The importance of social rejection as reputational sanction in fostering peace

Abstract

I challenge the idea by Glowacki that “strong sanctions” such as fines, physical punishment, or execution are more effective in promoting peace than “weak punishments” like social rejection. Reviewing evidence that social rejection can have significant social and psychological costs for norm violators, I propose that social rejection can serve as a powerful reputational sanction in fostering peace in society.

In discussing societal norms to develop peace, Glowacki proposes that “weak punishments” – reputational sanctions including exclusion and ostracism – are less effective in deterring war and peacebreaking than “strong sanctions” such as fines, physical punishment, or execution. Challenging this perspective, I review psychology and justice research that suggests, as opposed to physical and monetary punishment, social rejection (i.e., being excluded from a social group, culture, or society) can impose substantive social and psychological costs on norm violators. Accordingly, I argue that social rejection can more efficaciously rein in norm-violating behaviors of violence and aggression. It serves as a potent reputational sanction in promoting peace in society.

Despite being a less harsh form of punishment, social rejection such as exclusion and ostracism brings numerous negative consequences on individuals’ social standing and psychological needs. Rejected individuals experience concern for their precarious social image and suffer from negative feelings and emotions inclusive of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Even associated health problems such as immune system and sleep issues may emerge (for a review, see DeWall & Bushman, 2011). Furthermore, such sanction takes a toll on individuals even in brief, innocuous episodes of social rejection, for instance, when a passing stranger looks through them as if they were air (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012). In light of the adverse impacts that social rejection has on reputation and psychological well-being, reputational punishment in the form of exclusion entails norm violators paying social and psychological prices for their deviant behavior.

In addition to inflicting social and psychological costs on peace breakers, social rejection can cause a level of distress equivalent to physical pain, extending beyond its reputational and sociopsychological functions. Research has shown that this social and psychological pain can be as detrimental as physical injury (DeWall et al., 2010a; Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wager, 2011) typically associated with physical punishment. This is evidenced by an fMRI study that found activation of several brain regions involved in physical pain during social rejection (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Based on findings from this line of work, sanctions of social rejection, as I explicate below, may become powerful tools to harness norm-violating behaviors of aggression and violence. To circumvent these significant costs of rejection, be they social, psychological, or seemingly physical, would-be peace breakers in a group should behave and adhere to norms for nonaggression toward others. Transgressors who have already violated societal norms could also be motivated to compensate for the harm caused and avoid reoffending.

On the contrary, while it is often assumed that strong sanctions (in this case, fines, physical punishment, and execution) can deter norm violations by being perceived as a formidable threat, ample studies in psychology and justice suggest otherwise. In actuality, severe sanctions may even have the opposite effect, potentially initiating a vicious cycle of violent behavior instead of curbing deviant actions and crimes. This is in contrast to beneficial, peaceful outcomes which Glowacki believes. For example, Heilmann et al. (2021) concluded in their review that physical punishment is associated with increased behavioral problems, in particular, aggressive behaviors over time. Other psychology and behavioral scholars corroborate this perspective and caution against the use of physical punishment (Grogan-Kaylor, Ma, & Graham-Bermann, 2018). Researchers in criminal justice also question whether the enaction of severe sanctions in legal settings can reduce recidivism of the guilty (Smith, Gendreau, & Goggin, 2002), with some even demonstrating provocative, undesirable criminogenic effects caused by stronger punishment (Bales & Piquero, 2012). Consistent with this view, Teodorescu, Plonsky, Ayal, and Barkan (2021) in a series of experimental studies indicated greater effectiveness of small (but frequent) punishments over severe (but rare) punishments (e.g., large fines) in reducing moral violations. Thus, their findings demonstrate the magnitude of punishment is less of a crucial factor in deterrence effects.

As reviewed above, it is plausible to suggest that social rejection (“mild punishment”) can be no less – and even more – effective than physical punishment and fines (“strong punishment”) in facilitating meaningful behavioral changes in society. This is because human beings have a strong and innate need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Social rejection, as a punishment against those who violate societal norms of peace, poses substantial threats to the fundamental need for acceptance by others and important social groups. Given that social rejection causes individuals to become attuned to potential sources of acceptance, it presumably has the ability to deter counternormative behaviors which may lead to further ostracism. It is especially true when norm violators recognize peaceful behaviors relative to socially unacceptable aggression constitute normative actions necessary for being embraced within the community. Eventually, this helps drive the development of peace in human society.

Although social rejection as a reputational sanction can arguably be more helpful than strong sanctions, it is not to say rejection is uniformly advantageous in fostering peace. Few studies have suggested that certain or extreme forms of social rejection might increase the excluded individuals’ aggression tendency (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). However, providing socially rejected individuals with even a brief experience of acceptance can reduce their levels of aggression (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010b) and further induce them to engage in prosocial and cooperative behavior to achieve peaceful outcomes if doing so earns them social acceptance from others (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007).

In conclusion, while Glowacki argues for the effectiveness of strong sanctions to enforce nonviolence norms and promote peace, I contend, from a psychology and behavioral perspective, that social rejection as a reputational sanction can be just as efficacious, if not more so, in upholding these norms. We should not only deprioritize severe punishment but also reconsider the potential and efficacy of social rejection or even other forms of weak punishment. Doing so can offer valuable insights for researchers and policymakers to understand progressive measures against violations of peace. These implications, in both theory and practice, ultimately contribute to the evolution of peace in our society moving forward.