Ostracism - University of · PDF fileOstracism Kipling D. Williams Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, ... these would make us feel that, however

ANRV296-PS58-17 ARI 17 November 2006 1:32

OstracismKipling D. WilliamsDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette,Indiana 47907; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007. 58:425–52

First published online as a Review inAdvance on August 25, 2006

The Annual Review of Psychology is onlineat http://psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

Copyright c© 2007 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/07/0203-0425$20.00

Key Words

ignoring, social exclusion, rejection, silent treatment

AbstractIn this review, I examine the social psychological research on os-tracism, social exclusion, and rejection. Being ignored, excluded,and/or rejected signals a threat for which reflexive detection in theform of pain and distress is adaptive for survival. Brief ostracismepisodes result in sadness and anger and threaten fundamental needs.Individuals then act to fortify or replenish their thwarted need orneeds. Behavioral consequences appear to be split into two gen-eral categories: attempts to fortify relational needs (belonging, self-esteem, shared understanding, and trust), which lead generally toprosocial thoughts and behaviors, or attempts to fortify efficacy/existence needs of control and recognition that may be dealt withmost efficiently through antisocial thoughts and behaviors. Avail-able research on chronic exposure to ostracism appears to depletecoping resources, resulting in depression and helplessness.

425

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429AN EVOLUTIONARY

PERSPECTIVE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429PARADIGMS AND

MANIPULATIONS OFOSTRACISM, SOCIALEXCLUSION, ANDREJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430Ball Tossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430Cyberball . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430Life Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430Get Acquainted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431Other Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

THEORIES OF OSTRACISM,SOCIAL EXCLUSION, ANDREJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

A TEMPORAL EXAMINATIONOF RESPONSES TOOSTRACISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

THE SOCIAL MONITORINGSYSTEM AND SOCIOMETERTHEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

COGNITIVEDECONSTRUCTION ANDSELF-REGULATIONIMPAIRMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICALFINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

REFLEXIVE STAGE:IMMEDIATE IMPACT OFOSTRACISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432Physiological Responses and Brain

Activation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433Self-Reported Distress Levels . . . . . 434

REFLECTIVE STAGE:RESPONSES TOOSTRACISM FOLLOWINGAPPRAISAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435Moderation by Individual

Differences on CopingResponses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

Summary on IndividualDifferences as Moderators ofCoping Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

Moderation of SituationalInfluences on Coping withOstracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

Summary on Moderation ofSituational Factors on Copingwith Ostracism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442

ACCEPTANCE STAGE:RESPONSES TO CHRONICOSTRACISM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442

A NEED-THREAT/NEED-FORTIFICATIONFRAMEWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

INTRODUCTION

If no one turned round when we entered,answered when we spoke, or minded whatwe did, but if every person we met “cut usdead,” and acted as if we were nonexistingthings, a kind of rage and impotent despairwould ere long well up in us, from which thecruelest bodily tortures would be a relief; forthese would make us feel that, however badmight be our plight, we had not sunk to sucha depth as to be unworthy of attention at all.( James 1890/1950, pp. 293–94)

Socially, Mack and the boys were beyondthe pale. Sam Malloy didn’t speak to themas they went by the boiler. They drewinto themselves and no one could foreseehow they would come out of the cloud.For there are two possible reactions to so-cial ostracism—either a man emerges deter-mined to be better, purer, and kindlier orhe goes bad, challenges the world and doeseven worse things. This last is by far thecommonest reaction to stigma. (Steinbeck1987/1945, pp. 250–51)

426 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Belonging is a fundamental requirementfor security, reproductive success, and men-tal health (Baumeister & Leary 1995, Smithet al. 1999). The past decade has witnesseda proliferation of research interest on whathappens when the person does not belong,through acts of ostracism, social exclusion,and rejection. These interrelated interperson-ally aversive phenomena have been woven inour social fabric for eons, practiced not onlyby humans, but also by other social animals.Indeed, these powerful behavioral strategiesprovide strength and resiliency to this fab-ric. The group that ostracizes becomes morecohesive (Gruter & Masters 1986). Thus,it is somewhat perplexing that these pow-erful and universal processes have only re-cently attracted attention in social psychology.Perhaps one reason for our current fascina-tion with the processes and consequences ofsocial exclusion is that we are searching forexplanations for what appears to be a re-cent surge in seemingly irrational and so-cially intolerable behaviors that have appearedworldwide: random acts of monstrous vio-lence. In news reports that we consider al-most routine now, we are bombarded withstories of incidences in which individuals, of-ten students in high school, have wieldedweapons and, without apparent concern fortheir own survival, have shot and killed manyof their peers and teachers. We have witnessedpeoples’ willingness to conduct terrorist actsagainst countless and unknown others, againwith plausible certainty that in carrying outthese acts, they will perish with the victims.Since 1994, in U.S. schools alone, there havebeen more than 220 separate shooting inci-dents in which at least one person was killedand 18 episodes that involved multiple killings(Anderson et al. 2001). Mass shootings (or at-tempts that have been intercepted by author-ities) at schools and other public places areoccurring with increasing frequency in theUnited States as well as in a growing num-ber of other countries (see Newman 2004for a sociological/ethnographic perspectiveon school shootings).

Ostracism:ignoring andexcluding individualsor groups byindividuals or groups

Rejection: anexplicit declarationthat an individual orgroup is not wanted

Social exclusion:being kept apartfrom others

Although the reasons for this apparent up-surge in violence are still not clear, a recentline of investigation has linked such incidentswith growing social isolation (Twenge 2000),and further evidence is beginning to emergethat experiences of social exclusion may haveplayed a motivating role in the actions of manyshooters. In a case analysis of 15 post-1995U.S. school shootings, Leary et al. (2003) sug-gest that chronic social rejection in the formof ostracism, bullying, and/or romantic rebuffwas a major contributing factor in 87% ofcases. Studies of Martin Bryant, who, in 1996,killed 35 people at a popular tourist attrac-tion at Port Arthur, Tasmania, suggest thathe felt lonely and isolated (Bingham 2000,Crook 1997). Robert Steinhauser, who killed16 people at his ex-high school in Erfurt,Germany, in 2002, though not a social outcast(Lemonick 2002), had been greatly upset bya significant act of exclusion—expulsion fromhis school. In 2005, at Valparaiso High Schoolin Indiana, a 15-year-old boy held hostage andslashed with two sharp-edged blades—one de-scribed as a machete—seven of his classmates.When peers were asked about this boy, it wasreported, “He was so invisible at ValparaisoHigh School this fall that students who satnext to him in Spanish class didn’t know hisname” (“7 Valparaiso High Students Hurt inStabbing Rampage,” Indianapolis Star, Nov.25, 2004). The consequences of being ostra-cized, either intentionally or unintentionally,seem to be a thread that weaves through caseafter case of school violence.

But what would drive an individual, or agroup of individuals, to violate all laws of in-stinctual human survival to carry out thesemost heinous and violent acts? As the fol-lowing review suggests, ostracism and otherforms of social exclusion often lead to changesin behavior that are likely to garner socialapproval and increase the likelihood of so-cial acceptance and inclusion. But evidencealso supports a link between being a targetof ostracism and targeting others for acts ofviolence. Furthermore, under certain con-ditions, this link may be so strong that it

www.annualreviews.org • Ostracism 427

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Aggression:intention to harmother living beings

obliterates concerns for acceptance and likingby others and even for self-preservation, self-regulation, or inevitable future punishment.Ostracism may lead to other maladaptive de-cisions and behaviors precisely because of aneed to belong (Baumeister & Leary 1995)and to be accepted by others. Ostracism cancause such a strong desire to belong, to beliked by someone, perhaps anyone, that in-dividuals’ ability to discriminate good frombad may be impaired to the point that theybecome attracted to any group that will havethem, even cults and extremist groups. Polit-ical scientist Paul James of Royal MelbourneInstitute of Technology indicated in a televi-sion interview (on January 14, 2003) that theprofile of Australian citizens who had recentlyjoined terrorist groups like Al Qaeda was ofindividuals who felt isolated, marginalized, orexcluded within their society and who were at-tracted to the intense face-to-face connected-ness that these extremist groups have to offer.Joining and following the dictates of extrem-ist groups can also fulfill needs for control andrecognition because these groups promise ret-ribution and worldwide attention.

By all accounts, ostracism occurred longbefore it was named (ostrakismos) around500 b.c., when Athenians cast their votes onshards of clay, ostraca, to determine whethera member of the community, usually a for-mer political leader, should be banished fora period of 10 years. Indeed, ostracism, de-fined here as being ignored and excluded,has been observed in almost all social species(e.g., primates, lions, wolves, buffalos, bees);in anthropological accounts of tribes fromaround the world; in modern industrializednations; in governmental, religious, military,penal, and educational institutions; in infor-mal groups and in close relationships (re-lational ostracism, or the silent treatment);in playgrounds; and by children, adolescents,and adults (see Gruter & Masters 1986;Williams 1997, 2001). It appears that os-tracism is pervasive and powerful.

Psychology’s interest in ostracism and re-lated phenomena such as social exclusion and

rejection was largely implicit for the first cen-tury. Schachter’s (1951) research on opiniondeviance in group discussions found that ifthose who disagreed with the group did notyield to communicative attempts to conformto the group’s opinion, they would face ex-pulsion from the group. Indeed, a common—often untested—theme of all research in so-cial influence, including obedience, confor-mity, compliance, and social inhibition, wasthat people caved to the real or imagined pres-sures of others to avoid rejection and exclu-sion. Thus, while fear of anticipated rejec-tion and exclusion was tacitly acknowledgedas a motive for many social behaviors, therewas little direct investigation into the conse-quences of experiencing rejection and exclu-sion.

Although a few scattered studies prior to1990 examined reactions to being ignored, ex-cluded, or rejected, they had little theoret-ical foundation or impact (cf. Geller et al.1974; for a review, see Williams 1997, 2001).Subsequent to this, a model and examplesof ostracism were put forth that explicateda taxonomy (various types of ostracism, dif-ferent modes, motives, etc.), the need-threatnotion (ostracism threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existenceneeds), and short-term (attempts to fortifythreatened needs) and long-term (giving up)responses. Additionally, a theory of the needto belong was published that elevated inter-est in inclusion and exclusion (Baumeister &Leary 1995). In the mid 1990s, a Zeitgeist forresearch on ostracism surfaced, characterizedby a confluence of theories and research in-terests that gave life to a broad-based and ex-tensive examination of how people respond toacts of being ignored, excluded, and rejected.

In this article, I review the empirical lit-erature that has erupted in the past decadein social psychology on ostracism, social ex-clusion, and rejection. An active research tra-dition in developmental psychology on peerrejection includes the topics of bullying, rela-tional, and indirect forms of aggression. Foran extensive review of this literature, see Crick

428 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


et al. (2004) and Juvonen & Gross (2005).Additionally, most of the research reportedhere deals with the effect of being excludedor ostracized. A future issue to be explored isthe motives and factors that predict when in-dividuals and groups will choose to ostracizeothers (Foddy et al. 1999, Williams et al. 2003,Zadro et al. 2005).

