Abstract
Ostracism means being ignored and excluded. Like bullying, ostracism causes pain and distress. Its targets either attempt compensatory behavior, aimed at being likeable and included, or they retaliate, provoke, and aggress. Qualitative interviews suggest that frequent exposures to ostracism make targets become depressed, exhibit helplessness, and engage in suicidal ideation and/or attempts. Unlike bullying, ostracism need not be persistent or unwanted, is difficult to monitor and penalize, and negatively affects basic human needs for acknowledgment and meaning. Research on ostracism reveals its characteristics, compares its consequences with being bullied, and suggests implications for public policy.
Tweet
Interventions aimed at reducing the frequency and impact of ostracism may be economically viable yet effective
Key Points
Ostracism research shows its long-term impact on heart, mind, and body, with damage that exceeds bullying.
Ostracism interventions can link to anti-bullying programs, assess their independent impact, and engage the community.
Community interventions raise sensitivity and produce action plans reducing ostracism.
Introduction
Ostracism—being ignored and excluded—was neglected by social scientists as an aversive social behavior until the last three decades (Gruter & Masters, 1986; Williams, 1997, 2001, 2007, 2009). Since then, hundreds of experimental studies and review articles have detailed the large negative effects produced even by small exclusions (for meta-analyses, see Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009; Cacioppo et al., 2013; J. Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2014). Interventions and policy implications about ostracism are still in their infancy and have not yet attracted much institutional or governmental attention. Research on bullying, on the contrary, has attracted considerable attention since the 1970s (Olweus, 1977), with several intervention programs adopted worldwide (in the United States, see http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html). This article reviews the research on ostracism, compares ostracism with bullying, and outlines implications for public policy.
Why is ostracism worthy of such attention? Ostracism is more insidious than bullying. People can ostracize others unnoticed and with relative impunity. Ostracism hurts as much or more than bullying, yet because it is characterized by the absence of attention and acknowledgment, it is difficult to monitor and regulate (Williams, 2001). In addition, individuals who endure long-term exposure to ostracism in schools (Saylor et al., 2012; Saylor et al., 2013) and the workplace (O’Reilly, Robinson, Banki, & Berdahl, 2014) show more severe downstream consequences than they do to bullying.
What We Know About Ostracism
Considerable research since the late 1990s has documented the impact of being ignored, excluded, and rejected. 1 This work builds on a robust variety of methods and examines an array of outcomes.
Range of Methods
Ostracism has been investigated using a variety of methods. Most mimic the casual exclusions of everyday life. In the laboratory, participants have been ignored and excluded from tossing a ball (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006; Williams & Sommer, 1997), tossing a virtual ball (Cyberball; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), chatting in an Internet chat room (Williams et al., 2002), receiving text messages (Smith & Williams, 2004), following a get-acquainted discussion (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Wesselmann, Butler, Williams, & Pickett, 2010), and role-play exercises (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2005). They have been asked to relive ostracism and exclusion in their own lives (Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wager, 2011; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004) and have been told that, based on their responses to a personality questionnaire, they will live life alone without friends (Twenge et al., 2001). Outside the laboratory, individuals were given eye contact or not while walking across campus (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012), recorded in their diaries real or contrived ostracism (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler, & Williams, 2012; Williams, Bernieri, Faulkner, Grahe, & Gada-Jain, 2000), or were interviewed regarding the impact of their long-term exposure to ostracism (Williams & Zadro, 2001).
Outcomes
Physiological effects
The diversity of methods employed to manipulate ostracism has been matched by the diversity of measures determining the impact of ostracism. In the brain, fMRI scans and electroencephalograms (EEGs) have shown that ostracism activates regions associated with detecting alarm and pain (Eisenberger, Liebermann, & Williams, 2001), sensing pain (Kross et al., 2011), transforming subjective feelings and behavior, uncertainty, rumination, emotional craving, and representations of significant others (Cacioppo et al., 2013). Thinking about being unexpectedly rejected causes the heart to decelerate (Gunther Moor, Crone, & van der Molen, 2010). Peer rejection also increases the stress hormone cortisol in children (Gunnar, Sebanc, Tout, Donzella, & van Dulman, 2003), and laboratory ostracism increases cortisol in some adults (Blackhart, Eckel, & Tice, 2007; Stroud, Tanofsky-Kraff, Wilfley, & Salovey, 2000; but see also Zwolinski, 2012).
