Softening the Blow of Social Exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion

Abstract

Social exclusion is an interactive process between multiple people, yet previous research has focused almost solely on the negative impacts on targets. What advice is there for people on the other side (i.e., sources) who want to minimize its negative impact and preserve their own reputation? To provide an impetus for research on the interactive nature of exclusion, we propose the Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion. Our theory postulates that targets and sources’ needs are better maintained if sources use clear, explicit verbal communication. We propose that sources have three options: explicit rejection (clearly stating no), ostracism (ignoring), and ambiguous rejection (being unclear). Drawing on psychology, sociology, communications, and business research, we propose that when sources use explicit rejection, targets’ feelings will be less hurt, their needs will be better protected, and sources will experience less backlash and emotional toil than if sources use ambiguous rejection or ostracism. Finally, we propose how the language of rejections may impact both parties.

Culture, Social Interdependence, and Ostracism

“…So far we know very little about how cultures shape how individuals in different cultural groups engage in ostracism (also see Freedman, Williams, & Beer, 2016), which ostracism strategies individuals find most effective and painful (see Kerr & Levine, 2008), how they react when other individuals are ostracized (see Over & Uskul, 2016), and how individuals react to different types of ostracism (e.g., ignoring someone versus actively excluding them, see Molden et al, 2009). Thus, examining ostracism across different cultural groups focusing on different aspects of the ostracism experience from the target, the source and witness perspective will provide a more comprehensive understanding into the culture-ostracism link.…”

When Saying Sorry May Not Help: The Impact of Apologies on Social Rejections

“…However, apologies can also lead to negative consequences for both the speaker and the listener ( Brown and Levinson, 1987 ; Freedman et al, 2016 ). Both Politeness Theory ( Brown and Levinson, 1987 ) and the Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion ( Freedman et al, 2016 ) suggest that apologies in social rejections will not decrease targets’ hurt feelings. Instead, apologies may backfire within a social rejection because they may make targets feel compelled to express forgiveness without actually making targets feel forgiveness and may make the target feel the rejector is not sincere.…”

“…Instead, apologies may backfire within a social rejection because they may make targets feel compelled to express forgiveness without actually making targets feel forgiveness and may make the target feel the rejector is not sincere. Social norms dictate that we forgive someone if they apologize; therefore, targets are put in a position where they are expected to forgive the rejection ( Brown and Levinson, 1987 ) even if they do not believe the apology is sincere ( Freedman et al, 2016 ).…”

“…Despite the great deal known about how targets fare, much less is known about the rejectors ( Zadro and Gonsalkorale, 2014 ; Freedman et al, 2016 ). Some rejectors use social rejection as a method of social control and punishment ( Wesselmann et al, 2013 ; Gooley et al, 2015 ; Wirth et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Some rejectors use social rejection as a method of social control and punishment ( Wesselmann et al, 2013 ; Gooley et al, 2015 ; Wirth et al, 2015 ). However, social rejection is not always punitive: there are times when people cannot accept all invitations or wish to avoid a social encounter but are not trying to injure the target ( Freedman et al, 2016 ). In cases where punishment is not the goal, rejectors often find it difficult and unpleasant to engage in social rejection ( Folkes, 1982 ; Baumeister et al, 1993 ; Kets de Vries and Balazs, 1997 ; Ciarocco et al, 2001 ; Clair and Dufresne, 2004 ; Grunberg et al, 2006 ; Chen et al, 2014 ; however, see Zadro et al, 2005 for evidence that ostracism may be less difficult if you have peers also engaging in ostracism) and want to protect targets’ feelings ( Goffman, 1967 ; Folkes, 1982 ; Baumeister et al, 1993 ; Besson et al, 1998 ; Tom Tong and Walther, 2010 ).…”