Ostracism in the Workplace

Ostracism in the Workplace Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk and Kamila Madeja-Bien

Contents 1 2 3 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptualization of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplace Ostracism in the Context of Workplace Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Consequences of Social Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Antecedents of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Consequences of Workplace Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Towards Prevention and Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cross-References to Other Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 3 5 8 10 14 15 17 19 21 21 22

Abstract

This chapter provides a literature review on workplace ostracism in the context of workplace bullying. First, the context of ostracism in the workplace is conceptualized and distinguished from other phenomena (e.g. workplace deviance, incivility and bullying). A brief history of research on ostracism in the workplace and ways of measuring it are included. Second, a theoretical background is provided, and the most important models of ostracism as well as the outcomes of ostracizing

M. Gamian-Wilk (*) Faculty in Wrocław, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected] K. Madeja-Bien Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected]

# Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018 P. D’Cruz et al. (eds.), Special topics and particular occupations, professions and sectors, Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_2-1

1

2

M. Gamian-Wilk and K. Madeja-Bien

and being ostracized (immediate responses, cognitive and behavioural strategies of coping, and the long-lasting outcomes of being rejected) are described. The focus is on the negative consequences of being ostracized (e.g. antisocial responses, including a drop in empathy and self-regulation). Workplace ostracism antecedents, both macro- and micro-organizational (organizational structure, organizational culture, power structure), and their consequences at the individual level, such as the target’s well-being, and at the organizational level, such as job search behaviour, actual turnover and counterproductive behaviour, are presented. Findings that suggest positive outcomes of being ostracized are also provided (e.g. an increase in work performance, compliance). Based on the multimotive model of responses to rejection, the likelihood of antisocial or prosocial responses to ostracism in the workplace is highlighted. The possible mechanisms, functions and moderators of workplace ostracism are discussed as well, and practical implications are drawn. Finally, in the concluding remarks, future research directions and suggestions for prevention and intervention are suggested.

1

Introduction

Workplace ostracism has been recognized as a serious problem within organizations. Some studies have reported alarming data suggesting that the majority of organization members have either been ostracized or have ostracized others. Findings have revealed that over a 6-month period, 13% of surveyed workers experienced being ignored or rejected (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006), and during a 5-year period, 66% of surveyed workers (Fox & Stallworth, 2005) reported the same experience. Of those who reported being ostracized, 29% stated that coworkers had left the room when they entered, and 18% reported having been moved to an isolated location (2005). The impact of ostracism is severe and ubiquitous. Findings have suggested that even subtle cues, such as withdrawn eye contact (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012a; Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010), or when the source is a computer (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), make people feel rejected and produce negative outcomes. How the subject regards the source of ostracism is not necessary to provoke aversive, immediate responses. Negative effects still occur even when exclusion is unintentional or planned by a computer (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), or when inclusion increases the chance of losing something (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; Van Beest, Williams, & van Dijk, 2011). Despite the significance of the problem, workplace ostracism is a relatively new research area, one which leaves many research questions as of yet unanswered. Ostracism has long been studied in various social science fields (Williams, 1997, 2007), but the concept of ostracism has thus far been understudied in organizational psychology. The aim of the present chapter is to describe ostracism in the workplace. This chapter includes important findings from social science research as well as real-

Ostracism in the Workplace

3

life examples of ostracism and its potential impact on organizational knowledge. The focus is on the antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism. Importantly, ostracism will be described as an aspect of workplace bullying. The similarities and differences between these two phenomena will be highlighted. Finally, the importance of gathering further empirical findings that address organizational problems will be demonstrated. Suggestions for the practical implementation of research for prevention and intervention with respect to workplace ostracism will be presented.

2

Conceptualization of Workplace Ostracism

Although the conceptualization of workplace ostracism is relatively new, the topic has been studied earlier in the contexts of workplace bullying, counterproductive behaviour and social influence strategies. As Robinson and Schabram (2017) noted, workplace ostracism has been present in the organizational literature since the 1970s. However, ostracism has been treated as one element of broader phenomena, such as workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998), antisocial behaviour (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), dysfunctional behaviour (Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998), counterproductive work behaviour (Sackett & DeVore, 2001), social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), organizational misbehaviour (Vardi & Weiner, 1996) or workplace bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Salin, 2001). Workplace ostracism was seen as passive undermining behaviour (withholding behaviours, e.g. failing to provide a co-worker with important information) that causes harm to the organization and its employees (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Ignoring others and withdrawing help were also identified as social influence tactics (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1997). However, there is growing evidence to suggest that workplace ostracism is a distinct construct (Edwards, 2000). Ostracism may coexist or be an element of other forms of workplace deviance, aggression and bullying, as will be highlighted later, but some data suggest that it is both theoretically and empirically a separate concept (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Ostracism is defined as being ignored or excluded by individuals or groups, being treated as invisible or denying one’s existence (Williams, 2007). The terms social ostracism, rejection and exclusion are often seen as interrelated (2007). Ostracism in the workplace context is defined from the actor perspective as failure to engage another when it is socially appropriate to do so (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2013) or from the target perspective as the perception of being ignored or excluded by others (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Robinson and Schabram (2017) distinguished two forms of this omission to engage: personal ostracism and task ostracism. Personal ostracism means not including a particular employee in interactions of a personal or purely social nature, such as being excluded from conversations, not being given social support or not being invited to join in during coffee breaks, lunch or other social events. Task ostracism means not engaging a co-worker in task-related interactions, not inviting a co-worker to project meetings, excluding a

4


co-worker from projects, omitting a co-worker when sending an email or not answering emails from a co-worker. Workplace ostracism is perceived as distinct from other examples of workplace mistreatment in terms of both conceptual and empirical differences (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Robinson and Schabram (2017) stressed that ostracism is much more ambiguous, may be unintentional and may play a functional role. In a correlation study using questionnaires to measure various forms of workplace mistreatment, it was shown that workplace ostracism is different from other phenomena, such as workplace deviance, incivility or bullying (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Ignoring or excluding an individual within an organization may be used as an interpersonal tactic or a leadership practice (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Ostracism has an important group function in both animals and humans. Groups become stronger and more cohesive by ostracizing members who are weak or who display significantly different characteristics. Thus, ostracism is not administered randomly. People tend to reject those who are socially unpleasant or difficult in interactions, lack important abilities, possess stigmatizing characteristics or are unattractive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People prefer and include those who possess desirable characteristics, such as a pleasant appearance and/or being compliant, friendly or helpful (Leary, 2005). Conversely, those who disagree and do not conform to the group are perceived as untrustworthy and have a greater risk of being excluded, especially by individuals who are highly concerned with moral standards (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). In essence, ostracism may fulfil three functions: to protect a group from unsafe or uncooperative individuals; to correct another person’s behaviour, thus sending cues of potential exclusion that should be interpreted as signals to change and adapt to the group; and to expel individuals who do not correct their behaviour and conform with the group (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017). Further, ostracism may be beneficial for the excluding actors, as excluding or rejecting others may fortify basic needs, such as positive self-esteem, sense of belonging, control and meaningful existence, although the pattern of results is inconsistent (Zadro et al., 2017). Research on workplace ostracism has shown that ignoring or rejecting a coworker may enable others to avoid conflicts, may calm tension and may avoid the expression of negative emotions (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). Moreover, ostracism is perceived as a more acceptable activity for organizational members than bullying or other forms of mistreatment (O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Sometimes, ostracism may be used intentionally as a tool for conflict resolution, either by withdrawing from an undesirable relationship or by avoiding the task of giving criticism (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). However, we must remember that although ostracism may be functional for a group, it is not for an individual. Exclusion cues are experienced as serious threats to survival, compelling ostracized individuals to become more sensitive to the cues and more motivated to change their behaviour to gain or regain acceptance by the group. Therefore, excluded individuals must change their behaviour and conform to group expectations. In other words, ostracism is functional: If an individual can adapt to the


5

group, then group cohesiveness will be increased. However, sometimes, it is impossible for an individual to conform because the group has difficult or unclear expectations or their values conflict with the individual’s values or norms. In such circumstances, it is better for the individual to quit the group. Ostracism may also be dysfunctional for the group. While group diversity may be a challenge, it also provides an opportunity to introduce new ideas or values. By expelling unique members, the group may be cohesive but less diverse.

