HOW MUCH OR HOW MANY? PARTIAL OSTRACISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Transcription

1 HOW MUCH OR HOW MANY? PARTIAL OSTRACISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES By Sara Banki A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Rotman School of Management University of Toronto Copyright by Sara Banki 2012

2 ii HOW MUCH OR HOW MANY? PARTIAL OSTRACISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Sara Banki Doctor of Philosophy Rotman School of Management University of Toronto 2012 Abstract Ostracism, the process of socially ignoring and excluding certain people, has attracted attention in recent years. Most studies have looked at full ostracism, in other words, when everyone in a group ignores a person. However, in real life, people are usually only partially ostracized excluded by some members of a group and not by others. The present study is one of the first to provide an in-depth examination of reactions when different forms of partial ostracism occur in a group. It looks at partial ostracism in a field study and an experimental study. In the field study I proposed that because targets of partial ostracism receive mixed signals from their group, it is easier for them to interpret ostracism as an external event rather than internal; whereas in full ostracism because all the signs received by the target are the same, the target cannot interpret the act of ostracism in different ways. The results of the field study indicate that partial ostracism is not only more common than full ostracism at work, but targets of partial ostracism also make fewer internal attributions than do targets of full ostracism. The experimental study examined two dimensions of partial ostracism: activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE). Results indicate that as AE increases, i.e. targets are excluded from more activities, targets make fewer internal attributions, feel more threats

3 iii to their basic needs (mediated by internal attributions), and have more desire to help others. As PE increases, targets feel more threats to their needs and put less effort into group tasks. Comparing AE and PE simultaneously, AE makes a difference in targets well-being while PE affects targets efforts in group tasks

4 iv Acknowledgment Many people have always told me that doing a PhD is hard work and there are points of time at which you will hate your topic or even your decision to take a PhD. I agree with them to some extent. It is hard work and it takes a lot of one s time and energy. Fortunately, I did not experience the last part of their statements. Of course, there were times that I was confused on what to do, but I never doubted what I was doing. Looking back, I realize that I owe my pleasant PhD experience to all the people who have supported me. They never let me get frustrated and cheered me every step of the way. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who helped me in this process. First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jennifer Berdahl, for her patience, support and confidence in me. She gave me the freedom to explore and find what I was passionate about, and always believed in my ideas and approach. Second I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Soo Min Toh and Dr. Sanford DeVoe. Their constructive feedback helped me improve my work. Their pleasant manner in challenging my ideas made the whole process enjoyable. I also like to thank my external examiner, Dr. Janice Kelly, for her suggestions and feedback on my work. She challenged my ideas and gave me new avenues to think about. I would also like to thank all the faculty, staff and students at OB/HRM department of Rotman School of Management, who helped shape a wonderful PhD experience. Every individual I was in touch with, either as a student, research assistant, or colleague taught me something valuable. Perhaps most importantly, they made me feel that there are people beyond my committee who care about my progress.

5 v Aside from the academic help that I received from faculty members and staff of Rotman School of Management, I received tremendous emotional support from my family and friends. I use this opportunity to thank all of them: my friends who were there when I was frustrated and needed cheering up and my family who followed me every step of the way. Specifically, I would like to thank my parents who have given me the courage and the confidence to believe in myself and pursue my dream. I can never thank them enough for all they did for me. Last but not least, I like to thank my husband, Ali, and my daughter, Mona, for their patience. The PhD road is a long one and you need people to stand beside you and take your hand when you are about to fall. I could not finish the road without the constant support of my husband. He believed in my abilities and sacrificed a lot for my progress. And my daughter, Mona, who joined this journey around the end. I know that without her calm and charming manner it would have been much more difficult to manage both professional and personal life.

6 vi Table of Contents ABSTRACT... II ACKNOWLEDGMENT...IV TABLE OF TABLES...VIII TABLE OF FIGURES... X LIST OF APPENDICES...XI INTRODUCTION... 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE... 4 DEFINING OSTRACISM... 4 NEW TYPOLOGY FOR PARTIAL OSTRACISM... 5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK... 7 SECTION 1: ATTRIBUTION... 7 SECTION 2: NEED THREAT SECTION 3: EFFORT TOWARD GROUP PERFORMANCE Group Task Target s Effort SECTION 4: HELPING BEHAVIOUR SECTION 5: THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF ACTIVITY AND PEOPLE EXCLUSION METHOD STUDY Measures STUDY Sample and Procedure Measures Background Questionnaire Post-game Questionnaire Post-task Questionnaire RESULTS STUDY Demographics and Quality Check Ostracism in Workplace Summary Hypothesis Testing STUDY Demographics and Quality Check Attribution Hypotheses Need Threat Hypotheses Effort Hypotheses... 32

7 vii Helping Hypotheses Comparative Hypotheses DISCUSSION THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS TABLES FIGURES REFERENCES APPENDICES... 86

8 viii Table of Tables Table 1. Different forms of partial ostracism in a 4-person group... 53! Table 2. Attribution Cues... 53! Table 3. Conditions of the study ! Table 4. Study 1: Descriptive and Correlations... 54! Table 5. Study 1: The Effects of Ostracism on Internal Attribution... 54! Table 6. Study 2: Frequency of each condition ! Table 7. Study 2: Correlations... 56! Table 8. Hypothesis 2: Activity Exclusion and Internal Attribution... 57! Table 9. Hypothesis 3: People Exclusion and Internal Attribution Approach ! Table 10. Hypothesis 3: People Exclusion and Internal Attribution Approach ! Table 11. Study 2: Hypothesis 4 mediation results... 58! Table 12. Hypothesis 5: People Exclusion and Need Threat Approach ! Table 13. Hypothesis 5: People Exclusion and Need Threat Approach ! Table 14. Hypothesis 6: Activity Exclusion and Effort... 60! Dependent variable is effort... 60! Table 15. Hypothesis 7: People Exclusion and Effort Approach ! Table 16. Hypothesis 7: People Exclusion and Effort Approach ! Table 17. Hypothesis 8(a): Activity Exclusion and Effort Mediation... 62! Table 18. Hypothesis 8(b): People Exclusion and Effort Mediation Approach ! Table 19. Hypothesis 8(b): People Exclusion and Effort Mediation Approach ! Table 20. Hypothesis 9: Activity Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation... 65! Table 21. Hypothesis 9: Activity Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation... 66! Table 22. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation Approach ! Table 23. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation Approach ! Table 24. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation Approach !

9 ix Table 25. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation Approach ! Table 26. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Internal Attribution... 71! Table 27. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Need Threat... 72! Table 28. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Group Liking.. 73! Table 29. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Effort... 74! Table 30. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Helping Undergrad... 75! Table 31. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Helping Grad.. 76! Table 32. Summary of results of Hypotheses... 77! Table 33. Hypothesis 11: Additional Analyses with Need Threat and Interactions... 78!

10 x Table of Figures Figure 1. Frequency of ostracism form in workplace... 79! Figure 2. Ostracism form and internal attribution... 79! Figure 3. People and activity exclusion interaction and need threat... 80!

11 xi List of Appendices Appendix A Study 1 Workplace Ostracism Scale... 86! Appendix B Study 1- Ostracism Form Questions... 87! Appendix C Study 1 Attribution Scale... 89! Appendix D Study 2 - Background Questionnaire... 90! Appendix E Study 2 - Post-game Questionnaire... 92! Appendix F Study 2 Group Task... 95! Appendix G Study 2 Helping Measure... 96!

12 Introduction Ostracism is the process of being ignored or excluded from activities of a social entity (Williams, 1997) and social ostracism is a powerful and common phenomenon (Williams & Sommer, 1997). All sectors of a society regardless of the type of society, whether nations, tribes, or religious groups -- use ostracism to punish those who violate valued norms (Basso, 1972). For instance, in organizations, employers and workers often use social ostracism to show their contempt for whistleblowers (Miceli & Near, 1992). In daily life, angry spouses ostracize each other by refusing to speak, the so-called silent treatment (Gottman & Krokoff, 1992; Gottman, 1980). Even children ostracize other children on the playground (Asher & Coie, 1990). Nor are animals exempt from this behaviour, often ignoring a non-productive group member (Goodall, 1986). When targets are deprived of human interaction, they are likely to view themselves as less than human (Bastin & Haslam, 2010), which would lead to several social and psychological consequences. Psychologically, ostracism leads to aggression, hurt feelings, and a desire to aggress (Buckley, Winkel & Leary, 2004). Because being ostracized threatens an individual s need to belong, which is perhaps the most fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, Fiske, 2004), reactions to ostracism can be extreme (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice & Stucke, 2001). A study by Leary, Kowalski, Smith and Phillips (2003) indicates that the majority of those responsible for recent US shootings experienced some sort of ostracism prior to the shooting incident. The important fact in these studies is that targets of ostracism not only aggressed towards those who ostracized them but also towards those who were aware of ostracism and did not react to it (Gaertner, Iuzzini & O Mara, 2008). Aggression is not the only response to ostracism. Targets of ostracism may change their social behaviour to seek inclusion. Some targets try to conform to the needs of the group and act pro-social (Williams, 2007). In multiple studies, researchers have found that targets of ostracism are willing to 1

13 2 change their choice and conform to the group decision in order to get included (Carter-Sowell, Chen & Williams, 2008). In other studies, rejection by even a non-reputable group was hurtful to the target (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007) and even when rejection was financially beneficial targets preferred to pay money to be included (van Beests & Williams, 2006). Despite extensive research in the past two decades (see Williams, 2007 for a review), there are a number of unresolved issues (Williams, 2007). One of these issues is whether the degree of ostracism (i.e., full or partial) affects reactions and consequences. Real life examples suggest that in work groups and social interactions, usually only a few group members, rather than the whole group, exclude someone. For example, more senior members may exclude a new work group member if s/he proposes something that challenges their ideas. An employee may be interacted with on a specific aspect of project s/he is working on but excluded when her/his co-workers are discussing the project as a whole. In this study, I propose that the reactions and consequences of partial ostracism should be different from those of full ostracism. Preliminary studies suggest this to be the case due to the effect of individual characteristics. Individual characteristics do not change the reactions to and results of full ostracism, but they do appear to change reactions to and outcomes of partial ostracism (Chen & Williams, 2007). I take a step further and consider two dimensions of partial ostracism, namely activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE). I argue that the form and intensity of partial ostracism are likely to shape targets reactions to partial ostracism and that these reactions affect targets efforts to participate in group tasks and their subsequent group performance. More specifically, I aim to answer the following four questions regarding partial ostracism: 1) to what the target attributes the act of ostracism, 2) how activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE) affect targets experiences of need threat; 3) how activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE) affect the amount of effort the target

14 3 exerts in a task within the group; and 4) how activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE) affect the amount of help the target of partial ostracism is willing to provide to a third party.

