Content uploaded by Lukas Pelliccio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lukas Pelliccio on Mar 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
What is an interpersonal ostracism message?: bringing the
construct of ostracism into communication studies
Lukas J. Pelliccio
a
and Sarah Walker
b
a
Department of Mass Communications, Lincoln University, PA;
b
Department of Communications, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI
ABSTRACT
Research on ostracism overwhelmingly suggests that being ostracized is
a painful experience. Much of this research comes from the eld of psychology
and uses various adaptations of the Cyberball experiment to specically exam-
ine the eects of being ostracized through the Temporal Model of ostracism.
As a result, there is much less understanding about how ostracism is commu-
nicated interpersonally, the interpretive process of receiving an ostracism
message, or the antecedent communication conditions that allow someone
to recognize various cues as ostracism. Thus, the purpose of this manuscript
was twofold. The rst goal was to conduct an extensive review of literature to
reveal the discrepancies, variations, and disunity of the operationalization and
conceptualization of ostracism related terminology across disciplines and to
show how such a landscape has made it dicult for communication scholars to
study ostracism as communication. The second goal was to propose a new
terminology, interpersonal ostracism messages (IOMs), and to dene it in order
to ll this gap. By using Expectancy Violations Theory and Relational Dialectics
Theory, we further shape the denition of IOMs so that communication
researchers can begin focusing on ostracism as an interpersonal communica-
tion phenomenon and begin looking beyond the psychological eects of
being ostracized.
Introduction
Human beings have an inherent desire to belong with others and when this does not happen, it can be
highly detrimental to one’s mental health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). There are many terms that
broadly address this type of social phenomenon, but in the past two decades, there has been
a proliferation of research on the construct of ostracism. Ostracism is currently defined as an exclusion
phenomenon that can be communicated unintentionally or intentionally and includes behaviors
ranging from subtle averted eye gazes to overt non-responses by entire groups (Williams & Nida,
2017). According to the Temporal Model of ostracism, when someone is ostracized they go through
a series of psychological stages to recognize and cope with the acute pain of the experience (Williams,
2001). Scholars have studied this, most prominently, through an experiment known as the Cyberball
method (Williams & Jarvis, 2006). There is such a large body of studies that use Cyberball (see
Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015) that some argue the method has created a sort of
research bubble, where the study of ostracism is inextricably tied to the field of psychology (Boykina &
Chirkina, 2020). Although there are studies that have examined ostracism through other methods and
perspectives (see Pelliccio & Nickell, 2018; Waldeck, 2017), there is currently a need for the modern
construct of ostracism to be examined through other fields, perspectives, and methodologies. In
particular, examining ostracism as an interpersonal communication phenomenon will help us
CONTACT Lukas J. Pelliccio lpelliccio@lincoln.edu; Sarah Walker sarah.walker1975@gmail.com
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1859509
© 2020 Atlantic Journal of Communication
understand more about the meaning making process that targets of ostracism go through to interpret
the many cues they receive during an interaction and to conclude that they are being ostracized (Kerr
& Levine, 2008). Currently, if one wants to study the interpersonal communication of ostracism, they
would be forced to use the existing language and frameworks rooted in psychological perspectives,
which do not reveal enough about how ostracism is communicated interpersonally.
Defining and studying ostracism as interpersonal communication is important for two reasons.
First, communication and media studies can lend deeper understanding into the mechanics and
communicative repercussions of ostracism as a part of human interactions. Second, that understand-
ing cannot be effectively gained without a unified definition of ostracism which is rooted in and
operates through communicative and interpersonal phenomena.
Our current understanding of ostracism is almost exclusively focused on the psychological effects of
being ostracized. Many studies use the Temporal Model of ostracism (Williams, 2001) which presents
a timeline of coping that begins at the point the message of ostracism is received and concludes when
they are indeed removed from others for a period of time. This model paints a vivid picture of the
cognitive aftermath of being ostracized, but it does not fully acknowledge the meaning making process
that comes before message reception, or during message reception which some argue is crucial in
interpreting unexpected communication (Burgoon, 1993; Pelliccio, 2018; Weschke & Niedeggen,
2015). By examining ostracism as interpersonal communication we will be able to understand much
more about the communicative antecedents of the psychological pain and how silence or ignoring can
grow into a negative experience for a target. Also, through an interpersonal communication perspec-
tive we may be able to further understand how important interpersonal level expectations are in
interpretation, and whether previous experiences, communication behaviors, or relationships impact
what a target even considers ostracism in the first place.
Despite this need for research, current definitions of ostracism leave too much of the communicative
process unexamined to effectively use these definitions in the field. For example, the most commonly
used definition in ostracism research, the exclusion of an individual or group by an individual or group
(Williams, 2001) functions well for researchers who are solely concerned with the psychological after-
math of ostracism, but it does not offer enough description for a communication researcher because it
does make clear what constitutes a ostracism communication and what does not. A more nuanced
definition that acknowledges the communicative elements of ostracism messages is needed to allow the
construct to be analyzed in a way that allows researchers to examine the antecedent conditions and
interpretative process that the Temporal Model and widely used definition do not fully support.
In an effort to bridge the gap between the psychological and communicative facets of ostracism, we
propose a term and definition specific to media and communication scholars, so the field can begin
deeply examining the experience of ostracism. We define interpersonal ostracism messages as unex-
pected or undesired communication that a message receiver perceives as threatening to their interperso-
nal inclusion with a desired group or individual. Interpersonal ostracism messages (IOMs) are
specifically focused on the communication, reception, and interpretation of ostracism. IOMs represent
the means by which a target recognizes their status and gives respect to the process a message receiver
goes through to interpret messages. This definition specifically functions to address the interpersonal
level transmission of meaning that takes place signaling one’s exclusion. In this sense, an individual
can receive a very severe message, or a relatively subtle one, but if they perceive the message to be
a threat to interpersonal inclusion, then the message is defined as an IOM.
Thus, the purpose of this manuscript is twofold. The first goal is to give a thorough depiction of the
current landscape of ostracism related constructs and research to present the discrepancies and
disunity that exist across the social sciences. The second goal is to support the use of the term,
interpersonal ostracism messages, and to define it so that the construct of ostracism can be brought into
the field of media and communications. In order to pose this argument, we will first offer a thorough of
review of current ostracism literature.
2L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
Review of current ostracism literature
The modern study of ostracism began when Kipling Williams, a researcher from Purdue, was going for
a walk and a frisbee rolled across his path (Williams, 2007a). He threw it back to two people who were
playing with it. They momentarily included him. Eventually, they stopped throwing the frisbee to
Williams and he felt an aversive psychological reaction. This moment of exclusion spawned decades of
research, and the creation of the Cyberball method (Williams & Jarvis, 2006).