3

Workplace Ostracism in the Context of Workplace Bullying

Workplace ostracism is one of the unrecognized problems within organizations, unless it is in actuality one of the symptoms of workplace bullying. Yet, workplace ostracism has been identified as a phenomenon distinct from other forms of workplace mistreatment (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Below, we will discuss workplace ostracism as both an aspect of workplace bullying and a phenomenon possessing features distinct from bullying. Bullying is defined as a process in which an employee is repeatedly and systematically exposed to negative behaviours that he or she is unable to defend against (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). Undoubtedly, ostracism is present in workplace bullying. Generally, isolating the affected worker from others is the core activity of bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Leymann, 1996). All typologies of workplace bullying highlight isolation of the target as one of the categories of negative behaviour (e.g. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Leymann, 1996). When considering two main categories, work and personal bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011), exclusion and rejection may represent both work-related behaviours and personal bullying. Ostracism as work-related bullying may involve offering meaningless tasks or no tasks at all. Personal bullying means exclusion from formal meetings, correspondence and informal social networks. Ostracized individuals most frequently report being socially ostracized (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003), while rumour-mongering and social isolation are the most frequently reported effects of bullying, according to the targets (Vartia, 1996). The reasons for workplace ostracism and bullying may be similar: Non-compliant individuals are perceived as untrustworthy and tend to be excluded (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016). They can also be bullied (Archer, 1999). Bullying is interpersonal in nature, and ostracism has been reported by targeted individuals as one of its core negative activities (e.g. Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996; Vartia, 1996; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). Workplace bullying often aims to expel a target from the workplace community (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). Being excluded or rejected from a group at a workplace is, in the case of bullying, a typical form of relational and social aggression (Field, 2014). Moreover, bullying involves various forms of ostracism: physical isolation when the target is excluded from others, for instance, by being assigned a room far apart from other workers; social ostracism, which involves ignoring or excluding the target from social

6


activities or preventing him or her from having the opportunity to speak with other workers; and cyberostracism, which includes ignoring an employee’s emails or phone calls (Williams & Zadro, 2005). In the workplace bullying literature, ostracism is treated as either physical aggression, such as moving a target somewhere separate from co-workers (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Radliff, 2014), or relational and social aggression, such as ignoring a target by not inviting him or her to meetings, thereby improving one’s social position and dominance at the target’s expense (Field, 2014). Silent treatment leads to a broadening of power asymmetries between the perpetrator and the target. Therefore, by using ostracism, perpetrators gain power and control over their group of co-workers. Workplace ostracism and bullying are similar in other ways. First, both acts may be carried out deliberately or unintentionally. Although there has been debate over whether workplace bullying is intentional, as are other forms of aggression (see Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011; Fox & Lituchy, 2012; Keashly & Jagatic, 2011), some theoretical models (Neuman & Baron, 2011) and empirical findings suggest that a bully’s behaviour may be partly a result of an ill-functioning organization (Hauge, 2010; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Hauge et al., 2011; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011) and that perpetrators may display psychosomatic impairment if they are falsely accused of bullying (Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011). Second, both workplace bullying and ostracism are connected with experiencing a lack of control over the situation, causing a target to feel powerless and helpless. Third, both workplace ostracism and bullying can involve active rejection, such as expelling a worker from a project team or separating a worker from other workers, and more passive behaviours, such as exclusion or the withholding of contact or connection with co-workers. Finally, the consequences of chronic ostracism can be compared to the consequences of workplace bullying. Chronically excluded or rejected individuals suffer from learned helplessness, isolation and depression and may retreat from opportunities for reinclusion (Ren et al., 2017). They may experience failure in any attempt to fulfil their inclusionary needs. Wesselmann and Williams (2013) suggested that chronically ostracized individuals resort to behaviours focused on fulfilling power and provocation needs and therefore develop hostile cognitions, which can lead to aggressive behaviour. Some real-life events confirm this suggestion: For example, chronically ostracized individuals may be prone to extreme violence (e.g. school shootings) or attempted suicide (Ren et al., 2017). Therefore, it is possible that ostracized workers may bully others (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). Anger was one of the emotions most frequently expressed by individuals exposed to workplace bullying (Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). A victim–offender cycle has been demonstrated in some studies (Ma, 2001): Socially excluded individuals, including those subjected to workplace bullying, tend to retaliate against others (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), and aggression is likely when social rejection of this type is characterized by a lack of control over an unpleasant situation (Williams & Zadro, 2005). It has been shown, for instance, that individuals exposed to workplace bullying (thus ostracized) display increased hostility, emotional self-aggression (Gamian-Wilk & Bjørkelo, in review) and a tendency to seek revenge (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006).


7

Bullying others as a result of being ostracized has been illustrated in studies on prison bullying (Ireland & Archer, 2002; Palmer & Thakordas, 2005). In longitudinal studies, it has been shown that lowered agreeableness is an outcome of exposure to bullying (Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015; Podsiadly & Gamian-Wilk, 2017). Therefore, being chronically ostracized or bullied produces similar negative consequences in terms of emotional function and the tendency towards antisocial responses. It is possible that both bullied and chronically excluded or rejected individuals suffer from a deprived sense of belonging, lower self-esteem and, especially, lack of control and a feeling of meaninglessness, all of which may be connected with aggression (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). However, workplace ostracism may also be perceived as a phenomenon distinct from workplace bullying. Ostracism may consist of a single aversive episode, while bullying, by definition, is a process during which various negative activities escalate over time. Research on the 10-item Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS) indicates that workplace ostracism is distinct from workplace bullying, workplace aggression, undermining and interpersonal justice (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). WOS statements refer to silent treatment in the workplace context, including social ostracism (e.g. “Others ignored you at work”) and physical ostracism (e.g. “Others left the area when you entered”). Although scales measuring workplace bullying (e. g. Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R)) include statements connected with being ignored or isolated, data from the WOS indicate that workplace ostracism is not correlated with bullying (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). Comparing the outcomes of both experiences (workplace ostracism and bullying), O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl and Banki (2014) found that ostracism is as aversive, or even more aversive, in the short run (even a single episode) and has longer-lasting consequences for workers than workplace bullying. The researchers demonstrated that workplace ostracism may be even more psychologically harmful than bullying. Being rejected by co-workers frustrates one’s sense of belonging and self-esteem and is connected with psychological withdrawal, depression and health problems. Importantly, the research results indicate that when including both exposure to workplace bullying and being isolated in the model, only ostracism was related to negative psychological outcomes. A threatened sense of belonging mediated the effect of ostracism on well-being and work-related attitudes (low job satisfaction and turnover intentions). Moreover, exclusion and rejection (but not bullying) were related to workplace turnover 3 years later (O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014). The researchers were also interested in what employees thought about workplace ostracism; thus, they measured lay perceptions of how ubiquitous and harmful workplace ostracism is (2014). Unfortunately, workplace ostracism was perceived as more acceptable, common and innocuous than bullying (2014). These findings suggest that workplace ostracism is very dangerous. Although objectively it causes tremendous negative outcomes, it can subjectively be perceived as a harmless activity. Thus, both perspectives, ostracism as a bullying behaviour and ostracism as a phenomenon distinct from bullying, are reasonable. Workplace bullying may be

8


perceived as a construct involving interpersonal rejection as a secondary feature (Leary, 2005).

