New psychology study reveals we overestimate the consequences of declining social invitations

New research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology offers some reassuring insights for anyone who has ever hesitated to decline an invitation to a social event. The study found that people tend to overestimate the negative consequences of saying no to an invitation. Specifically, invitees—those invited to join a social activity—believe that declining an invitation will upset the inviter more than it actually does.

The inspiration for this study came from a very common scenario: the hesitation many people feel when deciding whether to decline a social invitation. Whether it’s a dinner party, a movie night, or a casual hangout, saying no can feel like a difficult social decision. People often worry that declining will make the person who invited them upset or lead to strained relationships. The research team, led by Julian Givi, aimed to explore whether these concerns are valid or if they reflect an exaggerated perception of the negative impact.

“I was invited to a wedding that was a bit of a hassle to go to (it was far away and my significant other could not come). I made myself go because I was worried about the couple getting upset. I wondered if I was possibly overblowing just how upset they would be by me not attending,” explained Givi, an associate professor of marketing at West Virginia University.

Previous studies in social psychology have looked at how people interpret others’ actions versus their thoughts, suggesting that individuals often overestimate how much others focus on their behavior rather than on the deliberations behind that behavior. Building on this idea, Givi and his colleagues set out to test whether invitees tend to exaggerate how much an inviter will focus on the rejection rather than the thought process behind it.

The researchers conducted a series of five studies, using both real-life and hypothetical scenarios. In study 1, participants imagined declining or receiving a rejection to an invitation from a friend to attend a museum exhibit. A total of 406 participants were randomly assigned to either the invitee or inviter role and answered questions about their predictions or reactions regarding the negative consequences of the invitation being declined. The researchers then compared the responses of both groups to measure discrepancies between perceived and actual reactions.

Study 2 took a more real-world approach by recruiting 208 couples who were asked to extend and decline invitations to each other for a social activity, such as going to dinner or watching a movie. In this case, one partner served as the inviter, while the other was instructed to decline the invitation, and both partners then independently recorded their emotional responses. This study used real couples to assess the accuracy of invitees’ predictions in an actual social situation, adding ecological validity to the findings.

Study 3 returned to hypothetical scenarios, but this time with an added “observer” condition. Participants were randomly assigned to take the perspective of an invitee, an inviter, or a neutral observer who witnessed the social interaction from an outside perspective. The scenario involved a friend inviting another to a dinner at a restaurant, and the invitee declining the invitation to stay home. By introducing the observer condition, the researchers tested whether outside perspectives aligned more with the invitee’s exaggerated concerns or the inviter’s more realistic responses.

Study 4 used a similar methodology as Study 3 but personalized the experience by having participants name a real-life friend as the inviter. Participants in both the invitee and inviter roles answered questions regarding their expectations of how much the inviter would focus on the rejection itself versus the invitee’s reasons for declining. This study also used mediation analysis to determine whether invitees’ exaggerated concerns about the consequences of saying no were due to their belief that inviters would focus more on the action of declining rather than the deliberations leading to the decision.

Free daily newsletter

Study 5 took a different approach by having participants play both roles, switching between being an invitee and an inviter. In this study, participants first responded to the scenario either as an invitee or an inviter, and then repeated the process from the opposite role. This design allowed researchers to test whether experiencing the inviter role first would lead invitees to adjust their predictions and better understand how inviters actually feel about declines. The comparison between initial and subsequent responses provided insights into whether taking on the inviter’s perspective influenced invitees’ predictions about the consequences of declining an invitation.

The researchers consistently found that invitees significantly overestimated how negatively the inviter would react to the rejection. Invitees tended to think that the person who invited them would be more disappointed, hurt, or angry than the inviter actually was. This pattern emerged across both hypothetical scenarios and real-life invitations. In fact, invitees also believed that declining an invitation would harm the relationship more than it actually did in the eyes of the inviter.

One key finding was that invitees exaggerated the importance of the rejection itself. They assumed that the inviter would focus heavily on the act of declining, rather than understanding that there was likely a thoughtful decision-making process behind it. Inviters, however, reported that they were more understanding of the situation and often considered the invitee’s reasons for declining.

This misperception, the researchers suggested, could be partly explained by a cognitive bias in which people focus more on their own internal thoughts and struggles than on how others might perceive them. In other words, when invitees decline an invitation, they assume that the inviter is focusing solely on the rejection, while in reality, the inviter may be more empathetic to the reasons behind the decline.

“It is OK to say no to invitations from time to time,” Givi told PsyPost. “Inviters are more understanding than we might expect. Of course, I don’t recommend always saying no, because repeated declines could lead them to be upset and/or you to not get invited any more.”

Although the study provides valuable insights into the social dynamics of declining invitations, there are a few limitations to consider. First, the research largely focused on small, everyday social events like dinners or casual outings. The findings might not extend to larger or more significant events, such as weddings or milestone celebrations, where the social stakes may be higher, and the emotional reactions of inviters might be stronger. Further research is needed to explore how declining invitations to these kinds of events might differ from more casual ones.

Another potential avenue for future research could explore whether the specific reason for declining an invitation affects the inviter’s reaction. In this study, the reason for declining was held constant—participants were instructed to say they simply wanted to stay home and relax. But in real life, people decline invitations for many reasons, such as having a prior commitment or lacking time or resources.

“The psychology involved with extending and receiving invitations has not been explored very much, so I have a few ongoing projects that looks at this topic,” Givi said.

The study, “Saying No: The Negative Ramifications From Invitation Declines Are Less Severe Than We Think,” was authored by Julian Givi and Colleen P. Kirk.