Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1348 –1366 0021-9010/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012743

The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale

D. Lance Ferris, Douglas J. Brown, Joseph W. Berry, and Huiwen Lian

University of Waterloo

This article outlines the development of a 10-item measure of workplace ostracism. Using 6 samples
(including multisource and multiwave data), the authors developed a reliable scale with a unidimensional
factor structure that replicated across 4 separate samples. The scale possessed both convergent and
discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity was demonstrated through the scale’s relation with
basic needs, well-being, job attitudes, job performance, and withdrawal. Overall, the present study
suggests that the Workplace Ostracism Scale is a reliable and valid measure and that the workplace
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ostracism construct has important implications for both individuals and organizations.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Keywords: ostracism, deviance, measurement

Deviant behaviors, defined as behaviors that are initiated by
employees and that contravene organizational norms, have signif-
icant organizational and individual costs (Bennett & Robinson,
2003). A significant amount of research addressing deviant behav-
iors has accumulated in the past decade (Berry, Ones, & Sackett,
2007); typically, researchers have attempted to discern what causes
individuals to engage in deviant behavior. Recently, however,
there has been a call for researchers (a) to move beyond the study
of “plant floor” forms of deviance (e.g., theft and sabotage) and
consider more universal and subtle forms of deviant behavior,
which occur across organizations and hierarchical levels, and (b) to
examine deviance from the target’s perspective, which has been
surprisingly understudied (Bennett & Robinson, 2003).
Keeping in mind these recommendations, we examine the phe-
nomenon of being ostracized in the workplace in the present
article. Ostracism, or the extent to which an individual perceives
that he or she is ignored or excluded by others (K. D. Williams,
2001),1 is seemingly a universal phenomenon and occurs across
gender, age, and demographic lines (K. D. Williams, 1997). Os-
tracism has been seen among children, who ignore and exclude
bullies from their playgroups; among such widely diverse cultural
groups as Afghan tribes and the Amish; and even in other social
species, such as lions and chimpanzees (K. D. Williams, 1997).
D. Lance Ferris, Douglas J. Brown, Joseph W. Berry, and Huiwen Lian,
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada.
Phase 1 of this study is based on Joseph W. Berry’s honors thesis. This
research was supported in part by scholarships and grants from the Cana-
dian Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council to D. Lance
Ferris and Douglas J. Brown, respectively. We thank Stephen Risavy for
his assistance with data collection and David V. Day, Lisa Keeping, Norah
Bree Ping, Chet Robie, and James A. Tan for their helpful comments on
earlier versions of this article. D. Lance Ferris, Douglas J. Brown, and
Joseph W. Berry contributed equally to this article, and their authorship
was determined randomly.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to D.
Lance Ferris, who is now at Lee Kong Chian School of Business,
Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore
178899. E-mail: dlferris@smu.edu.sg
Survey results support the notion that ostracism is a universal
experience, with most individuals either having ostracized others
or having been ostracized themselves. For example, one survey
indicated that 67% of respondents in relationships had used the
silent treatment on a loved one, whereas 75% admitted that a loved
one had used the silent treatment on them (Faulkner, Williams,
Sherman, & Williams, 1997). In the organizational domain, cases
of workplace ostracism are increasingly ending up before the
courts (Waddell, 1999). One survey of over 5,000 workers indi-
cated that 13% of respondents had been excluded at work in the
previous 6 months (Hitlan, Kelly, Schepman, Schneider, & Zarate,
2006). Another survey revealed that, over a 5-year period, 66% of
employees had been given the silent treatment; of those surveyed,
29% reported that others had left the room when they entered and
18% reported having been moved to an isolated location (Fox &
Stallworth, 2005).
Yet, despite an impressive array of anecdotal, theoretical, and
empirical findings from various social science literatures (see
K. D. Williams, 1997, 2007, for a review), the concept of ostra-
cism has had little impact on organizational psychology. The
omission is significant, as ostracism may potentially be related to
a variety of organizational outcomes, such as work attitudes,
behavior, and well-being. However, a major obstacle impeding our
understanding of workplace ostracism has been the absence of a
valid, reliable measure of the construct. To address this limitation,
we introduce the construct of workplace ostracism and outline the
development of a measure of the construct in the current article. In
so doing, we provide initial evidence regarding the reliability,
validity, and nomological network of the construct. The findings
come from six independent samples and represent a total of 822
employees from a variety of organizations and professions. Below,
we review the construct of ostracism and distinguish it from
related organizational constructs.
1
In existing research on this topic, either ostracism or social exclusion
has been used to denote the experience of being rejected, excluded,
ignored, or isolated. Thus, in the present article, we use the terms ostracism
and exclusion interchangeably.