4

Theoretical Background of Workplace Ostracism

Since the 1990s, there has been growing interest in research on ostracism, mainly for practical reasons, with the beginning of research on social rejection and exclusion being connected with the need to belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) gathered substantial evidence on the impact of the motivation to belong on human behaviour, emotions and thoughts. The basic tenet of sociometer theory is that achieving a sense of acceptance and belonging is essential for self-esteem and psychosomatic wellbeing (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). An individual’s self-esteem is directly dependent on his or her perceived status of inclusion in valuable relationships. The basic desire to belong has evolutionary origins: Humans’ dependence on each other guarantees survival and reproduction. We must cooperate and form groups and supportive relationships in order to persist as a species. A threatened sense of belonging immediately generates lowered self-esteem. Negative affect and lowered self-esteem are the immediate responses to social rejection (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). The construct of inclusion versus exclusion involves a continuum ranging from “maximum inclusion”, in which individuals tend to maintain relationships and seek the company of others, to “maximal exclusion”, in which individuals intend to ignore or reject others (Leary, 2005). Therefore, the concept of the need to belong is the most important theoretical foundation for research on social ostracism. One of the most prominent and comprehensive models of social ostracism is Williams’ (2009) temporal needs threat (TNT) model, which was developed on the basis of real-life examples and findings provided by various research methods (e.g. experimental, diary studies and qualitative interviews). This model will be presented in detail, as it provides important suggestions for future research on workplace ostracism. The TNT model characterizes ostracism along four attribute dimensions, describes three stages of response to being ostracized and identifies its potential antecedents and moderators (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017; Williams, 1997, 2007, 2009; Williams & Zadro, 2005). The dimensions of ostracism are modality, motive, quantity and clarity. Modality concerns the form of ostracism: physical, social and cyber. One may be physically ostracized by banishment, that is, being separated from others, or may be socially ostracized in face-to-face interaction by being treated as invisible in the presence of others or by a lack of response to emails, phone calls or communication via social networks (cyberostracism). The motive dimension includes five reasons why ostracism is used: “not ostracism”, role-prescribed, defensive, punitive and oblivious ostracism. Someone may ignore an individual or group unintentionally, for example, by being preoccupied with something else (not ostracism). Ostracism may also be connected with a role, such as avoiding a conversation with other passengers on a bus or limiting conversation with a waiter while with clients (role-prescribed ostracism). Ostracism may be


9

used intentionally, either for self-protective reasons, such as protecting oneself from rejection or negative treatment (defensive ostracism), or to punish others (punitive ostracism). Oblivious ostracism refers to situations where a target feels invisible (whether the source of the ostracism intends to cause this reaction or not) and not important enough to be punished. Oblivious ostracism, unlike other motives, is connected with a target’s perception. The quantity dimension refers to the intensity of ostracism, from very subtle instances of ignoring (e.g. omitting eye contact) to extreme forms of rejection (e.g. exile or imprisonment). The causal clarity dimension of experiencing ostracism may be connected either with being unsure whether, in a certain situation, others ignore or exclude an individual (especially in informal settings) or with ambiguous reasons for why the target feels he or she is being ostracized. The greater the ambiguity in reasoning about ostracism, the more space is left for the excluded individual to make various interpretations of the situation: One may blame the self or develop situational explanations (which are less harmful for the individual). These four dimensions reflect different aspects of ostracism, each of which generates various potential outcomes (Williams & Zadro, 2005). Although the taxonomic dimensions of ostracism are important in understanding the phenomenon, the core of Williams’ model postulates fundamental needs threat and reactions (immediate, short-term and long-term responses) to ostracism (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Williams & Zadro, 2005). During Stage 1 (reflexive reactions), immediate responses to ostracism occur, with ostracized individuals experiencing negative mood and frustration over basic needs (belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence). Additionally, individuals suffer social pain (Tchalova & Eisenberger, 2017). According to Williams (2009), humans are sensitive to the slightest cue that they are being ostracized, which can in turn elicit depressed mood, needs frustration and social pain, in order to avoid danger and survive. Immediate responses to ostracism are experienced by everyone, with few situational and dispositional moderators (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). In Stage 2, reflection and recovery occur. This stage begins within minutes of the ostracism event (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Wirth & Williams, 2009). Individuals tend to use cognitive and behavioural coping strategies, with immediate negative responses to ostracism (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). Detecting the pain of being excluded may motivate an individual to undertake one of three cognitive strategies: focusing on attributes of the aversive experience, taking a third-person perspective or reminding himself or herself of positive social relationships (2015). Cognitive strategies help reconceptualize and reduce the uncertainty associated with the ostracism event. Ostracized individuals may also engage in behavioural strategies with either prosocial (e.g. being nice and helpful to rejecters or to other people) or antisocial responses (e.g. aggression). Both types of reactions facilitate threatened needs recovery. However, according to Williams (2009), prosocial responses should fortify inclusionary needs (belonging and positive selfesteem) because fulfilling these needs helps restore social bonds, whereas antisocial

10


responses should fortify power or provocation needs (control and meaningful existence) as these behaviours help gain social influence over others. If ostracism is long-lasting, then needs frustration will persist. When recovery strategies fail, an individual will enter Stage 3: resignation. In this stage, an individual will experience acceptance of needs loss in several ways: alienation (as a result of the need-to-belong threat), depression (as a result of the need-for-positive-selfesteem threat), learned helplessness (as a result of the need-to-control threat) and unworthiness (as a result of the need-for-meaningful-existence threat) (Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). One of the most important problems, empirically and practically, is the paradox of antisocial and prosocial responses to social exclusion. It is essential to have insight into the circumstances, of both moderators and mediators, in which a particular pattern of reactions is displayed. Scott and Thau (2013) proposed a solution: If exclusion is less final (less durable, less severe or less inevitable), then participants will have opportunities for reinclusion after an episode of ostracism instigated by a few group members rather than the whole group or an organizational authority. In this situation, individuals tend to display more prosocial than antisocial responses after the experience of being ignored or rejected. Smart Richman and Leary (2009), in their multimotive model of reactions to interpersonal rejection experiences, proposed an alternative answer to the question of paradoxical reactions to ostracism. They posited that the type of response to ostracism will depend on an individual’s construal of the basis for the rejection event. Individuals have one or more of six possible perceptions involving the value of the damaged relationship: perceived costs of the rejection, relationship value, expectations of relational repair, the possibility of relational alternatives, the fairness of the rejection and the pervasiveness or chronicity of the rejection. Thus, construals mediate the relationship between an event that connotes rejection and the type of motivated response that is chosen (seeking acceptance, harming others and withdrawal). Socially appealing responses are likely when there are high perceived costs of rejection, when one expects that a relationship may be repaired, when a relationship is highly valued and/or when there is no possibility of alternative relationships. In the case of chronic rejection, when individuals perceive the rejection as unfair, have little hope of repairing a relationship and perceive it as not being valuable, they tend to behave aggressively. Withdrawal is likely when rejection is chronic, the relationship is not perceived as valuable and expectations of relational repair are low.

