Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

Individuals can receive plenty of attention but still feel ignored. This paper expands Williams's work on ostracism - being ignored and excluded - by demonstrating that partial ostracism operates through different paths: inconsistent attention, selective inclusion, or superficial recognition that ignores essential aspects of a person's identity. I trace how partial ostracism research evolved from Cyberball's irregular inclusion to out of the loop informational exclusion. I then demonstrate how sexual objectification represents a form of partial ostracism where women feel ostracized despite receiving focused attention because the recognition centers on their appearance while disregarding their personhood. This challenges the previous assumption that receiving attention is the polar opposite to being ostracized. It also opens the possibility that partial ostracism manifests across diverse contexts, such as: inconsistent caregiving that forms anxious attachment or workplace tokenism that makes minority members hypervisible yet marginalized. These examples reveal the potential pervasiveness of partial ostracism in everyday social interactions, underscoring the importance of systematic investigation.

Dr. Kipling Williams was at the forefront of examining ostracism (being excluded and ignored). To acknowledge his essential contributions, we compiled a special issue consisting of several former students and mentees describing how their work expands on Williams's foundational scholarship. In the current article, we provided a brief overview of ostracism to contextualize the subsequent articles in this special issue. We summarized Williams's journey in studying both the effects of and uses for ostracism. This includes his initial inspiration and first forays into theory-building and multimethod approaches, the development of Cyberball (a virtual ball-toss game used to manipulate ostracism), and his temporal-response model that framed psychological research investigating ostracism's effects on targets for over two decades. Williams also considered the psychological dynamics of being a source of ostracism, postulating that individuals ostracize others defensively, punitively, obliviously, or accidentally. We conclude by introducing the key themes covered by his former students' and mentees' research programs and discussing how they are collectively the next wave of ostracism research, both for targets and sources.

Why do individuals ostracize (exclude and ignore) others despite ostracism's unpleasantness for both the person being ostracized (a target) and the person doing the ostracism (a source)? Our research addressed one reason why individuals ostracize others: removing burdensome others due to their being poor exchange partners. Specifically, we found participants ostracized a virtual ball-toss player who was burdensome due to taking an excessive amount of time to throw the ball. This ostracism occurred despite potential moderating factors (e.g. having a poor internet connection). The quick response to ostracizing a burdensome other may stem from experiencing psychological pain as an alarm. To silence the alarm, individuals appear to ostracize the burdensome other. Most research on sources focuses on this immediate response; future research might apply a stage model to investigate the source's reflexive (immediate) and then reflective (delayed) responses.

Ostracism, being ignored and excluded, thwarts the fundamental need to belong and has significant psychological and social consequences. Influenced by Kipling D. Williams's seminal work, our research on ostracism has primarily focused on its negative consequences and uncovered underlying mechanisms and moderators. First, we reviewed our findings around the three stages (i.e. reflexive, reflective, and resignation stages) outlined by Williams's temporal need-threat model. Next, we discussed potential approaches to alleviate adverse consequences of ostracism by drawing from our findings on mediating and moderating factors in four categories: need fortification, reframing ostracism experience, addressing negative outcomes, and bolstering individual resilience. Finally, we proposed future research directions regarding potential interventions to mitigate the negative outcomes of ostracism.

Workplaces offer many opportunities to engage in ostracism, yet the motives underlying workplace ostracism remain poorly understood. We draw from K. D. Williams's (1997, 2001) taxonomy of ostracism motives and contemporary theorizing in social and organizational psychology to outline the employee characteristics that bring about ostracism and the needs or goals that ostracism serves. We delineate between purposeful workplace ostracism (which is intentionally punitive or defensive) and nonpurposeful ostracism (which is unintentional but may nevertheless create harm and disrupt functioning within work groups). We conclude by discussing key ways in which stronger synergies between social psychology and the organizational sciences could advance scholars' understanding of ostracism both inside and outside the workplace.

Ostracism is well-known to threaten fundamental needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. This article presents theoretical and empirical evidence for an additional, fifth need, threatened by ostracism: the need for certainty. I review the theoretical basis for this need, and meta-analytically summarize evidence from 18 experiments from my research lab that manipulate ostracism and measure the degree to which individuals feel uncertain about themselves and their environment (total N = 5,241). Ostracism has a negative effect on one's sense of certainty both immediately, d = -.37, 95% Confidence Interval [-.46, -.27], and also, to a lesser but still significant extent, after a brief delay d = -.16 [-.24, -.07]. I consider the current research landscape and future directions, including the behavioral and long-term effects of ostracism-induced uncertainty, the possible appeal of uncertainty for those who use ostracism, and the potential for other needs threatened by ostracism.

Despite apparent scholarly and popular interest, the effects of narcissism levels in academia are understudied. Flirting among college students and professors has garnered great public interest yet received little research attention. The present study examined whether student narcissism levels can predict self-reports of flirting with professors, beliefs that professors and peers are flirting, and beliefs that flirting between students and professors is morally acceptable. Participants provided frequency estimates of flirting behaviors across three within-subjects factors: when referring to behavior of the self or a peer, when a student or a professor was the flirter, and when the flirting occurred in class or a professor's office. Grandiose narcissistic students rated flirty behavior as less atypical regardless of levels of the factors; however, vulnerable narcissistic students rated flirty behavior as less atypical when referring to a peer but not the self. Students higher in both forms of narcissism rated flirty behavior as less morally inappropriate regardless of levels of the factors. The findings offer novel insight into the consequences of narcissism in academic settings.

This research investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying different responses to sexual violence against women, focusing on victim reparation and perpetrator exoneration. Drawing on just-world theory, we hypothesized that gender differences (female victims versus male perpetrators) in support for victim reparation would be reflected by the serial mediation of just-world beliefs (BJW) and secondary victimization. We tested this model with a sample of female survivors of domestic violence (n = 97) and male perpetrators of violence against women (n = 102). As predicted, male perpetrators showed significantly less support for restorative justice-based vctim compensation compared to female survivors. This effect was serially mediated by BJW and secondary victimization: Perpetrators reported more BJW, which predicted greater secondary victimization (i.e. victim-blaming, minimizing the victim's suffering, and avoiding the victim), which in turn predicted less support for victim compensation. Critically, we also found that perpetrators provided more compensation to other perpetrators than female victims, a difference that was mediated by BJW but not by secondary victimization. This finding demonstrates ingroup bias in perpetrator's compensation decisions, linked to BJW.

The current research examines racial differences in spontaneous usage of shared humanity appeals, when expressing support for a marginalized group. In three studies, we examined how Black and White participants use shared humanity arguments when writing in support of Black Americans (Study 1), Muslims (Study 2), and LGBTQ+ people (Study 3). Results show that Black participants were less likely than White participants to use shared humanity appeals for Black Americans, but this difference was not observed for Muslim and LGBTQ+ people. Fear of negative evaluation and self-deceptive enhancement as predictors of shared humanity arguments yielded inconsistent results across target groups. The findings suggest (albeit small effect sizes) that shared humanity appeals are context dependent and impacted by the marginalized target group.