informational social influences impacting a person's decision or behavior

The Journal of Social Psychology, 154: 208–216, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-4545 print / 1940-1183 online DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2014.883354

Orders to Shoot (a Camera): Effects of Ostracism on Obedience

PAOLO RIVA University of Milano-Bicocca

KIPLING D. WILLIAMS Purdue University

ALEX M. TORSTRICK St. John’s University

LORENZO MONTALI University of Milano-Bicocca

ABSTRACT. Research suggests that ostracism increases susceptibility to indirect forms of social influence (e.g., conformity). Yet, no study to date has explored whether the effects of ostracism extend to the most direct form of social influence—obedience. We investigated whether ostracized individ- uals would be more likely to obey a direct command to do something effortful in uncomfortable conditions. Participants (N = 62) were randomly assigned to be included or ostracized in Cyberball, or assigned to a control condition. They were then approached by the experimenter and commanded to go outside when temperatures were below 30◦F and take 39 unique and creative photographs in the cold of winter. Ostracized participants were more likely to obey the experimenter’s command to be creative when taking photographs. No differences in obedience emerged between the inclusion and the control condition. We provided evidence completing the social influence “trifecta”: ostracism increases susceptibility to conformity, compliance, and now, obedience.

Keywords: obedience, ostracism, social control, social influence

OSTRACISM—EXCLUDING AND IGNORING—IS A UNIVERSALLY applied tactic of social control. Individuals can ostracize others to punish them for violating social norms, to deal with burdensome members and to communicate to group members the consequences of their anti- normative behavior (Dijker & Koomen, 2007; Ouwerkerk, Kerr, Gallucci, & van Lange, 2005; Williams, 1997). The corrective function of ostracism is suggested by the employment of solitary confinement in the penal system, or by use of time-out in schools and at home (Williams, 2009).

Address correspondence to Paolo Riva, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Psychology, Room 3122, Building U6, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo, 1, Milan 20126, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

RIVA ET AL. 209

The effectiveness of ostracism as a form of social control lies in the psychological vulnerability that immediately follows it. Humans fear the pain of ostracism, rejection, humiliation, and social exclusion (Riva, Williams, & Gallucci, 2014). Accordingly, previous studies have shown that ostracism is profoundly distressing. Being ostracized depletes self-regulatory resources, increases negative affect, and results in a decline of satisfaction of four fundamental basic human needs, such as belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). Being a social outcast threatens the individual’s psychological equilibrium even when ostracism is attributed to a computer rather than to humans (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004) or when the perpetrators are members of a despised out-group (i.e. the Klu Klux Klan; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Furthermore, ostracism still hurts when inclusion is disadvanta- geous, such as when inclusion costs participants money (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Shedding light on the physiological responses to ostracism, Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams (2003) found that the distress caused by it is mediated by the activation of some of the same neu- ral circuits responsible for the detection of physical pain stimuli. Along this line, research showed that stimulating the lateral prefrontal cortex (a brain region involved in emotion regu- lation) reduces both physical (Boggio, Zaghi, Lopes & Fregni, 2008) and social (Riva, Romero Lauro, DeWall, & Bushman, 2012) pain perception. Finally, it has been showed that ostracism can cause psychological responses similar to those of physical pain (Riva, Wirth, & Williams, 2011).

According to the temporal model of responses to ostracism (Williams, 2009), following this reflexive distress response, targets of ostracism appraise the meaning of the ostracism episode and seek to either diminish the importance of the episode, or find ways to cope with it so as to effectively fortify the need or needs that were most threatened. Williams (2009) argued that ostracized individuals are motivated to refortify their threatened needs by implementing affective, cognitive, or behavioral responses. When the ostracism is temporary and does not imply that future inclusion is unlikely, the most common coping path is to increase the chances to be liked and socially included (Williams, 2009).

