JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 18, 235-252 ( i%2) Communicating the Reasons for Social Rejection VALERIE S. FOLKES University of California. Los Angeles Received May 12, 1980 Two studies examined the pattern of reasons given for rejecting dates and how they reflect concerns of the rejector. Study One examined retrospective accounts of rejection. Rejectors often reported withholding the reason for rejection from the rejected person. A content analysis of the reasons communicated to rejected persons was performed using Weiner’s (Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 3-2.5) attributional dimensions of locus, controllability, and stability. The stated reasons were found to be primarily impersonal, uncontrollable, and un- stable. Study Two examined rejectors’ willingness to communicate certain types of reasons. The true, privately held reasons for turning down dates were sys- tematically varied as to locus, controllability, and stability. The types of reasons subjects offered to rejected persons were consistent with Study One. Reasons for refusal were less likely to be revealed when they related to the appearance or personality of the rejected person, particularly when the personal reasons were uncontrollable and stable. Rejectors were not as forthright when they controlled the reason for rejection as when they lacked control. The rejectors’ actions were interpreted as being self-presentational, reflecting concerns about rejected persons’ emotional reactions, expectancies for the future of the rela- tionship, and blame for rejection. Fear of rejection may be a major hurdle to the establishment of dating relationships. It has been suggested that as the probability of being re- jected increases, dating attempts decrease (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). This is because there is no point in pursuing an unattainable relationship and being rejected can lead to negative feelings (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, 8z Walster, 1971; Shanteau & Nagy, 1976; Walster et al., 1966). Research generally supports the notion that when This article is based on a doctoral dissertation completed at the University of California, Los Angeles, and was supported by Grant MH25687-04 from the National Institute of Mental Health to Bernard Weiner. The author is grateful to Bernard Weiner for his valuable guidance and suggestions. The helpful criticisms of L. Anne Peplau, Susan Green, and Bertram Raven are also greatly appreciated. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Valerie S. Folkes, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024. 235 0022-1031/82/030235-18$02.00/0 Copyright B 1982 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.