Psychological effects
At the psychological level, ostracized individuals report “need-threat”—lower satisfaction of needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Williams, 2009) and especially for some clinical populations such as the socially anxious (Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006). Ostracism also increases in negative emotions, particularly anger and sadness (Chow, Tiedens, & Govan, 2008; Williams, 2009). Negative effects of ostracism have been demonstrated even when other factors would seem to make the ostracism unimportant or even beneficial. Expecting ostracism, even volunteering for it, still results in distress (Eisenberger et al., 2001; J. P. Gerber & Wheeler, 2014; Williams, Bernieri, et al., 2000). Furthermore, ostracism hurts even if the sources are despised (Fayant, Muller, Hartgerink, & Lantian, 2014; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), are known to be only computer generated (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), are tossing a virtual bomb that will eliminate the player holding it (van Beest, Williams, & van Dijk, 2011), or when inclusion costs individuals money, whereas ostracism allows them to keep their money (van Beest & Williams, 2006).
Behavioral effects
Behaviorally, ostracism increases social susceptibility, which can increase the individual’s likeability, acceptance, and inclusion. Thus, following a brief episode of ostracism (in comparison with inclusion), individuals are more likely to conform (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), comply (Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008), and obey (Riva, Williams, Torstrick, & Montali, 2014). Ostracized individuals are also more likely to remember social (but not nonsocial) information (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000), unconsciously mimic (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008), accurately distinguish fake from genuine smiles (Bernstein, Young, Brown, Sacco, & Claypool, 2008), and spot incongruities between emotional tone and message content (Pickett et al., 2004). Although social susceptibility can be a civil and generally pro-social response, it can also render the individual vulnerable to incorrect or even dangerous social influence. For example, ostracized individuals are attracted to extreme groups (Hales & Williams, 2014), and at-risk adolescents exposed to a brief episode of ostracism indicate a greater preference for socially risky drug and sexual behavior (Stock, Gibbons, Walsh, & Gerrard, 2011).
Ostracism’s effects depend on its severity. When being re-included is difficult or unlikely, or when threats to control are particularly high, ostracism can lead to provocation and aggression. Participants told they will have no permanent friends after they turn 25 (compared with other negative expectations of broken bones or positive expectations of inclusion) increase aggression expressed as noise blasts, shocks, and verbal abuse (Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008; Twenge et al., 2001; Warburton et al., 2006). Participants were less willing to engage in pro-social responses as a consequence of expecting a life alone (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). A review of media reports showed that 13 of 15 school shooters had been ostracized or rejected, along with having mental problems and access to weapons (Leary, Kowalski, & Smith, 2003). Brief episodes of ostracism have also led to perceptions of physical coldness (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) and actual bodily coldness (IJzerman et al., 2012). Ostracism also disrupts self-regulation, resulting in excessive eating and giving up (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2006; Salvy et al., 2011).
Ostracism and Bullying
Comparing the impact of ostracism with bullying is not easy (Williams & Nida, 2009). Equating their relative magnitude is problematic, and each has many forms that vary and comingle. Nevertheless, a few studies have attempted to distinguish between the two and to assess their independent impact on psychological and behavioral outcomes. In a role-play interaction, being verbally insulted is less distressing than being ostracized (Zadro et al., 2005). Experimentally, being included in an aggressive game with elements of bullying (throwing a virtual bomb that will eliminate the person holding the bomb) is less distressing than being excluded from the same game (van Beest et al., 2011).
Examining real-world ostracism and bullying, a recent U.K. study indicates ostracism’s power. A survey on bullying among 35,000 students between the ages of 11 and 18 (Benton, 2011) suggests that the most emotionally damaging type of bullying is “being left out.” Pitting ostracism and bullying against one another, in an effort to determine which is worse, researchers administered the Bullying and Ostracism Screening Scale (BOSS; Saylor et al., 2012) to 1,076 children averaging 12.6 years of age (Carpenter, Nida, Saylor, & Taylor, 2012). Children who had been ostracized displayed significantly greater need-threat than children who had been bullied. Also without exception, children who had experienced neither bullying nor ostracism had the lowest levels of need-threat, whereas those who had experienced both consistently reported the highest levels of threat—suggesting ostracism and bullying each contribute independently.
