Problemática Socioambiental

Studies that show evidence of conciliatory, prosocial, or ingratiating responses following ostracism are based primarily on the tenet that individuals will attempt to behave in affiliative ways if they fear their inclusionary status is threatened. Studies that find aggression following ostracism, exclusion, or rejection either lack any explanation for the effect (Twenge et al., 2001) or point to frustration, anger, hurt feelings, and other forms of negative affect that might lead individuals to lash out, either in retaliation, or in the form of displaced aggression toward neutral others (Leary et al., 2003).

We suggest two plausible explanations for the apparent contradictions. One, guided by the framework of Williams’s model of ostracism, suggests that two sets of needs that are threatened by ostracism can result in oppositional reactions. The second is that individuals’ primal, automatic responses are retal- iatory, but their strategic and controlled reactions are to be seen as good and attractive, so that they can be reincluded.

Competing Needs Explanation

Williams’s (1997, 2001) model of ostracism may help us understand the oppos- ing reactions to ostracism. The core of this model is that ostracism is suggested to uniquely threaten four fundamental human needs: belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. After experiencing an incident of ostracism, the target will react in ways to regain the lost needs.

Apart from being intuitively appealing, reacting in an ingratiating way to ostracism is also consistent with Williams’s model of ostracism (1997, 2001). These effects were predicted by Williams’s model, which was partially based on reasoning put forth by Baumeister and Leary (1995). Most pertinent to the ingratiating response are the needs of belonging and self-esteem. After an ostracism incident, the individual may act in ingratiating ways to (a) regain inclusion by the source of the rejection, or (b) prevent ostracism from another individual or group. These behaviors should bolster the individual’s feelings of belongingness and self-esteem.

The ingratiating response is consistent with Baumeister and Leary’s predic- tions regarding social exclusion and the need to belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that the need to belong is a fundamental motivation, and that to keep this need satisfied, individuals avoid rejection. One could avoid rejection by steering clear of situations in which rejection is likely, or, by repairing one’s behavior in order to get reaccepted by the excluding group, or to be accepted by new groups. Threats to self-esteem ought to follow the same course. According to Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995), self-esteem is nothing more than a “sociometer” that provides feedback to the individual about his or her inclu- sionary status. Thus, self-esteem, like belonging, should direct the individual to behave in a prosocial manner to increase the chances of reinclusion.

There are, according to Williams’s model, two other needs that ostracism threatens: control and meaningful existence. When ignored and excluded, indi- viduals are unable to control the social situation. No matter what is said or done, the sources of ostracism appear to be unaffected. Ostracism also com- municates to individuals a lack of recognition of their existence. Indeed, it is a poignant metaphor for one’s nonexistence or death. Unlike the needs of self- esteem and belongingness, regaining the needs of control and recognition might not direct ostracized individuals to behave in an ingratiating manner. Instead, they may be more motivated to provoke reactions in order to validate their existence and to exert control over others.

At present, most studies in our laboratory have found that ostracism reduces participants’ self-reported levels of all four needs (belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence), thus it is difficult to tease apart the possibility that the belonging/self-esteem needs are competing with the control/meaningful existence needs. Future research should try to determine methods by which the two sets of needs are differentially affected by ostracism, to see if they lead to either pro- or anti-social responses. We now turn our attention to another possible explanation, and present three studies that shed some light on its viability.

Implicit/Explicit Reactions Explanation

In a recent article by Wilson, Lindsey, and Schooler (2000), the authors propose a model of dual attitudes. The authors suggest that it is possible to have

disparate implicit and explicit attitudes towards the same attitude object. The authors further suggest that the implicit attitude is the default, whereas the explicit attitude only overrides the implicit attitude if the individual has the cog- nitive capacity available to do so. Similarly, we suggest that individuals have dual responses to events. That is, individuals may represent their responses one way when measured explicitly, but another way when measured implicitly. Thus, after an ostracism incident, individuals may have implicit responses to retaliate, but explicit responses to ingratiate.

Think of it this way: Ostracized individuals are angry that they have been ignored. If there were no consequences, they would love to vent their anger. But, they realize that an angry response would leave them in a position where further exclusion would be almost guaranteed—after all, who wants to associ- ate with someone who is angry or violent? So, the ostracized individual acts in a way that will hopefully get them reincluded in the group that ignored them (or a new group). Wilson et al. (2000) describe research that suggests that the implicit attitude comes to the surface when (a) participants are responding under time pressure, (b) participants are cognitively busy when responding, or (c) the measure is an implicit measure (e.g., Implicit Association Test [IAT], Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], etc.). Perhaps, then, studies that show prosocial reactions (e.g., working harder: Williams & Sommer, 1997; conformity: Williams et al., 2000) are examining behaviors or self-reports under conditions that promote explicit reactions, whereas those that find antisocial responses (e.g., Twenge et al., 2001 studies; Virtual Bravado: Williams et al., 2002) are examining behaviors that are perceived to be less diagnostic of one’s motives, and are therefore, implicit. We present three experiments that begin to shed some light on this possibility.

