Ostracism

Abstract

Ostracism is being ignored and excluded by others, with or without explicit declaration. Cognitive and social psychology has recast it from a political practice of ancient Athens into one of the most reliable aversive manipulations in the laboratory: a few minutes of exclusion from a trivial ball-toss game lowers people's sense of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. This article develops the dominant account — Williams's temporal need-threat model — which distinguishes a near-universal reflexive pain response, insensitive to who excludes or why, from a slower reflective appraisal that recruits coping, and a final resignation stage under chronic exclusion. It presents the Cyberball paradigm, the overlap between social and physical pain, downstream effects on cognition and behaviour, and recent work on construal and recovery. Three interactive demonstrations let readers manipulate inclusion rates, trace the stages, and test the source-insensitivity claim.

Keywords: ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, need-threat model, social pain

Few social experiences are as quietly corrosive as being ignored. A rejection at least acknowledges that the target exists; ostracism withholds even that, treating a person as though they were not there. The word itself comes from ostrakon, the shard of pottery on which citizens of fifth-century Athens scratched the name of a man they wished to banish for ten years — a formal, collective act of exclusion that the modern literature has turned into a precise verb for the everyday experience of being frozen out.

What makes ostracism a central topic in cognitive and social psychology is not its drama but its reliability. The same thin manipulation — excluding someone from a computerised game of catch — produces the same signature of distress whether the other players are friends or strangers, whether the participant is told the game is rigged, and even when they are paid to be excluded or know the other players are a computer script. That robustness is the empirical spine of the field: it implies a fast, crude detection system that sounds an alarm at the first sign of exclusion, long before the mind has worked out whether the exclusion means anything at all.

What Ostracism Is

Ostracism is defined in the psychological literature as being ignored and excluded by one or more others, often without explicit negative attention or explanation (Williams, 2007). The absence of explanation is central to the definition. Overt rejection delivers information — a reason, a judgement, a relationship that can be contested or repaired — whereas ostracism delivers silence, forcing the target to supply their own interpretation of an ambiguous and threatening event. This is why ostracism is frequently experienced as more painful than open conflict: it combines the full threat of exclusion with the added burden of not knowing why.

The concept sits within the broader family of social exclusion phenomena, alongside rejection, which involves an explicit declaration that a person is not wanted. MeSH indexes Ostracism under Social Isolation, reflecting its place among the states in which an individual is cut off from social contact; but ostracism is distinguished from mere isolation by its active, interpersonal character — it is something others do, not simply a circumstance one is in. Williams distinguishes ostracism (ignoring and excluding) from rejection (an explicit social dismissal) and from the overlapping construct of social exclusion, treating ostracism as the paradigmatic case because its very ambiguity isolates the exclusion itself from any confounding verbal content (Williams, 2009).

The experimental study of ostracism began when Williams and colleagues sought a way to produce the experience in the laboratory without the confounds of insult or explicit judgement. Their solution — a ball-toss game in which the participant is simply thrown the ball less and less often until they are excluded entirely — became the field's defining paradigm and is described in detail below. Its power is that it strips exclusion to its essentials: no words, no stated reason, nothing but the withdrawal of inclusion.

The Need-Threat Framework

Williams's account rests on the claim that ostracism threatens four fundamental human needs simultaneously, which is why it is so uniformly distressing (Williams, 2007). The first is belonging — the need to form and maintain social bonds, which Baumeister and Leary argued is a fundamental human motivation on a par with hunger or thirst (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Ostracism attacks belonging directly: to be excluded is, by definition, to be denied the bond. The second is self-esteem, construed by Leary's sociometer theory not as a free-standing trait but as an internal gauge of one's relational value — a dial that drops sharply the moment exclusion signals that others place little worth on the relationship (Leary et al., 1995).

The third need is control. Ostracism renders the target powerless: nothing they do changes the others' behaviour, because the others are, by the logic of exclusion, unresponsive. The fourth is meaningful existence — the sense that one's life is noticed and matters. Being ignored is a small rehearsal of social death, a glimpse of how the world would proceed if one were not in it. Zadro, Williams, and Richardson showed that all four needs drop even when participants are explicitly told they are playing against a computer program following a script, with no human on the other end (Zadro et al., 2004). If a scripted computer can threaten one's sense of mattering, the detection system clearly does not wait for a plausible social threat before it fires.

