Ostracism Disrupts Self-Continuity

Abstract

We conducted six studies to test our hypotheses that ostracism disrupts self-continuity and that self-affirmation counters ostracism’s negative influence on self-continuity. Participants who experienced more ostracism in their daily lives (Study 1), imagined being ostracized (Studies 2 and 5), recalled a past ostracism experience (Studies 3 and 6), and were ostracized in a ball-tossing game (Study 4) reported lower levels of self-continuity than their counterparts. Moreover, neither violations of expectation nor negativity of the experience was sufficient in decreasing self-continuity (Study 5). Finally, self-affirmation weakened the negative effect of ostracism on self-continuity (Study 6). Taken together, our findings provide converging causal evidence for our hypotheses and provide novel insights for the literature on how daily interpersonal interactions influence individuals’ sense of an enduring self. In addition, the moderation of self-affirmation reported in our research indicates an effective approach to diminishing the negative influence of ostracism.

Keywords

ostracism social exclusion self-continuity self-affirmation self-concept

The self is a multifaceted construct that unfolds through interactions with others (Baumeister, 1999). Ostracism, a negative daily interpersonal experience, can influence several aspects of the self. For instance, ostracism threatens self-esteem (Williams, 2009; Williams & Zadro, 2005), triggers self-uncertainty (Hales & Williams, 2018; Williams et al., 2019), disrupts self-concept clarity (Ayduk et al., 2009), and amplifies self-concept malleability (Richman et al., 2015). Previous studies have focused on the evaluative (e.g., self-esteem) and structural aspects of the self (e.g., self-concept clarity and malleability). We aimed to extend this important line of research to examine the influence of ostracism on self-continuity, which is a temporal aspect of the self.

Self-continuity is defined as the connection between one’s past and future (Habermas & Köber, 2015; Sedikides et al., 2016) and constitutes a fundamental aspect of identity (Breakwell, 1986; Erikson, 1968). It also guides current behaviors (Wang, 2013), aids in planning for the future (Conway et al., 2004), and has implications for psychological well-being (Diehl, 2006). Indeed, one’s sense of self-continuity is a key marker of psychological maturity (Erikson, 1968; Lodi-Smith et al., 2017). Therefore, addressing whether ostracism influences self-continuity and, if so, how to mitigate the negative influence of ostracism on self-continuity is theoretically and practically important.

Ostracism Disrupts Self-Continuity

The literature has shown that people’s sense of self-continuity is negatively associated with severe setbacks in life (Bluck & Liao, 2013; Davis, 1979; Molouki & Bartels, 2017; Zimbardo, 1999), such as traumatic experience (Lampinen et al., 2004), unemployment (Sadeh & Karniol, 2012), the end of long-term relationships, and a sudden loss of body parts or functions (Habermas & Köber, 2015). Although these life-changing experiences could happen to any person, they tend to occur with low frequency. In contrast, ostracism (i.e., being ignored or excluded) is encountered in almost all domains of life, such as in workplaces; religious, educational, and governmental institutions; informal groups; and close relationships. People of any age and with any level of education can experience ostracism (Williams, 1997, 2007). Ostracism often occurs subtly, without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention (Williams, 2007, 2009). Therefore, could ostracism, which is a negative experience that can happen daily (Nezlek et al., 2012), impair self-continuity?

Interpersonal relationships define the relational self and have implications for continuity and congruence in one’s personality (Andersen & Chen, 2002; S. Chen et al., 2006). Relationships with others affect individuals’ enduring sense of who they are. In this way, a sense of belongingness derived from social interactions may help individuals maintain a sense of self-continuity. Supporting this suggestion, Sedikides et al. (2016) found that the feelings of being connected and protected could explain why nostalgia increases the sense of self-continuity. Because ostracism is a threat to social connection, it is likely to disrupt self-continuity.

Besides the direct link between ostracism and self-continuity, various theories assume that ostracism has a negative effect on self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary & Downs, 1995; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 1997, 2009). Indeed, a wide range of empirical research has provided converging support that ostracism disrupts both the need for and the state of self-esteem (e.g., Chen et al., 2020; Ferris et al., 2015; Jiang & Chen, 2020; Leary et al., 2003; Li et al., 2019). As important as the aspect of self-concept, self-esteem affects a wide range of constructs. In particular, self-esteem and self-continuity are positively associated (e.g., Zou et al., 2018). Furthermore, both constructs are positively associated with the psychological well-being index (e.g., Campbell et al., 1996; Sedikides et al., 2016) and serve as terror management strategies against mortality concerns (Abeyta et al., 2014; Landau et al., 2008). Therefore, threats to individuals’ self-esteem are likely to disrupt their sense of self-continuity.

Other plausible processes exist for our prediction that ostracism has an effect on self-continuity. First, a sense of self-continuity asks for a clear and well-structured self-concept. Ostracism disrupts self-concept clarity (Ayduk et al., 2009), which predicts self-continuity (Jiang et al., 2020). Ostracism may thus disrupt self-continuity through its influence on self-concept clarity. Second, a sense of control is associated with self-continuity. One strategy for maintaining self-continuity is to narrate one’s past into a well-integrated life story (Habermas & Köber, 2015). This process instills a sense of order, a predictable pattern, and significance (Landau et al., 2008), that is, a sense of control. Empirical research has found that when self-continuity is threatened by concerns about mortality and people do not have a chance to resort to coherent autobiographical memory, they undertake a compensatory response to imbue a sense of order and significance (Landau et al., 2009). Ostracism reduces people’s sense of control (Malik & Obhi, 2019) and thereby may disrupt their sense of continuity. Third, a sense of meaning is closely correlated with self-continuity (e.g., McLean & Fournier, 2008; van Tilburg et al., 2019). Perceiving meaning in one’s existence protects self-continuity from the threats of negative life experiences. Empirical research has shown that generating meaning for one’s life story helps foster self-continuity (McLean & Fournier, 2008). Ostracism not only makes people feel less meaningful regarding the ostracism episode but also lowers their overall sense of meaning in life (Stillman et al., 2009). Reasonably, ostracism may disrupt self-continuity through its influence on the sense of meaning.

