Ostracism Experiences of Sexual Minorities: Investigating Targets' Experiences and Perceptions by Others.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people face frequent discrimination, maltreatment, and violence for transgressing gender roles upheld in heteronormative societies. Ostracism (i.e., being excluded and ignored) is likely another, understudied form of discrimination against sexual minorities. In a multi-method approach using a nationally representative panel (N = 4104) and experience sampling data (N = 467, 14 days, k = 926 ostracism experiences), we find that LGB individuals report more ostracism experiences than straight individuals. In line with the idea that ostracism toward sexual minorities occurs as a function of gender role nonconformity, lesbians and gay men are rated by an independent rater sample as more likely to be ostracized (k = 10,760 ratings) when they are also rated as more lesbian/gay and less gender role conforming. Our findings speak in favor of ostracism as a discriminatory experience of LGB individuals that is driven by transgressions of heteronormativity.

It will (never) stop hurting: Do repeated or chronic experiences of exclusion lead to hyper- or hyposensitive psychological responses?

Unlike one-time lab manipulations of exclusion, in real life, many people experience exclusion, from others and from groups, over extended periods, raising the question of whether individuals could, over time, develop hypo- or hypersensitive responses to chronic exclusion. In Study 1, we subjected participants to repeated experiences of inclusion or exclusion (three Cyberball games, time lag of three days, N = 194; 659 observations). We find that repeatedly excluded individuals become hypersensitive to inclusion, but not to exclusion. Study 2 (N = 183) tested whether individuals with chronic experiences of real-world exclusion show hypo- or hypersensitive responses to a novel episode of exclusion. In line with Study 1, exclusion hurt to the same extent regardless of baseline levels of chronic exclusion in daily life. However, chronically excluded individuals show more psychological distress in general. We discuss theoretical and practical implications for dealing with chronically excluded individuals and groups.

When and why we ostracize others: Motivated social exclusion in group contexts.

Research on ostracism has mostly focused on ostracized targets' reactions to being excluded and ignored. In contrast, the ostracizing sources' perspective and reasons for why individuals decide to ostracize others are still a largely unexplored frontier for empirical research. We propose two fundamental motives situated in the target's behavior that drive motivated ostracism decisions for the benefit of one's group: A perceived norm violation of the target and perceived expendability of the target for achieving group goals. Two survey studies and five experiments (total N = 2,394, all preregistered) support our predictions: When asked to recall a recent ostracism decision and the motives for it, participants reported both perceived norm violations and/or expendability of the target as motives (Study 1). Switching to the target perspective, the frequency of experienced ostracism was associated with both self-perceived norm violations and expendability (Study 2). In five experiments (Studies 3-7), participants consistently choose to ostracize targets more often when they perceived them to be either norm-violating, or inept in a skill important for the group and thus expendable. Additionally, Studies 5-7 show that strategic considerations about the requirements of the situational context influence ostracism decisions: Participants were more likely to ostracize norm-violating targets in cooperative contexts, and more likely to ostracize inept targets in performance contexts. Results have strong theoretical implications for research on ostracism and group dynamics, as well as for interventions targeting ostracism behavior: Particularly, adjusting the requirements of the situational context might be a viable option to decrease ostracism and promote inclusion in groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Call me maybe: Risk factors of impaired social contact during the COVID-19 pandemic and associations with well-being.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused major societal changes worldwide, with the most notable being lockdowns and restrictions on social contact. We conducted a longitudinal study (total n = 1907) in Germany with two time points to (1) identify demographic risk factors of impaired social contact during the pandemic, as well as investigate potential consequences of (2) impaired social contact and (3) different modes of communication on individuals' well-being during the first lockdown in spring 2020. Results indicate that particularly individuals living alone and being unable to work reported a lower frequency of (face-to-face) contact in comparison with participants living with others or working. Impaired social contact was indirectly associated with a negative development in well-being (life satisfaction, anxiety and depression) over time, and this relation was mediated via relatedness. Moreover, the frequency of face-to-face and phone communication during lockdown was positively associated with relatedness and well-being; however, digital communication was not. The findings stress the importance of maintaining social contact in times of social distancing and of fostering reconnection between individuals once the pandemic is over.

Depressed and excluded: Do depressive symptoms moderate recovery from ostracism?

BACKGROUND: Prior studies show that depressed individuals react with more immediate reflexive need threat to ostracism than healthy controls. However, it remains unclear whether the observed difference between depressed individuals and healthy controls is caused by ostracism. To find out, the exclusion condition needs to be compared to a baseline condition: inclusion. METHODS: We assessed depressive symptoms in N = 426 participants in an experimental study. Participants were included or excluded in Cyberball and indicated both their immediate reflexive need satisfaction level and their reflective need satisfaction level several minutes later to assess recovery. RESULTS: Being excluded decreased reflexive need satisfaction levels for all participants. At the same time, the strength of depressive symptoms negatively predicted reflexive and reflective need satisfaction and was associated with slower recovery. Importantly, no moderation was observed: individuals with more depressive symptoms reported reduced need satisfaction levels regardless of being included or excluded in Cyberball. LIMITATIONS: The present findings were obtained with one paradigm only, albeit the most commonly used one: Cyberball. Depressive symptoms were assessed as self-report; future studies may wish to replicate the effects using structured clinical interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms come with lowered need satisfaction levels, irrespective of whether individuals are socially excluded or included. Clinical practitioners should be aware of the relationship between chronic need threat and depression in order to help their patients overcome it.