These four needs are conventionally grouped into two higher-order clusters. Belonging and self-esteem are inclusionary needs, bound up with being accepted and valued; control and meaningful existence are needs tied to efficacy and recognition. The grouping matters because different coping responses target different clusters: a person whose belonging is threatened may work to be re-included and become more susceptible to social influence, whereas a person whose control is threatened may instead seek to restore agency, sometimes through aggression (Williams, 2009).

Ostracism and the Temporal Need-Threat Model

The temporal need-threat model is Williams's central theoretical contribution: it organises the response to ostracism into three sequential stages, each with a distinct psychological character (Williams, 2009). The model's great economy is that it explains both the uniformity of the immediate response and the diversity of what follows.

The first stage is reflexive. Within seconds of detecting exclusion, the target experiences a sharp, painful drop across all four needs and a surge of negative affect. This response is automatic and, crucially, context-independent: it does not wait to learn who is excluding, why, or whether it matters. The reflexive stage is the system's smoke alarm — cheap, fast, and deliberately indiscriminate, because the cost of missing a real exclusion far outweighs the cost of a false alarm.

The second stage is reflective. Here the target appraises the episode — its cause, its meaning, its implications — and mobilises coping aimed at the threatened needs. Someone whose belonging is wounded may behave more prosocially, conform more, or work to forge new bonds; someone whose control or recognition is threatened may become antagonistic. This is the stage at which context finally enters: the reasons, the relationships, and the dispositions that the reflexive stage ignored now shape the response.

The third stage is resignation. When ostracism is prolonged or chronic — bullying, a long estrangement, systematic exclusion at work — the effort of coping becomes unsustainable, and the needs that coping was meant to restore stay depleted. Riva and colleagues provided empirical evidence for this stage, showing that extended exclusion is associated with alienation, depression, helplessness, and unworthiness rather than active coping (Riva et al., 2017). Resignation is the model's account of how an acute social pain becomes a chronic one.

The Cyberball Paradigm

Cyberball is the operational heart of the field: a simple on-screen game of catch in which the participant believes they are tossing a virtual ball back and forth with two or three other players, who are in fact controlled by a script (Williams et al., 2000). In the inclusion condition the participant receives the ball a fair share of the time; in the exclusion condition the other players throw to each other and, after a few opening tosses, stop throwing to the participant altogether. The manipulation takes two or three minutes and requires no words.

Its influence comes from a meta-analysis by Hartgerink and colleagues, who pooled 120 Cyberball studies and found that the effect of exclusion on the four needs is not merely reliable but very large, with little moderation by the features researchers had expected to matter (Hartgerink et al., 2015). The ordinal pattern is stark: being included feels fine, being excluded feels bad, and the gradations in between matter far less than the simple fact of exclusion. This is the quantitative basis for the claim that the reflexive response is coarse — it registers whether one is excluded far more sharply than how much.

The paradigm's most striking results come from pushing it to absurd extremes and finding the pain survives. Gonsalkorale and Williams had participants excluded by members of a despised out-group — people identifying with the Ku Klux Klan — and found that exclusion by this reviled group still lowered the four needs just as reliably as exclusion by anyone else (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007). Van Beest and Williams went further, paying participants for each throw they missed, so that exclusion was literally profitable; participants still reported threatened needs and negative affect, demonstrating that the reflexive response cannot be bought off even when exclusion is in the person's material interest (Williams, 2009).

Social Pain and Its Downstream Costs

The claim that rejection “hurts” turned out to be more than metaphor. Eisenberger, Lieberman, and Williams scanned participants playing Cyberball and found that exclusion recruited the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula — regions also engaged by the distressing, affective component of physical pain — with activity tracking self-reported social distress (Eisenberger et al., 2003). The finding grounded the social-pain hypothesis: that the systems which evolved to signal bodily injury were co-opted to signal the threat of social injury, because for a social species, exclusion from the group was historically as dangerous as a wound.

Exclusion's costs extend into cognition and behaviour. Baumeister and colleagues showed that social exclusion impairs self-regulation — excluded participants ate more unhealthy food, persisted less on frustrating tasks, and performed worse on effortful reasoning — as though the resources ordinarily available for controlled thought had been diverted to the social threat (Williams, 2009). Twenge and colleagues demonstrated the darker edge of the reflective stage: excluded participants behaved more aggressively toward others, even people who had not excluded them, consistent with a threatened need for control or recognition seeking restoration through antagonism (Twenge et al., 2001).

Not all responses are antagonistic. Because ostracism threatens belonging, it can also make people work harder to reconnect — a point Williams and Nida emphasise in reviewing how targets become more attentive to social cues and more susceptible to social influence in the service of re-inclusion (Williams & Nida, 2011). Whether exclusion turns a person prosocial or antisocial depends on which needs dominate and whether the target sees a path back to inclusion, exactly as the reflective stage of the temporal model predicts.

Demo 1 — Cyberball and the Inclusion Ratio

In the Cyberball game a participant and two others toss a ball over 30 throws, so a fair share is 10. Set how many throws the participant receives and watch the inclusion ratio and the need-threat it produces across all four fundamental needs at once. The reflexive reaction tracks the ratio, not any explanation for it.

The participant receives 2 of 10 fair-share throws, an inclusion ratio of 0.20, so each of the four needs is threatened by 0.80. This is the exclusion condition — a large, near-uniform threat.

Demo 2 — The Three Temporal Stages

Williams's model organises the response to ostracism into three stages. Select one to see how the level of the threatened needs changes over the course of an episode — a sharp reflexive plunge, a reflective recovery as coping takes hold, or a resignation that leaves the needs depleted.

Reflexive. Within seconds, all four needs drop sharply and negative affect surges. This hit is automatic and context-independent — it does not wait to learn who is excluding or why.

Demo 3 — Source Insensitivity of the Reflexive Hit

A striking finding is that the immediate pain of exclusion barely depends on who is doing the excluding. Switch the source — friends, strangers, a scripted computer, a despised out-group, even being paid to be left out — and the reflexive need-threat stays large and nearly unchanged.

Exclusion by friends — the ordinary baseline case — produces a need-threat of 0.80. The bar hardly moves across sources: the reflexive detection system fires before the mind appraises who is excluding, so even an admitted computer or a hated group delivers nearly the full hit.

Worked Example

Cyberball is usually summarised by a single quantity, the inclusion ratio (IR): the share of throws the participant actually receives relative to the fair share they would get if every player were thrown to equally. With p players the fair share of any one player is 1/p of all throws, so for a participant in an otherwise n-confederate game the fair share is one of n + 1 equal portions.

Take the standard three-player game — the participant plus two confederates — run for 30 throws. If the ball were distributed fairly, each of the three players would receive a third of the throws, a fair share of 30 ÷ 3 = 10. Define the inclusion ratio as throws received divided by fair share, capped at 1 (receiving more than a fair share is over-inclusion, not extra inclusion for this purpose):

IR = min(1, throws received ÷ fair share)

A convenient index of need-threat runs in the opposite direction, so that more exclusion means more threat:

T = 1 − IR

In the inclusion condition the participant receives their fair share, 10 of 30 throws: IR = min(1, 10 ÷ 10) = 1.0, so T = 1 − 1.0 = 0. No exclusion, no threat. In the exclusion condition the participant gets only the two opening courtesy throws and is then frozen out for the remaining 28: IR = min(1, 2 ÷ 10) = 0.2, so T = 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 — a near-maximal threat index. A partial-ostracism condition in which the participant receives, say, 6 of 30 throws gives IR = min(1, 6 ÷ 10) = 0.6 and T = 0.4.

The meta-analytic finding reframes these numbers. One might expect need-threat to fall smoothly as IR rises from 0.2 to 0.6 to 1.0, but the ordinal effect reported by Hartgerink and colleagues is that the sharp drop happens at the boundary between being included and being excluded, not evenly along the scale (Hartgerink et al., 2015). The arithmetic of IR is linear; the psychology of the reflexive response is closer to a step. The first interactive demonstration lets the reader set the throw count and read IR and the four needs directly.

Discussion

The enduring contribution of ostracism research is a worked demonstration that a social threat is detected by a fast, crude, context-blind system before any of the deliberation we normally associate with social cognition takes place. The reflexive stage's indifference to whether the excluder is a friend, a hated out-group, or a computer, and its immunity to being paid off, are not quirks to be explained away — they are the central phenomenon, and they point to an alarm calibrated by a long evolutionary history in which exclusion from the group was life-threatening. The social-pain findings make the same point at the neural level: the body reuses its injury-signalling hardware for social injury because, for a group-living species, the two were functionally equivalent.

The temporal model's value is that it reconciles this uniformity with the obvious diversity of how people ultimately respond to being left out — withdrawn or defiant, conciliatory or aggressive, resilient or crushed. By placing the uniform reflexive response first and the variable reflective response second, it locates all the individual and contextual variation precisely where the data put it: in the slower appraisal, not the initial sting. The resignation stage then extends the account from the laboratory's two-minute episodes to the chronic exclusion — bullying, estrangement, marginalisation — that does the real damage in people's lives, and which the acute paradigm can only gesture toward.

The limitations are real. Cyberball's strength, its stripped-down artificiality, is also its weakness: a two-minute game played against a script is a thin model of sustained social exclusion, and generalising from reflexive need-threat to the lived experience of being an outcast requires care. The model's stages are easier to demonstrate at the extremes than to delineate in the murky middle, and the transition from reflective coping to resignation is still more clearly described than mechanistically understood.

Current Directions

Three strands dominate current work. The first concerns when exclusion is even construed as ostracism. Rudert and Greifeneder show that the reflexive response is not quite as context-free as the strongest statements imply: when a social norm makes non-inclusion appropriate — a person legitimately occupied, a rule that excuses them from throwing — observers and targets judge the episode very differently, and the sting can be attenuated by the situated meaning the target reads into it (Rudert & Greifeneder, 2016). This refines rather than overturns the model, locating norm-sensitivity in how an ambiguous event is categorised in the first place.

The second strand is recovery. If the reflexive pain is inevitable, the practical question becomes how people climb back out of it. Hales, Wesselmann, and Williams found that brief interventions — prayer for the religious, self-affirmation, and simple distraction — each speeded recovery of the threatened needs after a bout of Cyberball exclusion, suggesting the reflective stage is a genuine point of leverage (Hales et al., 2016). The third strand widens the lens to groups and chronic exclusion: Wesselmann and Williams review how inclusion, ostracism, and rejection operate within and between groups, treating ostracism as a mechanism of social control as well as a source of individual pain (Wesselmann & Williams, 2017). Williams and Nida's recent synthesis connects the laboratory literature to large-scale concerns about separation, isolation, and loss, arguing that the field's tools speak directly to contemporary problems of loneliness and social disconnection (Williams & Nida, 2022).

Common Misconceptions

Ostracism and rejection are the same thing.

They are distinct. Rejection is an explicit declaration that a person is not wanted; ostracism withholds even that acknowledgement, ignoring the target without stated reason. The ambiguity of ostracism is precisely what makes it a cleaner — and often more painful — manipulation than overt rejection (Williams, 2009).

Exclusion only hurts when the target cares about the people doing the excluding.

The reflexive response is largely indifferent to the source. Exclusion by a despised out-group, by strangers, and even by a computer script all lower the four needs, because the initial detection system fires before the mind has appraised who is doing the excluding (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007).

People always respond to exclusion by lashing out.

Aggression is only one reflective response. Because ostracism threatens belonging, it just as often makes people more conforming, more attentive to social cues, and more eager to reconnect. Which response dominates depends on which needs are most threatened and whether re-inclusion seems possible (Williams, 2007).

Cyberball is too trivial to tell us anything real.

Its triviality is the point. That a meaningless two-minute game against a script reliably threatens fundamental needs is strong evidence for how sensitive and automatic the exclusion-detection system is. Generalising to chronic exclusion requires care, but the paradigm's artificiality is a feature of the demonstration, not a flaw (Zadro et al., 2004).

Key Researchers

Roy F. Baumeister

(University of Queensland / Florida State University). Co-authored the need-to-belong hypothesis and showed experimentally that social exclusion impairs self-regulation, reasoning, and prosocial behaviour while increasing aggression. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Ilja van Beest

(Tilburg University). Uses the Cyberball paradigm to study the emotional and physiological costs of ostracism, including the finding that even being over-included or paid to be excluded still threatens basic needs. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Naomi I. Eisenberger

(University of California, Los Angeles). Showed with fMRI that being ostracized in Cyberball recruits neural regions overlapping those for physical pain, grounding the idea that social rejection hurts through a shared alarm system. Google Scholar · Wikipedia · Faculty page

Mark R. Leary

(Duke University). Co-authored the need-to-belong hypothesis and developed sociometer theory, which construes self-esteem as an internal gauge of relational value that drops sharply under ostracism. Wikipedia · Faculty page

Selma C. Rudert

(RPTU Kaiserslautern-Landau). Investigates how social norms and situated construal shape when exclusion is experienced as ostracism, and the moral judgments observers make about excluders and excluded targets. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Eric D. Wesselmann

(Illinois State University). Studies how ostracized individuals respond to and become susceptible to social influence, and the role of ostracism as a mechanism of social control within and between groups. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Kipling D. Williams

(Purdue University). Founded the experimental study of ostracism, developing the Cyberball paradigm and the temporal need-threat model of how being ignored and excluded threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. ORCID · Google Scholar

Glossary

Belonging.