Three Experiments

Experiment 1: Attraction to Group Leaders In her honors thesis,

Amy Wheaton manipulated ostracism and inclusion through the use of the ball- toss paradigm, and then had participants rate their attraction and interest in a videotaped presentation by a leader of an ostensible campus organization. Individuals were randomly assigned to watch one of two videotaped presenta- tions in which the reputability of the attire of the spokesperson for the group, and the reputability of the group that he represented were co-manipulated.

In the socially reputable group condition, the actor wore smart casual clothes and described the group’s main purpose as helping students to grow and reach their full potential by giving members the skills that could help them empower and improve both their personal and future business life. He went on to describe group discussions and group activities, which focused on improving studying habits and helping members to choose the best career path. In the socially deviant group condition, the actor wore a tie-dyed gown, beads, and

an African hat woven out of bright multicolored thread. The aim was to make him up to appear like a stereotypical new-age guru, or cult leader. In this con- dition, the purpose of the group was described as to help students to move into a higher state of consciousness and cosmic awareness, by giving members the skills needed to access their psychic powers and engage in out of body experi- ences. He went on to describe discussions and group activities, which focused on learning how to harness members’ energies in order to experience such things as soul travel, time travel, levitation, and psycho kinesis.

The results of this experiment demonstrated that regardless of how rep- utable the group’s leader and group was, ostracized individuals were more attracted to the leader than included individuals. We interpret this result as another indication that ostracized individuals have an increased desire to be included, so much so that other groups, no matter how strange, seem attractive and desirable to them.

So, rather than feeling negative, disparaged, and resentful of other groups, this research indicates that ostracized individuals may be more tolerant and open to (even susceptible or vulnerable to) overtures by new groups. Because the measures taken were self-reports that would be viewed by the experi- menter, perhaps participants, were engaging in impression management. If, however, participants feelings or inclinations were assessed in such a way that allowed for enough attributional ambiguity so that antisocial responses could be successfully disguised, we may have shown opposite results.

Experiment 2: Train ride We (Williams, Case, Govan, & Zadro, 2002) recently conducted a large role-playing experiment that tested further the pos- sible inclinations ostracized individuals had toward either prosocial or antisocial behavior. In this study, we examined the impact of being the sole target of ostracism compared with having a cotarget. Participants were instructed to act as if they were sitting in a train carriage. We manipulated whether participants were sitting in groups of three or in groups of four. In the 3-person groups, two participants were instructed to ignore the other participant. In the 4-person groups, two participants were instructed to ignore the other two participants. We found that although targets felt lower on all four needs than sources, tar- gets in 3-person groups felt lower on all four needs than targets in 4-person groups. Thus, having a cotarget buffered all of the deleterious effects of being ignored. More interestingly, although targets felt more anger than sources over- all, targets in 3-person groups felt more anger than targets in 4-person groups. So, not only did having a cotarget seem to prevent threats to the needs, it also made targets less angry about the ostracism. A caveat for these results is in order: all results were based on self-reports. It may well be that ostracized groups, if given the chance, would be more inclined and able to retaliate than ostracized individuals (see e.g., research on the discontinuity effect by Insko and his colleagues, 1987, 1998).

Experiment 3: Ostracism and prejudice: Explicit and implicit

To examine the possibility of disparate implicit and explicit responses to ostracism, we (Williams, Case, & Govan, 2002) examined included and ostra- cized participants’ implicit and explicit attitudes towards Aboriginal and White Australians. Participants were either included or ostracized from a game of Cyberball. Following the game, participants completed an Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) that examined their implicit attitudes towards Aboriginal and White Australians, and modern and old fashioned forms of Aboriginal prejudice (Pedersen & Walker, 1997). Thus, indications of prejudice were assessed from a very implicit measure to a very explicit measure. Additional measures of needs and mood were also taken. Compared to included participants, ostracised individuals were equally proso- cial in their responses to the explicit measures (old fashioned and modern prej- udice), yet there was a significant difference in the IAT results, suggesting that ostracised participants were showing more implicit prejudice towards Aboriginals than included participants.

These results provide evidence consistent with the dual responses explana- tion suggested earlier. At an explicit level, ostracized participants want to appear inclusive, tolerant, and socially acceptable, thus they portray themselves as egalitarian and nonprejudiced. However, at the implicit level, they are hurt and angry and will vent their anger on the most accessible targets; in this case, Aboriginals. Therefore, both prosocial and antisocial responses reside within the same person. Which set of responses emerge depends on the method of assessment: implicit measures elicit implicit responses; explicit measures elicit explicit responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Ostracism, rejection, exclusion—no matter what label we give it, is extremely unpleasant to receive. There seems to be little contention in the literature that ostracized individuals feel sad and angry, and that they report lower levels of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. The debate that has arisen in the literature concerns how a target of ostracism responds. They can become ingratiating, apparently to increase their inclusionary status, or they can become aggressive, which would seem to ensure their future exclusion.

We reviewed this literature and offered a few plausible explanations for this apparent conundrum. One possibility is that the need for belonging and self- esteem may pull toward inclusionary reactions and the need for control and meaningful existence may pull toward antisocial reactions. Which ever set of needs is most threatened will dictate the direction of response. Another pos- sibility is that both reactions are triggered in the individual: anger and retaliation at an implicit level, and hopes for reinclusion at the explicit level. Depending

upon whether the response is likely to be noted and evaluated by others (an explicit response) or disguised and attributionally ambiguous (an implicit response), one response may trump the other.