1348
 OSTRACISM
Ostracism
Despite some early studies on the concept of rejection (e.g.,
Jackson & Saltzstein, 1958; Schachter, 1951; Snoek, 1962), the
research on ostracism could best be characterized as piecemeal and
infrequent until fairly recently (K. D. Williams, 2001). This over-
sight is unfortunate, as ostracism represents a common human
experience familiar to many. Ostracism has been part of human life
since the beginnings of recorded history, when the ancient Greeks
would vote to ostracize individuals from their communities as a
form of punishment (K. D. Williams, 1997). Exile and banishment
represent extreme and complete forms of ostracism, but the phe-
nomenon is also represented by less dramatic behaviors (e.g., using
the silent treatment or avoiding eye contact); the more the indi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vidual perceives that he or she is being subjected to such behav-
iors, the more the individual feels that he or she is being ostracized.
Ostracism need not be intentional or punitive; in many instances,
we may ignore coworkers because we are engrossed in our own
work (K. D. Williams, 2001). Indeed, one of the aversive aspects
of ostracism is that it is often ambiguous whether one is actually
being purposefully ostracized (K. D. Williams, 1997).
Regardless of the motives underlying ostracism, it is a painful
and aversive experience. In studies with functional magnetic res-
onance imaging, the same brain structures activated during phys-
ical pain were activated after the individual experienced social
rejection; this finding suggests that ostracism causes a sense of
“social pain” (N. I. Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003;
MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Given the evolutionary advantages
that groups provide, K. D. Williams and Zadro (2005) have argued
that the experience of pain in response to ostracism represents an
adaptive response that alerts us if something is wrong and prompts
us to remedy the situation. Supporting this notion, studies have
found that we appear to detect ostracism indiscriminately, regard-
less of extenuating or discounting circumstances, such as being
told that others have been instructed to ignore us (Zadro, Williams,
& Richardson, 2004). Similarly, whether one is being ostracized
by in-group or out-group members does not seem to moderate the
effects of ostracism (K. D. Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000); even
ostracism by a hated out-group, such as the Klu Klux Klan, has a
negative impact on individuals (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007).
These studies have been taken to suggest that we appear to be
biased to detect ostracism, even false positives, perhaps because
the potential consequences associated with actual ostracism can be
severe (e.g., loss of the resources, protection, and mate access that
groups provide). Thus, ostracism by a single individual or a group,
be it friend or foe, is likely to be detected by and to have a negative
impact on the individual.
Aside from its capacity to cause social pain, ostracism is aver-
sive in that it simultaneously threatens four fundamental human
needs: the need for self-esteem, the need to belong, the need for
control, and the need for a meaningful existence (K. D. Williams,
1997, 2001, 2007). These four needs have a rich history in psychol-
ogy, with different authors arguing that these needs, either separately
or in combination, underlie all aspects of social behavior (see, e.g.,
Baumeister, 1994; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister & Tice,
1990; Branden, 2001; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986;
Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1999; Pyszczynski, Green-
berg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004; Seligman, 1975; Taylor
& Brown, 1988; Tesser, 2000). Ostracism impacts an individual’s
1349
sense of belongingness by threatening to remove the individual
from the group. Research has found that even minimal forms of
ostracism, such as exclusion from a computerized ball-toss game,
can reduce the sense of belonging (Williams et al., 2000) and
lessen the individual’s identification with a group (Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Individuals who are ostra-
cized feel that they have done something wrong or that there is
something inherently unappealing about themselves, which threat-
ens their sense of self-esteem (K. D. Williams, 2001). When
individuals are ostracized, their sense of control is undermined, in
that their actions prompt no reaction from others, and they have no
way of effecting an end to the ostracism (K. D. Williams, 1997;
Zadro et al., 2004). Finally, ostracism represents a form of “social
death” (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, & Baumeister, 2001) and
provides a preview of what life would be like if one did not exist.
Such cues of mortality and death threaten one’s sense of a mean-
ingful existence (Pyszczynski et al., 2004).
In addition, ostracism has been shown to cause maladaptive
responses. Experimental laboratory research on social exclusion
has found that people who are excluded are more likely to be
aggressive, both toward those who excluded them and towards
uninvolved others (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001).
They are also less likely to engage in prosocial or helpful behav-
iors (Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007)
and more likely to engage in self-defeating behaviors, such as
procrastinating and making poor choices (Twenge, Catanese, &
Baumeister, 2002). It has been suggested that the effect of ostra-
cism on our ability to self-regulate, or our ability to alter our
behavior to comply with social standards and achieve goals, is
responsible for these maladaptive behaviors (Baumeister, DeWall,
Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). Studies have shown that, when ex-
cluded, individuals enter into a deconstructed cognitive state with
minimal self-awareness, a focus on the present, and no concern for
long-term goals (Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). More-
over, exclusion has been shown to impair logical reasoning
(Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Being self-aware and being
able to comprehend the long-term consequences associated with
our own actions are important components of self-regulation
(Carver & Scheier, 1981). Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that
ostracized individuals display a variety of behaviors indicating
their inability to self-regulate (Baumeister et al., 2005).
Ostracism and Organizations
Given the role of organizations as a primary source of need
satisfaction for individuals (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch,
1998; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Hackman & Oldham, 1980)
and the importance of self-regulation to organizational outcomes
such as performance and workplace deviance (Campion & Lord,
1982; Kozlowski & Bell, 2006; Porath & Bateman, 2006; Van-
couver, 2005), the impact of ostracism on needs and self-
regulation may have profound consequences both for employees
and the organizations that employ them. It is surprising, therefore,
that the ostracism construct has been virtually ignored by organi-
zational psychologists (for an exception in which researchers used
a scenario study format to examine language-based exclusion, see
Hitlan et al., 2006).
One possible reason for this lack of attention may be that no
measure of workplace ostracism has been published to date. Indeed,
 1350 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
to the extent that it has been examined in organizations, ostracism
usually has been treated as part of other, broader constructs, such
as interpersonal deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), workplace
bullying (Fox & Stallworth, 2005), aggression (Neuman & Baron,
1998), or social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002).
There is considerable debate regarding the relative merits of ex-
amining discrete dimensions (e.g., ostracism) or broader constructs
(e.g., social undermining, aggressive or bullying behaviors; Blau,
1998; Edwards, 2000; Hanisch & Hulin, 1991; Johns, 1998). The
fact that strong evidence supports the utility of discrete dimensions
(Edwards, 2000) suggests the need for a separate measure of the
discrete ostracism construct.
Beyond the broad– discrete measurement debate, there are con-
ceptual and theoretical reasons for separating ostracism from the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
broader constructs with which it is normally assessed. With respect
to interpersonal deviance measures, these scales assess the extent
to which one acts as a perpetrator of a wide variety of deviant
behavior, such as swearing at, aggressing against, or ostracizing
others. In contrast, our ostracism scale takes the perspective of the
target and examines the effect of being ostracized.
Although aggregate measures (e.g., bullying, aggression, and
social undermining) may take the perspective of the target, they
also confound the experience of being ostracized with other forms
of behavior that involve interacting with the targeted individual.
Such behaviors are antithetical to the experience of being ostra-
cized and thus are conceptually different from ostracism. For
example, social undermining scales contain items that assess being
belittled or criticized (Duffy et al., 2002), and aggression/bullying
scales contain items that assess committing verbal or physical
assault, delivering unfair performance appraisals, and threatening
the target with job loss or demotion (Fox & Stallworth, 2005;
Neuman & Baron, 1998). These types of interactions, although still
aversive, allow the target to feel acknowledged by the source,
through dialogue or even physical attack, and to know when the
episode has ended. There is also less ambiguity about whether a
conflict is occurring when one is being abused. Indeed, a recurrent
theme in accounts by long-term targets of ostracism is that they
would prefer verbal or even physical abuse to being ostracized
(K. D. Williams, 2001). One study comparing the effects of being
ostracized and the effects of being argued with demonstrated that
being ostracized had a significantly larger impact on self-esteem
and feelings of belonging, control, and a meaningful existence
(Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2005).
Thus, although ostracism may co-occur with other behaviors,
such as bullying, aggression, or social undermining, it remains a
theoretically distinct concept and is potentially even more impact-
ful than are the behaviors with which it may co-occur. Before such
questions can be addressed, however, a reliable and construct-valid
measure of ostracism in the workplace needs to be developed. Our
purpose in the present study was to develop such a measure.
Present Study
To create a reliable and valid measure of workplace ostracism,
we followed steps outlined in the survey measure development
literature (Hinkin, 1998). Below, we present the results of these
studies in four phases. Phase 1 details the initial generation of a
pool of potential scale items and the refinement of the items into
a 10-item scale. Phase 2 details the psychometric properties (reli-
ability estimates, factor structure, and susceptibility to method-
ological confounds) of the 10-item scale. Phase 3 details the
convergent and discriminant validity of the 10-item scale, and
Phase 4 examines the scale’s criterion-related validity.
Phase 1: Item Generation and Reduction
Item Generation
We generated scale items using a deductive item-generation
approach, in which sufficient theoretical grounds from which to
generate items are assumed to exist (Hinkin, 1998). We consulted
the existing literature on ostracism and related constructs, such as
exclusion, and defined ostracism as the perception that one is being
ignored or excluded (Leary, 2005; Masters, 1984; K. D. Williams,
1997, 2001). Using this definition as a starting point, we generated
items in two ways. First, we generated items that were consistent
with this definition but specific to the workplace. Consistent with
recommendations (Hinkin, 1998), we generated items that were
succinct and easily comprehensible. Additionally, we generated
items that were behavioral in nature and that did not confound
affective responses or other consequences with ostracism behaviors.
We next supplemented the items that we created with items
taken from preexisting scales. Although not meant to assess ostra-
cism per se, these scales contained items that were consistent with
the definition of being ignored or excluded. For example, the
social undermining scale (Duffy et al., 2002) contains the item
“Others gave you the ‘silent treatment’ at work,” which captures
ostracism quite nicely. Using these two approaches, we obtained
40 items; these were subsequently screened for redundancy and
representativeness of the ostracism construct by D. Lance Ferris,
Douglas J. Brown, and Joseph W. Berry, resulting in a set of 25
items. Of these items, 11 were taken from other scales such as Fox
and Stallworth’s (2005) bullying scale and Bennett and Robinson’s
(2000) deviance scale.
Item Reduction: Item-Sort Task
We next sought to assess the substantive validity of the 25 items
with an item-sort task (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991).2 Item-sort
tasks are recommended for use in the early stages of scale devel-
opment (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991; Hinkin, 1998), as they pro-
vide a guide for removing items that are not conceptually consis-
tent with the construct under investigation and predict which items
will perform best in a confirmatory factor analysis (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1991).
Participants and procedure. We recruited 20 employed par-
ticipants (6 male) from a variety of occupations (e.g., teacher, store
clerk, laborer, computer programmer) to complete the item-sort
task. We recruited them by asking graduate students to pass on the
item-sort task to working friends and family members. The mean
age of participants was 28 years (SD ⫽ 5.6), and participants had
2
Substantive validity is the extent to which the items of a scale reflect
the construct of interest (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). It is similar to
content validity but differs in its focus, which is on items, whereas content
validity is normally assessed at the scale level. However, substantive and
content validity are intertwined, in that a scale cannot have content validity
if its items do not possess substantive validity.
 OSTRACISM
been working at their jobs for an average of 6.1 years (SD ⫽ 3.3).
Although a sample size of 20 may seem small, this is the recom-
mended size for an item-sort task, in that it produces reliable
agreement coefficients and correlations exceeding .90 across dif-
ferent population samples (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991).
When participants completed an item-sort task, we provided
them with a definition of ostracism, as well as definitions of other
related constructs, and asked them to sort a list of scale items
according to which construct each scale item appeared to be
assessing. Items that are assigned to their correct constructs dem-
onstrate higher levels of substantive validity than do items that are
assigned to incorrect constructs. In addition to the definition of
ostracism, we provided definitions for the related constructs of
interpersonal justice (e.g., “To what extent has your supervisor
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
treated you with dignity”; Colquitt, 2001), workplace bullying
(e.g., “Spread false rumors about your work performance”; Fox &
Stallworth, 2005), workplace aggression (e.g., “Attacked you with
a weapon”; Neuman & Baron, 1998), and social undermining (e.g.,
“How often have coworkers not given as much help as they
promised”; Duffy et al., 2002). These constructs were chosen
because, in the case of the undermining, aggression, and bullying
scales, each contained items that we had included in our pool of
ostracism items in the item-generation stage. Thus, we wanted to
ensure that these items better reflected ostracism, in comparison to
the original scale constructs from which they were taken (for
item-sort purposes, we considered the items taken from other
scales to reflect ostracism, rather than the construct they were
originally intended to measure). Interpersonal justice was included
as a construct, as it taps into a similar construct (interactions with
others) and is commonly used by organizational psychologists.
We used two indices suggested by Anderson and Gerbing
(1991) to assess the substantive validity of the scale items: the
proportion of substantive agreement (PSA), which assesses the
proportion of respondents who assign an item to its intended
construct, and the coefficient of substantive validity (CSV), which
represents the extent to which respondents assign an item to its
intended construct more than to any other construct. The latter
coefficient can be tested for statistical significance to determine
whether the number of respondents who assign the item to its
intended construct can be accounted for by random chance alone.3
Results. The PSA and CSV coefficients should be used in a
comparative manner to retain a subset of items with the largest
values (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). Thus, to balance substantive
validity and scale economy, we retained items with PSA ⱖ.95 and
CSV ⱖ.90. The resulting scale contained 13 items (see Appendix).
All of the items were significantly assigned to the ostracism
construct beyond chance levels.
Item Reduction: Frequency Analysis
Having established the substantive validity of our 13-item scale,
we sought to ensure that the items listed actually occurred in the
workplace. It was entirely possible that some of our items de-
scribed situations that, although consistent with the definition of
ostracism, either never occur in the workplace or occur all the
time. Both of these issues would reduce the overall variability of
our scale and limit its ability to predict outcomes (Hinkin, 1998).
Thus, we conducted a study in which we asked individuals whether
they had experienced the 13 ostracism items in the previous year.
1351
Participants and procedure. We recruited a sample of 99
full-time employees (55 male, 39 female, 5 undeclared) from a
diverse set of occupations (e.g., manager, electrician) using re-
cruitment posters that were placed in public places (e.g., coffee
shops, shopping/grocery stores). The posters contained a link for
the online survey. Participants were employed in various indus-
tries, including sales (18%), financial (12%), education (9%),
arts/entertainment/media (9%), manufacturing (9%), computer
(7%), government (5%), and health care (5%). Participants had a
mean age of 31.7 years (SD ⫽ 9.4 years); they worked an average
of 37.2 hr (SD ⫽ 9.2) per week and had been employed at their
organization for an average of 4.5 years (SD ⫽ 5.9). In exchange
for their participation, they were entered in a drawing for a $75 gift
certificate at a national electronics store. Participants read the 13
ostracism items and used an open-ended scale to indicate how
often each of the items had happened to them in the past year. We
dichotomized responses according to whether or not participants
indicated that they had experienced the behavior. We then dichot-
omized these responses for each scale item to get an indication of
what percentage of the sample had actually experienced the be-
havior at work in the past year.
Results. Two items (“You have been included in conversations
at work” and “You had to be the one to start a conversation in
order to be social at work”) stood out as having relatively high
frequencies. It seemed logical to us that these items would occur to
a majority of individuals in organizations and thus would limit the
variance of our scale. Additionally, given that items with low
variance can negatively impact the predictive ability of a scale
(DeVellis, 1991), we examined the item with the lowest variance
(“Others at work stopped talking to you”). As the goal of any scale
should be to balance domain sampling with scale parsimony
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) and given the high/low variances of the
items in question, we considered whether these three items could
be removed from our scale without sacrifice of content coverage.
As an examination of our scale reveals, each of the three items
dealt with individuals conversing with the target individual, and
other items in the scale (e.g., “Others at work shut you out of the
conversation”) assessed this subject. Thus, we came to the decision
that these three items could be removed from the scale without
sacrificing the content coverage of the scale and that doing so
would be beneficial in terms of increasing the variance of the scale.
The preceding actions resulted in a 10-item scale, which we
termed the Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS). These 10 items
(ranging in occurrence from 20% to 54%) were representative of
the ostracism construct, in that they tapped into the notion of being
3
The formula for PSA is PSA ⫽ nc/N, where nc represents the number
of participants who assign an item to its posited construct and N is the total
number of participants. CSV is calculated using the formula CSV ⫽
(nc ⫺ no)/N, where nc and N are as previously defined and no refers to the
highest number of assignments of the item to any other construct in the set
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). To test whether an item’s CSV is significant,
one must determine the minimum value that the CSV could have if random
chance alone still could not account for the number of assignments that an
item had received to its posited construct. Any CSV higher than this value
would indicate that chance could not account for this number of assign-
ments. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test can be used to determine the
minimum value. A more thorough description of this procedure can be
found in Anderson and Gerbing (1991).
 1352 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
ignored or excluded at work and also demonstrated acceptable
substantive validity and variability. Having established our scale,
we next assessed its psychometric properties.
Phase 2: Psychometric Properties of the WOS
The psychometric properties of the WOS were evaluated in
terms of its reliability, factor structure, and the extent to which it
is unduly contaminated by method effects, or variables that poten-
tially bias the measurement of a variable due to the method used
(i.e., self-report). In particular, impression management and posi-
tive/negative affectivity have been implicated as potentially im-
portant method effects that influence self-report measures (Tan &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hall, 2005; L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1994; L. J. Williams,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gavin, & Williams, 1996). Impression management, defined as “a
tendency for an individual to present him or herself . . . in a way
that makes the person look positive with regard to culturally
derived norms and standards” (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans,
1983, p. 322), has been argued to potentially create spurious
correlations or to suppress existing correlations between variables.
It could be argued that people would be reluctant to admit to being
ostracized out of fear that their admission would make them appear
badly.
Similarly, positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity
(NA), defined as individual differences in the extent to which
individuals experience chronic positive or negative emotionality,
have been argued to influence self-reports of workplace situations
(Burke, Brief, & George, 1993; Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger,
1987). To ensure that the WOS was not being adversely influenced
by impression management, PA, or NA, we examined the extent to
which the WOS was confounded with these three method effects.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Reliability analyses and confirmatory factor analyses were con-
ducted in four separate samples, and method effects were exam-
ined in Sample 1.
Sample 1. We recruited 295 participants (68% male) from
various occupations (e.g., waiter, sales associate, retail clerk, IT
consultant, general laborer, assistant manager) using posters,
placed in commuter areas (e.g., bus shelters) and public places
(e.g., coffee shops), that invited them to complete an online survey.
They were employed in various industries, including sales (15%),
computer (12%), financial (8%), education (8%), government
(6%), manufacturing (5%), health care (5%), and food services
(5%). Participants had a mean age of 30.1 years (SD ⫽ 9.4); they
worked an average of 36.9 hr (SD ⫽ 11.4) per week and had been
employed at their organization for an average of 4.5 years (SD ⫽
10.1). In exchange for their participation, they were entered in a
drawing with a 1-in-20 chance of winning a $75 gift certificate for
a national electronics store. Participants completed the WOS, an
impression management scale, and the Positive and Negative Af-
fect Schedule (PANAS;Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) online.
Sample 2. We recruited an independent sample of 161 partic-
ipants, employed in various occupations (e.g., sales, data analyst,
secretary, attorney, store manager, engineer), using newspaper ads
and recruitment posters placed in commuter areas and other public
places. An initial examination for outliers revealed two multivar-
iate outliers, as indexed by Mahalanobis distance (following cur-
rent recommendations, we employed a conservative standard of
p ⬍ .001; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Given that multivariate
outliers can have undue influence, creating both Type I and Type
II errors, and that the number of outliers was extremely small, we
deleted these cases. We also removed 5 participants with incom-
plete data, leaving a final sample of 154 individuals (66% female).
Participants were employed in various industries, including fi-
nance (16%), education (15%), health care (11%), government
(10%), manufacturing (10%), computer (8%), and sales (6%). The
mean age of participants was 37.4 years (SD ⫽ 10.8); they worked
an average of 41.4 hr (SD ⫽ 6.1) per week and had been employed
at their job for an average of 7.0 years (SD ⫽ 8.7). In exchange for
their participation, they were given a 1-in-20 chance at winning a
$50 cash prize. Participants completed a short online survey con-
taining the WOS. The survey contained other measures for
criterion-related validity purposes (see Table 1 for a complete
listing of scales included).
Sample 3. We recruited an independent sample of 140 partic-
ipants, employed in diverse occupations (e.g., consultant, office
clerk, graphic designer, systems analyst, operations manager),
using posters placed in commuter areas and other public places.
Two multivariate outliers as indexed by Mahalanobis distance
were detected and removed. We also removed 9 participants who
had provided incomplete data, leaving a final sample of 129
individuals (60% female). Participants were employed in various
industries, including financial (15%), computer (12%), manufac-
turing (8%), engineering (7%), sales (7%), health care (6%),
office/administrative support (5%), government (5%), and arts/
entertainment/media (5%). The mean age of participants was 31.0
years (SD ⫽ 8.4); they worked an average of 41.6 hr (SD ⫽ 7.8)
per week and had been employed at their current job for an average
of 5.1 years (SD ⫽ 5.0). Participants completed a short online
survey containing the WOS and were compensated $10 for their
time.
Sample 4. We recruited an independent sample of 131 partic-
ipants, representing diverse occupations (e.g., accountant, nurse,
bank teller, sales manager), using posters placed on online forums.
We removed 6 participants who had provided incomplete data,
leaving a final sample of 125 individuals (55% male). Participants
were employed in various industries, including sales (13%), finan-
cial (12%), health care (10%), manufacturing (9%), computers
(8%), government (7%), construction (7%), and education (6%).
The mean age of participants was 34.1 years (SD ⫽ 9.9); they
worked an average of 40.8 hr (SD ⫽ 6.6) per week and had been
employed at their current job for an average of 4.8 years (SD ⫽
6.3). Participants were compensated $10 for their time and were
entered in a drawing to win one of two $200 cash prizes. Partic-
ipants completed a short online survey that contained the WOS.
The survey contained other measures for criterion-related validity
purposes (see Table 1 for a complete listing of the scales included).
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all ratings in this article were made with
a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree and 7 ⫽ strongly agree).
WOS. We measured workplace ostracism with the 10-item
scale developed in Phase 1 (see Appendix).
 OSTRACISM 1353