15 Review of the Literature No [person] is an island (Donne, 1975 cited in Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need to belong is one of the strongest human desires (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fiske, 2004), and ostracism can threaten it. In this section, I will begin by defining ostracism and go on to discuss a model of ostracism developed by Williams and colleagues (Williams, 1997; Williams & Sommer, 1997; Williams, 2007). I will then extend the model to show its applicability in cases of partial ostracism. Defining Ostracism Ostracism is usually defined as the experience of being excluded and ignored by a group, usually without reasons being given (Williams, 2007) 1. The form and intensity of ostracism can differ. For example, ostracism can be physical or social. Physical ostracism is expressed by solitude, exile, or time-out in a separate room (Williams, 1997). In social ostracism, the target is ignored while in the physical presence of others (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In this research, I will focus on the latter. A second distinction is that ostracism can be causally clear or causally unclear (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In most laboratory research on ostracism, the cause of ostracism is unclear, and targets have to discern the cause themselves. A third distinction is intensity. Ostracism can range from full to partial. In cases of full ostracism, the individual is ignored by all members and excluded from all group activities (Williams & Sommer, 1997); partial ostracism can range from being excluded by only some members of the group (Chen & Williams, 2007) to being excluded from some group activities and not others by all members (Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelley & Williams, 2009). While most research is limited 1 Social exclusion is being excluded or isolated, sometimes with a direct declaration of contempt and other times without it (Twenge et al., 2001). Rejection is usually an explicit act by an individual or group indicating a hesitation or refusal to interact with another individual or group (Williams, 2007). Despite these semantic differences, most scholars do not distinguish between these terms and use them interchangeably, as do I. 4

16 5 to full ostracism, scholars acknowledge that partial ostracism is probably more common in work settings (Jones et al., 2009). Preliminary studies indicate that the effects of ostracism on targets differ, depending on whether they experience full or partial ostracism (Jones et al., 2009; Chen & Williams, 2007; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000). In addition to the apparent higher frequency of partial ostracism, studying partial ostracism is important to study because unlike full ostracism, partial ostracism has the potential to show moderating effects of personal and contextual variables (Williams et al., 2000). In this research, I define two dimensions of partial ostracism based on two common forms of partial ostracism: People exclusion (PE) or the number of people fully excluding the target within the group; and activity exclusion (AE) or rate of activities from which the target is excluded. New Typology for Partial Ostracism As indicated, partial ostracism can occur in one of two ways. In the first, a member is excluded by all other group members from some activity while included in other activity, getting group attention to a lesser extent than her/his colleagues (Williams et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2009). I call this activity partial ostracism. In the second, a group member is fully ostracized by some members in the group and included by others (Chen & Williams, 2007). I call this people partial ostracism. In other words, partial ostracism can be approached from two different angles: People exclusion (PE), i.e. number of ostracizers; and activity exclusion (AE), i.e. the level of exclusion from group interactions or rate of activities from which the target is excluded. Consistent with the ostracism literature, I refer to the person or persons who perform the act of full ostracism as an ostracizer. An ostracizer is the person who is fully ostracizing another person. The person or persons who are ostracized are the targets of ostracism. To these, I include a third group: non-ostracizers. Non-ostracizers are members of the group who see another member being ostracized and decide not to fully ostracize the target. Non-ostracizers can side with the ostracizers and partially

17 6 ostracize the target, join the target and fight the ostracizers, or behave the same towards ostracizers and the target and attempt not to take sides, thereby allowing the ostracism to continue. Put otherwise, nonostracizers can fully include the target, over-include the target or partially ostracize the target. I look at four-person groups with different people-activity ratios. Table 1 depicts the various combinations for a four-person group in which one member is always the target and the other three are any combination of non-ostracizers and ostracizers with different levels of activity exclusion. I focus on eight different combinations by changing activity exclusion from 100% to 0% and people exclusion (number of full ostracizers) from 0-3. These combinations allow me to examine the two dimensions of ostracism: people and activity exclusion. These combinations include full ostracism, different levels of partial ostracism, and full inclusion. Examining these two dimensions of partial ostracism is important, especially as we do not know whether they result in different target reactions and outcomes. Is it enough to be included as full members (Moreland & Levine, 1982) in the group by a few members, or do people strive to be included and accepted by all group members, even if they are only marginal members (Moreland & Levine, 1982)?

18 Theoretical Framework Section 1: Attribution Attribution refers to assigning a cause to a specific event or behaviour (Kelly & Michela, 1980). There are a number of attribution theories, but the basic idea is the same. People interpret an event or a behaviour in terms of its causes and based on this interpretation, they react to that specific behaviour or event. Scholars attack the topic through either attribution research or attributional research. The former examines antecedents of attribution, meaning the behaviours, occurrences or circumstances that are used to infer the cause. The latter considers the consequences of attribution, meaning the reactions and behaviours caused by that inference (Kelly & Michela, 1980). Jones and Davis s (1965) model uses three types of antecedents: information, beliefs, and motivations. Information about the consequence of a specific action compared to other actions is used to infer the intention of the actor. Beliefs about the actor and how other actors would have reacted in a similar situation are indications of intentions as well; for instance, if few other actors would have taken a course of action, then taking that action shows the actor s personal needs and attitudes. The motivation of the actor also signals the intent: If the consequence of the act affects the actor s welfare, then the act is probably dispositional. The reason for ostracism is not always clear to targets, and they may try to guess the reason based on contextual factors. It is important to know whether a target attributes ostracism to an internal factor, such as a personal mistake that would explain or justify punishment in the form of ostracism, or to an external factor. If targets can justify the act of ostracism or view it as fair, they are likely to attribute it internally, while when they cannot discern a fair reason, they are likely to attribute it to external factors. 7

19 Williams and Sommer (1997) provide various motives for ostracism, including punitive reasons or oblivion. In the former, the target has done something to initiate punishment in the form of ostracism (internal attribution); in the latter, the ostracizer simply does not bother to notice the target, does not see him/her as worthy of attention and is merely overlooking her/him (external attribution). In a qualitative study, Sommer and colleagues (2001) ask participants to remember a situation in which they were either the ostracizer or the target of ostracism. While most ostracizers indicated punishment or the avoidance of confrontation as motives for their ostracism of others, targets viewed motives for their ostracism as either punishment or oblivion. While this study does not explicitly measure attribution in terms of internal vs. external, it provides some information on how targets view ostracism. It shows that from the ostracizer s perspective, the act of ostracism has a valid reason (punishment or confrontation avoidance) whereas for targets, acts of ostracism are mostly seen as mean, unreasonable acts by ostracizers (external attribution). These results are consistent with what has been called the self-serving bias whereby people attribute success internally and failure externally (Miller & Ross, 1975). However, ostracism research indicates that rejection is not always attributed externally. Poulsen (2006) shows that women make more internal attributions for ostracism than men do. Those who attribute ostracism internally feel more rejection (Poulsen, 2006). When people attribute ostracism internally, they may blame themselves and feel their rejection is a merited punishment; when they attribute it externally, they may not feel responsible for the rejection, may not view it as legitimate, and may not feel as bad about the rejection. We do not know what causes targets to make internal or external attributions. As indicated, in most cases of ostracism, especially in experimental settings, targets do not know the reason for the ostracism. Partial ostracism is the most complex: The target is included by some and not by others, and it becomes harder to attribute ostracism to internal or to external 8

20 9 factors. If the target attributes ostracism internally, although it is painful, s/he may feel fewer negative emotions towards the ostracizers as the act can be justified as punishment for her/his mistake. When the target attributes ostracism externally, however, s/he is more likely to feel contempt for the ostracizers, seeing them as mean people who are trying to hurt her/him for no good reason. One of the most frequently used models of attribution is Harold Kelley s (1972) covariation model in which individuals assess the cause of an action or event using consistency, consensus, or distinctiveness cues. In the context of ostracism, consistency cues reflect how consistently a person reacts to a stimulus in similar situations over time (Gerard, 1963; Misra, 1973); if an ostracizer consistently excludes the target from all activities, the target is to blame. Consensus cues reflect how reactions to a stimulus are similar across groups (Kelley, 1972); if others in the group also ostracize the target, something about the target has triggered this act. Distinctiveness cues reflect how an individual reacts differently to different stimuli (Kelley, 1972); when an ostracizer excludes the target and not others, there is something distinctive about the target. Table 2 summarizes these cues. I argue that even in experimental conditions with minimal information, targets use different cues to make sense of ostracism. As mentioned above, activity exclusion can range from 100% to full inclusion. The attribution of targets will change as ostracism changes from full to partial. Full ostracism is a special case of ostracism in which the activity exclusion is 100% and the number of ostracizers is equal to the number of other group members, which makes reactions to full ostracism different from those of partial ostracism. In full ostracism, all group members exclude the target from all activities. In this situation, most cues point to the target as the cause. Because all group members are ostracizing the target, there is consensus on how to treat her/him. Because the target is the only group member excluded, distinctiveness of behaviour, the target has caused this behaviour. Because the target is excluded consistently in

21 different situations or from different activities, the ostracism cannot be attributed to the situation or specific task. When these cues are combined, the target of full ostracism will have a hard time attributing ostracism to external factors like ostracizers or the situation. It is hard for a target to explain exclusion by all group members from all activities in any other way than by accepting s/he has done something wrong. Therefore, targets of full ostracism attribute ostracism internally. In partial ostracism, cues are mixed, allowing the target to remove the blame from her/himself. In this case, consensus does not always apply since not all group members are always ostracizing the target (i.e. they can be non-ostracizers); hence, the target can remove the attribution from her/himself. If the ostracizers are not ostracizing others in the group, this may tell the target that s/he is the reason for the behaviour (i.e., the act is distinctive). If the target is excluded from some activities but not others, either the ostracizers or activities/situations are to blame; in this case, there is no consistency, removing the blame from the target. Briefly stated, mixed cues lead to less internal attribution of partial ostracism. Hypothesis 1: Targets of full ostracism make more internal attributions than targets of partial ostracism. The case of partial ostracism by itself is a special case again. The above cues can be associated with two different dimensions of partial ostracism. Distinctive cues will always hold in groups with only one target, as the target is the distinct member who is ostracized. Consistency cues relate to activity exclusion, indicating whether or not the target is excluded in different situations/activities. As explained above, the fact that the target is not excluded from all activities reduces the internal attribution. As activity exclusion decreases, the act of ostracism is singled out, removing any doubt that it is associated with the situation or the activity and pointing to the ostracizer as the reason. Hence, as the activity exclusion decreases, the target may increasingly attribute ostracism to external factors. 10

