The Self as an Interpersonal Actor 331iscognitive impairment.Social exclusion may impair the
ability to reason effectively, and this in turn could lead to
self-defeating behavior (which is usually a failure to ratio-
nally consider the outcomes of one’s actions: Leith &
Baumeister, 1996). Cognitive impairment could also lead to
antisocial behavior, as socially excluded individuals may
give in to aggressive impulses without considering the conse-
quences. This decrease in the ability to reason may result
from numbness or excessive rumination.
Our research has found that social exclusion does reduce
the ability to reason effectively (Baumeister, Twenge, &
Nuss, 2001). Socially excluded participants obtained lower
scores on a timed test of intelligence. In a reading compre-
hension task, social exclusion led to impairments in the abil-
ity to retrieve information. Participants read a passage under
normal conditions, received the exclusion feedback, and
were then asked to recall what they had read. Excluded par-
ticipants did not answer as many questions correctly as com-
pared with participants in the other conditions. However,
their ability to store information was apparently intact. Be-
cause the recall questions were difficult, the results could
have been due to deficits in either recall or reasoning. We
tested pure recall by asking participants to memorize a list of
nonsense syllables. They then received the belongingness
feedback and were asked to recall the syllables. Social exclu-
sion did not affect the retrieval of simple information; how-
ever, we found that it did affect reasoning. Participants were
given a timed reasoning test (taken from a Graduate Record
Exam analytical section). Those in the excluded condition
answered fewer questions correctly than those in the other
groups. Thus social exclusion does not affect the storage of
information or the retrieval of simple information, but it does
affect higher reasoning.
Larger Social Trends in Belongingness
and Negative Outcomes
Social exclusion may be important for understanding recent
changes in American society. Several authors have argued
that the changes of the last 40 years have led to a society in
which people lack stable relationships and feel disconnected
from each other. Putnam (1995, 2000) found that Americans
are now less likely to join community organizations and visit
friends than they were in the 1950s and 1960s. The propor-
tion of the population living alone has nearly doubled in re-
cent decades, from 13% in 1960 to 25% in 1997 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1998). The substantially increased divorce
rate, another indicator of unstable social relations, accounts
for a large part of this change. The later age of first marriage
has also contributed to the increase in living alone. At the
same time, violent crime has skyrocketed, property crime has
increased, and people trust and help each other less than they
once did (Fukuyama, 1999).
This breakdown in relationships has occurred alongside
several negative social trends. Depression rates (Klerman &
Weissman, 1989; Lewinsohn, Rohde, Seeley, & Fischer,
1993) and feelings of anxiety (Twenge, 2000) have increased
markedly. The increase in anxiety is directly linked to
decreases in social connectedness such as divorce rates, levels
of trust, and the percentage of people living alone (Twenge).
In addition, crime and antisocial behavior have increased;
violent crime is more than 4 times as common as it was in
1960 (6 times as common as in 1950). In fact, Lester (1994)
found that statistics measuring social integration (divorce,
marriage, and birth rates) were almost perfectly correlated
with homicide rates when examined in a time-series analysis.
Self-defeating behaviors have also escalated in the last few
decades (see Baumeister, Heatherton, et al., 1994). Although
it is notoriously difficult to prove which causal processes are
operating at the macrosocial level in the complex world, we
think that the declines in social integration and belongingness
have contributed to the rise of negative social indicators and
social problems.THE SELF AS AN INTERPERSONAL ACTOROnce people have social relationships, how do these relation-
ships influence their selves, and vice versa? One reason peo-
ple have selves is to facilitate interactions and relationships
with others. For example, it is difficult to go out on a first date
if one is in the middle of an identity crisis. Accordingly, Erik
Erikson (1950, 1968) famously asserted that identity is a pre-
requisite for intimacy. People must settle the problems of
identity before they are developmentally ready for intimate
relations. The sequence may not be that simple, because iden-
tity and intimacy seem to develop together, but the link be-
tween the two is hard to deny (Orlofksy, Marcia, & Lesser,
1973; Tesch & Whitbourne, 1982).
Identity is also constructed out of social roles. A series of
cluster analyses by Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, and Ethier (1995) re-
vealed five main types of social identities:relationships(hus-
band, sibling),vocational or avocational role(coin collector,
teacher),political affiliation(Republican, feminist),stigma-
tized identity(homeless person, fat person), andreligion or
ethnicity(Jewish, Hispanic). As products of the culture and
society, roles again reveal the interpersonal dimension of
selfhood. To fulfill a relationship-oriented role (such as mother
or police officer), one must make the self fit a script that is
collectively defined. Each person may interpret a given role