4.1

Consequences of Social Ostracism

Ostracism is a painful and aversive experience. Being excluded generates severe immediate and long-term negative consequences. Various measurement methods are used to indicate the power of immediate responses to ostracism, including self-report scales, physiological measures and neuroimaging research. However, most research on ostracism has been conducted in experimental settings where participants experienced being either excluded (e.g. deliberately not selected to participate in a task,


11

not being given a ball in a computer ball-tossing game or being told they were going to end up alone in the future) or included. These findings clearly indicate that the effect sizes, as reported in studies of ostracism responses, are high (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015; Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017) and that ostracism affects individuals regardless of personal or situational factors (Williams, 2009). In this section, a review of research findings based on experimental studies of ostracism will be presented in order to enhance understanding of the danger of workplace ostracism. In his early work on social exclusion, Leary (1990) indicated that being excluded generates negative emotions, such as social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness and depression. Findings from experimental studies indicate a similar pattern of results, in which rejection leads to feelings such as sadness, distress, anxiety or anger (for a review, see Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Hurt feelings occur as a result of a threat to one’s sense of belonging (Leary, 2017; Leary & Springer, 2000; MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Being ignored and rejected threatens self-esteem (Baumeister, DeWall, & Vohs, 2009; Blackhart, Knowles, Nelson, & Baumeister, 2009; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009). It has been found that even a minimal ostracism manipulation (not receiving eye contact) influenced participants’ implicit self-esteem in an unrelated word association task (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). Rejection generates several stress symptoms, including greater salivary cortisol levels (Blackhart, Eckel, & Tice, 2007), lower body temperature (IJzerman et al., 2012) and transient slowing of the heart rate (Moor, Crone, & van der Molen, 2010). Moreover, ostracism hurts, which is apparent both metaphorically in language (being excluded or rejected is connected with such terms as “suffering” and “death”) and literally—as a consequence of being ostracized, an individual experiences social pain, which shares the same neurological system as physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2005; Tchalova & Eisenberger, 2017; Wesselmann, Nairne, & Williams, 2012b). Ostracism also leads to decreased performance, as being excluded or rejected impairs self-regulation and increases impulsiveness (Baker & Baumeister, 2017). Experimental studies demonstrated that participants who imagined their future alone performed poorly on cognitive tasks (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002), displayed lower endurance when completing a task (Baumeister & DeWall, 2005) and reacted more slowly (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). Worsened self-regulation by excluded individuals is also connected with an increased tendency to eat more, and to eat unhealthy food (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). Unfortunately, research results suggest that ostracism affects not just the target but both observers (Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009) and rejecters as well (Zadro et al., 2017). Witnessing another person being rejected worsens an observer’s mood and frustrates his or her basic needs (Wesselmann, Bagg, & Williams, 2009). Ostracizing may, on the one hand, foster basic needs, especially when a group excludes an individual. In such cases, the perpetrators may experience a sense of belonging. However, rejecting and excluding another person may also cause hurt and the frustration of fundamental needs, especially when a rejecter stays alone (Zadro et al., 2017).

12


The initial reactions to ostracism (negative feelings, basic needs frustration and social pain) serve as cues which, once detected, motivate individuals to respond in ways that maintain or re-fulfil threatened needs. Several factors and cognitive strategies influence recovery. If individuals have a chance to attribute being ostracized to temporary group membership, then they will recover from negative moods and needs frustration more quickly than those who attribute ostracism to permanent group membership, such as gender (Goodwin, Williams, & Carter-Sowell, 2010; Masten, Telzer, & Eisenberger, 2011; Wirth & Williams, 2009). Instructing them to think of an ostracism event from the third-person perspective has been shown to facilitate recovery, while recalling the event from the first-person perspective does not help (Lau, Moulds, & Richardson, 2009). Therefore, distancing oneself from group membership or taking an observer’s perspective can help one cope with the immediate responses to ostracism. For example, one may cope with ostracism by appropriately interpreting the exclusion situation (e.g. finding external reasons for exclusion, not blaming oneself) and by not thinking about the painful event. These strategies likely decrease the ambiguity of the ostracism event, thus reducing selfblame and helping to maintain positive self-esteem. Importantly, receiving social support after experiencing exclusion helps manage immediate negative responses. Reminders of positive social relationships in which the participant is involved, such as family, or even symbolic or parasocial relationships can facilitate recovery from ostracism (Derrick, Gabriel, & Hugenberg, 2009; Epley, Akalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008; Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005; Laurin, Schumann, & Holmes, 2014; McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007a). Moreover, engaging in religious or spiritual behaviour may serve as an effective strategy for coping with immediate responses to ostracism (Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010; Aydin et al., 2012). Focusing on valuable relationships helps to restore one’s sense of belonging and can reduce the risk of aggression after experiencing ostracism. Individual differences, such as high interdependent self-construal by defining oneself as a group member (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013), social anxiety (Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006) and a tendency towards depression and rumination (Poznanski, 2010, cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013), are connected with slower recovery time. Moreover, rumination after experiencing rejection delays recovery (Swim & Williams, 2008, as cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). In one study, after experiencing ostracism, participants were told to either focus on completing a cognitive task or to write down their thoughts about possible reasons for being excluded. Those participants who were distracted from thinking about ostracism fully recovered from their negative moods and needs frustration (Swim & Williams, 2008, cited in Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). Ostracized individuals use not only cognitive strategies but behavioural strategies as well: prosocial or aggressive responses to ostracism (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). Both research findings and real-life examples indicate that ostracized individuals behave more antisocially than do non-ostracized individuals (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Philips, 2003; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Twenge, 2005; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice,


13

& Stucke, 2001; Twenge et al., 2007a). Being rejected by spouses has been shown to be related to spousal homicide (Barnard, Vera, Vera, & Newman, 1982). School shootings are most often carried out by teenagers with a history of being bullied, teased or ostracized by peers (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003), and stigmatized children tend to be more aggressive (Asher, Rose, & Gabriel, 2001). Numerous experimental findings provide additional evidence to support a link between being ostracized and antisocial behaviour (for a review, see Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Twenge, 2005). Aggression after exclusion is often focused not only on rejecters but also on innocent people (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001) and occurs especially when ostracism is connected with lack of control over an unpleasant situation (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). Findings support the notion that aggressive behaviour may reinforce a threatened need for control (Schoel, Eck, & Greifeneder, 2014; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). On the other hand, other research indicates that ostracized individuals seek opportunities for reinclusion and thus undertake prosocial behaviours. When given the opportunity for reconnection, ostracized participants behaved less aggressively (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010; Twenge et al., 2007b). As the immediate responses to ostracism constitute important cues for subsequent responses, individuals experiencing rejection can display increased attention to social cues (Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young, & Claypool, 2010; Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, & Claypool, 2008; Böckler, Hömke, & Sebanz, 2014; DeWall et al., 2011). For example, Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young and Claypool (2010) found that participants who were reminded of past social exclusion preferred faces with genuine smiles to faces with deceptive smiles, as compared to control group participants. The frustrated inclusionary needs mediated the relation between exclusion and the desire to interact with faces displaying genuine smiles. Individuals strive to be perceived positively in order to maintain social bonds. Importantly, experimental research has demonstrated that ostracized individuals focus more on reinclusion with new people, rather than with the rejecters (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007; Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). Having a choice, ostracized individuals (especially women) tend to engage in collective tasks rather than individual tasks (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Excluded participants showed increased sensitivity to social influence as they conformed to others (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000b), complied with requests (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008), mimicked other people’s behaviours (Lakin & Chartrand, 2005) and obeyed direct commands (Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014). Therefore, the tendency to re-affiliate increases rejected individuals’ sensitivity to social cues, indicating opportunities to re-establish a sense of belonging. However, there is also some experimental evidence to suggest that ostracized participants tend to withdraw and seek solitude (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2016; Wesselmann, Williams, Ren, & Hales, 2014). All behavioural response patterns to ostracism (antisocial, prosocial and withdrawal) have empirical support. However, it is of vital importance to clarify under which circumstances particular responses will occur. Williams’ (2009) assumption

14


about inclusionary needs being fortified by prosocial behaviours, and power or provocation needs being fortified by antisocial behaviours, has gained empirical support. The potential to restore one’s sense of control leads to a decrease in aggressiveness (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). On the other hand, given the opportunity to restore a sense of belonging reduces the tendency to be aggressive (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010). It is also possible that contradictory behavioural tendencies coexist (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Sommer & Bernieri, 2015), but further research is needed to determine which is the dominant response, according to various moderators and mediators. The above-described theoretical models of ostracism and the review of empirical data on exclusion and rejection may serve as a summary of the research on workplace ostracism generated thus far, and may provide inspiration to conduct further research. In the next sections, focus will be placed on empirical data on workplace ostracism. First, the antecedents of workplace ostracism will be presented, followed by its consequences.