22 Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and making an internal attribution for the exclusion. Changing the number of ostracizers (people exclusion) can send a different message to targets. Here, the consensus cue comes into play. In a situation when all group members are acting similarly, the target can see the consensus of ostracizers; as a result, their behaviour cannot be associated with their dispositional attributes, and the target will attribute it to something s/he has done. In their experiment, DeWall and colleagues (2010) change the proportion of full ostracizers and demonstrate that the bigger the ostracizing group, the more adverse the reactions of the target. When people exclusion declines, the target may get hints about how to attribute her/his ostracism through the non-ostracizers reactions. The fact that all group members do not agree how to treat the target may remove the blame from her/him. The existence of a non-ostracizer may indicate to the target that the non-ostracizer does not approve of the ostracism, and hence, the ostracism is not due to a mistake made by the target. Because there is no consensus among group members in this case, it is reasonable for the target to view ostracizers as mean group members who dislike her/him for no good reason. The lower the people exclusion, the less legitimate the ostracism should be in the eyes of the target. Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and making an internal attribution for the exclusion. 11

23 Section 2: Need Threat The next question is to investigate how different dimensions of partial ostracism affect the target s feelings. According to the model of ostracism developed by Williams and colleagues (Williams, 1997; Williams & Sommer, 1997), social ostracism reduces the chance of satisfying four individual needs. The first is the need to belong: this is an emotional need which may be an evolutionary requirement for the survival of species (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The second is self-esteem: targets of ostracism have a hard time maintaining a positive image (Steele, 1988). Third, ostracized individuals feel they have less control over social interactions (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Fourth, chronic ostracism may give the target the impression that s/he is not worthy, thereby threatening her/his need for a meaningful existence (Williams & Sommer, 1997). While this model acknowledges that threat to one need may also constitute a threat to another need, it argues that individuals reactions differ based on the need that is the most threatened (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Individuals react in such a way as to regain the threatened need. Past research has indicated that full ostracism creates greater threats to basic needs than does partial ostracism (Chen & Williams, 2007). This can be explained by how people make sense of the situation. We know that targets sense a greater threat to their basic needs when they feel ostracism is intentional (Jones & Kelley, 2010). In their study, Jones and Kelley (2010) show that when exclusion seems constructive or unavoidable, the negative effect on basic needs is reduced. I propose that ostracism is constructive when it is attributed internally, i.e. when it sends a message to the target that s/he has done something wrong. Ostracism is non-constructive, just a mean act, when it is attributed externally. Hence, when the target blames herself/himself, although painful, s/he knows how to fix the mistake. As a result, the threat to basic needs will be lower. However, when the cause of ostracism is external, the 12

24 13 target has little control over changing the situation, and the threat to basic needs will be much higher. Hypothesis 4: (a) There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and need threat (b) mediated by internal attribution. As the number of ostracizers (people exclusion) changes, the threat to targets basic needs will be affected. When all group members ostracize the target, the threat should be the highest. In this situation, the target will be in a desperate situation with no one to turn to for her/his basic needs within the group. As DeWall and colleagues (2010) show, the higher the number of ostracizers, the more pronounced are the reactions of the target. When people exclusion declines to less than all, the threat to basic needs will be lower as the target can satisfy some of her/his needs through other group members, namely, the non-ostracizers. Knowing that some people in the group support her/him, the target will be encouraged to gain the positive attention of ostracizers. The existence of a non-ostracizer gives the target hope that s/he can win over other ostracizers either alone or with the non-ostracizer s help, and hence, s/he may feel more optimistic. Hypothesis 5: There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and need threat.

25 Section 3: Effort toward Group Performance Group Task The research question concerns the effect of partial ostracism on the amount of effort a target exerts on a task within the same group. Group tasks can be either coactive or collective. In a coactive task, group members work on the same task but produce individual, tangible outputs; usually, each member is rewarded based on her/his contribution (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In a collective task, group members work together on the same task; their output is combined with that of other group members, and the group as a whole is rewarded (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In this research, I track individual efforts but reward the group as whole. This will allow me to test hypotheses regarding the target s effort and the possibility that the effort is motivated by a desire to seek revenge on the group in the form of sabotaging group performance. The task format will therefore be collective, but I will record individual contributions. Target s Effort Two competing predictions regarding a target s efforts in performing a group task are supported in the literature. On the one hand, targets may be motivated to satisfy their need to belong and will contribute more to the group task to gain the attention and respect of other members (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This phenomenon is called social compensation; in this instance, targets attempt to remedy their sense of exclusion by maximizing their effort in tasks that benefit the group (Williams & Karau, 1991). On the other hand, targets may feel distant from and lose interest in promoting the group, and thereby reject or punish those who have rejected them (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In this case, the target is self-focused, trying to 14

26 15 maximize her/his goals and exerting less effort for the group if it does not add any value to her/his individual goals. In one of the first studies on this subject, Williams and Sommer (1997) find that ostracized females socially compensate, whereas ostracized males engage in social loafing. This is the case in both collective and coactive task conditions. In another study, Kerr and colleagues find that for tasks in which performance is determined by the weakest member (aka the Kohler effect or a conjunctive task, Steiner, 1972), excluded players exert less effort when the task is collective but not when it is coactive (Kerr, Seok, Poulsen, Harriz & Messe, 2008). A review by Williams (2007) addresses these different results by proposing that if ostracism threatens relational needs (the need to belong and self-esteem), a target will engage in pro-social behaviour and try to work harder or be friendly; if the ostracism threatens efficacy needs (control and meaningful existence), the target will engage in antisocial behaviours and become aggressive or indifferent towards the group (Williams, 2007). These results indicate that targets react differently in a group task based on the nature and purpose of the task, as well as their own needs. Because there is no research on group performance in conditions of partial ostracism, it is not clear how predictions for full ostracism will hold in the context of partial ostracism. However, it can be argued that similar results should be seen in partial ostracism, as results on the psychological well-being of targets in partial ostracism are mixed. In a study that simulates exclusion over the internet with a virtual ball-tossing game, Williams and colleagues (2000) find that the more participants are excluded (receiving the ball 0%, 20%, 33%, or 67% of the time), the worse their mood, control, and sense of belonging, and the more willing they are to conform on a subsequent task. In another experiment, participants are excluded by not being given the information for a group discussion, a form of partial exclusion, which leads to a lower level of need satisfaction (Jones et al. 2009). Out-of-the-loop participants are led to believe that their lack of information is a result of either

27 other group members decisions or chance; participants show negative reactions only when they are told that other group members intentionally decide to keep them out-of-the-loop. In contrast, a study in which participants receive one of the five levels of acceptance or rejection by a potential group member finds no significant difference between moderately or extremely rejected participants in their level of anger, hurt feelings, or aggression towards the ostracizer (Buckley et al., 2004). It seems that task type and how the target perceives the act of ostracism affect how much effort s/he is willing to exert in the group task. Since task type will be constant in this study, the target s attribution will shape her/his effort. How targets attribute the act of ostracism affects their reactions in a group task. If the target feels that group members are unfair and exclude her/him for no good reason, s/he will be more willing to take revenge on the group and sabotage group performance. This is consistent with the theoretical framework proposed by Smart Richman and Leary (2009), indicating that when targets perceive ostracism as unfair, they are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours. When the target perceives the relationship as repairable, however, s/he will engage more in pro-social behaviours and less in antisocial acts (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). Put differently, when the target attributes ostracism internally and as a punitive act, s/he is likely to try to repair the relationship by increasing her/his effort to compensate for her/his mistake. Hypothesis 6: (a) There is a negative relationship between activity exclusion and effort exerted by target toward the group task, (b) mediated by internal attribution. When there are non-ostracizers in the group, the target has an ally or a friend who keeps her/him attached to the group. As a result, the target should be motivated to work for the group to reward the non-ostracizer s attention. Furthermore, the target in this situation will be more hopeful about regaining the attention of other group members; hence, social compensation may be a good way to get on good terms with ostracizers. Existence of a non-ostracizer increases the prospect of repairing the relationship with the ostracizers; consistent with Smart Richmon, and 16

28 17 Leary s model (2009), this increases the target s favorable behaviour and lowers withdrawal. The target s effort will decrease if s/he feels there is no way of winning group members approbation, i.e. as the number of ostracizers (people exclusion) increases. This argument contrasts to the internal attribution argument. The attribution argument in Hypothesis 3 indicates that targets make less internal attribution with the existence of a non-ostracizer; hence, they will take less responsibility for the situation and may develop anger towards the group, trying to hurt the group by lowering their performance. However, I argue that the pain of ostracism is so great that targets will let go of their anger toward the group and work hard for the group task when they feel their efforts will lead to more inclusion. In other words, when there is a non-ostracizer, targets will exert more effort regardless of their attribution. Hypothesis 7: There is a negative relationship between people exclusion and the target s effort toward the group task. Group liking can be another explanation for the amount of effort the target exerts on the group task. Jones and Kelley (2010) show that excluded targets have lower liking of group members. As the target loses interest in the group and working with the group, s/he will not be willing to put forth effort for the group. As a result, in situations when the activity exclusion is high or when the people exclusion is large, the target may be discouraged to become part of the group. The concomitant reduced liking of the group and group members will result in a withdrawal of effort. But as activity exclusion decreases, group membership becomes rewarding and the target is willing to make an effort for the group. Again, the existence of a non-ostracizer keeps the target attached to the group, making her/him willing to work for the group. Hypothesis 8: The amount of target liking for a group mediates the relationships between (a) activity exclusion and the effort a target exerts toward a group task and (b) people exclusion and the effort a target exerts toward a group task.

