Evidence for Another Response to Ostracism

Abstract

People may choose to move toward, move against, or move away in reaction to threatening social situations. Ostracism induces both prosocial behaviors (moving toward) and antisocial behaviors (moving against). One reason that moving away may be missing from these observed responses is the absence of including such a response in experiments. In four studies, we examined whether ostracized individuals would avail themselves of a moving away response (i.e., seeking solitude), if offered, and also whether one individual difference—introversion—predicted higher desires to move away. Correlational data (Study 1) showed that participants who reported more ostracism experiences indicated stronger desires to be alone; three experiments (Studies 2–4) demonstrated that manipulated ostracism experience increases the desire to be alone in a subsequent activity, especially among introverts. These findings suggest that ostracized individuals may desire a phase of solitude to cope with the social pain.

Keywords

solitude seeking ostracism exclusion rejection introversion

Ostracism—being ignored and excluded—causes social pain and threatens fundamental human needs of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Williams, 2007, 2009). Borrowing from Horney’s classic typology (1945), as well as from theorizing by Van Kleef, De Dreu, and Manstead (2010), there are three behavioral tendencies in reaction to threatening social situations: moving toward (cooperative behaviors), moving against (noncooperative behaviors), or moving away (avoidance behaviors). However, the ostracism and social exclusion literatures focus mostly on either moving toward (e.g., being liked, going along to get along, improving their inclusionary status) or moving against (e.g., being more aggressive or antisocial) tendencies as possible behavioral responses to ostracism (Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). One possible reason for this disinterest in moving away is that few if any experiments have offered such an option to participants (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). Thus, our aim is to provide a specific moving away response—solitude. We hypothesize that experiencing ostracism can increase a desire for solitude. We also seek to determine if there are individual differences that moderate this desire for solitude following ostracism.

Behavioral Responses to Ostracism: Moving Toward and Moving Against

There is considerable evidence that following ostracism, one may seek social affiliation and become more prosocial (moving toward; Williams, 2009). Studies have shown that ostracized individuals are more attentive to social information (Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young, & Claypool, 2010; Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, & Claypool, 2008; DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009; Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000), more susceptible to social influence (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), work harder for the group (Williams & Sommer, 1997) and mimic interaction partners unconsciously (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008).

Paradoxically, following ostracism, one may confront and aggress (moving against). Abundant research provide evidence that ostracized individuals become aggressive toward the source of ostracism and even innocent others (Chow, Tiedens, & Govan, 2008; Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006; Wesselmann, Butler, Williams, & Pickett, 2010). Williams (2009) proposed that one adopts prosocial behaviors to fortify inclusionary needs (belonging and self-esteem), whereas to fortify power and provocation needs (control and meaningful existence), one is more likely to behave antisocially.

Moving Away: The Missing Piece

In contrast to the well-documented responses (moving toward and moving against), moving away has received little attention as a response to ostracism (Wesselmann et al., 2015). At first glance, avoiding social interactions when social connections are threatened seems counterintuitive and counterproductive: it impedes the recovery of the thwarted need to belong. However, researchers have theorized that, to avoid additional social pain, ostracized individuals might withdraw from social interactions and seek solitude as a possible means of self-protection (Richman & Leary, 2009; Wesselmann, Williams, Ren, & Hales, 2014). Indeed, empirical work indicates that individuals who feel hurt distance themselves from the source of the pain (Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, 2005) and devalue others with whom they have not previously interacted (Sommer & Bernieri, 2014). Participants (from an individualistic culture) reported they would have escaped from a hypothetical social exclusion scenario (Pfundmair, Graupmann, Frey, & Aydin, 2015). Rejected children show decrements in classroom participation and express a desire to avoid school (Buhs & Ladd, 2001). College students listed unpleasant social interactions (e.g., arguments with close others, being betrayed, romantic relationship dissolution) as one of the primary reasons why they would prefer solitude (Wesselmann et al., 2014). A phenomenon called Hikikomori in Japan describes a recent epidemic among marginalized, bullied, or excluded youth who lock themselves in their rooms for months and years, even to the point of illness and social dysfunction (Furlong, 2008; Kaneko, 2006).