Table 1
Overview of Measures Used in Each Sample

Measure (source) Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

WOS X X X X
Undermining (Duffy et al., 2002) X
POS (R. Eisenberger et al., 1986) X
PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) X
Impression management (Paulhus, 1991) X
Environmental policies Xa
Needs (K. D. Williams et al., 2000) Xa
Depression (Caplan et al., 1980) Xa
Anxiety (House & Rizzo, 1972) Xb
Job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) Xb
Job satisfaction (Rosen et al., 2006) Xa
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997) X

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

In-role behavior (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991) Xc

Citizenship behavior (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991) Xc
Deviant behavior (Aquino et al., 1999) Xc
Deviant behavior (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) Xa X
Turnover intentions (Wayne et al., 1997) Xa
Job search behaviors (Blau, 1994) Xa
LMX (Graen et al., 1982) X
Group cohesion (Seashore, 1954) X
Interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001) X
Perceived coworker OCB norms X

Note. WOS ⫽ Workplace Ostracism Scale; POS ⫽ perceived organizational support; PANAS ⫽ Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule; LMX ⫽ leader–member exchange.
a
Scale was assessed in a 5-month follow-up of a subset of Sample 1 participants. b Sample 2 scale was
assessed with significant-other reports. c Sample 3 scale was assessed with work-peer reports.

Impression management. We used Paulhus’s (1991) 20-item
Impression Management Scale to assess impression management
(␣ ⫽ .79; Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, & Paulhus, 1998). This scale
has been used extensively in organizational research (see Li &
Bagger, 2006); it assesses construct validity and reliability
(Paulhus, 1991). Participants responded to questions such as
“I sometimes tell lies if I have to.”
PANAS. We used Watson, Clark, and Tellegen’s (1988) 20-
item PANAS scale to assess trait PA (␣ ⫽ .82) and NA (␣ ⫽ .89).
These scales have been extensively validated (see Watson et al.,
1988) and are the measures most commonly used for assessment of
PA and NA in organizational research (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky,
Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Participants used 5-point scales
(1 ⫽ very slightly or not at all to 5 ⫽ extremely) to indicate how
they generally felt (e.g., enthusiastic, proud).
Analytic Strategy
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed for each sample
with AMOS 7.0. Given that the WOS was created a priori to assess
a single underlying factor, we tested a hypothesized unitary factor
structure, with all WOS scale items loading on a single latent
factor. We used Hu and Bentler’s (1999) two-index presentation
strategy, which suggests assessing model fit with the standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and the comparative fit index
(CFI). According to Hu and Bentler, values approaching .95 for the
CFI and values no higher than .08 for the SRMR indicate good
model fit.
We followed established procedures for testing for method
effects with latent variable modeling (L. J. Williams & Anderson,
1994). Briefly, these tests involve comparing the fit of what is
termed the baseline model with that of a confounded measurement
model. For the baseline model, a given latent method effect vari-
able (e.g., impression management) is modeled as having no
relation to the latent variable representing the WOS. The con-
founded measurement model differs from the baseline model in
that it adds paths from the latent method effect variable to the
indicators of the WOS latent variable (i.e., the method effect is
allowed to “confound” measurement of the WOS). A significant
improvement in chi-square from the baseline model to the con-
founded measurement model suggests the presence of method
effects, in that the data are better represented by allowing the
method effect to influence the WOS at the measurement (i.e.,
indicator) level. Should the confounded measurement model pro-
vide a significantly better fit than does the baseline model, one can
estimate the variance the latent method effect accounts for in the
indicators of the WOS by squaring the path estimates from the
latent method effect variable to the indicators of the WOS. (For a
more complete description of the procedures for detecting method
effects, the interested reader is referred to L. J. Williams and
Anderson, 1994, or L. J. Williams et al., 1996.) We estimated
baseline models (and their associated confounded measurement
models) separately for each method effect (i.e., impression man-
agement, PA, and NA).
Results
Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The coefficient alpha reliability estimates were .89, .93, .96, and
.94 for Samples 1 through 4, respectively. The average corrected
item–total correlations ranged from .65 to .86, with a mean of .75
 1354 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
across the four samples. Moreover, all interitem correlations were
positively intercorrelated. Taken as a whole, the alphas, corrected
item–total correlations, and interitem correlations indicated that
the WOS possesses adequate internal reliability (Cortina, 1993).
The confirmatory factor analyses in all four samples supported
the factor structure of the WOS. Meeting conventional cutoff
criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999), CFI values ranged between .94 and
.98 (average CFI ⫽ .96) and SRMR values ranged between .03 and
.04 (average SRMR ⫽ .04) across the four samples. The average
chi-square across the samples was 90.7 (with 35 degrees of free-
dom). All scale items significantly ( p ⬍ .001) loaded on the latent
ostracism variable. Factor loadings ranged from .50 to .93 across
the samples (average factor loading across the samples was .78);
all of these loadings surpassed the conventional cutoff value of .40
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Hinkin, 1998). Thus, the results of the factor analyses indicated
that, across four different samples, a single underlying factor
provided a good fit to the data.
Method Effects
The correlations between the WOS and impression manage-
ment, PA, and NA are presented in Table 2. The WOS was uncor-
related with impression management and correlated significantly with
positive and negative affectivity.4 Paralleling the correlational results,
there was no significant chi-square change between the baseline
model and the impression-management-confounded measurement
model, ⌬␹2(10, N ⫽ 264 ) ⫽ 13.6, p ⬎ .05, which indicated that
impression management did not influence the measurement of the
WOS. However, there were significant chi-square changes between
the baseline model and the PA-confounded-measurement model,
⌬␹2(10, N ⫽ 274) ⫽ 25.8, p ⬍ .05, and the NA-confounded-
measurement model, ⌬␹2(10, N ⫽ 280) ⫽ 41.6, 1, p ⬍ .05; these
results suggest that PA and NA do influence the measurement of
the WOS. We next examined the magnitude of the influence of
PA/NA method bias by squaring the paths from the method factor
to the WOS indicators. The results indicated that PA accounted for
less than 4% and NA accounted for approximately 5% of the
systematic variance; both effects are small. These results are
consistent with those of other investigations of method effects
(e.g., Keeping & Levy, 2000; Munz, Huelsman, Konold, &
McKinney, 1996; L. J. Williams et al., 1996), which have con-
cluded that, although method effects may exist, the size of the
effects is essentially negligible.5 Taken together with the lack of
impression management method effects, these results support the
psychometric properties of the WOS in that the scale is not unduly
confounded with method effects.
Phase 3: Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Part of developing the nomological network around the ostra-
cism construct involves examination of the relation of ostracism
with similar and dissimilar constructs, or convergent and discrimi-
nant validity. Convergent validity represents the extent to which a
scale relates to other measures of the construct or similar con-
structs; discriminant validity represents the extent to which a scale
demonstrates low or null correlations with dissimilar measures
(Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Hinkin, 1998). The fact that no other
measure of ostracism (workplace or otherwise) currently exists
renders that aspect of convergent validity potentially problematic;
however, there are a number of constructs that assess negative
interactions in the workplace, to which one would expect ostracism
to be related. One such construct is social undermining (Duffy et
al., 2002). Social undermining is defined as “behavior intended to
hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive
interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable
reputation” (Duffy et al., 2002, p. 332). Ostracism can be classified
as a form of social undermining, as it inhibits positive interper-
sonal relationships and is associated with an unfavorable reputa-
tion. Indeed, the social undermining scale includes an item that
could be classified as assessing ostracism. However, ostracism is
separate from other undermining behaviors, as it represents a
unique form of undermining in which members of the group do not
communicate with the individual. Moreover, although undermin-
ing must be perceived as intended to hinder an individual’s ad-
vancement in the organization, one can use ostracism to punish an
individual without necessarily intending to hinder his or her ad-
vancement. Thus, we expected that ostracism would relate to
undermining, in that it might co-occur with other undermining
behaviors, but that ostracism and undermining would not correlate
excessively highly.
Another construct to which ostracism should relate is interper-
sonal justice, which represents the extent to which the individual is
treated with respect and propriety (Colquitt, 2001). When one is
ostracized, one presumably believes that such treatment is unwar-
ranted and disrespectful. (Indeed, ostracism is posited to influence
the individual’s sense of a meaningful existence; it is unlikely that
treatment that causes one to question one’s existence could be
deemed respectful.) Thus, we would expect that feelings of inter-
personal injustice should co-occur with ostracism. However, the
two constructs remain separate, in that the WOS measures a subset
of the behaviors that can lead to the perception that one is being
treated unjustly. That is, ostracism is best conceptualized as an
antecedent of perceptions of interpersonal justice. Moreover, os-
tracism is not the same as interpersonal justice, as ostracism is not
the sole manner in which individuals can be treated with disrespect.
For example, they may be subjected to improper remarks or com-
ments (Colquitt, 2001); even if such remarks resulted in perceptions
4
As seen in Table 1, the size of the correlations between the WOS and
PA/NA were similar in magnitude to the size of the correlations between
PA/NA and other established scales that were measured at the same time
(e.g., social undermining and perceived organizational support; these con-
structs are discussed in Phase 3: Convergent and Discriminant Validity).
5
Seeking further evidence that the effects of PA and NA are negligible,
we compared the fit of the confounded measurement model with that of a
third model, which, like the confounded measurement model, had paths
freed from the method effect to the WOS scale indicators. However, in the
third model we also fixed the factor loadings from the latent WOS factor
to its indicators to be equivalent to the values estimated from the baseline
model. This approach determined whether the method effect biased the
measurement of the WOS items from the baseline model values (adapted
from Williams et al., 1996). For comparisons involving both the PA and
NA method effects, the change in fit of the models was not significant. This
result indicates that, although PA and NA may account for some variance
in the WOS scale items, this variance does not significantly bias the WOS
factor loadings from the baseline model (which assumes no method ef-
fects). More details on these analyses can be obtained from D. Lance
Ferris.
 OSTRACISM 1355

