultimately, to drop out of school (French and Conrad 2001 ; Mercer and DeRosier 2008 ). Peer rejection is clearly a serious reason for concern. It is therefore important to investigate factors contributing to it: Why do children become rejected by their peers?

The Potential Role of Oral Communicative Competence

The present review has made an attempt to address this question by focusing on sociometric status, a concept that refers to a child’s position within the peer group (e.g., accepted or rejected, liked or disliked, popular or unpopular; (Cillessen 2009 )). Previous research has demonstrated that children’s sociometric status is partly determined by the behavior they engage in (for reviews, see (Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2003 ; Newcomb et al. 1993 )). In fact, multiple studies showed that children who are unable to regulate their aggressive behavior are at increased risk of being rejected by peers (e.g., (Menting et al. 2011 ; Pedersen et al. 2007 )). Drawing on Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory, language might play an important role in explaining why some children have difficulties in regulating their behavior (Vygotsky 1978 ). Specifically, although Vygotsky regarded the initial function of language to be social (i.e., to interact with others), he suggested that language subsequently supports children to regulate their own and others’ actions. In fact, he distinguished between two forms of speech: speech that is directed to others (social speech) and speech that is directed to self (inner speech; (Vygotsky 1978 )). Whereas social speech is used for communicative purposes (i.e., to build relationships with others), inner speech is used for self-regulation, allowing a child to reflect on and modify his or her own behavior. Thus, language not only functions as a means to communicate but also enables a child to plan, coordinate, and review his or her actions (Vygotsky 1978 ). Building on empirical research and the work of Vygotsky, it seems reasonable to assume a relation between children’s language competence and self-regulatory and communicative behavior and, consequently, their position within the peer group. Support for this conjecture was derived from a meta-analysis of the relation between language competence (the ability to understand and/or produce linguistic utterances) and social preference (the degree to which one is accepted or rejected by peers; (Troesch et al. 2016 )). Results of 42 studies indicated a positive relation between the two variables with a mean effect size of r  = .25 (a medium effect according to (Cohen 1988 )).

Although the meta-analysis of Troesch et al. (Troesch et al. 2016 ) pointed to a significant relation between language competence and social preference, a large part of the studies that were included in their meta-analysis focused merely on receptive language skills (e.g., vocabulary knowledge). This is in line with a broader tendency in this research area to concentrate primarily on aspects of language competence that are relatively easy to measure (Braza et al. 2009 ; Menting et al. 2011 ). Drawing on Vygotsky’s (Vygotsky 1978 ) ideas about language use, however, it is to be expected that not only receptive language skills per se are of importance for children’s success in peer interactions. Instead, Vygotsky emphasized the communicative function of language, indicating the significance of the ability to use language to communicate for other- and self-regulation (Vygotsky 1987 ). The present review specifically focused on this ability, referring to it with the term oral communicative competence . In doing so, the aim was to build on the previous meta-analysis of Troesch et al. and to provide a detailed picture of previous studies into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status. Instead of a meta-analysis, however, this review took a narrative approach. This allowed for the inclusion of small-scale studies reporting observational data. The main purposes of the present review were to (1) describe these studies and search for differences and commonalities and (2) move beyond the studies included in the review and to provide a research agenda for future studies into the relation between children’s level of oral communicative competence and their sociometric status.

Defining and Assessing Oral Communicative Competence

One major construct in this review is that of oral communicative competence. Oral communicative competence is a broad and multifaceted construct which makes it difficult to define and operationalize. Moreover, the problem of distinguishing it from terms like pragmatic language and social communication reflects the broader problem of terminology and definition in the entire range of language research (e.g., see (Bishop 2014 , 2017 )). Oral communicative competence was first introduced by the linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes ( 1967 ) who defined it as the ability to convey and interpret messages to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific social contexts. Hymes argued that, although successful communication requires knowledge of the structural aspects of language, such as the rules of grammar, socio-linguistic competence is needed as well (see also (Halliday 2003 )). This socio-linguistic competence is encompassed in the concept of oral communicative competence and refers to the ability to use language in an acceptable and efficient manner in particular social contexts (Celce-Murcia 2008 ; Hymes 1972 ; Samter 2003 ). As the appropriateness of language use depends on settings, topics, and relationships among people, it is crucial to take the interactional context into account in becoming more communicatively competent (Halliday 2003 ; Hymes 1972 ). Thus, oral communicative competence is, in short, a context-dependent and multifaceted construct that consists of many sub-abilities that need to be integrated to communicate effectively (Celce-Murcia 2008 ; Samter 2003 ).

Given the complexity of oral communicative competence, researchers have adopted multiple methods to assess (aspects of) oral communicative competence (Bishop 2017 ; Roth and Spekman 1984 ). Originally, oral communicative competence has been primarily assessed within relatively isolated and artificial test situations (Roth and Spekman 1984 ). However, this approach has been criticized, because the findings obtained in such situations might not be generalizable to other (more realistic) communicative contexts (Roth and Spekman 1984 ). Although most language experts now agree on the importance of language assessment in age-appropriate and familiar settings, there is still a tension between the use of standardized tests and observations in classroom settings (Bishop 2017 ). An important benefit of standardized tests is their relative objective and reliable assessment. The question is, however, whether such tests are sensitive enough to capture the full range of children’s communicative abilities (Bishop 2017 ; Roth and Spekman 1984 ). In contrast, an advantage of classroom observations is that children’s communicative behavior can be analyzed in great detail, on multiple levels, and in a naturalistic context (Roth and Spekman 1984 ). Like standardized assessments, however, classroom observations have limitations as well. For example, observational methods are often time-consuming and it has been found to be difficult to reach sufficient interrater agreement when using multiple observers (Bishop 2017 ; Roth and Spekman 1984 ). In the present review, both studies adopting standardized assessments and studies using classroom observations were included in order to cover as many aspects as possible of the complex construct of oral communicative competence.

Defining and Assessing Sociometric Status

Besides the concept of oral communicative competence, this review focusses on sociometric status. Previous studies have indicated that children who differ in their sociometric status also tend to differ in their behavioral profiles (Coie et al. 1982 ). Descriptions of sociometric group differences have been provided in a review by Gifford-Smith and Brownell (Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2003 ). Based on this review, we will give an overview of the most important correlates of each sociometric category. Specifically, compared with average children, children who are identified as popular have been found to possess superior social abilities: They are more often engaged in positive peer interactions, show well-developed social problem-solving skills, and have low levels of aggression. In contrast, children who are rejected by their peers tend to be less sociable than average children and are more disruptive and aggressive. Neglected children have been found to be less sociable and less aggressive than average children. Moreover, they are generally more withdrawn and are engaged in fewer peer interactions than their average peers. Children who are classified as controversial have a unique behavioral reputation. In fact, they have not only been found to be equally sociable as popular children but also as aggressive as or even more aggressive than children who are rejected. Controversial children are apparently able to buffer the negative effects of their aggressive behavior with their well-developed social skills. Finally, average children are regarded as a comparison group: Their behavior is generally described in terms of the degree to which children in the extreme sociometric groups deviate from it. Although the relative number of children in each group varies from study to study, on average, 11% is identified as popular, 13% as rejected, 9% as neglected, 7% as controversial, and 60% as average ((Newcomb et al. 1993 ); see also (Nelson et al. 2016 )).

To assess children’s position within the peer group, Moreno (Moreno 1934 ) developed a sociometric assessment strategy in which he asked children to nominate liked and disliked peers. This original nomination procedure was later adapted by Coie et al. (Coie et al. 1982 ) and is nowadays the most commonly used procedure in studies into peer relationships (Parker et al. 2006 ). Previous research has demonstrated that the nomination procedure is a reliable and valid method for measuring children’s social position (Jiang and Cilessen 2005 ; Wu et al. 2001 ). During this procedure, children are typically asked to nominate up to three peers they like (positive nominations) and three peers they dislike (negative nominations). Over the years, nominations have been used to compute the dimensions of acceptance (number of positive nominations a child received) and rejection (number of negative nominations a child received; (Bukowski et al. 2000 )). Usually, these nominations are also combined in order to include the dimensions of social impact (i.e., visibility; summing the number of positive and negative nominations) and social preference (i.e., likability; subtracting the number of negative nominations from the number of positive nominations; (Bukowski et al. 2000 )). These dimensions, in turn, have been used to create the previously described sociometric groups (i.e., popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average children).

The Target Population

In describing previous studies into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status, this review exclusively focused on studies targeted at children in the age of 1 to 12 years. We selected this age range, because peer preferences emerge from toddlerhood upwards (Hay et al. 2004 ; Parker et al. 2006 ) and we wanted to focus our review on childhood as many aspects of children’s oral communicative competence develop during this period. Although oral communicative competence is likely to play a role in children’s peer relationships during their entire childhood, its impact might differ depending on the specific period. In particular, when children enter early childhood education, they begin to spend an increasing amount of time in a fixed peer group (i.e., their own class) and become more frequently engaged in group activities (Hay et al. 2004 ; Parker et al. 2006 ). It is in this setting in which children obtain relatively stable positions within their peer group (Bierman 2004 ). In addition, due to children’s language development during childhood, peer conflicts tend to decrease and children become more able to engage in prosocial behavior. As a consequence, group norms emerge in which antisocial behavior becomes increasingly unaccepted (Parker et al. 2006 ). This places children with language difficulties at risk for peer rejection (Vallotton and Ayoub 2011 ). Compared with early childhood, middle childhood (when children are between 6 and 12 years) is characterized by an increase in the complexity of peer relationships. It is therefore more likely that during this period, an entire web of interrelated factors is of influence on the extent to which children are liked or disliked by peers (Troesch et al. 2016 ). Moreover, when children have grown older, most of them have acquired the basic principles of successful communication, so there is less variability in the level of oral communicative competence between older children ((Hay et al. 2004 ; Parker et al. 2006 ); also see (Troesch et al. 2016 )). These developments could explain why the relation between language competence and social preference has been found to be more pronounced in younger children than in older children (Troesch et al. 2016 ).

A fair amount of previous studies into the relation between children’s ability to communicate effectively and their position within the peer group has focused specifically on children with speech and language impairments. In general, results revealed that these children experience a higher level of peer rejection than their peers with normal developing language skills (e.g., (Laws et al. 2012 ; Redmond 2011 )). Laws et al. ( 2012 ), for example, found that children with speech and language impairments were less likely to be identified as someone who is liked by peers. Speech and language impairments apparently place a child at risk for being rejected by the peer group. One should be cautious, however, to generalize results from studies targeted at such specific groups of children to that of the general population. In fact, the question is raised whether only severe language impairments place children at risk for peer rejection or whether a lack in oral communicative competence (but still in the range of normal language development) increases children’s risk for being rejected by peers as well. Furthermore, one could imagine that directions for interventions might differ for children with specific speech and language impairments compared with children with normal developing language skills. Although generally a successful intervention is one that improves children’s language skills so that they resemble those of the peer group, more modest goals (e.g., coping with language difficulties) are required for children with specific speech and language impairments (Bishop 2017 ). This review therefore excluded studies that were specifically aimed at children with speech and language impairments and only included studies in which a community sample was included (e.g., the entire class of a mainstream school).

The Present Study

In summary, the research question of the present narrative review was to what extent and how is oral communicative competence related to sociometric status in childhood? The aim was to identify previous studies into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status in children aged 1 to 12 years and to provide an overview of their main results. However, this review does not merely focus on research outcomes. An additional aim was to evaluate specific methodological characteristics of studies (e.g., operationalization of variables and research design) that have previously been conducted into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status. It is important to gather information of this sort in order to explain inconsistencies in research findings, to identify possible gaps or neglects in this field of research and to provide clear directions for future research.

To identify all relevant studies, the first author used the electronic databases ERIC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to search titles and abstracts of journal articles for each possible combination of two predefined lists of keywords (i.e., one for the concept of oral communicative competence and one focusing on sociometric status). Because of the complexity of the concept of oral communicative competence and the range of terms used to index a child’s position within the peer group, several related terms (derived from previous literature research) were included in order to avoid missing relevant studies. Search terms for oral communicative competence included oral communicative competence , communication skills , language skills , discourse skills , interaction skills , pragmatic skills , pragmatic language , and social communication . With regard to sociometric status, the following search terms were used: sociometric status , peer rejection , peer acceptance , (un) popularity , and social preference . Boolean Operators were used to ensure that each possible combination of keywords was included in the search. The reference lists of the articles that were obtained from this search were hand-searched to identify other studies to include in the present review. Although no date limit was used, only peer-reviewed journal articles that were written in English were included. This primary search resulted in a total number of 302 articles.

In the next phase, the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the collected articles were reviewed in order to decide whether the studies met the following inclusion criteria. Studies were deemed eligible if (1) they reported on empirical research in which (one of) the main research question(s) concerned the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status, (2) they included samples composed of children in the age of 1 to 12 years, without any disabilities or disorders (e.g., autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or specific language impairment), and (3) they were published in international peer-reviewed journals. When abstracts did not contain sufficient information, full texts were read. A random selection of 10% of the articles from the primary search was reviewed by the second author. With Cohen’s kappa of 0.86, there was an excellent agreement on the selection of articles to be included in the current review (Higgins and Green 2008 ). A total of 265 articles did not meet the selection criteria and were excluded, resulting in a selection of 37 articles. The main reasons for exclusion were that (1) the research question was only focused on (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence or sociometric status, but not on both variables; (2) the sample consisted of children outside the age range (1 to 12 years); or (3) the sample focused on children with certain disabilities.

Full texts of these 37 articles were retrieved for further, detailed examination. In this phase, one article was excluded, because it concerned a theoretical reflection on the topic. Another four articles were excluded, because they did not focus on (a concept similar to) oral communicative competence, but on other aspects of language competence (e.g., receptive vocabulary knowledge). Finally, seven articles were excluded in this phase, because they focused on oral communicative competence and sociometric status, but did not investigate the relation between the two variables. This resulted in a final selection of 25 studies reporting on an overall sample of N  = 2637 children aged 1–12 years (for details, see Table 1 ). The selected studies were analyzed with the help of four major categories. These include (1) research aim, (2) operationalization (measurement of main variables), (3) research design (i.e., sample size and analyses), and (4) main outcomes. Table 1 presents an overview of the studies included in this review, specified according to the four major categories. The results of the review are structured according to these categories.

Research Aim

A common feature of the studies included in this review is, obviously, their interest in the association between children’s ability to communicate effectively and their sociometric status. In the study of Black and Logan (Black and Logan 1995 ), for example, the main purpose was to examine the links between aspects of responsiveness and reciprocity in pre-schoolers’ communication and their social position within the peer group. With regard to the direction of the relation of interest, the majority of studies focused on the question of how children’s ability to communicate effectively might affect their position within the peer group. For example, based on research showing that children who fail to acquire the rules of language use have trouble in adapting to and being integrated into the peer group, Nærland ( 2011 ) expected pragmatic competence to significantly contribute to popularity. The interest in the question of how children’s ability to communicate effectively contributes to their position within the peer group can be explained by the well-established impact of children’s sociometric status on their socio-cognitive development. In fact, most of the included studies present an overview of the major consequences of being rejected by peers in order to indicate the importance of focusing on children’s position within the peer group. There are, however, two exceptions to this research orientation (Murphy and Faulkner 2000 , 2006 ). In particular, Murphy and Faulkner (Murphy and Faulkner 2000 ) focused on the reversed direction by questioning whether popularity might influence the extent to which 5–6-year-olds are able to communicate effectively. They expected that unpopular children would communicate in a less effective way as compared with their popular peers.