Our current research provides evidence for both explanations. We are cur- rently designing experiments to test both of these explanations more directly to determine whether one or both explanations are capable of explaining these opposing reactions. We are also examining the possibility that for ostracism to result in aggression, a substantial loss of control must accompany or follow the ostracism. The “life alone” paradigm by Twenge and Baumeister, for example, if believed fully, would lead participants to believe that there was nothing that could be done to change the prognosis. In support of this contention, Wayne Warburton (2002) found that aggressive responses (in the form of delivering a larger amount of hot sauce to a neutral third party who was known to dislike hot sauce) only occurred in response to ostracism when there was also a subsequent loss of control. The results of such studies will further our theoretical under- standing of the processes involved in ostracism, exclusion, and rejection, and may provide mechanisms for society to direct the behaviors of ostracized indi- viduals to prosocial, rather than antisocial, responses.

Intervention and Policy Implications

One of the most prevalent uses of culturally sanctioned ostracism is the employment of “time-out” disciplinary procedures in homes and schools. When children misbehave, parents and teachers are strongly discouraged (even out- lawed) from using corporal punishment, even spanking. Contrarily, it is widely viewed as enlightened to use time-out as a means to correct unwanted behavior. Although time-out seems to enjoy worldwide endorsement, the procedures used in its name are highly variable. In school, some children are sent to another room, usually alone, for undetermined amounts of time. Other times, the child is somehow branded (by wearing a hat or arm band, or sitting in a corner) while remaining in the same room, with the understanding that everyone in the room ignores him or her until the teacher says otherwise. In essence, children are ostracized, socially or physically, as a means to correct their behavior.

We suspect that all methods of time-out are not the same, and that some might be less effective and more harmful than others. By stripping a child of any sense of belonging, control, self-esteem, or meaningful existence, teachers may unwittingly be triggering a sequence of attention-seeking, maladaptive, and aggressive behaviors, rather than socially desirable and constructive behav- iors. Although this issue requires scrutiny and research attention, it is our belief that policy makers who encourage the use of time-out become mindful of how the procedure is to be used. From our research findings, it would seem prudent to provide children with some sense of control over when they can rejoin the class. For example, children could be told that when they feel they can behave

co-operatively, they can return to their seat. This way, the temporary loss of belonging occurs without a total loss of control, allowing the child to feel the aversiveness of social exclusion, without an insatiable desire to reclaim attention.

REFERENCES

Andrews, D. L. (2002, April 26). Shooting rampage at German school. The New York

Times, p. A1.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.

Biehl, J. K. (2002, April 27). 18 die in German high school shooting: Ex-student targets teachers, kills self. Boston Globe, p. A1.

Cheung, C. K. T. (1999). Ostracizing clients on the Internet: The effects of not respond-

ing to electronic mail enquiries. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New

South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Craighead, W. E., Kimball, W. H., & Rehak, P. J. (1979). Mood changes, physiological responses, and self-statements during social rejection imagery. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 385–396.

Dittes, J. E. (1959). Attractiveness of group as function of self-esteem and acceptance by group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 77–82.

Faulkner, S. J. (1998). After the whistle is blown: The aversive impact of ostracism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo, Ohio.

Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 75–86.

Gardner, W., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496.

Geller, D. M., Goodstein, L., Silver, M., & Sternberg, W. C. (1974). On being ignored: The effects of violation of implicit rules of social interaction. Sociometry, 37, 541–556. Gottman, J. (1980). Consistency of nonverbal affect and affect reciprocity in marital

interaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 711–717. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York:

Academic Press.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

Gruter, M., & Masters, R. D. (1986). Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: An introduction. Ethology and Sociobiology, 7, 149–158.

Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R., et al. (1987). Individual-group discontinuity: The role of intergroup contact. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 250–267.

Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Pemberton, M. B., Wieselquist, J., McIlraith, S. A., Currey, D. P., et al. (1998). Long-term outcome maximization and the reduction of

interindividual–intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75, 695–710.

Insko, C. A., & Wilson, M. (1977). Interpersonal attraction as a function of social inter- action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 903–911.

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Dover.

Leary, M. R. (Ed.). (2001). Interpersonal Rejection. New York: Oxford University Press. Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 68, 518–530.

Lemonick, M. D. (2002, May 6). Germany’s Columbine. Time Magazine (New York),

159 (18), 36–39.

Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997). Personality moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235–1244. Pedersen, A., & Walker, I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian aborigines: Old fash-

ioned and modern forms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 561–587. Predmore, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1983, May). The Effects of Social Ostracism on

Affiliation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological

Association, Chicago.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividu- ation phenomena. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198. Snoek, J. D. (1962). Some effects of rejection upon attraction to a group. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 175–182.

Thompson, H. L., & Richardson, D. R. (1983). The Rooster Effect: Same-sex rivalry and inequity as factors in retaliative aggression. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 9, 415–425.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of