29 Section 4: Helping Behaviour The last important question is how targets of different forms of partial ostracism react to people around them who are not part of their group. Do they show more empathy and help others who have nothing to do with their experience, or do they grow indifferent to others needs? The answer to this question yields insight into the long-term reactions to partial ostracism. It also addresses the issue of whether people can differentiate between those who hurt them and those who are not even present during the ostracism. Research on full ostracism has mixed results. For instance, DeWall and Baumeister (2006) find that when people are told they will live the rest of their lives alone, they show less empathy for those who have experienced romantic breakups. Twenge and colleagues (2007) show that a future alone manipulation causes subjects to donate less to a student charity and to help the experimenter less after the experiment (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco & Bartels, 2007). Similarly, in a field study, Thau and colleagues (2007) show that when there is discrepancy between actual and desired belonging, people are less likely to help co-workers and engage more in harmful behaviours. Yet van Tilburg and Igou find socially rejected participants are more willing to donate to a charity (van Tilburg & Igou, 2009). One explanation of the differences in the findings is the manipulation of ostracism. In the future alone manipulation, participants are told that although they may have friends now, they will end up alone. This is a strong form of ostracism, as it gives no hope to the participant that s/he can change her/his situation. Charity work or helping others is one way to make new social connections, but when participants know they cannot make long-lasting ties, their desire to help others declines. They see no point in helping others or in connecting with them. But in van Tilburg and colleagues study, participants recall a time when they were lonely. Although 18

30 this is not exactly ostracism, it is related to the feeling of exclusion. Their study shows that the pain associated with recalling loneliness stimulates participants need to connect with others to avoid the recurrence of loneliness. As explained above, high activity exclusion results in higher threats to basic needs. Based on Williams model (2007), targets will try to satisfy their threatened needs. One way to do so is to make new connections and friendships. In other words, the higher the activity exclusion, the greater the threat to the target s needs and the greater the need for the target to reconnect and find social support; hence, the target will help others more. Similar arguments can be made about people exclusion (number of ostracizers). As the number of ostracizers increases, the target will feel a higher level of threat to her/his basic needs and start to satisfy them outside the group, resulting in more pro-social behaviours. Hypothesis 9: (a) There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and the target s pro-social behaviour outside the group, (b) mediated by the threat to basic needs. Hypothesis 10: (a) There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and the target s pro-social behaviour outside the group, (b) mediated by the threat to basic needs. 19

31 Section 5: The Comparative Effects of Activity and People Exclusion To this point, consistent with past research (Williams et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2009), I have considered the effects of activity exclusion and people exclusion separately. However, an important possible contribution of this study is to look at these dimensions simultaneously. Based on theory developed thus far, the two dimensions of partial ostracism are likely to have similar effects on target outcomes. The question now is which dimension has a greater effect. The outcome variables of this study can be grouped under two categories: individualbased outcomes, such as internal attribution, need-threat and helping; and group-based outcomes, such as group liking and effort. I argue that individual-based outcomes are more linked to activity exclusion than to people exclusion. The threat to basic needs should be diminished when the target is included in a certain amount of group activity; similarly, the desire to help another individual should be reduced when the target is included in a certain amount of group activity. In other words, as long as there is enough involvement of the target in the activities of the group, individual-based outcomes should be more positive, with less focus on who provides the involvement. For group-based outcomes to be protected, however, personal treatment by specific group members is likely to be important. Attention from just one group member should cause the target to like that specific group member, but no matter how much attention provided by that group member, the liking for that individual should not translate to other group members or to the whole group as long as they are fully excluding the target. The target should be willing to put forth effort on behalf of the non-ostracizing member of the group, but should not extend this effort to the whole group that otherwise consists of ostracizers. Hypothesis 11: (a) Activity exclusion plays a bigger role than people exclusion for individual-based outcomes; (b) People exclusion plays a bigger role than activity exclusion for group-based outcomes. 20

32 Method As noted above, I conducted one field study and one experiment to test these hypotheses. The field study (Study 1) compares the attribution of full and partial ostracism in the workplace (testing Hypothesis 1). The experiment (Study 2) tests all other hypotheses by changing the amount of activity exclusion and people exclusion. Study 1 In Study 1, my intent is to provide a better picture of ostracism within the workplace. I intend to determine how often each form of ostracism occurs in real work settings and how employees attribute ostracism. Sample and Procedure 205 full time employees were contacted through Study Response to participate in an online survey on workplace ostracism. The first question in Appendix B filtered the respondents by whether they were experiencing ostracism in their current workplace. Those who selected no were directed to the end of survey and only those who answered yes continued with the survey. Mean age of the sample was 39 years, 51% were male and the mean tenure in the organization was 8 years. A plurality, around 31.5%, were employed in the manufacturing industry and 88.7% were located in the United States. Around 42% had some university degree and English was the native language of 93% of respondents. Measures Workplace Ostracism. The 13-item measure developed by Ferris, Brown, Berry and Lian (2008,! = 0.94) was used to measure the frequency of ostracism in the current workplace. Items were measured on a 7-point scale (1= never to 7 = daily). A sample item is: Others at work leave the area when I enter. See Appendix A for the Workplace Ostracism Scale.

33 Ostracism form. A few questions were developed to measure the form of ostracism, asking participants whether the ostracism they encounter is full or partial and which form of partial ostracism is more common in the workplace. A sample question is: All people in my group ostracize me from SOME activities. See Appendix B for the Form of Ostracism Scale. Attribution. A 12-item measure of attribution was developed based on Poulsen s (2006) measure of ostracism attribution (! = 0.74). Items were measured on a 7-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is: I was left out because I did not show interest in them. See Appendix C for the Attribution Scale. Controls. Gender, age and tenure in current organization were collected as controls. To ensure quality of data, a few questions were added to measure how carefully participants read the survey. A sample question is: If you are reading this line choose two. 22 Study 2 Sample and Procedure 421 undergraduate students were recruited to participate in this study. The purpose of the study was defined as a mental visualization to conceal its real purpose. Participants were asked to fill out a background survey at least one day before the study. In this study, I used the Cyberball (Williams et al., 2000), a widely used computer game of ball toss. In Cyberball, participants play an on-line computer ball-tossing game with two or three other computer-programmed players. I had four-person groups, meaning there were three computer-programmed players. The participant, i.e. the target, was blind to the fact that other players were computer programmed. The target was seated at a computer station in the laboratory upon arrival and was connected to the game. S/he was told that other players were connected at the same time from different stations. In order to conceal the real purpose of the study and consistent with past research (Williams et al., 2000), targets were told that they are participating in a mental visualization study. S/he was told that the purpose

34 of the experiment was to measure mental visualization and that s/he would be involved in a virtual ball tossing game. Before starting the game, I made sure that all participants were connected at the same time to emphasize the fact that they were playing with one another. Before the game I mentioned again that participants should try to visualize other players in the group in terms of gender and ethnicity, as well as visualize the context (e.g. outdoors or indoors). This study manipulated activity inclusion at 5 different levels: 0%, 3%, 9%, 18% and 25% with corresponding activity exclusion rates at 25%, 22%, 16%, 7% and 0% respectively. People exclusion was manipulated at 3 different levels: 0, 2 and 3. There were 8 conditions: (1) full ostracism, in which none of the other three players throws the ball to the target; (2) target receives 3% of all balls thrown when there are 2 ostracizers; (3) target receives 3% of all balls thrown when there is no ostracizer, i.e. all other players are nonostracizers; (4) target receives 9% of all balls thrown when there are 2 ostracizers; (5) target receives 9% of all balls thrown when there is no ostracizer, i.e. all other players are nonostracizers; (6) target receives 18% of all balls thrown when there are 2 ostracizers; (7) target receives 18% of all balls thrown when there is no full ostracizer, i.e. all other players are non-ostracizers; (8) inclusion, in which the target receives a total of 25% of throws from all three players, i.e. the number of ostracizers is zero. Targets received three throws, one from each player, before the manipulation started. Table 3 presents the design of this study. After 200 throws, approximately 10 minutes, participants were told to complete a post-game questionnaire measuring mood, attribution, group liking and manipulation check questions. See Appendix E for the Post-Game Questionnaire. Participants were told that there was a lottery for a prize of $95 at the end of the experiment and that the group members names would be entered into the lottery based on the number of uses they generated as a group (e.g. a group with 10 uses would have its name in the lottery 10 times). Participants were then asked to hypothetically divide the money among group members. The 23

35 24 instructions explained that if the group won the lottery, the money would be divided based on the average number of shares allocated to each member by other members. The group task was a brainstorming one which involved generating as many uses for the word chair as possible in five minutes, a task which used in other studies of ostracism (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Participants were told that at the end of the task, group members would be informed of each other s performances. Contribution of the target in this task was used as a measure of effort. At the end of group task, participants were thanked for their participation and were told that the experiment was over. They were told that two questions had been added by the lab administrator and were not related to the experiment. The questions asked about the extent they were willing to help another undergraduate student and a graduate student. See Appendix G for the Post-Task Questionnaire. Measures All measures are presented in Appendices D through G. Background Questionnaire The background questionnaire collected the participants demographic information. See Appendix D for the Background Questionnaire. Controls. Participants provided information about their age, gender, education, nationality, and native language. They also completed the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) (Downey & Feldman, 1996), which measures the degree to which individuals expect and are anxious about rejection. The measure has 18 hypothetical interpersonal situations, and participants rate their level of anxiety on a 6-point scale (1=not anxious, 6=very anxious) as well as their perceived likelihood of acceptance in each situation (1=very likely, 6=very unlikely). Acceptance likelihood is reverse coded, as higher likelihood indicates lower RS. The responses on these two questions are multiplied for each

36 25 situation and averaged to result in an RS index (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008). Prior research indicates that RS linearly affects reactions of targets to ostracism (Downey & Feldman, 1996), so it is controlled in this study. Mental visualization questions. Participants were asked to answer some questions that made the mental visualization argument more believable; for example, How often do you play video games? Post-game Questionnaire Liking the group. Participants answered questions like: How much do you like being part of this group? and How much do you like to work with this group? They also rated their liking of each member separately. The responses to these questions were assessed on a 6-point scale from not at all to extremely. The reliability of the scale was Manipulation Check. To ensure that the manipulation of ostracism was strong enough, participants were asked to estimate the percentage of balls they received and explain why they received this share. To ensure high quality of the data, they were asked to indicate the number of people they played with. Finally, after the game and before the attribution questions, they were asked what they believed the purpose of the study was. Mental Visualization. To reinforce the study s cover story study, participants answered several questions on how they visualized the play. A sample question was: Indicate which gender you have assigned to each player. Attribution. A 7-item measure similar to the one used for study 1 was used (! = 0.73). Items were measured on a 7-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). A sample item is: I feel responsible for my share of balls. Need-Threat. The same 20-item measure used by Williams et al (2000) was used to measure the four basic needs of belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence (! = 0.92). Items were measured on a 6-point scale (1= not at all to 6 = extremely). A sample

37 26 item is: I felt invisible. Respondents were asked to indicate how they felt during the Cyberball game with their group. Lottery questions. Participants answered how they wanted to divide the money among group members if their group won and rated their desire to win the lottery on a 6- point scale from not at all to extremely as a measure of motivation. The percentage participants allocated to them was used as the share of money they wanted for themselves. This measure combined with the motivation measure intended to control for the group effort for self-gain rather than group gain. Post-task Questionnaire Helping. At the end of the study, participants were informed that the study was finished and they could leave; however, they were also told that lab administrators had added two questions. The first question explained that another undergraduate student from the previous lab session had left his textbook in the lab and asked if the target was willing to take the book to the office. The second question explained that a graduate student was looking for volunteers to help her in data entry of 200 questionnaires and asked how many questionnaires the target was willing to enter to help her.