In sum, given the strong influences of ostracism on self-esteem, self-concept clarity, sense of control and meaning, and the potential associations between these constructs and self-continuity, we hypothesized that ostracism would decrease self-continuity. In the following section, we argue that self-affirmation can moderate the effect of ostracism on self-continuity.

Self-Affirmation Buffers the Negative Effect of Ostracism on Self-Continuity

According to the self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), self-affirmation is a strategy for maintaining self-integrity, “that is, overall moral and adaptive adequacy” (Spencer et al., 1993, p. 22). Affirming one’s core values or characteristics enables one to secure self-integrity and thus become less vulnerable to external threats. Literature has shown that self-affirmation boosts self-esteem (Tesser et al., 2000), increases one’s sense of meaning in life (Nelson et al., 2014), brings about positive changes (Cohen & Sherman, 2014), reduces negative affect (Hales et al., 2016), secures a sense of belonging (Cook et al., 2012), and restores a sense of control (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Moreover, researchers have also found that self-affirmation buffers ostracism’s negative effects. For example, Hales et al. (2016) found that self-affirmation led to recovering the four fundamental needs thwarted by ostracism. Howell and Shepperd (2017) found that self-affirmation decreased the avoidance of health risk information engendered by ostracism. Chen et al. (2020) found that self-affirmation reduced suicidal thoughts triggered by ostracism. On the basis of these theories and findings, it is reasonable to suggest that self-affirmation buffers the negative effect of ostracism on self-continuity. See the Supplemental Material for the materials of the six studies.

The Present Research

We aimed to investigate whether ostracism disrupts self-continuity and whether self-affirmation moderates our hypothesized effect of ostracism on self-continuity. We conducted six studies using multiple research methods. In Study 1, we tested whether experiencing ostracism is negatively associated with self-continuity. In Study 2, we manipulated ostracism and tested its influence on self-continuity. In Studies 3 and 4, we replicated Study 2 with a different manipulation of ostracism. In Study 5, we compared ostracism with the conditions of a negative experience, an overinclusion experience, and a neutral experience to investigate whether ostracism has a unique effect on self-continuity. Finally, in Study 6, we examined whether self-affirmation could attenuate ostracism’s negative effect on self-continuity.

Study 1

Using correlational data, Study 1 served as an initial test of our hypothesis that ostracism disrupts self-continuity. Participants completed a set of questionnaires that assessed their ostracism experience and self-continuity.

Method

Participants

A G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007) showed that at least 96 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size (r = .30) for a correlational study with a power of .85 (α = .05).

We recruited 123 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (recruitment criteria: residency in the United States, human intelligence tasks [HITs] approval rate >80%); we excluded one for not completing the questionnaires and another three for failing an attention check question, leaving 119 participants (49 men, 70 women; M_age = 34.57, SD_age = 10.29). Among them, 69.7% were White, 10.1% were Black or African American, 1.7% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 11.8% were Asian, 5% were from multiple races, and 1.7% were from other races.

Procedure and materials

First, we asked participants to complete the 12-item General Belongingness Scale (Malone et al., 2012), which has two dimensions: rejection and exclusion (e.g., “When I am with other people, I feel like a stranger”) and acceptance and inclusion (e.g., “When I am with other people, I feel included”). Participants scored each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). After reversing the scores of the six items for the acceptance and inclusion dimension, we averaged all the items and used them to form a composite to assess ostracism (α = .96), whereby a higher score meant a higher level of ostracism.

We measured self-continuity using the eight-item self-continuity index (Sedikides et al., 2015). Sample items included “I feel the past and present flow seamlessly together” and “I feel connected with who I was in the past.” Participants indicated how they felt about the relationships between their past and present selves, using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = almost none, 7 = extremely much) for each item. We averaged the scores of the eight items to generate a self-continuity index (α = .93). Finally, we thanked and debriefed participants after reporting their demographic information.

Results and Discussion

As expected, self-continuity was negatively associated with ostracism, r(122) = −.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−.56, −.26], p < .001, which provided initial support for our hypothesis. Because the study was correlational in nature, we further tested our hypothesis with causal evidence in Study 2.

Study 2

In Study 2, we manipulated ostracism to provide causal evidence for our hypothesis that ostracism disrupts self-continuity. We used the imagination paradigm to manipulate ostracism (Poon et al., 2013).

Method

Participants and design

A G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007) showed that at least 144 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06) for a between-subject design with a power of .85 (α = .05).

We recruited 221 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (recruitment criteria: residency in the United States, HITs approval rate >80%, and no prior participation in the ostracism and self-continuity project¹). We excluded nine people for failing to complete the study and another 14 for not passing an attention check question, leaving 198 participants (86 men, 112 women; M_age = 36.48, SD_age = 13.66). Among them, 75.8% were White, 6.1% were Black or African American, 1.5% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 10.1% were Asian, 1% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3% were from multiple races, and 2.5% were from other races. Participants were randomly assigned to either an ostracism or an inclusion condition.

Procedure and materials

We used the imagination paradigm (Poon et al., 2013) to manipulate the conditions of ostracism and inclusion. After acknowledging informed consent, participants were instructed to read a vignette and then imagine themselves in the described situation as vividly as possible (Poon et al., 2013).