Accordingly, research has begun to shed light on the possible behavioral responses that can increase an individual’s chances of social inclusion. The first way in which people may seek to repair social relations is through conformity to the opinions of the group, and research has shown that ostracism increases the tendency to conform. Williams, Cheung, and Choi (2000) found that participants who were excluded from an online ball game were subsequently more likely to conform to the majority opinion than participants who were not ostracized. Similar findings have been found with children: Over and Carpenter (2009) showed that children primed with ostracism tended to imitate the actions of a model significantly more closely than children not primed with ostracism. Research has also found that after being ostracized (compared to included), individuals are more likely to mimic the mannerisms displayed by a new person they meet (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008). This finding has been interpreted as an evidence that people use mimicry as a means by which to affiliate with other individuals or group members, in order to increase their inclusionary status (Lakin, et al., 2008).

In addition to conformity, research has found that ostracism increases compliance. Carter- Sowell, Chen, and Williams (2008) had participants assigned to an inclusion vs. ostracism condition and then approached with a request to donate money. They found that ostracism increased compliance across different compliance tactics. Further research has found that ostra- cized individuals are more likely to cooperate within groups (Ouwerkerk et al., 2005), work

210 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

harder on collective tasks (for females; Williams & Sommer, 1997), and even express liking for new, potentially dangerous, groups (Wheaton, 2001).

Overall, research has shown that ostracism increases social susceptibility: ostracized individ- uals require positive self-regard, thus, they can be more accepting of requests from others with whom they may not have otherwise associated (Williams, 2009). Yet, among the three known most prominent forms of social influence (conformity, compliance, and obedience), no study to date has explored whether the effects of ostracism can extend to the most direct form of social influence—obedience. The current research aims to fill this gap. Obedience has received little attention mainly because of the ethical issues raised in Milgram’s seminal studies (Milgram, 1977), suggesting the need for new methodological paradigms to study obedience. In keeping with Milgram’s (1963, 1965) early work, we considered obedience as any act to follow explicit directions from others who are regarded as having authority or perceived as taking responsibility (e.g., someone who has power over the individual).

Based on past research showing that humans have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), we predicted that the desire to be liked and included from others is so powerful that ostracized individuals would be more likely to obey a direct command to do something effortful in uncomfortable conditions.

METHOD

Sixty-two introductory psychology students at Purdue University (30 males, 31 females, 1 unspecified, M age = 19.95, SD = 2.61) participated in the study as part of their course require- ment. Participants were randomly assigned to a three-level (inclusionary status: inclusion vs. ostracism vs. control) between-subjects design. Two participants were excluded for equipment malfunctions, leaving a total of 60 participants.

Upon arrival, participants sat in a small waiting room. The experimenter met participants in a professional manner. The experimenter avoided any informal talk with the participants and made it clear that he was the principal investigator. The experimenter then led participants through a series of hallways and into the lab in which the study would take place. Once inside the lab, partic- ipants were escorted to individual cubicles and seated in front of a computer. In keeping with past studies on obedience (Burger, 2009; Milgram, 1963), the experimenter was older than the average participant, and presented himself wearing a white lab coat. At the beginning he informed the par- ticipant that the study concerned mental visualization and photography. To manipulate ostracism, we used the Cyberball paradigm (Williams et al., 2000). Participants read on the computer screen that they were joining others in an online ball toss game with the goal of exercising their mental visualization abilities. In actuality, participants did not actually play with others online, but rather, two computer controlled confederate players. In the ostracism condition, participants received the ball twice from the two pre-programmed confederate players and then never again for the 2-min game. In the inclusion condition, participants received that ball approximately a third of the time throughout the game. In a control condition, participants did not take part in the Cyberball game but they were asked to look at, and mentally visualize the scene of a simple black and white sketch of a mountain for two minutes (equal to the Cyberball duration). This non-social control condition was introduced in order to investigate whether the effects of Cyberball are due to the inclusion or to the ostracism condition.