The experience of ostracism over the adult life span.

Ostracism, that is, being excluded and ignored by others, is a highly painful and threatening experience for individuals. Most empirical research on ostracism has been carried out in the lab or focused on samples in specific contexts. Here, we investigate the effects of age on how individuals experience ostracism within a broad, representative sample of the adult German population (the Socio-Economic Panel). We find a generally negative relation between ostracism and age, such that older adults report experiencing ostracism less frequently. Further analyses show that a particular dip in the ostracism frequency curve around the age of 65 might be at least partly due to leaving the workforce. We further investigate cross-sectional as well as longitudinal effects of age on relations between ostracism frequency and psychological well-being, showing relatively stable associations between ostracism and negative emotions, reduced life satisfaction, as well as dysfunctional social behavior across the adult life span. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Who gets ostracized? A personality perspective on risk and protective factors of ostracism.

Ostracism, excluding and ignoring others, results from a variety of factors. Here, we investigate the effect of personality on the likelihood of becoming a target of ostracism. Theorizing that individuals low in conscientiousness or agreeableness are at risk of getting ostracized, we tested our hypotheses within 5 preregistered studies: Four experiments investigating participants' willingness to ostracize targets characterized by different personality traits and a reverse correlation face modeling study where we determined and subsequently validated the stereotypical face of an ostracized person. A survey study within a representative German data panel further corroborated our findings. In line with our hypotheses, persons low in conscientiousness or agreeableness provoke more ostracism intentions (Studies 1, 2, and 4), are more likely to be actually ostracized by others (Study 3), represent the stereotype of an "ostracizable" person (Study 5), and report experiencing more ostracism (Study 6). Effects remained stable even after controlling for likability of the target (Study 2 and 4). Moreover, being described as negative on 1 personality dimension could not be compensated by being described as positive on the other (Study 4). In exploratory analyses, we further investigated the effects of openness to experience, neuroticism, and extraversion. In sum, we find evidence that personality affects the likelihood of becoming a target of ostracism, and that especially low agreeableness and conscientiousness represent risk factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

When Silence Is Not Golden: Why Acknowledgment Matters Even When Being Excluded.

Following ostracism, individuals are highly sensitive to social cues. Here we investigate whether and when minimal acknowledgment can improve need satisfaction following an ostracism experience. In four studies, participants were either ostracized during Cyberball (Studies 1 and 2) or through a novel apartment-application paradigm (Studies 3 and 4). To signal acknowledgment following ostracism, participants were either thrown a ball a few times at the end of the Cyberball game, or received a message that was either friendly, neutral, or hostile in the apartment-application paradigm. Both forms of acknowledgment increased need satisfaction, even when the acknowledgment was hostile (Study 4), emphasizing the beneficial effect of any kind of acknowledgment following ostracism. Reinclusion buffered threat immediately, whereas acknowledgment without reinclusion primarily aided recovery. Our results suggest that minimal acknowledgment such as a few ball throws or even an unfriendly message can reduce the sting of ostracism.

Knowing One's Place: Parental Educational Background Influences Social Identification with Academia, Test Anxiety, and Satisfaction with Studying at University.

First-generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not attend university) often experience difficulties fitting in with the social environment at universities. This experience of personal misfit is supposedly associated with an impaired social identification with their aspired in-group of academics compared to continuing-generation students (i.e., students with at least one parent with an academic degree. In this article, we investigate how the postulated differences in social identification with the group of academics affect first-generation students' satisfaction with studying and test anxiety over time. We assume that first-generation students' impaired social identification with the group of academics leads to decreased satisfaction with studying and aggravated test anxiety over the course of the first academic year. In a longitudinal study covering students' first year at a German university, we found that continuing-generation students consistently identified more strongly with their new in-group of academics than first-generation students. The influence of social identification on test anxiety and satisfaction with studying differed between groups. For continuing-generation students, social identification with the group of academics buffered test anxiety and helped them maintain satisfaction with studying over time. We could not find these direct effects within the group of first-generation students. Instead, first-generation students were more sensitive to effects of test anxiety on satisfaction with studying and vice versa over time. The results suggest that first-generation students might be more sensitive to the anticipation of academic failure. Furthermore, continuing-generation students' social identification with the group of academics might have buffered them against the impact of negative experiences during the entry phase at university. Taken together, our findings underscore that deficit-driven approaches focusing solely on first-generation status may not be sufficient to fully understand the importance of parental educational background for students' well-being. More specifically, continuing-generation students might reap benefits from their parental educational background. These benefits widen the social gap in academia in addition to the disadvantages of students with first-generation status. In sum, understanding the benefits of continuing-generation status has important implications for interventions aiming to reduce social class gaps in academia.

When It's Okay That I Don't Play: Social Norms and the Situated Construal of Social Exclusion.

Being excluded and ignored has been shown to threaten fundamental human needs and cause pain. Such reflexive reactions to social exclusion have been conceptualized as direct and unmoderated (temporal need threat model of ostracism). Here, we propose an extension and argue that reflexive reactions depend on how social exclusion situations are construed. If being excluded is understood as a violation of an inclusion norm, individuals will react with pain and threat. In contrast, if being excluded is consistent with the prevailing norm, the exclusion situation is interpreted as less threatening, and negative reflexive reactions to ostracism should be attenuated. Four studies empirically support this conceptual model. Studies 3 and 4 further show that to guide situated construal, the norm has to be endorsed by the individual. In both Studies 1 and 3, the effect of the norm is mediated by the objective situation's subjective construal.