Revisiting Schachter’s Research on Rejection, Deviance, and Communication (1951)

Wesselmann, Eric D.; Williams, Kipling D.; Pryor, John B.; Eichler, Fredrick Andrew; Gill, Devin; Hogue, J. Pierre

doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000180

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, group members did not choose him for future interactions (and some actively requested he not be included). These findings were replicated across several studies (Berkowitz & Howard, 1959;Emerson, 1954;Schachter et al, 1954;Tata et al, 1996;Wesselmann, Williams, Pryor et al, 2014). However, deviate individuals are not always treated negatively-sometimes they are perceived as helpful and even revered (Eisinger & Mills, 1968;Moscovici, 1976).…”

Section: The Journal Of Social Psychologymentioning

confidence: 64%

The Role of Burden and Deviation in Ostracizing Others

Wesselmann

Wirth

Pryor

et al. 2015

The Journal of Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ostracism (being excluded and ignored) is a painful experience, so why do individuals ostracize others? Previous research suggests individuals often ostracize those who are deviate, but not always. We posit that there may be two types of deviation, burdensome and non-burdensome, and the former is most likely to be ostracized. Study 1 manipulated burdensome deviation by programming a group member to perform more slowly (8 or 16 sec.) than others (4 sec.) in a virtual ball-toss game. Participants perceived slower players as more burdensome and deviate than normal speed players. Additionally, participants ostracized (gave fewer ball tosses to) the slowest player. Study 2 examined participant responses to both burdensome deviation (8- and 16-sec. players) and non-burdensome deviation (goth appearance). Participants again perceived the slower players to be burdensome and deviate, and ostracized them. They perceived the goth player to be deviate but not burdensome and did not ostracize this player.

show abstract

Section: The Journal Of Social Psychologymentioning

confidence: 64%

The Role of Burden and Deviation in Ostracizing Others

Wesselmann

Wirth

Pryor

et al. 2015

The Journal of Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on exclusion, rejection, and ostracism has a long history. 1 Schachter's (1951) original "deviate" study demonstrated how rejection may be used as a social punishment or a form of social control for a dissenting group member, and this work has recently been replicated (Wesselmann et al, 2014). However, sufficient justification is necessary for exclusion.…”

Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Insufficient Justification for Exclusion Prompts Compensatory Behavior

Tongeren

Luna

Witvliet

2015

The Journal of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment examined participants' compensatory behavior toward an excluded stranger. Participants engaged in a four-person social introductions task and rank-ordered each other member of the group; the lowest ranked person was excluded from a subsequent game. Using a 2 × 2 design, participants were randomly assigned to a justification condition (insufficient vs. sufficient) and to an exclusion responsibility condition (responsible for exclusion vs. exclusion by random selection). Results revealed that after limited introductions (i.e., insufficient justification for one's ranking decision), being responsible for the exclusion prompted compensatory behavior toward the excluded stranger. However, after extended introductions (i.e., sufficient justification of one's ranking decision), participants did not compensate the excluded person. These results suggest that insufficient justification for exclusion may lead to compensatory behavior, when one is responsible for the exclusion.

show abstract

“… 9 The Wesselmann et al. [ 58 ] study featured a

33

contingency table; all other studies reported in figure 6 featured a

22

contingency table. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We applied three Bayesian methods to reanalyse the preregistered contributions to the Social Psychology special issue ‘Replications of Important Results in Social Psychology’ (Nosek & Lakens. 2014 Registered reports: a method to increase the credibility of published results. Soc. Psychol. 45, 137–141. (doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a00019210.1027/1864-9335/a000192)). First, individual-experiment Bayesian parameter estimation revealed that for directed effect size measures, only three out of 44 central 95% credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. For undirected effect size measures, only four out of 59 credible intervals contained values greater than 0.10 (10% of variance explained) and only 19 intervals contained values larger than 0.05. Second, a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis for all 38 t-tests showed that only one out of the 38 hierarchically estimated credible intervals did not overlap with zero and fell in the expected direction. Third, a Bayes factor hypothesis test was used to quantify the evidence for the null hypothesis against a default one-sided alternative. Only seven out of 60 Bayes factors indicated non-anecdotal support in favour of the alternative hypothesis (normalBF10>3), whereas 51 Bayes factors indicated at least some support for the null hypothesis. We hope that future analyses of replication success will embrace a more inclusive statistical approach by adopting a wider range of complementary techniques.

show abstract

Revisiting Schachter’s Research on Rejection, Deviance, and Communication (1951)

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

The Role of Burden and Deviation in Ostracizing Others

The Role of Burden and Deviation in Ostracizing Others

Insufficient Justification for Exclusion Prompts Compensatory Behavior

A Bayesian bird's eye view of ‘Replications of important results in social psychology’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About