Hayal Yavuz, Yasemin Abayhan, Savaş Ceylan, Deniz
Şahin, Orhan Aydın, Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz
Hacettepe University, Department of Psychology
Social Psychology Laboratory
This research benefited from a grant from TUBITAK, project no. 109K094



Ostracism, refers to being ignored, excluded and/or rejected by other
individuals or groups independent of offering a justification or being
a target of negative reactions (Williams, 2007).
Because of the social nature of human, lack of social contact is
stressful for human beings.
Research had shown that ostracism evokes a variety of negative
emotions such as sadness, anger and hostility as well as the
experience of social pain (Chow, Tiedens & Govan,2008; DeWall et al.,
2009; Eisenberger, Lieberman & Willams, 2003; Twenge et al., 2007).
Chow, R.M., Tiedens, L.Z., & Govan, C. (2008). Excluded feelings: Emotional responses to social ostracism predict aggressive
reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 896-903.
DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Gitter, S.A.,& Baumeister, R.F. (2009). It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in
shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 45-59.
Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., & Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt: An Fmrı study of social exclusion. Science, 302,
290-292.
Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, N.C., Ciarocco, N.J., Bartels, M.J. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56-66.
Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452


According to Need Threat Model (Williams, 1997); ostracism
threatenes four fundamental needs;
-self-esteem,
-belongingness,
-perceived control
-meaningful existence
Therefore, individuals act to fortify or replenish their thwarted
needs by antisocial behaviors such as aggression, bullying,
counter productive actions and violent acts or prosocial behaviors
like cooperation, helping and organizational citizenship (Twenge,
2005; Williams, 2007).
Twenge, J.M. (2005). When does social rejection lead to aggression? The influence of situations, narcissicm, emotion, and
replenishing connections. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W.von Hippel (Eds.). The social outcast: Ostracism, social
exclusion, rejection and bulyyinu. (pp.201-212). New York: Psychology Press.
Williams, K.D. (1997). Social ostracism. R.M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors içinde (s. 133-170). New York:
Plenum.
Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452

The current study investigates the behavioral
and emotional responses of ostracized people
according to their self reports and their
retaliation or helping behaviors by using both
Cyberball and Brainstorming Paradigm.
Participants
-49 volunteer students;

7 of them
Guessed the purpose of the
study
5 of them
Didn’t understand the
manipulation
1 of them
Knows our confederates
personally
Therefore; 36 participants (18 m; 18 f)
-In brainstorming session, participants accompanied by three
confederates. Confederates were instructed about how to behave
in a week long training.

-
Dependent Variables
Behavioral responses of participants (scored by judges
on observational form; 36 possible behaviors were
listed on the form such as “reminds the rules of
brainstorming to the ostracizer” or “stop writing” etc.)
-
Emotional responses (self-report- Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988).
-
Need threats (self report- Need Threat Scale, Van Beest
& Williams, 2006).

a)
b)
Procedure
2 disjoint studies
Cover story of Cyberball:
Participants were told that
the goals of the research
were to understand
mental visualization and
they would play an online
game of toss with three
other participants.
Cyberball: The cyberball
paradigm used in this
study for ostracize the
participants.
c) Cover story of
Brainstorming:
-Brainstorming sessions for
generating ideas.
-4 different people from
Hacettepe University.
-Brainstorming rules.
d) Brainstorming:
-Ostracize one of the
confederates.
-Confederate try to speak
with them and complain
about the situation.

a)
Manipulation Checks of the Study
Manipulation Checks of Cyberball:
Conditions
What percentage of throws do you think you
received during the Cyberball game?
Ostracism
Inclusion
F(1, 35)= 34.52, p <.0001, ² = .51
9.17 (3.03)
34.71 (3.12)
b) Manipulation Checks of Brainstorming:
Debriefing questions

a)
-
Effects of ostrasicm on dependent variables
Effects of ostrasicm on emotional responses:
Cronbach alpha coefficients for both positive and
negative emotions.
Emotion type
Cronbach Alpha
Coefficients
Positive Emotions
.63
Negative Emotions
.85
There were no significant main effects of ostracism on
both negative and positive emotions, F (1, 36) = .73,
p>.05, ² = .08.
b)
Effects of ostrasicm on need threat scale:
-Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each need;
Need
Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient
Belonging
.69
Control
.60
Self-esteem
.81
Meaningful Existence
.79
There were no significant main effects of ostracism on
need threats, F(1, 36) = .91, p> .05, ² = .10.

Effects of ostrasicm on behavioral responses:
Behavior
Mean Rank
Z
Ostracism
Control
Ignores the ostracizer
16,45
20,79
-1.91*
Approves the
ostracized’s
complaints by nodding
21,53
15,12
-2,28**
Bending his/her head
15,89
21,41
-2.09**
Shows the paper to the
ostracizer by pen or
finger
22,26
14,29
-2.62***
*p < .06; **p < .05; ***p < .01


According to ostracism literature being ostracized had
an effect on emotional responses and four fundamental
needs (Smith & Williams, 2004;Williams, Cheung &
Choi, 2000; Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004,).
The current study suggests that being ostracized
doesn’t change the participants emotional responses
and doesn’t threat their four fundamental needs.
Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U There? Effects of ostracism by cell phone messages. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 291-301.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000).CyberOstracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer lowersbelonging,
control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,560-567.


The participants who are ostracized in
cyberball sessions are much more sensitive to
the cues of ostracism.
Therefore they try to ignore the ostracizer less
frequently than the participants in the control
condition and even emphatize the ostracized
confederates by approving their complains.


They are actively try to intervene the situation
by points the paper to the ostracizer by pen or
finger.
Limitations: We need to collect data on noostracism brainstorming sessions. And some of
our measures may need to be revised due to
cronbach alpha’s coefficients lower than .70.