5

Antecedents of Workplace Ostracism

Both individual and organizational factors must be regarded as potential predictors of workplace ostracism, as they have been identified in cross-sectional studies as well as in theoretical considerations (Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Individuals who differ in any way from group norms are in danger of being ignored or rejected. Workers who identify themselves as members of minority groups are often discriminated against, for example, African Americans (Deitch et al., 2003), foreign-language speakers (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and people with visible disabilities, physical illnesses (Wynne & McAnaney, 2009) or mental illnesses (Marr, Thau, Aquino, & Barclay, 2012) have reported being excluded or rejected. Some personal traits have been shown to be correlated with being ostracized in the workplace, such as low self-esteem (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001), high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low extraversion (Wu, Wei, & Hui, 2011). Several organizational factors are related to workplace ostracism. Taking macroorganizational features into consideration, Robinson and Schabram (2017) highlighted organizational structure, organizational culture and organizational diversity in relation to workplace ostracism. Workplace ostracism may be generated by the organization and from the type of work, such as physical distance between employees and low psychological or task interdependence among organizational members, respectively. In line with Williams’ (2009) model, distances between work units and the increasing use of virtual communication may be connected with cyberostracism and related to increased feelings of exclusion and a decreased sense of belonging (Harpaz, 2002). In addition, aspects of organizational culture, such as competitiveness, may lead to ostracism. In competitive organizations, workers focused only on their own outcomes may exclude others either unintentionally or deliberately to gain valuable resources. Moreover, ignoring co-


15

workers may be normative and even approved as part of the organizational culture. That is, excluding others may be tolerated or modelled by managers, and then copied by subordinates. There are organizational cultures in which members routinely ignore one another; thus, many behaviours are not interpreted as ostracism (Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Ostracism may also occur in response to organizational diversity. As mentioned above, employees who are different (e.g. coming from various countries, speaking various languages, having various norms and expectations) may feel excluded (e.g. Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006; Kistner, Metzler, Gatlin, & Risi, 1993). One experimental study on linguistic ostracism showed how an English-speaking participant experienced negative emotions when colleagues began speaking another language, that is, Russian (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009). Among micro-organizational aspects, Robinson and Schabram (2017) drew attention to power, work significance and performance. Silent treatment, for example, may be used as a tool for gaining power (see also Gamian-Wilk, Salton Meyer, & Wilk, 2017). By excluding a co-worker from social networks or valuable information, one can gain control over him or her. Conversely, the targeted individual is left without opportunities to influence others. Organizational members who are more engaged tend to have a higher commitment to work; those who identify with the workplace may suffer more strongly if excluded (Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006). Finally, workers who are perceived as underperforming may be ostracized.

6

Consequences of Workplace Ostracism

The negative consequences of workplace ostracism are noticeable at both individual and organizational levels. An employee subjected to ostracism suffers from hurt feelings, decreased psychological and physical well-being, worsened work-related attitudes and negative behavioural responses. In line with Williams’ (2009) model, exposure to workplace ostracism generates negative emotions and basic needs frustration. Ignored or rejected employees have reported experiencing a negative mood (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data), anxiety (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Williams et al., 2000a; Xu, 2012, after Robinson & Schabram, 2017), anger, embarrassment (Williams, Bernieri, Faulkner, Grahe, & Gada-Jain, 2000a) and emotional exhaustion (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012). Exposure to workplace ostracism also evokes needs threat (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data), decreased self-esteem (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) and reduced sense of meaningfulness and belonging (O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Being ostracized also produces harmful effects, such as sleep disturbances (Pereira, Meier, & Elfering, 2013), vulnerability and paranoia (Williams et al., 2000a) and impairments in psychological and physical well-being (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Stress also influences other areas of function, leading to work–family conflict (Liu et al., 2013).

16


The negative outcomes of workplace ostracism as experienced by an individual have an impact on work effectiveness and therefore on the organization as a whole. Ostracized workers have reported negative attitudes towards their workplace, coworkers and/or supervisors, including higher job tension (Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012), diminished job satisfaction (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate, 2006) and decreased job commitment (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015). Excluded or rejected employees not only display withdrawal (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) but may also develop the intention to leave (Cottingham, Erickson, Diefendorff, & Bromley, 2013; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Zheng, Yang, Ngo, Liu, & Jiao, 2016) and search for a new job (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly et al., 2014; Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013). Co-workers who speak a foreign language may also feel ostracized and subsequently experience increased anger and a drop in creativity (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009). Such negative outcomes of workplace ostracism at the individual level are likely to have a severe impact on the overall work climate and general productivity. However, further studies are needed to examine this issue. As findings on experimentally evoked ostracism suggest, exposure to workplace exclusion and rejection may produce paradoxical motives that lead to either antisocial or prosocial responses. On the one hand, ostracized workers may exhibit deviant or counterproductive behaviours (Fatima, 2016; Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Hitlan & Noel, 2009; Yan, Zhou, Long, & Ji, 2014), decreased work performance (Leung, Wu, Chen, & Young, 2011; O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2015), decreased citizenship behaviour at work (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Scott & Thau, 2013), a greater tendency to withhold interpersonal citizenship behaviour (Wu, Liu, Kwan, & Lee, 2016; Zhang, Ye, & Ferreira-Meyers, 2017) and greater engagement in interpersonally harmful behaviours, such as slander, verbal abuse and an unwillingness to help co-workers (Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007). In one study, excluded nurses displayed a lower quality of care for their patients (Cottingham, Erickson, Diefendorff, & Bromley, 2013). In another, organizational constraints (e.g. lack of co-worker support or lack of essential materials needed to work) caused employees to stop performing extra-role tasks and citizenship behaviours (Jex, Adams, Bachrach, & Sorenson, 2003). On the other hand, workplace ostracism may produce positive outcomes, such as prosocial behaviour or an increase in productivity (Balliet & Ferris, 2013; Williams & Sommer, 1997; Xu, Huang, & Robinson, 2017, after Robinson & Schabram, 2017). Based on the multimotive model of responses to rejection (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009), prosocial responses to ostracism in the workplace are more likely if workplace relationships are perceived as valuable and reparable. The costs of rejection are high, especially if the worker’s previous work commitment was high. Negative outcomes have been shown to be lower when excluded workers felt a strong sense of identification with their organization (Xu, Huang, & Robinson, 2017). Moreover, in line with Scott and Thau (2013), temporary workplace exclusion (employees’ anticipated social reconnection) was positively related to prosocial responses and negatively related to socially undermining behaviours. In contrast,


17

severely excluded workers were more likely to adopt aggressive responses (Scott & Thau, 2013). The mere threat of being rejected (e.g. reading examples of social ostracism at work) generates socially valuable responses. Employees focused on social exclusion have displayed greater compliance (Gamian-Wilk, 2013). However, the pattern of results is completely different in the case of chronic rejection, which occurs in workplace bullying. In line with Smart Richman and Leary’s (2009) model, individuals exposed to bullying react with antisocial responses: They do not treat the threat of social exclusion as a motivation to undertake socially desirable behaviours. Instead, they respond with decreased compliance. A similar pattern of results was generated in the case of employees exposed to workplace bullying: As soon as the negative intentions and hostility of the bully were recognized, the targets began with dialogue, constructive conflict-resolving solutions and harder work; moreover, the targets attempted to be more amicable, focusing on both their own and the other party’s interests. They sought to avoid mistakes and any behaviour that would contribute further to the conflict (Rayner, 1997; Zapf & Gross, 2001). However, integrating, task-oriented strategies were often shown to be ineffective. As a result, many employees exposed to bullying have withdrawn or adapted to inconvenient conditions (Zapf & Gross, 2001). This finding is also in line with Smart Richman and Leary’s multimotive model of reactions to rejection, which suggests that chronic rejection generates antisocial responses. Other findings have provided further empirical verification of the multimotive model; acceptance-seeking behaviours were shown to dominate when relationship-promoting construals were developed after experiencing ostracism. In one experimental study, it was found that the perception that workplace relationships were valuable led to a higher compliance rate (Gamian-Wilk, Madeja-Bien, & Dolinski, unpublished data). These findings provide support for the notion that strong identification with one’s work group, a sense of loyalty to that group and the perception that relationships with co-workers are highly valuable and worth repairing—and that reinclusion is possible—result in positive behaviours, even when ostracism occurs.