DEFINITIONS

Despite the large number of studies and chap-ters devoted to examining the impact of os-tracism, social exclusion, and rejection, lit-tle progress has been made in determiningwhether these terms describe separate phe-nomena or are essentially interchangeable. Al-though some have attempted to delineate se-mantic and psychologically meaningful dis-tinctions between ostracism, social exclusion,and rejection (Leary 2001, 2005), virtually noempirical research has established distinctionsthat lead to different consequences. Ostracismis typically defined as being ignored and ex-cluded, and it often occurs without excessiveexplanation or explicit negative attention. Os-tracism is often operationalized as a processthat is characterized as an unfolding sequenceof responses endured while being ignored andexcluded. Laboratory research on ostracismexamines the consequences of being ignoredand excluded over several minutes; but field,diary, and interview studies examine ostracismover days, weeks, and years (Williams et al.2000, 2001). Social exclusion appears to bedefined as being excluded, alone, or isolated,sometimes with explicit declarations of dis-like, but other times not (Twenge et al. 2001).Typically, the exclusion manipulation occurseither after interaction and separation fromthe others or as a hypothetical consequencein the future. Rejection (Leary et al. 2005) istypically operationalized as a declaration byan individual or group that they do not (or nolonger) want to interact or be in the companyof the individual. Again, rejection does nottypically involve a protracted episode, but oc-curs after interaction and separation. Despite

these apparent distinctions, investigators donot appear to be wedded to these operationaldefinitions, nor do they consistently use spe-cific terms for specific operations. Thus, I usethese terms interchangeably.

AN EVOLUTIONARYPERSPECTIVE?

Because ostracism has been observed in mostsocial species and across time and cultures,it is appropriate to consider an evolutionaryperspective on its function and existence. Asargued in a volume on ostracism by Gruter& Masters (1986), groups that ostracized bur-densome or deviating members became morecohesive, offering their members more se-curity and reproductive opportunities; ostra-cized members died. Ostracism was functionaland adaptive (Barner-Barry 1986). Likewise,organisms that were especially good at de-tecting or anticipating ostracism were prob-ably most likely to be able to do somethingabout it that might prevent the inevitable lossof group membership, protection, and repro-ductive opportunities. An ostracism-detectionsystem, therefore, probably coevolved withthe widespread use of ostracism. Such a de-tection system was probably selectively bi-ased to detect any possibility of ostracism,thus leading to an error management systemthat favored a bias for false alarms over misses(see Haselton & Buss 2000, Schaller et al.2006, Spoor & Williams 2006). Misperceiv-ing an event as ostracism when it was not os-tracism might incur some psychological costs,but missing ostracism when it was about tohappen would likely result in death. Thus, hu-mans would expect that we have evolved todetect ostracism in such a way that it wouldsignal an alarm that would serve to direct at-tention toward determining if ostracism wasin fact occurring, and if so, would direct ourresources toward coping with it. A good alarmsignal would be pain. An immediate painfulresponse to any hint of ostracism would cap-ture the individual’s attention and require anappraisal so that action could be taken to


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Cyberball: a virtualball–tossingparadigm in whichostracism can bemanipulated

remedy the situation. The research reviewedbelow supports such strong immediate re-actions to even the most minimal forms ofostracism.

PARADIGMS ANDMANIPULATIONS OFOSTRACISM, SOCIALEXCLUSION, AND REJECTION

Several paradigms have enjoyed frequent usein research on ostracism and related phenom-ena. Undoubtedly, these paradigms them-selves may account for some of the dis-crepant outcomes (i.e., pro- versus antisocialresponses), so it is wise to consider each andto note which paradigms are associated withwhich outcomes.

Ball Tossing

Williams (1997) developed a minimal os-tracism paradigm in which participants are ig-nored and excluded within the context of anemergent ball-tossing game that appears tohave no connection with the experiment it-self. Participants (two confederates and oneactual participant) are told to wait quietly forthe experimenter’s return, at which point theexperiment will begin. One of the confeder-ates notices a ball and starts to toss it around.Once each person has had a chance to catchand throw a few times, participants randomlyassigned to the ostracism condition are neveragain thrown the ball, nor are they looked ator responded to. The two confederates con-tinue playing enthusiastically for another fouror so minutes. In the inclusion condition, par-ticipants continue to receive the ball approxi-mately one-third of the time.

Cyberball

Williams et al. (2000; see also Williams &Jarvis 2006) developed a virtual analogue tothe ball-tossing paradigm that was intendedto be more efficient (it requires no confeder-ates) and less traumatic. Instead of an emer-

gent game that occurs ostensibly outside theexperiment, researchers inform participantsover the computer that the study involves theeffects of mental visualization on a subsequenttask, and that a game, Cyberball, has beenfound to work well in exercising their mentalvisualization skills. Participants are told theyare playing with two (sometimes three) otherswho connected over the Internet (or Intranet)and that it does not matter who throws orcatches, but rather that they use the animatedball-toss game to assist them in visualizing theother players, the setting, the temperature,and so on. This cover story, like the emergentgame in the ball-tossing paradigm, is meant toassure participants that not getting the ball hasno detrimental effects on their performance inthe experiment. As in ball tossing, ostracizedparticipants receive the ball substantially lessthan did the included participants, usually get-ting only one or two tosses near the beginningof the game. Typically, the game proceeds for30–50 throws.

Life Alone

Twenge et al. (2001) and Baumeister et al.(2002) developed a personality test, the life-alone prognosis paradigm, in which partici-pants respond to a personality questionnaire,receive accurate introversion/extraversionfeedback, and are randomly assigned to oneof three additional forms of feedback. In theaccepted/high-belonging condition, partici-pants are told that they are the type who hasrewarding relationships throughout life; thatthey will have a long and stable marriage, andhave lifelong friendships with people who careabout them. In the rejected/low-belongingcondition, they are told that they are the typewho will end up alone later in life; that al-though they have friends and relationshipsnow, by the time they are in their mid-20smost of these will disappear. They may havemultiple marriages, but none of them will last,and they will end up being alone later in life.As a negative-feedback control condition, par-ticipants in the accident-prone condition are

430 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


told they will endure a lifetime of accidentsand injuries.

Get Acquainted

This paradigm, developed by Nezlek et al.(1997), involves the use of a small group of ac-tual participants engaged in a get-acquainteddiscussion. They are given examples of topicsto discuss (e.g., favorite movies, major in col-lege) and take turns talking within the groupsetting. Following this discussion, they areseparated and asked to identify the individualfrom the group with whom they would mostlike to work. A few minutes later, they receiveone of two types of feedback concerning howthe others voted, that either everyone wantedto work with them (inclusion) or that no onewanted to work with them (rejection).

Other Paradigms

Several other ostracism, social exclusion, andrejection paradigms have been used with lessfrequency. Ostracism, social exclusion, and/orrejection have been manipulated within thecontext of a continuous public goods dilemmagame (Ouwerkerk et al. 2005), chat rooms(Gardner et al. 2000, Williams et al. 2002),face-to-face conversations (Geller et al. 1974),cell phone text messaging (Smith & Williams2004), role playing (Williams et al. 2000,Zadro et al. 2005), reliving or imagining re-jection experiences (Craighead et al. 1979,Pickett et al. 2004, Williams & Fitness 2004),scenario descriptions of rejection and socialexclusion (Fiske & Yamamoto 2005, Hitlanet al. 2006), and a variety of virtual realityworlds (K.D. Williams & A.T. Law, unpub-lished data).

THEORIES OF OSTRACISM,SOCIAL EXCLUSION, ANDREJECTION

Whereas many hypotheses have been pro-posed to explain specific experimental predic-tions, there are currently three major theories

that attempt to explain and predict the impactand consequences of ostracism, social exclu-sion, and rejection.

A TEMPORAL EXAMINATIONOF RESPONSES TO OSTRACISM

Although only a few theorists have empha-sized the importance of examining the im-pact of ostracism over time (Brewer 2005;Williams 1997, 2001), the extant literaturesupports the utility of such a temporal frame-work. As with responses to many situa-tional factors, there are automatic reflexive re-sponses to ostracism that are followed by moredeliberative reflective reactions. This tempo-ral examination can be taken further to ex-amine (although perhaps not through experi-ments) the impact of cumulative instances offrequent exposures to ostracism or to long-lasting episodes of ostracism.

Williams (1997, 2001; Williams & Zadro2005) proposes the following sequence: (a) re-flexive painful response to any form of os-tracism, unmitigated by situational or indi-vidual difference factors; (b) threats to theneed for belonging, self-esteem, control, andmeaningful existence, and increases in sad-ness and anger; and (c) a reflective stage thatis responsive to cognitive appraisals of thesituation, the sources of ostracism, the rea-sons for ostracism, and predisposing incli-nations that reflect individual differences re-siding within the target of ostracism, all ofwhich guide the individual to fortify the mostthreatened needs. If relational needs (belong-ing and self-esteem) are most thwarted, thenostracized individuals will seek to fortify theseneeds by thinking, feeling, and behaving ina relatively prosocial manner. If, however,efficacy and existence/recognition needs aremost thwarted, ostracized individuals will at-tempt to fortify these needs, which in manyinstances may result in controlling, provoca-tive, and even antisocial responses. For in-dividuals who encounter multiple episodes(or single long-term episodes) of ostracism,their ability to marshal their resources to


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


fortify threatened needs will be diminished,and feelings of helplessness, alienation, anddespair will infuse their thoughts, feelings,and actions.

THE SOCIAL MONITORINGSYSTEM AND SOCIOMETERTHEORY

Another major theoretical perspective thathas gained support focuses primarily on howostracism, social exclusion, and/or rejectionthwart the need to belong, in particular(Gardner et al. 2005, Pickett & Gardner2005), and how a psychological system—thesocial monitoring system—helps regulate op-timal levels of belongingness. When belong-ing is threatened, the individual is motivatedto attend more carefully to social cues, pre-sumably to achieve success in subsequent so-cial interactions. This approach is consistentwith Leary et al.’s (1995 and 1998) sociome-ter theory, which asserts that self-esteem is agauge of relational valuation that, when low,signals the individual that changes must bemade to improve inclusionary status.

COGNITIVEDECONSTRUCTION ANDSELF-REGULATIONIMPAIRMENT

A third theoretical framework argues thatthe blow of social exclusion is much like theblow of a blunt instrument, and it causes atemporary state of cognitive deconstruction(Baumeister et al. 2002), much like the affec-tively flat stage that precedes suicide attempts.This explanation has been offered especiallywhen socially excluded individuals show nosigns of mood impact (see also Baumeister &DeWall 2005). Consistent with this explana-tion of cognitive impairment is the premisethat social exclusion impairs individuals’ abil-ity to self-regulate, which inhibits their abilityto utilize the cognitive/motivational resourcesthat are necessary to avoid impulsive acts and

to engage in hedonic sacrifice and delayedgratification. This explanation fits nicely withobservations of anger and indiscriminant ag-gression that sometimes follow social exclu-sion, and with recent evidence showing im-paired inhibition against eating nonnutritivefoods and avoidance of less tasty, nutritivefoods (Baumeister et al. 2006).

REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICALFINDINGS

I first review the empirical findings by exam-ining how individuals respond immediatelyduring the ostracism episode, referred to asthe reflexive stage. I then review the evidencefor mediating impact that might direct futurethoughts, feelings, and behaviors, referred toas the reflective stage (these terms are usedsimilarly to those used by Lieberman et al.2002). Finally, I review the research examin-ing the behavioral consequences of ostracism,social exclusion, and rejection.

REFLEXIVE STAGE: IMMEDIATEIMPACT OF OSTRACISM

A considerable number of studies have as-sessed reactions to ostracism either during orimmediately after the ostracism episode. Usu-ally, the measures taken immediately follow-ing the ostracism are asked retrospectively, forexample, “How did you feel while you wereplaying the Cyberball game?” Thus, partici-pants are reporting about their feelings andthoughts as the ostracism episode occurred.This distinction becomes important becausethe available evidence suggests that the re-flexive pain/distress signal is quickly followedby appraisals and coping mechanisms that di-rect the individual toward thoughts and feel-ings that alleviate the pain. To be includedin this section, the assessments must, there-fore, have been taken during or immediatelyfollowing the ostracism experience and mustpertain to their responses during the ostracismexperience.

432 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Physiological Responses and BrainActivation

A few studies have examined physiologi-cal responses during or immediately follow-ing ostracism or rejection experiences. Inone study, participants were attached to animpedance cardiograph while they played Cy-berball (Zadro 2004). Guided by Blascovich& Tomaka’s (1996) challenge/threat model,Zadro compared participants’ baseline (wait-ing) levels to their initial inclusion levels, thentheir levels during ostracism, and finally to in-clusion again. A challenge response is char-acterized as a functional behavioral reactionto situational demands that the individual hasthe capacity to handle and that has physio-logical concomitants of increased blood flowwith arterial expansion. Threat, however, is adysfunctional behavioral response that is ac-companied by increased blood flow and arte-rial constriction. Ostracism did not producea systematic threat response, but there wasevidence for increased blood pressure duringostracism.

Similarly, Stroud et al. (2000) devel-oped the Yale InterPersonal Stressor (YIPS)paradigm, which involved several forms of in-terpersonal rejection (including active deri-sion) and exclusion within a small-group set-ting. In comparison with participants who hadbeen engaged in a nonsocial task of search-ing for letter strings, researchers found therejected/excluded participants to have signif-icant increases in blood pressure and corti-sol levels (in addition to higher self-reportedlevels of tension). It must be noted that be-cause several abusive/rejection/exclusion actsoccurred during the social interaction, and thecontrol group had no social interaction at all,it is not clear which of these acts, if any, pro-duced these effects.

Eisenberger et al. (2003) tested partici-pants with a functional magnetic resonanceimagery scanner while they played Cyberballover several stages. In Stage 1, called the im-plicit rejection condition, participants weretold they would soon be playing a mental im-

dACC: dorsalanterior cingulatecortex

agery game with two others (who were also inscanners) and who had already begun play-ing. Participants were told that their com-puters were not yet hooked up to the othertwo players’ computers, so at first they wouldsimply be watching the other two partici-pants play the game. At some point when theircomputers were communicating with those ofthe other two players, they would be thrownthe ball, and they could begin playing, too.In Stage 2, they were included. In Stage 3,the other two players apparently intention-ally ostracized the participant (explicit re-jection). Participants then completed a post-Cyberball questionnaire, which measured thedistress during Stage 3. The results of thisstudy showed that regardless of whether theostracism was unintentional or intentional,it was associated with increased activation ofthe dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC),a region of the brain that shows activationduring exposure to physical pain (and loss ofsocial connections, see Lieberman 2007; butalso discrepancy detection, see Miller & Co-hen 2001). As support for the pain interpre-tation, participants’ dACC activation in Stage3 was highly positively correlated with self-reported distress. The right ventral prefrontalcortex showed increased activation, but onlyduring intentional ostracism. This region’sfunction is to moderate the pain response,and consistent with this interpretation, itsincreased activation was negatively associ-ated with self-reported distress. Additionally,Eisenberger (2006) found that dACC, amyg-dala, and periaqueductal gray activity duringCyberball-induced ostracism correlated withdiary reports of social disconnections (see alsoMacDonald & Leary 2005).

Dickerson & Kemeny (2004; see alsoDickerson et al. 2004) conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining cortisol levels asa function of social-evaluative threat. Social-evaluative threat was defined broadly as anyfeedback about the self that others couldjudge negatively. Cortisol is a hormone thatis secreted presumably to rally the organism’s


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


efforts to survive and deal effectively withdanger. Gunnar et al. (2003) report higher lev-els of cortisol levels in children for whom so-ciometric measures indicated peer rejection.

Self-Reported Distress Levels

Many studies have examined various self-reported levels of distress following ostracism,social exclusion, and rejection. These mea-sures may include assessments of mood (usu-ally sadness and anger), hurt feelings, levelsof belonging, self-esteem, control, and mean-ingful existence, and more direct measuresof distress or pain. Several studies have mea-sured self-esteem, finding reductions follow-ing temporary or remembered instances ofrejection and ostracism (Leary et al. 1995,Sommer et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2000,Zadro et al. 2004). Similarly, a sense of belong-ing, control, and meaningful existence dimin-ishes following ostracism (Smith & Williams2004; Williams et al. 2000; Zadro et al. 2004,2006). At this time, there are few compellingreasons to separate these measures becausethey usually show high levels of intercorre-lation.

Taken together, these studies provide am-ple evidence that ostracism increases self-reported distress. Williams and his colleagueshave shown repeatedly that ostracism in-creases sadness and anger and lowers lev-els of belonging, self-esteem, control, andmeaningful existence (reviewed by Williams& Zadro 2005). The typical effect size of os-tracism on self-reported distress (as measuredby moods and need threat) is high, between1.0 and 2.0. Williams et al. (2000) found adistress pattern that was linearly associatedwith the amount of ostracism to which theparticipants were exposed, such that more os-tracism (included only twice at the beginningof the game and never again) was more dis-tressing than less ostracism (being includedfor one-sixth of the throws), which was moredistressing than inclusion, which itself was lesspleasant than overinclusion. Research has alsoshown that ostracism increases reports of hurtfeelings and pain. When participants were

asked to recall a physically painful event or asocially painful event, levels of currently expe-rienced pain were considerably higher whenthey relived socially painful events, especiallythose coded as including ostracism (Williams& Fitness 2004). These pain levels, using theMcGill pain inventory, were comparable topain levels observed in meta-analyses (Wilkieet al. 1990) for chronic back pain and evenchildbirth.

Furthermore, considerable (but not all) re-search suggests that ostracism-induced dis-tress is very resilient to moderation by sit-uational factors or individual differences.Ostracism-induced distress emerged regard-less of initial levels of trait self-esteem. Sim-ilarly, Leary et al. (1998) reported that traitself-esteem did not moderate participants’ re-actions to interpersonal rejection. Smith &Williams (2004) reported increased psycho-logical distress following ostracism during acell phone text-messaging interaction, andlevels of individualism-collectivism did notmoderate this effect. Additional studies findno moderation of ostracism-induced distressby individual-difference variables, includingintroversion-extraversion (Nadasi 1992), par-ticipant gender (Williams & Sommer 1997),loneliness and need for belonging (Carter-Sowell et al. 2006), and social anxiety (Zadroet al. 2006).

Ostracism-induced distress has also beenresilient to situational variation, even whenthe situational manipulations would reason-ably be expected to affect appraisals of theimportance and threat value of ostracism. Forinstance, as already discussed, dACC activa-tion occurred for both unintentional and in-tentional ostracism, although it was greaterfor intentional ostracism (Eisenberger et al.2003). Self-reported distress measures showeven less influence of situational factors. Self-reported distress levels are no higher whenparticipants believe that other players are act-ing on their own volition compared with whenthey are told that other players are simplyfollowing a script and ostracizing them. Per-haps more surprisingly, in the same study,

434 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


self-reported distress was no lower whenparticipants were told they were merely play-ing with a computer (Zadro et al. 2004). Inanother study, experimenters convinced par-ticipants they were playing Cyberball withsimilar others (i.e., those holding similar polit-ical leanings), rival others (i.e., those leaningtoward the views of the major rival politicalparty), or despised others (i.e., those leaningtoward the views of the Australian Ku KluxKlan). Despite strong reasons to discountostracism by an outgroup or, especially, adespised outgroup, the distress of ostracizedparticipants was unmoderated by the psy-chological closeness of the ostracizing group(Gonsalkorale & Williams 2006). Whetherinclusion comes with a cost (50 cents deductedfor each throw received) or not, or whetherthe object being thrown is a ball or bomb (thatis expected to explode, “killing off the playerwith the ball”), participants are still distressedby being ostracized (van Beest & Williams2006a,b). We have also found that eliminatingthe human characteristics within a Cyberball-like game, and giving no instructions to men-tally visualize the experience, resulted in nodistress, but if participants generated agent-volition thoughts, they did show distress (Law& Williams 2006).

In contrast to the evidence reviewed above,several studies show behavioral consequencesfollowing the exclusion manipulation, in theabsence of personal distress. In particular, thework of Baumeister, Twenge, and their col-leagues typically finds no effects of social ex-clusion on mood, regardless of the type ofmood measure employed. These researcherssuggest that one consequence of social ex-clusion is a state of cognitive deconstructionand affective numbness, which may even ex-tend to a lack of physical and social sensitivity(Baumeister et al. 2002, DeWall & Baumeister2006, Twenge 2005). Although this sugges-tion is intriguing, there is also evidence byothers that ostracism can make individualsmore sensitive to social information (Gardneret al. 2000, Pickett et al. 2004). It is importantto note that all social exclusion manipulations

may not have the same impact, and in this case,it may be that the life-alone paradigm is par-ticularly strong in inducing a sense of helpless-ness and inevitability. Compared with othermethods of manipulating exclusion or rejec-tion, there would seem to be nothing partic-ipants could do about their future aloneness,and this realization may induce a concussedstate, as the authors suggest.

Taken as a whole, these studies suggest thatthe immediate or reflexive reactions to os-tracism are painful and/or distressing and areresistant to moderation by individual differ-ences or situational factors. Even if modera-tion is eventually documented, it appears thatan immediate and painful reaction to even theslightest hint of ostracism may be an adap-tive response that directs attention to the sit-uation, presumably to assess its threat valueand to take actions to ameliorate the situa-tion. Manipulating signals (e.g., stigma, at-tractiveness) may be the best bet for identify-ing potential moderators because these factorsalso have strong survival/reproductive value.Moderation may be more likely when os-tracism is manipulated less strongly, as couldbe achieved with partial ostracism conditions.

REFLECTIVE STAGE:RESPONSES TO OSTRACISMFOLLOWING APPRAISAL

A casual review of these studies could easilysuggest that ostracized, socially excluded, andrejected individuals are capable of respond-ing in a variety of ways, many of which ap-pear to be quite contradictory. For example,ostracized individuals can be more helpful,positive, and cooperative. They can also bemore mean-spirited and indiscriminately ag-gressive. They are also capable of cognitiveand emotional shut down. Finally, they seemto show evidence for fleeing the situation, ifthat option is available. We often think ofthe response to threat as falling into one ofthree categories, fight, flight, or freeze. Tayloret al. (2000) suggest, however, another reac-tion to threat is to tend-and-befriend (see also


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


RS: rejectionsensitivity

MacDonald & Kingsbury 2006 for discussionof fight-flight-freeze distinctions related tosocial exclusion). I review the literature us-ing these general categories of response to theinitial pain and threat of ostracism, first focus-ing on research that examines moderation byindividual differences and then by situationalfactors. I then propose a framework withinwhich to view and understand these apparentdisparate findings.