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Zero Order Correlations, and Alphas for Sample 1

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age (years) 30.14 9.39

2. Gender 0.32 0.45 0.21ⴱⴱ
3. WOS 1.61 0.62 0.06 0.07 0.89
4. Social undermining 1.55 0.65 ⫺0.09 0.02 0.56ⴱⴱ 0.93
5. Impression management 4.11 0.83 0.17ⴱⴱ ⫺0.08 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.12ⴱ 0.79
6. NA 2.12 0.73 ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ 0.07 0.27ⴱⴱ 0.27ⴱⴱ ⫺0.24ⴱⴱ 0.89
7. PA 3.26 0.57 0.01 0.08 ⫺0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.27ⴱⴱ 0.17ⴱⴱ ⫺0.17ⴱⴱ 0.82
8. POS 4.40 1.25 ⫺0.05 0.02 ⫺0.39ⴱⴱ ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ 0.11 ⫺0.25ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.93

Note. n ranges from 283 to 295; alphas are on the diagonal in bold. For gender, 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. WOS ⫽ Workplace Ostracism Scale; NA ⫽
negative affectivity; PA ⫽ positive affectivity; POS ⫽ perceived organizational support.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of interpersonal injustice, the experience would be antithetical to that
of ostracism.
When creating a new measure that assesses negative interper-
sonal behaviors, one needs to establish that the new scale does not
simply reflect a lack of other, positive interpersonal behaviors or
relationships (Duffy et al., 2002). In this sense, it is important to
differentiate ostracism from perceived organizational support
(POS), which represents employees’ beliefs regarding the extent to
which the organization cares about the employees’ well-being (R.
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002), and leader–member exchange (LMX), or the
quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and his or
her follower (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien; 1995).
Ostracism is undoubtedly associated with a lack of support in the
workplace or poor relations, but it is not synonymous with these
constructs. For example, it is possible that one could receive low
levels of support from coworkers but at the same time not be
ostracized (e.g., if the coworkers are too busy to help out). Simi-
larly, poor relationships can result from a host of factors (e.g., lack
of trust) other than ostracism. That is, you can have a bad rela-
tionship with your leader without the leader ostracizing you. Thus,
although we expected that ostracism would relate negatively to
perceptions of support and LMX, we expected that they would
remain differentiable constructs.
Finally, ostracism should also relate to perceptions of group-
level phenomenon, such as norms for how individuals treat each
other and perceptions of the cohesiveness of their work group.
Group organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) norms reflect
guidelines for the performance of behaviors that enhance the social
environment in which employees work (e.g., “Members of my
group advocate the importance of helping fellow coworkers”;
Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004, p. 962). Groups that help out fellow
employees should be less likely to engage in ostracizing behavior;
however, although a group’s norms may not proscribe individuals
helping one another out, this does not imply that individuals will
necessarily ostracize each other instead. Rather, there simply may
not be a widespread belief or practice (i.e., a norm) of assisting
individuals.
Group cohesion is characterized by interpersonal attraction,
commitment to group tasks, and pride in the group (Mullen &
Copper, 1994). Those who are ostracized are likely to feel low
levels of group cohesion, as ostracism can influence sense of
belonging and, thus, identification with and pride in a group
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Similarly, ostracized individuals are less
likely to perceive their group members as being friendly, overall.
However, ostracism is not synonymous with group cohesion, in
that members of groups that are not cohesive need not be ostra-
cizing one another; instead, they may dislike or feel apathetic
toward each other or they may display low commitment and pride
in their group.
Given that ostracism can occur across the life span (K. D.
Williams, 1997), we expected that a valid measure of ostracism
would be unrelated to an individual’s age.6 Finally, we also ex-
pected that ostracism would be unrelated to one’s perception of the
government’s environmental policies. Given that perceptions of
government environmental policies represent a variable that is
conceptually and theoretically unrelated to ostracism, if a null
relation between the two constructs were supported, the case for
the discriminant validity of the WOS would be further supported.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were the individuals from Samples 1 through 4 and
are discussed in Phase 2. We calculated the correlations between
age and ostracism for all four samples. For Sample 1, participants
completed measures of POS and social undermining in the same
survey as the WOS. Additionally, a subset of individuals from
Sample 1 (described more fully in Phase 4) completed a measure
assessing their views on their government’s environmental policies
5 months after they had completed the WOS (see Table 1 for a
listing of other scales completed). Finally, approximately 2 days
after they had completed the WOS, participants in Sample 4 were
sent a link to an online survey that contained measures of inter-
personal justice, LMX, group cohesion, and OCB norms. Of the
6
One may also expect that ostracism would be unrelated to gender.
However, individuals who are demographically different from the majority
in their workplace may be excluded, or may perceive they are being
excluded, by demographically different others. As we did not assess this
possibility directly, we chose not to use gender as a variable for discrimi-
nant validity. In our own data, ostracism was not significantly related to
gender in Sample 1 (r ⫽ ⫺. 06, p ⬎. 05), Sample 3 (r ⫽ ⫺. 05, p ⬎. 05),
or Sample 4 (r ⫽ ⫺. 04, p ⬎. 05) but was significantly related to gender
in Sample 2 (r ⫽ ⫺. 18, p ⬍.05).
 1356 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
original 131 participants, 111 completed the follow-up survey.
Those who completed the follow-up survey did not differ from the
original 131 participants in terms of ostracism levels, t(131) ⫽
⫺.51, p ⬎ .05.
Measures
WOS. We measured workplace ostracism with the scale de-
scribed in Phase 1.
POS. We used the 9-item version of N. I. Eisenberger et al.’s
(1986) Perceived Organizational Support Scale (␣ ⫽ .93). Partic-
ipants responded to items such as “Help is available from the
organization when I have a problem.”
Social undermining. We used Duffy et al.’s (2002) 12-item
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Co-worker Undermining Scale (␣ ⫽ .93).7 Participants were asked
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
how often they had experienced a variety of behaviors from their
coworkers (e.g., “Spread rumors about you”) on a 7-point scale
(1 ⫽ never to 7 ⫽ everyday).
Interpersonal justice. We used Colquitt’s (2001) four-item
measure of interpersonal justice. Participants were asked whether
they were treated with dignity, respect, and politeness and if
coworkers refrained from improper remarks or comments (see
Colquitt, 2001). They replied on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ To a small
extent to 5 ⫽ To a large extent; ␣ ⫽ .94).
Leader–member exchange. We used the seven-item LMX-7
scale (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982). Participants used a
4-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ not at all to 4 ⫽ completely) to respond
to questions such as “How well do you feel that your immediate
supervisor understands your problems and needs?” (␣ ⫽ .91).
Group cohesion. We used Seashore’s (1954) four-item mea-
sure of group cohesion. Participants used a 4-point Likert scale
(1 ⫽ Not very good to 4 ⫽ Great, couldn’t be better) to evaluate
their work group in terms of, for example, “the way employees get
along with each other” and “the way employees stick together”
(␣ ⫽ .91).
Perceived coworker OCB norms. We adapted L. J. Williams
and Anderson’s (1991) OCB measure to assess participants’ per-
ceptions of descriptive work group norms. Participants were asked
to indicate, regardless of how they themselves were treated,
whether their coworkers engaged in five OCBs (e.g., “Members of
my team help fellow co-workers when needed,” “Members of my
team take the time to listen to each other’s problems and worries”;
␣ ⫽ .86).
Perception of government environmental policies. A four-item
semantic differential scale assessed perceptions of the govern-
ment’s environmental policies along four dimensions (good– bad,
wise–foolish, beneficial– harmful, useful– useless; ␣ ⫽ .92).
Scores on each dimension ranged from 1 to 5; higher scores
indicated more negative perceptions toward government environ-
mental policies.
Analytic Strategy
Although it is important to demonstrate convergent validity via
high relations between two constructs, it is also important to
demonstrate that constructs do not converge to the point of being
redundant. Thus, we assessed convergent and discriminant validity
in three ways. First, the significance of the zero-order correlations
between the various scales was examined. Any construct that was
significantly related to ostracism was subjected to confirmatory
factor analyses. Here, we assessed whether a single-factor model
(for which the covariance between the latent ostracism and other
construct factor was set to 1.0) provided a better fit to the data than
did a two-factor model for which the latent ostracism and other
construct factor were allowed to covary freely. If the chi-square
were significantly worse for the single-factor model than for the
two-factor model, this would suggest that the proper way to model
the scale items would be as loading on two separate latent factors;
in turn, this result would suggest that ostracism is distinguishable
from the other construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Finally,
drawing on the results of the confirmatory factor analyses, we used
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test to see if two constructs are
separate. This test states that two constructs are considered sepa-
rate when the average squared factor loading of each indicator on
its respective latent construct is higher than is the shared variance
(i.e., squared correlation) between the two latent constructs.
Results and Discussion
Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 present the correlations between ostracism
and age for Samples 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Table 2 also
contains the correlations between ostracism, undermining, and
POS; Table 6 contains the correlation between ostracism and
perceptions of government environmental policies; and Table 5
contains the correlations between ostracism and LMX, interper-
sonal justice, group cohesion, and perceived coworker OCB norms.
As can be seen, ostracism was significantly related to undermining
(r ⫽ .56, p ⬍ .01), POS (r ⫽ ⫺.39, p ⬍ .01), interpersonal justice
(r ⫽ ⫺.62, p ⬍ .01), LMX (r ⫽ ⫺.43, p ⬍ .01), group cohesion (r ⫽
⫺.53, p ⬍ .01), and perceived OCB norms (r ⫽ ⫺.63, p ⬍ .01) but
was unrelated to perceptions of government policies (r ⫽ .10, p ⬎
.10) or age (rs ⫽ ⫺.06, ⫺.11, ⫺.01, and ⫺.08 for Samples 1 through
4, respectively, all ps ⬎ .10).
We next conducted confirmatory factor analyses to ensure the
WOS was separable from the six constructs with which it did
correlate significantly (undermining, POS, interpersonal justice,
LMX, group cohesion, and perceived OCB norms). For all six
constructs, a two-factor model provided a significantly better fit
than did a model for which the variance between the two latent
factors was set to 1.0: undermining, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 251) ⫽ 132.6;
POS, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 251) ⫽ 221.0; interpersonal justice, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽
101) ⫽139.6; LMX, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 102) ⫽ 182.2; group cohesion,
⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 102) ⫽ 259.3; perceived OCB norms, (1, N ⫽ 104) ⫽
131.4; all ps ⬍ .05. This result suggests that the WOS is a separate
construct from undermining, POS, interpersonal justice, LMX,
group cohesion, and perceived OCB norms. Similarly, the results
of the Fornell and Larcker (1981) test suggested that the average
squared factor loadings of the scale items on their respective
constructs were higher than was the shared variance between the
constructs (0.52 vs. 0.35 for the WOS and undermining, 0.57 vs.
0.16 for POS, 0.71 vs. 0.42 for interpersonal justice, 0.61 vs. 0.21
for LMX, 0.68 vs. 0.34 for group cohesion, and 0.60 vs. 0.48 for
7
For all analyses involving undermining in the present study, the item
“Gave you the silent treatment” from the original undermining scale was
removed, as this item was deemed to reflect ostracism (see Phase 1, Item
Generation).
 OSTRACISM 1357