Considering the research aims of the selected studies, it can be concluded that there has been some debate regarding the direction of the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status. Kemple et al. ( 1992 ) explicitly addressed this issue of causality by asking whether rejected children are disliked because they lack the communication skills that are required to maintain satisfying interactions or whether their rejected status (attributable to other antecedent variables) limits their opportunities to engage in peer interactions that are known to contribute to the development of these skills. Unfortunately, due to the small number of participants ( n  = 19 children) in the study of Kemple et al., no firm conclusions could be drawn regarding this question. In fact, although each study included in the present review adopted a particular hypothesis on the direction of the relation of interest, the issue of causality was rarely taken into account in the actual research designs. This leaves us with the question of which direction is the right one: Does children’s oral communicative competence affect their sociometric status or is it the other way around? Although there is still insufficient empirical evidence to answer this question, researchers have argued that the relations between the antecedents and consequents of problematic peer relationships are extremely complex (Parker et al. 2006 ). As a result, it is unlikely that the direction between children’s position within the peer group and a certain factor that is related to it (e.g., the extent to which a child is able to communicate effectively and appropriately) merely goes one way. It is, instead, expected that they are linked in an interactional and transactional manner in which both components are mutually strengthening and continue to influence each other (Parker et al. 2006 ). Consequently, the correct answer to the question of which direction is the right one would be “neither.” They are both a simplification of the complex reality of peer relations and the factors that are related to it. Future studies into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status should aim to further unravel the complex reality of peer relations.

Operationalization

Oral communicative competence.

The vast majority of the studies (i.e., 18 out of 25 studies) included in the present review used observations of peer interactions in relatively natural settings in order to assess children’s ability to communicate effectively (e.g., (Putallaz 1983 ; Putallaz and Gottman 1981 ; Putallaz and Wasserman 1989 )). In most of these studies, the researchers used transcriptions of video or audio recordings of children’s interactions that were then coded for or categorized into different communication or conversation skills (i.e., questioning, demanding, interrupting, turn taking, and being responsive; see Table 1 for more details). For example, in the study of Gottman et al. ( 1975 ), third- and fourth graders were observed for ten 6-s intervals in four situations: (1) lectures or demonstration situations, (2) seat work, (3) small-group work or classroom work which involved free access to other children, and (4) gym, recess, or play periods outside the classroom. Peer interactions were coded using thirteen codes such as “dispensing positive reinforce verbally” (i.e., giving approval or verbally complying with a request). The relative frequency of each code was tallied for each child, summing over all four situations. Examples of exceptions to the use of observational measures are the studies of van der Wilt and colleagues (van der Wilt et al. 2016 , 2018a , b ). Instead of using natural observations of peer interactions, the standardized and validated Nijmegen Test for Pragmatics was used to measure young children’s communication skills in a test situation. The Nijmegen Test for Pragmatics is a test that consists of a scale model of a house with associated pictures of the different rooms in the house. During the administration of this test, the test administer uses a protocol that encourages children to verbally respond to the story that is told about the inhabitants of the house. In van der Wilt et al.’s studies, children’s communication skills were indicated by a total score that was computed by summing the number of correct responses. This total score represents several communicative functions and conversation skills, such as giving and asking for information, starting and ending a conversation, and giving an explanation.

Although there are some exceptions to the use of observational measures ((van der Wilt et al. 2016 , 2018a , b ; Burleson et al. 1992 ); Galejs et al. 1983 ; (Place and Becker 1991 ; Rabiner and Gordon 1992 )), the use of standardized and validated tests has been less common in this area of research. Furthermore, none of the reviewed studies made use of a combination of observational measures and standardized tests (i.e., mixed-methods). The preference for observational measures could be explained by the suggestion that the ecological validity of standardized tests in controlled test situations might be problematic (Nærland 2011 ). It could, for example, be questioned whether a child’s ability to communicate effectively in the context of an adult-child interaction can be generalized to child-child interactions outside of the test situation. In addition, researchers have raised concerns about the sensitivity and specificity of standardized tests and have argued that such tests are not able to capture the full complexity of the construct of oral communicative competence (Bishop 2017 ). Finally, standardized tests often present children with hypothetical dilemmas (e.g., (van der Wilt et al. 2016 , 2018a , b ; Rabiner and Gordon 1992 )) and it has been argued that it is one thing to be able to produce an adequate response to a hypothetical dilemma, but it is something else to actually enact such a response in real-life settings ((Nærland 2011 ); see also (Roth and Spekman 1984 )). However, compared with natural observations of peer interactions, an obvious advantage of standardized tests is the increased control over variables (due to similar test situations with similar procedures and items) and the possibility to elicit children’s ability to communicate effectively. In addition, the use of standardized tests is far less time-consuming than the use of observational measures (Roth and Spekman 1984 ) and allows researchers to compare children’s communication skills between classrooms and schools. Because classroom observations and standardized assessments both have strengths and weaknesses, a combination of observations in a naturalistic classroom setting and standardized tests that allow for comparison could advance the assessment of oral communicative competence and increase its validity (Bishop 2017 ; Roth and Spekman 1984 ).

Sociometric Status

To indicate children’s position within the peer group, 16 out of 25 reviewed studies used a sociometric method with peer nominations (e.g., (Putallaz and Gottman 1981 ; Putallaz and Wasserman 1989 )). In the study of Burleson et al. ( 1992 ), for example, first- and third graders were asked to nominate three classmates for four roles: (1) most liked, (2) least liked, (3) “nicest and kindest,” and (4) “meanest.” A total positive nomination score was calculated by summing the nominations for the two positive roles whereas a total negative nomination score was calculated by summing the nominations for the two negative roles. Subsequently, a social preference index was calculated by subtracting the standardized negative nomination score from the standardized positive nomination score, and a social impact index was created by summing the two standardized nomination scores. In addition to the use of peer nominations, Markell and Asher ( 1984 ), for example, used a rating-scale measure. This measure requires children to indicate how much they like to play with each classmate. Markell and Asher ( 1984 ) used a 1–5 rating scale and the rating-scale sociometric data were used to calculate the average play rating each child received. Based on these average ratings, children were divided into three groups: low-, average-, and high-rated children. Within the use of the peer nomination procedure and the rating scale, there are a few differences between studies that were reviewed. In particular, although most studies allowed same- and other-sex nominations, in the study of Bierman and Furman ( 1984 ), for example, sociometric scores were derived by averaging the ratings given to each child by same-sex classmates. These researchers argued that same-sex ratings tend to provide a more valid and reliable estimate of peer acceptance in childhood. A more recent study, however, has indicated that other-sex nominations provide unique information in measuring children’s sociometric status (Poulin and Dishion 2008 ).

A rather remarkable deviation of the peer nomination approach and rating scale is the procedure used in the study of Galejs et al. ( 1983 ). In their study, the researchers asked the head teachers of the participating pre-schoolers to rank order them from most popular to least popular and instructed teachers to regard popularity as friendliness, outgoing behavior, and social participation. Another exception to the use of peer nominations or ratings is the study of Nærland ( 2011 ). Nærland argued that reporting on friendships requires verbal skills that younger preschool children often lack. Therefore, a procedure was developed using observations of peer interactions to indicate children’s social focus, a concept constructed based on the mean number of times peers addressed themselves to a child in a positive or neutral manner. Although it might be valuable to explore other and possibly more sophisticated ways to assess children’s sociometric status, research has shown that peer nominations form a reliable method, even among young children in the age range from 2 to 5 years (e.g., (Keane and Calkins 2004 )). In addition, peer nominations are easy to administer, not time-consuming, and rely on the judgements of peers, who have been found to provide unique information on children’s behavior (e.g., (Henry 2006 )). Hence, in the studies that were reviewed, the peer nomination approach is clearly preferred over approaches that depend on the judgment of teachers (such as in the studies of (Black and Logan 1995 ; Galejs et al. 1983 )). In addition, despite researchers arguing that the rating procedure is more appropriate than the peer nomination procedure (e.g., (Bukowski et al. 2000 , 2012 )), the use of a rating scale has not been found to be more reliable than the use of peer nominations (Jiang and Cilessen 2005 ). The fact that the peer nomination procedure is equally adequate as the rating scale and is more straightforward and less time-consuming explains why it is still highly popular nowadays and should be part of future studies as well.

