James H. Wirth

Eye Gaze as Relational Evaluation: Averted Eye Gaze Leads to Feelings of Ostracism and Relational Devaluation

Eye gaze is often a signal of interest and, when noticed by others, leads to mutual and directional gaze. However, averting one’s eye gaze toward an individual has the potential to convey a strong interpersonal evaluation. The averting of eye gaze is the most frequently used nonverbal cue to indicate the silent treatment, a form of ostracism. The authors argue that eye gaze can signal the relational value felt toward another person. In three studies, participants visualized interacting with an individual displaying averted or direct eye gaze. Compared to receiving direct eye contact, participants receiving averted eye gaze felt ostracized, signaled by thwarted basic need satisfaction, reduced explicit and implicit self-esteem, lowered relational value, and increased temptations to act aggressively toward the interaction partner.

`They Don't Like Our Kind': Consequences of Being Ostracized While Possessing a Group Membership

Individuals are ostracized nearly on a daily basis, which thwarts the satisfaction of fundamental needs and is painful (Williams, 2007). While facing prejudice or discrimination, possessing a group membership can be self-protective (Crocker & Major, 1989) or harmful, depending on group identification (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002a). How will individuals react to ostracism when a group membership attribution is available? Participants were ostracized or included during Cyberball, a virtual online ball-tossing game, while possessing a temporary, permanent, or no group membership. Participants reported need satisfaction and mood during the game and after a short delay to assess recovery. Initially, ostracized participants felt equally distressed. Possessing a permanent group membership resulted in slower recovery compared to possessing a temporary group membership.

The Role of Gender in Mental-Illness Stigma A National Experiment

The stigma of mental illness imposes substantial costs on both the individuals who experience mental illness and society at large. Understanding the psychological underpinnings of this stigma is therefore a matter of practical and theoretical significance. In a national, Web-based survey experiment, we investigated the role played by gender in moderating mental-illness stigma. Respondents read a case summary in which the gender of the person was orthogonally manipulated along with the type of disorder; the cases reflected either a male-typical disorder or a female-typical disorder. Results indicated that when cases were gender typical, respondents felt more negative affect, less sympathy, and less inclination to help, compared to when cases were gender atypical. This pattern can be explained by the fact that gender-typical cases were significantly less likely to be seen as genuine mental disturbances.

When Do We Ostracize

Ostracism is a common, yet painful social experience. Given the harmful consequences of ostracism, why would groups ostracize their members? Previous research suggests that ostracism is a form of social control used to influence those group members perceived as burdensome. The authors propose that individuals will ostracize a group member only when it is justified (i.e., the member seems burdensome) but will compensate a member who is ostracized undeservedly. In Study 1, a group member was ostracized undeservedly by the other players during an online ball-tossing game. Participants allocated more tosses to that ostracized group member than an included one, compensating the ostracized member. In Study 2, participants continued to compensate an ostracized group member, unless that member was burdensome. Participants indicated punitive motives for ostracizing a burdensome group member. These experimental studies extend research on when individuals use ostracism as social control.

EVIDENCE THAT GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION RESULT FROM GENDERED SELF‐STEREOTYPING AND GROUP‐INTERESTED RESPONSES TO PATRIARCHY

Numerous studies have found that, compared to women, men express higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable reflecting support for unequal, hierarchical relationships between groups. Recent research suggests that the often-observed gender difference in SDO results from processes related to gender group identity. We hypothesized that two aspects of gender group identity could account for mens higher SDO relative to womens: responses to patriarchy that reflect the interests of the gender ingroup (as measured by hostile and benevolent sexism) and self-stereotyping in gendered terms. We found the gender difference in SDO was fully mediated by gender differences in feminine self-stereotyping, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism. The discussion addresses implications for social dominance theorys treatment of gender and the complexity of social-contextual forces that produce gender differences in SDO.

Inoculating against the aversive effects of ostracism with acceptance: The role of attachment styles

Ostracisms immediate impact is painful. We investigated whether affirming an accepting relationship prior to being ostracized can inoculate against this pain, and whether this approach would only be effective for those with a secure attachment style. Participants completed an attachment style measure and wrote about an unconditionally accepting or neutral relationship prior to being either ostracized or included in Cyberball, a virtual ball-toss game. Unconditional acceptance buffered the basic needs and the mood of participants with a secure attachment style, but provided no relief for those with an insecure style. Findings suggest that reminders of acceptance prior to social exclusion can be beneficial, but only for some.