Workplace bullying and ostracism generate a similar conclusion (O’Reilly et al., 2014). Whereas both workplace bullying and ostracism are aversive and disruptive for the targeted employees, they are perceived differently and have different downstream consequences. Surveyed workers rated ostracism as more acceptable, less harmful, and more permissible by employers. Yet compared with bullying, ostracism was more negatively related to a sense of belonging, well-being, and work-related attitudes. Finally, ostracism, but not bullying, predicted employee turnover 3 years after ostracism and harassment were assessed.
Although both physical pain (which sometimes characterized bullying) and social pain (which always characterizes ostracism) are aversive and are remembered as painful, people induced to recall the painful event are more likely to relive the pain for the social event (Chen, Williams, Fitness, & Newton, 2008). This suggests that memories of ostracism can resurface and cause more pain in the future. Of course, bullying also causes social pain, as it excludes the targeted individual (although without ignoring), so the social pain from exclusion can likely linger, too.
Implications for Public Policy: Children at Risk
The harmful effects of ostracism have been well documented, and its mechanisms are clear. Although most of the studies to date have focused on ostracism among adults, recent studies involving children and adolescents have, for the most part, examined the effects of ostracism in two established domains (e.g., Williams, 2001): threat to basic needs and negative mood.
In general, studies with children (most often, Cyberball) have produced effects paralleling those well established with adults. For instance, ostracism generated similar need-threats and negative moods among adolescents (Sebastian, Viding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010). Other studies with young people have yielded similar findings, although some inconsistencies question how much different age groups experience these effects (e.g., Abrams, Weick, Thomas, Colbe, & Franklin, 2011; Pharo, Gross, Richardson, & Hayne, 2011). Still, adolescents appear more influenced by peer rejection and by peer opinions than either adults or younger children (Kloep, 1999). Among children and adolescents, ostracism may undermine cognitive performance (Hawes et al., 2012), may discourage physical activity (Barkley, Salvy, & Roenmmich, 2012), and may encourage eating in those who are overweight (Salvy et al., 2011).
Some of the first research on ostracism in children (Nida, Twyman, Saylor, & Williams, 2009; Saylor et al., 2013; Twyman et al., 2010) has moved in a clinical direction. An ongoing project with a large pediatric sample (ranging from 8 to 17, with a mean age of about 12 years) has consistently found relationships between ostracism and compromised psychological adjustment—including ratings by parents as well as the children/adolescents themselves. Ostracism is associated with higher parent-reported behavior problems and children who are less socially competent. Particularly disturbing are the robust correlations between measures of ostracism and symptoms of depression. Yet another troubling finding here is the clear indication that the children most likely to be targets of ostracism are those who have special needs, such as autism or chronic medical conditions (e.g., spina bifida).
Interventions for Ostracism: Unique Challenges
Not only may ostracism be more harmful than bullying, but it also presents distinct challenges for designing interventions. Unlike bullying, ostracism might be termed a non-behavior. Bullying involves overt behaviors intended to cause harm to another. Although bullying may escape the attention of others who could intervene, because the perpetrator chooses to bully away from adults in authority (e.g., teachers), witnesses can ordinarily see when bullying does occur. Even though the bully may not verbalize the intent, circumstantial evidence makes bullying obvious (e.g., clear differences between bully and victim in size or power); in addition, bullying entails specific behaviors to stop or prevent.
Ostracism is more likely to escape detection. However, even when witnessed or suspected, its perpetrator can legitimately claim to be “doing nothing,” despite the intent to cause social harm. Ostracism entails no specific, overt behavior to stop or prevent; direct intervention in the form of forcing the perpetrator to include the target of the ostracism may be counterproductive. Consequently, rather than focusing energy on changing the behavior of the ostracism perpetrator, intervention efforts might more productively focus on the target of ostracism, with the goal of mitigating its impact.