Research Design

The studies included in the present review can largely be characterized as small-scale studies using a combination of sociometric measures and observations of classroom interaction. Although sample sizes ranged between 22 and 570 children, with a mean sample size of N  = 105 children, 21 out of 25 studies included less than 100 participants. The small sample sizes can be explained by the fact that, as previously mentioned, most studies adopted observational methods in order to assess children’s ability to communicate effectively. Specifically, as observations of peer interactions are usually quite labor intensive and time-consuming, sample sizes are often relatively small. In addition, most studies used a cross-sectional design and included correlational (e.g., Pearson correlation) or comparative (e.g., ANOVA) analyses. For example, in the study of Masters and Furman ( 1981 ), several specific aspects of pre-schoolers’ peer interactions and their degree of (un) popularity were measured simultaneously. Subsequently, the correlations between the observed aspects of peer interactions and the general measures of popularity and unpopularity were calculated in order to investigate their relations. An exception to this research design is, for example, the study of Place and Becker ( 1991 ). They adopted a quasi-experimental design in which 10-year-old girls listened to one of five prepared audiotaped scenarios in which a girl of the same age used four different pragmatic skills (i.e., requesting, turn taking, responding promptly when spoken to, and maintaining the logic of the conversation) either appropriately or inappropriately. Subsequently, the participating girls rated how much they would like to play with the girl on the audiotape. In addition, several studies investigated the effect of an intervention focused on improving children’s communicative abilities on their social position within the group (e.g., (Bierman and Furman 1984 ; Ladd 1981 )).

Because most studies included in this review contained relatively small samples, outcomes of these studies cannot be generalized to the whole population. In addition, as most of the studies primarily reported the outcomes of correlational or comparative analyses and studies that did adopt an experimental design were relatively small-scaled (e.g., (Bierman and Furman 1984 ; Ladd 1981 ; Place and Becker 1991 ; Putallaz 1983 )), it remains largely unclear what the direction is of the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status. Unfortunately, the quasi-experimental studies of Place and Becker ( 1991 ), Bierman and Furman ( 1984 ), Ladd ( 1981 ), and Murphy and Faulkner ( 2000 , 2006 ) did not address this issue sufficiently. Murphy and Faulkner ( 2000 , 2006 ), for example, investigated the effect of their intervention on children’s communication skills. During their study, children who were characterized as unpopular played a collaborative game with either a popular or an unpopular peer. Murphy and Faulkner hypothesized that pairing unpopular children with a more popular peer would promote more effective communication. Instead of examining the nature of the relation between effective communication and popularity, however, their main aim was to investigate the effect of pairing unpopular children with popular peers. Consequently, it remained unclear whether improvements in the interactions between unpopular children and their popular peers could have been attributed to an improvement of the communicative effectiveness of unpopular children or to the well-developed communication skills of their popular peers. In general, it has been argued that, in order to demonstrate causality, studies need to report on large samples, use experiments with a minimal duration of 12 weeks, adopt random assignment to experimental versus control group, and control for pre-test differences (e.g., (Slavin 2008 )). None of the studies included in the present review were able to meet these criteria.

Research Findings

Main outcomes.

Overall, the main outcomes of the studies that were included in the current narrative review pointed toward a significant relation between (the different operationalizations of) oral communicative competence and children’s sociometric status. In investigating how children negotiate with each other during social pretend play, Black ( 1992 ), for example, found that preschool children’s communication style was significantly related to their social status (e.g., liked or disliked). Specifically, results indicated that, compared with other children, disliked children were more likely to demand and suggest themes and roles, to reject others’ ideas and to spend a fairly substantial proportion of the conversation describing their own activity or contributions to play.

Given the complexity of measuring children’s oral communicative competence, most studies included multiple elements of oral communication skills (for example, questioning, giving information) to calculate a total score or categorized children’s utterances into multiple categories (for example, demands, requests, questions, irrelevant turns). Interestingly, in studies in which multiple components of communication were included in the analyses, results regarding the relation between those components and children’s sociometric status were mixed. Nærland and Martinsen ( 2011 ), for example, included no less than 24 categories to indicate the content, manner, and social function of children’s interactions. Outcomes demonstrated that only half of these categories were related to social focus (an indicator of popularity). For example, the extent to which children’s utterances were intelligible and comprehensible was significantly associated with the amount of positive attention they received from their peers. In contrast, giving a direct response to other children’s topic, introducing a topic of conversation, and attempting to attain the attention of others were not related to social focus. The finding that in these studies some aspects of communication were related to children’s position within the peer group, whereas others were not, indicates that more theoretical and empirical work needs to be done on the relation between communicative sub-abilities and children’s sociometric status. Interestingly, in the study by Nærland and Martinsen ( 2011 ), it is unclear how the 24 categories of children’s communication are correlated with each other. It might be the case that some of these categories are highly correlated and not distinctive. This hypothesis might be supported by several models for oral communicative competence that have been developed in which the different communicative sub-abilities (such as turn taking, taking the perspective of the other into account) that constitute these models are inter-related and highly correlated (Celce-Murcia 2008 ; Roth and Spekman 1984 ).

As previously mentioned, most studies selected for this review can be characterized as small-scale studies. In addition, there is a large variety between these studies in measuring children’s oral communicative competence. Therefore, given this state of the art, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with regard to the specific aspects of oral communicative competence that may or may not be related to children’s sociometric status. In general, we can conclude that effective communication, i.e., communication that contributes to coherent discourse, is persuasive, and anticipates on the conversational partner, is positively related to social acceptance.

Context and Interactional Partner

Several studies included in this review took the interactional context into account. In the study of Hazen and Black ( 1989 ), for example, 4–5-year-olds were observed in two different contexts: (1) the entry context in which a child was required to enter an ongoing play session of two peers and (2) the host context in which a child played with another peer and was required to function as a host to a third peer who would join them later. Results indicated that disliked children’s communicative behavior did not differ across interactional contexts, indicating that they were less able to adapt to the differing social demands of entry versus host contexts. In contrast, children who were liked by their peers were sensitive to the communicative demands of different contexts: They used a lower proportion of expressives and a higher proportion of informative statements when entering a group. The outcome that disliked children did not adapt their communicative behavior to the specific interactional context indicates that the communicative difficulties of disliked children are present across contexts. Moreover, it shows that children who are disliked by peers do not only experience communicative difficulties in one single context but also find it hard to adapt their communication to the demands of a specific context. Hazen and Black ( 1989 ) concluded, therefore, that interventions should not only focus on improving the communicative abilities of socially rejected children but should also help them to adapt their communication to the demands of the particular social situation.

In addition to the comparison of interactional contexts, in the study of Black and Hazen ( 1990 ), the communication of children was observed when interacting with peers they did know versus peers they did not know. It was demonstrated that, compared with liked children, disliked children were less responsive to peers and more likely to make irrelevant comments when they entered the play of unacquainted peers. Furthermore, with acquainted peers, disliked children were not only less responsive and more likely to make irrelevant comments than others, but they were also less likely to clearly direct their communication to specific peers. Responsiveness and contributing to coherent discourse might, therefore, be important to both the establishment and maintenance of children’s sociometric status, whereas failing to socially direct communications might only occur after children have developed a negative peer reputation. This finding indicates that whether children interact with acquainted or unacquainted peers plays a role in the degree to which they experience difficulties in communication: The difficulties disliked children experience in communicating with others are more pronounced when they interact with peers they already know compared with unacquainted peers. Children who are disliked by their peers might become aware of the fact that they are often being rejected. In order to avoid further rejection, disliked children might, in turn, become less inclined to clearly direct their communication to peers that have previously rejected them, which will probably add to their negative reputation. In other words, it seems to be the case that certain types of communication contribute to the establishment of a disliked status, after which this disliked status may further increase children’s communicative difficulties as well.