Participants in the ostracism condition were asked to imagine they were a new employee of a company and were ostracized by their coworkers. In contrast, participants in the inclusion condition were asked to imagine they were a new employee of a company and were accepted by their coworkers.

Next, we asked participants in both conditions to respond to four items (e.g., “I feel rejected”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to indicate their feelings of ostracism during the imagination task. The scores were averaged to check whether the ostracism manipulation (α = .94) was successful. Participants were also required to indicate their level of agreement on two items (i.e., “I vividly imagine the experience” and “I can imagine this experience well”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), whereby their scores reflected the vividness (r = .62, 95% CI = [.52, .70], p < .001) of their mental imagery.

We measured self-continuity using the eight-item self-continuity index (Sedikides et al., 2015), as in Study 1. Participants indicated how they felt about the relationships between their past and present selves, using a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = almost none, 9 = extremely much) for each item. We averaged the scores of the eight items to generate a self-continuity index (α = .92). After completing all measures, participants reported their demographic information, and we then fully debriefed and thanked them.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check

As predicted, participants in the ostracism condition (M = 5.58, SD = 1.34) felt more excluded than those in the inclusion condition (M = 2.41, SD = 1.33): t(196) = 16.67, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.38, 95% CI = [2.0101, 2.7406].

Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 5.55, SD = 1.12) and in the inclusion condition (M = 5.49, SD = 1.15) did not differ in the vividness of their mental imagery: t(196) = 0.36, p = .72, Cohen’s d = 0.05, 95% CI = [−0.2282, 0.3308]. Thus, our ostracism manipulation was successful.

Ostracism and self-continuity

The independent t test conducted on self-continuity revealed a significant main effect of ostracism on self-continuity: t(179.10) = −5.77, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.82, 95% CI = [0.5295, 1.1139]. Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.49, SD = 1.73) showed lower levels of self-continuity than those in the inclusion condition (M = 5.82, SD = 1.49). The results of Study 2 provided causal evidence for our hypothesis that ostracism disrupts self-continuity.

Study 3

We conducted Study 3 to replicate the findings of Studies 1 and 2 with a new method for ostracism manipulation. We asked participants to recall either an ostracism or an inclusion experience (Chen et al., 2012; Poon & Chen, 2014).

Method

Participants and design

As in Study 2, a G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007) showed that at least 144 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06) for a between-subject design with a power of .85 (α = .05).

We recruited 174 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (recruitment criteria: residency in the United States, HITs approval rate >80%, and no prior participation in the ostracism and self-continuity project). We excluded 10 participants for failing to follow instructions (e.g., one participant in the ostracism condition was excluded for writing “acascas”), three for not completing the study, and seven for not passing an attention check question, resulting in 154 participants (44 men, 110 women, M_age = 36.53, SD_age = 13.08). Among them, 75.3% were White, 11% were Black or African American, 7.1% were Hispanic, 3.2% were Asian, and 3.2% were from other races. We randomly assigned participants to either an ostracism or an inclusion condition.

Procedure and materials

We manipulated ostracism by asking participants to recall a past experience (Chen et al., 2012; Poon & Chen, 2014). Participants in the ostracism condition were asked to recall and describe an ostracism experience. In contrast, those in the inclusion condition were asked to recall and describe an inclusion experience. Next, all participants responded to four items intended to measure their feelings of ostracism (e.g., “I feel like an outsider”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We averaged the scores of the four items to evaluate whether the ostracism manipulation (α = .90) was successful.

Self-continuity was measured in the same fashion as in Studies 1 and 2, using the eight-item self-continuity index (Sedikides et al., 2015). Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We averaged the scores to index self-continuity (α = .89). Finally, we thanked and debriefed participants after they reported their demographic information.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check

Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 5.00, SD = 1.41) reported feeling more excluded than those in the inclusion condition (M = 1.79, SD = .90): t(141.31) = 17.12, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.77, 95% CI = [2.3132, 3.2170]. Thus, our ostracism manipulation was successful.

Ostracism and self-continuity

Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.34, SD = 1.24) reported lower levels of self-continuity than those in the inclusion condition (M = 4.98, SD = 1.20): t(152) = −3.24, p = .001, Cohen’s d = 0.52, 95% CI = [0.2007, 0.8452]. Thus, consistent with Study 2, despite using a different paradigm to manipulate ostracism, Study 3 also supported our hypothesis that ostracism disrupts self-continuity.

Study 4

Studies 1 to 3 have shown that ostracism—in the form of long-term experience, an imagination vignette, and a past experience—disrupts self-continuity. However, it remains unclear whether a concurrent ostracism experience disrupts self-continuity. Thus, in Study 4, we used the Cyberball paradigm to manipulate ostracism (Williams et al., 2000).

Method

Participants and design

We recruited 205 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (recruitment criteria: residency in the United States, HITs approval rate >90%, and no prior participation in the ostracism and self-continuity project). Excluding eight for failing to complete the study and 16 for not passing the attention check questions resulted in 181 participants (77 men, 104 women; M_age = 36.09, SD_age = 10.60). Among them, 74% were White, 11.6% were Asian, 7.7% were Black or African American, 4.4% were Latin American, 1.1% were Black African, and 1.1% were from other races. We randomly assigned all participants to either an ostracism or an inclusion condition.

Procedure and materials

We manipulated ostracism using the Cyberball paradigm (Jiang & Chen, 2020; Williams et al., 2000). During the ball-playing game, participants in the ostracism condition received one out of 30 tosses. In contrast, participants in the inclusion condition received one third of the 30 tosses. Next, all participants responded to three items (i.e., “I feel rejected,” “I feel socially excluded,” and “I feel ignored”) intended to measure their feelings of ostracism (α = .95).