38 Results Study 1 Demographics and Quality Check Of 205 employees who participated in the study, 198 (97% of sample) had experienced ostracism during their professional lives, and 92 had experienced ostracism in their current workplace. Only the latter employees were used for this study to increase accuracy of recall of ostracism and its effects. The data were filtered for quality, based on the quality check question to ensure that only respondents who were carefully reading the survey were used. Seven participants failed the quality check questions. The final sample was 85; in other words, 42% of the original sample was ostracized in the current workplace and answered the quality check question correctly. The average age of this group was 37.5 (SD = 9.00); average work experience at the current organization was 6.9 (SD = 4.6); 49% of the sample was male, 36% was female, and 15% declined to respond. There were no significant differences between the age and tenure of the final sample with the original 205 employees contacted. Table 4 shows the measures of the study. Ostracism in Workplace Summary Initial analysis indicated that partial ostracism was more common than full ostracism. Figure 1 shows the frequency of each form of ostracism: 63 percent of the employees reported experiencing partial ostracism in their current workplace, whereas 12 percent reported experiencing full ostracism. The additional questions in the survey revealed that ostracism is mostly conducted by peers: 10% by subordinates, 27% by superiors, 36% by peers and 27% by more than one of these levels.

39 28 Hypothesis Testing To test above hypotheses OLS regression and one-way ANOVA were used. Hypothesis 1 states that targets of full ostracism make more internal attributions than targets of partial ostracism. Two forms of analysis tested Hypothesis 1. First, a regression model was run to test the effect of frequency of ostracism (as independent variable) measured by Ferris et al. s (2008) on scale of attribution (dependent variable). In this analysis, age and tenure were controlled for because people may develop different perspectives about events as they gain more experience with them. In other words, as people age, they acquire more life experience and may have a different take on events than a younger person. Similarly, the longer a person works in an organization, the more s/he understands the politics and interactions within the organization; hence, s/he will develop new explanations for events. As gender has an effect on how targets make sense of an ostracism experience (Poulsen, 2006), it was controlled as well. This analysis shows a positive, significant relationship between frequency of ostracism and internal attributions after controlling for age, gender and tenure (! = 0.32, p = 0.02). Table 5 provides the results. The second analysis was an ANOVA on the form of ostracism and attribution scale. The results support Hypothesis 1: Employees who are fully ostracized make more internal attributions than those who are partially ostracized (F (1,71) = 6.01, p = 0.02). Graph 2 provides more details of this analysis.

40 29 Study 2 Demographics and Quality Check Of 421 students who participated in the study, 374 (37% male) did not suspect the intention of the study and hence were used for analysis. There was no difference between original participants and those who did not suspect the intention in terms of gender distribution. Table 6 shows the frequency of participants in each condition. Table 7 presents descriptive statistics and shows the correlation between variables. One concern in this study was the sensitivity of targets to the number of people who included them. As a four-person ball toss is a complex game, targets may have not realized who threw them the ball. To check and see if targets realized how many people ostracized them, several analyses were conducted. Participants were asked to indicate how much they liked each group member. The results of this analysis indicated that targets liked the group member who included them the most. In the situation where all other group members included the target, the participant liked the other group members equally. Another manipulation check to ensure that targets detected the number of people who included them was to ask them to divide the 95$ reward among their group members, including themselves. Again the amount of money allocated to the non-ostraciser was significantly higher than the amount allocated to ostracisers. Hence it can be concluded that despite the complexity of the game, targets were aware of who threw them the ball. Attribution Hypotheses To test the attribution hypotheses, only the cases of partial ostracism were considered (full ostracism and inclusion were excluded). Hypothesis 2 states that in partial ostracism, as activity exclusion decreases, targets make fewer internal

41 30 attributions. A regression model was used to test this hypothesis, with internal attribution as the dependent variable, activity exclusion as the predictor, and gender and rejection sensitivity as controls. Gender was again used as a control since Poulsen s (2006) work shows that women make more internal attributions than men when ostracized. Rejection sensitivity is another fixed attribute and was controlled for since people with high rejection sensitivity, expect rejection and react strongly to it (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Results indicate a significant but negative relationship between activity exclusion and internal attribution (! = , p = 0.001, F change (1,307) = 11.77, p = 0.001), not supporting Hypothesis 2. Table 8 presents the results of this analysis. The same analysis was conducted with all cases, partial, full ostracism and inclusion, with similar results (! = , p < 0.001, F change (1,357) = 9.98, p < 0.001). Hypothesis 3 proposes a positive relationship between people exclusion and internal attribution. I used two different approaches to test this hypothesis. In the first analysis, I used a linear regression with people exclusion as the predictor and internal attribution as the dependent measure. The results shown in Table 9 do not support this hypothesis (! = -0.03, p = 0.66). When all cases were included, the results were the same (!= -0.03, p = 0.53). The second analysis was conducted based on DeWall and colleagues (2010) who argue that the effect of the number of ostracizers follows social impact theory (Latane, 1981). Based on this theory, the impact of others on an individual depends on their proximity, their power/status and the number of others involved. Hence, while the second excluder will cause more pain for the target, the pain is less than that imposed by the first excluder. In other words, the effect follows a power function. Based on this argument, DeWall et al (2010) conclude that when considering the number of ostracizers, it is best to look at the relationship between

42 31 variables in a log-log format. The power function becomes linear when all variables are in the logarithmic format. To follow their suggestion, I have transformed the variables for this study to a logarithm of base 10. Since I have a case in which the number of ostracizers is 0 and the log of 0 is undefined, I have added 1 to the number of ostracizers (people exclusion). The results are still not significant (! = -0.06, p = 0.29). Table 10 presents the results of this analysis. Analysis with all cases resulted in similar findings (! = -0.08, p = 0.13). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Need Threat Hypotheses The next set of hypotheses predicts how threats to basic needs are affected by each dimension of partial ostracism. For these hypotheses I considered each need as a dependant variable separately; the results for each need were the same, so I combined all four needs into one measure. Hypothesis 4 predicts a positive relationship between activity exclusion and threats to basic needs, mediated by internal attribution. I tested this hypothesis using Baron and Kenny s (1986) approach. Regression analysis shows a positive and significant relationship between activity exclusion and threats to needs (! = 0.56, p <0.001). There is also a negative and significant relationship between internal attribution and the extent of threat participants perceive towards their basic needs (! = -0.27, p <0.001). The relationship between the mediator, internal attribution and predictor, activity exclusion has been established in Hypothesis 2. Finally, I tested the mediation itself and found that the effect of activity exclusion on need threat does not drop as a result of the mediation of internal attribution. Both internal attribution and activity exclusion remain significant. Table 11 presents details of this analysis. The Sobel (1982) test is significant (Sobel test statistic = 2.84, p = 0.004) indicating a partial mediation supporting Hypothesis 4.

43 32 Hypothesis 5 predicts a positive relationship between people exclusion and threats posed to targets needs. As in Hypothesis 3, I used two approaches. The linear regression of variables shows a significant positive relationship (! = 0.24, p <0.001, F change (1,369) = 22.68, p < 0.001). The logarithmic analysis yields the same results (! = 0.21, p < 0.001, F change (1,369) = 18.07, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 5. Tables 12 and 13 present the results of this analysis. Effort Hypotheses In testing the effort hypotheses, in addition to controls of rejection sensitivity and gender, two variables of motivation and percentage allocated to self were controlled for. Since there was a chance for the group to win 95$, the monetary reward might have been a motivator for targets to work hard, especially as I asked them to decide how much of the money they wanted for themselves. Targets may have worked hard not because they cared about group performance but to get the money. As a result, percentage of money taken for self was controlled for. In Hypothesis 6, effort and activity exclusion are mediated by the amount of internal attribution by targets. I tested the hypothesis using the same steps as in Hypothesis 4. Since there is no significant relationship between effort and activity exclusion, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Table 14 summarizes the results. Hypothesis 7 posits a negative relationship between people exclusion and effort put forth by the target. This hypothesis was tested using the two approaches noted above. In addition to rejection sensitivity and gender, participants motivation to do well and the amount of money they assigned to themselves were controlled for. Regression results show a significant negative effect of people exclusion on effort (! = -0.11, p = 0.04, F change (1,358) = 4.31, p = 0.04). As in previous analyses, the same

44 33 regression was used with all variables in their logarithmic format. Results again show a negative and significant relationship between people exclusion and the effort targets are willing to put forth for the group (! = , p = 0.01, F change (1,358) = 6.7, p = 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 7. Tables 15 and 16 summarize the results of these two analyses. Hypothesis 8 (a), mediation of group liking in activity exclusion and effort relationship, was rejected, as there is no significant relationship between activity exclusion and effort, as explained above for Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 8(b), mediation of group liking in people exclusion and effort, was also rejected since the relationship between group liking and effort is not significant. Tables 17 to 19 summarize the results. Helping Hypotheses Hypothesis 9 predicts that the relationship between helping and activity exclusion is mediated by the amount of threat to participants basic needs. As I had two measures of helping (in group: another undergraduate student; out group: a graduate student). I ran the mediation analysis separately for each helping behaviour. As expected, there is a positive significant relationship between the participants activity exclusion and their desire to help another student (! = 0.11, p = 0.04), supporting Hypothesis 9(a). However this relationship is not mediated by the threat to basic needs, as the relationship between threat to needs and helping a fellow student is not significant. Hence, Hypothesis 9(b) was not supported. Running the same analysis for helping an out group, i.e. a graduate student, led to a non-significant relationship between activity exclusion and helping behaviour, thereby rejecting Hypothesis 9. Tables 20 and 21 present these results.