Three of the included studies specifically focused on the role of gender (van der Wilt et al. 2016 , 2018a ; Murphy and Faulkner 2006 ). Murphy and Faulkner, for example, paired unpopular girls with popular girls and unpopular boys with popular boys and observed their communication while playing a collaborative game. Their observations focused on the following three aspects: (1) the use of rule reminders (reminding someone of the rules of the game), (2) the use of directives (telling someone what to do), and (3) the use of elaborated disagreements (attempting to justify or explain a disagreement). Results revealed an interaction of popularity x gender and indicated that the aforementioned communicative descriptors were more often used by popular girls than by unpopular girls. By contrast, there was no difference between popular and unpopular boys on the three previously described aspects of communicative effectiveness. Murphy and Faulkner provided several explanations for their findings. They suggested, for example, that compared with popular boys, popular girls might have been more motivated to help their unpopular partners by communicating effectively. This explanation would be in line with the finding that girls generally have a greater interest in interpersonal matters (Fabes et al. 2004 ; Maccoby 2002 ). Be as it may, the findings of the study of Murphy and Faulkner indicate that there might be gender differences in the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status. Interestingly, research into gender differences in the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status has revealed mixed results. In contrast to the study of Murphy and Faulkner ( 2006 ), van der Wilt et al. ( 2016 ) found a relation between children’s level of oral communicative competence and peer acceptance only for boys. It was suggested that this gender difference in the examined relation could be explained by boys’ higher tendency to engage in aggressive behavior: Adequate communication skills might help boys to inhibit aggressive behavior which, in turn, might help them in gaining acceptance from their peers. Theoretically, this is a plausible assumption considering the behavior-regulating function of language use ((Luria 1981 ); see also (Whitebread et al. 2015 )). Although both the study of Murphy and Faulkner ( 2006 ) as well as that of van der Wilt et al. ( 2016 ) indicated that gender might play a role in the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status, their contrasting outcomes raise the question of how exactly. Besides, both studies suffered from a small sample size, i.e., 48 and 54 participants, respectively. In addition, studies in which gender differences were not a main focus, but in which gender was taken into account in analyzing the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status, indicated no gender differences in this relation (e.g., (van der Wilt et al. 2018a , b )). As gender differences are found in some studies but not in others, it is expected that gender differences that were found are due to variations between samples and may not be large or even non-existent in the whole population.

The age of the children that were included in the reviewed studies ranged between 11 months (Nærland and Martinsen 2011 ) and 12 years (i.e., sixth graders; (Bierman and Furman 1984 )). In total, 14 studies focused on the period of early childhood whereas 11 studies were directed at middle childhood. As previously explained, due to small sample sizes, it is difficult to compare the outcomes of studies on a detailed level. On a more general level, however, there seems to be a difference between studies focusing on early childhood and studies focusing on middle childhood in the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status. In particular, one out of 14 studies (i.e., less than 10%) focusing on early childhood only found a significant relation between receptive aspects of children’s oral communicative competence (i.e., listening skills) and sociometric status, but not between productive aspects of oral communicative competence (i.e., describing skills) and sociometric status (Galejs et al. 1983 ). In contrast, among the studies directed at middle childhood, almost 20% of the studies (e.g., two out of 11) did not find a significant relation between children’s ability to communicate effectively and their social position within the peer group (Bierman and Furman 1984 ; Nowicki and Oxenford 1989 ). In addition, 20% of the studies (e.g., two out of 11) provided mixed results regarding this relation (Burleson et al. 1992 ; Rabiner and Gordon 1992 ). Specifically, Burleson et al. ( 1992 ), focusing on first- and third graders, demonstrated that only children’s ability to use persuasive communication was concurrently related to their level of social preference. In addition, the study of Rabiner and Gordon ( 1992 ) only found differences in the verbal responses between aggressive rejected boys and their non-rejected peers, but not between submissive rejected boys and their non-rejected peers.

Although the small sample sizes of the majority of the included studies make it impossible to draw firm conclusion regarding the differences between early childhood and middle childhood in the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status, the finding that this relation seems to be more profound in studies focusing on early childhood is in line with the meta-analysis of Troesch et al. ( 2016 ). As previously mentioned, Troesch et al. found that the relation between language competence and social preference is stronger for younger children compared with older children. The findings of the present review could indicate that, similar to the relation between language competence and social preference (Troesch et al. 2016 ), the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status might be stronger among children in the age of 1 to 6 than among children in the age of 6 to 12. A possible explanation might be that children in early childhood have limited oral communication skills (e.g., their communication skills increase rapidly throughout early childhood) and, as a consequence, experience more difficulties in social interaction compared with children in middle childhood. During middle childhood, most children have sufficient communication skills to engage in social interactions. With age, oral communicative competence might become less important for gaining social acceptance.

Main Findings

The main purpose of the present narrative review was to provide an overview of previous studies into the relation between children’s (aged 1 to 12 years) oral communicative competence and their position within the peer group. Specifically, the aim was to shed light on the type of studies that have previously been conducted, to find differences and similarities between these studies, and to find gaps in the literature and provide directions for future research. Despite a range of operationalizations and analyses, the studies that were included in this review generally concluded that children’s ability to communicate effectively is significantly related to their sociometric status. In line with our expectations, the ability to communicate effectively seems important for children’s position within their peer group and might, therefore, be important to include in interventions directed at improving children’s sociometric status.

Perhaps the most remarkable finding of the current review, however, is the enormous variety between studies with regard to the conceptualization and operationalization of the main variables. This variety is partly due to the fact that, in searching the literature, multiple search terms were included in order to identify all relevant studies. As each study investigated the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status in a different manner, the comparison of these studies turned out to be complex. Moreover, although the diversity between studies contributes to the richness of this review, the fact that most studies were small-scale studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Consequently, this review should be primarily seen as an overview of the studies that have previously been conducted into the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status. At the same time, the narrative and in-depth approach adopted in this review allowed us to draw together the findings of the studies and support us to provide clear directions for future research.

Oral Communicative Competence and Sociometric Status

Specifically, the finding that prior researchers operationalized oral communicative competence in various manners reflects the complexity of this construct and indicates the importance of defining it carefully: What exactly is oral communicative competence? What does it encompass? And when is someone communicating effectively? Following Bakhtin ( 1981 ), we argue that one of the most important features of effective communication is anticipation . According to Bakhtin, effective communicators are oriented toward future responses in the sense that they anticipate how the listener might respond to their utterances. In most of the studies we reviewed, aspects of this Bakhtinian notion of anticipation were taken into account. For example, Burleson et al. (Burleson et al. 1992 ) included a measure of persuasive communication (i.e., “the ability to frame requests that accommodate to the needs and interests of the target,” p. 265) and in the study by Black and Hazen ( 1990 ), children’s utterances were coded for responsiveness to the other. The studies we reviewed showed a clear pattern: there is a positive relation between a child’s ability to anticipate (i.e., taking the conversational partner into account) and her/his social status. As the number of participants was small for most studies, we suggest that future studies should further research how this notion of anticipation relates to effective communication and, hence, to a child’s social status.