We measured self-continuity in the same way as in Studies 1 to 3 that used the eight-item self-continuity index (Sedikides et al., 2015). Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and we averaged the scores to index self-continuity (α = .90). Finally, we thanked and debriefed participants after they reported their demographic information.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check

Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 5.61, SD = 1.69) reported greater feelings of exclusion than those in the inclusion condition (M = 2.57, SD = 1.57): t(179) = 12.57, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.87, 95% CI = [1.5172, 2.2165]. Thus, our ostracism manipulation was successful.

Ostracism and self-continuity

Participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.05) reported lower levels of self-continuity than those in the inclusion condition (M = 4.96, SD = 1.12): t(179) = −2.49, p = .014, Cohen’s d = 0.37, 95% CI = [0.0758, 0.6635].

The results of Study 4 showed that a concurrent exclusion experience—being ostracized by strangers in a ball-tossing game—also disrupts self-continuity. Therefore, Studies 1 to 4 provided converging support for our hypothesis. In Studies 2 to 4, we compared the ostracism condition with the inclusion condition. Whether ostracism decreased or inclusion increased self-continuity remains unclear. In addition, ostracism experiences are negative and often unexpected, thus it remains unclear whether our reported effect of ostracism on self-continuity could be attributed to the negativity or the unexpectedness of the ostracism experiences. Therefore, we addressed these questions in Study 5.

Study 5

In Study 5, we compared ostracism with the conditions of a negative experience, an overinclusion experience, and a neutral experience to test whether the effect of ostracism on self-continuity is merely because ostracism is negative or unexpected and whether ostracism decreases or inclusion increases self-continuity.

Method

Participants and design

A G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007) showed that at least 300 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04) for a between-subject design with a power of .85 (α = .05).

We recruited 336 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (recruitment criteria: residency in the United States, HITs approval rate >95%, and no prior participation in the ostracism and self-continuity project). We excluded 12 people for failing to complete the study and five for not passing an attention check question, leaving 319 participants (145 men, 174 women; M_age = 39.18, SD_age = 13.43). Among them, 72.7% were White, 9.7% were Asian, 8.8% were Black or African American, 6.6% were Hispanic, 0.9% were Native American, and 1.3% were from other races. Participants were randomly assigned one of the four conditions: ostracism, overinclusion, negative experience, or neutral.

Procedure and materials

We modified the imagination paradigm (Poon et al., 2013) to manipulate ostracism. After acknowledging informed consent, we instructed participants to read a vignette and then imagine themselves in the described situation as vividly as possible (Poon et al., 2013). Next, we instructed participants in all conditions to imagine they were a new employee of a company. Participants in the ostracism condition were asked to imagine they were ostracized by their coworkers, and those in the negative experience condition were asked to imagine they recently failed a task. In the overinclusion condition, participants were asked to imagine they were given a surprise birthday party by their coworkers. In the neutral experience condition, participants were asked to imagine they generally performed quite well although they sometimes made mistakes.

Next, participants completed the self-continuity index (Sedikides et al., 2015) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We averaged the scores of the eight items to generate a self-continuity index (α = .91).

Participants then completed the manipulation check items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Three items were used to measure their perceived ostracism (i.e., “I felt rejected,” “I felt ignored,” and “I felt ostracized”; α = .91), three to measure their negative affect (i.e., “I felt negative,” “I felt aversive,” and “I felt good”; α = .78), and three to measure the perceived unexpectedness of the experience for them (i.e., “I felt it was unexpected,” “I felt surprised,” and “I felt it was out of my expectation”; α = .76). Finally, after reporting their demographic information, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant variation among the four experimental conditions on participants’ perceived ostracism: F(3, 315) = 61.22, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .37, 90% CI = [0.2964, 0.4246].² A Bonferroni post hoc comparison showed participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.97, SD = 1.84) felt more excluded than those in the negative experience condition (M = 3.25, SD = 1.32; M_diff = 1.71, SE = 0.24, p < .001), the overinclusion condition (M = 1.89, SD = 1.33; M_diff = 3.08, SE = 0.24, p < .001), and the neutral experience condition (M = 2.58, SD = 1.45; M_diff = 2.39, SE = 0.24, p < .001). Participants in the negative experience condition felt more excluded than those in the overinclusion condition (M_diff = 1.37, SE = 0.24, p < .001) and in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = 0.67, SE = 0.24, p = .026). Participants in the overinclusion condition felt less excluded than those in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = −0.69, SE = 0.24, p = .021).

Another one-way ANOVA revealed significant variation among the effects of the four experimental conditions on negative affect: F(3, 315) = 59.36, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .36, 90% CI = [0.2891, 0.4178]. A Bonferroni post hoc comparison showed that participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.71, SD = 1.26) felt greater negative affect than those in the overinclusion condition (M = 2.36, SD = 1.41; M_diff = 2.35, SE = 0.20, p < .001) and in the neutral experience condition (M = 3.03, SD = 1.17; M_diff = 1.68, SE = 0.20, p < .001). We found no significant difference between the ostracism and negative experience conditions (M = 4.30, SD = 1.19; M_diff = .41, SE = 0.20, p = .27). Participants in the negative experience condition felt greater negative affect than those in the overinclusion condition (M_diff = 1.94, SE = 0.20, p < .001) and in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = 1.27, SE = 0.20, p < .001). Participants in the overinclusion condition reported less negative affect than those in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = −.67, SE = 0.20, p = .005).

Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA on participants’ perceived unexpectedness of the experience revealed significant variation among the four experimental conditions: F(3, 315) = 24.87, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .19, 90% CI = [0.1253, 0.2483]. A Bonferroni post hoc comparison showed that participants in the ostracism condition (M = 3.80, SD = 1.26) felt their experience was less unexpected than did those in the overinclusion condition (M = 4.92, SD = 1.37; M_diff = −1.12, SE = 0.22, p < .001) but more unexpected compared with those in the neutral experience condition (M = 3.02, SD = 1.52; M_diff = 0.78, SE = 0.22, p = .003). No significant differences were found between the ostracism and negative experience conditions (M = 3.91, SD = 1.45; M_diff = −0.11, SE = 0.22, p = 1.00). Participants in the negative experience condition felt their experience was less unexpected than did those in the overinclusion condition (M_diff = −1.00, SE = 0.22, p < .001) but more unexpected in comparison with those in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = 0.89, SE = 0.22, p < .001). Participants in the overinclusion condition felt their experience was more unexpected than did those in the neutral experience condition (M_diff = 1.90, SE = 0.22, p < .001). Thus, our experimental manipulations were successful.

Ostracism and self-continuity

A one-way ANOVA on self-continuity revealed a significant variation among the four experimental conditions: F(3, 315) = 6.34, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06, 90% CI = [0.0174, 0.0963]. A Bonferroni post hoc comparison showed that participants in the ostracism condition (M = 4.53, SD = 1.09) reported lower levels of self-continuity than those in the negative experience condition (M = 5.10, SD = 1.00; M_diff = −0.58, SE = 0.17, p = .004), the overinclusion condition (M = 5.07, SD = 1.11; M_diff = −0.54, SE = 0.17, p = .009), and the neutral experience condition (M = 5.18, SD = 1.03; M_diff = −0.66, SE = 0.17, p = .001). We found no significant difference between the negative experience and overinclusion conditions (M_diff = 0.04, SE = 0.17, p = 1.00), the negative and neutral experience conditions (M_diff = −0.08, SE = 0.17, p = 1.00), or the overinclusion and neutral experience conditions (M_diff = −0.12, SE = 0.17, p = 1.00).

The reported main effect of ostracism on self-continuity further supported our hypothesis. In addition, the results of Study 5 indicated that ostracism’s effect on self-continuity might not be due to the negativity or perceived unexpectedness of the ostracism experience; ostracism decreases, rather than inclusion increases self-continuity. In our final study, we tested a potential approach to weaken the effect of ostracism on self-continuity.

Study 6

In Study 6, we aimed to investigate whether self-affirmation through reflection on one’s core characteristics would reduce the negative effect of ostracism on self-continuity. According to the self-affirmation theory (Sherman & Cohen, 2002, 2006; Steele, 1988), people are strongly motivated to protect self-integrity and self-worth. One effective strategy to achieve this is to affirm self-resources, which includes reflecting on important aspects of one’s life, engaging in an activity that makes important values salient, or shifting one’s attention to other self-integrity domains (Sherman & Cohen, 2006). Previous research has suggested that self-affirmation buffers the threat of ostracism (e.g., Hales et al., 2016; Howell & Shepperd, 2017). Thus, that self-affirmation mitigates the influence of ostracism on self-continuity is a reasonable expectation.

Method

Participants and design

A G*Power analysis showed that at least 143 participants were needed to detect a medium effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06) for a 2 × 2 between-subject design with a power of .85 (α = .05). One-hundred seventy participants from a summer school at Peking University participated in Study 6. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of four conditions of a 2 (ostracism experience vs. neutral experience) × 2 (Self-affirmation: self-affirmation vs. control) between-subject analysis. Three were excluded for failing to complete the study, leaving 167 participants (39 men, 126 women, and two people of unreported gender; M_age = 22.80, SD_age = 3.87) who all passed an attention check question.

Procedure and materials

Participants first recalled a past experience (ostracism experience vs. neutral experience). Participants then responded to two items (i.e., “I feel excluded” and “I feel ignored”) using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and we averaged the scores to check whether the ostracism manipulation (r = .77, 95% CI = [.69, .82], p < .001) was successful.

Next, participants were exposed to the self-affirmation manipulation, adapted from previous studies (e.g., Matz & Wood, 2005). Participants in the self-affirmation condition were instructed to reflect on their lives, list four of their most cherished personal characteristics, and generate examples of situations in which they had demonstrated those characteristics. In the control condition, participants were instructed to consider the foods they prefer and list four of their favorite foods and their reasons for liking them.

Self-continuity was assessed as in Studies 1 to 5. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We averaged the scores to generate a self-continuity index (α = .73). Finally, after reporting their demographic information, participants were debriefed and thanked.

Results and Discussion

Manipulation check

Participants in the ostracism experience condition (M = 4.91, SD = 1.22) reported greater feelings of exclusion and rejection than those in the neutral experience condition (M = 1.54, SD = 1.02): t(154.81) = 19.23, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.98, 95% CI = [2.5268, 3.4259]. Thus, our ostracism manipulation was successful.

Ostracism, self-affirmation, and self-continuity

We conducted a 2 (Ostracism: ostracism experience vs. neutral experience) × 2 (Self-affirmation: self-affirmation vs. control) ANOVA on self-continuity. The main effect of ostracism was significant, such that participants in the ostracism experience condition (M = 5.13, SD = 0.64) reported lower levels of self-continuity than did participants in the neutral experience condition (M = 5.47, SD =.78): F(1, 163) = 9.60, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06, 90% CI = [.0122,.1209]. However, the main effect of self-affirmation was not significant: F(1, 163) = 1.66, p = .20, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01, 90% CI = [.00, .0496]. Importantly, the results revealed that the interaction effect was significant: F(1, 163) = 4.28, p = .040, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, 90% CI = [.0006, .0774] (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Self-continuity as a function of ostracism and self-affirmation (Study 6).

