Research has systematically documented the negative effects of social exclusion, yet little is known about how these negative effects can be mitigated. Building on the approach-inhibition theory of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), we examined the role of power in facilitating social connection following exclusion. Four experiments found that following exclusion, high power (relative to low power) individuals intend to socially connect more with others. Specifically, following exclusion, individuals primed with high power sought new social connections more than those primed with low power (Studies 1–4) or those receiving no power prime (Study 1). The intention to seek social connection as a function of power was limited to situations of exclusion, as it did not occur when individuals were included (Studies 3 and 4). Approach orientation mediates the effect of power on intentions to connect with others (Studies 2 and 4).
Establishing and maintaining a sense of social connection with others is a universal and fundamental human need akin to that for food and water (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Exclusion from social groups thwarts this need and affects individuals’ physical and psychological well-being (see Baumeister and Leary, 1995 and Williams, 2007). In fact, social exclusion (hereafter exclusion) has been described as one of the most severe punishments people can mete out to each other. As William James (1890; pp. 293–294) remarked – “No more a fiendish punishment could be devised, were such a thing physically possible, than that one should be turned loose in society and remain absolutely unnoticed by all the members thereof.” Although exclusion is so damaging, organizational behavior scholars have only recently begun to examine this aversive interpersonal phenemenon (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008).
The experience of exclusion indicates that one’s need to belong has been thwarted (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, & Twenge, 2007). As a result, excluded individuals should have a strong desire to regain social connections with others in order to fulfill the fundamental need to belong (Leary et al., 1995 and MacDonald and Leary, 2005). Despite the functionality of seeking social connections to meet the need to belong, people may not always appear to do so. For example, excluded individuals sometimes isolate themselves from further social interactions (Derfler-Rozin et al., 2010 and Mead and Maner, 2012). Therefore, although the need to belong is fundamental, individuals may not always behave in a manner that directly meets this need.
Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that excluded individuals sometimes further isolate themselves from social connections (see Baumeister et al., 2007, for a review; Ferris et al., 2008, Leary et al., 2006 and Twenge et al., 2007). For example, exclusion has been shown to increase anti-social behavior (Leary et al., 2006) and decrease pro-social behavior towards others (Twenge et al., 2007), indicating that excluded individuals may further distance themselves from others. However, other research suggests that following exclusion, people may engage in actions to regain social connections (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008, Williams, 2007 and Williams and Govan, 2005). For example, excluded individuals show a greater motivation to connect with new sources of social connections as compared to non-excluded individuals (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007).
Although these two sets of findings – socially distancing oneself from others and seeking new social connections – may seem contradictory, they may signal the same underlying motive. In fact, they point to two different means by which individuals can subjectively experience that their need to belong is met. It is clear that when people engage in actions to regain social connections, they are directly striving to fulfill their need to belong, or at least feel that they are doing so. It is less apparent how people feel that they are meeting their need to belong when they socially withdraw following exclusion. However, social withdrawal minimizes vulnerability to additional exclusion, which can further threaten individuals who have experienced prior exclusion (Baumeister et al., 2007). Therefore, social withdrawal following exclusion may also be an attempt for people to feel that they are at least preserving their sense of belonging.
The two responses to exclusion – actively seeking social connection and avoiding situations that might involve further exclusion – align with the two self-regulation systems proposed by (Higgins, 1997 and Higgins, 1998). Specifically, actively striving to socially connect and build new ties aligns with a promotion focus that is driven by the potential for attaining positive outcomes (Higgins et al., 1994 and Shah et al., 1998). Alternatively, socially withdrawing and avoiding further harm aligns with a prevention focus that is driven by the potential for avoiding negative outcomes (Higgins et al., 1994 and Shah et al., 1998). Following exclusion, people can engage in either of these means to feel that they are meeting or at least preserving their need to belong and both these means – promotion-focused and prevention-focused – should be activated. However, which of the two is predominant depends on chronic and environmental factors. The current research examines how power determines which of the two means will predominate to influence the intention to connect following exclusion.