Moderation by IndividualDifferences on Coping Responses

Although the blunt blow of ostracism appearsto overwhelm personality and individual dif-ferences during the exclusion episode itself,dispositions that affect individuals’ construalof the ostracism episode ought to moderatethe meaning and importance they attach to itand guide appropriate coping strategies.

Fight. A great deal of work by Downey andcolleagues has shown that despite generallyuniversal needs for acceptance and belonging,important individual differences exist in howpeople respond to imagined or actual rejectionexperiences. These researchers proposed a de-fensive motivational system that influencesand guides perceived appropriate respondingin the face of rejection (Downey et al. 2004).Rejection sensitivity, Downey posits, emergesfrom a history of being repeatedly rejected,and generally leads to maladaptive responsesto rejection that may perpetuate further rejec-tion. Individuals who score high on rejectionsensitivity (RS) (using the RS questionnaire,Downey & Feldman 1996) tend to chronicallyexpect rejection, to see it when it may not behappening, and to respond to it hostilely. Menwho score highly on RS and who are highlyinvested in a romantic relationship are morelikely to have a propensity for violence in thatrelationship (Downey et al. 2000). A link be-tween RS scores and hostile intention towardpeople they believed did or could reject themhas also been found (Downey & Feldman1996, Feldman & Downey 1994). Similarly,

children scoring high in rejection sensitiv-ity who were presented with an ambigu-ous rejection scenario (by peers or teachers)were more likely to endorse hostile responses(Downey et al. 1998). In pleasant interac-tions ending mysteriously without explana-tion, rejection sensitivity and hostile ideationwas strongly linked for females (Ayduk et al.1999) and males (Ayduk & Downey; reportedin Romero-Canyas & Downey 2005). Inter-net chat partners who abruptly indicated nofurther interest in interacting were negativelyevaluated by high-RS women (Ayduck et al.1999). Finally, in diary studies, Downey et al.(1998, and reported in Romero-Canyas &Downey 2005) found that following higherreports of rejection, high-RS individuals re-port higher incidence of relational conflicts.

Individuals who varied in agreeablenesswere given varying magnitudes of rejectionby their partner after they had disclosed infor-mation about themselves (Buckley et al. 2004,Study 1). Agreeableness predicted but did notmoderate negative reactions to rejection, andany amount of rejection was sufficient to causeincreases in sadness, hurt feelings, anger, andantisocial inclinations. In Study 2, these au-thors used rejection sensitivity as a predictorand manipulated constant or increasing rejec-tion over time. Rejection sensitivity predictednegative reactions but did not moderate theimpact of rejection, and increasing rejectionwas worse than constant rejection.

Jealousy is one response by a partner whois rejected in favor of another. An examina-tion of nonromantic jealousy found that self-esteem played a major role of the rejectedpartner, mediating the link between the di-verted interest of their partner and how muchjealousy they expressed, and between jealousyand aggressive responses. When the partner’sinterest in the rival implied an ego-threat tothe participant, the participant’s self-esteemdropped and jealousy rose, as did aggression(measured through the allocation of hot sauce)(DeSteno et al. 2006).

One type of fight response is to dero-gate those who reject and socially exclude.

436 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


In a cross-cultural study, it was argued thatalthough members of all cultures negativelyexperience exclusion, the reaction to exclusionshould be culture-specific. For instance, thecontent of derogation would depend upon theculture’s values related to belonging (Fiske &Yamamoto 2005). Specifically, these authorsposit that social exclusion violates desires forbelonging, control, self-enhancement, trust,and shared understanding. With respect tobelonging, they argue that in Western cul-tures (e.g., the United States) belonging isdefined as “belonging widely and loosely,”meaning that Westerners have an expectationthat their relationships will be more flexible.Because of this, Westerners are more imme-diately willing to trust and embrace strangersand, therefore, are hurt more by strangers’rejections. Easterners (e.g., Japanese) definebelonging as “belonging securely,” meaningthat they expect their relationship to last for alifetime; thus, they are more cautious with re-spect to strangers and have lower expectationsand concern for strangers’ rejections. Partic-ipants from both cultures felt bad after rejec-tion (i.e., negative evaluation from a partnerin a scenario study), and about half from eachculture reciprocated the rejection of that part-ner. But, in support of Fiske and Yamamoto’shypothesis, Americans were most trusting oftheir partners before receiving feedback, andthey lowered their impressions of the part-ner on warmth, competence, and compatibil-ity after rejection. Rejected Japanese partici-pants lowered only their warmth impressionsand kept their impressions of competence andcompatibility at neutral levels. This researchis important in that it is the first to comparecultures with respect to rejection, and it sug-gests that although rejection is negatively ex-perienced across cultures, it is interpreted andacted upon differently.

Trait self-esteem plays an important roleon derogation responses to rejection. Self-esteem played a role in individuals whowere somehow mindful of possible accep-tance threats from their relationship partners(Murray et al. 2002). For instance, in one

study (Murray et al. 2002, Study 3), partnerssat back-to-back, presumably writing aboutone aspect of their partner’s character thatthey disliked. Unbeknownst to the partici-pants, they were actually filling out differentforms, and in the acceptance threat condition,the other partner was actually asked to list allthe items in their home dwelling, so that it ap-peared as though the other partner had seriousproblems with the partner’s character. The re-sults indicated that only low-self-esteem part-ners were likely to exaggerate the problemswith their partners and to subsequently dero-gate their partners and reduce their perceivedcloseness with them. This suggests that low-self-esteem individuals might be caught in adownward spiral of perceiving rejection whenit is not happening and consequently weak-ening their attachments. Murray’s work high-lights the importance of rejection experienceswithin relationships. Other work also exam-ines relational ostracism, also known as thesilent treatment, within close relationships.More than two-thirds of Americans surveyedin a national poll indicated that they had giventhe silent treatment to a loved one, and three-quarters said they had received the silent treat-ment from a loved one (Faulkner et al. 1997).The silent treatment is characterized by lossof eye contact and communication, and themost common feelings associated with receiv-ing the silent treatment are significant in-creases in anger and reductions in feelingsof belonging, self-esteem, control, and mean-ingful existence (Williams et al. 1998). Partic-ipants asked to write narratives about a timethey received (and gave) the silent treatment,how it felt, and how it ended up (Sommeret al. 2001) were shown to respond with self-esteem threat following the silent treatment;low-self-esteem individuals were more likelyto reciprocate with the silent treatment.

Researchers found that trait self-esteem(and depression) moderated distress reac-tions to rejection when rejection was manipu-lated in the get-acquainted paradigm (Nezleket al. 1997). Whereas everyone respondedwith lower temporary feelings of self-esteem


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


after they learned their peers rejected them,the impact was stronger for those lower intrait self-esteem. In another study (Sommer& Baumeister 2002, Study 1), participantswere subliminally primed with acceptance orrejection words and found that in compar-ison with the acceptance prime condition,rejection primes resulted in more negativeself-descriptions for those low in self-esteem,whereas individuals with high self-esteem de-scribed themselves with more positive self-descriptions even when primed with rejection.

Flight. Another response associated withscoring high in rejection sensitivity is to avoidinteractions where rejection is possible. Highscores on the RS questionnaire are corre-lated with higher scores on social avoidance(Downey & Feldman 1996). By avoiding so-cial situations, opportunities for acceptanceare simultaneously diminished, as are chancesto practice socially appropriate behaviors.Consequently, high-RS individuals who findthemselves in social interactions are morelikely to behave inappropriately, often hos-tilely. Men who are not highly invested in aromantic relationship are more likely to avoidromantic opportunities (Downey et al. 2000).

Tend-and-befriend. Gender moderated an-onymous group-oriented cooperative behav-ior, such that females were more likely tosocially compensate (i.e., work harder on col-lective compared with coactive tasks) afterthey had been ostracized in the ball-tossingparadigm (Williams & Sommer 1997). Males,on the other hand, engaged in social loafingfollowing ostracism, as they did following in-clusion. In a study that examined potentialmoderation of social sensitivity by loneliness,Gardner et al. (2005) found that individualswho were high in need to belong, or whowere high in loneliness, were more likely toshow improvements on memory for social in-formation. On the other hand, high lonely in-dividuals performed less well on a task thatmeasured accuracy in detecting nonverbal ex-pressions. Participants who were higher in

need for belonging (Leary et al. 2005) weremore sensitive to nonverbal cues (Pickett et al.2004).

Freeze. Once the initial shock and pain ofostracism is experienced, reflected upon, andappraised, it stands to reason that the in-dividual’s personality will moderate the ap-praisal and subsequent impact of the expe-rience and the amount of time necessary torecover from the threat. After exposure to re-jection primes (in comparison with acceptanceand misfortune primes), low-self-esteem in-dividuals gave up more quickly on an unsolv-able anagram task, whereas high-self-esteemindividuals were actually more likely to persist(Sommer & Baumeister 2002, Study 2). Sim-ilarly, individuals with low (but not high) self-esteem experienced more interference withrejection (but not acceptance) words in amodified Stroop task (Dandeneau & Baldwin2004). In their second study, Dandeneau &Baldwin (2004) demonstrated that the inter-ference effect by low-self-esteem individualscould be minimized with conditioning.

Zadro et al. (2006), reasoning that sociallyanxious individuals might be expected to morequickly or strongly react to an ostracism expe-rience than individuals who were less sociallyanxious, recruited participants in the normaland extreme ranges of social anxiety to partic-ipate in a Cyberball study. Immediately fol-lowing ostracism, socially anxious individualswere no more distressed than were those withnormal levels of social anxiety. After severalfiller tasks that took approximately 45 min-utes to complete, general distress was mea-sured again, and this time, those with nor-mal levels of social anxiety had returned tothe nondistress levels reported by includedparticipants. Highly socially anxious partici-pants, however, had only partially recovered;still showing significant distress in compar-ison with their inclusion counterparts. Thisstudy demonstrates that individual-differencevariables that are theoretically related to beingsensitive to ostracism, exclusion, and rejec-tion, like social anxiety, do exert influence, but

438 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


only after a length of time. Although actual re-flection was not assessed, this pattern of datasuggests that individual differences were moreor less successful in allowing participants tocope with the ostracism.

