Impact of ostracism 29
Impact of Ostracism on Social Judgments and Decisions: Explicit and Implicit Responses
Kipling D. Williams, Trevor I. Case, and Cassandra Govan
Macquarie University
Please address all correspondence to Kipling D. Williams, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, or email to: .
Abstract
Social ostracism is used widely and has immediate and powerful effects. It appears to uniquely deprive individuals of four fundamental needs: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Recent work using a variety of methods has shown that the impact of being ignored and excluded for even as little as five minutes is enough to lower individual’s reports of these needs, to produce physiological stress, and to trigger behavioral reactions that attempt to fortify the thwarted needs. Thus, we have evidence that targets of ostracism will work harder for the group (Ezrakhovich, et al., 1998; Williams & Sommer, 1997), exert control over others (Williams & Lawson Williams, 2001), and conform to others’ erroneous perceptions (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000).
For this symposium and chapter, we will review and compare explicit responses to being ostracized with implicit reactions. Often explicit reactions are carefully crafted face-work, in which targets of ostracism attempt to downplay its impact on them. Yet, when other distal measures are taken, there are clear signs of distress and attempted recovery. These implicit reactions can take the form of physiological responses and the remedial behaviors mentioned above. But they can also take the form of anti-social responses, including anger, hostility, retaliation, and competitiveness.
We will also present some new research in which we look at explicit and implicit responses to ostracism in the form of social judgments and decisions. We will present three new studies. In Study 1, ostracized individuals (compared to those who are included) were more attracted to a group leader, even if he represented a dubious, cult-like group. In Study 2, we find that targets of ostracism are more gullible than their included counterparts in their acceptance of generic Barnum profiles. In Study 3, we find evidence that while ostracized targets exhibit lower levels of explicit prejudice, they reveal higher levels of prejudice using an implicit measure (the IAT).
Introduction
Imagine that your colleagues suddenly act as though you do not exist. They don’t harass or belittle you, but neither do they look at you or talk to you, even if you ask them a question. When informal social groups form for work or recreation, you are excluded. How do you feel? How do you present your feelings to others? How do you behave when you know you are being evaluated, possibly by the group who ostracized you, or by another group to which you might belong? How do you behave when you are less accountable for your actions?
In this chapter, we review the recently burgeoning empirical literature on ostracism, social exclusion, and rejection, and emerge with what appears to be two sets of reliable, yet opposing conclusions. On the one hand, ostracism appears to set in motion behaviors that will increase the likelihood that the individual will be reincluded in the ostracizing group, or will be attractive to a new group. On the other hand, social exclusion has led individuals to react anti-socially, which would almost assure them of further exclusion.
How can we make sense of these two sets of findings? We offer two possible explanations and present some new data that shed light on the viability of these explanations. The first explanation is that two opposing forces are activated in the ostracized individual: threats to belonging and self-esteem will pull the individual toward repairing his or her inclusionary status; threats to control and recognition push the individual toward provocative behaviors that capture the attention of others. To the extent that a negative impression is easier or quicker to manage, then an anti-social response will be forthcoming. Ironically, such a response may decrease the possibility of subsequent inclusion.
A second explanation is that perhaps both reactions occur in individuals, much like Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler (2000) argued was the case with dual attitudes. One could have an explicit attitude, say tolerance and liking for a minority group, while simultaneously holding an implicit attitude of resentment and derogation for the same minority group. Depending upon which attitude was activated, the consequent expression would either look like egalitarianism or prejudice. Implicit measures, they argue, activate implicit attitudes; explicit measures activate explicit attitudes. In a similar vein, we think that individuals who suffer ostracism may implicitly be hurt, angry, and resentful. If allowed or encouraged to follow these inclinations, they will be anti-social, hostile, and competitive. At an explicit level, however, they want to manage their impressions to others so that they can be reinstated in the offending group or in a new group. Thus, they will behave in ways that appear selfless and other-oriented: conforming to group members who are clearly wrong, or contributing more to a collective task than an individual task.
