Evidence for Another Response to Ostracism

Ren, Dongning; Wesselmann, Eric D.; Williams, Kipling D.

doi:10.1177/1948550615616169

Cited by 141 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One advantage of the taxonomy is that it highlights disengaged antisocial responses that are not accounted for by existing theories; we discuss several examples within this quadrant. Compared with nonrejected participants, rejected participants desired to withdraw from subsequent social interactions (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, ). This response functions to reduce social connection by avoiding further social contact.…”

Section: Plotting Existing Studies In a Bi‐dimensional Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

The bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy: Organizing responses to interpersonal rejection along antisocial–prosocial and engaged–disengaged dimensions

Sunami

Nadzan

Jaremka

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responses to interpersonal rejection vary widely in form and function. Existing theories of interpersonal rejection have exclusively focused on organizing these responses on a single antisocial–prosocial dimension. Accumulating evidence suggests a gap in this approach: Variability in social responses to rejection cannot solely be explained by the antisocial–prosocial dimension alone. To fill this gap, we propose the bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy, consisting of the antisocial–prosocial x‐axis and engaged–disengaged y‐axis, a novel contribution to the literature. We demonstrate that both the x‐ and y‐axes are necessary for understanding interpersonal responses to rejection and avoiding erroneous conclusions. We also show how this new framework allows researchers to generate more nuanced and accurate hypotheses about how people respond when rejected. We further demonstrate how existing research about individual differences and situational factors that predict responses to rejection can be viewed in a new light within the bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy. We conclude by suggesting how the taxonomy inspires innovative questions for future research, including understanding spontaneous responses and neurophysiological markers. The preprint of this paper is available at https://psyarxiv.com/56ptx/

show abstract

Section: Plotting Existing Studies In a Bi‐dimensional Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

The bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy: Organizing responses to interpersonal rejection along antisocial–prosocial and engaged–disengaged dimensions

Sunami

Nadzan

Jaremka

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the sources feel that they had an acceptable reason for ostracizing, they might react with anger when they are punished. Moreover, targets that feel unfairly ostracized and/or punished will often withdraw or even aggress against the sources (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2016;Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001).…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whom to punish? How observers sanction norm‐violating behavior in ostracism situations

Rudert

Ruf

Greifeneder

2019

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When observing ostracism, individuals can either side with the target or the sources of ostracism. Here we demonstrate that side‐taking depends on whether the target previously acted in adherence to or in violation of perceived social norms. In four studies, a target behaved either norm‐consistently or violated a social norm, and was subsequently either excluded by the sources or was not. Next, participants could sanction the behavior of the observed persons by refraining to assign money (Studies 1 and 2), or by subtracting money from a bonus (Studies 3 and 4). Observers assigned less money to the sources when these excluded a norm‐consistent target. However, when the target had violated a social norm before, participants assigned less money to the target instead. These results have far‐reaching implications because the (in)actions of neutral individuals can legitimize the sources’ behavior, or help a target under attack.

show abstract

“…being attended to, having their voice heard) can be rather distressing. Reaction to ostracism often involves withdrawal (Ren et al, 2016;Wesselmann et al, 2015;Williams, 2001), such as employee turnover (O'Reilly et al, 2014) or adversarial demeanour (Poon and Chen, 2014;Williams, 2001), such as displaced aggression (Rajchert and Winiewski, 2016). Ostracism can thus be expected to inflict member-customer illdisposed responses (Poon et al, 2013), like withdrawal thoughts or reluctance to praise the co-op group to other people.…”

Section: Core Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing member-customer ostracism in co-operatives and counterpoising its relationship-poisoning effects

Benos

Kalogeras

Ruyter

et al. 2018

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download. Purpose -This paper aims to examine a core member-customer threat in co-operatives (co-ops) by drawing from ostracism research, assessing co-op ostracism's impact on critical membership and relational exchange outcomes and discussing why relationship marketing research needs to pay more attention to the overlooked role of implicit mistreatment forms in customer harm-doing.Design/methodology/approach -Three studies were conducted. In Study 1, ostracism in co-ops was explored, and a measurement scale for co-op ostracism was developed. In Study 2, the core conceptual model was empirically tested with data from members of three different co-ops. In Study 3, a coping strategy was integrated into an extended model and empirically tested with a new sample of co-op members.Findings -Ostracism is present in co-ops and "poisons" crucial relational (and membership) outcomes, despite the presence of other relationship-building or relationship-destroying accounts. Coupling entitativity with cognitive capital attenuates ostracism's impact. -11-2016-0634 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm Practical implications -Co-op decision makers might use the diagnostic tool developed in the paper to detect ostracism and fight it. Moreover, a novel coping strategy for how co-ops (or other firms) might fend off ostracism threats is offered in the article. Research limitations/implications -Originality/value -The present study illuminates a dark side of a relationally profuse customer context, painting a more complete picture of relationship marketing determinants. Little attention has been given to ostracism as a distinct and important social behaviour in marketing research and to co-ops as a research context.

show abstract

Evidence for Another Response to Ostracism

Cited by 141 publications

References 54 publications

The bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy: Organizing responses to interpersonal rejection along antisocial–prosocial and engaged–disengaged dimensions

The bi‐dimensional rejection taxonomy: Organizing responses to interpersonal rejection along antisocial–prosocial and engaged–disengaged dimensions

Whom to punish? How observers sanction norm‐violating behavior in ostracism situations

Diagnosing member-customer ostracism in co-operatives and counterpoising its relationship-poisoning effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About