Research on physical pain also provides some insights. Social pain is believed to share the same underlying neurological and psychological system as physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2005; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Riva, Wirth, & Williams, 2011). Individuals with persistent physical pain demonstrate avoidance behaviors including social anxiety and avoidance of social interactions (MacDonald & Leary, 2005; Sharp & Harvey, 2001). All these findings together suggest that individuals might seek solitude after experiencing social pain.

Current Research

The current program of research investigates whether ostracism can lead to a desire for solitude. Our investigations use multiple methods, manipulations, and samples. In Study 1 (Amazon Mechanical Turk, MTurk), we explored the correlational relationship between desire for solitude and ostracism experiences. In Study 2 (university campus) and Study 3 (classroom), we manipulated ostracism experiences in an online ball-tossing game (i.e., Cyberball; Williams, Cheung, et al., 2000) and a face-to-face role-play activity (i.e., “O-train;” Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2005) and then measured participants’ desire to be alone in a subsequent activity. In Study 4 (laboratory), we explored who is more likely to seek solitude after ostracism by examining three dispositional variables as potential moderators (introversion–extraversion, neuroticism, and self-esteem).

Study 1

We first examined the correlation between ostracism experience and desire for solitude using an MTurk sample.

Method

We recruited U.S. Mturk workers who had an approval rate greater than or equal to 95%. Power analysis indicated a desired sample size of 82, anticipating a medium effect size of r = .3, power of .80, and p = .05 (Cohen, 1988). We obtained 100 qualified workers who took this brief survey for US$0.20 compensation (60 males; M_age = 31.34 years, SD = 10.90). They completed a measure of how much ostracism they experience generally and a measure of their overall desire to seek solitude. We presented the order of the questionnaires randomly.

Ostracism Experiences Scale

Participants completed the Ostracism Experiences Scale (Carter-Sowell, 2010, α = .94). This scale included 8 items rated on a 7-point scale (1 = hardly ever, 7 = almost always) regarding how often each scenario happens (e.g., “In general, others do not look at me when I’m in their presence.”). We created a single index by averaging all items together such that higher numbers reflected more ostracism experiences.

Preferences for Solitude Scale

Participants took Burger’s (1995) Preferences for Solitude Scale (KR-20 = .86). This scale included 12 pairs of statements and for each pair participants were asked to choose one that best describes themselves out of two options, one indicating preferences to be with others (coded as 0) and the other indicating preferences to be alone (coded as 1; e.g., a. “I enjoy being around people.” b. “I enjoy being by myself.”). The summation of all items indicates desire for solitude (range 0–12).

Results and Discussion

As expected, participants who reported more ostracism experiences indicated more desire for solitude, M_ostracism = 2.55, SD = 1.39; M_solitude = 8.32, SD = 3.43; r = .26, 95% CI [.06, .43], p = .010.¹ This correlational data is consistent with our hypothesis that ostracism potentially increases desire for solitude. In Studies 2–4, we aimed to examine the causal relationship by manipulating ostracism experience.

Study 2

We conducted a field experiment to examine whether ostracism increases desire for solitude. Ostracism experience was manipulated through a common ostracism paradigm called Cyberball (Williams, Cheung, et al., 2000). We used Cyberball 4.0, which runs on web browser and was embedded in a Qualtrics survey (Williams, Yeager, Cheung, & Choi, 2012). We approached people in public areas on campus and asked them to complete our survey on iPads we provided (this method has previously been used successfully by Hales, Williams, & Eckhardt, 2015). Following Cyberball, they indicated their desire to be alone or with others in the subsequent social situation. We predicted that ostracized individuals would have a stronger desire to be alone compared to their included counterparts.

Method

Participants

Individuals in public areas on a university campus were approached to fill out an online survey on iPads (18.89% declined). We did not conduct a power analysis but instead recruited as many participants as possible during one semester. Seventy-three individuals completed our survey and five participants were excluded from analyses (during the survey, one was interrupted by their friend who happened to be nearby; two tried to start a conversation with the experimenter; two were distracted by their phone and computer), leaving our final sample of 68 participants (39 males; M_age = 23.00 years, SD = 6.03).

Procedure and Material

Participants engaged in an ostensible mental visualization exercise called Cyberball, which they played with two other participants (who were computer-controlled virtual confederates). Participants were randomly assigned to be either included (n = 32) or ostracized (n = 36) by the confederates: included participants received 33% of the overall ball tosses (equality), and ostracized participants received two throws at first and none after. The game involved 30 throws (approximately 2 min).