RIVA ET AL. 211

After completing the task, as a manipulation check, participants who played Cyberball esti- mated the percentage of throws (0%–100%) they received. Then all participants in all conditions were asked to report how excluded (“I felt excluded”) and ignored (“I felt ignored”) they felt dur- ing their mental visualization task (i.e., playing Cyberball or watching the mountain sketch). The two items were combined in an overall index of feelings of being excluded and ignored (r = .71).

Next, all participants completed a measure of self-reported social distress (the Needs Threat Scale; Williams, 2009), which assessed participants’ satisfaction levels for belongingness (e.g., “I felt rejected”), self-esteem (e.g., “I felt good about myself ”), meaningful existence (e.g., “I felt meaningless”), control (e.g., “I felt powerful”), and mood (e.g., “I felt sad”). All items were rated on 5-point scales (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely). Order of presentation of the items was randomized within-subjects. An overall index of basic needs satisfaction was created (α = .93; for a similar procedure see van Beest, & Williams, 2006; Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010).

Then participants, who were still seated from the previous task, were approached by the exper- imenter who commanded them to go outside to take thirty-nine pictures that, to them, were each creative and individually unique and to return to him, camera in hand, once they were finished. There were no limitations as to where the participant went when they left the building in which the experiment began, so long as they returned within an hour from when the experiment began. The participants were then given a digital camera and told to leave the laboratory and begin the task immediately. Crucially, the study was conducted in January, at Purdue University (Indiana, USA), during a period when the climate was particularly harsh (Mtemp recorded during the data collection = 20.8◦F, SD = 3.2). A debriefing followed upon the return of participants to the lab.

Our operational definition of obedience was the adherence with the command to take pictures that were each unique and creative. Four independent coders (including two professional pho- tographers), blind to the experimental conditions, were asked to rate the uniqueness/creativity of the overall portfolio of each participant on a 1 to 5 scale (high scores represented higher ratings of uniqueness/creativity; see Figure 1 for examples of photos taken from portfolios of different creativity ratings). The four scores of each rater were then averaged together to form an overall index of uniqueness/creativity (α = .71).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Participant gender. We found both main and interactive effects involving participant gender, therefore we always included gender in the analyses reported below.

Ostracism manipulation check. To check the effectiveness of the Cyberball manipulation, we computed a 2 (Cyberball condition: ostracism vs. inclusion) × 2 (Participants’ gender: men vs. women) ANOVA on the reported percentage of received throws, with both factors varying between subjects, comparing the two experimental groups that played Cyberball. The analysis yielded a main effect of Cyberball condition, F(1,36) = 117.32, p < .001, ηp2 = .77, indicating that ostracized participants reported receiving fewer tosses (7.35%; SD = 5.35) than did included participants (31.90%, SD = 8.45). We found no main effect of gender [F(1,36) = 1.70, p = .200,

212 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

2 1

4 4 4

2

FIGURE 1 Examples of photos taken from portfolios in which raters had agreed upon the same creativity rating (on a scale of 1–5, 5 being the most creative) (color figure available online).

ηp 2 = .04] nor an interaction between the experimental condition and gender [F(2,53) = .61,

p = .442, ηp2 = .01]. Thus, participants who played Cyberball were cognitively aware of their inclusionary status during the game.

Feelings of being ignored and excluded. Next, we computed a 3 (Inclusionary status: ostracism vs. inclusion vs. control) × 2 (Participants’ gender: female vs. male) ANOVA on feel- ings of being ignored and excluded. The analysis yielded a main effect of inclusionary status, F(2,53) = 60.72, p < .001, ηp2 = .70, indicating that included participants reported feeling less ignored and excluded (M = 1.70, SD = .78) than did participants in the ostracism (M = 4.09, SD = .83), and control condition (M = 3.78, SD = .71). Post hoc analyses showed that there was a significant difference between the inclusion and the ostracism conditions [t(39) = 9.48, p < .001, d = 2.97], and between the inclusion and the control conditions [t(37) = 8.69, p < .001, d = 2.80]. However, there was no significant difference between the ostracism and the control condition, t(37) = 1.24, p = .22, d = .39. Our speculation is that participants are answering these questions in this manner because they were left alone in a room without any interaction with the experimenter.