Furthermore, it is important to think about the operationalization and new ways of measuring oral communicative competence. Specifically, the present review showed that prior research primarily used observations of children’s interactions in natural settings that were subsequently transcribed and coded for or categorized into different communication skills. The advantages of standardized and validated tests to measure children’s oral communicative competence (individually) have been largely overlooked. Because of the complexity of the construct of oral communicative competence, future studies are recommended to adopt a mixed-methods design to benefit from both observational methods in naturalistic classroom settings and standardized tests outside of classroom situations. Achieving a balance between the standardized assessment of children’s communicative competence and the time-consuming, naturalistic observation of children’s communication skills in real-life settings seems to be worth striving for (Adams 2002 ). Finally, using standardized tests next to classroom observations enables researchers to compare children’s communicative competence beyond classroom situations.

The present review showed that previous research used a range of terms to indicate a child’s position within the larger peer group (e.g., peer rejection , social focus , popularity ; (Black and Hazen 1990 ; Masters and Furman 1981 ; Nærland 2011 )). However, in contrast to the measurement of oral communicative competence, prior studies generally used the same method, namely the peer nomination procedure. As previously mentioned, during this procedure, children receive positive and negative nominations from their classmates. At the most basic level, the degree to which a child is liked, accepted, or considered popular is then defined as the number of received positive nominations whereas rejection (or unpopularity) is defined as the number of received negative nominations (Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2003 ). Although these are common ways to indicate children’s position within their peer group, researchers have argued that children who are at risk for negative developmental outcomes are not the ones who merely receive many negative nominations, but are the ones who receive many negative nominations and few positive nominations (Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2003 ). To take this into account, positive and negative nomination scores are nowadays often combined into a score of social preference (e.g., (Troesch et al. 2016 )). In the present review, four out of 25 studies took the construct of social preference into account (van der Wilt et al. 2018b ; Black and Logan 1995 ; Burleson et al. 1992 ; Nowicki and Oxenford 1989 ). Social preference is measured by subtracting the number of received negative nominations from the number of received positive nominations and reflects the relative extent to which children are accepted by their peers (Gifford-Smith and Brownell 2003 ). The opposite of social preference can be used to index a child’s level of relative peer rejection, measured as the number of negative nominations minus the number of positive nominations. The construct of relative peer rejection was used in only one of the studies included in this review (van der Wilt et al. 2018a ). Future studies into the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status might want to take both measures of social preference and relative peer rejection into account.

Future Directions

Where do we go from here? Importantly, the present narrative review has indicated that there is still quite something left to investigate with regard to the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status. The fact that research into this sub-field is scarce, especially compared with research into language skills that are relatively easy to measure (e.g., receptive vocabulary), seems therefore unjustified. Based on the present review, five recommendations are provided that can be used in the design of future studies. First, the aforementioned variety in the conceptualization and operationalization of oral communicative competence indicates that future research should adopt a more uniform approach by, for example, using similar terms and measures. Bakhtin’s ( 1981 ) notion of anticipation might be helpful in adopting a uniform approach and in defining effective communication. Interestingly, most of the studies we reviewed used terms that are related to anticipation in communication, such as responsiveness, persuasive communication, and taking the listener into account. Future studies could adopt a mixed-methods design to capture the complexity of the concept of oral communicative competences. Second, the current review indicates that the majority of studies have been conducted in the USA (18 out of 25). In order to prevent cultural bias and to shed light on possible cross-cultural differences in the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status, we suggest that future studies should also been conducted in non-western countries. Third, as the majority of researches were small-scale studies (i.e., 21 out of 25 studies included less than 100 participants), future research should include larger samples in order to generalize the findings outside the sample. Fourth, the cross-sectional designs of the majority of studies included in this review did not allow for conclusions regarding the direction of the relation of interest. Longitudinal and experimental research with large samples and longer intervention periods are needed in order to investigate whether children’s level of oral communicative competence affects their sociometric status or whether it is the other way around (or both). And finally, as previous research showed that the interactional context, gender, and age might influence the relation between oral communicative competence and sociometric status, future studies could take these factors into account. For example, based on the results of this review, it might be interesting to study the effects of oral communicative competence on sociometric status (and vice versa) from early childhood to middle childhood.

General Conclusion

To conclude, previous studies into the relation between (concepts similar to) oral communicative competence and sociometric status have generally revealed a significant link between the two variables. What follows from the studies we reviewed is a clear pattern indicating that rejected children have different communication styles compared with popular and average children. To be more specific, rejected children seem to be less competent in anticipating on their conversational partner, resulting in less-responsive and coherent communication. Although it is reassuring to find findings replicated, the existence and strength of the relation of interest seem to depend on the operationalization of oral communicative competence and sociometric status. There appears to be a lot of variety between studies in this regard. Therefore, studies are needed in which these complex constructs are carefully conceptualized, multiple methods are used to measure them, and the relation between the two variables is investigated longitudinally. In that manner, future research can more convincingly demonstrate which aspects of oral communicative competence are related to sociometric status and can provide insight into the direction of the relation between children’s ability to communicate effectively and their position within the larger peer group. If future research demonstrates a causal relation between children’s oral communicative competence and their position within the peer group, interventions directed at the improvement of children’s sociometric status should take the promotion of communicative development in school settings and beyond into account.

Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: the assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43 (8), 973–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00226 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination: four essays. (Trans: Emerson, C. & Holquist, M.) . Austin: University of Texas Press.

Google Scholar  

Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection. Developmental processes and intervention strategies . New York: Guilford Press.

Bierman, K. L., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social skills training and peer involvement on the social adjustment of preadolescents. Child Development, 55 , 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1984.tb00280.x .

Bishop, D. V. M. (2014). Pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In D. V. M. Bishop & L. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children. Causes, characteristics, intervention and outcome (pp. 99–113). London: Psychology Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52 (6), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12335 .

Black, B. (1992). Negotiating social pretend play: communication differences related to social status and sex. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 38 (2), 212–232.

Black, B., & Hazen, N. L. (1990). Social status and patterns of communication in acquainted and unacquainted preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 26 (3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.379 .

Black, B., & Logan, A. (1995). Links between communication patterns in mother-child, father-child, and child-peer interactions and children’s social status. Child Development, 66 (1), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00869.x .

Braza, F., Azurmendi, A., Muñoz, J. M., Carreras, M. R., Braza, P., García, A., Sorozabal, A., & Sánchez-Martín, J. R. (2009). Social cognitive predictors of peer acceptance at age 5 and the moderating effects of gender. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27 (3), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008X360666 .

Bukowski, W. M., Sippola, L. K., Hoza, B., & Newcomb, A. F. (2000). Pages from a sociometric notebook: an analysis of nomination and rating scale measures of acceptance, rejection, and social preference. In T. Cillessen & W. M. Bukowski (Eds.), Recent advances in the study and measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system (pp. 11–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bukowski, W. M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Velasquez, A. M. (2012). The use of peer ratings in developmental research. In B. Laursen, T. Little, & N. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 211–228). New York: Guilford.

Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B. P., & Rubin, K. H. (2018). Peer relations. Past, present and promise. In W. M. Bukowski, B. P. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford Press.

Burleson, B. R., Della, J. G., & Applegat, J. L. (1992). Effects of maternal communication and children's social-cognitive and communication skills on children’s acceptance by the peer group. Family Relations, 41 (3), 264–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/585189 .

Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht: Springer.

Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Social, emotional, and personality development in context. Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99). New York: Guilford Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsday, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499739.006 .

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18 (4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557 .

Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Salzer Burks, V., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74 (2), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402004 .

Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2004). The next 50 years: considering gender as a context for understanding young children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50 (3), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0017 .

French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 (3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00011 .

Galejs, I., Dhawan, G., & King, A. (1983). Popularity and communication skills of preschool children. The Journal of Psychology, 115 (1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9923601 .

Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Childhood peer relationships: social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41 (4), 235–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)00048-7 .

Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46 (3), 709–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128569 .

Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). A sociosemiotic perspective on language development. In M. A. K. Halliday (Ed.), (pp. 90–113). New York: Continuum.

Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00308.x .