7

Towards Prevention and Intervention

Ostracism is an inevitable element within organizations (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Robinson & Schabram, 2017; Williams, 2009). However, the research findings described above permit conclusions to be drawn about how to avoid ostracism or at least enhance coping mechanisms when ostracism occurs. Ostracism is less likely in cohesive and well-managed groups; thus, prevention efforts should be directed towards creating group cohesiveness, increasing organizational loyalty and developing social networks. In conflict situations, employees should be reassured that they will be supported. Therefore, supervisors and human resource (HR) employees should monitor difficult situations and provide information on strategies for coping with conflicts. Employees who believe that difficult situations can be resolved are

18


more likely to cooperate and less likely to undertake aggressive responses (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). When employees perceive that workplace relationships are highly valued and reparable (2009), prosocial responses can be expected, even when workplace ostracism occurs. A workplace canteen may play an important role as a place where people can connect, and it has been shown that well-prepared food may counter the negative consequences of ostracism and feelings of loneliness (Troisi & Gabriel, 2011). In each organization, HR officers should be provided with useful intervention tools. Tools may be focused on helping to reconceptualize and reduce the uncertainty connected with ostracism events. Ostracized workers within an organization should avoid ruminating on the rejection event, as rumination hinders recovery and prolongs negative mood and needs frustration (Wesselmann, Ren, Swim, & Williams, 2013; Zhang, Ye, & Ferreira-Meyers, 2017). As the findings suggest, distraction tasks can help overcome immediate, negative ostracism responses. It has been shown that a brief (12 min) focused-attention lesson that instructs ostracized individuals to focus on their breathing or let their minds wander before the ostracism episode can be helpful (Molet, Macquet, Lefebvre, & Williams, 2013). As coping strategies for immediate responses to ostracism, it is reasonable to instruct ostracized workers about how to distance themselves by appropriately interpreting the exclusion situation (e.g. finding objective reasons why a co-worker did not reply to an email rather than blaming oneself), taking an observer’s perspective or reminding themselves of their positive social relationships (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). It is important to highlight employees’ personal resources, such as specific competencies or optimism, as well. A sense of humour has also been found to be helpful when dealing with workplace ostracism (Neves & Cunha, 2017). As religious symbols and reminders of one’s close relationships may satisfy inclusionary needs when actual workplace relationships are unavailable, it is reasonable for ostracized workers to have some personal belongings (e.g. family pictures) in their work environment, such as on their desks or in their desk drawers. In the case of chronic ostracism, as well as its reflexive effects, pharmacological intervention may be advisable (Ren, Hales, & Williams, 2017; Wesselmann & Williams, 2013). It has been shown that regular doses of acetaminophen (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010) and oxytocin, a social-affiliative hormone (Gaertner, 2009, after Wesselmann & Williams, 2013), may reduce the magnitude of physical and social pain. However, influencing only those workers subjected to ostracism is not enough. When planning prevention and intervention, the witnesses and sources should also be adequately instructed and assisted. Perceiving the ostracism situation from the actor’s point of view may be beneficial (Zadro et al., 2017), as it could help to identify the origins of certain critical situations. On the one hand, it is essential to increase tolerance for workplace diversity for newcomers and employees of different backgrounds (e.g. foreign-language speakers) and to encourage group acceptance. On the other hand, it is crucial to clarify organizational norms and standards that help newcomers adapt and thus avoid being ostracized. Supporting workplace networks and fortifying emotional bonds seem to be the most effective strategies for


19

preventing ostracism. To build valuable relationships within workplace teams, conflict management skills trainings may be helpful (O’Reilly & Banki, 2016). Ostracism may be used to manage conflicts, meaning that social exclusion and rejection are more likely when employees are not equipped with conflict management tools. They may accordingly avoid conflict situations and the colleagues with whom they are having problems as well. Employees provided with effective interpersonal tools to solve conflicts will likely avoid ostracizing others (2016). O’Reilly and Banki (2016) suggested that some existing training programmes may be helpful in reducing and preventing workplace ostracism; for example, interpersonal training programmes which focus on interactions on the individual and group levels and on understanding acceptable and unacceptable interpersonal behaviours. The authors described one intervention programme, Civility, Respect and Engagement in the Workplace (CREW), which they found particularly fruitful in eliminating uncivil behaviours and workplace ostracism and for enhancing respect. As civil behaviour means being inclusive towards others and ensuring that coworkers feel valued and accepted, this training programme seeks to reduce workplace ostracism. The CREW programme also aims to reduce potentially disruptive activities on the part of targets, which may in turn provoke rejection by co-workers. Moreover, CREW may contribute to creating an inclusive culture (O’Reilly & Banki, 2016). An inclusive interpersonal environment is one which accepts diversity, providing the opportunity for each organizational member to be present and heard. Likewise, an inclusive culture is one in which the contributions of each worker are respected and accepted. In building inclusive organizations, policies and procedures encouraging diversity and promoting inclusiveness are helpful. It is, however, essential that those who have leadership positions promote inclusive policies and procedures as well (2016). It is essential to create prevention and intervention programmes based on research findings on workplace ostracism. Such programmes must be focused, first, on identifying the problem, as exclusion and rejection are subjective experiences and thus generally dismissed, perceived as harmless or construed as useful, and, second, on conducting anti-bullying workshops, as isolation is a type of negative bullying behaviour. However, such programmes might also focus solely on exclusion and rejection signs, as well as on both the antecedents and consequences of the magnitude of harm ostracism generates.

8

Future Research

In this chapter, we have presented research findings on workplace ostracism. Using Williams’ (2007) TNT model of ostracism as a theoretical framework, future studies should examine not only immediate responses to workplace ostracism but also cognitive and behavioural coping strategies and the long-term effects of being ostracized at work. It is therefore essential to know what kinds of strategies ostracized workers use to recover from exclusion. It is also crucial to learn which strategies are effective (i.e. leading to reinclusion and basic needs restoration) and

20


which strategies only escalate the problem. For example, following Smart Richman and Leary’s (2009) multimotive model of responses to social rejection, it is possible that under some conditions, such as when employees perceive workplace relationships as valuable and reparable or feel strongly loyal and committed to their job, prosocial attempts may be more likely after an ostracism experience. It is also possible that in these circumstances, co-workers would be more reluctant to resort to ostracism. Another area of research on workplace ostracism is the factors which could prevent antisocial responses to workplace ostracism. Until now, studies on workplace ostracism have focused mainly on describing its negative consequences, for example, counterproductive behaviours. It would be worthwhile to conduct research aimed at identifying conditions that would limit aggression and other antisocial responses to ostracism. Further research should also focus not just on targeted employees but on sources of ostracism and observers as well, in addition to the negative effects of ostracism on the whole organization. As the literature on workplace bullying suggests, negative activities cause severe damage to the whole organization in the form of increased absenteeism, lowered job performance and higher employee turnover (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011). It is possible that silent treatment and exclusion at the workplace can also damage an organization’s image and generate real monetary costs. Research should also be conducted on identifying the antecedents of workplace ostracism. In the present chapter, potential macro- and micro-organizational antecedents, such as organizational structure, organizational culture and power structure, have been identified. It is necessary to gather empirical data to determine the risks of these various factors for promoting ostracism. Future research should thus concentrate on completing longitudinal studies that would demonstrate both causal and reverse-causal directions. Additionally, this research should emphasize the identification of personal and organizational predictors of workplace ostracism. Finally, research should be performed to examine workplace ostracism from a global perspective. More comparative research on the scale of silent treatment in various organizations in different countries is needed. It is possible that different cultural paradigms (e.g. collectivistic and individualistic) may influence the manifestation and scale of the problem. For example, in collectivistic countries, where the focus is on group norms and processes, ostracism may be more ubiquitous and/or legitimated; for the sake of group consistency, non-conforming individuals may be excluded. An international perspective might also reveal different patterns of responses to workplace ostracism, as well as different ostracism antecedents. Although the ostracism literature is constantly growing, little is known about workplace ostracism. Conducting ecologically valid research on ostracism in the organizational context is a challenge. However, identifying empirical reasons for the workplace ostracism phenomenon is crucial in creating effective prevention programmes.