Participants then completed a shortened version of the Needs Satisfaction Questionnaire (Williams, 2009) with 12 items, assessing their satisfaction for belonging (e.g., “I felt like an outsider”), self-esteem (e.g., “My self-esteem was high”), meaningful existence (e.g., “I felt invisible”), and control (e.g., “I felt I had control over the course of the game”). Participants also answered 8 mood items regarding how they felt during the game (good, bad, friendly, unfriendly, angry, pleasant, happy, and sad). Participants responded to all items on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). Negatively valenced items were reverse coded and items were averaged to provide indexes for each need satisfaction and mood (Cronbach’s αs see Table 1).

Table 1.

Manipulation Checks, Needs, and Mood.

	Cronbach’s α	Included		Ostracized		t	d	95% CI
	Cronbach’s α	M	SD	M	SD	t	d	95% CI
Study 2		n = 32		n = 36
Ignored and excluded	(.86)	1.95	0.86	3.89	1.22	−7.46***	−1.81	[−2.38, −1.25]
Perceived throws		36.28	12.86	10.22	8.17	10.09***	2.45	[1.82, 3.08]
Belonging	.90	4.21	0.82	2.35	1.15	7.72***	1.88	[1.30, 2.45]
Self-esteem	.79	3.28	0.76	2.34	0.73	5.21***	1.27	[0.74, 1.79]
Meaningful existence	.83	4.08	0.95	2.35	1.10	6.91***	1.69	[1.13, 2.23]
Control	.85	2.63	0.95	1.52	0.62	5.72***	1.39	[0.86, 1.92]
Mood	.92	4.01	0.58	2.65	0.82	7.91***	1.92	[1.35, 2.50]
Study 3		n = 20		n = 19
Ignored and excluded	(.98)	1.47	0.92	4.00	1.11	−7.75***	−2.48	[−3.32, −1.65]
Belonging	.96	4.30	0.95	1.89	0.65	9.20***	2.95	[2.04, 3.85]
Self-esteem	.93	3.67	0.68	1.77	0.85	7.75***	2.48	[1.65, 3.32]
Meaningful existence	.93	4.53	0.84	2.81	1.35	4.77***	1.53	[0.81, 2.24]
Control	.64	2.32	0.86	1.63	0.68	2.74**	0.88	[0.22, 1.54]
Mood	.91	3.94	0.80	2.38	0.52	7.15***	2.29	[1.48, 3.10]
Study 4		n = 58		n = 55
Ignored and excluded	(.92)	2.14	1.05	4.30	0.95	−11.43***	−2.15	[−2.61, −1.69]
Perceived throws		30.52	12.39	9.74	8.74	9.20***	1.73	[1.30, 2.16]
Belonging	.91	4.05	0.94	2.06	1.03	10.73***	2.02	[1.57, 2.47]
Self-esteem	.85	3.02	0.85	2.08	0.88	5.77***	1.09	[0.69, 1.48]
Meaningful existence	.88	4.17	0.92	2.27	1.11	9.91***	1.87	[1.42, 2.31]
Control	.84	2.43	0.99	1.63	0.79	4.72***	0.89	[0.50, 1.28]
Mood	.92	3.84	0.68	2.56	0.88	8.73***	1.64	[1.22, 2.07]

Note. () indicates Spearman-Brown coefficient, which was calculated for 2-item scales (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013).

***p < .001. **p < .01.

Participants then learned that they would be playing another online game. They were asked their preference for how to play the subsequent game: alone, play with the same group with whom they played Cyberball, or play with a new group, respectively, on the same 5-point scale.

As manipulation checks, participants estimated the percentage of throws they received and indicated how “ignored” and “excluded” they felt during the game on the same 5-point scale (Williams, 2009). These 2 items were averaged to provide a single index.

Results and Discussion

The manipulation was successful; ostracized participants reported feeling more “ignored and excluded” and perceived receiving fewer throws than did included participants. Consistent with previous literature, ostracized participants reported lower need satisfaction and worse mood than included participants (Table 1).