Summary on Individual Differencesas Moderators of Coping Responses

One would expect other individual differ-ences to similarly affect coping and recov-ery from ostracism. Thus, although pre-vious research has not found moderationby introversion-extraversion, individualism-collectivism, need for belonging, and loneli-ness, individuals high in particular traits likethese or others (self-esteem, rejection sen-sitivity, narcissism, and attachment style, toname a few) may certainly cope differentlyonce the pain is detected. For instance, lonelypeople may take longer to recover from os-tracism and may evidence helplessness morethan individuals who are high in need for be-longing (Cacioppo & Hawkley 2005). Cer-tain individuals may generate more sinisterattributions, negative self-appraisals, and bemore likely to generalize their reactions toother situations that might direct them tobe more self-protective or antisocial, whereasothers may respond by minimizing and com-partmentalizing the episode, attributing theostracism to the peculiarities of the others ina particular situation, or by trying to makethemselves more socially acceptable to others.For instance, high rejection sensitivity predis-poses females to depressive symptoms (Ayduket al. 2001). As Sommer & Rubin (2005) ex-plain, the research on self-esteem and reac-tions to rejection suggests, “The key to pre-dicting how people cope with rejection may liewith their expectations of future acceptance.Positive social expectancies [characteristic ofpeople higher in self-esteem] lead people todraw closer to others, whereas negative ex-pectancies [characteristic of those low in self-esteem] lead them to distance themselves fromothers” (p. 182). Whether pro- or antisocialroutes are determined specifically by an ex-

pectation of future acceptance as Sommer andRubin suggest, or by a sense of control overone’s environment (Warburton et al. 2006),requires further examination.

Moderation of Situational Influenceson Coping with Ostracism

Situational factors such as those already ex-amined and assessed for immediate responsesshould also play a more central role in di-recting the appraisal of ostracism and subse-quent behavioral responses. Although manystudies have examined behavioral responsesfollowing ostracism, social exclusion, and re-jection, few have measured intervening cog-nitive appraisals, perhaps because researchefforts feared methodological contaminationand interference by intervening measures.Thus, most research in this vein manipu-lates ostracism, social exclusion, or rejection,alone or in concert with other manipulations,and presents the individual with behavioralchoices that are assessed either through self-report or directly.

Tend-and-befriend. Numerous studies us-ing a variety of paradigms and measures indi-cate that one common response to ostracismis to think, feel, and behave in ways that im-prove the inclusionary status of the individ-ual. That is, individuals will think or do thingsthat ought to help them be more acceptableto others. Thus, I am using “prosocial” in abroad sense, including not only being help-ful, but also including behaviors that shouldstrengthen interpersonal bonds. I should alsonote that many of these so-called prosocial re-sponses are not necessarily in the best interestof the individual who is engaging in them. Inmany instances, trying to be more socially ac-ceptable can lead individuals down the pathof gullibility and social susceptibility, makingthem easy targets for social manipulation.

For example, in one study, participants firstostracized or included participants using theball-toss paradigm (there was also a no-ball-toss control group) and then asked them to


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


work on an idea-generation task either coac-tively, in which individuals efforts could beeasily assessed and experimenter evaluationswould affect only the individual and no oth-ers, or collectively, in which their efforts wereunidentifiable and experimenter evaluationswould be spread across the group (Williams& Sommer 1997). Participants in the no-ball-toss control group demonstrated the typicalsocial loafing effect (Karau & Williams 1993),working less hard collectively than coactively.When ostracized, males were more likelyto make other-blame attributions, whereasfemales were more likely to make self-denigrating attributions. Across all inclusion/ostracism conditions, male participants so-cially loafed. Ostracized females, however, so-cially compensated (worked harder in the col-lective relative to the coactive condition). Theauthors interpreted the females’ social com-pensation as a strategy to gain favor by help-ing the group do well on the task. Thus,ostracized females exerted more effort to-ward a prosocial goal—to enhance the eval-uation of the very group that had ostracizedthem.

Many other studies have now shown aprosocial response to ostracism, social ex-clusion, and rejection. Cyberball participantswho played over the Internet were more likelyto conform to a unanimous incorrect ma-jority (of individuals who were not part ofthe Cyberball game) on a perceptual judg-ment task than were participants who wereincluded (Williams et al. 2000, Study 2).Ostracized participants were more likely tocomply to the foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face techniques than were included par-ticipants (Carter-Sowell & Williams 2005).Ostracized individuals were more likely tofavorably evaluate both a legitimate studentgroup (i.e., one that helped its members pre-pare for the job market) and an illegitimategroup (i.e., one that taught its members tobend forks through mind-control and to walkthrough walls), a finding that indicates thatostracized individuals see others, regardless oftheir merits, more positively (Wheaton 2001).

Following ostracism (by Cyberball),participants were more likely to engage innonconscious mimicry of a person with whomthey spoke, especially if that person was aningroup member (Lakin & Chartrand 2005).Nonconscious mimicry has been shown toincrease affiliation and rapport (Lakin &Chartrand 2003). Conscious, strategicmimicry of a good citizen’s behavior wasmore likely to occur following a threat ofrejection or actual rejection in a public goodsdilemma (Ouwerkerk et al. 2005). And, asmentioned previously, several studies havefound that following ostracism, individualsbecome more socially attentive (Gardneret al. 2000, Pickett & Gardner 2005, Pickettet al. 2004). The authors view enhancedsocial sensitivity as a means for improvingsuccess in subsequent social interactions.

Although the time-out literature is pri-marily based on case studies, there appearsto be common acceptance by educators andparents to use time-out as a method fordisciplining and correcting the behavior ofchildren (Heron 1987). Time-out is a shortperiod of time in which the child is ignoredand excluded, and it can be seen as a sociallyacceptable use of ostracism. Admittedly circu-lar, it would seem perplexing that such a formof discipline would be so widely used if it werenot at least moderately successful at improv-ing the child’s behavior and making it moresocially acceptable.

Evidence for tend-and-befriend is alsosupported by six experiments that showed thatsocially excluded individuals tried to establishnew bonds with others and had more positiveimpressions of others, as long as the excludedparticipants anticipated face-to-face interac-tion with the others and were not themselveshigh in fear of negative evaluation (Maneret al. 2006).

Finally, some clinical developmental lit-erature deserves a bit of attention. Em-ploying “still face”—a nonresponsive facialexpression—on autistic children who ordinar-ily avoided eye contact and other socially ori-ented behaviors, Nadel et al. (2005) found that

440 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


a single episode of still face led to increasedeye contact and social attention in the autisticchild. This is reminiscent of the use of shockon autistic children by Lovaas et al. (1965) toincrease positive social attention by the childto the shock giver. It is as though, for autisticchildren, the social pain of shock or inatten-tion by an adult is enough to trigger, at leasttemporarily, a prosocial orientation.

Fight. In the introduction to this review, Ipropose that the recent surge of interest inostracism and related phenomena might belinked to its association with horrific violentevents. There is now ample evidence that thelink is not merely correlational; ostracism, so-cial exclusion, and rejection are causally linkedto a reduction in prosocial behaviors (Ticeet al. 2002) and an increase in derogationof the excluder (Bourgeois & Leary 2001),and antisocial behaviors to others who mayor may not have been the source of exclusion(Gaertner & Iuzzini 2005, Twenge et al. 2001,Warburton et al. 2006).

In a groundbreaking set of five studies,Twenge et al. (2001) manipulated social exclu-sion through either the life-alone paradigm orthe get-acquainted paradigm, and employed anumber of measures of aggression, both di-rect and indirect, toward others who eitherhad or had not insulted the participants. Re-gardless of method, measure, or presence ofprovocation, derogation and aggression (inthe form of noise blasts) increased followingexclusion. The only instance in which sociallyexcluded participants were not more aggres-sive was when the target had just praised them(Study 3). Twenge et al. (2006) also have foundthat making salient other friendly connectionsreduces the social exclusion→aggression link.Other studies indicate that replenishing asense of belonging can reduce negative andaggressive consequences of social exclusion(Gardner et al. 2005, Twenge et al. 2006).

Reasoning that ostracism would lead toaggression only if it caused or was associ-ated with an excessively strong control threat,Warburton et al. (2006) argued that aggres-

sion was a means to fortify control. Using theball-toss paradigm, they assigned participantsto be either ostracized or included. After-ward, participants were subjected to 10 blastsof highly aversive noise; half of the partici-pants could control the onset of the blasts, theother half could not. Participants were thentold through an elaborate cover story that theywould be doling out an amount of food to begiven to a new participant, whom they learnedhated hot sauce. They were also told that thefood taster would be required to eat all of thefood that the participant doled out. Support-ing their hypothesis that control threat under-lay the link between ostracism and aggression,a significant increase in hot sauce allocation(their measure of aggression) occurred onlyin the ostracism-no control condition.

Freeze. Another reaction to stress is tofreeze, as we commonly think a deer doeswhen facing a headlight. Such a responsecould be adaptive in certain circumstances,when fight or flight might be more danger-ous, as when predators respond to prey move-ment. Perhaps a flight or fight reaction toostracism is similarly unwise, because ei-ther response effectively severs one’s groupmembership. Thus, a concussed or affectivelynumb response may allow an opportunity fora less dysfunctional reaction later. As men-tioned above, following the life-alone feed-back, participants were more likely to showa reduction in complex cognitive thought.They were, however, more likely to perceivetime standing still and to report a sense ofmeaninglessness, lethargy, and flat emotions(Baumeister et al. 2002, Twenge et al. 2003).Additionally, these authors typically find littleor no emotional or mood changes followinglife-alone feedback, which is consistent withthe emotional flatness finding. In further sup-port for this interpretation, participants giventhe life-alone feedback are more insensitiveto physical pain, showing higher thresholdsand tolerances (DeWall & Baumeister 2006).They also found reductions in affective fore-casting of joy or sadness over a future football


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


outcome, and less empathy for another indi-vidual’s suffering for either a socially or physi-cally painful experience. Another study foundmarginally higher rates of self-defeating be-havior (inability or unwillingness to practicefor an upcoming math test) following life-alone feedback (Oikawa et al. 2004). It shouldbe noted, however, that Eisenberger et al.(2006) report effects opposite to those of De-Wall and Baumeister with regard to pain tol-erances when using Cyberball-induced os-tracism. It may well be that life-alone feedbackproduces depression-like symptoms, whereasCyberball induces anxiety (M. Lieberman,personal communication).

Flight? Only a handful of studies appearto allow an opportunity for flight followingostracism. Ostracized participants (using anearly version of the ball-tossing paradigm)were less likely to want to continue workingwith the group that ostracized them, but wereabout equally likely to prefer to work aloneas to working with a new group (Predmore& Williams 1983). In one Internet Cyber-ball game, participants were permitted to exitthe game when they desired (Williams et al.2000, Study 1). Completely ostracized par-ticipants chose to quit playing more quicklythan the included participants (but partiallyostracized participants remained in the gamelonger). Rejected individuals not only dero-gated their rejectors, but expressed no inter-est in continuing to work with them (Pepitone& Wilpeski 1960). Similarly, excluded partic-ipants avoided looking in the mirror (Twengeet al. 2003). After inducing social acceptanceor exclusion in the get-acquainted paradigmand then offering participants a choice to ei-ther leave the experiment immediately or tohelp the experimenter on an ancillary taskthat had nothing to do with the experiment,nearly all of the rejected participants choseto leave, whereas accepted participants weremore likely to stay and help (Tice et al. 2002).Although the authors interpreted this study asshowing less prosocial behavior following re-jection, another interpretation is that rejected

participants took the first opportunity to fleethe negatively charged situation.