9

21

Conclusion

Organizational membership provides essential benefits for people. By being included in the workplace, an employee gains self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Pierce & Gardner, 2004), receives social support (Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray, 2000) and derives a sense of happiness (Buss, 2000). It is therefore essential to focus greater attention on improving workplace relationships and networks in order to prevent ostracism. In the present chapter, we have focused on the theoretical background of the TNT model (Williams, 2007) and laboratory research findings based on this theory to demonstrate the importance of the silent treatment in the workplace context. The conclusions drawn from both laboratory research and workplace studies on ostracism are consistent—being rejected by or excluded from co-workers and/or the group as a whole can severely damage ostracized individuals. Workplace ostracism causes negative emotional (lowered mood and self-esteem, unsatisfied basic needs), cognitive (negative work-related attitudes) and behavioural (counterproductive behaviour) outcomes. Being isolated or ignored is even more harmful than being exposed to workplace bullying (O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014). In the present chapter, workplace ostracism has been presented, on the one hand, as one form of bullying behaviour with a similar pattern of results as workplace bullying, and the consequences and functions of ostracism have been shown. On the other hand, workplace ostracism has been identified as a separate construct (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; O’Reilly, Robinson, Berdahl, & Banki, 2014) and thus deserving of additional attention from scholars and practitioners. Although lay perceptions suggest that ostracism is not very harmful, research results provide the opposite conclusion: Ostracism is a particularly toxic social behaviour in organizations and, as such, needs further research attention and prevention and intervention efforts.

10

Cross-References to Other Volumes

▶ Cyberbullying at Work: Understanding the Influence of Technology, Vol. 1 ▶ Measuring Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 1 ▶ Qualitative Research Methods in the Study of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 1 ▶ The Hallmarks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment, Vol. 1 ▶ Validity in Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment Research, Vol. 1 ▶ Workplace Bullying and Cyberbullying Scales: An Overview, Vol. 1 ▶ Addressing Workplace Bullying: The Role of Training, Education and Development, Vol. 3

22


References Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(12), 1263–1289. Asher, S. R., Rose, A. J., & Gabriel, S. W. (2001). Peer rejection in everyday life. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 105–142). New York: Oxford University Press. Aydin, N., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). Turing to god in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion on religiousness. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167210367491. Aydin, N., Krueger, J., Fischer, J., Hahn, D., Frey, D., Kastenmüller, A., & Fischer, P. (2012). A man’s best friend – How the presence of a dog decreases mental distress after social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 446–449. Baker, R. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2017). Alone and impulsive. Self-regulatory capacity mediates and moderates the implications of exclusion. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 29–45). New York: Routledge. Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 298–308. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.04.004. Barnard, G. W., Vera, H., Vera, M. I., & Newman, G. (1982). Till death do us part: A study of spousal murder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 10, 271–280. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173. Baumeister, R. F., & DeWall, C. N. (2005). The inner dimension of social exclusion: Intelligent thought and self-regulation among rejected persons. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 53–73). Hove/New York: Psychology Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817–827. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604. Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2009). Social rejection, control, numbness, and emotion: How not to be fooled by Gerber and Wheeler (2009). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 489–493. Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 391–405. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187. Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Brown, C. M., Young, S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). A preference for genuine smiles following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46, 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.010. Blackhart, G. C., Eckel, L. A., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Salivary cortisol in response to acute social rejection and acceptance by peers. Biological Psychology, 75, 267–276. Blackhart, G. C., Knowles, M. L., Nelson, B. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A metaanalytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065.


23

Böckler, A., Hömke, P., & Sebanz, N. (2014). Invisible man: Exclusion from shared attention affects gaze behavior and self-reports. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613488951. Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143–153. Cottingham, M. D., Erickson, R. J., Diefendorff, J. M., & Bromley, G. (2013). The effect of manager exclusion on nurse turnover intention and care quality. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35(8), 970–985. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623. Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324. Derrick, J. L., Gabriel, S., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45–59. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Bushman, B., Im, C., & Williams, K. D. (2010). A little acceptance goes a long way: Applying social impact theory to the rejection-aggression link. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1948550610361387. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W. (2011). Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity. Emotion, 11(3), 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023534. Dotan-Eliaz, O., Sommer, K. L., & Rubin, Y. S. (2009). Multilingual groups: Effects of linguistic ostracism on felt rejection and anger, coworker attraction, perceived team potency, and creative performance. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 31, 363–375. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. Edwards, J. R. (2000). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis. Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2005). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 109–127). New York: Psychology Press. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x. Fatima, A. (2016). Impact of workplace ostracism on counter productive work behaviors: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 388–408.

24


Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1348–1366. Field, J. E. (2014). Relational and social aggression in the workplace. In J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace. Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 179–192). New York/London: Routledge. Fox, S., & Lituchy, T. R. (Eds.). (2012). Gender and the dysfunctional workplace. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438–456. Gamian-Wilk, M. (2013). Does bullying increase compliance? Social Influence, 8(2–3), 131–148. Gamian-Wilk, M., & Bjørkelo, B. (in review). The role of personality in the form of temperament in relation to bullying at work. Violence and Victims. Gamian-Wilk, M., Salton Meyer, E., & Wilk, K. (2017). Workplace bullying as an arena of social influence: A review of tactics in the bullying process. Educational Forum, 29(1(57)), 79–96. Gamian-Wilk, M., Madeja-Bien, K., & Dolinski, D. (unpublished data). Compliance after exclusion: Relationship-promoting construals mediate compliance in employed individuals who feel excluded. Gardner, W., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. (2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227–242). New York: Psychology Press. Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17456924.2009.01158.x. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Goodwin, S. A., Williams, K. D., & Carter-Sowell, A. R. (2010). The psychological sting of stigma: The costs of attributing ostracism to racism. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 46, 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.002. Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. (1998). Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 65–82). New York: Wiley. Hales, A. H., Kassner, M. P., Williams, K. D., & Graziano, W. G. (2016). Disagreeableness as a cause and consequence of ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216643933. Harpaz, I. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of telecommuting for the individual, organisation and society. Work Study, 51(2), 74–80. Hartgerink, C. H. J., Van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS One, 10, 1–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0127002. Hauge, L. J. (2010). Environmental antecedents of workplace bullying: A multi-design approach. Ph.D., University of Bergen. Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and workplace bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21, 220–242. Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A. (2011). Leadership and role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 305–323. Hitlan, R. T., & Noel, J. (2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 477–502.


25

Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zarate, M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 56–70. Hoel, H., Sheehan, M., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 129–148). Boca Raton: CRC Press. IJzerman, H., Gallucci, M., Pouw, W. T., Weiβgerber, S. C., Van Doesum, N. J., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Cold-blooded loneliness: Social exclusion leads to lower skin temperatures. Acta Psychologica, 140, 283–288. Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2002). The perceived consequences of responding to bullying with aggression: A study of male and female adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 28(4), 257–272. Jackson, M. F., Barth, J. M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J. E. (2006). Classroom contextual effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77(5), 1325–1337. Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 33–47. Jex, S. M., Adams, G. A., Bachrach, D. G., & Sorenson, S. (2003). The impact of situational constraints, role stressors, and commitment on employee altruism. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(3), 171–180. Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 41–74). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1997). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 124–143). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Kistner, J., Metzler, A., Gatlin, D., & Risi, S. (1993). Classroom racial proportions and children’s peer relations: Race and gender effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.446. Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2005). Excluding and nonconscious behavioral mimicry. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 279–295). New York/Hove: Psychology Press. Lau, G., Moulds, M. L., & Richardson, R. (2009). Ostracism: How much it hurts depends on how you remember it. Emotion, 9, 430–434. Laurin, K., Schumann, K., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). A relationship with God? Connecting with the divine to assuage fears of interpersonal rejection. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614531800. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229. Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast (pp. 35–51). New York: Psychology Press. Leary, M. R. (2017). Motivational and emotional aspects of interpersonal rejection: Twenty-five years of theory and research. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 46–60). New York: Routledge. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1–62. Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. (2000). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

26


Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.10061. Leary, M., Twenge, J., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111–132. Leung, A. S. M., Wu, L. Z., Chen, Y., & Young, M. N. (2011). The impact of workplace ostracism in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 836–844. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853. Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Lee, C., & Hui, C. (2013). Work-to-family spillover effect of workplace ostracism: The role of work-home segmentation preferences. Human Resource Management, 52 (1), 75–93. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and . . . Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406–433. Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 351–370. MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55. Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K. F., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought, suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 285–297. Maslach, C., Leiter, M. P., & Jackson, S. E. (2012). Making a significant difference with burnout interventions: Researcher and practitioner collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 296–300. Masten, C. L., Telzer, E. H., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI investigation of attributing negative social treatment to racial discrimination. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1042–1051. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21520. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 467–484. McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, M. T., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239–1252. Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 415–431. Molet, M., Macquet, B., Lefebvre, O., & Williams, K. D. (2013). A focused attention intervention for coping with ostracism. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 1262–1270. Moor, B. G., Crone, E. A., & van der Molen, M. W. (2010). The heartbrake of social rejection: Heart rate deceleration in response to unexpected peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21, 1326–1333. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2011). Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace bullying: Development in theory, research and practice (pp. 201–225). London: CRC Press. Neves, P., & Cunha, M. P. (2017). Exploring a model of workplace ostracism: The value of coworker humor. International Journal of Stress Management. https://doi.org/10.1037/ str0000069.


27

Nielsen, M. B., & Knardahl, S. (2015). Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study. Work and Stress, 29, 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2015.1032383. O’Reilly, J., & Banki, S. (2016). Research in work and organizational psychology: Social exclusion in the workplace. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social exclusion. Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Cham: Springer. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., & Schabram, K. F. (2013). The impact of ostracism on well-being in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-being (pp. 107–122). New York: M.E. Sharpe. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2014). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 4, 774–793. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S., Banki, S., & Berdahl, J. L. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793. Palmer, E. J., & Thakordas, V. (2005). Realtionship between bullying and scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire among imprisoned male offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 56–66. Pereira, D., Meier, L. L., & Elfering, A. (2013). Short-term effects of social exclusion at work and worries on sleep. Stress & Health, 29(3), 240–252. Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–622. Podsiadly, A., & Gamian-Wilk, M. (2017). Personality traits as outcomes or predictors of being exposed to bullying at workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 43–49. https:// doi.org/10.2016/j.paid.2016.08.001. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262. Radliff, K. (2014). Physical and verbal bullying. In J. Lipinski & L. M. Crothers (Eds.), Bullying in the workplace. Causes, symptoms, and remedies (pp. 163–178). New York/London: Routledge. Rayner, C. (1997). Bullying at work. Journal of Community & Social Psychology, 7, 177–180. Ren, D., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Interdependent self-construal moderates coping with (but not the initial pain of) ostracism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12037. Ren, D., Wesselmann, E., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(3), 204–212. Ren, D., Hales, A. H., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Ostracism: Being ignored and excluded. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 10–28). New York: Routledge. Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., & Montali, L. (2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): Effect of ostracism on obedience. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 208–216. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00224545.2014.883354. Robinson, S., & Schabram, K. (2017). Workplace ostracism. In K. D. Kipling & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 224–239). New York: Routledge. Robinson, S., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39(1), 203–231. Rowe, M. M., & Sherlock, H. (2005). Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: Do burned out nurses eat their young? Journal of Nursing Management, 13(3), 242–248. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 145–164). London: Sage.

28


Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441. Schoel, C., Eck, J., & Greifeneder, R. (2014). A matter of vertical position: Consequences of ostracism differ for those above versus below its perpetrators. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613488953. Scott, K. L., & Thau, S. (2013). Theory and research on social exclusion in work groups. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 65–73). New York: Oxford University Press. Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250. Sommer, K. L., & Bernieri, F. (2015). Minimizing the pain and probability of rejection evidence for relational distancing and proximity seeking within face-to-face interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 131–139. Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 225–243. Tchalova, K., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2017). The shared neural substrates of physical and social pain. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 61–80). New York: Routledge. Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. (2007). Self-defeating behaviours in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 840–847. Troisi, J. D., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Chicken soup really is good for the soul. “Comfort food” fulfils the need to belong. Psychological Science, 22, 747–753. Twenge, J. M. (2005). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of situations, narcissism, emotions, and replenishing connections. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). New York: Psychology Press. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069. Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007a). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., Catanese, K. R., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Lyche, L. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007b). Replenishing connectedness: Reminders of social activity reduce aggression after social exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 014466605X90793. Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928. Van Beest, I., Williams, K. D., & van Dijk, E. (2011). Cyberbomb: Effects of being ostracized from a death game. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 581–596. Vardi, Y., & Weiner, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151–165. Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying – Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214.


29

Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 42, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.00. Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Ostracism and stages of coping. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Ostracism handbook of social exclusion (pp. 20–30). New York: Oxford University Press. Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “I feel your pain”: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 1308–1311. Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012a). “To be looked at as though air”: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23, 166–168. Wesselmann, E. D., Nairne, J. S., & Williams, K. D. (2012b). An evolutionary social psychological approach to studying the effects of ostracism. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 309–328. Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., Swim, E., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Rumination impairs recovery from ostracism. International Journal of Developmental Studies, 7, 33–39. Wesselmann, E. D., Williams, K. D., Ren, D., & Hales, A. (2014). Ostracism and solitude. In R. J. Coplan & J. Bowker (Eds.), A handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 224–241). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(40). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00040. Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism. A temporal need – Threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706. Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). New York: Psychology Press. Williams, K. D., Bernieri, F., Faulkner, S., Grahe, J., & Gada-Jain, N. (2000a). The Scarlet Letter study: Five days of social ostracism. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5, 19–63. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000b). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748. Wirth, J. H., & Williams, K. D. (2009). “They don’t like our kind”: Consequences of being ostracized while possessing a group membership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098780. Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882. Wu, L., Wei, L., & Hui, C. (2011). Dispositional antecedents and consequences of workplace ostracism: An empirical examination. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 5(1), 23–44. Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H. K., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178–199. Wu, C. H., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000063. Wynne, R., & McAnaney, D. (2009). Preventing social exclusion through illness or disability: Models of good practice. Work, 32(1), 94–103.

30


Xu, E., Huang, X., & Robinson, S. L. (2017). When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2281–2302. Yan, Y., Zhou, E., Long, L., & Ji, Y. (2014). The influence of workplace ostracism on counterproductive work behaviour: The mediating effect of state self-control. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(6), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.6.881. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567. Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 42, 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007. Zadro, L., Godwin, A., Svetieva, E., Sethi, N., Iannuzzelli, R., & Gonsalkorale, K. (2017). Creating the silence: Ostracism from the perspective of the source. In K. D. Williams & S. A. Nida (Eds.), Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (pp. 130–145). New York: Routledge. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 177–200). New York: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522. Zhang, R., Ye, C., & Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2017). Linking workplace ostracism to interpersonal citizenship behaviour: A moderated mediation model of work-to-family conflict and rumination. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(3), 293–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/ str0000056. Zheng, X., Yang, Y., Ngo, H. Y., Liu, X. Y., & Jiao, W. (2016). Workplace ostracism and its negative outcomes. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(4), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/18665888/a000147.