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Zero Order Correlations, and Alphas for Sample 2

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age (years) 37.44 10.83 —

2. Gender 0.66 0.48 0.03 —
3. WOS 1.51 0.77 ⫺0.11 ⫺0.18ⴱ 0.93
4. Affective commitment 4.46 1.39 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.10 ⫺0.24ⴱⴱ 0.86
5. Job satisfaction 3.74 0.85 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.16ⴱ ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ 0.61ⴱⴱ 0.93
6. Job satisfaction (significant other) 3.53 0.97 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.16 ⫺0.33ⴱⴱ 0.46ⴱⴱ 0.69ⴱⴱ 0.95
7. Anxiety 3.18 0.82 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.11 0.26ⴱⴱ ⫺0.12 ⫺0.31ⴱⴱ ⫺0.27ⴱⴱ 0.84
8. Anxiety (significant other) 2.84 0.80 0.06 ⫺0.07 0.24ⴱⴱ ⫺0.13 ⫺0.27ⴱⴱ ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ 0.34ⴱⴱ 0.85
9. Organizational deviant behaviors 1.99 0.94 ⫺0.23ⴱⴱ ⫺0.29ⴱⴱ 0.61ⴱⴱ ⫺0.25ⴱⴱ ⫺0.43ⴱⴱ ⫺0.51ⴱⴱ 0.25ⴱⴱ 0.20ⴱ 0.88
10. Interpersonal deviant behaviors 1.74 0.96 ⫺0.22ⴱⴱ ⫺0.32ⴱⴱ 0.62ⴱⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱ ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ ⫺0.28ⴱⴱ 0.26ⴱⴱ 0.11 0.73ⴱⴱ 0.87
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. n ranges from 129 to 154; alphas are in boldface. For gender, 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. WOS ⫽ Workplace Ostracism Scale.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

perceived OCB norms). As do the results of the confirmatory
factor analyses, this suggests that the constructs are separate. In
summary, the results presented in this phase support the conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the WOS insomuch as the WOS
was shown to be highly related to, yet discriminant from, under-
mining, LMX, interpersonal justice, POS, group cohesion, and
perceived coworker OCB norms and was unrelated to age and
perceptions of government environmental policies.
experimental studies that have manipulated levels of ostracism
(e.g., K. D. Williams et al., 2002; Zadro et al., 2004), but evidence
of the long-term impact of ostracism is scant. However, it has been
proposed that exposure to ostracism will result in internalization of
the threats to these needs in the form of lower trait levels of
self-esteem, belongingness, control, and a meaningful existence
(K. D. Williams, 1997). Thus, to the extent that the WOS possesses
criterion-related validity, we hypothesized the following:

Phase 4: Criterion-Related Validity Hypothesis 1: Ostracism will be negatively related to levels of

Criterion-related validity, or the extent to which a construct is
related to variables derived from theory, is an important aspect of
construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Hinkin, 1998). Thus,
we sought to establish the beginnings of a nomological network to
further validate our measure of workplace ostracism. In particular,
we focused on five classes of variables with which ostracism
should relate: basic needs, well-being, attitudes, performance, and
withdrawal.
Basic Needs
Ostracism is thought to be an aversive behavior, in that it
threatens the four fundamental needs of belongingness, self-
esteem, control, and a meaningful existence (K. D. Williams,
1997, 2001). Evidence for this assertion has been collected in
self-esteem, belongingness, control, and a meaningful existence.
Well-Being
Well-being is the extent to which one experiences optimal
psychological functioning, broadly defined as subjective feel-
ings of happiness and lack of stress in one’s life (Diener,
Sapyta, & Suh, 1998; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Ostracism should be
related to lower levels of well-being for at least three reasons.
First, as mentioned earlier, being ostracized is a painful and
negative event (N. I. Eisenberger et al., 2003). Given their
relative rarity, negative events have been hypothesized to pro-
duce especially intense emotional and physical reactions, such
as strain (Taylor, 1991). Second, individuals who are ostracized
by definition experience lower levels of social support than do
individuals who are included. Social support has been shown to

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics, Zero Order Correlations, and Alphas for Sample 3

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age (years) 31.12 8.37

2. Gender 0.60 0.49 0.14
3. WOS 1.48 0.74 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.05 0.96
4. Interpersonal deviant behaviors 1.34 0.63 ⫺0.20 ⫺0.14 0.50ⴱⴱ 0.93
5. Organizational deviant behaviors 1.41 0.64 0.00 ⫺0.07 0.28ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.93
6. In-role behavior 4.13 0.56 0.05 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.26ⴱ ⫺0.39ⴱⴱ ⫺0.50ⴱⴱ 0.83
7. OCBI 3.92 0.60 0.12 0.03 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.17 ⫺0.23ⴱ 0.61ⴱⴱ 0.87
8. OCBO 3.93 0.56 0.11 0.06 ⫺0.30ⴱⴱ ⫺0.45ⴱⴱ ⫺0.59ⴱⴱ 0.74ⴱⴱ 0.48ⴱⴱ 0.73

Note. n ⫽ 95; alphas are on the diagonal in boldface. Other than the WOS (Workplace Ostracism Scale) and age, all scales were completed by a work
peer. For gender, 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. OCBI ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior, interpersonal; OCBO ⫽ organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 1358 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics, Zero Order Correlations, and Alphas for Sample 4

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age (years) 34.10 9.86

2. Gender 0.45 0.50 0.26ⴱⴱ
3. WOS 2.30 1.06 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.04 0.94
4. OCB norms 4.37 1.28 ⫺0.06 0.01 ⫺0.63ⴱⴱ 0.86
5. Interpersonal justice 3.38 1.05 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.62ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.94
6. LMX 2.49 0.71 0.03 0.15 ⫺0.43ⴱⴱ 0.47ⴱⴱ 0.51ⴱⴱ 0.91
7. Cohesion 2.49 0.73 0.03 ⫺0.07 ⫺0.53ⴱⴱ 0.69ⴱⴱ 0.69ⴱⴱ 0.53ⴱⴱ 0.91

Note. n ranges from 125 to 110; alphas are on the diagonal in boldface. For gender, 0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female. WOS ⫽ Workplace Ostracism Scale; OCB ⫽
organizational citizenship behavior; LMX ⫽ leader-member exchange.
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

be a critical resource for those combating stressful circum-
stances (Hobfoll, 1989), so we expected that individuals who
were ostracized would show lower levels of well-being. Finally,
being ostracized at work removes not only social support but
more tangible forms of support, as existing stressful circum-
stances can be exacerbated by coworkers who refuse to help out
or provide advice. We therefore hypothesized that ostracism
should be related to poorer well-being, as indexed by an indi-
vidual’s depression and anxiety levels.
Hypothesis 2: Ostracism will be positively related to anxiety
and depression
Attitudes
Attitudes develop through the affect and cognitions associ-
ated with an object (Zanna & Rempel, 1988). Given the social
pain that individuals experience when they are ostracized (N. I.
Eisenberger et al., 2003), ostracism likely results in negative
affect (K. D. Williams et al., 2002). Similarly, exclusion has
been shown to result in more negative cognitive evaluations of
individuals (Twenge et al., 2001). Given the negative affect and
cognitions that ostracism engenders, we expected that ostracism
would be associated with negative workplace attitudes.
To test this idea, we examined two of the most studied attitude
constructs in organizational behavior: job satisfaction and affective
commitment. Job satisfaction has been defined as “a pleasurable or
positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or
job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). The experience of ostra-
cism is essentially antithetical to the experience of job satisfaction,
in that ostracism is neither pleasant nor positive. As such, ostra-
cism should be negatively related to job satisfaction. With respect
to affective commitment, affectively committed individuals iden-
tify with, are involved in, and share the values of an organization
(Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). When individuals are ostracized by
others in the organization, however, their sense of belonging to and
identification with the organization is undermined. Ostracized
individuals do not have the opportunity to create interpersonal ties,
which promote involvement with the organization, and they pre-
sumably perceive being ostracized as going against their general
values. As a result, being ostracized should be related to lower
levels of affective commitment. Taking these ideas together, we
hypothesized as follows:

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics, Zero Order Correlations, and Alphas for Sample 1, 5-Month Follow-Up

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Age (years) 34.16 10.00 0.14 ⫺0.03