We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the three game preference variables. Results indicated that the ostracism manipulation significantly influenced participants’ preference for the next game, F (3, 64) = 7.56, p < .001; Wilk’s Lambda = 0.738, η² = .26. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that ostracized participants expressed a stronger desire to be alone than included participants, F(1, 66) = 4.74, p = .033, η² = .067, 90% CI [.003, .178]; less desire to stay in the same group, F(1, 66) = 16.37, p < .001, η² = .199, 90% CI [.071, .329]; but preferred to join a new group as much as did included participants, F(1, 66) = 0.20, p = .660, η² = .003, 90% CI [.000, .057] (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Ostracized participants indicated a stronger desire to play next game alone and less desire to play with the same group compared to included participants.

In summary, ostracized participants had more desire not only to distance themselves from the source of ostracism but also to be alone than included participants. So far we have demonstrated the causal relationship between ostracism and solitude seeking in one study that used Cyberball. In our next study, we attempted to replicate this finding using another engaging manipulation of ostracism that involves face-to-face interactions.

Study 3

In this study, participants’ ostracism experience was manipulated through O-train, a role-play activity that was developed as both an effective paradigm for inducing short-term ostracism effects and an engaging teaching tool for conveying the powerful consequences of ostracism (Zadro et al., 2005; Zadro & Williams, 2006). Participants engaged in this activity in triads; in each triad, one participant played the role of a target and the other two sources. The target was included or ostracized by sources during a simulated train ride.

Method

Participants

Given that we focus on being included versus being ostracized (i.e., the experiences of targets), we determined the number of targets we would need using power analysis. Both previously published O-train studies (e.g., Zadro et al., 2005) and our pilot study² observed large effect sizes of d > 1.0. Anticipating d = 1.0, power of .80 with p = .05, we would require a sample of 34 targets. Because each triad of O-train consists of one target and two sources, we would need 34 triads. We were able to obtain 40 O-train triads with college students who enrolled in an introductory psychology class. One target had missing values on critical variables, leaving our final sample of 39 targets (14 males; M_age = 20.18 years, SD = 1.37).

Procedure and Material

The O-train was held as a “getting-to-know-each-other” classroom activity at the beginning of the semester. Students were instructed to get into groups of three, sit in a row, and pretend they were on a train ride. In each triad, center seat student was the target, who was flanked by two side seats sources. They then each received a “train ticket” (S ticket for sources and T ticket for targets)³, along with a written script that directed them to act out a scenario. Unbeknownst to the targets (i.e., naive participants), the sources received and followed a script to either involve them in conversations or not. As such, similar to Cyberball, each naive participant was randomly assigned to be either included (n = 20) or ostracized (n = 19) by two confederates.

Sources (inclusion condition) were told:

You are sitting with a good friend (the other “S”), but between you both is a classmate (the one with a “T” ticket). Even though neither you nor your friend were invited to a party that T gave last weekend, you decide not to make a big deal out of it. As the train pulls away from the platform, T starts to talk with you, and you and your friend pay attention to T and involve him or her in conversations. After the train pulls into the first station, the whistle blows again. Now, you, your friend (the other S) and T continue talking, discussing anything and everything.

Sources (ostracism condition) were told:

You are sitting with a good friend (the other “S”), but between you both is a classmate (the one with a “T” ticket). You and your friends decide to give T the cold shoulder, because neither of you were invited to a party that T gave last weekend. As the train pulls away from the platform, T starts to talk with you, but you and your friend give T very brief responses. After the train pulls into the first station, the whistle blows again. Now, you and your friend talk ONLY to each other.

Targets (both conditions) were told:

You are sitting in between two classmates. You know each of them fairly well, but you also know that they are close friends. Actually, you are a little bit anxious about sitting with them. You are not sure whether they feel ok with that you didn’t invite them to a party you gave last weekend. As the train pulls away from the platform, you start to talk to them. After the train pulls into the first station, the whistle blows again. Continue trying to have a conversation with your classmates.

All groups started the activity at the same time; 1 min later, the experimenter blew a whistle to signal the first train stop; then the activity continued for another 4 min. Afterwards, all participants completed the same need satisfaction and mood measures from Study 2. They then indicated to what extent they wish they had sat alone on the train ride and their preferences for next train ride: ride alone, remain in the same group, or join a new group, respectively, on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much). Students were then debriefed.

Results and Discussion

We focused our analyses on the targets. The manipulation was successful; ostracized participants reported feeling more “ignored and excluded” than did included participants. Consistent with previous literature, ostracized participants reported lower need satisfaction and worse mood than included participants (Zadro et al., 2005; Table 1).