In this chapter, we will be reviewing research from three literatures that seem to be studying roughly the same thing. Ostracism refers to ignoring and excluding one or more individuals (Williams, 2001); rejection is the act of expelling (usually accompanied by an explicit derogation of) individuals from groups (Leary, 2000), and social exclusion refers specifically to exclusion without reference to being ignored (Tice, Twenge, & Schmeichel, 2002; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). It may well be that differences in responses result in part because of the minor distinctions between these phenomena, and we welcome others to investigate this possibility. For our purposes, however, we will combine the research findings under the rubric of ostracism and discuss them as though they represent the same fundamental processes.
Recent examinations of ostracism, social exclusion, and rejection indicate that it is a universally and powerfully aversive social behavior. Animals use it to enhance their survival, weeding out the unfit and disruptive; tribes use it for their ultimate punishment; religions excommunicate, educational institutions practice “time-out,” governments exile, and family, friends and relationship partners use the silent treatment on one another. For almost a century, social psychology seemed to assume its importance without really examining its causes and consequences. We assumed that people would conform so as not to be excluded and rejected by others. In fact, some variant of this explanation has been offered for such wide ranging social behaviors as compliance, bystander apathy, obedience, cooperation, and intergroup conflict.
But, in the last 10 years, experimental social psychologists have become intrigued with the mechanisms of ostracism, exclusion, and rejection, and have amassed a rather sizable literature in a relatively short time.
Effects on the Target
In an attempt to provide a framework from which a systematic and theory-driven investigation of the powerful phenomena of ostracism could develop, Williams (1997; 2001) proposed a temporally based need-threat model of ostracism. This model detailed the taxonomic dimensions, antecedents, moderating and mediating factors, and the reaction to ostracism. Central to Williams’s (1997; 2001) model of ostracism, however, was the assumption that four fundamental human needs could be individually and simultaneously affected in targets of ostracism. In particular, when targets are ignored or excluded, their basic needs for belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence are threatened.
There is ample evidence to suggest that these four needs are each fundamental to human well-being. The need for belonging—the desire for frequent, positive and stable interactions with others—is important for emotional stability and may also be evolutionary adaptive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Buss, 1990). Moreover, in a review of the literature on affiliation and intimacy, Baumeister and Leary concluded that an eroded sense of belonging can lead to depression, anxiety, and mental illness. The need for belonging is vulnerable to all forms of interpersonal rejection. However, unlike other forms of interpersonal rejection, in which the target continues to enjoy some form of social connection, ostracism represents a severing of social attachment. Accordingly, ostracism may have a particularly adverse impact on the need for belonging.
The need for control has also been identified as a basic motivation in the psychological literature (e.g., deCharms, 1968; White, 1959). Essentially, people strive to understand, predict, and control their environments in order to maximise positive outcomes and minimise negative outcomes. Accordingly, the motivation for control has considerable adaptive value. Furthermore, heightened perceptions of control have been associated with psychological and physical well-being (Taylor & Brown, 1988), whereas perceptions of undermined control have been associated with feelings of helplessness and other negative psychological and physical consequences (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Seligman, 1975). When targets of ostracism are confronted with no response from sources, their sense of control or influence over the interaction diminishes. In this way, ostracism is imposed upon the target by the source and the target is left helpless to affect outcomes in the conflict. Additionally, targets of ostracism are often unable to be certain that they are, in fact, being ignored or excluded (Williams, 2001), which further diminishes control.
As with the needs for belonging and control, the need to maintain high self-esteem is argued to be both adaptive and important for psychological well-being (e.g., Greenberg, et al., 1992; Steele, 1988; Tesser, 1988). Ostracism strikes at the heart of self-esteem because the target is rejected as being unworthy of the source’s attention or acknowledgment. In addition, when the reason for ostracism is unclear, targets may generate numerous self depreciating justifications for this treatment, further lowering self-esteem. Interestingly, although sources behave as if the target is not even worth the effort of argument, sources actually expend considerable effort maintaining this façade (Ciarocco, Sommer, & Baumeister, 2001).