Summary on Moderation ofSituational Factors on Coping withOstracism

The research to date suggests that situationalfactors produce a broad arsenal of copingresponses to ostracism. As with individual-difference factors, these responses can becharacterized as fight, tend-and-befriend,freeze, or flight. Factors such as who is ostra-cizing (ingroup members or outgroup mem-bers) and why, and whether there are optionsfor (or perceived control over) future inclu-sion, play an important role and deserve fur-ther attention. Other factors, such as whetherindividuals perceive the ostracism to be tar-geted at them as individuals or at their groupmemberships, also merit attention as we beginto think of ostracism on a larger scale, whengroups, race, culture, religion, and politicalideology are the source of ostracism (see, forinstance, McCauley 2006).

ACCEPTANCE STAGE:RESPONSES TO CHRONICOSTRACISM

A third stage of responses to ostracism, so-cial exclusion, and rejection may well be onein which individuals’ resources are depletedbecause they have had to endure long-termostracism as a result of being continuously orrepetitively ignored and excluded by impor-tant people in their lives. Whereas there isnot much research on this stage yet, there issome supportive evidence.

A review of the literature on depressionproposed a social risk theory of depression,which suggests that when individuals have ex-perienced ample social exclusion, they per-ceive their value to others as low and theirpresence to others as a burden (Allen &Badcock 2003). In such cases, it becomesespecially risky to engage in social interac-tions because if rejected further, the individual

442 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


risks total exclusion. Avoiding losing all pos-sible connections, they argue, is critical to fit-ness from an evolutionary perspective. Thus,chronically excluded individuals will be hy-persensitive to signals of social threat and willsend signals to others that they do not wishto chance risky interactions. In this sense, de-pression is viewed as functional, an interestingbut controversial proposition. Nevertheless,this argument suggests a strong link betweenlong-term exclusion and depression. A sim-ilar argument is made for highly lonely peo-ple: rather than attempting to fortify thwartedneeds, they appear more likely to exhibitlearned helplessness and alienation (Cacioppo& Hawkley 2005).

Zadro (2004) conducted and coded 28interviews with long-term targets of thesilent treatment or ostracism. She reportsstrong themes that long-term targets hadlearned to accept what short-term targetsfight: rather than seeking belonging, they ac-cepted alienation and isolation; rather thanseeking self-enhancement, they accepted lowself-worth; rather than seeking control, theyexpressed helplessness; and rather than pro-voking recognition by others of their exis-tence, they became depressed and avoidedfurther painful rejection. These themes, ofcourse, are from a sample of individuals whosought to be part of the study, so they shouldbe viewed with caution. Cause and effect areimpossible to determine with this study, so it ispossible that people who think little of them-selves and who withdraw are likely targetsfor ostracism. Nevertheless, it is important toconduct studies like this to learn how individ-uals who face continuous isolation from theirloved ones, friends, or society cope or fail tocope.

Although speculative, experiments em-ploying the life-alone paradigm, or those thatexamine highly lonely individuals, may be tap-ping into this third temporal stage of exposureto ostracism in that the life-alone paradigmprojects long-term exposure to ostracism, andloneliness appears to remove motivation to

fortify thwarted needs, thus leading to accep-tance and helplessness.

A NEED-THREAT/NEED-FORTIFICATIONFRAMEWORK

There are several possible explanations forwhy ostracism might be especially likely tolead to aggression (see also Leary et al. 2006).First, ostracism has been shown to threatenat least four fundamental needs: to belong, tomaintain reasonably high self-esteem, to per-ceive a sufficient amount of personal controlover one’s social environment, and to be rec-ognized as existing in a meaningful way. Al-though belonging and self-esteem threats maymotivate individuals to please others, controland meaningful existence threats might mo-tivate aggressive and provocative responses.When these motives compete, there may beambivalent response tendencies (Warburton& Williams 2005). Which tendency surfacesmay depend on the method of measurementor the behavior that is measured. Behaviorsseen and easily interpreted by others mayevoke seemingly positive approach tenden-cies; but underlying feelings or easily dis-guised behaviors may reflect antisocial ten-dencies. For instance, in a study by Echterhoffet al. (2005), a very mild form of exclusion wasused through feedback that negated a sharedreality with another individual, which threat-ened another core need, shared understand-ing (Fiske 2004; see also Pinel et al. 2006regarding the importance of shared under-standing). In that study, participants showedovert signs of connecting with that individ-ual while at the same time covertly reject-ing that individual’s communication. Simi-larly, Williams et al. (2003) reported a study inwhich, following ostracism, participants wereno more derogatory toward an oppressed out-group on explicit measures, but yielded morenegative associations to that group (than in-cluded participants) when tested with an im-plicit measure.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The pro- or antisocial response tendencymay also depend upon which need or needcluster is most threatened. There may be in-stances in which the control and meaningfulexistence desires are so strong that they simplyoutweigh concerns for belonging and beingliked. Existential concerns (e.g., “I exist andI matter”) and desires to believe one has animpact on others, when threatened strongly,may supersede desires to fulfill belonging andbeing liked by self and others. When individu-als are unilaterally ignored and excluded, theylose control over the social interaction, whichincreases frustration and anger. Ostracism isalso a painful reminder of one’s insignificancethat reminds individuals what life would belike if they did not exist. Ostracized individualsreport a feeling of invisibility, that their exis-tence is not even recognized. In this case, a de-sire to be noticed may supplant a desire to beliked. Both control and meaningful existence,if sufficiently threatened by ostracism, mightlead to behaviors that garner control and at-tention from others. In this regard, antisocialbehaviors may be as good or better to achievethese goals. Aggression researchers regard ag-gression as an act of control (Tedeschi 2001).In order to be recognized (either positivelyor negatively) by the largest audience, it maybe far easier to achieve this sole goal by com-mitting a heinous act than by behaving proso-cially (consider this thought: How could youbecome world famous in an hour, with yourname splashed across all newspapers and newsprograms?).

Thus, although speculative, one way tofind harmony with the various reactions thatpeople have to ostracism, social exclusion, andrejection is to recognize that these aversiveinterpersonal behaviors have multiple effectson the individual and can result in an in-trapsychic battle between fundamental needs.When belonging and self-esteem are particu-larly threatened, we might be more likely toobserve prosocial responses; that is, responsesthat serve to increase the individual’s inclu-sionary status. As discussed above, responsesthat serve this goal might be adaptive in the

sense that they may clue individuals into unde-sirable behaviors in themselves that they canminimize, but they may also be maladaptive inthe sense that they may try too hard to pleaseothers, becoming vulnerable to manipulationand perhaps even losing a sense of self. If con-trol and meaningful existence are particularlythreatened, more antisocial reactions may beexpected because antisocial acts achieve con-trol and demand attention. It is perhaps notsurprising, then, that certain manipulationsthat imply inevitability of long-term exclu-sion and strip away any sense of personal con-trol, like those used in the life-alone paradigm,might yield more antisocial or depressed reac-tions than do temporary and relatively mini-mal forms of acute ostracism, like ball tossingand Cyberball. Research is needed to deter-mine whether variations in methods can ac-count for variations in responses.

SUMMARY

The research on ostracism, social exclusion,and rejection has proliferated in the pastdecade, and we have benefited from a consid-erable amount of theory and knowledge aboutthese processes and their impact. Of course,there are still more questions than answers.Clearly, even for very brief episodes that haveminimal mundane realism, ostracism plungesindividuals into a temporary state of abjectmisery, sending signals of pain, increasingstress, threatening fundamental needs, andcausing sadness and anger. It is also clear thatexposures to short episodes of ostracism, so-cial exclusion, and rejection lead to robust be-havioral consequences, many of which can becharacterized as potentially dysfunctional tothe individual’s well-being, such as becomingsocially susceptible to influence and social at-tention, antisocial and hostile, or temporarilycatatonic. But just as clearly, we need to under-stand better the role of personality variablesand situational factors that lead individuals to-ward these different behavioral paths, and weneed to discover whether there are more func-tional responses that can be or are made by

444 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


individuals. Ostracism occurs not only indyads and small groups, but also at the so-cietal and global level, and it is perhaps evenmore important to discover how groups whoare ostracized within their city, nation, or inthe world community respond. Groups mightbe buffered from some threats (e.g., they canseek each others’ support to maintain a senseof belonging), but they might also be predis-

posed to responding provocatively and hos-tilely, to gain attention and respect (see Hogg2005 and Jetten et al. 2006 for social iden-tity perspectives on intragroup and intergrouprejection experiences). It is thus also impor-tant for researchers to turn their attention togroups that are being ostracized, in order touncover the complex dynamics by which theyrespond and cope.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. Ostracism is adaptive for groups because it eliminates burdensome members andmaintains their cohesiveness and strength.

2. Ostracism is painful and distressing to those who are ostracized. Detecting ostracismis adaptive for the individual so that corrections can be made in order to increaseinclusionary status.

3. Cognitive factors (such as who is ostracizing and why) and personality factors of theostracized individuals appear to have little influence in determining the detection ofostracism or the pain that it initially brings.

4. With time to reflect on the ostracism experience, cognitive, personality, and situationalfactors appear to moderate the speed of recovery and the type of coping responsechosen (e.g., aggressive or prosocial).

5. Ostracism can lead to a variety of responses, including (a) behaviors that reflect thedesire to be liked and get re-included, (b) antisocial and aggressive behaviors, (c) astunned and affectless state, and (d ) attempts to flee the situation. Understandingwhich response path is chosen is the current challenge for researchers.

6. There is the potential for ostracized individuals to be more receptive to extremegroups that show an interest in the individual, and at the same time, if these groupsare also ostracized by the dominant society, they may be predisposed to act in such away to attract recognition and attention, possibly through violence.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. It remains to be demonstrated whether ostracism, social exclusion, and rejection aresynonymous psychologically, can be distinguished operationally, and can be shown tohave different consequences.

2. More research is needed that determines under what conditions ostracism leads toattempts to be re-included versus attempts to lash out and aggress.

3. More research is needed on the ostracism of small (and large) groups and on howostracism affects individual and group-related cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.

4. Can ostracism be coped with successfully, without making individuals become aggres-sive or overly susceptible to social influence?


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


5. Can therapies be developed to assist individuals who endure frequent or lengthyepisodes of ostracism?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The preparation of this chapter was facilitated by grants from the Australian Research Counciland the National Science Foundation. The author is indebted to Halina Mathis for her as-sistance and to Adrienne Carter-Sowell, Zhansheng Chen, Stephanie Goodwin, Ty Law, EricWesselmann, and Jim Wirth for their comments.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen NB, Badcock PBT. 2003. The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood: evolutionary,psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 129:887–913

Anderson MA, Kaufman J, Simon TR, Barrios L, Paulozzi L, et al. 2001. School-associatedviolent deaths in the United States. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 286:2695–700

Ayduk O, Downey G, Kim M. 2001. Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms in women.Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:868–77

Ayduk O, Downey G, Testa A, Yen Y, Shoda Y. 1999. Does rejection elicit hostility in rejectionsensitive women? Soc. Cogn. 17:245–71

Barner-Barry C. 1986. Rob: children’s tacit use of peer ostracism to control aggressive behavior.Ethol. Sociobiol. 7:281–93

Baumeister RF, DeWall CN. 2005. The inner dimension of social exclusion: intelligent thoughtand self-regulation among rejected persons. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 53–75

An importantdemonstration thatindividuals are lessable toself-regulatefollowingmanipulations ofsocial exclusion.

Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NL, Twenge JM. 2006. Social exclusion impairsself-regulation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:589–604

Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments asa fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117:497–529

Social exclusionalso impairscomplex, but notsimple, cognitiveprocesses.

Baumeister RF, Twenge JM, Nuss CK. 2002. Effects of social exclusion on cognitiveprocesses: anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. J. Personal. Soc. Psy-chol. 83:817–27

Bingham M. 2000. Suddenly One Sunday. Pymble, NSW: HarperCollins. 2nd ed.Blascovich J, Tomaka J. 1996. The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. In Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 80, ed. M Zanna, pp. 253–67. New York: AcademicBourgeois KS, Leary MR. 2001. Coping with rejection: derogating those who choose us last.

Motiv. Emot. 25:101–11Brewer MB. 2005. The psychological impact of social isolation: discussion and commentary.

See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 333–45Buckley KE, Winkel RE, Leary MR. 2004. Reactions to acceptance and rejection: effects of

level and sequence of relational evaluation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40:14–28Carter AR, Williams KD. 2005. Effects of ostracism on social susceptibility. Presented at 77th Annu.

Meet. Midwest. Psychol. Assoc., ChicagoCarter-Sowell AR, Chen Z, Williams KD. 2006. Loneliness and social monitoring in social inter-

action. Presented at 78th Annu. Meet. Midwest. Psychol. Assoc., ChicagoCacioppo JT, Hawkley LC. 2005. People thinking about people: the vicious cycle of being a

social outcast in one’s own mind. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 91–108

446 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Craighead WE, Kimball WH, Rehak PJ. 1979. Mood changes, physiological responses, andself-statements during social rejection imagery. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 47:385–96

Crick NR, Ostrov JM, Appleyard K, Jansen EA, Casas JF. 2004. Relational aggression in earlychildhood: “You can’t come to my birthday party unless. . .” In Aggression, Antisocial Be-havior, and Violence Among Girls: A Developmental Perspective, ed. M. Putallaz, KL Bierman,pp. 71–89. New York: Guilford

Crook JB. 1997. Port Arthur: Gun Tragedy, Gun Law Miracle. Melbourne: Gun Control AustraliaDandeneau SD, Baldwin MW. 2004. The inhibition of socially rejecting information among

people with high versus low self-esteem: the role of attentional bias and the effect of biasreduction training. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 23:584–602

DeSteno D, Valdesolo P, Bartlett MY. 2006. Jealousy and the threatened self: getting to theheart of the green-eyed monster. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. In press

DeWall CN, Baumeister RF. 2006. Alone but feeling no pain: effects of social exclusion onphysical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empa-thy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. In press

Dickerson SS, Gruenewald TL, Kemeny ME. 2004. When the social self is threatened: shame,physiology, and health. J. Personal. 72:1191–216

Dickerson SS, Kemeny ME. 2004. Acute stressors and cortisol responses: a theoretical inte-gration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychol. Bull. 130:355–91

Downey G, Feldman SI. 1996. Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70:1327–43

Downey G, Feldman SI, Ayduk O. 2000. Rejection sensitivity and male violence in romanticrelationships. Pers. Relat. 7:45–61

Downey G, Frietas AL, Michaelis B, Khouri H. 1998. The self-fulfilling prophecy in closerelationships: rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. J. Personal. Soc.Psychol. 75:545–60

Pioneering workon an individual-difference variablethat predisposessome people toexpect rejectionand to react to it inways thatperpetuate furtherrejection.

Downey G, Mougios V, Ayduk O, London B, Shoda Y. 2004. Rejection sensitivity andthe defensive motivational system: insights from the startle response to rejectioncues. Psychol. Sci. 15:668–73

Echterhoff G, Higgins ET, Groll S. 2005. Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role ofshared reality. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 89:257–76

Eisenberger NI. 2006. Social connection and rejection across the lifespan; a social cognitiveneuroscience approach to developmental processes. Hum. Devel. In press

Eisenberger NI, Jarcho J, Lieberman MD, Naliboff B. 2006. An experimental study of sharedsensitivity to physical and social pain. Work. Pap., Dep. Psychol., Univ. Calif. Los Angeles

The firstneuroscienceevidence that abrief episode ofostracism activatesthe dorsal anteriorcingulate cortex, aregion of the brainthat is alsoactivated byphysical pain.

Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, Williams KD. 2003. Does rejection hurt? An fMRIstudy of social exclusion. Science 302:290–92

Faulkner SJ, Williams KD, Sherman B, Williams E. 1997. The “silent treatment”: Its incidenceand impact. Presented at 69th Annu. Meet. Midwest. Psychol. Assoc., Chicago

Feldman S, Downey G. 1994. Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of childhoodexposure to family violence on adult attachment behavior. Dev. Psychopathol. 6:231–47

Fiske ST. 2004. Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology. New York: WileyFiske ST, Yamamoto M. 2005. Coping with rejection: core social motives across cultures. See

Williams et al. 2005, pp. 185–98Foddy M, Smithson M, Hogg M, Schneider S, eds. 1999. Resolving Social Dilemmas. New York:

Psychol. PressGaertner L, Iuzzini J. 2005. Rejection and entitativity: a synergistic model of mass violence.

See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 307–20


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Gardner WL, Pickett CL, Brewer MB. 2000. Social exclusion and selective memory: how theneed to belong influences memory for social events. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26:486–96

Gardner WL, Pickett CL, Knowles M. 2005. Social snacking and shielding: using social sym-bols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. See Williams et al. 2005,pp. 227–42

Geller DM, Goodstein L, Silver M, Sternberg WC. 1974. On being ignored: the effects ofviolation of implicit rules of social interaction. Sociometry 37:541–56

Gonsalkorale K, Williams KD. 2006. The KKK won’t let me play: ostracism even by a despisedoutgroup hurts. J. Eur. Soc. Psychol. In press

Gruter M, Masters RD. 1986. Ostracism: a social and biological phenomenon. Ethol. Sociobiol.7:149–395

Gunnar MR, Sebanc AM, Tout K, Donzella B, van Dulmen MMH. 2003. Peer rejection,temperament, and cortisol activity in preschoolers. Dev. Psychol. 43:346–68

Haselton MG, Buss DM. 2000. Error management theory: a new perspective on biases incross-sex mind reading. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:81–91

Hitlan RT, Kelly KM, Schepman S, Schneider KT, Zarate MA. 2006. Language exclusion andthe consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dyn. Theor. Res. Pract.10:56–70

James W. 1890/1950. Principles of Psychology, Volume 1. New York: DoverJuvonen J, Gross EF. 2005. The rejected and the bullied: lessons about social misfits from

developmental psychology. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 155–70Heron TE. 1987. Timeout from positive reinforcement. In Applied Behavior Analysis, ed. IO

Cooper, TE Heron, H Merrill, pp. 439–53. Columbus, OH: MerrillHogg MA. 2005. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others: social

identity and marginal membership. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 243–61Jetten J, Branscombe NR, Spears R. 2006. Living on the edge: dynamics of intragroup and

intergroup rejection experiences. In Social Identities: Motivational, Emotional and CulturalInfluences, ed. R Brown, D Capozza. London: Sage. In press

Karau SJ, Williams KD. 1993. Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 65:681–706

Lakin JL, Chartrand TL. 2003. Using nonconscious mimicry to create affiliation and rapport.Psychol. Sci. 14:334–39

Lakin JL, Chartrand TL. 2005. Exclusion and nonconscious behavioral mimicry. See Williamset al. 2005, pp. 279–95

Law AT, Williams KD. 2006. Minimal world: Responses to minimal representations of ostracism.Work. Pap., Dep. Psychol. Sci., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.

Leary MR. 2001. Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In Interpersonal Rejec-tion, ed. Leary MR, pp. 3–20. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Leary MR. 2005. Varieties of interpersonal rejection. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 35–51Leary MR, Haupt AL, Strausser KS, Chokel JT. 1998. Calibrating the sociometer: the rela-

tionship between interpersonal appraisals and state self-esteem. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.74:1290–99

Leary MR, Kelly KM, Cottrell CA, Schreindorfer LS. 2005. Individual differences in the needto belong: mapping the nomological network. Work. Pap, Dep. Psychol. Wake Forest Univ.,Winston-Salem, NC

Leary MR, Kowalski RM, Smith L, Phillips S. 2003. Teasing, rejection, and violence: casestudies of the school shootings. Aggress. Behav. 29:202–14

Leary MR, Tambor ES, Terdal SK, Downs DL. 1995. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor:the sociometer hypothesis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 68:518–30

448 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Leary MR, Twenge JM, Quinlivan E. 2006. Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of angerand aggression. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10:111–32

Lemonick MD. 2002 (May 6). Germany’s Columbine. Time 159/18:36–39Lieberman MD. 2007. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annu. Rev.

Psychol. 58:259–89Lieberman MD, Gaunt R, Gilbert DT, Trope Y. 2002. Reflection and reflexion: a social

cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. In Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, ed. M Zanna, 34:199–249. New York: Academic

Lovaas OI, Schaeffer B, Simmons JQ. 1965. Building social behavior in autistic children byuse of electric shock. J. Exp. Res. Personal. 1:99–105

MacDonald G, Kingsbury R. 2006. Does physical pain augment anxious attachment? J. Soc.Pers. Relat. In press

An importanttheoreticalintegration thatargues that thesocial pain systemis piggybacked onthe physical painneural architectureand that manysimilarities existbetween physicaland social pain.

MacDonald G, Leary MR. 2005. Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationshipbetween social and physical pain. Psychol. Bull. 131:202–23

Maner JK, DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Schaller M. 2006. Does social exclusion motivateinterpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “Porcupine Problem.” J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.In press

McCauley C. 2006. Psychological issues in understanding terrorism and the response toterrorism. In The Psychology of Terrorism, ed C Stout. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publ.In press

Miller EK, Cohen JD. 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu. Rev.Neurosci. 24:167–202

Murray SL, Rose P, Bellavia GM, Holmes JG, Kusche AG. 2002. When rejection stings:how self-esteem constrains relationship-enhancement processes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.83:556–73

Nadasi C. 1992. The effects of social ostracism on verbal and nonverbal behavior in introverts andextraverts. Hon. Thesis, Univ. Toledo. 77 pp.

Nadel J, Prepin K, Okanda M. 2005. Experiencing contingency and agency: first step towardself-understanding in making a mind? Interact. Stud.: Spec. Iss. Making Minds 6:447–62

Newman KS. 2004. Rampage: the social roots of school shootings. Cambridge, MA: BasicBooks. 434 pp.

Nezlek JB, Kowalski RM, Leary MR, Blevins T, Holgate S. 1997. Personality moderators ofreactions to interpersonal rejection: depression and trait self-esteem. Personal. Soc. Psychol.Bull. 23:1235–44

Oikawa H, Kumagai T, Ohbuchi K. 2004. Social exclusion and self-defeating behavior. Presentedat 16th Int. Soc. Res. Aggress., Santorini Island, Greece

Ouwerkerk JW, Kerr NL, Gallucci M, van Lange PAM. 2005. Avoiding the social death penalty:ostracism and cooperation in social dilemmas. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 321–32

Pepitone A, Wilpizeski C. 1960. Some consequences of experimental rejection. J. Abnorm. Soc.Psychol. 60:359–64

One of severalfindings thatmanipulations ofsocial exclusion canlead tohypersensitivity tosocial information.