Similar to Study 2, we conducted a MANOVA on the four activity preference variables. Results indicated that the ostracism manipulation significantly influenced participants’ preference for the activity, F (4, 34) = 8.54, p < .001; Wilk’s Lambda = 0.499, η² = .50. Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that ostracized participants reported they wish they had been alone on the “train ride,” F(1, 37) = 30.46, p < .001, η² = .452, 90% CI [.243, .587]. More importantly and consistent with Study 2, ostracized participants expressed a stronger desire to be alone, F(1, 37) = 20.93, p < .001, η² = 0.361, 90% CI [.156, .513]; less desire to stay in the same group, F(1, 37) = 18.42, p < .001, η² = 0.332, 90% CI [.131, .489]; but preferred to join a new group as much as did included participants, F(1, 37) = 0.01, p = .939, η² < .001, 90% CI [.000, .023] (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Ostracized participants reported they wish they had been alone on the train ride; indicated a stronger desire to be alone on the next train ride and less desire to stay in the same group compared to included participants (Study 3).

One concern over the paradigm was demand characteristics. We believe the ostracism experience was still meaningful even though the activity was role-played (Poulsen & Kashy, 2012; Zadro et al., 2005). Firstly, the activity was conducted at the beginning of the semester and the participants had little knowledge about ostracism in a research context, the purpose of the activity, and our hypothesis. Secondly, the targets were not aware the sources received a different instruction to either include them or ostracize them. Finally, previous literature suggested that ostracism hurts even when it is anticipated (Eisenberger et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2000) and when it comes from a machine (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004).

In summary, the results of Studies 1–3 support our hypothesis that following ostracism, individuals desire solitude, compared to included participants. In the next study, we sought to examine whether there are individual differences that may predict who is more likely to seek solitude following ostracism. We tested three dispositional variables (introversion–extroversion, neuroticism, and self-esteem) as potential moderators.

Study 4

The literature suggested that introversion is associated with higher rejection sensitivity and greater reactivity to social pain (Downey & Feldman, 1996; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Yet, they are less likely to express that they are in pain, compared to extroverts (Phillips & Gatchel, 2000). Introverts also considered themselves having less social support and they are less likely to utilize the social support they have (Swickert, Rosentreter, Hittner, & Mushrush, 2002). Thus, we speculated that, in reaction to ostracism, introverts should be more likely than extroverts to prefer solitude, which allows them to hide the pain and cope with it by themselves. Neuroticism and low self-esteem tend to correlate with greater reactivity to ostracism (Leary, 1990; Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, & Williams, 2012; Onoda et al., 2010). However, we had no specific hypotheses about how these two variables relate to solitude seeking after ostracism. We included assessments of these individual differences in order to examine whether any measures related to anxiety or self-doubt were sufficient, or if an individual difference specifically related to one’s propensity to interact socially was necessary in order to observe moderation.

Method

Participants

Power analysis indicated a desired sample size of 92, anticipating a medium effect size (Cohen’s f ² = .15), power of .80, and p = .05 (Cohen, 1992). Using 92 as a guideline, we collected data for one month and were able to obtain 121 participants. College students from an introductory psychology class participated in our study for course credits. Eight participants were excluded from analyses because the survey failed to load due to web browser issues, leaving a final sample of 113 participants (45 males; M_age= 19.18 years, SD = 2.63).

Procedure and Materials

Participants were brought into the laboratory and assigned to individual cubicles to complete the study on a computer. Participants completed measures of Extroversion (α = .87) and Neuroticism (α = .82) from the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (α = .88; Rosenberg, 1965; all three variables were centered before analyzed). Then they played Cyberball (n_inclusion = 58, n_ostracism = 55) and completed the same measures from Study 2.

Results and Discussion

Ostracized participants reported feeling more “ignored and excluded,” perceived receiving fewer throws, reported lower need satisfaction and worse mood than did included participants (Table 1).