45 34 To test Hypothesis 10, the relationship between people exclusion and helping mediated by threat to basic needs, I conducted a mediation analysis for each of the helping measures, i.e. helping an undergraduate student and helping a graduate student. Consistent with previous analyses on people exclusion, I conducted these mediation analyses with variables in their original format and with variables in their logarithmic format, resulting in a total of four mediation analyses. The relationship between people exclusion and helping behaviour is not significant, regardless of the source of help (i.e., undergraduate or graduate student), thus rejecting Hypothesis 10. Tables 22 to 25 present results of these analyses. Comparative Hypotheses The last set of hypotheses compare the power of activity exclusion and people exclusion with each other in predicting variables of interest: Internal attribution, need threat, group liking, effort and helping. Internal Attribution. In terms of internal attribution, we know that people exclusion is not related to internal attribution, while activity exclusion is negatively related (Hypotheses 2 and 3). As a result, it can be concluded that the effect of activity exclusion is stronger in determining how targets make sense of their ostracism experience (! = , p = 0.001). Table 26 summarizes this analysis. Need Threat. The threat to basic needs is significantly related to both activity exclusion and people exclusion. To test the strength of their effect, I used hierarchical regression analysis in which people exclusion was entered after activity exclusion to see if they both remained significant in predicting threat to basic needs. The results show that activity exclusion still explains variations in threats to basic needs above and beyond people exclusion, while people exclusion drops to non-significant after

46 35 considering activity exclusion. Table 27 presents the results of this analysis. Note that the R-Square change from model 1 to 2 is 0. 31, and the R-Square change from model 2 to 3 is 0. Helping Behaviour. In terms of helping behaviour, only the relationship between activity exclusion and helping an undergraduate fellow is significant (! = 0.13, p = 0.027), indicating that in terms of helping, activity exclusion has a stronger effect. Tables 30 and 31 present the results. The above three individual-based variable analyses provide support for Hypothesis 11(a). Group Liking. Analysis shows that the effect of two dimensions of partial ostracism on group liking are significant after both activity exclusion and people exclusion are included in the regression analysis (! = -0.35, p < and! = -0.12, p = respectively). Table 28 summarizes the results of the regression analysis. To compare their strength, I ran two hierarchical regressions. In the first, people exclusion was entered after activity exclusion, and in the second, this order was reversed. The objective was to check the R-Square change between models 2 and 3 and compare them. When people exclusion was entered after activity exclusion the R- Square change was 0.012, p = In the model where activity exclusion was entered after people exclusion, the R-Square change was 0.1, p < This indicates that, contrary to my prediction, activity exclusion explains more variations in group liking than does people exclusion. Effort. The relationship between activity exclusion and effort is not significant while this relationship is negative and significant for people exclusion (! = -0.12, p = 0.046), thereby indicating that when it comes to the amount of effort exerted, people exclusion has a bigger effect than activity exclusion, as shown in Table 29. The previous two group-based analysis provides inconsistent support for Hypothesis

47 36 11(b); hence, it is partially supported. Table 32 summarizes the results of studies 1 and 2. Additional Analyses. The same analyses conducted for Hypothesis 11 was run, this time only considering the cases of partial ostracism. In other words participants who experienced full ostracism or full inclusion were not included. The aim of these further analyses was to test the interaction between the two dimensions of partial ostracism. Results indicated a significant interaction between people exclusion and activity exclusion when considering threats to basic needs. Table 33 summarizes the results for threat to needs and Figure 3 depicts the interaction. As evident by the graph, at high levels of activity exclusion, people exclusion mattered more for the amount of threats targets feel. In other words, when activity exclusion was low, meaning that when targets were included in a majority of activities, they felt more threat to their needs when all group members treated them the same versus when only one group member included them. As targets got more and more excluded from group activities, they felt higher threat when more people excluded them.

48 Discussion Partial ostracism is under-studied (Williams, 2007), and to date, studies of partial ostracism have not examined the different forms of partial ostracism. I have begun to fill this gap in the literature by distinguishing between two dimensions that define partial ostracism, namely, activity exclusion and people exclusion. In addition, my work extends our understanding of ostracism beyond the typical measures of the target s psychological well-being by considering dynamic reactions of partially ostracized targets within a group in terms of their attribution, group effort and helping outside the group. Using an experiment and a field study, I compare a target s reactions when the two dimensions of partial ostracism change. The results of the field study (Study 1) indicate that consistent with common sense (Jones et al., 2009) partial ostracism is more common than full ostracism in the workplace, and it leads to less internal attribution by targets, indicating that targets of partial ostracism in general take less responsibility for what has happened and, as a result, may do less to fix the situation. The results also indicate a significant negative relationship between age and internal attribution. One explanation might be that as people age, they gain confidence and self-esteem and, consequently, less frequently attribute negative work-related events to themselves. They do not view negative behaviours at work as an indication of their lack of competency; rather, they look to the situation or other involved parties for an explanation. After establishing that partial ostracism is more common than full ostracism and leads to different attributions, I conducted an experiment (Study 2) to test partial ostracism, considering changes in two dimensions of partial ostracism on outcome variables. I looked at each dimension s effect following past research on partial

49 38 ostracism (Williams et al., 2000; Jones et al., 2009). Then, I examined the joint effect of these dimensions. The results of Study 2 indicate that contrary to predictions, as activity exclusion increases, targets make fewer internal attributions. One explanation is targets self-serving bias. Since the experience of ostracism is painful (Williams, 2007), targets tend to associate it externally to avoid personal responsibility for the painful experience. And as they experience more inclusion, they attribute it more to themselves. This is consistent with the findings of Study 1, which compared full and partial ostracism. As noted, in full ostracism the signs point to the target, as the reason for ostracism is clearer than in partial ostracism, thereby reducing the self-serving bias. However, due to its vague nature, in cases of partial ostracism, the target can interpret the events more freely, resulting in a biased interpretation. One interesting finding was a significant positive relationship between gender and internal attribution; consistent with Poulsen (2006), women in this study made more internal attributions than men. The results failed to support any relationship between people exclusion and target attributions. For one thing, the sample for this effect may have not been large enough. The nature of the experiment, namely the ball tossing game, may be another factor. Participants may not care about who is throwing the ball to them; as long as they receive the ball, they are satisfied. Although the manipulation check showed that targets realized who threw them the ball, they may not have expected to receive ball equally from everyone. In other words, there is no rule in the ball tossing game that the ball should go in a circle or that everyone should throw to everyone else. The change in the number of players throwing the ball may not be related to how targets attribute ostracism. As before, women showed more internal attribution of ostracism.

50 39 Both hypotheses about threats to basic needs were supported, indicating that any form of partial ostracism or change in any of dimension of partial ostracism will lead to threats on basic needs. This is consistent with past research on showing the effect of ostracism on threats to basic needs (Williams & Sommer, 1997; Jones & Kelley, 2010). Hypothesis 4 also provides a mechanism for explaining why activity exclusion affects threats to basic needs. As a target s activity exclusion increases, s/he makes more external attributions, blaming the situation on other group members; as a result, s/he feels a greater threat to her/his needs. In other words, as activity exclusion increases, the target feels less in control and perceives the situation as out of her/his hands, resulting in the perception of a greater threat to her/his needs. Due to this attribution, the target does not know how to change the situation in her/his favour; hence, her/his self-esteem, belonging, meaningful existence and control are increasingly threatened. As expected, rejection sensitivity was positively and significantly related to threats to basic needs. Again, more women than men felt their needs were threatened after ostracism. This is an interesting finding, indicating that women s needs in general are more easily threatened. Hypothesis 5, predicting a positive relationship between people exclusion and threat to needs, was supported. The more people ostracizing the target, the greater the threat to the target s basic needs. The control variable of rejection sensitivity was again significant, supporting the idea that the more sensitive the target is to rejection, the more s/he will feel the threat. Hypothesis 6 regarding the effect of activity exclusion on effort was not supported. Interestingly, there was no relationship between activity exclusion and the amount of effort targets were willing to put forth for the group. These findings highlight the contradictory results of previous research showing that ostracism can

51 40 lead to social loafing or social compensation (Williams & Sommer, 1997). One possible reason for this finding is how the group task was administered. If participants did not consider this a group task, their performance may have been unaffected by their ostracism experience. The results might have been different if the feeling of working in a group were manipulated more strongly, although the fact that the same task showed the predicted effect in the next hypothesis weakens this suspicion. Furthermore, there is a marginally significant relationship between effort and the amount of money targets take for themselves, indicating that targets who have assigned themselves more money as a reward or a pay-off are willing to work harder on the task, regardless of their activity exclusion. Hypothesis 7 was supported, indicating that as the number of ostracizers (people exclusion) increases, the target expends less effort in the group task. Again, participants who allocated a larger reward to themselves put forth more effort, indicating that the effort may have been exerted for self-gain rather than group gain. Hypothesis 8 was not supported: Group liking does not mediate the relationship between activity exclusion /people exclusion and effort put forth by the target. This finding, combined with the results of the preceding two hypotheses, indicates that targets were not feeling part of a group when they were working on the task. This increases the suspicion that the group task was not strong enough to create group involvement. Hypotheses 9 and 10 were only partially supported. Increase in the activity exclusion made targets more willing to help another undergraduate student. This is consistent with the prediction that helping and pro-social behaviour are ways of becoming connected to others. When the target has not met this need in a group setting, s/he can fulfil it elsewhere, for example, by helping a fellow undergraduate (in