Pickett CL, Gardner WL. 2005. The social monitoring system: enhanced sensitivity tosocial clues as an adaptive response to social exclusion. See Williams et al. 2005,pp. 213–26

Pickett CL, Gardner WL, Knowles M. 2004. Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhancedsensitivity to social cues. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:1095–107

Pinel EC, Long AE, Landau MJ, Alexander K, Pyszczynski T. 2006. Seeing I to I: a pathwayto interpersonal connectedness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. In press

Predmore SC, Williams KD. 1983. The effects of social ostracism on affiliation. Presented at 55thAnnu. Meet. Midwest. Psychol. Assoc., Chicago


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Romero-Canyas R, Downey G. 2005. Rejection sensitivity as a predictor of affective and be-havioral responses to interpersonal stress: a defensive motivational system. See Williamset al. 2005, pp. 131–54

Schachter S. 1951. Deviation, rejection, and communication. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 46:190–207

Schaller M, Duncan LA. 2006. The behavioral immune system: its evolution and social psycho-logical implications. In The Evolution of the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and SocialCognition, ed. JP Forgas, M Haselton, W von Hippel. New York: Psychol. Press. In press

Smith A, Williams KD. 2004. R U there? Effects of ostracism by cell phone messages. GroupDyn. Theory Res. Pract. 8:291–301

Smith ER, Murphy J, Coats S. 1999. Attachment to groups: theory and measurement.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 77:94–110

Sommer KL, Baumeister RF. 2002. Self-evaluation, persistence, and performance followingimplicit rejection: the role of trait self-esteem. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:926–38

Sommer KL, Rubin YS. 2005. Role of social expectancies in cognitive and behavioral responsesto social rejection. See Williams et al. 2005, pp. 171–83

Sommer KL, Williams KD, Ciarocco NJ, Baumeister RF. 2001b. When silence speaks louderthan words: explorations into the interpersonal and intrapsychic consequences of socialostracism. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 83:606–15

Spoor J, Williams KD. 2006. The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In The Evolutionof the Social Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Social Cognition, ed. JP Forgas, M Haselton,W von Hippel. New York: Psychol. Press. In press

Steinbeck J. 1945/1987. Of Mice and Men/Cannery Row. New York: PenguinStroud LR, Tanofsky-Kraff M, Wilfley DE, Salovey P. 2000. The Yale Interpersonal Stressor

(YIPS): affective, physiological, and behavioral responses to a novel interpersonal rejectionparadigm. Ann. Behav. Med. 22:204–13

Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RAR, Updegraff JA. 2000. Femaleresponses to stress: tend and befriend, not fight or flight. Psychol. Rev. 107:411–29

Tedeschi JT. 2001. Social power, influence, and aggression. In Social Influence: Direct and IndirectProcesses, ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, pp. 109–28. New York: Psychol. Press

Tice DM, Twenge JM, Schmeichel BJ. 2002. Threatened selves: the effects of social exclu-sion on prosocial and antisocial behavior. In The Social Self: Cognitive, Interpersonal, andIntergroup Perspectives, ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, pp. 175–87. New York: Psychol. Press

Twenge JM. 2000. The age of anxiety? The birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:1007–21

Twenge JM. 2005. When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influences of situa-tions, narcissism, emotion, and replenishing social connections. See Williams et al. 2005,pp. 201–12The first

demonstration thatsocial exclusion cantrigger antisocialand aggressiveresponses.

Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. 2001. If you can’t join them, beatthem: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.81:1058–69

Something akin toa concussive stateof affective flatnesscan follow socialexclusion.

Twenge JM, Catanese KR, Baumeister RF. 2003. Social exclusion and the decon-structed state: time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, andself-awareness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:409–23

Twenge JM, Zhang L, Catanese KR, Dolan-Pascoe B, Lyche LE, Baumeister RF. 2006. Replen-ishing connectedness: reminders of social anxiety activity reduce aggression after socialexclusion. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. In press

van Beest I, Williams KD. 2006a. When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism stillhurts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. In press

450 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Van Beest I, Williams KD. 2006b. Cyberbomb: Is it painful to be ostracized from Russianroulette? Work. Pap., Dep. Psychol., Leiden Univ.

Warburton WA, Williams KD. 2005. Ostracism: when competing motivations collide. In SocialMotivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes, ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, SD Laham,pp. 294–313. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Even fortificationof nonsocialcontrol candecouple the linkbetween ostracismand aggression.

Warburton WA, Williams KD, Cairns DR. 2006. When ostracism leads to aggres-sion: the moderating effects of control deprivation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42:213–20

Wheaton A. 2001. Ostracism and susceptibility to the overtures of socially deviant groups and individ-uals. Hon. Thesis. Macquarie Univ., Sydney, Australia. 67 pp.

Wilkie D, Savedra M, Holzemer W, Tesler M, Paul S. 1990. Use of the McGill Pain Ques-tionnaire to measure pain: a meta-analysis. Nursing Res. 39:37–40

Williams KD. 1997. Social ostracism. In Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors, ed. RM Kowalski,p. 133–70. New York: Plenum

Williams KD. 2001. Ostracism: The Power of Silence. New York: Guilford. 282 pp.

A minimalmanipulation ofostracism, beingignored andexcluded in avirtual ball tossgame (Cyberball),is sufficient tothwart fundamentalneeds and toincreasesubsequent acts ofconformity.

Williams KD, Bernieri F, Faulkner S, Grahe J, Gada-Jain N. 2000. The Scarlet LetterStudy: five days of social ostracism. J. Person. Interperson. Loss 5:19–63

Williams KD, Case TI, Govan CL. 2003. Impact of ostracism on social judgments and de-cisions: explicit and implicit responses. In Social Judgments: Implicit and Explicit Processes,ed. JP Forgas, KD Williams, W von Hippel, pp. 325–42. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press

Williams KD, Cheung CKT, Choi W. 2000. CyberOstracism: effects of being ignored overthe Internet. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:748–62

Williams KD, Fitness J. 2004. Social and physical pain: similarities and differences. Presentedat Soc. Exp. Social Psychol., Ft. Worth, TX

Williams KD, Forgas JP, Hippel WV. 2005. The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion,Rejection, and Bullying. New York: Psychol. Press

Williams KD, Govan CL, Croker V, Tynan D, Cruickshank M, Lam A. 2002. Investigationsinto differences between social and cyber ostracism. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 6:65–77

Williams KD, Jarvis B. 2006. Cyberball: a program for use in research on ostracism and inter-personal acceptance. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 38:174–80

Williams KD, Shore WJ, Grahe JE. 1998. The silent treatment: perceptions of its behaviorsand associated feelings. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 1:117–41

Williams KD, Sommer KL. 1997. Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: Does rejection lead toloafing or compensation? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23:693–706

Williams KD, Wheeler L, Harvey J. 2001. Inside the social mind of the ostracizer. In TheSocial Mind: Cognitive and Motivational Aspects of Interpersonal Behavior, ed. JP Forgas, KDWilliams, L Wheeler, pp. 294–320. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Williams KD, Zadro L. 2005. Ostracism: the indiscriminate early detection system. SeeWilliams et al. 2005, pp. 19–34

Zadro L. 2004. Ostracism: Empirical studies inspired by real-world experiences of silence and exclusion.PhD thesis. Univ. New South Wales. 294 pp.

Zadro L, Boland C, Richardson R. 2006. How long does it last? The persistence of the effectsof ostracism in the socially anxious. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. In press

Zadro L, Williams KD. 2006. How do you teach the power of ostracism? Evaluating the trainride demonstration. Soc. Influence 1:1–24


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Zadro L, Williams KD, Richardson R. 2004. How low can you go? Ostracism by a com-puter lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.40:560–67

Zadro L, Williams KD, Richardson R. 2005. Riding the ‘O’ train: comparing the effects ofostracism and verbal dispute on targets and sources. Group Process Interperson. Relat. 8:125–43

452 Williams

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Contents ARI 8 November 2006 21:2

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 58, 2007

Contents

Prefatory

Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration ofPsychological ScienceMichael I. Posner and Mary K. Rothbart � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Cognitive Neuroscience

The Representation of Object Concepts in the BrainAlex Martin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25

Depth, Space, and Motion

Perception of Human MotionRandolph Blake and Maggie Shiffrar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 47

Form Perception (Scene Perception) or Object Recognition

Visual Object Recognition: Do We Know More Now Than We Did 20Years Ago?Jessie J. Peissig and Michael J. Tarr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75

Animal Cognition

Causal Cognition in Human and Nonhuman Animals: A Comparative,Critical ReviewDerek C. Penn and Daniel J. Povinelli � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 97

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

The Development of CopingEllen A. Skinner and Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 119

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Biological and Genetic Processes in Development

The Neurobiology of Stress and DevelopmentMegan Gunnar and Karina Quevedo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 145

Development in Societal Context

An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context ofHuman DevelopmentRand D. Conger and M. Brent Donnellan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 175

Culture and Mental Health

Race, Race-Based Discrimination, and Health Outcomes AmongAfrican AmericansVickie M. Mays, Susan D. Cochran, and Namdi W. Barnes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

Personality Disorders

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issuesand an Emerging ReconceptualizationLee Anna Clark � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Social Psychology of Attention, Control, and Automaticity

Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core ProcessesMatthew D. Lieberman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 259

Inference, Person Perception, Attribution

Partitioning the Domain of Social Inference: Dual Mode and SystemsModels and Their AlternativesArie W. Kruglanski and Edward Orehek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 291

Self and Identity

Motivational and Emotional Aspects of the SelfMark R. Leary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation,Social Emotion

Moral Emotions and Moral BehaviorJune Price Tangney, Jeff Stuewig, and Debra J. Mashek � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 345

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The Experience of EmotionLisa Feldman Barrett, Batja Mesquita, Kevin N. Ochsner,

and James J. Gross � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 373

Attraction and Close Relationships

The Close Relationships of Lesbian and Gay MenLetitia Anne Peplau and Adam W. Fingerhut � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 405

Small Groups

OstracismKipling D. Williams � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 425

Personality Processes

The Elaboration of Personal Construct PsychologyBeverly M. Walker and David A. Winter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Cross-Cultural Organizational BehaviorMichele J. Gelfand, Miriam Erez, and Zeynep Aycan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Organizational Groups and Teams

Work Group DiversityDaan van Knippenberg and Michaéla C. Schippers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 515

Career Development and Counseling

Work and Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research,and ApplicationsNadya A. Fouad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 543

Adjustment to Chronic Diseases and Terminal Illness

Health Psychology: Psychological Adjustmentto Chronic DiseaseAnnette L. Stanton, Tracey A. Revenson, and Howard Tennen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 565

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Research Methodology

Mediation AnalysisDavid P. MacKinnon, Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 593

Analysis of Nonlinear Patterns of Change with Random CoefficientModelsRobert Cudeck and Jeffrey R. Harring � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 615

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 48–58 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 644

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology chapters (if any, 1997 to thepresent) may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

007.

58:4

25-4

52. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Tam

pere

on

12/1

9/09

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Ostracism - University of · PDF fileOstracism Kipling D. Williams Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, ... these would make us feel that, however

Documents