We conducted a regression analysis to examine the effect of introversion-extroversion, ostracism manipulation and their interaction on desire to be alone, while controlling for neuroticism and self-esteem. There were no main effects, but a significant interaction emerged. Simple slope analyses showed that ostracized participants who scored lower on extroversion desired to play the next game alone compared to their included counterparts, B = 0.71, t = 2.59, p = .011, 95% CI [0.17, 1.26]; however this pattern of results was not observed among participants who scored higher on extroversion, B = −.14, t = −.52, p = .602, 95% CI [−0.69, 0.40]. We conducted similar regression analyses to examine the moderation effect of neuroticism and self-esteem but none of the effects were significant (Table 2).

Table 2.

Individual Differences as Potential Moderators.

		Ostracism Manipulation		Individual Difference		Ostracism × Ind. Diff.
DV		B	t	B	t	B	t
Alone	Introversion	0.28	1.47	−0.02	−0.12	−0.43	−2.19*
	Neuroticism	0.29	1.45	−0.03	−0.17	0.17	0.83
	Self-esteem	0.29	1.45	0.02	0.09	−0.08	−0.40
Same Group	Introversion	−1.00	−4.17***	0.08	0.50	0.05	0.20
	Neuroticism	−1.00	−4.17***	−0.02	−0.10	−0.09	−0.37
	Self-esteem	−1.00	−4.19***	−0.13	−0.60	0.16	0.65
New Group	Introversion	0.12	0.63	0.12	0.88	0.11	0.55
	Neuroticism	0.12	0.63	−0.02	−0.14	−0.02	−0.11
	Self-esteem	0.13	0.66	0.15	0.89	−0.29	−1.48

Note. DV = dependent variable; Ind. Diff. = Individual difference.

***p < .001. *p < .05.

We conducted the same set of regression analyses on desire to stay in the same group or join a new group. Replicating previous findings of Studies 2 and 3, ostracized participants preferred to play the next game with a new group as much as did included participants but expressed less willingness to play with the same group. This pattern was not moderated by any of the dispositional variables.

In summary, introversion – extraversion (but not neuroticism or self-esteem) moderated the effect of ostracism on desire for solitude, such that introverts, but not extroverts, had more desire to play the next game alone after ostracism. Additionally, ostracized participants desired to distance themselves from the same group who ostracized them, regardless of their individual differences in any of the three measured variables.

Meta Analyses

Following recent suggestions (Fabrigar & Wegener, in press), we further analyzed the main effect of ostracism on participants’ preference for the next activity using meta-analyses. We analyzed the data from Studies 2−4, using Wilson’s SPSS MeanES macro (2005; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The results indicated that ostracism significantly increased participants’ desire to be alone, d = 0.69, 95% CI [0.08, 1.30], decreased their desire to stay in the same group, d = −0.96, 95% CI [−1.24, −0.68], but did not affect their desire to join a new group, d = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.37, 0.16].

General Discussion

The goal of this research was to examine whether ostracism induces a desire for solitude. We tested this hypothesis using multiple methods (correlational and experimental), manipulations (Cyberball and O-train) and samples (MTurk sample, sample from college campus population and college students). Results show that ostracism experiences correlate with desire for solitude (Study 1) and lead to solitude seeking (Studies 2 and 3), especially among introverts (Study 4).

This program of studies represents substantial theoretical and empirical advancement in an understudied area of research on ostracism. The vast literature on ostracism has until now neglected giving ostracized participants the option of solitude, thus leaving this course of action unavailable to participants. This neglect has led researchers and theorists to erroneously conclude that ostracized people will either “toe the line” or lash out. The results of our studies indicate that seeking-solitude is another viable option as well.

We do not wish to suggest that this move away response reflects a disinterest in interpersonal reconnection. This desire to step back from social interactions is likely to be a coping strategy of the social pain, despite of the deep need for social bonds. Using a food analogy, the taste of spoiled food may cause someone to lose appetite momentarily but eventually that person would come around with a probably heightened desire for a pleasant meal. Similarly, ostracized people with an unfulfilled craving for social inclusion may still opt to “leave the field”.