In the self-affirmation condition, we observed no difference in self-reported self-continuity between participants in ostracism (M = 5.31, SD = 0.70) and neutral experience conditions (M = 5.42, SD = 0.78): F(1, 163) = 0.52, p = .47, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003, 90% CI = [.00, .0325]. However, in the control condition, participants who recalled an ostracism experience (M = 4.94, SD = 0.52) scored lower on the self-continuity scale than did those who recalled a neutral experience (M = 5.51, SD = 0.79): F(1, 163) = 13.57, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08, 90% CI = [.0237, .1482].

Furthermore, for participants who recalled an ostracism experience, those in the self-affirmation condition (M = 5.31, SD = 0.70) reported higher levels of self-continuity than did those in the control condition (M = 4.94, SD = 0.52): F(1, 163) = 5.41, p = .021, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, 90% CI = [.0025, .0876]. For participants who recalled a neutral experience, we saw no significant difference between the self-affirmation (M = 5.42, SD = 0.78) and control (M = 5.51, SD = 0.79) conditions, F(1, 163) = 0.32, p = .57, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .002, 90% CI = [.00, .0280]. Study 6 extended the findings of the previous five studies by showing that self-affirmation could mitigate the negative effect of ostracism on self-continuity.

General Discussion

A sense of self-continuity is an important indicator of psychological well-being (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2016) and is commonly experienced (Lampinen et al., 2004). This sense of temporal coherence not only imparts meaning, order, and continuity (Borden, 1992) but also a foundation for future planning and actions (Markus & Nurius, 1986; McAdams, 2013). Previous research has primarily focused on the effect of negative life-changing events on self-continuity. In the current research, we examined whether ostracism—a daily negative interpersonal experience—can disrupt self-continuity. We found that self-reported ostracism was negatively associated with self-continuity (Study 1). Furthermore, we found that imagined ostracism from colleagues (Studies 2 and 5), a concurrent ostracism experience in a ball-tossing game (Study 4), and a recalled ostracism experience (Studies 3 and 6) led to lower levels of self-continuity. More importantly, ostracism decreased self-continuity but inclusion did not increase it. Negative and unexpected experiences did not decrease self-continuity as ostracism did (Study 5). Finally, we found that self-affirmation reduced the negative effect of ostracism on self-continuity (Study 6).

Implications

Our findings carry several significant implications. First, the finding that the disruptions of interpersonal relationships reduce self-continuity enriches the self-continuity literature. Many researchers have found that self-continuity is closely related to psychological well-being (e.g., McAdams et al., 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Sadeh & Karniol, 2012; Sedikides et al., 2016; Troll & Skaff, 1997). Previous research has been more concerned with how long-term relationship disruptions (e.g., deaths of loved ones) and traumatic events upset self-continuity. Previous studies have generally lacked causal evidence. Using empirical methods, we found that ostracism—a short-term and subtly negative daily experience—can disrupt one’s sense of self-continuity. Our findings suggest that individuals may update or modify their self-continuity more frequently than previously hypothesized.

In addition, our findings converge with previous research, highlighting the unique influence that ostracism has on the self. Our investigation focused on whether ostracism influences the temporal aspect of the self. Such an investigation is important because maintaining a sense of enduring self is the core of identity (Breakwell, 1986; Erikson, 1968) and critical for psychological well-being (Diehl, 2006). Our research suggests that the main effect of ostracism might not be attributed to how it is a negative experience or how it violates expectations. Previous research has shown that ostracism influences various aspects of the self, including self-esteem (Williams & Zadro, 2005), self-concept clarity (Ayduk et al., 2009), self-concept malleability (Richman et al., 2015), and self-uncertainty (e.g., Hales & Williams, 2018; Williams et al., 2019), which may explain the unique influence of ostracism on self-continuity.

Furthermore, consistent with research that has shown that self-affirmation helps buffer a negative experience (Cohen & Sherman, 2014; Steele, 1988), our research suggests that increasing self-continuity through self-affirmation offers new potentials for developing intervention programs to help people cope with threats to self-continuity. Giving ostracized people a chance to revisit their core values and characteristics helps them restore the self-integrity that ostracism threatens, thereby enabling them to see their lives as continuous and imbued with meaning and order.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our research was not without limitations. Our studies provided converging evidence that ostracism disrupts self-continuity, but we did not preregister them. Preregistration would reinforce our hypotheses’ plausibility, and preregistration of the statistical approach would also raise confidence in the robustness of our results.

Second, the method we used to capture self-continuity includes self-reported items. To increase our findings’ generalizability, future research should explore methods that do not rely purely on self-reporting measures to capture the concept of self-continuity. For example, participants could be asked to write short autobiographies. The self-continuity or connected language encoded in their writings could be used to generate a self-continuity index (McLean, 2008; Wang, 2013).

Third, the underlying mechanism of ostracism’s effect on self-continuity requires further research. Self-esteem, self-concept clarity, sense of control, and sense of meaning are potential mediators that warrant future investigation. Moreover, our research only focused on the effect of ostracism on self-continuity. Future research should include a broader set of outcome variables to examine a comprehensive picture of ostracism’s consequences and establish the unique validity of self-continuity. For example, to better understand how ostracism affects self-concept, future research could examine the interplay among various aspects of self-concept that follow ostracism, such as self-esteem, self-concept clarity, self-uncertainty, and self-continuity.