Hazen, N. L., & Black, B. (1989). Preschool peer communication skills: the role of social status and interaction context. Child Development, 60 (4), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb03519.x .

Henry, D. B. (2006). Associations between peer nominations, teacher ratings, self-reports, and observations of malicious and disruptive behavior. Assessment, 13 (3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287668 .

Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions . Chichester: Wiley.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hymes, D. H. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23 (2), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00572.x .

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Jiang, X. L., & Cilessen, A. H. N. (2005). Stability of continuous measures of sociometric status: a meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 25 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.008 .

Keane, S. P., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Predicting kindergarten peer social status from toddler and preschool problem behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32 (4), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JACP.0000030294.11443.41 .

Kemple, K., Speranza, H., & Hazen, N. (1992). Cohesive discourse and peer acceptance: longitudinal relationships in the preschool years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38 (3), 364–381.

Ladd, G. W. (1981). Effectiveness of a social learning method for enhancing children's social interaction and peer acceptance. Child Development, 52 (1), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129227 .

Laws, G., Bates, G., Feuerstein, M., Mason-Apps, E., & White, C. (2012). Peer acceptance of children with language and communication impairments in a mainstream primary school: associations with type of language difficulty, problem behaviors and a change in placement organization. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28 (1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659011419234 .

Luria, A. R. (1981). Language and cognition . New York: Wiley.

Maccoby, E. E. (2002). Gender and group process: a developmental perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11 (2), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00167 .

Markell, R. A., & Asher, S. R. (1984). Children’s interactions in dyads: interpersonal influence and sociometric status. Child Development, 55 , 1412–1424. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130010 .

Masters, J. C., & Furman, W. (1981). Popularity, individual friendship selection, and specific peer interaction among children. Developmental Psychology, 17 (3), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.344 .

Menting, B., van Lier, P. A. C., & Koot, H. M. (2011). Language skills, peer rejection, and the development of externalizing behavior from kindergarten to fourth grade. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52 (1), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2010.02279.x .

Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student aggression: a prospective study of transactional influence and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46 (6), 661–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006 .

Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J. D., Maumary-Gremaud, A., Bierman, K., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Peer rejection and aggression and early starter models of conduct disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30 (3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015198612049 .

Moreno, J. L. (1934). A new approach to the problem of human interrelations . Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.

Murphy, S. M., & Faulkner, D. (2000). Learning to collaborate: can young children develop better communication strategies through collaboration with a more popular peer. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15 (4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172983 .

Murphy, S. M., & Faulkner, D. (2006). Gender differences in verbal communications between popular and unpopular children during an interactive task. Social Development, 15 (1), 82–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00331.x .

Nelson, D. A., Burner, K. C., Coyne, S. M., Hart, C. H., & Robinson, C. C. (2016). Correlates of sociometric status in Russian preschoolers: aggression, victimization, and sociability. Personality and Individual Differences, 94 , 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.054 .

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99 .

Nowicki, S., & Oxenford, C. (1989). The relation of hostile nonverbal communication styles to popularity in preadolescent children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 150 (1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1989.9914572 .

Nærland, T. (2011). Language competence and social focus among preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 181 (5), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004431003665780 .

Nærland, T., & Martinsen, H. (2011). Child–child interactions and positive social focus among preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 181 (3), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903387701 .

Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk, A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: a developmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method (pp. 419–493). Hoboken: Wiley.

Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. (2007). The timing of middle-childhood peer rejection and friendship: linking early behavior to early-adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 78 (4), 1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01051.x .

Place, K. S., & Becker, J. A. (1991). The influence of pragmatic competence on the likeability of grade-school children. Discourse Processes, 14 (2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544783 .

Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Methodological issues in the use of peer sociometric nominations with middle school youth. Social Development, 17 (4), 908–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00473.x .

Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: a 6-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.1.103 .

Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children’s sociometric status from their behaviour. Child Development, 54 (6), 1417–1426. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129804 .

Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. M. (1981). An interactional model of children’s entry into peer groups. Child Development, 52 (3), 986–994. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129103 .

Putallaz, M., & Wasserman, A. (1989). Children’s naturalistic entry behavior and sociometric status: a developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 25 (2), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.297 .

Rabiner, D. L., & Gordon, L. V. (1992). The coordination of conflicting social goals: differences between rejected and nonrejected boys. Child Development, 63 (6), 1344–1350. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131560 .

Redmond, S. M. (2011). Peer victimization among students with specific language impairment, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and typical development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42 (4), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0078) .

Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34 (4), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009 .

Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1984). Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part 1. Organizational framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 (1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4901.02 .

Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. Greene & P. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637–684). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Shonkhoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000) From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development. National Research Council, Washington, DC; Institute of Medicine (NAS), Washington, DC.

Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education. Educational Researcher, 37 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08314117 .

Troesch, L. M., Keller, K., & Grob, A. (2016). Language competence and social preference in childhood: a meta-analysis. European Psychologist, 21 (3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000262 .

Vallotton, C., & Ayoub, C. (2011). Use your words: the role of language in the development of toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26 (2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002 .

van der Wilt, F., van Kruistum, C., van der Veen, C., & van Oers, B. (2016). Gender differences in the relationship between oral communicative competence and peer rejection: An explorative study in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24 (6), 807–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1073507 .

van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2018a). Why can’t I join? Peer rejection in early childhood education and the role of oral communicative competence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.007 .

van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2018b). Popular, rejected, neglected, controversial or average: Do young children of different sociometric groups differ in their level of oral communicative competence? Social Development, 27 (4), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12316 .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. Including the volume thinking and speech (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.

Whitebread, D., Pino-Pasternak, D., & Coltman, P. (2015). Making learning visible: the role of language in the development of metacognition and self-regulation in young children. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (pp. 199–214). London: Routledge.

Wu, X., Hart, C. H., Draper, T. W., & Olsen, J. A. (2001). Peer and teacher sociometrics for preschool children: cross-informant concordance, temporal stability, and reliability. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47 (3), 416–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0018 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Section of Educational Sciences, LEARN! Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Femke van der Wilt, Chiel van der Veen, Claudia van Kruistum & Bert van Oers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Femke van der Wilt .

Ethics declarations

This research concerns a review of studies and did not involve human participants and/or animals.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., van Kruistum, C. et al. Why Do Children Become Rejected by Their Peers? A Review of Studies into the Relationship Between Oral Communicative Competence and Sociometric Status in Childhood. Educ Psychol Rev 31 , 699–724 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09479-z

Download citation

Published : 19 March 2019

Issue Date : 15 September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09479-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Oral communicative competence
• Pragmatic language
• Social communication
• Sociometric status
• Interactional context
• Gender differences
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Common Reasons College Applications Get Rejected

Admissions officers look beyond academic standing to make tough rejection decisions.

Why College Applications Get Rejected

Getty Images | iStockphoto

Poor fit and lack of demonstrated interest are among the common reasons college applications are rejected.

Given the volume of college applications each year, admissions officers have tough decisions to make when it comes to filling limited seats.

In a competitive admissions environment, students may be rejected from schools where they could thrive, says Eddie Pickett III, senior associate dean and director of recruitment at Pomona College in California.

"For selective colleges, most students who apply can complete the work on campus, but there is only so much space in housing and classrooms," he says. "Each school sets their own evaluation system and applies that while reading student applications."

Applicants can increase their chances of getting accepted by understanding what college admissions officers most like to see on applications. Here are seven common reasons college applications get rejected, according to some experts:

• Failure to meet high GPA or test score standards.
• Insufficient academic rigor.
• Lack of demonstrated interest.
• Application essay errors.
• Academic integrity concerns.
• Competition.

Failure to Meet High GPA or Test Score Standards

According to a report from the National Association for College Admission Counseling, the most important factors for admissions at four-year colleges for the fall 2023 freshman class were overall high school GPA and grades in Advanced Placement or other college-prep classes. Strength of the high school curriculum was the next most important. However, the report notes that public and private schools might differ on which factors they deem most important.

