Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace.

Hitlan, Robert T.; Kelly, Kristine M.; Schepman, Stephen; Schneider, Kimberly T.; Zárate, Michael A.

doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.56

Cited by 135 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In each condition, participants were asked to read the scenario carefully, and try to put themselves into the position of the individual in the story. Studies have shown that scenario descriptions induce reactions comparable to those found using interpersonal methods for creating exclusion (Fiske & Yamamoto, 2005;Hitlan, Kelly, Shepman, Schneider, & Zaraté, 2006). …”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Different Behavioral Intentions of Collectivists and Individualists in Response to Social Exclusion

Pfundmair

Graupmann

Frey

et al. 2015

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated how participants with collectivistic and individualistic orientation cope with social exclusion on a behavioral level. In Studies 1 and 2, we found participants with more individualistic orientation to indicate more antisocial behavioral intentions in response to exclusion than participants with more collectivistic orientation. In a third and fourth study we replicated our findings across cultures: German and US participants indicated more antisocial and avoiding behavioral intentions when excluded compared to Turkish and Indian participants who did not differ in their behavioral intentions between inclusion and exclusion.In Studies 3 and 4, only German and US participants were significantly affected by exclusion, Imagine yourself walking through a park in your neighborhood. Around one of the benches you see a group of people you know from a professional course; you hear them laughing and talking about a social event. You decide to stop and greet them. As you arrive at the group, they stop talking; the conversation fades into an awkward silence. You realize that these people did not want to invite you to the event they were talking about. You are feeling excluded. How will you react in this situation? Angrily, shocked, or friendly?Research shows that a person's reaction to social exclusion may depend on their cultural self-construal: People with a more interdependent self-construal are less affected by negative psychological consequences of social exclusion than people with a more independent selfconstrual (Gardner, Knowles, & Jefferis, 2012;Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013).Therefore, there is reason to expect differences in how people experience social exclusion. Does this also hold true for behavioral intentions? The present article investigates how people with different self-construal respond to incidents of social exclusion on the level of behavioral intentions. Immediate and downstream reactions to social exclusionThe need to belong is a fundamental motivation of human nature that has been compared to hunger or thirst (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). A threat to this need can have tremendously painful and stressful outcomes for the individual. The psychological consequence is a decrease in the feelings of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000;Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). In the above example, the immediate reaction is characterized by an initial feeling of being rejected.This first reaction is associated with a physiological alarm system being mobilized in the body: Blood pressure increases (Zadro, 2004) and the anterior cingulated cortex-the neuronal alarm system that is associated with physical pain-is activated (Eisenberger, Liebermann, & Williams, 2003). The urgency of this initial reaction to social exclusion EXCLUSION, IND/COL, AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS 4 indicates the existence of a pre-cognitive warning system . Williams (2007) refers to these reactions as reflexive reactions.In a second step, excluded people try to ...

show abstract

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Different Behavioral Intentions of Collectivists and Individualists in Response to Social Exclusion

Pfundmair

Graupmann

Frey

et al. 2015

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consider for example, situations in which ethnic identity is maintained and expressed through languages other than English. People may speak their ethnic language with co-ethnics only in the privacy of their home or also in public spheres such as workplaces, schools, etc (see Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider & Zarate, 2006). We propose that when perceivers learn that ethnic minorities speak a language other than English in public spaces they are more likely to see this group as unAmerican because it more noticeably challenges mainstream norms and practices compared to when they learn that ethnic minorities speak their language at home.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

To be or not to be (ethnic): Public vs. private expressions of ethnic identification differentially impact national inclusion of White and non-White groups

Yogeeswaran

Adelman

Eccleston

et al. 2011

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Even seemingly innocuous forms of ostracism like information exclusion have psychological and behavioural consequences (Jones et al, 2011). In the past 15 years, numerous studies Membercustomer ostracism in co-operatives (Costantini and Ferri, 2013;Critcher and Zayas, 2014;Ferris et al, 2008;Hitlan et al, 2006;Wesselmann et al, 2015;Williams, 2001;Zadro et al, 2005) have consistently demonstrated that ostracism thwarts fundamental social needs (i.e. belonging, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence) and entails devastating personal, social and clinical effects (Poon et al, 2013;Wolf et al, 2015).…”

Section: Ejm 529/10mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…lower job performance; Wu et al, 2011), less extra-role behaviour (e.g. lowered organisational citizenship behaviours; Hitlan et al, 2006), higher counterproductive work actions (e.g. hostility towards colleagues; Zhao et al, 2013), higher employee turnover (O'Reilly et al, 2014) and a negative spillover effect on family satisfaction (Liu et al, 2013).…”

Section: Ejm 529/10mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing member-customer ostracism in co-operatives and counterpoising its relationship-poisoning effects

Benos

Kalogeras

Ruyter

et al. 2018

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.*Related content and download information correct at time of download. Purpose -This paper aims to examine a core member-customer threat in co-operatives (co-ops) by drawing from ostracism research, assessing co-op ostracism's impact on critical membership and relational exchange outcomes and discussing why relationship marketing research needs to pay more attention to the overlooked role of implicit mistreatment forms in customer harm-doing.Design/methodology/approach -Three studies were conducted. In Study 1, ostracism in co-ops was explored, and a measurement scale for co-op ostracism was developed. In Study 2, the core conceptual model was empirically tested with data from members of three different co-ops. In Study 3, a coping strategy was integrated into an extended model and empirically tested with a new sample of co-op members.Findings -Ostracism is present in co-ops and "poisons" crucial relational (and membership) outcomes, despite the presence of other relationship-building or relationship-destroying accounts. Coupling entitativity with cognitive capital attenuates ostracism's impact. -11-2016-0634 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm Practical implications -Co-op decision makers might use the diagnostic tool developed in the paper to detect ostracism and fight it. Moreover, a novel coping strategy for how co-ops (or other firms) might fend off ostracism threats is offered in the article. Research limitations/implications -Originality/value -The present study illuminates a dark side of a relationally profuse customer context, painting a more complete picture of relationship marketing determinants. Little attention has been given to ostracism as a distinct and important social behaviour in marketing research and to co-ops as a research context.

show abstract

Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace.

Cited by 135 publications

References 44 publications

The Different Behavioral Intentions of Collectivists and Individualists in Response to Social Exclusion

The Different Behavioral Intentions of Collectivists and Individualists in Response to Social Exclusion

To be or not to be (ethnic): Public vs. private expressions of ethnic identification differentially impact national inclusion of White and non-White groups

Diagnosing member-customer ostracism in co-operatives and counterpoising its relationship-poisoning effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About