Fourth, self-affirmation protects self-integrity by affirming self-resources, which includes reflecting on important aspects of one’s life that are irrelevant to the threat, engaging in an activity that makes important values salient, or shifting one’s attention to other self-integrity domains (Sherman & Cohen, 2006). We manipulated self-affirmation by asking participants to reflect on their cherished personal characteristics, which helps people reflect on their advantageous self-resources. Such reflection might be a form of self-affirmation. However, self-affirmation is frequently manipulated by asking participants to reflect on the values they find important (e.g., Chen et al., 2020). Future research should investigate whether other forms of self-affirmation, such as reflection on important values, help attenuate ostracism’s negative effect on self-continuity.

Finally, we examined only the moderating effect of self-affirmation. Our reported effect of ostracism on self-continuity may have been influenced by other variables. For example, Ayduk et al. (2009) found that rejection undermined the clarity of participants’ self-concept, an effect that was more pronounced for participants with high rejection sensitivity. Jiang et al. (2020) found that resorting to autobiographical memory helped participants cope with the threat of low self-concept clarity and restore a sense of self-continuity. Kung et al. (2016) found that Indian participants living in a rigid social system perceived more self-discontinuity than American participants living in a flexible social system when individuals’ social relationships (vs. internal traits) changed. In contrast, American participants embedded in more flexible social systems perceived the reverse. Strong fixed-world beliefs (i.e., beliefs in the world as a stable, unchanging entity) accounted for this phenomenon, because participants with such beliefs depended on the stability of the external world. Further research could investigate how these variables moderate ostracism’s effect on self-continuity.

Conclusion

Our research showed that ostracism, a daily negative experience that often catches one by surprise, can take a toll on one’s self-continuity. Furthermore, affirming one’s self-resources helps mitigate the negative effect of social exclusion. These findings carry both practical and theoretical implications in highlighting the unique effect that ostracism can have on shaping who people are and how they perceive themselves.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_0146167220974496 – Supplemental material for Ostracism Disrupts Self-Continuity

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_0146167220974496 for Ostracism Disrupts Self-Continuity by Tonglin Jiang, Zhansheng Chen, Shiyao Wang and Yubo Hou in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council’s General Research Fund (17672816) and the University of Hong Kong’s Seed Funding Program (201711159204).

ORCID iD

Tonglin Jiang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Abeyta

A. A.

Juhl

Routledge

(2014). Exploring the effects of self-esteem and mortality salience on proximal and distally measured death anxiety: A further test of the dual process model of terror management. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9400-y

Andersen

S. M.

Chen

(2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619

Ayduk

Ö.

Gyurak

Luerssen

. (2009). Rejection sensitivity moderates the impact of rejection on self-concept clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209343969

Baumeister

R. F.

(Ed.). (1999). The self in social psychology. Psychology Press.

Bluck

Liao

H. W.

(2013). I was therefore I am: Creating self-continuity through remembering our personal past. The International Journal of Reminiscence and Life Review, 1, 7–12.

Borden

(1992). Narrative perspectives in psychosocial intervention following adverse life events. Social Work, 37, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/37.2.135

Breakwell

G. M.

(1986). Coping with threatened identities. Methuen.

Campbell

J. D.

Trapnell

P. D.

Heine

S. J.

Katz

I. M.

Lavallee

L. F.

Lehman

D. R.

(1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.141

Chen

Boucher

H. C.

Tapias

M. P.

(2006). The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.151

10.

Chen

DeWall

C. N.

Poon

K. T.

Chen

E. W.

(2012). When destiny hurts: Implicit theories of relationships moderate aggressive responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1029–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.002

11.

Chen

Poon

K. T.

DeWall

C. N.

Jiang

(2020). Life lacks meaning without acceptance: Ostracism triggers suicidal thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000238

12.

Cohen

G. L.

Sherman

D. K.

(2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137

13.

Conway

M. A.

Singer

J. A.

Tagini

(2004). The self and autobiographical memory: Correspondence and coherence. Social Cognition, 22, 495–537. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.5.491.50768

14.

Cook

J. E.

Purdie-Vaughns

Garcia

Cohen

G. L.

(2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026312

15.

Davis

(1979). Yearning for yesterday: A sociology of nostalgia. Free Press.

16.

Diehl

(2006). Development of self-representations in adulthood. In Mroczek

Little

(Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 373–398). Erlbaum.

17.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

18.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

19.

Ferris

D. L.

Lian

Brown

D. J.

Morrison

(2015). Ostracism, self-esteem, and job performance: When do we self-verify and when do we self-enhance? Academy of Management Journal, 58, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0347

20.

Habermas

Köber

(2015). Autobiographical reasoning in life narratives buffers the effect of biographical disruptions on the sense of self-continuity. Memory, 23, 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.920885

21.

Hales

A. H.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Williams

K. D.

(2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.002

22.

Hales

A. H.

Williams

K. D.

(2018). Marginalized individuals and extremism: The role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12257

23.

Howell

J. L.

Shepperd

J. A.

(2017). Social exclusion, self-affirmation, and health information avoidance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.005

24.

Jiang

Chen

(2020). Relative deprivation: A mechanism for the ostracism–aggression link. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2621

25.

Jiang

Chen

Sedikides

(2020). Self-concept clarity lays the foundation for self-continuity: The restorative function of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000267

26.

Kung

F. Y.

Eibach

R. P.

Grossmann

(2016). Culture, fixed-world beliefs, relationships, and perceptions of identity change. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616652208

27.

Lampinen

J. M.

Odegard

T. N.

Leding

J. K.

(2004). Diachronic disunity. In Beike

D. R.

Lampinen

J. M.

Behrend

D. A.

(Eds.), The self in memory (pp. 227–253). Psychology Press.

28.

Landau

M. J.

Greenberg

Solomon

(2008). The never-ending story: A terror management perspective on the psychological function of self-continuity. In Sani

(Ed.), Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 87–100). Taylor & Francis.

29.