One important future direction is to determine when ostracized individuals move toward, against, or away from others. One possible explanation is that these three responses are all defensive strategies; any of the responses can become the dominant reaction depending on both personal and situational factors. Some people may favor a particular strategy over others. In support of this idea, the effect of ostracism on a desire for solitude is particularly salient among introverts, as evidenced in our Study 4. Other researchers found that individuals who feel angry when ostracized are more likely to respond with antisocial behavior (Chow et al., 2008). On the other hand, some situations may make a particular response more appealing to the participants. For example, when only one type of response is available, ostracized participants may be guided toward fortifying whatever need that response affords (Wesselmann et al., 2015). If an aggression measure is used, ostracized individuals will be more aggressive to fortify control and to provoke acknowledgment. If a prosocial response is used, ostracized participants will take the opportunity to be more prosocial in order to be liked and included, enhancing the needs of belonging and self-esteem (Schade, Domachowska, Mitchell, & Williams, 2014). Because multiple options were available in our study, participants were not compelled toward a particular course of action.

Current findings have implications for the research on moving away tendencies in general. Similar to the ostracism research, research in other areas (e.g., social decision making) shares the same concern over neglecting moving away tendencies (Van Kleef et al., 2010). Our findings support the notion that it is important to incorporate the moving away option in social psychology research to enhance our understanding of human behavior. Furthermore, the current literature has a strong negative bias against moving away tendencies (Coplan & Bowker, 2013) but overlooked the fact that it could be beneficial. Admittedly, a tendency to move away is problematic, if it prolongs and becomes a dominant response. However, it can be adaptive at times to step back or walk away (Jonas et al., 2014; Van Kleef et al., 2010), in the sense that it moves individuals away from the threat and prevents them to suffer from additional pain (e.g., Arriaga, Capezza, Goodfriend, Rayl, & Sands, 2013).

One main limitation of current research is that we did not provide empirical evidence how ostracism changes desire for solitude over time. We believe being hurt in social situations repeatedly would gradually drive one away from social interactions (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Richman & Leary, 2009). Repeated exposure to ostracism fosters a stable association between social interactions with pain thus one may adopt avoiding strategies preemptively. This proposition is potentially supported by data of Study 1, which measured chronic ostracism experiences. It also receives support from attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987): adults who have had dismissive or overly punitive caregivers tend to develop negative emotions toward attachment figures and distance themselves from relationship partners. In summary, the option of seeking solitude following rejection and ostracism has now received correlational and experimental support. Future research should determine other factors, social and personal, that lead to the desire to be alone and the costs and benefits that seeking solitude affords.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Supplemental Material

The online data supplement is available at .

References

Arriaga

X. B.

Capezza

N. M.

Goodfriend

Rayl

E. S.

Sands

K. J.

(2013). Individual well-being and relationship maintenance at odds: The unexpected perils of maintaining a relationship with an aggressive partner. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 676–684.

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 Social Psychology, 46, 196–199.

Bernstein

M. J.

Young

S. G.

Brown

C. M.

Sacco

D. F.

Claypool

H. M.

(2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983.

Buhs

E. S.

Ladd

G. W.

(2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550–560.

Burger

J. M.

(1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85–108.

Carter-Sowell

A. R.

(2010). Salting a wound, building a callous, or throwing in the towel? The measurement and effects of chronic ostracism experiences (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Carter-Sowell

A. R.

Chen

Williams

K. D.

(2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143–153.

Chow

R. M.

Tiedens

L. Z.

Govan

C. L.

(2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 896–903.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

11.

Coplan

R. J.

Bowker

J. C.

(Eds.). (2013). The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

12.

DeWall

C. N.

Maner

J. K.

Rouby

D. A.

(2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 729–741.

13.

Downey

Feldman

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.

14.

Eisenberger

N. I.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2005). Why it hurts to be left out: The neurocognitive overlap between physical and social pain. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 109–130). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

15.

Eisenberger

N. I.

Lieberman

M. D.

Williams

K. D.

(2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.

16.

Eisinga

Te Grotenhuis

Pelzer

(2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642.

17.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

(in press). Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0022103115000967

18.

Furlong

(2008). The Japanese hikikomori phenomenon: Acute social withdrawal among young people. The Sociological Review, 56, 309–325.

19.

Gaertner

Iuzzini

O’Mara

E. M.

(2008). When rejection by one fosters aggression against many: Multiple-victim aggression as a consequence of social rejection and perceived groupness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 958–970.

20.

Gardner

W. L.

Pickett

C. L.

Brewer

M. B.

(2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496.

21.

Hales

A. H.

Williams

K. D.

Eckhardt

E. I.

(2015). A participant walks into a bar…: Subjective intoxication buffers ostracism’s negative effects. Social Psychology, 46, 157–166.