One final need that is threatened by ostracism is the need for meaningful existence. According to terror management theory (Greenberg, et al., 1990), individuals have a fundamental fear of facing reminders of their mortality. Over the past decade a great deal of empirical evidence has emerged to support the idea that people constantly attempt to buffer themselves from the terror derived from acknowledging the inherent meaningless of existence and their own mortality (for a review, see Greenberg, Solomon & Pyszczynski, 1997). In terms of ostracism, the target is cut-off from social interaction and, in a sense, ceases to exist as a social being. What more poignant reminder can we have of our own mortality than to be excluded from our social world; relegated to the position of impotence and invisibility. It is hardly surprising that many targets of long-term ostracism report contemplating whether they actually existence. In this way, ostracism is a powerful metaphor for social death.
Whereas, Williams’s (1997; 2001) model of ostracism identifies each of these four needs as important, there is evidence to suggest that at least some of these needs might be subsumed to some extent by the other. For example, self-esteem might serve as an indication—a sociometer—when the need for belonging is threatened (Leary , Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Furthermore, self-esteem is argued to play a critical role in buffering against the terror imposed by reminders of mortality and meaningless existence (Greenberg, Solomon & Pyszczynski, 1997). Nonetheless, whether the four needs are orthogonal or share some overlap is of little consequence to the model of ostracism. Most important, Williams’s (1997; 2001) model holds that ostracism has the capacity to threaten these needs, and once threatened these needs have certain motivational and cognitive consequences.
Consequences of Ostracism for Judgments and Decisions
When realisation of being ignored and excluded first hits, targets experience negative affect, anger, and physiological arousal. However, after this immediate response, targets of ostracism should be motivated behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively to regain, or repair these needs. That is, the model assumes that there is a direct relationship between need deprivation and need fulfilment, a notion consistent with research on needs for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), control (Friedland, Keinan, & Regev, 1992), self-esteem (Steele, 1988), and meaningful existence (Greenberg, et al., 1990). Interestingly, in the short-term, attempts to fulfill threatened needs may have two conflicting motivational consequences.
Attempts to improve inclusionary status. Perhaps most obviously, targets of ostracism may be driven to improve their inclusionary status with others (including the source) in order to regain their sense of belonging, improve their status in others’ eyes (hence improving self-esteem), to effect a consequence (thus regain control), and to experience purpose or meaning. Accordingly, after experiencing initial hurt feelings and negative affect associated with being rejected, targets of ostracism might be expected to respond by apologising and re-establishing ties. Strategies that strengthen each need include establishing new bonds with others, conforming to group norms (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and maximizing effort on collective tasks (Williams & Sommer, 1997).
Attempts to be recognized that may decrease inclusionary status. Alternatively, Williams’s (1997; 2001) model of ostracism predicts that attempts to regain a sense of control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence may have motivational consequences that actually decrease the inclusionary status of the target of ostracism. Specifically, targets may bolster their self-esteem by increasing their self-importance or focussing on their past achievements. The sense of control can be regained by exercising power and controlling others, and demanding attention and recognition or otherwise maintaining cultural buffers might restore meaningful existence. If unsatisfied, such reactions may result in provocative, antisocial and even aggressive behaviors towards the source or others (Tice, Twenge, & Schmeichel, 2002; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Williams, Wheeler, & Harvey, 2001).
Cognitive consequences of ostracism. In addition to motivational reactions, certain cognitive consequences of ostracism have also been observed. A program of research using several different inductions found that higher cognitive processes appear to be depleted by exclusion, while the lower processes remain intact (for a review see Baumeister, Twenge, & Ciarocco, 2002). Specifically, social exclusion impairs IQ test performance and reasoning ability (but not memory). Baumeister et al. have also found that social exclusion is associated with immediate, as opposed to delayed, gratification in decision tasks, and that exclusion impairs the ability to self-regulate. Effortful cognitive processing and impulse control are both diminished when people self-regulate. Thus, Baumeister et al. argue that their findings might indicate that self-regulation is involved in the behavioral effects of social exclusion. Furthermore, they suggest that impaired self-regulation resulting from social exclusion may also account for the observed antisocial responses. Specifically, attempts to restrain antisocial and selfish impulses in order to perform socially desirable actions are undermined by an impaired ability to self-regulate. Consequently, social exclusion, which impairs self regulation, leads to the emergence of such antisocial and selfish impulses.