With many colleges going test optional , there's been a stark decrease in the level of importance schools place on admission test scores, specifically the ACT and SAT. Just 5% of colleges listed admission test scores as considerably important in 2023, per NACAC, compared to 46% in 2018, the last year such data was gathered.

Applicants should understand how important grades and test scores are in the eyes of admissions officers, particularly at more selective schools, some experts say.

"The term 'holistic review' is one of the best marketing terms created in college admissions," Nat Smitobol, a college admissions counselor at IvyWise, wrote in an email. "It gives students the sense that anyone has a chance, which is not true – especially at the most selective institutions. GPA and test scores are the most common reasons why someone would be eliminated quickly without a comprehensive review."

Smitobol says students should also be aware of how schools might be using artificial intelligence tools to streamline some parts of the admissions process. Colleges use computers to automatically eliminate students before a human reader sees the application, he says.

"Chances are if a school asks you to complete a SRAR, a self-reported academic record, that school is using a computer program to eliminate applications based on your GPA, which is easily calculated by what students have entered in," he says. "This saves time by allowing humans to only read applications that are in the realm of possibility."

Insufficient Academic Rigor

Colleges want students who challenge themselves academically. Admissions officers are less inclined to admit students who breezed through standard-level courses, experts say.

"Obviously schools will look at your GPA , but what they're really looking at is your transcript, not just the average of your grades," Brian Galvin, chief academic officer at Varsity Tutors, wrote in an email. "If your school offers a wide array of AP and Honors courses and you didn’t take many of them, you can have a perfect GPA but you won’t get the credit for academic excellence you might expect."

Most colleges require entrants to have taken a set number of core courses in high school. For example, the University of Iowa generally requires first-year students to have had four years of English, three years of mathematics, three years of social studies, two years of the same world language and three years of science to be considered for admission. Admissions officers look at transcripts to ensure that applicants fulfill their admission criteria.

Lack of Demonstrated Interest

For admissions teams, finding qualified students is only half of the battle. They also need to ensure that enough of those admitted actually enroll. As a result, colleges may give favorable judgment to applicants who they think are more likely to attend, Galvin says.

"Admitting great students who don’t enroll means that other great students on the waitlist start making other plans, and the fall’s entering class misses out on that quality it could have had," he says. "So schools really do look at how often you’ve visited campus or attended virtual tours and events; they want to see specifics in your essays about why you want to attend that school."

Students can demonstrate interest by participating in webinars, college visits or other events. Students who are placed on a waitlist can help their chances by writing a letter that further illustrates their interest and checking in periodically and politely with admissions officers to let them know you still intend to attend the school if accepted.

Application Essay Errors

While students can make mistakes on any application material, experts find that blunders are most prevalent on essays .

"The most common errors we find are in a student's essay," Mark Steinlage Jr., vice president for enrollment management at Rockhurst University in Missouri, wrote in an email. "They either rush through it and/or don't proofread, which results in many spelling errors, unintentional auto-corrects, or saying they'll be a great fit at a competitor school when they meant to change it to Rockhurst."

Grammatical hiccups can demonstrate inattentiveness or even carelessness. But according to DJ Menifee, vice president for enrollment at Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania, they may also raise another concern: that a student does not have the writing capabilities needed to succeed at a particular institution.

The content of the essay could also be a red flag, says Denard Jones, lead college counselor at Empowerly, a college admissions consulting company. Jones previously worked in college admissions at Elon University in North Carolina and Saint Joseph's University in Pennsylvania.

Applicants should never write about anything that could be considered "problematic," Jones says, such as lewd or illegal experiences. An essay lacking maturity leaves admissions officers with a negative feeling about that application, even if the academic components are strong, he says.

“I say this all the time: College is for adults; it’s not for kids,” he says. “If you already are showcasing that you’re not going to be able to handle the pressures and the stress and the independence that comes with college, then that could be a reason off the bat that we might think you’re not ready for us. Maybe there’s another university that would take an opportunity on you."

Fit is a two-way street. Just as students look for schools that fit their interests, schools look for students who fit theirs.

Colleges seek students who can help them meet their institutional objectives, Pickett of Pomona says.

"The mission of a public institution is to educate the people in their state first and foremost," he says. "For private universities , their mission and value statements should guide their priorities. The main goal on a residential college campus is to admit a student body who wants to contribute to the academic and social culture in your community."

These institutional objectives can change each year and, in some cases, might dictate an admissions decision more than any quality an applicant has or doesn't have, Jones says. For example, a university that just spent millions of dollars renovating its engineering building might prioritize building a strong class of prospective engineering students and admit more than usual, which could come at the cost of a student wanting to pursue a different major, he says.

That may be difficult for some applicants to accept, but “institutional priorities are things that you have no control over and there’s nothing you can do about them,” he says. “You have to focus on the things you do have control over."

Some admissions teams target applicants with specific qualities that may indicate their ability to contribute to a school's culture. For example, the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts, a Jesuit institution, likes to see service or other forms of community engagement on applicant resumes , according to Cornell LeSane, vice president for enrollment management.

Academic Integrity Concerns

Admissions teams want to be assured that a transcript accurately reflects the abilities of the student who submitted it. LeSane says records of cheating or plagiarism can lead to rejection. Those who have been accepted could see their acceptance rescinded .

In some instances, students with a record of such mistakes may be forgiven. LeSane notes that context matters when it comes to questioning an applicant's academic integrity record.

"Something that occurs in ninth grade can be perceived quite differently than in 11th or 12th grade," he says. "Likewise, there can be a distinction between something that happens once and something that takes place multiple times."

Competition

Exceptional grades and test scores sometimes are not enough to ensure acceptance. At particularly selective institutions, students often need " standout factors ," Galvin says.

Galvin says leadership positions and college-level research experience on a resume can grab the attention of admissions officers looking beyond transcripts.

"Competitive schools will almost always have lots of 'lookalike' students – pools of students with essentially the same transcripts from the same state or region looking to pursue the same major or field of study," he says. "And with more of those students than they can accept, they’re looking for differentiators to prioritize admitting some over others."

How to Deal With Rejection

Rejection is something everyone will inevitably experience, says Lindsey Giller, a clinical psychologist with the Child Mind Institute, a nonprofit focused on helping children and young adults with mental health and learning disorders. For some teens, a college rejection might be their first experience with it.

The emotions of the rejection itself can be compounded when friends or peers are accepted into a student's desired school. Hearing them talk about their future plans and even wearing clothes with that school's branding can cause feelings of bitterness or envy, Giller says.

It's important for students to acknowledge and own their disappointment instead of hiding it or sweeping it under the rug. It may seem simple, she says, but verbalizing or writing out your emotions and explicitly stating exactly how you feel can go a long way in processing the emotions sooner and allowing you to move toward acceptance of the situation and excitement about your new reality.

“They can be disappointed that they didn’t get into their top choice school and at the same time they can get motivated for the options that remain, and start to potentially feel some excitement for this other city or this other program," she says.

14 Tips for an Effective College Visit

Tags: education , students , colleges , college admissions , college applications

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

You May Also Like

Protests threaten campus graduations.

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 6, 2024

Protesting on Campus: What to Know

Sarah Wood May 6, 2024

Lawmakers Ramp Up Response to Unrest

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 3, 2024

University Commencements Must Go On

Eric J. Gertler May 3, 2024

Where Astronauts Went to College

Cole Claybourn May 3, 2024

College Admitted Student Days

Jarek Rutz May 3, 2024

Universities, the Police and Protests

John J. Sloan III May 2, 2024

Biden Condemns Unrest on Campuses

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 2, 2024

How to Find a Mentor in College

Sarah Wood May 2, 2024

20 Beautiful College Campuses

Cole Claybourn May 1, 2024