22.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.

23.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The big five inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.

24.

John

O. P.

Naumann

L. P.

Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

Jonas

McGregor

Klackl

Agroskin

Fritsche

Holbrook

… Quirin

(2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 219–286.

26.

Kaneko

(2006). Japan’s ‘socially withdrawn youths’ and time constraints in Japanese society management and conceptualization of time in a support group for ‘hikikomori’. Time & Society, 15, 233–249.

27.

Lakin

J. L.

Chartrand

T. L.

Arkin

R. M.

(2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19, 816–822.

28.

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.

29.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

MacDonald

Leary

M. R.

(2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.

31.

Nezlek

J. B.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Wheeler

Williams

K. D.

(2012). Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 91–104.

32.

Onoda

Okamoto

Nakashima

K. I.

Nittono

Yoshimura

Yamawaki

… Ura

(2010). Does low self-esteem enhance social pain? The relationship between trait self-esteem and anterior cingulate cortex activation induced by ostracism. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 385–391.

33.

Pfundmair

Graupmann

Frey

Aydin

(2015). The different behavioral intentions of collectivists and individualists in response to social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 363–378.

34.

Phillips

J. M.

Gatchel

R. J.

(2000). Extraversion–introversion and chronic pain: Locus of control in the patient with chronic pain. In Gatchel

Weisberg

(Eds.), Personality characteristics of patients with pain (pp. 181–202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

35.

Poulsen

J. R.

Kashy

D. A.

(2012). Two sides of the ostracism coin: How sources and targets of social exclusion perceive themselves and one another. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 457–470.

36.

Richman

L. S.

Leary

(2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383.

37.

Riva

Williams

K. D.

Torstrick

A. M.

Montali

(2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): Effects of ostracism on obedience. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 208–216.

38.

Riva

Wirth

J. H.

Williams

K. D.

(2011). The consequences of pain: The social and physical pain overlap on psychological responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 681–687.

39.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

40.

Schade

Domachowska

Mitchell

Williams

K. D.

(2014). Help or hurt, I just want to matter: Desire for impact guides post-ostracism behavior. Conference of the European Association for Social Psychology, Amsterdam, NL.

41.

Sharp

T. J.

Harvey

A. G.

(2001). Chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder: Mutual maintenance? Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 857–877.

42.

Sommer

K. L.

Bernieri

(2014). 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, 131–139.

43.

Swickert

R. J.

Rosentreter

C. J.

Hittner

J. B.

Mushrush

J. E.

(2002). Extraversion, social support processes, and stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 877–891.

44.

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.

45.

Van Kleef

G. A.

De Dreu

C. K.

Manstead

A. S.

(2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 45–96.

46.

Vangelisti

A. L.

Young

S. L.

Carpenter-Theune

K. E.

Alexander

A. L.

(2005). Why does it hurt? The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443–477.

47.

Warburton

W. A.

Williams

K. D.

Cairns

D. R.

(2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 213–220.

48.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Butler

F. A.

Williams

K. D.

Pickett

C. L.

(2010). Adding injury to insult: Unexpected rejection leads to more aggressive responses. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 232–237.

49.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Ren

Williams

K. D.

(2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 40.

50.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Williams

K. D.

Ren

Hales

A. H.

(2014). Ostracism and solitude. In Coplan

R. J.

Bowker

(Eds.), A handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 224–241). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

51.

Williams

K. D.

(2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 236–247.

52.

Williams

K. D.

(2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314.

53.

Williams

K. D.

Bernieri

Faulkner

Grahe

Gada-Jain

(2000). The scarlet letter study: Five days of social ostracism. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5, 19–63.

54.

Williams

K. D.

Cheung

C. K.

Choi

(2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.

55.

Williams

K. D.

Sommer

K. L.

(1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.

56.

Williams

K. D.

Yeager

D. S.

Cheung

C. K. T.

Choi

(2012). Cyberball (version 4.0) [Software]. Retrieved from https://cyberball.wikispaces.com

57.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

(2006). How do you teach the power of ostracism? Evaluating the train ride demonstration. Social Influence, 1, 81–104.

58.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

Richardson

(2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.

59.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

Richardson

(2005). Riding the ‘O’train: Comparing the effects of ostracism and verbal dispute on targets and sources. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 125–143.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB