Ostracism, being excluded and ignored, is a common and painful experience. Previous research has found ostracism’s immediate effects robust to moderation by individual differences. However, this could be the result of using retrospective measures taken after the ostracism occurs, rather than assessing the effects of ostracism throughout the episode. Participants completed measures of loneliness and social avoidance and distress before either being ostracized or included in a virtual ball-toss game, Cyberball. During Cyberball, participants recorded second-by-second phenomenological affect using a dial device. Individual differences in loneliness and social avoidance and distress moderated affective reactions throughout ostracism and inclusion. Lonely individuals, compared to less-lonely individuals, had slower affect decrease when ostracized but quicker affective increase when included. Additionally, socially-avoidant individuals recovered more slowly from ostracism than less-avoidant individuals. Replicating previous research, moderation by individual differences was not detected with measures taken only at end of the interaction or with retrospective measures.
Ostracism, being excluded and ignored, is a pervasive phenomenon that increases negative affect and threatens basic needs (i.e., belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence; Williams, 2009). Ostracism is experienced neurologically as pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), and hurts even when being ostracized by a hated outgroup (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Williams (2009) argues that humans evolved to detect the slightest cues of ostracism and experience immediate discomfort. Research supports this argument: Individuals felt ostracized after being refused eye-contact by a computer confederate (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). Also, pedestrians who were given an “air-gaze” (i.e., having someone look in their direction, but not giving them direct eye-contact) by a passerby felt decreased social connection (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012).
Previous research suggests ostracized individuals may “react first and ask questions later.” Ostracism’s reflexive (immediate) effects appear insensitive to moderation by individual differences (Williams, 2009). For example, gender, introversion–extraversion, loneliness, need for belonging and social anxiety have failed to demonstrate moderation. However, extreme individual differences have shown moderation of ostracism’s effects. For example, ostracized participants with higher levels of personality traits symptomatic of Cluster A personality disorders (i.e., discomfort with social interaction, severe interpersonal distrust, and/or detachment) self-reported experiencing a less aversive impact, compared to participants with lower levels of these traits (Wirth, Lynam, & Williams, 2010). Another study demonstrated that elderly participants who were ostracized self-reported experiencing less aversive effects than younger ostracized participants (Hawkley, Williams, & Cacioppo, 2011).
The difficulty researchers previously had finding moderation may lead them to conclude that individual differences do not moderate initial reactions to ostracism. Might it be the case that individual differences moderate ostracism’s effects during the course of the ostracism episode but have little effect on individuals at the end of the episode? Without using methods that assess these questions, researchers may erroneously make conclusions that underestimate the dynamic nature of experiencing ostracism. We argue certain individual differences may moderate ostracism’s effects over time, and this can be detected by monitoring participants’ second-by-second reactions during an ostracism episode.
