Affective and Cognitive Consequences of
Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Motive
Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan
Aydın, Deniz Şahin, Hayal Yavuz & Savaş Ceylan
Hacettepe University Social Psychology Laboratory
Ostracism

Ostracism is generally defined as being
ignored and excluded (Williams et. al.,
2005)

Without excessive explanation or explicit
negative attention (Williams, 2007)
Williams, K.D., Forgas, J.P., von Hippel, W., & Zadro, L. (2005). The social outcast: An overview. In K.D. Williams, J.P.
Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection and Bullying (pp.1-16). NY:
Psychology Press.
Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.
Threatened Needs

Ostracism threatens four needs in
humans:




Belonging
Control
Self-esteem
Meaningful existence
Reactions to Ostracism

Immediate reactions


Short-term reactions


Pain, hurt feelings, physiological arousal
Attempts to regain needs
Long-term reactions

Learned helplessness, low self-esteem,
suicidal thoughts
Moderating Factors on Reactions

Attributions


Responsibility, control, self-other blame
Individual differences

Attachment styles, needs for belonging,
control, self-esteem
Current Study

The aim of this study was to explore,


Effects of being informed prior to ostracism
Effects of the participants’ prior level of need
to belong on,
Needs of control, self-esteem, belonging and
meaningful existence
 Positive and negative mood

Participants

120 students participated the study


11 students were excluded from analysis for
not completing the scales properly.
All of the participants were freshman
students in Hacettepe University or Izmir
University of Economics.
Procedure: Need to Belong Scale



Need to belong scale (Leary, Kelly,
Cottrell, Schreindorfer, in press) was
conducted to freshman students as
potential participants 2-3 weeks before
the experiments began.
5 point likert scale: higher scores indicate
higher need
Alpha=.70
Procedure: Cover Story


Participants were taken into the lab in 4
person groups and given consent forms
including the cover story.
They were told that they would be
participating an experiment on “mental
visualisation skills”
Procedure: Cyberball Game


Participants were told that in order to assess their
mental visualisation skills, they were to play a “ballgame” over internet in four people groups.
The Cyberball game is developed by Williams, Cheung
and Choi (2000), in order to manipulate ostracism
condition.



The game is consisted of ball throwings between cartoon figures
representing each player, lasting approximately 50 throws.
In ostracism condition, after the first 2-3 throws the participant
does not get the ball anymore.
In control condition (all-included) participant gets the ball as
often as the others do.
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.
Procedure: PANAS and Need Threat
Scale

After the completion of cyberball game, participants
were asked to fill two scales

Positive-Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark & Tellegen,
1988; adopted by Gençöz, 2000) - 7 point



Positive affect: higher scores indicate higher positive mood
Negative affect: higher scores indicate higher negative mood
Need Threat Scale (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; adopted
by res. gr.) – 7 point




Belongingness
Self-esteem
Control
Meaningful existence
Higher scores indicate
lower threat
Van Beest, I, & Williams, K.D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918-928.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, 19-26.
Design

A 2: need to belong level (high vs. low) x
3: ostracism condition (informed
ostracism, ostracism vs. control) design
was used.

PANAS scores and need threat scale scores
were analyzed by this design.
Manipulation Checks

Participants were asked to guess the
percentage of the ball that had been
thrown to them during the game.



All inclusion: % 35.5
Informed ostracism: %15.6
Ostracism: %10.7
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
High NTB
Low NTB
High NTB
Low NTB
High NTB
Low NTB
Positive Affect 3.44 (1.25)
3.70 (1.21)
3.70 (1.36)
2.99 (0.82)
4.64 (1.14)
4.34 (1.02)
Negative Affect 2.65 (0.95)
2.20 (1.04)
2.65 (1.17)
2.54 (1.02)
2.06 (1.31)
2.12 (1.19)
Belongingness 2.84 (1.54)
3.45 (1.56)
2.48 (1.57)
2.58 (1.31)
4.87 (1.44)
5.06 (1.29)
Self-Esteem 4.29 (1.61)
5.48 (1.20)
4.14 (1.38)
4.04 (1.40)
5.60 (1.20)
5.90 (1.12)
Control 2.81 (1.07)
3.40 (1.54)
2.85 (1.50)
2.88 (1.46)
4.58 (1.32)
4.82 (1.18)
Meaningful Existence 2.91 (1.75)
4.08 (1.54)
2.85 (1.74)
3.09 (1.52)
5.22 (1.32)
4.97 (1.47)
PANAS
Need Threat Scale
Results: PANAS

A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism
condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion)
MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism
condition on PANAS scores (Wilks’  = .82, F(5, 103) =
5.29, p < .001, ² = .09).

Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of
ostracism condition on positive affect scores (F(2, 106) = 8.9, p
< .001, ² = .14). The positive affect scores were higher in all
inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no
significant difference between ostracism conditions.
Results: PANAS
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
Positive Affect
3.58 (1.22)
3.41 (1.20)
4.48 (1.07)*
Negative Affect
2.41 (1.01)
2.61 (1.09)
2.09 (1.23)
PANAS
Results: Need Threat Scale

A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism
condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion)
MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism
condition on Need Threat scale scores (Wilks’  = .61,
F(5, 103) = 6.92, p < .001, ² = .22).
Results: Need Threat Scale

Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant
effect of ostracism condition on belongingness need
scores (F(2, 106) = 26.97, p < .001, ² = .34). The
belongingness need scores were higher in all inclusion
condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no
significant difference between ostracism conditions.
Results: Need Threat Scale
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
Belongingness
3.16 (1.56)
2.53 (1.45)
4.97 (1.35)*
Self-Esteem
4.91 (1.51)*
4.10 (1.37)*
5.76 (1.15)*
Control
3.12 (1.35)
2.86 (1.46)
4.71 (1.23)*
Meaningful Existence
3.52 (1.72)
2.95 (1.63)
5.09 (1.39)*
Need Threat Scale
Results: Need Threat Scale

Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant
effect of ostracism condition on self-esteem need scores
(F(2, 106) = 12.88, p < .001, ² = .19). The selfesteem need scores were highest in all inclusion
condition, lower in informed ostracism condition and
lowest in ostracism condition. All conditions differed
significantly from each other.
Results: Need Threat Scale
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
Belongingness
3.16 (1.56)
2.53 (1.45)
4.97 (1.35)*
Self-Esteem
4.91 (1.51)*
4.10 (1.37)*
5.76 (1.15)*
Control
3.12 (1.35)
2.86 (1.46)
4.71 (1.23)*
Meaningful Existence
3.52 (1.72)
2.95 (1.63)
5.09 (1.39)*
Need Threat Scale
Results: Need Threat Scale

Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant
effect of ostracism condition on control need scores (F(2,
106) = 20.15, p < .001, ² = .27). The control need
scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both
ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference
between ostracism conditions.
Results: Need Threat Scale
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
Belongingness
3.16 (1.56)
2.53 (1.45)
4.97 (1.35)*
Self-Esteem
4.91 (1.51)*
4.10 (1.37)*
5.76 (1.15)*
Control
3.12 (1.35)
2.86 (1.46)
4.71 (1.23)*
Meaningful Existence
3.52 (1.72)
2.95 (1.63)
5.09 (1.39)*
Need Threat Scale
Results: Need Threat Scale

Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant
effect of ostracism condition on meaningful existence
need scores (F(2, 106) = 17.25, p < .001, ² = .25).
The meaningful existence need scores were higher in all
inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There
was no significant difference between ostracism
conditions.
Results: Need Threat Scale
Informed Ostracism
Ostracism
All Inclusion
Belongingness
3.16 (1.56)
2.53 (1.45)
4.97 (1.35)*
Self-Esteem
4.91 (1.51)*
4.10 (1.37)*
5.76 (1.15)*
Control
3.12 (1.35)
2.86 (1.46)
4.71 (1.23)*
Meaningful Existence
3.52 (1.72)
2.95 (1.63)
5.09 (1.39)*
Need Threat Scale
Discussion


Results show that prior levels of need to belong
had no effect on need threat scores and affect
scores.
Being informed that a person is going to be
ostracized by a certain rule of the game does
not reduce the effects of ostracism on
threatening needs and lowering affect. This
result is consistent with prior studies that
reactions to ostracism are automatic in nature.
Thank you for listening…