52 41 group) outside the group context. However, there was no relationship between activity exclusion and helping a graduate student, i.e. an out group member. Apparently, the undergraduate targets do not associate themselves with graduate students. Even when they lack connections elsewhere, they do not see graduate students as potential friends. Another explanation may be the fact that the researcher was a graduate student, and the targets may have resented her for putting them through this experience, leading them to refuse to help another graduate student. One last explanation may be that the two helping behaviours may have not been equal. In other words, handing in up to 3 books to the office is a much easier job than data entry. Hence targets may have been more willing to volunteer for the former than latter. The last hypothesis is the most interesting one, as it considers both dimensions at the same time. Until now, research on partial ostracism has focused on only one of these dimensions. The results of this study s previous hypotheses indicate that when considered separately, each dimension has a significant effect on the outcome variables. However, when the full picture is examined, the results are different. Activity exclusion seems to have a stronger effect on outcomes of interest in this study. Targets are more sensitive to how much they are excluded rather than to how many people exclude them. They need to be included in group interactions to a satisfactory level, and it does not matter whether these interactions are with one person or the whole group. Interestingly, people exclusion only matters when a group task is at stake. The target will not put forth an effort for the group if s/he does not feel accepted by all her/his peers. Here I did not compare the magnitude of their effect, the result only shows how these two factors affect variables of interest simultaneously. To summarize, activity exclusion is a better predictor of individual-

53 42 based outcomes and group satisfaction, and the number of group members interacting with the target matters when it comes to performing for a group goal. The additional analyses on the interaction of two dimensions of partial ostracism highlighted an interesting phenomenon. When targets were included in a majority of activities, they felt more threat to their needs when all group members were excluding them to some extent than when two group members fully excluded them. This can be explained in different ways. When all inclusion is provided by one group member (the case of two ostracizers), the target may count on that person more for support. When the same amount of attention is divided among three, the target has more people to turn to but all those links are weak and hence less reliable e.g. higher threat (consider one person providing 18% of attention versus, three each providing 6%). When activity exclusion increases, the attention is so scarce that not only does activity inclusion become important but also how many people provide it becomes critical. In other words, in this case targets are choosing between one weak tie and 3 weaker ties which all are unreliable. Hence, they would rather have three weaker ties than only one weak tie. In other words, when activity exclusion is high, all links become unreliable (i.e. the non-ostracizer can easily become an ostracizer) as a result targets would rather to have more of these weak ties to ensure that they are included to some extend in case one or two non-ostracizers decide to become ostracizers. The existence of this interaction highlights the fact that targets realized how many people included and excluded them.

54 Theoretical Implications The theoretical implications of this study are four-fold. First, this study is one of the few to consider ostracism in workplace, let alone to examine partial ostracism in this context. It applies partial ostracism to a real work setting in a bid to evaluate the extent and intensity of ostracism in real life. To this point, most studies have been experimental. While looking at a phenomenon in a controlled setting is important, it is crucial to study its application in real life to uncover any additional factors that play a role in shaping behaviours and outcomes. Combining experiment data with field data ensures depth and causality of the findings and makes the results more generalizable. Results provide evidence that partial ostracism occurs more frequently in real life than full ostracism. Second, this work is one of the few to examine how targets of ostracism make sense of the situation. It provides evidence of the attributional judgments of targets in cases of full and partial ostracism in a lab experiment and in the workplace. Based on these findings we know that activity exclusion affects how targets make internal attribution. The more targets are excluded from activities, the more they would attribute it to external factors. Third, this study extends the ostracism model from full ostracism to partial ostracism and provides in-depth analysis of partial ostracism along two dimensions: activity exclusion and people exclusion. To date, no study has tried to distinguish between these two dimensions of partial ostracism or to consider their effect on any of the above outcome variables. As expected, targets feel threat to their needs when either activity exclusion or people exclusion are present. Similarly, both dimensions affect the amount of liking of group. To summarize, now we know that both dimensions of partial ostracism affect outcomes of interest.

55 44 Lastly, this study combines the two dimensions of partial ostracism to examine their joint effect on outcomes of interest. So far, researchers have not distinguished between the effects of each dimension on outcome variables and have manipulated partial ostracism by changing only one of these dimensions (Jones et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2000; DeWall et al., 2010). However, it is important to know how they work together. The results are interesting. For a target to have well-being and group satisfaction s/he should be included to a certain level; however, if the target is expected to put forth an effort, all group members should interact with her/him. In other words, activity exclusion provides personal benefits to the target, and people exclusion provides group-performance benefits. In other words the results show that in situations when both activity exclusion and people exclusion are present people s threat to needs, attribution and group commitment are more affected by the amount of activity exclusion.

56 Practical Implications Practical contributions of this research are at least four-fold. First, the results of the study provide more information about the nature of ostracism to managers. The results show that even partial ostracism will lead to negative outcomes. Second, the results give managers ways to counter the negative effects of partial ostracism. Knowing how much activity exclusion matters to employees well being, managers can make sure no employee is left alone in a group setting by matching employees. The results are also applicable to mentoring research. We know that mentors are important for the career progression of employees, and the results of this study underline this. Having a friend or mentor makes the work environment more pleasant for someone who is ostracized. Mentors ensure that targets of ostracism are not fully disconnected from the organization; put another way, targets have some professional and emotional connection with the organization through their mentors. Third, partial ostracism leads to external attribution. This is an important finding in terms of practicality. Attributing a negative event in the workplace externally removes blame from the target. As a result, the target will feel there is nothing s/he can do to change the situation. Knowing that her/his efforts will be useless, the target will withdraw from the situation and accept the ostracism. This inactivity can lead to severe negative outcomes as it lets the ostracism continue. Managers cannot assume these negative behaviours will be resolved on their own; they must take action by addressing any such behaviour in the group. Fourth, the results show that targets of partial ostracism will work harder for the group if they get attention from all group members. Hence, even if managers cannot eliminate partial ostracism, they can add to group productivity by creating

57 46 more interdependent jobs, thereby ensuring that all group members are connected and interacting on one or two tasks.

58 Limitations and Future Research Directions One limitation may be the sample size in both studies. The targeted sample sizes were selected to detect large effects. However, similar studies in partial ostracism also used relatively similar sample sizes and were able to find significant results (Jones et al., 2009, Chen & Williams, 2007). While it seems that the effect of partial ostracism is large enough to be detected with a relatively small sample, the failure to find an effect in some hypotheses can be due to the sample size. A second limitation may be the manipulation. I used Cyberball or exclusion over the computer, but the results of ostracism in a face-to face interaction may be different. Even so, research has indicated that Cyberball is strong enough to create effects similar to face-to-face ostracism (Williams et al., 2000). If anything, the results of a face-to-face interaction should be stronger. For instance, it is hard for targets to come up with attributions over an on-line ball tossing game, as there is little information to make the inference. In the face-to-face game, participants can get more cues from their group mates. I tried to simulate the face-to-face interaction by asking participants to visualize their group mates in terms of gender, ethnicity etc., in hopes of creating a more realistic environment. Future research can test the above hypotheses in a face-to-face setting. Such analyses will provide richer data, as the experimenter will be able to videotape participants reactions, facial gestures and eye contact and measure efforts to bond. Third, the ostracizers reactions were constant in this study. No matter how much the target tried to get the ostracizers attention, they refused to re-include her/him. In real life, ostracizers are not so rigid. Future research can make the group situations more dynamic, for instance, by looking at how ostracizers react to targets

59 48 and non-ostracizers, how non-ostracizers react when they are ignored or punished by the ostracizers, or how targets treat the non-ostracizers if the ostracizers include them. As mentioned above, the group task might not have been strong enough. Although the task was used by Williams and Sommer (1997) in similar settings, targets did not always view the brainstorming as a group task. One idea for future work is to list the uses generated by other group members on the screen as the target works on her/his own. Another possibility is to let targets see a counter showing number of words generated by each member. The nature of the task can be changed as well, asking targets to become involved in another on-line game with a specific mission. As mentioned above, the task and group activity may make a difference in results. This is partly evident in the difference in attributions between studies 1 and 2. Study 1 involved work settings; in these settings, people do not choose who to work with and they have to finish a task even though they do not like their peers. At least their pay and performance evaluations are dependent upon their ability to do so. In the workplace, people know they will have repeated interactions with their co-workers and as a result may use different coping strategies when faced with aggression or ostracism. In Study 2, although targets did not choose with whom they played, they knew that it was a short term interaction and their pay or promotion was not dependent upon their performance. As a result, their interpretation of ostracism, their reactions to it, and their effort toward the group might have differed. Future research can look at these contextual variables as moderators for how the effects of partial ostracism differ. An interesting area for future research is to examine the non-ostracizers. It is important to know why people join or refuse to join an act of ostracism. Different

60 49 conditions and different attributes and reactions of ostracizers and targets will shape the non-ostracizers decisions. In one of a very few studies on observers, Wesselmann Wirth, Pryor and Williams (2007) show that non-ostracizers always over-include targets even when the target is stigmatized. In a follow-up study, they show that nonostracizers join ostracism only when they can rationalize the act of ostracism (Wesselmann, Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2009). This area of research can be developed further. Another limitation of the study is its failure to measure locus of control. Results of attribution might have been moderated by targets locus of control, and any non-significant effect may be due to this distinction. When the activity exclusion or people exclusion are the same, targets with more internal locus of control may more often attribute ostracism internally than those with external locus of control. Future research could consider group demographics. In this study, no information was provided for participants gender, age, etc. Future research could play with gender among targets, non-ostracizers and ostracizers and analyze the reactions. Another demographic change could be the proportion of non-ostracizers and ostracizers. In this study, ostracizers were in the majority. Future studies could change this, considering the willingness of the target to join the non-ostracizers and ostracizers and the non-ostracizers desire to follow the ostracizers. I did not study the case where there is only one ostracizer and two non-ostracizers (minority partial ostracism). An act of ostracism is mostly a group act. As my groups constituted only four people, it was not possible to have more than one ostracizer and minority partial ostracism at the same time. Future research can increase the group size, study minority partial ostracism and evaluate how reactions change as the number of