Landau

M. J.

Greenberg

Sullivan

Routledge

Arndt

(2009). The protective identity: Evidence that mortality salience heightens the clarity and coherence of the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.013

30.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). Academic Press.

31.

Leary

M. R.

Downs

D. L.

(1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In Kernis

M. H.

(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). Plenum Press.

32.

Leary

M. R.

Gallagher

Fors

Buttermore

Baldwin

Kennedy

Mills

(2003). The invalidity of disclaimers about the effects of social feedback on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005007

33.

Zhao

(2019). Ostracism and aggression among adolescents: Implicit theories of personality moderated the mediating effect of self-esteem. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.043

34.

Lodi-Smith

Spain

S. M.

Cologgi

Roberts

B. W.

(2017). Development of identity clarity and content in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000091

35.

Malik

R. A.

Obhi

S. S.

(2019). Social exclusion reduces the sense of agency: Evidence from intentional binding. Consciousness and Cognition, 71, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.03.004

36.

Malone

G. P.

Pillow

D. R.

Osman

(2012). The general belongingness scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027

37.

Markus

Nurius

(1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

38.

Matz

D. C.

Wood

(2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.22

39.

McAdams

D. P.

(2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464657

40.

McAdams

D. P.

Reynolds

Lewis

Patten

A. H.

Bowman

P. J.

(2001). When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: Sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 474–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274008

41.

McLean

K. C.

(2008). Stories of the young and the old: Personal continuity and narrative identity. Developmental Psychology, 44, 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.254

42.

McLean

K. C.

Fournier

M. A.

(2008). The content and processes of autobiographical reasoning in narrative identity. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.08.003

43.

Molouki

Bartels

D. M.

(2017). Personal change and the continuity of the self. Cognitive Psychology, 93, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.11.006

44.

Nelson

S. K.

Fuller

J. A. K.

Choi

Lyubomirsky

(2014). Beyond self-protection: Self-affirmation benefits hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 998–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214533389

45.

Nezlek

J. B.

Wesselmann

E. D.

Wheeler

Williams

K. D.

(2012). Ostracism in everyday life. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028029

46.

Poon

K. T.

Chen

(2014). When justice surrenders: The effect of just-world beliefs on aggression following ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.006

47.

Poon

K. T.

Chen

DeWall

C. N.

(2013). Feeling entitled to more: Ostracism increases dishonest behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213493187

48.

Richman

S. B.

Slotter

E. B.

Gardner

W. L.

DeWall

C. N.

(2015). Reaching out by changing what’s within: Social exclusion increases self-concept malleability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.11.008

49.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

50.

Sadeh

Karniol

(2012). The sense of self-continuity as a resource in adaptive coping with job loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.009

51.

Sedikides

Wildschut

Cheung

W. Y.

Routledge

Hepper

E. G.

Arndt

Vail

Zhou

Brackstone

Vingerhoets

A. J. J. M

. (2016). Nostalgia fosters self-continuity: Uncovering the mechanism (social connectedness) and the consequence (eudaimonic well-being). Emotion, 16, 524–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000136

52.

Sedikides

Wildschut

Routledge

Arndt

(2015). Nostalgia counteracts self-discontinuity and restores self-continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2073

53.

Sherman

D. K.

Cohen

G. L.

(2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00182

54.

Sherman

D. K.

Cohen

G. L.

(2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5

55.

Smart Richman

Leary

M. R

. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250

56.

Spencer

S. J.

Josephs

R. A.

Steele

C. M.

(1993). Low self-esteem: The uphill struggle for self-integrity. In Baumeister

R. F.

(Ed.), Plenum series in social/clinical psychology: Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 21–36). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8956-9_2

57.

Steele

C. M.

(1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press.

58.

Steiger

J. H.

(2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164

59.

Stillman

T. F.

Baumeister

R. F.

Lambert

N. M.

Crescioni

A. W.

DeWall

C. N.

Fincham

F. D.

(2009). Alone and without purpose: Life loses meaning following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.007

60.

Tesser

Crepaz

Collins

J. C.

Cornell

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Confluence of self-esteem regulation mechanisms: On integrating the self-zoo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1476–1489. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002612003

61.

Troll

L. E.

Skaff

M. M.

(1997). Perceived continuity of self in very old age. Psychology and Aging, 12, 162–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.1.162

62.

van Tilburg

W. A. P.

Sedikides

Wildschut

Vingerhoets

A. J. J. M

. (2019). How nostalgia infuses life with meaning: From social connectedness to self-continuity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2519

63.

Wang

(2013). The autobiographical self in time and culture. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737833.001.0001

64.

Whitson

J. A.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845

65.

Williams

K. D.

(1997). Social ostracism. In Kowalski

R. M.

(Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). Plenum Press.

66.

Williams

K. D.

(2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

67.

Williams

K. D.

(2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1

68.

Williams

K. D.

Cheung

C. K.

Choi

(2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748

69.

Williams

K. D.

Hales

A. H.

Michels

(2019). Social ostracism as a factor motivating interest in extreme groups. In S. Rudert, R. Greifeneder, & K. Williams (Eds.), Current directions in ostracism, social exclusion and rejection research (pp. 18–31). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351255912-2

70.

Williams

K. D.

Zadro

(2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early detection system. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

Von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 19–34). Taylor & Francis.

71.

Zimbardo

P. G.

(1999). Discontinuity theory: Cognitive and social searches for rationality and normality—May lead to madness. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 345–486). Academic Press.

72.

Zou

Wildschut

Cable

Sedikides

(2018). Nostalgia for host culture facilitates repatriation success: The role of self-continuity. Self and Identity, 17, 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1378123

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

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

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

0.00 MB

0.03 MB