Public Policy Strategy 1: Link Anti-Ostracism and Anti-Bullying Efforts
Anti-bullying efforts have become ubiquitous in recent years. Resources to assist school systems, administrators, teachers, parents, and organizations are widely available. Numerous websites (e.g., stopbullying.gov) are available to inform and to connect individuals and organizations. Programs are commercially available for adoption by schools or school systems, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP; Olweus et al., 2007). The highly regarded OBPP, which offers a comprehensive approach to addressing bullying at the systems level, is deeply rooted in decades of research. Currently, 49 states have anti-bullying laws, and 42 states have an anti-bullying policy. Likewise, a simple web search on anti-bullying programs yields an overwhelming volume of material. However plentiful anti-bullying resources might be, ostracism is rarely introduced as part of that discussion.
Introducing ostracism to any program about bullying would seem relatively easy. Both are used for the same purpose—to hurt another person. In addition, ostracism and bullying often occur together (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Just as bullying is a problem in schools, evidence suggests that ostracism is particularly likely to be used at school (Walker, Nida, & Warren, 2011). Separate anti-ostracism efforts are probably unnecessary. It would seem to make sense—both conceptually and in terms of cost-efficiency—to piggyback efforts to combat ostracism onto existing anti-bullying strategies and related efforts to encourage positive behaviors. The anti-bullying enterprise can easily evolve to incorporate ostracism as a basic component.
Public Policy Strategy 2: Appropriate Assessment
Sound anti-bullying programs include targeted assessment. In particular, assessing the extent of bullying is absolutely essential. Similarly, assessment can gauge the prevalence of ostracism. Not only do such assessments provide information about the extent of the problem but over time, they document the success of efforts to reduce the incidence of bullying and ostracism.
Largely at the urging of pediatricians who expressed the desire to have a simple assessment to use with patients whom they suspected were having social difficulties, the BOSS (Saylor et al., 2012) emerged. The BOSS was developed using a group of 1,500 respondents 8 to 17 years of age; it takes 6 to 9 min to complete with an actual examiner present or about 18 min using a DVD presentation.
The administration begins by explaining different types of bullying (e.g., physical bullying, cyberbullying) and explaining ostracism, each supported by an illustrative drawing. The respondent then completes 16 items asking about the frequency of bullying and ostracism and 15 items comprising the ostracism scale. This last portion includes 12 items that assess threat to the four needs noted earlier, and the other 3 items ask about the extent to which the respondent has been a target of ostracism.
The BOSS used with an individual child or adolescent can assess that person’s experiences with ostracism and bullying. Alternate version of the scales can assess a parent’s perceptions of ostracism and bullying as related to that person’s child. Yet another alternative—the “school climate” version of the scale—can be used with administrators, teachers, staff, and parents to develop a general snapshot of the prevalence of ostracism and bullying in a particular school. Just as building ostracism into programming related to bullying should be relatively easy, making ostracism part of the associated assessment mechanism should be a similarly simple matter.
Public Policy Strategy 3: Broad-Based Education and Engagement
Some suggestions for combating ostracism may be applied both within anti-bullying programs and as part of the broader efforts to encourage positive behaviors; others are more general suggestions for actions to discourage ostracism.
Give ostracism the attention it deserves
Because ostracism is a sort of “non-behavior,” some may not grasp the full extent of ostracism’s potential to do harm. Emphasizing this point is crucial when educating teachers, staff, and other adults about ostracism. Video materials with an anti-bullying theme are plentiful, but to our knowledge only one such production gives ostracism its due—a new documentary film (not yet commercially available) titled Reject. Focusing in part on the tragic story of an adolescent suicide triggered by an extended episode of bullying and exclusion, Reject devotes attention to the science investigating the impact of ostracism and social rejection (as compared with bullying), and a classroom intervention for Kindergarten to second graders based on Paley’s (1992) book, You Can’t Say You Can’t Play, aimed at curbing social exclusion.
Be intentionally inclusive whenever possible
In school settings (and in related activities), supervising adults must model inclusion. For example, those responsible for artistic productions can always find off-stage support roles for those who are interested but lack the ability to play a more central role. Service-learning activities never need to exclude anyone. In communities, recreation departments can offer inclusive sports activities that involve children both with and without special needs. Being intentionally inclusive can also extend to developing partnerships with organizations that might engage in anti-bullying/anti-ostracism efforts.