We then found a main effect of gender, F(1,53) = 3.98, p = .051, ηp2 = .07. Specifically, we found that male participants reported feeling less ignored and excluded (M = 2.89, SD = 1.37) than did female participants (M = 3.46, SD = 1.23). We also found a significant interaction between inclusionary status and gender, F(2,53) = 4.28, p = .019, ηp2 = .14. Specifically, in the ostracism condition male participants reported feeling less ignored and excluded (M = 3.61, SD = .89) than did male participants (M = 4.50, SD = .59), t(18) = 2.67, p = .016, d = 1.17. Similarly, in the inclusion condition male participants reported feeling less ignored and excluded (M = 1.41, SD = .66) than did female participants (M = 2.06, SD = .81) [t(18) = 1.96, p = .065,

RIVA ET AL. 213

d = .88], whereas no difference was found between male (M = 4.00, SD = .56) and female (M = 3.60, SD = .81) participants in the control condition, t(17) = 1.24, p = .23, d = .57.

Primary Analyses

Basic needs satisfaction. To assess the effect of our experimental manipulation on basic needs satisfaction, we computed a 3 (Inclusionary status: ostracism vs. inclusion vs. control) × 2 (Participants’ gender: men vs. women) ANOVA. The analysis yielded a main effect of our exper- imental manipulation of inclusionary status, F(2,53) = 17.25, p < .001, ηp2 = .39, indicating that ostracized participants reported feeling less basic needs satisfaction (M = 2.39, SD = .84) than did participants in the inclusion (M = 3.49, SD = .59) and control condition (M = 3.55, SD = .68). Post hoc analyses showed that there was a significant difference between the ostracism and the inclusion [t(39) = 4.80, p < .001, d = 1.53], and between the ostracism and the control conditions [t(38) = 4.73, p < .001, d = 1.52]. There was no significant difference between the ostracism and the control condition, t(37) = .71, p = .784, d = .09. We found no main effect for gender [F(1,53) = .910, p = .345, ηp2 = .01], whereas we found a significant interaction between inclusionary status and gender, F(2,53) = 5.90, p = .005, ηp2 = .18. Specifically, in the ostracism condition female participants reported less basic needs satisfaction (M = 1.97, SD = .81) than did male participants (M = 2.89, SD = .63), t(18) = 2.73, p = .014, d = 1.27. By contrast, in the control condition male participants reported feeling less basic needs satisfaction (M = 3.26, SD = .48) than did female participants (M = 3.82, SD = .75) [t(17) = 1.90, p = .075, d = .89], whereas no difference was found between male (M = 3.56, SD = .68) and female (M = 3.41, SD = .50) participants in the inclusion condition, t(18) = .53, p = .61, d = .25.

Obedience manipulation. We computed a 3 (Inclusionary status: ostracism vs. inclusion vs. control) × 2 (Participants’ gender: men vs. women) ANOVA on the number of pictures par- ticipants took and on the creativity ratings. We found no differences in the number of pictures participants took (M = 40.45, SD = 5.67; all Fs < 2). Yet, we found a main effect of inclusionary status on creativity ratings, F(2,53) = 6.91, p = .002, ηp2 = .21, indicating that ostracized participants’ photographs were rated as more unique/creative (M = 3.31, SD = .68) than the photographs of the included (M = 2.50, SD = .54) or control condition (M = 2.63, SD = .80) par- ticipants. Specifically, post hoc analyses showed that there was a significant difference between the ostracism and the inclusion condition [t(39) = 4.18, p < .001, d = 1.30], and between the ostracism and the control condition [t(38) = 2.87, p = .007, d = .90]. However, there was no significant difference between the inclusion and the control condition, t(37) = .60, p = .552, d = .19. We found no main effect for gender [F(1,53) = .012, p = .912, ηp2 = .00], nor an interac- tion between the experimental manipulation of inclusionary status and gender [F(2,53) = .263, p = .769, ηp2 = .01]1.