2. Gender 0.44 0.50 0.06
3. WOS 1.62 0.62
4. Belongingness 3.61 0.91 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.03 ⫺0.31ⴱ 0.88
5. Meaning 3.61 0.95 ⫺0.01 0.12 ⫺0.31ⴱⴱ 0.88ⴱⴱ 0.91
6. Control 2.98 0.72 ⫺0.05 0.16 ⫺0.27ⴱ 0.68ⴱⴱ 0.74ⴱⴱ 0.71
7. OBSE 3.69 0.71 0.06 0.16 ⫺0.41ⴱⴱ 0.51ⴱⴱ 0.63ⴱⴱ 0.55ⴱⴱ 0.89
8. Depression 3.17 3.17 0.09 0.17 0.37ⴱⴱ ⫺0.57ⴱⴱ ⫺0.59ⴱⴱ ⫺0.44ⴱⴱ ⫺0.54ⴱⴱ 0.88
9. Job satisfaction 3.54 0.97 0.02 0.08 ⫺0.35ⴱⴱ 0.69ⴱⴱ 0.66ⴱⴱ 0.55ⴱⴱ 0.64ⴱⴱ ⫺0.54ⴱⴱ 0.95
10. JSB 2.07 0.82 ⫺0.18 ⫺0.11 0.47ⴱⴱ ⫺0.45ⴱⴱ ⫺0.43ⴱⴱ ⫺0.21 0.35ⴱⴱ 0.29ⴱ ⫺0.46ⴱⴱ 0.89
11. Turnover intentions 3.52 1.56 ⫺0.18 ⫺0.20 0.44ⴱⴱ ⫺0.50ⴱⴱ ⫺0.51ⴱⴱ ⫺0.45ⴱⴱ 0.59ⴱⴱ 0.58ⴱⴱ ⫺0.77ⴱⴱ 0.64ⴱⴱ 0.89
12. OD 1.91 0.71 ⫺0.12 0.10 0.23 ⫺0.23 ⫺0.15 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.17 0.08 ⫺0.25ⴱ 0.28ⴱ 0.29ⴱ 0.79
13. ID 1.53 0.75 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.05 0.23 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.03 0.12 ⫺0.10 0.01 ⫺0.15 0.25ⴱ 0.09 0.57ⴱⴱ 0.86
14. Environmental policies 2.96 0.76 0.07 0.10 0.10 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.09 0.06 ⫺0.38ⴱⴱ 0.13 ⫺0.23 0.08 0.20 0.10 0.19 0.92