Embed anti-bullying/anti-ostracism efforts within a more comprehensive framework
Regular assessment is a cornerstone of any approach to eliminate the negative social behaviors that have been the focus of these comments. All school systems attend to the socioemotional development of students—Why not make sure to include strategies, both direct and indirect, for teaching the importance of including others? Many schools employ the Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) system developed at the University of Oregon about 15 years ago (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Sugai & Horner, 2006); virtually all school systems not using PBIS itself employ some variant of it, the general goal of which is to bring about positive behavioral change. This approach focuses on acknowledging behaviors consistent with the rules, rather than overly focusing on punishment for violations. Such a system can acknowledge and praise inclusionary acts; ideally, including others would eventually become the norm. School psychologists can take the sort of broad-based approach (i.e., emphasizing assessment and awareness) advocated here (Leja & Wesselmann, 2013). Although their presentation uses the individual classroom or school as the frame of reference and ultimately addresses the matter of individual interventions, the model they present might be extrapolated to serve at a more macro level.
To illustrate, a Purdue University Extension program called “All In: Creating Inclusive Communities” pilot-tested the feasibility of these approaches. Local community members (in two counties so far), particularly those involved in education, came 3 times (once each week) to a local venue to (a) hear a research presentation on ostracism, (b) watch the film Reject, and (c) form small groups to discuss policy and interventions aimed at reducing ostracism and its negative impact within the school system. A preliminary program evaluation indicates that community members were quite positive about the informational value of the program and their perception that they can use the information to inform policy. Follow-up evaluations and observations of concrete changes in policy will be made available on http://www.purdue.edu/hhs/extension/.
Use the “power of one”
Social psychologists have long been aware that the behavior of a single individual who refuses to succumb to the prevailing social pressure in a group setting can lead other group members to behave in a completely different manner than otherwise expected. In his classic studies of conformity, Asch (1951) found that most people were willing (at least some of the time) to give an obviously incorrect answer to a question when others present had unanimously given that same incorrect answer; adding one lone dissenter to that situation reduced the level of conformity by nearly 75%. Similarly, although helping in emergencies is usually less likely in groups, a single group member who steps forward to help redefines that situation for the others present, thus prompting others to join in and thereby negating the apathetic “bystander effect” (Latané & Nida, 1981).
In short, single individuals can make a difference, and such appears to be true for mitigating the effects of ostracism. The presence of a single “accepting” other person is sufficient to reduce the aggression produced by social rejection (DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010). Although as yet no empirical evidence shows the power of just one friend or ally in reducing the effects of ostracism, anecdotal evidence is abundant. One colleague who has been working with school-based interventions for ostracism and bullying has found that teachers and administrators have great success with enlisting the assistance of a trusted student to be a designated “friend” to an ostracized child.
Conclusion
Consider the following episode described by one of our students in response to a final-exam question in a social psychology class hat discussed ostracism. This gregarious individual, who had attended a large high school, had made it a goal to meet at least one new person every day at lunch, beginning with the first day of her freshman year. One day that year she had met another student whom she described as a “loner.” Because this young man was shy, awkward, and uncomfortable with social interaction, our social student had chosen not to invite him to sit at her lunch table—but every day thereafter for the next 2+ years said hello to him in the cafeteria with a smile or a wave. Eventually, she noticed that the other student had been absent for several weeks; when he returned to school, our student left him a nice note to welcome him back. That evening she received the following message on Facebook: Hi Maria, thank you for saving my life. I have never fit in and have felt like I didn’t deserve to be here anymore. I have no friends and my family doesn’t notice if I don’t come home. I thought I would be better off gone, so I took as many sleeping pills as I could. Before I started to drift away I thought of you waving to me and giving me a smile, so I called 911. Thought you should know why I was out of school. Thank you for your note.
All this student did was to say hello one day in the cafeteria during her freshman year and then flash a smile every other time she saw him. Those quick smiles likely gave him hope that not everyone wanted him gone and helped to ease the pain of being ostracized.
We believe that this simple message—the power of the single individual have a positive impact on the lives of those who are rejected—has the potential to infuse policy and practice at every level, from the individual to the classroom to the system and beyond. It is simple and easily implemented, and making the concept a central part of the discussion about social rejection in schools, families, and organizations should be an inexpensive undertaking that we believe can make a difference.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.