This research examined differences in the interpersonal information processing of socially rejected and average children. Rejected and average fifth-graders were presented with two pieces of videotaped information about peers, making judgments of the peers after each. Two judgment tasks, differing in the extent to which they were self-relevant, were used. The judgments were liking judgments for peers (low self-relevance) and predictions of how the peers would behave toward the self (high self-relevance). Rejected children used the available behavioral information differently than average children to make their predictions of how peers would behave toward them, but did not differ in their liking judgments. These findings were consistent with the hypothesis that rejected children's capabilities to process interpersonal information comparably to better adjusted children break down in highly self-relevant judgments.