DISCUSSION

In this experiment, we found that ostracized participants were more likely to obey the experi- menter’s explicit direction to take creative pictures on campus. Furthermore, this behavior was obeyed despite having to brave the cold elements of Indiana’s January weather to seek venues and

214 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

subject matter that ratings, blind to condition, regarded as being more creative than the photos shot by participants who had not been previously ostracized.

In line with our prediction, our results showed that the negative consequences of ostracism augmented the individual’s tendency to obey an explicit direction. In our specific experimental setting, showing greater adherence to the experimental demands, ostracized individuals put forth the increased effort necessary to present a more creative photographic portfolio. Our findings extend previous research (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Lakin et al., 2008; Ouwerkerk et al., 2005; Wheaton, 2001; Williams et al., 2000; Williams & Sommer, 1997) and suggest that ostracism has an impact on both direct and indirect forms of social influence.

Our results showed a greater variation on our creativity measure than on the number of pictures participants were asked to take (i.e., 39). Although we had originally hoped that requiring so many photos to be taken in the cold would result generally in low levels of obedience, we had not anticipated that many participants would simply go outside, snap the camera until complete, then return. Thus, they overtly obeyed the command to shoot the camera until empty, but covertly disobeyed the requirement to shoot creative pictures. Creativity, then, became a more sensitive measure of obedience.

In terms of methodological improvement, in the current study, we introduced a new control condition to the ostracism literature, in which participants did not take part in the Cyberball game, but they were asked to look at and mentally visualize a black and white sketch of a mountain for an amount of time that was comparable with the Cyberball task (i.e., two minutes). This new control condition allowed us to investigate whether the effects were led by the ostracism or by the inclusion condition. It was still unclear whether the effects on basic needs satisfaction and mood (which have been traditionally attributed to the induction of ostracism) were actually caused by the ostracism condition or by the positive effects that might derive from the inclusion condition in Cyberball. Our results also suggest a possible boundary condition to when feeling excluded and ignored does not threaten needs. Whereas our control participants did report feeling ignored and excluded, they did not show evidence of need-threat. Further, control participants asked to look at a mountain scene showed no differences in any of the dependent variables between the tradi- tional Cyberball inclusion condition. Thus, consistent with previous theorization on the topic, our data demonstrated that the effects of Cyberball were specifically driven by the ostracism condi- tion, whereas the inclusion condition did not produce any differences compared to a non-social manipulation (i.e., watching a still image).

The present study implemented a new paradigm to study obedience which fell within what we believe to be modern ethical parameters. After Milgram’s seminal studies (1963), obedience has received little attention in the social psychological literature, despite its prominent role as a form of social influence. The situational variables and the individual differences that moderate the ten- dency to obey need attention from contemporary social researchers. In this regard, we argue that it is not necessary to implement experimental settings that involve harm to another individual to study obedience. Indeed, any explicit directions from others who are regarded as having authority or perceived as taking responsibility warrants the opportunity to obey. Our goal in this study was to issue a command to the participant that would be specific enough to reveal group differences in obedience while not being so uncomfortable to risk ethical boundaries. We think that developing new paradigms to assess obedience would encourage researchers to address the many aspects of obedience research that have yet to be fully understood. In this sense, the questions raised here are the beginning of a program of research investigating ostracism and its impact on obedience. For

RIVA ET AL. 215

instance, are ostracized individuals sensitive to variations in the status levels of the authority? To the extent that the desire to be liked and included would be fortified more when pleasing a higher status authority, it would seem reasonable to expect greater levels of sensitivity to authority status by ostracized than by included individuals.

Further, are there individual differences (e.g., fear of social threat, rejection sensitivity) that make some people more susceptible to the ostracism-obedience link? We recently found that fear of social threat (including fear of the pain of ostracism) exacerbates the perception of ostracism (Riva et al., 2014). Thus, future research should investigate whether fear of social threat might moderate the relationship between ostracism and obedience. Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that people with high levels of fear of social threat might tend to obey more after being ostracized, as compared to people with low levels of fear of social threat. Moreover, how does ostracism increase obedience (i.e., via which neural processes)? How does this mechanism serve to ease social distress? Future research should start to address some of these important questions.