61 50 ostracizers compared to the number of non-ostracizers changes from minority to equal to majority. One interesting result of Study 1 was the fact that targets were more often ostracized by co-workers than by superiors. There are several explanations that can open door for future research. First, past research has shown that ostracism, even by a non-reputable group, is hurtful (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), so ostracism by anyone from any rank in the organization is painful for the target. This severe effect of ostracism makes it a powerful tool that can be used by anyone. One can argue that peers may use ostracism more as a punitive tool while supervisors may use it for corrective reasons. Second, as superiors have other means to show their disapproval, it seems logical that peers, with fewer options, choose ostracism. On the other hand, the more powerful the source of ostracism, the greater may be the harm associated with it. Because ostracism deprives the target from resources, the higher the rank of the source or her/his power, the bigger and more critical the resources denied to the target. An interesting avenue for research would be to look at how power plays a role in defining who the sources of ostracism are likely to be, its effects on targets, and reactions of targets. Another way in which power and ostracism can interact is through coalition formation. While ostracism by a subordinate may not be very effective, if subordinates form a coalition and ostracize a powerful superior or peer in the group, the effect would be much larger. In other words, powerless individuals can form coalitions to become powerful and deprive the opponent from useful resources through ostracism. A word of caution on the comparative effect of both dimensions is that I did not compare the magnitude of their effect with one another. I only considered which one have a stronger predictive validity when both dimensions are present. To compare

62 51 their magnitude, one should make sure that the manipulated levels of each dimension are comparative. In other words, the change in people exclusion from 1 to 2 should be matched with a similar level of change in activity exclusion. Future research can explore this idea further by studying how different increments of each dimension matches to the other dimension. Lastly, helping behaviour can be studied in more depth. For instance, a temporal lens can be used so that help may be granted if requested by the target after s/he has recovered from the initial shock of ostracism. As Williams (2007) indicates, targets responses change as time elapses from the incident of ostracism. Automatic reflexive responses to ostracism are followed by deliberate reflective ones (Williams, 2007). Three distinct stages follow the experience of ostracism: 1) a reflexive painful response which is unmitigated by individual differences or situation; 2) threats to four fundamental needs which result in an increase in sadness and anger; and 3) a reflective stage which is responsive to cognitive appraisals of the situation, the sources and reasons for ostracism (Williams, 1997, Williams & Zadro, 2005). While phases 1 and 2 are immediate, phase 3 happens at least few minutes after the ostracism when the target is better able to analyze and respond properly. Hence, if targets are asked to offer help to a charity, they should be able to distinguish between those in need and the sources of their ostracism if they are in the third stage. Future research can measure a target s recovery over time and her/his tendency to become involved in pro-social behaviour. Another factor affecting pro-social behaviour may be revenge. Arguably, if the target is given a chance to get even with the ostracizers, such as the group task opportunity in this study, s/he will be able to calm down and treat the helping situation as a separate event. If not, the target may take revenge on the party requiring

63 52 help. Future research can manipulate revenge opportunities to test this speculation. Such a focus would be helpful in explaining why some people carry their workrelated anger and frustration home and punish friends and family.

64 Tables Table 1. Different forms of partial ostracism in a 4-person group Activity Exclusion (%) People Exclusion (# of ostracizers) < 3 Full ostracism 3 Full ostracism All Some None People & Activity partial ostracism Activity partial ostracism People partial ostracism Inclusion Note: Activity exclusion indicates the amount of activities a target is excluded from. Table 2. Attribution Cues Cues Yes No Consensus: Are others ostracizing the target? Target Ostracizer Consistency: Is the target ostracized in different situations? Target Ostracizer Distinctiveness: Are others ostracized as well? Ostracizer Target Table 3. Conditions of the study 2 Activity Exclusion People Exclusion %25 %22 %16 %7 %0

65 54 Table 4. Study 1: Descriptive and Correlations Mean SD Tenure ** Age Gender 4. Ostracism * * Ostracism ** Internal * is significant at p = 0.05 ** is significant at p! gender (1= male, 2 = female) ostracism form (0 = full, 1 = partial) 0.54** Table 5. Study 1: The Effects of Ostracism on Internal Attribution model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. error Standardized Coefficients Beta Constant Gender Age Tenure Constant Gender Age Tenure Amount of Ostracism Dependent variable is Internal Attribution. t sig

66 55 Table 6. Study 2: Frequency of each condition. People Exclusion Activity Exclusion %25 %22 %16 %7 %0 Total Total Note: 25% activity exclusion is equivalent to full exclusion. In a 4-person group a target would get 25% attention of the whole group is s/he is treated fairly, hence exclusion of 25% indicates full ostracism.

67 56 Table 7. Study 2: Correlations 1. Gender Rejection Sensitivity 3.Activity Exclusion 4. People Exclusion 5. internal Attribution Mean SD ** -0.16** Need Threat * 0.56** 0.24** -0.25** 7. Group Liking ** -0.28** 0.24** -0.59** 8. Motivation ** ** 0.27** 9. Percentage Self ** 0.14** -0.24** Effort * -0.11* * 11. Help Undergrad * * ** Help Grad * ** -0.15** 0.27** * is significant at p = 0.05 ** is significant at p = 0.001

68 57 Table 8. Hypothesis 2: Activity Exclusion and Internal Attribution model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. error Standardized Coefficients Beta t sig R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Dependent variable is internal attribution. Table 9. Hypothesis 3: People Exclusion and Internal Attribution Approach 1 model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. error Standardized Coefficients Beta t sig R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender People Exclusion Dependent variable is internal attribution

69 58 Table 10. Hypothesis 3: People Exclusion and Internal Attribution Approach 2 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients model B Std. error Beta t sig 1 2 Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log People Exclusion Dependent variable is internal attribution. R- Square Table 11. Study 2: Hypothesis 4 mediation results Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Internal Attribution Activity Exclusion R- Square Dependent variable is need threat.

70 59 Table 12. Hypothesis 5: People Exclusion and Need Threat Approach 1 model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. error Standardized Coefficients Beta t sig R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender People Exclusion Dependent variable is need threat Table 13. Hypothesis 5: People Exclusion and Need Threat Approach 2 model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. error Standardized Coefficients Beta t sig R- Square Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log People Exclusion Dependent variable is need threat

71 60 Table 14. Hypothesis 6: Activity Exclusion and Effort Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Percentage Self Motivation Activity Exclusion Internal Attribution R- Square Dependent variable is effort Table 15. Hypothesis 7: People Exclusion and Effort Approach 1 model 1 2 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. error Beta t sig R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Percentage Self Motivation Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Percentage Self Motivation People Exclusion Dependent variable is effort

72 61 model 1 2 Table 16. Hypothesis 7: People Exclusion and Effort Approach 2 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. error Beta t sig R- Square Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log Percentage Self Log Motivation Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log Percentage Self Log Motivation Log People Exclusion Dependent variable is effort

73 62 Table 17. Hypothesis 8(a): Activity Exclusion and Effort Mediation Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Percentage Self Motivation Activity Exclusion Group Liking R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Group liking Dependent variable for other 3 models is Effort

74 63 Table 18. Hypothesis 8(b): People Exclusion and Effort Mediation Approach 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Percentage Self Motivation People Exclusion Group Liking R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Group liking Dependent variable for other 3 models is Effort

75 64 Table 19. Hypothesis 8(b): People Exclusion and Effort Mediation Approach 2 Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Log Gender Log Percentage Self Log Motivation Log People Exclusion Log Group Liking R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Group liking Dependent variable for other 3 models is Effort

76 65 Table 20. Hypothesis 9: Activity Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Threat to Need R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping an Undergraduate

77 66 Table 21. Hypothesis 9: Activity Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Threat to Need R-Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping a Graduate Student

78 67 Table 22. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation Approach 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender People Exclusion Threat to Need R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping an Undergraduate

79 68 Table 23. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Undergraduate Mediation Approach 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log People Exclusion Log Need Threat R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping an Undergraduate

80 69 Table 24. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation Approach 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Gender People Exclusion Threat to Need R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping a Graduate Student

81 70 Table 25. Hypothesis 10: People Exclusion and Helping Graduate Mediation Approach 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B t sig B t sig B t sig B t sig Constant Log Rejection Sensitivity Log Gender Log People Exclusion Log Need Threat R- Square Dependent variable for model 1 is Threat to Needs Dependent variable for other 3 models is Helping a Graduate Student

82 71 Table 26. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Internal Attribution Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependent variable is Internal Attribution

83 72 Table 27. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Need Threat Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- Square Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependent variable is threat to basic needs

84 73 Table 28. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion - Group Liking Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- Square 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependent variable is liking of group

85 74 Table 29. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Effort Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependent variable is Effort

86 75 Table 30. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Helping Undergrad Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- Square 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependent variable is Helping Undergraduate

87 76 Table 31. Hypothesis 11: Effects of Activity versus People Exclusion Helping Grad Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- Square 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Dependant variable is Helping Graduate student

88 77 Table 32. Summary of results of Hypotheses Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: Targets of full ostracism make more internal attributions than targets of partial ostracism. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and making an internal attribution for the exclusion. Hypothesis 3:There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and making an internal attribution for the exclusion. Hypothesis 4: (a) There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and need threat (b) mediated by internal attribution. Hypothesis 5:There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and need threat. Hypothesis 6: (a) There is a negative relationship between activity exclusion and effort exerted by target toward the group task, (b) mediated by internal attribution. Hypothesis 7: There is a negative relationship between people exclusion and effort exerted by target toward the group task. Hypothesis 8: The amount of target liking for a group mediates the relationships between (a) activity exclusion and the effort a target exerts toward a group task and (b) people exclusion and the effort a target exerts toward a group task. Hypothesis 9: (a) There is a positive relationship between activity exclusion and the target s pro-social behaviour outside the group, (b) mediated by the threat to basic needs. Hypothesis 10: (a) There is a positive relationship between people exclusion and the target s pro-social behaviour outside the group, (b) mediated by the threat to basic needs. Hypothesis 11: (a) Activity exclusion plays a bigger role than people exclusion for individual-based outcomes; (b) People exclusion plays a bigger role than activity exclusion for group-based outcomes. Supported Result Rejected (results were in the opposite direction) Rejected Both (a) and (b) were supported Supported Both (a) and (b) rejected Supported Both (a) and (b) rejected. (a) Supported for helping undergraduate (b) Rejected Rejected (a) Supported o Internal Attribution o Need Threat o Helping (undergraduate) (b) Partially Supported o Effort o Not supported for Group Liking activity exclusion predicted better than people exclusion.

89 78 Table 33. Hypothesis 11: Additional Analyses with Need Threat and Interactions Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. R- 1 Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Constant Rejection Sensitivity Gender Activity Exclusion People Exclusion Interaction Dependent variable is threat to needs.

90 79 Figures Figure 1. Frequency of ostracism form in workplace Figure 2. Ostracism form and internal attribution