Note. N ⫽ 68, alphas are on the diagonal in bold. WOS ⫽ Workplace Ostracism Scale; OBSE ⫽ organization-based self-esteem; JSB ⫽ job search
behaviors; OD ⫽ organizational deviance; ID ⫽ interpersonal deviance.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 OSTRACISM
Hypothesis 3: Ostracism will be negatively related to job
satisfaction and affective commitment.
Performance
Modern conceptualizations of job performance suggest that
overall job performance is best captured by examining three types
of behavior: in-role behavior, OCB, and deviant behavior (Dalal,
2005; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000).
Given the negative impact of ostracism on self-regulatory ability
(Baumeister et al., 2005), we expected that ostracism would be
related to each of these aspects of job performance.
In-role behavior refers to work-related duties and responsibili-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ties that are usually contained within a formal job description
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Murphy, 1989; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). OCB differs from
in-role performance in that OCB is behavior that is not part of a
formal job description (Katz, 1964) but that contributes positively
to the social and psychological environment of the organization
(Organ, 1988; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Van Dyne, Cummings, &
Parks, 1995). Although in-role behavior and OCB differ in terms
of their role definitions, both forms of behavior require individuals
to regulate themselves in order to maintain the persistence and
effort needed to perform tasks and/or maintain the image of good
organizational citizens (Bolino, 1999; Latham & Pinder, 2005).
In contrast, deviant behavior, defined as behavior that contra-
venes organizational norms (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), can be
interpreted as a lack of self-control or self-regulation (Baumeister
& Heatherton, 1996; Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Deviant behavior,
like self-regulation failure, reflects a focus on the short-term ben-
efits of one’s actions without consideration of the long-term con-
sequences (Baumeister & Scher, 1988). Thus, given that ostracism
impairs the individual’s ability to self-regulate (Baumeister et al.,
2005), we predicted that this self-regulation failure in the work-
place would manifest in lower levels of in-role performance and
OCB and increased levels of deviant behavior. More formally, we
hypothesized as follows:
Hypothesis 4: Ostracism will be negatively related to in-role
performance and OCB and will be positively related to devi-
ant behavior.
Withdrawal
Finally, another reaction to being ostracized would be to avoid
the source of the ostracism. For the individual, withdrawing from
the situation can represent an adaptive response to protect psycho-
logical needs and avoid the pain associated with ostracism. For
members of organizations, withdrawal can be manifested in
thoughts and behaviors associated with planning to leave the
organization. Thinking about leaving is reflected in turnover in-
tentions, or the extent to which the individual is mentally consid-
ering leaving the organization (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Planning
to leave the organization is reflected in job search behaviors, such
as preparing résumés, going on interviews, and scanning the clas-
sified ads (Blau, 1994). We hypothesized as follows:
Hypothesis 5: Ostracism will be positively related to turnover
intentions and job search behaviors.
1359
Method
Participants and Procedure
The participants were the individuals (or subset of individuals)
from Samples 1, 2, and 3 from Phase 2, with the differences
outlined below. Table 1 illustrates which samples included which
measures for criterion-related validity purposes.
Sample 1. The initial ostracism measure was completed by
295 participants. Of these, we invited 144 individuals who had
agreed to complete a follow-up study to participate in a second
survey 5 months later. Participants were entered in a drawing with
a 1-in-20 chance of winning a $75 gift certificate at a national
electronics store. We had an initial response rate of 67% (96
participants), although after we screened individuals who had
changed jobs in the intervening 5 months, we were left with 68
participants. Our final sample and the original 295 participants did
not differ in terms of ostracism levels.
Sample 2. Participants from Sample 2 completed other scales
for criterion-related purposes (see Table 1) at the same time that
they completed the ostracism measure. We also asked the original
142 participants to nominate a significant other (someone who
knew them well) to complete a separate survey. Significant others
were contacted via e-mail with a link to a separate online survey;
reminder e-mails were sent after 1 and 2 weeks (Dillman, 2000).
Of the significant others contacted, 123 responded and provided
matched data for our analyses. Significant others who participated
were entered in a drawing for one of two $50 cash prizes.
Sample 3. To get objective reports of the work behavior of
focal participants, we asked our 140 participants in Sample 3 to
provide us with the contact information for a work peer (someone
who worked under the same supervisor as themselves). Work peers
were contacted via e-mail with a link to a separate online survey;
reminder e-mails were sent after 1 and 2 weeks (Dillman, 2000). In
total, 95 work peers completed the survey; each was given $10 in
compensation.
Measures
WOS. We measured workplace ostracism with the 10-item
scale developed in Phase 1.
Needs. We adapted van Beest and Williams’s (2006) 15-item
needs measure (5 items per need) to assess sense of belonging
(e.g., “I feel like I belong to my work group”; ␣ ⫽ .88), control
(e.g., “I feel I have the ability to significantly alter events at work”;
␣ ⫽ .71), and meaningful existence (e.g., “I feel non-existent at
work”; ␣ ⫽ .91) on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).
Self-esteem was measured with a 5-item organization-based self-
esteem measure (e.g., “I make a difference around here”; Van
Dyne & Pierce, 2004; ␣ ⫽ .89) rated on a scale of 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Depression. Depression was assessed with Caplan, Cobb,
French, Van Harrison, and Pinneau’s (1980) five-item depression
scale (␣ ⫽ .88). Participants indicated the extent to which they felt
sad, unhappy, good, depressed, blue, and cheerful along a 4-point
scale (1 ⫽ Never or a little of the time to 4 ⫽ Most of the time).
Anxiety. We used House and Rizzo’s (1972) seven-item Job-
Induced Anxiety Scale (␣ ⫽ .84). Participants responded to ques-
tions such as “I have felt nervous before attending meetings.”
 1360 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with the five-
item Brayfield and Rothe (1951) measure (in Sample 2; ␣ ⫽ .93)
and with three items from the Michigan Organizational Assess-
ment Questionnaire (in Sample 1 follow-up; Rosen, Levy, & Hall,
2006; ␣ ⫽ .95). For each item, participants were asked to indicate
their agreement along a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to
5 ⫽ strongly agree) with items such as “All in all, I am satisfied
with my job” (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006) and “I find real
enjoyment in my work” (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951).
Affective commitment. We used Meyer and Allen’s (1997)
six-item affective commitment measure (e.g., “My organization
has a great deal of personal meaning for me”; ␣ ⫽ .86; Brown,
Ferris, Heller, & Keeping, 2007).
In-role behavior and OCB. We used L. J. Williams and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Anderson’s (1991) scales for in-role behavior and OCB: a seven-
item OCB scale with individuals as the target (e.g., “Help others
who have been absent”; ␣ ⫽ .87); a seven-item OCB scale with the
organization as the target (e.g., “Conserves and protects organiza-
tional property”; ␣ ⫽ .73); and a seven-item scale of in-role
behavior (e.g., “Fulfills responsibilities specified in job descrip-
tion”; ␣ ⫽ .83).
Deviant behaviors. We used Bennett and Robinson’s (2000)
Workplace Deviance Scale to measure organizational deviance (16
items, e.g., “Intentionally work slower than you could have
worked”; ␣ ⫽ .93) and interpersonal deviance (8 items, e.g.,
“Made fun of someone at work”; ␣ ⫽ .93). Participants indicated
how often they engaged in these behaviors with a 7-point scale
(1 ⫽ never to 7 ⫽ daily).
Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessed with a
five-item scale (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997; ␣ ⫽ .89). Partic-
ipants responded to questions such as “I am seriously thinking
about quitting my job.”
Job search behaviors. We used a seven-item version of Blau’s
(1994) Job Search Behavior Scale (␣ ⫽ .89). For each item,
participants indicated the frequency with which they had per-
formed behaviors (e.g., “Prepared or revised your résumé”) on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 ⫽ never (0 times) to 5 ⫽ very
frequently (at least 10 times).
Results
Tables 3, 4, and 6 present the correlations of our criterion-
related validity variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted that ostracism
would be negatively related to belongingness, self-esteem, control,
and meaningful existence. This hypothesis was supported (see
Table 6), with ostracism being significantly negatively related to
belongingness (r ⫽ ⫺.31, p ⬍ .05), self-esteem (r ⫽ ⫺.41, p ⬍
.01), control (r ⫽ ⫺.27, p ⬍ .05), and meaningful existence (r ⫽
⫺.31, p ⬍ .01).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that ostracism would be negatively re-
lated to well-being. Cross-sectional, multiwave, and multisource
data provided support for this prediction. Ostracism was signifi-
cantly positively related to anxiety (see Table 3), both when
anxiety was self-rated (r ⫽ .26, p ⬍ .01) and when it was rated by
a significant other (r ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01). Ostracism was also signif-
icantly positively related to depression (see Table 6) measured 5
months later (r ⫽ .37, p ⬍ .01).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that ostracism would be negatively re-
lated to job satisfaction and commitment. This hypothesis was
supported: Ostracism was significantly negatively related to self-
rated job satisfaction measured 5 months later (r ⫽ ⫺.35, p ⬍ .01;
see Table 6) and cross sectionally (r ⫽ ⫺.34, p ⬍ .01; see Table
3) and was significantly negatively related to job satisfaction
ratings provided by a significant other (r ⫽ ⫺.33, p ⬍ .01; see
Table 3). Similarly, ostracism was significantly negatively related
to affective commitment (r ⫽ ⫺.24, p ⬍ .01; see Table 3).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that ostracism would be negatively re-
lated to in-role performance and OCB and positively related to
deviant behavior. This hypothesis was largely supported: Ostra-
cism was significantly negatively related to work peer ratings of
the focal participants’ in-role performance (r ⫽ ⫺.26, p ⬍ .05; see
Table 4). Ostracism was unrelated to deviant behavior assessed
after a 5-month interval (organizational and interpersonal devi-
ance, rs ⫽ .23, ps ⬍ .10; see Table 6) but was significantly
positively related to self-rated deviant behavior (organizational
deviance, r ⫽ .61, p ⬍ .01; interpersonal deviance, r ⫽ .62, p ⬍
.01; see Table 3) and work-peer-rated deviant behavior (organiza-
tional deviance, r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01; interpersonal deviance, r ⫽ .50,
p ⬍ .01; see Table 4). Although ostracism was significantly
negatively related to organization-directed citizenship behavior
(r ⫽ ⫺.30, p ⬍ .01; see Table 4), it was not related to interpersonal
citizenship behavior (r ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬎ .10; see Table 4).
Finally, Hypothesis 5 predicted that ostracism would be posi-
tively related to withdrawal. This hypothesis was supported, in that
ostracism was significantly positively related to turnover inten-
tions (r ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .01) and job search behaviors (r ⫽ .47, p ⬍
.01), both of which were measured 5 months later (see Table 6).
Finally, given that we had measured undermining in Sample 1,
we were able to marshal additional supporting evidence that os-
tracism is separable from undermining by examining the variables
each of them had been theorized to impact. Namely, ostracism was
theorized to impact belonging, self-esteem, control, and a mean-
ingful existence, and undermining was not. Consistent with this
theory, undermining was not significantly related to belonging,
control, or a meaningful existence, and most relations between
ostracism and belonging, self-esteem, control, and a meaningful
existence remained significant after we had controlled for under-
mining (control, p ⫽ .07; all other ps ⬍ .05). These results indicate
that though undermining and ostracism may be highly related, they
have separate nomological networks, as one would expect for
unique constructs. We also examined whether controlling for un-
dermining impacted the other significant results between ostracism
and other constructs in this sample; in all cases, ostracism still
demonstrated incremental variance over and above undermining with
variables such as job search behaviors (r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .05), turnover
intentions (r ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .05), and tension (r ⫽ .39, p ⬍ .05).
General Discussion
Despite widespread familiarity with ostracism in everyday life
and increasing evidence that ostracism has a multitude of negative
effects (K. D. Williams, 2007), the concept of ostracism has had
little impact on organizational psychology. Our purpose in the
present study was to create a reliable and valid measure to assess
ostracism in the workplace and assist researchers who are seeking
to examine this important and underresearched area. Our study
included six separate samples, 822 participants, and multiwave and
multisource data. We believe the results presented herein support
 OSTRACISM
the psychometric properties of the WOS. Our results are consistent
with the view that ostracism may have important implications for
both organizations and employees (K. D. Williams, 2001).
Across four separate samples, the psychometric properties of the
WOS were supported, as demonstrated by its good factor structure
and internal consistency and by the minimal impact of method
effects on responses to the WOS. Convergent and discriminant
validity were demonstrated through the relation of the WOS with
social undermining, interpersonal justice, LMX, POS, group co-
hesion, perceived coworker OCB norms, age (across four sam-
ples), perceptions of government environmental policies, and im-
pression management. However, the WOS was separate from these
variables, as indicated by confirmatory factor analyses and Fornell
and Larcker’s (1981) test of construct distinctiveness. Moreover,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
an item-sort task demonstrated that the ostracism scale items were
conceptually distinct from workplace aggression, workplace bul-
lying, undermining, and interpersonal justice.
Consistent with the notion that ostracism threatens fundamental
human needs (self-esteem, belonging, control, and a meaningful
existence), which are posited to be necessary conditions for human
health, happiness, and productivity (K. D. Williams, 1997, 2001),
ostracism was related to lowered feelings of self-esteem, belong-
ing, control, and a meaningful existence, as well as to decreased
well-being, more negative work attitudes, and decreased produc-
tivity. These results indicate that ostracism has negative implica-
tions for individuals, but such outcomes are significant for orga-
nizations as well. Organizational deviance is estimated to cost
billions of dollars annually (Bennett & Robinson, 2000), and stress
in the workplace is related to increased costs for the organization
in terms of sick days and insurance costs (Hart & Cooper, 2001;
Lofland, Pizzi, & Frick, 2004). Finally, turnover can be associated
with the loss of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge,
in addition to the costs associated with replacing employees (Ram-
lall, 2003; Tziner & Birati, 1996). Taken together, these results
speak to the practical importance of studying ostracism, both for
organizations and for individuals. Although research on ostracism
is still at a nascent stage, findings would suggest that allowing
individuals to be ostracized is detrimental to all involved and
ultimately should be discouraged by organizations and their rep-
resentatives. In this respect, researchers may wish to focus on
antecedents of ostracism in future studies to identify efficacious
interventions that could reduce the incidence of ostracism in the
workplace.
The five categories studied (needs, well-being, attitudes, perfor-
mance, and withdrawal) represent only a sampling of possible
outcomes to which ostracism should theoretically relate (and the
specific measures representing each category in turn represent only
a subset of possible measures of, for example, well-being), but our
purpose in this study was not to list all the outcomes with which
ostracism should be related. Rather, we intended to use a subset of
categories and measures to provide support for the criterion-related
validity of the WOS. However, we encourage researchers to ex-
amine other outcomes or even other constructs within these cate-
gories. For example, though we measured global job satisfaction,
studies that measured specific facets of job satisfaction (e.g.,
satisfaction with coworkers, satisfaction with leaders) would illu-
minate how ostracism influences workplace satisfaction.
Although most of our hypotheses were supported, ostracism was
not related to citizenship behavior directed toward individuals. The
1361
preponderance of the data from experimental studies suggests that
individuals act in maladaptive, antisocial ways following ostracism
(e.g., Twenge et al., 2001, 2007), but some studies have shown that
individuals react in a prosocial manner following ostracism (e.g.,
K. D. Williams & Sommer, 1997). Thus, it seems possible that
moderators exist, such that some individuals react to ostracism in
either prosocial or antisocial ways. For example, a recent study
found that individuals with low fear of negative evaluation were
more likely to act in a prosocial manner following ostracism,
perhaps because they were not afraid of potentially being rejected
by others (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). It is
possible that individuals who do not fear negative evaluation may
be more likely to engage in helping behaviors, whereas those who
do fear negative evaluations may interpret helping behavior as
another opportunity for individuals to reject them and thus subse-
quently refrain from engaging in such behaviors. Researchers
should measure rejection sensitivity and fear of negative evalua-
tions to examine such possibilities.
Limitations and Future Directions
As with any investigation, there are a number of limitations that
should be acknowledged. First, our intention from the outset was
to generate a measure of perceived workplace ostracism from the
target’s perspective. In all of our studies, therefore, we relied
exclusively upon single-source employee self-reports of perceived
workplace ostracism. Self-report data have been criticized because
they may be biased by a number of methodological artifacts
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Although we
cannot be certain that our workplace ostracism measure is free of
all methodological bias, we did take precautionary steps to assess
the most common biases. We found that impression management
concerns and chronic differences in PA/NA did not appear to bias
responses to the ostracism items unduly (L. J. Williams & Ander-
son, 1994; L. J. Williams et al., 1996).
Relatedly, in establishing the criterion-related validity of our
ostracism scale, we included self-reported outcome data; this inc-
lulsion raises the possibility that common-method variance may
have inflated these relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although
it is true that common-method bias may have had some influence
on our self-report data, we did take several precautions to mitigate
the possibility that our data were driven solely by biases. In two of
our samples we collected outcome data from other sources (i.e.,
coworker and significant other), and in a subset of another sample
we incorporated a lengthy lag between the assessment of ostracism
and outcomes. When it was assessed under these more stringent
conditions, the criterion-related validity of our ostracism scale was
upheld. This finding suggests that ostracism’s association with
relevant organizational outcomes is not simply a consequence of
methodological artifacts.
Given that all of the relationships reported in this article are cor-
relational, readers should recognize that causal inferences cannot be
reliably drawn from our findings. Although it is theoretically reason-
able to posit that ostracism should influence the behavioral, well-
being, and attitudinal outcomes examined in our research (e.g.,
Baumeister et al., 2005; K. D. Williams, 2007), if causality and
directionality were to be inferred, potential threats to internal validity
would first need to be eliminated via alternative research designs
(Cook, Campbell, & Peracchio, 1990). To circumvent this limitation,
 1362 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
we strongly encourage researchers interested in investigating work-
place ostracism to employ longitudinal or cross-lagged panel designs.
However, our purpose in the present study was to design a valid
measure of workplace ostracism. In this respect, causality is less of an
issue, as criterion-related validity is demonstrated by showing a rela-
tion between ostracism and constructs to which it should theoretically
relate. Regardless of whether one conceptualizes ostracism as an
antecedent or consequence of variables such as well-being, criterion-
related validity is established simply by demonstrating a relation.
Now that a measure of workplace ostracism exists, it can be used to
address questions concerning causality.
A further potential limitation of our scale is that the WOS was
not designed to differentiate between different ostracism sources.
One might argue that there may be different implications of being
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ostracized by different work groups. For example, being ostracized
by one’s coworker may result in interpersonal deviance, and being
ostracized by one’s supervisor may result in organizational devi-
ance, as leaders can be identified as organizational representatives
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). By separating out the source of
the ostracism, one can also examine potential cross-domain buff-
ering of support from coworkers on the effects of supervisor
ostracism (or vice versa; Duffy et al., 2002). It may be beneficial
in future to differentiate the foci of the ostracism (e.g., peers,
supervisors, subordinates). Although we believe that the effect of
various foci should be considered in future work, our conceptualiza-
tion of the construct was driven by theoretical and empirical consid-
erations. In this regard, the available empirical literature suggests that
social exclusion and ostracism are equally painful, regardless of who
instigates them (Zadro et al., 2004). Similarly, theoretical arguments
suggest that, due to evolutionary advantages, humans are hard-
wired to respond and react to social exclusion, regardless of its
source (K. D. Williams & Zadro, 2001). On the basis of these
theoretical and empirical considerations, we opted to develop a
general workplace ostracism measure.
Although ostracism is a universally painful and aversive expe-
rience, the fact that it may be more so for certain individuals
suggests that moderator constructs may interact with ostracism.
For example, highly neurotic or narcissistic individuals have a
fragile and easily threatened sense of self (Bolger & Schilling,
1991; Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Twenge & Campbell, 2003),
which may make ostracism particularly devastating. Similarly,
individuals who define themselves in terms of their relations with
others (i.e., an interdependent self-construal; Singelis, 1994) may
find ostracism to be relatively more threatening than do people
with an independent self-construal. Although these moderator vari-
ables suggest that ostracism may be more devastating for certain
individuals, we believe that certain variables may moderate the
effects of ostracism by reducing the likelihood of negative behav-
iors. For example, continuance commitment, or the extent to which
people feel compelled to remain at their job because of what they
stand to lose (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), may act as a constraint
against poor performance. That is, if employees cannot afford to
lose their jobs, they may be less likely to engage in deviant
behavior or to reduce in- or extrarole performance because they
fear losing their jobs. Examination of these and other moderators
will establish possible boundary or exacerbating conditions of
ostracism and will further our understanding of the construct.
Another future direction for research is explicating the process
through which ostracism influences outcomes. When the underly-
ing processes are specified, research can assist in the development
of targeted workplace interventions to minimize the impact of
ostracism in the workplace. The four needs of self-esteem, control,
belongingness, and meaningful existence seem likely candidates
for mediating mechanisms, in that they are posited to be immedi-
ately affected by ostracism and a substantial literature attests to the
ability of these needs to motivate behavior and impact attitudes
(e.g., Baumeister, 1994; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Branden,
2001; Greenberg et al., 1986; Seligman, 1975). However, there is
substantial debate over which human needs are “fundamental”
(Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001), and ostracism seems likely
to influence other human needs as well (e.g., competence). Given
these numerous contrary statements about our fundamental human
needs, there is no shortage of potential mediators. In future, re-
searchers should seek to delineate exactly which needs actually
mediate the effects of ostracism.
In addition to research on the ostracism construct itself, we
believe, an important future direction for researchers is to integrate
ostracism within other theoretical frameworks. For example, there
has recently been increased interest in the effects of demographic
dissimilarity, or the extent to which an individual differs from his
or her coworkers on the basis of demographic variables, such as
age, gender, or race (Joshi, 2006; Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004).
This research has found that demographic dissimilarity can at
times result in behaviors such as organizational deviance (Liao et
al., 2004). We suggest that ostracism might be a potential medi-
ating mechanism of such relationships, in that individuals who
differ from their coworkers may feel ignored or excluded. More
broadly, placing ostracism within other interpersonal models, such
as the group value model (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996) might
suggest other consequences of ostracism, such as interpersonal
justice.
Finally, consistent with calls to examine deviance from the
target’s perspective (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), our work has
examined the effects of ostracism on individuals. However, an
alternative approach is to examine the effects that engaging in
ostracism have on ostracizers. Preliminary evidence suggests that
the act of ostracizing can increase one’s sense of control but
decrease one’s sense of belongingness (K. D. Williams, Wheeler,
& Harvey, 2001); ostracizing coworkers is taxing and may impact
one’s own performance (Ciarocco, Sommer, & Baumeister, 2001).
These findings raise the ironic possibility that employees who
intentionally ostracize peers, presumably to punish them, may end
up punishing themselves in terms of impairing their own perfor-
mance. They also raise the question of why individuals would
ostracize others, given the negative impact on the ostracizer. More
work is needed on what prompts individuals to choose ostracism
over other negative interpersonal behaviors.
Summary
We believe that the WOS is a reliable and valid measure of
workplace ostracism. It is an important tool that can be used to
examine, among other things, the effects of deviant behavior on
targets. Ostracism represents a behavior that is qualitatively dif-
ferent from those behaviors examined by existing scales (i.e., it
does not involve interacting with an individual). It influences our
fundamental human needs, is aversive, and potentially influences
numerous outcomes important to both employers and employees.
 OSTRACISM
Our studies suggest that ostracism is separable from numerous
similar constructs (e.g., LMX, POS, interpersonal justice, under-
mining, group cohesion, and perceived coworker OCB norms) and
that it can account for incremental validity in outcomes. Taken
together, our results suggest that ostracism is an important concept
for research, although until now it has been ignored due to the lack
of a measure of the construct. It is our hope that the development
of the WOS will encourage other researchers to examine this
construct and consider what role ostracism might play in their own
research areas.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Bulletin, 103, 411– 423.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of
measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of
their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 732–740.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs,
negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and
empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073–1091.
Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived orga-
nizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of
socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288 –297.
Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. F., & O’Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estima-
tions of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 313–320.
Baumeister, R. F. (1994). Self-esteem. In V. S. Ramachandram (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 83– 87). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005).
Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 589 – 604.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An
overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns
among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-
destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 3–22.
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social
exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent
thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817– 827.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of
workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational
behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,
organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410 – 424.
Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288 –312.
Blau, G. (1998). On the aggregation of individual withdrawal behaviors
into larger multi-item constructs. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
19, 437– 451.
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and problems of every-
day life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily
stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355–386.
1363
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying person-
ality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 890 –902.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good
soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–98.
Branden, N. (2001). The psychology of self-esteem: A revolutionary ap-
proach to self-understanding that launched a new era in modern psy-
chology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Brown, D. J., Ferris, L. D., Heller, D., & Keeping, L. M. (2007). Ante-
cedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward
social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 102, 59 –75.
Burke, M., Brief, A., & George, J. (1993). The role of negative affectivity
in understanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains:
A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 402– 412.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualiza-
tion of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior
& Human Performance, 30, 265–287.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau,
S. R. (1980). Job demands and worker health (ISR Rep. No. 9011). Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control
theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ciarocco, N. J., Sommer, K. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Ostracism and
ego depletion: The strains of silence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 1156 –1163.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
386 – 400.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Peracchio, L. (1990). Quasi experimen-
tation. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 491–576). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory
and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98 –104.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. C. (1955). Construct validity in psychological
tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 –900.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organi-
zational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. (1998). Subjective well-being is
essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 33–37.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
Edwards, J. R. (2000). Multidimensional constructs in organizational be-
havior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational
Research Methods, 4, 144 –192.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 960 –974.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003, October
10). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science,
302, 290 –292.
 1364 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –507.
Faulkner, S. J., Williams, K. D., Sherman, B., & Williams, E. (1997, May).
The “silent treatment”: Its incidence and impact. Paper presented at
69th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association,
Chicago.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 18, 39 –50.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links
between bullying and racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 66, 438 – 456.
Ganster, D., Hennessey, H., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability
response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 321–331.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 827– 844.
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play:
Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 37, 1176 –1186.
Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader–
member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction:
Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30, 109 –131.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspec-
tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and
consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory.
In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189 –212).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary with-
drawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60 –78.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 39, 110 –128.
Hart, P. M., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Occupational stress: Toward a more
integrated framework. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C.
Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational
psychology: Vol. 2. Organizational psychology (pp. 93–114). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for
use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1,
104 –121.
Hitlan, R. T., Kelly, K. M., Schepman, S., Schneider, K. T., & Zarate,
M. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived
ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 10, 56 –70.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at con-
ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology
of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical
variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Performance, 7, 467–505.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jackson, J. M., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1958). The effect of person– group
relationships on conformity processes. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 57, 17–24.
Johns, G. (1998). Aggregation or aggravation? The relative merits of a
broad withdrawal construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,
453– 462.
Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the
external networking behavior of teams. Academy of Management Re-
view, 31, 583–595.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Be-
havioral Science, 9, 131–146.
Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2000). Performance appraisal reactions:
Measurement, modeling, and method bias. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85, 708 –723.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement
orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900 –916.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and
research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 485–516.
Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Wil-
liams, J. P. Forgas, & W. V. Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast (pp.
35–51). New York: Psychology Press.
Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of
impression management and self-deception on the criterion validity of
personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selec-
tion and Assessment, 14, 131–141.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb:
Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57,
969 –1000.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lofland, J. H., Pizzi, L., & Frick, K. D. (2004). A review of health-
related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconom-
ics, 22, 165–184.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt?
The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bul-
letin, 131, 202–223.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007).
Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving
the “porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 42–55.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive be-
havior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 647– 660.
Masters, R. D. (1984). Ostracism, voice, and exit: The biology of social
participation. Social Science Information, 23, 877– 893.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus D. L. (1998).
Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex
Research, 35, 148 –157.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research, and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace:
Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11,
299 –326.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness
and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210 –227.
Munz, D. C., Helsman, T. J., Konold, T. R., & McKinney, J. J. (1996). Are
there methodological and substantive roles for affectivity in Job Diagnostic
Survey relationships? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 795– 805.
Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In R. F. Dillon &
J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives
(pp. 218 –247). New York: Praeger.
 OSTRACISM
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391– 419.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, England: Lexington Books.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of social
psychological attitudes: Vol. 1. Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orien-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process
model of defense against conscious and unconscious death-related
thoughts: An extension of terror management theory. Psychological
Review, 106, 835– 845.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J.
(2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical
review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435– 468.
Ramlall, S. (2003). Managing employee retention as a strategy for increasing
organizational competitiveness. Applied H. R. M. Research, 8, 63–72.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support:
A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714.
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of
politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes,
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 211–220.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 66 – 80.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A
review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Schacter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 46, 190 –207.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and
death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is
satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological
needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen-
dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
580 –591.
Snoek, J. D. (1962). Some effects of rejection upon attraction to a group.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 175–182.
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F.
(2001). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations into the
intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 225–243.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics.
New York: Harper Collins.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Tan, J. A., & Hall, R. J. (2005). The effects of social desirability bias on
applied measures of goal orientation. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 38, 1891–1902.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events:
1365
The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
67– 85.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
193–210.
Tesser, A. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mecha-
nisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290 –299.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de
Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions
and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 914 –945.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., &
Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56 – 66.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If
you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058 –1069.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t it fun to get the respect
that we’re going to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggres-
sion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261–272.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social
exclusion causes self-defeating behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 606 – 615.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social
exclusion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaningless-
ness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 85, 409 – 423.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice
of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
913–930.
Tziner, A., & Birati, A. (1996). Assessing employee turnover costs: A
revised approach. Human Resource Management Review, 6, 113–122.
van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and
ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 918 –928.
Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit
and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 38 –52.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings
of possession: Three field studies predicting employees attitudes and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 25, 439 – 459.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job
performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8,
216 –226.
Waddell, J. (1999, July 15). Government whistleblowers move closer to
trial. The Ottawa Citizen, p. D8.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J., & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative affec-
tivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. In J. M.
Ivancevich & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to sugges-
tion (pp. 141–157). New York: Haworth Press.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organiza-
tional support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange per-
spective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765– 802.
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),
Aversive interpersonal behaviors, (pp. 133–170). New York: Plenum.
 1366 FERRIS, BROWN, BERRY, AND LIAN

Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York:
Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
425– 452.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism:
Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 748 –762.
Williams, K. D., Govan, C. L., Croker, V., Tynan, D., Cruickshank, M., &
Lam, A. (2002). Investigations into differences between social- and
cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6,
65–77.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers:
Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
Williams, K. D., Wheeler, L., & Harvey, J. A. R. (2001). Inside the social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel
(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and
bullying (pp. 19 –34). New York: Psychology Press.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601– 617.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to
method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organi-
zational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and
nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee atti-
tudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88 –101.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go?
Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of

mind of the ostracizer. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interper-
sonal behavior (pp. 294 –320). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2001). Ostracism: On being ignored,
excluded, and rejected. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp.
21–53). New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate early
Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560 –567.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2005). Riding the “O” train:
Comparing the effects of ostracism and verbal dispute on targets and
sources. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 125–143.
Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old
concept. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix

Substantively Valid Ostracism Items

1. Others ignored you at work.
2. Others left the area when you entered.
3. Your greetings have gone unanswered at work.
4. You involuntarily sat alone in a crowded lunchroom at work.
5. Others avoided you at work.
6. You noticed others would not look at you at work.
7. Others at work shut you out of the conversation.
8. Others refused to talk to you at work.
9. Others at work treated you as if you weren’t there.
10. Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they went out for a coffee break.
11. You have been included in conversations at work (reverse coded).ⴱ
12. Others at work stopped talking to you.ⴱ
13. You had to be the one to start a conversation in order to be social at work.ⴱ

Note. On the basis of Bass, Cascio, and O’Connor (1974), we used a seven-point Likert-type response scale (1 ⫽ Never,
2 ⫽ Once in a while, 3 ⫽ Sometimes, 4 ⫽ Fairly often, 5 ⫽ Often, 6 ⫽ Constantly, 7 ⫽ Always). An asterisk indicates that
an item was not included in the final scale.

Received November 29, 2007

Revision received April 21, 2008
Accepted April 28, 2008 䡲