IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0303510.html

Motives matter: The psychological experience of ostracizing among sources

Author

Listed:
  • Rose Iannuzzelli
  • Karen Gonsalkorale
  • Lisa A Williams

Abstract

Individuals ostracize others for myriad reasons, yet the influence of those reasons on the psychological experience of ostracizing is yet unknown. Two studies aimed to determine the emotional and behavioral sequelae of ostracizing for different motives, directly comparing punitive to defensive motives. We focused our examination on a suite of emotions expected to arise as a function of (1) the situations that give rise to ostracizing for punitive and defensive reasons (anger, fear, anxiety, and sadness) and (2) the act of ostracizing itself (i.e., pride and guilt). The research employed a novel paradigm to induce the experience of ostracizing for defensive or punitive motives. Study 1 (N = 372) investigated sources’ experienced emotion as a function of motive. Study 2 (N = 743) expanded consideration to behavioral intentions, including intentions to continue ostracizing and to recruit others to join in ostracizing the target. Across both studies and supported by an internal meta-analysis, ostracizing for defensive reasons was associated with higher levels of guilt, fear, and anxiety, and lower levels of anger, compared to ostracizing for punitive reasons. Neither sadness nor positive emotion (pride or happiness) differed significantly according to motive in either study. Moreover, guilt and anger mediated the impact of motive on intentions to continue ostracizing and recruit others to join them in ostracizing. To the extent that punitive sources experienced anger relative to defensive sources, they expressed greater intentions to continue ostracizing the target and to recruit others to join in ostracizing the target. To the extent that defensive sources experienced guilt relative to punitive sources, they reported reduced intentions to continue ostracizing the target. Findings add to a growing literature on ostracism sources, and highlight the mediating role of sources’ emotion in guiding future actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rose Iannuzzelli & Karen Gonsalkorale & Lisa A Williams, 2024. "Motives matter: The psychological experience of ostracizing among sources," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0303510
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303510
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303510
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303510&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0303510?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nelissen, Rob M. A. & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2009. "Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(7), pages 543-553, December.
    2. Rob M. A. Nelissen & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2009. "Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 543-553, December.
    3. Whitson, Jennifer & Wang, Cynthia S. & Kim, Joongseo & Cao, Jiyin & Scrimpshire, Alex, 2015. "Responses to normative and norm-violating behavior: Culture, job mobility, and social inclusion and exclusion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 24-35.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Wang, Xianjia & Song, Chuyue & Yang, Zhipeng, 2025. "Cooperation evolution of public goods games under probabilistic punishment rule for reputational altruism," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 507(C).
    3. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    4. Sophia Soyoung Jeong & Yuanyuan Gong & Alexandra Henderson, 2023. "Sympathy or distress? The moderating role of negative emotion differentiation in helping behavior," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 1429-1458, December.
    5. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Ralph Hertwig & Andreas Orland, 2020. "Do people harness deliberate ignorance to avoid envy and its detrimental effects?," CEPA Discussion Papers 17, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Kenju Kamei & Smriti Sharma & Matthew J. Walker, 2023. "Sanction Enforcement among Third Parties:New Experimental Evidence from Two Societies," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2023-010, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    7. Yidong Tu & Ying Zhang & Yongkang Yang & Shengfeng Lu, 2022. "Treat Floating People Fairly: How Compensation Equity and Multilevel Social Exclusion Influence Prosocial Behavior Among China’s Floating Population," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 323-338, January.
    8. Guerra, Alice & Zhuravleva, Tatyana, 2021. "Do bystanders react to bribery?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 442-462.
    9. Qiongjing Hu & Hajo Adam & Sreedhari Desai & Shenjiang Mo, 2024. "Turning a Blind Eye to Team Members’ Unethical Behavior: The Role of Reward Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 194(2), pages 297-316, October.
    10. Hayiel Hino & Israel D. Nebenzahl, 2021. "Applying information integration theory to the study of boycott–spillover to linked regions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(5), pages 1889-1915, October.
    11. Anastasios Koukoumelis & M. Vittoria Levati, 2014. "Does expressing disapproval influence future cooperation? - An experimental study," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-022, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Sven Fischer & Kristoffel Grechenig & Nicolas Meier, 2013. "Cooperation under punishment: Imperfect information destroys it and centralizing punishment does not help," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_06, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    13. Heim, Réka & Huber, Jürgen, 2019. "Leading-by-example and third-party punishment: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    14. Noussair, Charles N. & Tucker, Steven & Xu, Yilong & Breaban, Adriana, 2024. "The role of emotions in public goods games with and without punishment opportunities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 631-646.
    15. Sascha Behnk & Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Aurora García-Gallego, 2018. "Punishing liars—How monitoring affects honesty and trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-30, October.
    16. Koukoumelis, Anastasios & Levati, M. Vittoria, 2019. "An experiment investigating the spillover effects of communication opportunities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 147-157.
    17. Kamei, Kenju & Sharma, Smriti & Walker, Matthew J., 2025. "Collective sanction enforcement: New experimental evidence from two societies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    18. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    19. Robin Cubitt & Michalis Drouvelis & Simon Gächter, 2011. "Framing and free riding: emotional responses and punishment in social dilemma games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 254-272, May.
    20. Montag, Josef & Tremewan, James, 2020. "Let the punishment fit the criminal: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 423-438.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0303510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.