Since that time, there have been many studies on the psychological effects of ostracism based on
Williams’ original conceptualization. These studies suggest that ostracism is a universal behavior
found in all social animals and in all human cultures (Williams & Nida, 2017). The most prominently
used definition of ostracism is that it is any act of ignoring or excluding an individual or group by an
individual or group (Williams, 2009). Although this is the most widely cited definition, researchers
who study workplace ostracism suggest that ostracism occurs when people do not respond or
acknowledge others in situations where it is socially appropriate to do so (Robinson, O’Reilly, &
Wang, 2012).
Ostracism is an experience that takes place most frequently in social environments where people
are going about their daily lives, interpersonally interacting with others (Williams, 2009; Williams,
Wheeler, & Harvey, 2001). Leading researchers suggest that there are three general forms of ostracism
(Williams & Zadro., 2005). First, physical ostracism, where someone is proximally distanced from
others. Some examples of this are banishment, time out, and solitary confinement. Second, social
ostracism is understood as interactions where people are excluded while remaining in the presence of
others. Examples of this type of ostracism include the cold shoulder and silent treatment, which allow
the target to remain physically present but communicatively unacknowledged. Finally, cyberostracism
is when people are ostracized through mediated sources (see Geng-Feng et al., 2018). When someone
does not receive a text message, or gets no likes on Facebook, or no comments on their Instagram post,
it would be considered cyberostracism as the exclusion is taking place through a communication
technology (Schneider et al., 2017). Regardless of what form, ostracism can occur intentionally, where
the source purposefully ostracizes a target, or unintentionally, where the source has no knowledge that
their behaviors or communication are sending a message of ostracism (Williams & Gerber, 2005).
Ostracism threatens four basic psychological needs in humans: belonging, self-esteem, control, and
meaningful existence (see Eck, Schoel, & Greifeneder, 2017; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Van Zalk
& Smith, 2019). Belonging is an individual’s sense of how much they are relationally involved with
others. Self-esteem refers to the extent that an individual finds value in or approves of oneself. Control
is understood as the perceived command over one’s social environment. Lastly, meaningful existence
refers to one’s need to feel as though they are recognized by others and when threatened can make
people think of their own death (Williams, Forgas, & von Hippel, 2005).
The relationship between ostracism and the four needs has been demonstrated in many ways. Van
Beest and Williams (2006) tested to see whether being paid to be ostracized affected the negative
outcomes of ostracism and found that money was not a moderator; participants still reported threats
to the four psychological needs even though they were receiving a reward for being ostracized. Hales,
Dvir, Wesselmann, Kruger, and Finkenauer (2018) found that when people were in a conversation and
someone was looking at their cell phone, it negatively affected the four needs. In other studies, the
source of ostracism was a computer (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004), or even a member of the
KKK (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007) and the results were the same. Whether the target was
ostracized through text messages (Smith & Williams, 2004), in virtual reality (Kassner, Wesselmann,
Law, & Williams, 2012), or by not receiving likes on social media (Hayes, Wesselmann, & Carr, 2018)
the results indicated that being ostracized poses threats to the four psychological needs. Because of
this, ostracism is considered a universally hurtful experience for a target (Tang & Richardson, 2013;
Williams & Nida, 2017; Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006) and that the reaction to ostracism is part
of a hard-wired alert system evolutionarily built into human beings for survival (Buss, 1990;
Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Kerr & Levine, 2008; Spoor & Williams, 2007).
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 3
The three stages of the Temporal Model of ostracism are the most commonly used timeline of post-
ostracism cognition. They are the reflexive, reflective, and resignation stages (Buelow, Okdie, Brunell,
& Trost, 2015; Williams, 2009). In the reexive stage, a target’s immediate response is emotional
numbness, where a target feels an overwhelming sense of arousal (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006).
Targets experience a decrease in the cognitive ability to process complex thoughts, such as logical
deduction or reasoning immediately after ostracism occurs (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002).
Buelow et al. (2015) also suggest that most ostracism research is conducted in this stage.
Second, the reective stage is the time period after a target feels the pain of ostracism and begins
reflecting on the justifications for their status as a target (Williams & Gerber, 2005). While there are
many factors that contribute to how an individual will react after the first stage, targets could react
positively or negatively depending on the circumstances and the communicators involved (Chow,
Tiedens, & Govan, 2008). The most common reactions to ostracism in the second stage are anti-social
or negative behaviors, such as aggression toward innocent third parties (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, &
Twenge, 2007; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001) or eating unhealthy foods (Baumeister,
DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). In some cases, targets may react through pro-social behaviors
such as being nicer, friendlier, more agreeable, or more likely to conform to positive group goals
(Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). In the workplace, being ostracized can also lead to some pro-social
behaviors such as increased compliance, targets working harder for a group, and making more effort to
integrate with coworkers (Robinson, O’Reilly, & Wang, 2012).
Finally, in the resignation stage, individuals will deplete their coping resources and become
ostracized. There are few studies claiming to research ostracism in the resignation stage (Riva,
Montali, Wirth, Curioni, & Williams, 2017). Buelow et al. (2015) found that well after being ostracized,
participants reported decreases in task persistence, decision-making, and some working memory
processes. In another study, Zadro et al. (2006) found that 45 minutes after being ostracized, socially
anxious individuals reported increased levels of need threats.
The Temporal Model offers a vivid description of cognitions that can take place after someone is
ostracized. Yet it does not give much insight into the antecedents of the experience, how ostracism
messages are communicated, the long term sense making that takes place over time, or the interpretive
process necessary to recognized ostracism amongst many other cues. This is where our proposed
concept, IOMs, can fill the gap. If someone were not invited to a party, the Temporal Model would give
a rich description of the pain and coping that takes place immediately after the message is received.
IOMs though would give scholars the opportunity to understand what antecedent conditions allowed
the pain to grow and how a target was able to assess the various cues such as the situation, relationship,
culture, norms, expectations, and other aspects to conclude that they were being ostracized in the first
place. Likewise, by extending the meaning making timeline, researchers could learn more about how
communication influences long term meaning making surrounding messages of ostracism. From this
conceptualization, we can begin to capture more of the totality of the ostracism experience and the
important role that communication places in this inherently interpersonal interaction. As commu-
nication researchers using the Temporal Model, we are largely confined to examining the coping
communication that take place after the message is received.
Ostracism research methodologies
Ostracism research from the past decade predominantly investigated the psychological effects of being
ostracized by utilizing a variation of the Cyberball experimental design (Williams & Jarvis, 2006). In
Cyberball a participant is seated at a computer. They are told that they will be playing a digital ball
tossing game with two other participants who are shown as avatars on the screen. However, these two
avatars are a computer program. For the control group, the participant passes the ball back and forth
with the two avatars for several minutes. In the experimental group, the participant eventually stops
receiving the ball from the avatars which creates an ostracism experience. Following the experiment,
the participant fills out a Likert-type survey associated with the four psychological needs. In some
4L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
cases, researchers also measure physiological responses such as sweating palms (Kelly, McDonald, &
Rushby, 2012) or heart rate (Rubeis et al., 2016).
Cyberball is used in a variety of ways but is primarily a means to research the effects of ostracism.
For instance, Carter-Sowell, Chen, and Williams (2008) examined social susceptibility post-ostracism.
Participants played Cyberball and were then asked by a confederate to donate to the marching band.
The study found that after ostracism, targets were more socially susceptible. In another example,
participants played Cyberball and then watched videos of people with different emotional expressions
and found that ostracized people were less likely to mimic emotional expressions (Hühnel, Kuszynski,
Asendorpf, & Hess, 2018). These are just two examples of the many published studies that use
Cyberball to research the psychology of being ostracized. In a meta-analysis of ostracism related
research, one study found there are over 200 published academic studies that used Cyberball as of 2015
(Hartgerink et al., 2015). To date, this number continues to grow as more and more publications
utilize Cyberball to study the effects of ostracism.
Certainly there are other methodologies, such as the O-train method (Zadro et al., 2004), but they
function similarly to Cyberball. In O-train, three individuals act out a situation where they are sitting
together on a train having a conversation. In the control group, each participant talks to each other. In the
experimental group, the researchers tell the two of the participants to ignore the third participant. This
design mirrors Cyberball in that there are two confederates interpersonally ostracizing one unknowing
participant. Wittenbaum, Shulman, and Braz (2010) conducted another adaptation of Cyberball. The
researchers gave three participants information to read with one of the participants receiving something
different. The participants were then asked to discuss the topic, which created an ostracism experience for
the person who read the unlike article. As in the previous example, this design mirrors Cyberball in that
one person is interpersonally ostracized by two others who have access to the same news article.
In summary, the current state of ostracism literature is centered around the Temporal Model,
Cyberball related methods, and the post-ostracism psychological effects. Some argue that because of
this climate, ostracism researchers have created their own methodological base where ostracism is
inextricably tied to the Cyberball method and the field of psychology (Boykina & Chirkina, 2020). This
leads others to argue that there is a great need for qualitative methodologies and alternative perspec-
tives in the study of ostracism (Waldeck, 2017). Thus, when someone studies ostracism outside of the
psychological effects, it can be a difficult landscape to traverse. Exclusion research is especially
challenging because not all researchers use the term ostracism when discussing exclusion related
phenomenon. Rejection, social exclusion, and the silent treatment are just some of the related terms
that are often discussed in tandem with ostracism. In this next section, we will discuss several of the
most common terms related to ostracism to reveal the ways they overlap, contradict, and complicate
our understanding of this set of human communication.
Related terminology
There are a variety of subtly different terminologies related to ostracism that are used across
disciplines. Researchers use terms such as rejection, social exclusion, and the silent treatment inter-
changeably at times. There are even some Cyberball studies that study social exclusion as opposed to
ostracism (see Asscheman et al., 2019). For someone in media or communication studies, interchange-
able terminology can create significant confusion because using different terms to describe the same
behavior muddles important aspects of unique experiences that may communicatively manifest in
different ways. It is important though to assess the literature to understand the current conversation
surrounding these various phenomena to help reinforce the necessity of IOMs.
Rejection
Research on ostracism and rejection can be found in the same books/texts discussing similar inter-
personal and group phenomena (e.g. Leary, 2001; Williams et al., 2005). There is virtually no empirical
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 5
research that has attempted to differentiate the psychological effects or the semantic variations
between the two constructs (Williams, 2007b). Although scholars used the terms synonymously,
they are often operationalized and conceptualized differently across studies and disciplines depending
on the researchers needs or preferences.
Leary (2001) defines rejection as a behavior that connotes relational devaluation. He states that it is
the broadest and most generic term, which encompasses many other behaviors that allow an
individual to “perceive that their relational value is lower than what they desire” (pp. 47). Rejection
can happen regardless of whether an individual felt a sense of belonging prior to the interaction or not;
meaning they do not have to be relationally connected to start. Also, rejection does not necessitate
actual dissociation, or exclusion, suggesting that a person can be rejected as an ingroup member, with
little variation to their status. Rejection simply means that an individual feels as though a current or
potential interpersonal relationship is not being valued as much as it was before the rejection cue
(Leary, 2001). In this sense, ostracism and the silent treatment can be types of rejection behaviors.
There are a wide variety of ways that rejection can be communicated. Asher, Rose, and Gabriel
(2001) conducted a longitudinal study that examined the rejection behaviors of adolescents in an
elementary school. In the study, they conceptualized rejection as any observable behavior that
appeared to be the opposite of inclusion. They reported 32 types of rejection that were grouped into
six dominant categories: excluding and terminating interactions, denial of access, aggression, dom-
inance, moral disapproval, and involving a third party. Each category contained several specific
communicative behaviors. For example, insulting, mocking, flicking, and aversive noises were con-
sidered types of behaviors in the aggression category.
Rejection can create feelings of sadness, hurt, embarrassment, anxiety, and loneliness (Leary, Koch,
& Hechenbleikner, 2001), but is considered a less painful experience than ostracism (Rudert,
Greifeneder, & Williams, 2019). Rejection can influence one’s perspective of the world. For example,
rejected people can overestimate proximal distances of interactants (e.g., how far away they are sitting)
if those interactants reject them (Knowles, Green, & Weidel, 2014). Other researchers contend the
perpetrators of most school shootings in the United States experienced excessive rejection throughout
their lives and that it was a significant motivator for their actions (Betts & Hinsz, 2013; Leary,
Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).
Researchers suggest that rejection sensitivity is the disposition of an individual to be more receptive
to rejection communication, and to have stronger reactions to the experience (Araiza, Freitas, & Klein,
2019; Romero-Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk, & Kang, 2010). The sensitivity to rejection can
range from low to high, where some people are so sensitive that even in seemingly non-aggressive,
inclusive situations, the slightest cue can be perceived as rejection (Staebler, Helbing, Rosenbach, &
Renneberg, 2011). Some have a specific sensitivity to certain cues related to a characteristic such as
appearance (Park & Pinkus, 2009) or race (Anglin, Greenspoon, Lighty, & Ellman, 2016) because of
their predispositions (Meehan, Cain, Roche, Clarkin, & Panfilis, 2019).
There are few efforts to distinguish the difference between ostracism and rejection. Some research-
ers suggest that to enumerate the differences is a pointless task (Leary, 2001). Some use rejection
synonymously with ostracism (see Betts & Hinsz, 2017; Kumar et al., 2017). However, in order to study
ostracism as a communicative phenomenon, the distinction and definition of terms is imperative to
operationalize a construct. For example, if we are interested in studying how people communicate
ostracism to targets, using the definition “the exclusion of an individual or group by an individual or
group” does not distinguish a particular set of behaviors or forms of communication. We would not be
able to answer the most basic question of studying ostracism communication: what is it?
Thus, in our efforts to create such a definition, we conclude that the key distinction between
rejection and ostracism is a matter of function. Rejection is any behavior connoting a relational
devaluation, whereas ostracism is an exclusion phenomenon. In this sense, someone can speak
aggressively to an individual, signaling a rejection cue, but it may not change the relationship,
proximity, or communication patterns between the interactants. Based on research conceptualiza-
tions, in order for verbal aggression to be ostracism, a message sender would not speak to the target,
6L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
not acknowledge them, or would tell the target that they did not want to interact, inferring a future
disassociation (Freedman, Williams, & Beer, 2016). Although rejection and ostracism exist on the
interpersonal level, rejection appears to be the broader umbrella term that encompasses many more
forms of communication than ostracism does (Leary, 2001), suggesting that all forms of ostracism can
be classified as rejection behaviors but not all rejection behaviors are ostracism. Rejection research
further reinforces the need for IOMs in the field of communication.
Social exclusion
Some researchers use ostracism and social exclusion interchangeably (see Lobmaier, Probst, Lory, &
Meyer, 2019). However, the term social exclusion is also used in the field of sociology to describe the
marginalization of social groups or denial of access to privileged social spaces or resources (Cass,
Shove, & Urry, 2005; Richter & Hoffmann, 2019). Social exclusion occurs when a certain group feels
a sense of alienation because they are deprived of access that is given to members of dominant society
(Bossert, D’Ambrosio, & Peragine, 2006). The defining characteristics of social exclusion is a lack of
power and lower acknowledged social quality than other groups (Berman & Phillips, 2000). Groups
such as the homeless (Watson, Crawley, & Kane, 2016) the incarcerated (Foster & Hagan, 2007) and
the elderly (Chou, 2018) are often characterized as being socially excluded. People can also be excluded
from society geographically. Public structures such as transportation systems can physically connect
privileged populations while excluding others (Xiao, Wang, & Wang, 2018).
Social exclusion, as used by sociologists, helps to inform our definition of interpersonal ostracism
messages by showing that exclusion can be enacted simultaneously on both a societal and interpersonal
level. When someone is socially excluded their status is reaffirmed through interpersonal interactions
that communicate an ostracism message. For example, incarcerated people are socially excluded from
society by being placed in a prison, but their status is communicated interpersonally when they do not
receive phone calls from loves ones or are told by a prison guard that they cannot speak with their
children (Foster & Hagan, 2007). Thus, we conclude that social exclusion is enacted through and
manifests in interpersonal level communication. Furthermore, the term social exclusion is a societal
level phenomenon associated with marginalization and should not be used synonymously with
ostracism.
Silence and the silent treatment
The silent treatment is a concept discussed in communication literature and other fields. It is defined
as an intentional lack of communication toward a target, enacted through verbal and nonverbal
communication (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001). Verbally, a communicator will
not speak to a target. Nonverbally an ostracizer will withhold eye contact, alter body positioning away
from the target, or direct attention at something or someone else other than the target (Wright &
Roloff, 2009). It is a prevalent behavior in intimate relationships and can be used as a punitive tool to
change a partner’s behaviors (Wright & Roloff, 2015). It is also a common practice in parent-child
relationships, and it can affect an individual’s self-esteem (Rittenour et al., 2019). The silent treatment
can be effective in public settings, such as parties, to communicate to a partner without drawing
attention to the interaction. The silent treatment is low in causal clarity because it can be difficult for
a target to connect the communication to a specific past behavior (Williams & Zadro., 2005).
It is important to understand that silence is distinct from the silent treatment. Silence can exist
interpersonally as a collective and conscious measure that allows relational partners to avoid certain
conflicts or interactions (Oduro-Frimpong, 2011). Silence does not necessarily create hurt. Although
silence can simply be the backdrop to verbal communication or the space that exists between
utterances, it can also be a purposeful gesture (Acheson, 2008). When silence is goal driven and
intentional, it is the silent treatment (Buss, 1992; Rittenour et al., 2019). When it is not, it is merely the
absence of communication. However, silence can be interpreted by a message receiver in a variety of
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 7
ways regardless of whether it is exists with or without intention. This further demonstrates the
importance of acknowledging the role of the message receiver in the communicative and interpretative
process of ostracism, as they play an important role in meaning making.
In relation to interpersonal ostracism messages, the silent treatment is a specific type of ostracism. It
can be used a means to purposefully communicate to another individual or group that they are not
welcome or included. For example, if a group of friends does not want to interact with a target, they may
simply refuse to respond to the target’s communication through the silent treatment. However, they
could also communicate an IOM to the target through other means such as directly stating to the target
that they are not welcomed. We conclude then that the silent treatment is one type of an IOM.
In summary, rejection, social exclusion, and the silent treatment are all close terminological relatives
of ostracism, yet based on existing literature, we argue that they have key communicative variations that
separate them. In some ways each term overlaps, but in others they are different. What is most apparent,
though, is that there is currently no set of standards that govern the use of these terms in the social
sciences. They are used seemingly at random when a researcher chooses to do so. Although there are
some broad consistencies across the literature, at large, the standard for terminology and definitions
seems to be entirely based on the researcher’s field, methodology, and individual publication audience.
For example, the term social exclusion is used in a variety of fields and at times can even be a synonym for
ostracism or Cyberball depending on the study (see Asscheman et al., 2019).
For media or communication researchers, this creates an extremely difficult landscape to navigate
because the overlap, disunity and variation restricts the ease of interdisciplinary study. As we work
toward a communication-based terminology for ostracism, it is necessary to acknowledge the many
constructs and theories of the communications discipline that can further inform our understanding
of the communication of ostracism, even though they may not have been directly associated with
ostracism. In the next section we will discuss Expectancy Violations Theory and Relational Dialectics
Theory and how they can further support the need and use of IOMs in communication research.
Interpersonal communication and ostracism
Expectancy violations theory
Some suggest that Expectancy Violations Theory and ostracism are closely related and that they may
in fact be the same experience (Bevan, Ang, & Fearns, 2014; Kalman & Rafaeli, 2011; Weschke &
Niedeggen, 2015). According to Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT), when people enter social
situations, they have certain expectations of what is going to take place during the interaction and
when these expectations are not met by interactants, an individual can feel a sense of arousal (Burgoon,
1993). The theory grew from the notion that when individuals violate proximal boundaries (e.g.,
invade another’s physical space) it can trigger a response (Burgoon, 1978). Today, researchers have
applied the notions of EVT to other circumstances beyond proxemics to help explain a variety of
communicative violations (see Kelly, Miller-Ott, & Duran, 2017; Nicholls & Rice, 2017). Expectancies
are not just based on proxemics but consist of any “enduring pattern of anticipated behavior”
(Burgoon, 1993, p. 31). Burgoon (1993) explains that these expectations are derived from an indivi-
dual’s assessment of the communicator characteristics, relationship, and context. These factors shape
the norms that surround an interaction and for the sake of the present study, can be used by a target to
label communication as an ostracism message.
After an expectation is violated, a person will experience a sense of arousal and then immediately go
through a process of giving the communicative experience a violation valence (Burgoon, 1993). The
valence given to an experience is either positive or negative depending on the form of the commu-
nicative violation (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Characteristics of the communicator, the interactants’
relationship, and the situation can drastically affect the positive or negative valence of violations. If
someone is physically attractive, extremely competent, or powerful, their reward valence tends to be
positive, and in turn a negative violation could be perceived as positive (White, 2015).
8L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
Research suggests that EVT and ostracism are indeed related. Some argue that Cyberball is merely
an experiment that observes expectancy violations as opposed to ostracism specific experiences
(Weschke & Niedeggen, 2015). Kalman and Rafaeli (2011) studied chronemic expectancies and
found that latency in e-mail responses (e-mail silence) would create arousals related to EVT, just
like cyberostracism. In another study, Bevan et al. (2014) examined unfriending on Facebook (a form
of cyberostracism) through an EVT perspective. They found that the interpersonal relationship of
communicators was a predictor of valence and that violations from close others were considered more
negative, unexpected, and important than violations from those who were not close, further demon-
strating the link between ostracism and EVT. Lastly, Weschke and Niedeggen (2015) used Cyberball to
compare EVT and ostracism responses. They concluded that EVT better explains participants’
experiences in the Cyberball experiment because the amplitudes in the brain’s electrical functions at
the moment of ostracism reflect areas relative to EVT as opposed to an ostracism specific response.
These studies offer clear evidence that researchers need to further examine ostracism as
a communicative phenomenon and to begin bridging the gap between literatures and disciplines.
Although EVT research offers novel perspectives to the experience of ostracism, we argue that
IOMs are still needed. EVT encapsulates virtually any communication or experience that violates
a communicator’s predictive or prescriptive expectations (Burgoon, 1993). For example, if someone
stands very close to another person in a public place, it would be considered an expectancy violation,
but the behavior has no relation to ostracism, as they are simply standing next to each other. In this
sense, EVT is a broader theoretical perspective that can inform many interactions but is extremely
helpful in understanding elements of the interpretative process of IOM meaning making. Thus, IOMs
will help researchers focus specifically on the communication of ostracism and EVT helps inform our
understanding of these experiences.
Relational dialectics 2.0
Relational Dialectics Theory 2.0 (RDT 2.0) has evolved significantly since its original creation which
explained how people construct meaning in relationships through discursive dichotomies (Baxter,
2004; Baxter & Norwood, 2015). Baxter and Montgomery (1996) initial RDT focused on the tensions
that exist in all relationships and how we use communication to resolve those tensions. In 2011, Baxter
updated of the theory (RDT 2.0) so that it offers three propositions which are critical to shaping our
understanding of interpersonal ostracism messages. First, every utterance is embedded in a larger
chain (Baxter & Norwood, 2015). This proposition explains that no utterance is isolated; rather it is
always embedded in a series of communications that take place before and after it. Utterances are fixed
within “relationship-specific meaning systems” and are further influenced by culture and relational
history (Baxter & Norwood, 2015, p. 282). People then draw from these meaning systems to make
sense of communication in real time.
The second proposition of RDT 2.0 is that meaning is constructed through opposing discourses.
Meaning comes from a simultaneous synthesis of discourses. Although people draw from broader
ideologically rooted language systems, relational partners essentially create their own realities through
a discursive meeting point. For example, if couples sacrifice their sense of individualism for the sake of
the relationship, then the dominant discourse within the relationship becomes one of community,
informed by external meaning structures (Baxter & Norwood, 2015, p. 282). Thus, interpretations
spawn from interactants’ synthesizing of various layers of discourse and meaning systems.
The third proposition states that finalized discourses are never final, but constantly changing.
Relational dialogue ranges from monologic to transformative. At times discourse surrounding
a relational tension is not the same. In certain instances, communication can be linearly directed by
one partner (monologue). In others, it can be unified, so that it collectively alters interactions
(transformative dialogue). Dialogue exists between these opposites, suggesting that in certain circum-
stances different approaches will be accepted in the discourse of relational partners. However, the final
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 9
discourse or meaning between partners constantly changes and will not remain stagnant as the
relationship continues.
RDT 2.0 is a communication theory that gives a broad understanding of how communicators
construct meaning and it can be extremely useful in shaping our definition of IOMs while reinforcing
the need for using IOMs in three ways. First, RDT 2.0 states that communication exists in a chain of
utterances. This helps to demonstrate that communication exists on a timeline and that meaning
systems of the past influence those of the present and future. In terms of IOMs, it shows that ostracism
is an event, as opposed to a finite moment, and is part of a chain of utterances that takes place before,
during and after the message is received. For example, a relational partners have many interactions
that can form their shared meaning system, and as they interact more overtime, certain phrases or
behaviors can communicate different messages. As a result, this proposition of RDT 2.0 moves us to
look beyond the timeline constructed by the Temporal Model of ostracism and recognize the totality of
the lived experience of being ostracized. In particular, it is necessary to analyze the communication
that takes place before, during, and well after an ostracism experience for us to truly understand the
full meaning making process that a target goes through when they are ostracized. The Temporal Model
starts after a message of ostracism is received and continues to the point where a target exists as
a person excluded from others. RDT 2.0 offers a much larger timeline of interactions, communication,
and experiences that can have a direct impact on the meaning making process.
Second, RDT 2.0 suggests that meaning is constructed through opposing discourses and that multiple
layers of meanings are incorporated simultaneously to interpret communication. This helps to show that
ostracism is the result of a target’s multilayered interpretive process and that for communication to be
interpreted as an interpersonal ostracism message the target must draw from these many layers to assess
a finalized meaning. Although some studies argue that relationship does not change the eects of being
ostracized (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), RDT 2.0 shows that interpersonal relationships should have
a major influence on what people interpret as ostracism in real life interactions. Thus, RDT 2.0 reveals the
importance of acknowledging the existing meaning systems between interactants based on their relation-
ships, which the Temporal Model does not give as much attention to.
Lastly, RDT 2.0 suggests that discourses are never final and that with every new interaction and
communication, meanings evolve. Currently the Temporal Model ends in the resignation stage where
a target is excluded from others and attempts to cope with the experience. However, this proposition
of RDT 2.0 demonstrates that there is not necessarily a definitive ending point in meaning making.
Rather, finalized meanings evolve over time as more communication takes place. Thus, when ostra-
cism is viewed as an IOM, we can extend our timeline of meaning making to acknowledge the long-
term changes that may take place so that if someone is ostracized and they feel a certain way about the
experience when it happens, this perspective is likely to evolve overtime. Currently the notion of long-
term meaning changes is given little attention in ostracism research but may prove to be important to
understanding the ways targets overcome the hurt of ostracism over time through communication.
RDT 2.0 is extremely useful in revealing the extended timeline that can take place before, during,
and after receiving an interpersonal ostracism message. The theory alone offers a broad perspective
that allows us to understand the interpretation of virtually any message, though. Because it is not
specific to the lived experience of ostracism, which requires communicators to use specific ostracism
related tools, it is necessary to use IOMs and incorporate RDT so that communication research can
look deeper into the ostracism specific timeline that allows individuals to interpret communication or
lack of communication as a painful message.
Discussion
In this review we demonstrate that ostracism is an important phenomenon in human communication
and that over the past few decades, this construct has come to the forefront of social science research.
Our understanding of ostracism, though, has remained rooted in the field of psychology and the
Cyberball experimental design. Thus, it is crucial for researchers to begin disentangling the literature
10 L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
to broaden our theoretical, methodological, and conceptual approaches to researching ostracism
(Boykina & Chirkina, 2020; Waldeck, 2017). Currently, the conversation surrounding ostracism is
largely focused on the psychological effects on targets, with much less attention given to how ostracism
is communicated, how it is different from other constructs, how it exists in a chain of utterances, or
how expectations influence message interpretation. Although the wealth of existing ostracism related
research has yielded important findings and helped give attention to an important human experience,
it is evident that there is a need for novel directions in the study of ostracism.
However, due to the lack of conceptual unity across disciplines, attempting to heed this call and
study ostracism as a communicative phenomenon is a difficult task. Without a clear communication
based definition or construct, a communications research would just have to arbitrarily pick a word,
method, or author that they connect with the most and center their language and studies around that
collection of literature. Whether that term is ostracism, rejection, exclusion, shunning, cold-shoulder,
silent treatment, abandoning, or avoiding, the responsibility is on a communications researcher to
pick whatever term makes the most sense for them, as opposed to speaking to a specific experience
with others.
Our efforts to put forth the term interpersonal ostracism messages (IOMs) not only offers some
centralized definition that helps to make sense of the wide array of synonymous terms, but also helps
offer a foundation for communication researcher to begin examining ostracism as interpersonal level
phenomenon that is enacted in dyads. Our definition of IOMs helps to restructure the terminological
landscape in that research can focus specifically on the interpersonal level enactment of ostracism as
opposed to the psychological effects. For example, if someone faces an organizational level ostracism
experience from a large group, IOMs would allow a researcher to specifically focus on the inter-
personal level interactions that communicated a message of ostracism to the target, such as cold
shoulders or silent treatments from coworkers that took place interpersonally. Likewise, it allows
researchers to recognize the full timeline of interactions and messages that cumulatively communicate
one’s target status. For example, if someone was ostracized by a friend group, the target likely
experienced many subtle interpersonal level messages over time that collectively helped them recog-
nize their target status as opposed to one overt message. The proposed constructed of IOMs allows us
to examine these diverse collections of messages that take place throughout the “chain of utterances”
so that we can better understand the totality of receiving and interpreting ostracism messages.
Lastly, using the IOM terminology helps researchers bridge the interdisciplinary gap by recognizing
the many communication theories that directly speak to the experience of being ostracized. IOMs
acknowledge the role of expectancy violations and that prescriptive and predictive expectations are
antecedent conditions that influence real time interpretation. In this sense, if one were ostracized by
a group that they desired inclusion with, that preexisting desire influences what communication they
will perceive as ostracism. In this sense, IOMs allow ostracism researchers to go beyond the psycho-
logical timeline of the Temporal Model and to begin acknowledging the importance and existence of
the antecedent conditions that foster ostracism and the long term meaning making that allows
interpretations to evolve overtime.
Future research
Like many proposed theoretical terms, we view the terminology and definition of IOMs as a generative
rather than exhaustive definition. Our hope is to offer a foundation for communication researchers to
continue to build from. As a result, there are many directions for future research. First, future research
should continue to amend the definition of IOMs through operationalization and further academic
conversations. Continuing to parse out the difference between similar terms will help researchers focus
more directly on particular communicative phenomena. We grant the possibility that our understanding of
IOMs is incomplete in some ways, and that other social exclusionary behaviors may be relevant to consider
in this definition. In essence then, we offer IOMs knowing that its premises should adapt over time.
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 11
Second, researchers must continue to assess the construct of ostracism beyond Cyberball and
psychology, particularly through qualitative methodologies (Boykina & Chirkina, 2020; Waldeck,
2017). Cyberball undoubtedly captures an important moment in the ostracism experience and has
helped garner significant attention over the past two decades. Yet, as this review demonstrates, new
methods and perspectives are needed. IOMs take place in dynamic and multilayered social environ-
ments that require individuals to draw from many levels of meaning systems for interpretation and there
is much to reveal of the totality of the ostracism experience. Ethnographies could help answer questions
about the specific observable behaviors and interactions that take place during the ostracism process
from an observers perspective. Auto-ethnographies could help reveal unique instances of ostracism
experiences that would otherwise be difficult to capture in a laboratory. Longitudinal qualitative studies
could help answer questions related to the long term evolution of ostracism message meanings.
Phenomenology can elucidate the many nuances to the lived experience of being ostracized. There
are many methods available to researchers and IOMs could help open the door for these lines of inquiry.
Third, our review demonstrates that communication exists in a chain of utterances and it is
important to assess the meanings and communication that take place before, during, and after
a message is received to understand the totality of an experience. Future research should examine
what stages of communication exist beyond the stages offered by the Temporal Model so that we can
have a better understanding of pre-ostracism meaning systems and long term post-ostracism sense
making.
Conclusion
Research on ostracism overwhelmingly suggests that being ostracized is a painful experience. Much of
this research comes from the field of psychology and uses the Cyberball experiment to understand the
effects of being ostracized. As a result, there is much less understanding about how ostracism is
communicated interpersonally. A comprehensive review of existing literature reveals a need for
a more nuanced communication specific definition that will allow communications researchers to
look beyond the psychological reaction to ostracism and begin understanding the totality of ostracism
message interpretation and communication. Thus, we put forth the term interpersonal ostracism
messages (IOMs) and define it as unexpected or undesired communication that a message receiver
perceives as threatening to their interpersonal inclusion with a desired group or individual. By forming
a terminology and nuanced definition, the term can be utilized by media and communication scholars
to study the phenomenon of ostracism beyond the psychological effects and the timeline proposed by
the Temporal Model. Although theories such as Expectancy Violations Theory and Relational
Dialectics Theory offer key elements that help shape our definition of IOMs, they do not capture
the full experience of being ostracized and as a result, reinforce the need for the IOM terminology.
Overall, ostracism is indeed a multilayered communicative phenomenon that exists in dynamic
environments that require targets to perceive and make sense of messages through multiple meaning
systems. These messages are enacted on the interpersonal level and require further attention. As media
and communication researchers begin to bridge the interdisciplinary gap through IOMs, there is great
potential to learn much more about the experience of being ostracized.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Katheryn Maguire for her support in the creation of this manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
12 L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
ORCID
Lukas J. Pelliccio http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5387-4508
References
Acheson, K. (2008). Silence as gesture: Rethinking the nature of communicative silences. Communication Theory, 18(4),
535–555. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00333.x
Anglin, D. M., Greenspoon, M., Lighty, Q., & Ellman, L. M. (2016). Race-based rejection sensitivity partially accounts for
the relationship between racial discrimination and distressing attenuated positive psychotic symptoms. Early
Intervention in Psychiatry, 10(5), 411–418. doi:10.1111/eip.12184
Araiza, A. M., Freitas, A. L., & Klein, D. N. (2019). Social-experience and temperamental –predictors of rejection
sensitivity: A prospective study. Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi:10.1177/1948550619878422
Asher, S. R., Rose, A. J., & Gabriel, S. W. (2001). Peer rejection in everyday life. In M. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Asscheman, J. S., Koot, S., Ma, I., Buil, J. M., Krabbendam, L., Cillessen, A. H. N., & van Lier, P. A. C. (2019). Heightened
neural sensitivity to social exclusion in boys with a history of low peer preference during primary school.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 38, 100673. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100673
Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007). Thwarting the need to belong: Understanding the
interpersonal and inner effects of social exclusion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 506–520.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00020.x
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated
aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 817–827. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.83.4.817
Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal Of Family Communication, 4(3/4),
181–192.
Baxter, L. A., & Norwood, K. M. (2015). Relational dialectics theory: Navigating meaning from competing discourses. In
D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd
ed., pp. 217–229). Thousand Oaks, NY: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford.
Berman, Y., & Phillips, D. (2000). Indicators of social quality and social exclusion at national and community level. Social
Indicators Research, 50(3), 329–350. doi:10.1023/A:1007074127144
Betts, K., & Hinsz, V. (2017). The (modified) in game: An experimental paradigm for manipulating interpersonal
rejection. Small Group Research, 48(3), 311–335. doi:10.1177/1046496416687374
Betts, K. R., & Hinsz, V. B. (2013). Group marginalization: Extending research on interpersonal rejection to small
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 355–370. doi:10.1177/1088868313497999
Bevan, J. L., Ang, P., & Fearns, J. B. (2014). Being unfriended on Facebook: An application of expectancy violations
theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 171–178. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.029
Bossert, W., D’Ambrosio, C., & Peragine, V. (2006). Deprivation and social exclusion. Economica, 74(296), 777–803.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00572.x
Boykina, E., & Chirkina, R. (2020). Social ostracism: Current state of the problem, methodology and research methods.
Psychology And Law, 10(1), 152–164. doi:10.17759/psylaw.2020100114
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., Brunell, A. B., & Trost, Z. (2015). Stuck in a moment and you cannot get out of it: The
lingering effects of ostracism on cognition and satisfaction of basic needs. Personality and Individual Dierences, 76,
39–43. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.051
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Human
Communication Research, 4(2), 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00603.x
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. doi:10.1177/0261927X93121003
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy
behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. doi:10.1080/03637758809376158
Buss, D. M. (1990). The evolution of anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2),
196–201. doi:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.196
Buss, D. M. (1992). Manipulation in close relationships: Five personality factors in international context. Journal of
Personality, 60(2), 477–499. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00981.x
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 13
Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Inuence, 3(3),
143–153. doi:10.1080/15534510802204868
Cass, N., Shove, E., & Urry, J. (2005). Social exclusion, mobility and access. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 539–555.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00565.x
Chou, K. (2018). Social exclusion in old age: A validation study in Hong Kong. Aging & Mental Health, 22(8),
1072–1079. doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1330870
Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to
ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 896–903. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.004
DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain
tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(1), 1–15. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.1
Eck, J., Schoel, C., & Greifeneder, R. (2017). Belonging to a majority reduces the immediate need threat from ostracism
in individuals with a high need to belong. European Journal Of Social Psychology, 47(3), 273–288. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.2233
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Problems, 54(4), 399–433.
doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.4.399
Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Softening the blow of social exclusion: The responsive theory of social
exclusion. Frontiers In Psychology, 7(1–17). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01570
Geng-Feng, N., Zong-Kui, Z., Xiao-jun, S., Feng, Y., Xiao-Chun, X., Qing-Qi, L., & Shaui-Lei, L. (2018). Cyber-ostracism
and its relation to depression among Chinese adolescents: The moderating role of optimism. Personality and
Individual Dierences, 123, 105–109. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.032
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176–1186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.392
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phone- induced ostracism
threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 460–473. doi:10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877
Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A
meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies. PloS ONE, 10(5), 5. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127002
Hayes, R., Wesselmann, E., & Carr, C. (2018). When nobody “likes” you: Perceived ostracism through paralinguistic
digital affordances within social media. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305118800309
Hühnel, I., Kuszynski, J., Asendorpf, J. B., & Hess, U. (2018). Emotional mimicry of older adults’ expressions: Effects of
partial inclusion in a Cyberball paradigm. Cognition & Emotion, 32(1), 92–101. doi:10.1080/02699931.2017.1284046
Kalman, Y. M., & Rafaeli, S. (2011). Online pauses and silence: Chronemic expectancy violations in written
computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 38(1), 54–69. doi:10.1177/0093650210378229
Kassner, M. P., Wesselmann, E. D., Law, A. T., & Williams, K. D. (2012). Virtually ostracized: Studying ostracism in
immersive virtual environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(8), 399–403. doi:10.1089/
cyber.2012.0113
Kelly, L., Miller-Ott, A. E., & Duran, R. L. (2017). Sports scores and intimate moments: An expectancy violations theory
approach to partner cell phone behaviors in adult romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 81(5),
619–640. doi:10.1080/10570314.2017.1299206
Kelly, M., McDonald, S., & Rushby, J. (2012). All alone with sweaty palms—physiological arousal and ostracism.
International Journal of Psychophysiology: Ocial Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 83
(3), 309–314. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.008
Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social ostracism: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 12(1), 39–52. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39
Knowles, M. L., Green, A., & Weidel, A. (2014). Social rejection biases estimates of interpersonal distance. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 158–167. doi:10.1177/1948550613491972
Kumar, P., Waiter, G., Dubois, M., Milders, M., Reid, I., & Steele, J. (2017). Increased neural response to social rejection
in major depression. Depression And Anxiety, 34(11), 1049–1056. doi:10.1002/da.22665
Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In M. R. Leary
(Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145–166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leary, M. R. (2001). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The
social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 35–51). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school
shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202–214. doi:10.1002/ab.10061
Lobmaier, J., Probst, F., Lory, V., & Meyer, A. (2019). Increases sensitivity to social exclusion during the luteal phase:
Progesterone as resilience factor buffering against ostracism? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 107, 217–244. doi:10.1016/j.
psyneuen.2019.05.019
Meehan, K., Cain, N., Roche, M., Clarkin, J., & Panfilis, C. (2019). Rejection sensitivity and self-regulation of daily
interpersonal events. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 49(4), 223–233. doi:10.1007/s10879-019-09424-9
Nicholls, S. B., & Rice, R. E. (2017). A dual-identity model of responses to deviance in online groups: Integrating social
identity theory and expectancy violations theory. Communication Theory, 27(3), 243–268. doi:10.1111/comt.12113
14 L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
Oduro-Frimpong, J. (2011). Semiotic silence in intimate relationships. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2331–2336.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.010
Park, L. E., & Pinkus, R. T. (2009). Interpersonal effects of appearance-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(4), 602–612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.003
Pelliccio, L. J. (2018). The process of ostracism message reception and meaning making. [Publication No. 2123] Wayne
State University Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/2123/
Pelliccio, L. J., & Nickell, J. J. (2018). A critique of anti-Bullying campaigns: How neoliberalism, ostracism, and dissimilar
definitions distort campaign rhetoric. Iowa Journal of Communication, 50(2), 120–148.
Richter, D., & Hoffmann, H. (2019). Social exclusion of people with severe mental illness in Switzerland: Results from the
Swiss health survey. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 28(4), 427–435. doi:10.1017/S2045796017000786
Rittenour, C. E., Kromka, S. M., Saunders, R. K., Davis, K., Garlitz, K., Opatz, S. N., . . . Thomas, M. (2019). Socializing
the silent treatment: Parent and adult child communicated displeasure, identification, and satisfaction. Journal of
Family Communication, 19(1), 77–93. doi:10.1080/15267431.2018.1543187
Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J. H., Curioni, S., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the
resignation stage: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 541–564.
doi:10.1177/0265407516644348
Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2012). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal
of Management, 39(1), 203–231. doi:10.1177/0149206312466141
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, J. N. (2010). Rejection sensitivity and the
rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 119–148. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2009.00611.x
Rubeis, J. D., Sütterlin, S., Lange, D., Pawelzik, M., Annette, V. R., Victor, D., & Vögele, C. (2016). Attachment status
affects heart rate responses to experimental ostracism in inpatients with depression. PLoS One, 11(3). doi:10.1371/
.0150375
Rudert, S., Greifeneder, R., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Current directions in ostracism, social exclusion and rejection
research. London, England: Routledge.
Schneider, F., Zwillich, B., Bindl, M., Hopp, F., Reich, S., & Vorderer, P. (2017). Social media ostracism: The effects of
being excluded online. Computers In Human Behavior, 73, 385–393. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.052
Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 8(4), 291–301. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.291
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words:
Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 23(4), 225–243. doi:10.1207/153248301753225694
Spoor, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In J. Forgas, M. Haselton, &
W. Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 279–292).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Staebler, K., Helbing, E., Rosenbach, C., & Renneberg, B. (2011). Rejection sensitivity and borderline personality
disorder. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18(4), 275–283. doi:10.1002/cpp.705
Tang, H., & Richardson, R. (2013). Reversing the negative psychological sequelae of exclusion: Inclusion is ameliorative
but not protective against the aversive consequences of exclusion. Emotion, 13(1), 139–150. doi:10.1037/a0029521
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social
exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.81.6.1058
Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 918–928. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918
Van Zalk, N., & Smith, R. (2019). Internalizing profiles of homeless adults: Investigating links between perceived
ostracism and need-threat. Frontiers In Psychology, 10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00350
Waldeck, D. (2017). Qualitative research with participants suffering from ostracism: A practical guide for the novice
researcher. Qualitative Report, 22(7), 1744–1758.
Watson, J., Crawley, J., & Kane, D. (2016). Social exclusion, health and hidden homelessness. Public Health, 139, 96–102.
doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2016.05.017
Weschke, S., & Niedeggen, M. (2015). ERP effects and perceived exclusion in the cyberball paradigm: Correlates of
expectancy violation? Brain Research, 1624, 265–274. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.038
White, C. H. (2015). Expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation theory: From expectations to adaptation.
In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd
ed., pp. 217–229). Thousand Oaks, NY: Sage.
Williams, K. D., Wheeler, L., & Harvey, J. (2001). Inside the social mind of the ostracizer. In J. Forgas, K. Williams, &
L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior (pp. 294–320).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ATLANTIC JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 15
Williams, K. D., & Zadro., L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams,
J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp.
19–34). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007a). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 236–247.
doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00004.x
Williams, K. D. (2007b). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 425–452. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.58.110405.085641
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279–314). New York, NY: Academic Press.
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(5), 748–762. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & von Hippel, W. (2005). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and
bullying. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Williams, K. D., & Gerber, J. (2005). Ostracism: The making of the ignored and excluded mind. Interaction Studies, 6(3),
359–374. doi:10.1075/is.6.3.04wil
Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance.
Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180. doi:10.3758/BF03192765
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2017). Ostracism, exclusion, and rejection. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Shulman, H. C., & Braz, M. E. (2010). Social ostracism in task groups: The effects of group
composition. Small Group Research, 41(3), 330–353. doi:10.1177/1046496410363914
Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2009). Relational commitment and the silent treatment. Communication Research
Reports, 26(1), 12–21. doi:10.1080/08824090802636967
Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2015). You should just know why I’m upset: Expectancy violation theory and the
influence of mind reading expectations (MRE) on responses to relational problems. Communication Research Reports,
32(1), 10–19. doi:10.1080/08824096.2014.989969
Xiao, R., Wang, G., & Wang, M. (2018). Transportation disadvantage and neighborhood sociodemographics:
A composite indicator approach to examining social inequalities. Social Indicators Research, 137(1), 29–43.
doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1616-2
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the
socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 692–697. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower
self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
16 L. J. PELLICCIO AND S. WALKER