The fundamental need to form and maintain lasting, positive interpersonal relationships; the first of the four needs ostracism threatens.

Control.

The need to feel one's actions influence outcomes; ostracism threatens it by rendering the target powerless to change the excluders' behaviour.

Cyberball.

The field's defining paradigm: an on-screen ball-toss game in which scripted players gradually or wholly exclude the participant.

Inclusion ratio (IR).

The share of throws a participant receives relative to a fair share, the standard quantitative summary of a Cyberball manipulation.

Meaningful existence.

The need to feel noticed and that one's life matters; ostracism threatens it by treating the target as though they were not present.

Need-threat.

The simultaneous threat ostracism poses to belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence.

Ordinal effect.

The meta-analytic finding that need-threat drops sharply at the boundary between inclusion and exclusion rather than evenly across inclusion levels.

Ostracism.

Being ignored and excluded by one or more others, typically without explicit negative attention or explanation.

Over-inclusion.

Receiving more than a fair share of attention or throws; studied because even it can be aversive, unlike ordinary inclusion.

Reflective stage.

The second stage of the temporal model, in which the target appraises the episode and mobilises coping aimed at threatened needs.

Reflexive stage.

The first stage of the temporal model: an immediate, context-independent drop in needs and surge of negative affect.

Rejection.

An explicit declaration that a person is not wanted, distinguished from ostracism by its overt, informative character.

Resignation stage.

The third stage, following prolonged or chronic ostracism, marked by depletion, alienation, helplessness, and depression.

Social exclusion.

The broad family of experiences, including ostracism and rejection, in which a person is kept apart from others or a group.

Social pain.

The distress of social injury, shown to recruit neural systems overlapping those for the affective component of physical pain.

Sociometer theory.

Leary's account of self-esteem as an internal gauge of relational value that falls when exclusion signals low worth to others.

Temporal need-threat model.

Williams's three-stage account of the response to ostracism: reflexive, reflective, and resignation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between ostracism and rejection?

Ostracism is being ignored and excluded, usually without any stated reason, whereas rejection is an explicit declaration that a person is not wanted. Rejection gives the target information to work with; ostracism withholds even acknowledgement, which is part of why it is often experienced as more painful.

Why does being left out hurt even in a meaningless computer game?

Because the system that detects exclusion is fast and crude, firing at the first sign of being left out before the mind appraises whether the exclusion matters. A two-minute game of virtual catch against a script is enough to trigger it, which is strong evidence for how automatic and sensitive the response is.

What are the four needs that ostracism threatens?

Belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. Belonging and self-esteem are tied to being accepted and valued; control and meaningful existence are tied to feeling effective and noticed. Ostracism threatens all four at once, which is why it is so uniformly distressing.

Does it matter who is doing the excluding?

For the immediate reflexive response, remarkably little. Studies show that exclusion by a despised out-group, by strangers, or even by an admitted computer program all lower the four needs. Context such as who and why enters later, in the reflective stage, where it shapes how the person copes.

Does social exclusion really activate the same brain areas as physical pain?

Functional imaging shows that Cyberball exclusion recruits regions, notably the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula, that overlap with those active in the distressing, affective component of physical pain. This grounds the social-pain hypothesis, the idea that injury-signalling systems were co-opted to signal social injury.

Can being ostracized make people aggressive?

It can. Some excluded people behave more aggressively, even toward bystanders, consistent with a threatened need for control or recognition. But aggression is only one possible reflective response; exclusion just as often makes people more conforming and more motivated to reconnect, depending on which needs dominate.

What happens when ostracism goes on for a long time?

Prolonged or chronic exclusion is thought to push people into the resignation stage, where the effort of coping becomes unsustainable and the threatened needs stay depleted. This stage is associated with alienation, helplessness, depression, and a sense of unworthiness rather than active coping.

Is there anything that helps people recover from being excluded?

Research on brief interventions suggests that self-affirmation, distraction, and, for religious participants, prayer can each speed recovery of the threatened needs after a bout of exclusion. These findings locate the reflective stage as a genuine point of leverage, even though the initial reflexive pain appears difficult to prevent.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

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(6), 1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.392

Hales, A. H., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.002

Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J. H., Curioni, S., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the resignation stage: An empirical investigation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516644348

Rudert, S. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2016). When it's okay that I don't play: Social norms and the situated construal of social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649606

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(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058

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(5), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402480

Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Social life and social death: Inclusion, ostracism, and rejection in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217708861

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2022). Ostracism and social exclusion: Implications for separation, social isolation, and loss. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101353

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 belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006