Our findings have implications that might extend to a variety of settings (from the classroom, to the workplace, to prison, military and religious settings) in which obedience can be obtained or increased through ostracism or other forms of social exclusion. Given the fundamental need and desire to belong that all human beings share (Baumeister & Leary 1995), being ostracized might induce the individual to follow orders that involve the implementation of destructive behaviors (e.g., harming others beings). Previous research showed that ostracism leads to changes in judg- ment and behavior aimed at earning social approval and increased odds of social inclusion (e.g., Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; Williams & Sommer, 1997) and our study—showing the ostracism- obedience link—suggested that people might be more prone to follow explicit orders after the experience of ostracism than after the experience of social inclusion. Nevertheless, because our study did not ask participants to do anything that might conflict with their moral standards further studies are needed to provide a more direct support to the link between ostracism and obedience to destructive orders.

This is the first study to provide evidence completing the social influence “trifecta”: ostracism increases susceptibility to conformity, compliance, and now, obedience. Consistent with previ- ous theorizations (Williams, 2009) and empirical findings (e.g., Carter-Sowell et al., 2008), the increased obedience might be the result of the individual’s attempt to re-fortify their threatened inclusionary status. If individuals who are ostracized over a computer medium for only 2 minutes increase their likelihood to conform, comply, and obey, one wonders how far individuals who are ostracized in real life, possibly throughout their life, will go to be liked and included.

NOTE

1. The pattern of results was consistent considering the four raters together or considering the two professional photographers separately from the other two coders.

AUTHOR NOTES

Paolo Riva is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca. His main research interests focus on social pain, or the hurtful feelings caused by social exclusion, ostracism, and rejection. Kipling D. Williams is affiliated with the Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University. His primary interests focus on ostracism and social influence. Alex M. Torstrick is affiliated with the Psychology Department, St. John’s University. Lorenzo

216 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Montali is affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca. His main research interests are in the social psychology of health and illness.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497.

Boggio, P. S., Zaghi, S., Lopes, M., & Fregni, F. (2008). Modulatory effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation on perception and pain thresholds in healthy volunteers. European Journal of Neurology, 15, 1124–1130.

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3,

143–153. Dijker, A. J. M., & Koomen, W. (2007). Stigmatization, tolerance and repair: An integrative psychological analysis of

responses to deviance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion.

Science, 302, 290–292. 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, 1176–1186. Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like you nonconscious mimicry as an automatic

behavioral response to social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19, 816–822. Milgram S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76. Milgram, S. (1977). Subject reaction: The neglected factor in the ethics of experimentation. Hastings Center Report, 7,

19–23. Ouwerkerk, J. W., Kerr, N. L., Gallucci, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2005). Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism

and cooperation in social dilemmas. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York, NY: The Psychology Press.

Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2009). Priming third-party ostracism increases affiliative imitation in children. Developmental Science, 12(3), F1–F8.

Riva, P., Romero Lauro, L. J., DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Buffer the pain away stimulating the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex reduces pain following social exclusion. Psychological Science, 23, 1473–1475.

Riva, P., Williams, K. D., & Gallucci, M. (2014). The relationship between fear of social and physical threat and their effects on social distress and physical pain perception. Pain, 155, 485–493.

Riva, P., Wirth, J. H., & Williams, K. D. (2011). The consequences of pain: The social and physical pain overlap on psychological responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 681–687.

van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928.

Wheaton, A. (2001). Ostracism and susceptibility to the overtures of socially deviant groups and individuals. (Unpublished honors thesis). Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.

Williams, K. D. & Sommer, K. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.

Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 869–882.

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, 560–567.

Received July 3, 2013 Accepted January 9, 2014

Copyright of Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.