New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Rejection a Real Pain, Brain Study Shows

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It seems the old adage about sticks, stones and hurtful words may need some revision. According to a report published today in the journal Science, social rejection elicits a similar brain response as physical pain does.

Naomi L. Eisenberger of the University of California at Los Angeles and her colleagues recruited 13 college students to play a virtual game of catch while their brains were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). At first, the students were told they could only observe the game. Their computer-generated playmates, which the subjects believed were controlled by unseen people, then began throwing to them. But after about 40 throws, the other players began ignoring the subject with no explanation. The researchers found that this exclusion caused activity in a region of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC. In addition, students who reported feeling the most distress from being snubbed showed the greatest activity in this brain region, which is also involved in pain processing.

The authors note that although similar brain processes are involved in both rejection and pain, differences between the two experiences remain. Still, they conclude, better understanding the underlying commonalities that physical and social pain share may help explain "why it 'hurts' to lose someone we love."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe