ARBEIDS- & ORGANISATIEPSYCHOLOGIE
AFDELING PSYCHOLOGIE
FACULTEIT DER MAATSCHAPPIJ EN
GEDRAGSWETENSCHAPPEN
UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM
The effect of ostracism and status on
narcissistic people.
Dorien ter Linden
0579505
04-02-2013
Supervised by:
Mw. Dr. B. Nevicka
Second grader:
Mw. Drs. O. Saygi
Abstract
Research shows that ostracism is followed by negative mood and feelings of anger, especially
in people high in narcissism (Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Status differences of people who
ostracize have not yet been taken into account. This thesis therefore examined how people
high in narcissism react when they are ostracized by high or low status others. An experiment
was done where ostracism and status was manipulated. Narcissism, mood and retaliation were
measured. Although ostracism is followed by more negative mood overall, this is not more so
the case in people high in narcissism. Ostracism has no effect on retaliating behaviour, even
when the person that ostracized has a high status. Found was that narcissistic people
experience greater status differences than people low in narcissism, people high in narcissism
also deny being ostracized, when the exclusion is coming from someone with a high status.
Therefore people high in narcissism are more susceptible for status differences, and have
developed a coping mechanism which protects them from harming their self-esteem.
2
The Effect of Ostracism and Status on Narcissistic People.
“Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.” This statement, made by
Eleanor Roosevelt in 1940, can still be used by people who fight feelings of inferiority and the
negative effect of social exclusion. Social exclusion or ostracism causes radical feelings of
distress (Williams, 2007; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), many studies report changes in
mood and behaviour following ostracism. These changes may include feelings of sadness or
anger, lower sense of control and belongingness and decreased self-esteem (Williams, 2007).
There is one group of people that has enough self-esteem as it is; narcissists (Campbell,
Hoffman, Campbell & Marchisio, 2011). And there is a reason; narcissists live by Roosevelt's
assertion, they will fight the feeling of inferiority. Narcissists are known to be people with a
heightened feeling of grandiosity, inflated self-views and self-love (Campbell et al. 2011;
John & Robins, 1994). Narcissistic people have a feeling of uniqueness, they think that their
knowledge or intelligence for instance, is extraordinary. They also desire power and esteem.
To maintain this heightened self image, narcissists use strategies, for example bragging or
stealing credit from other peoples work, to avoid or overcome failure (Stucke, 2003). If they
are unsuccessful to use these strategies in their advantage, they react in an angry or aggressive
way (Stucke, 2003; Campbell et al., 2011). Especially in a case where the ego of a narcissist is
threatened by others, his or her reaction can be very dramatic. Ego threat is particularly
caused by a negative evaluation, for instance when someone is ostracized (Smalley & Stake,
1994; Williams, 2007).
The consequence of social exclusion seem to affect people high in narcissism more
than people low in narcissism. Response of people high in narcissism to negative feedback or
social exclusion is more aggressive and angry then the response of people low in narcissism
(Twenge & Campbell, 2003). To cope with this threat, people high in narcissism use
defensive strategies, such as questioning the quality or credibility of the test they failed, or the
3
person who evaluated them (Stucke, 2003; Smalley & Stake, 1996). But the status of other
people is also important to people high in narcissism (Horton & Sedikides, 2009). Studies
have shown that narcissistic people view themselves as having a high status, and are also
seeking company of people with a high status (Horton & Sedikides, 2009). It is likely that
people high in narcissism will be affected differently when they are ostracized by people with
a high status then if they were ostracized by someone with a low status. Where most research
shows that people high in narcissism react in a aggressive and angry way after social
exclusion (Stucke, 2003; Smalley & Stake, 1996), it could be the case that if the source of
ostracism is someone with a high status, they will react in a way that wouldn’t compromise
their own chances of success. It is possible that if people high in narcissism are ostracized by
high status others, they will try to obtain or maintain a high status image their selves by
reacting in a more prosocial way. Another explanation to why narcissists could react in a
prosocial way after ostracism from a high status person, is that they see their relationships
with high status others as more valuable (Horton & Sedikes, 2009). Where there is much
proof of people high in narcissism acting in an angry and aggressive way during conflict,
previous research seems to neglect the ability of narcissistic people to find a way to be most
successful in their careers, even if that means abandoning their usually offensive way of
handling conflict. Therefore, this thesis will examine how people high in narcissism react
when they are ostracized by high or low status others.
Narcissism and ego threat
Narcissism is an individual difference in one’s relationship with themselves and
others. People high in narcissism show high feelings of grandiosity, self-love and inflated
self-views (Campbell, Brunell & Finkel, 2006). The personality of people high in narcissism
is characterized by feelings of uniqueness, vanity, positivity and inflated self-esteem
(Williams, 2007). Narcissistic people are often being described as having a ‘God complex’,
4
which involves desire for power, wealth and perfection. They can often fantasize about
unlimited power, brilliance, success and beauty (Raskin & Novacek, 1991). Narcissists are
known for their ability to maintain high self-esteem, even when they are confronted with
negative performance or negative feedback (Gardner & Pierce, 2011). Narcissistic people are
more likely to use self serving bias (appropriating credit for success, deflecting blame for
failure) to maintain their inflated self image (Horton & Sedikides, 2009). When they, for
instance, are confronted with negative feedback, narcissists tend to claim that the source of
the feedback is incompetent (Smalley & Stake, 1997). This shows that narcissistic people
have a tendency to adopt a self protecting attitude when their ego is threatened. When this
tactic does not work and people high in narcissism have the feeling that they are failing, they
react in an angry and aggressive way (Stucke & Sporer, 2002). Bushman and Baumeister
(1998) suggest that increased aggressive behaviour, shown by people high in narcissism,
following criticism is caused by ego-threat. Ego-threat is a threat to a person’s self-image or
self-esteem (Leary, Terry, Allen & Tate, 2009). Rhodewalt and Morf (1998) showed that
narcissistic people show greater levels of anxiety and anger after failure than nonnarcissists.
Their ego is threatened by (a feeling of) failing which has a negative effect on their mood,
self-esteem and sense of control and belongingness (Stucke, 2003; Baumeister, Smart &
Boden, 1996). The loss of control is known to facilitate anger (frustration), sadness (feeling
helpless) and anxiety (loss of control over possible outcomes; Leary et al., 2009). Ostracism,
one of the causes of ego threat, should have a big effect on behaviour as well as mood.
Ostracism as ego threat
One of the causes of ego threat is ostracism, because it threatens four
fundamental needs; need to belong, need to maintain high self-esteem, need for control and
need for existence. (Stucke & Sporer, 2002; Williams, 2007). Ostracism is a form of social
exclusion, whereby an individual or group is ignored and excluded, causing a feeling of
5
rejection (Williams & Kipling, 2007). As a consequence, victims of ostracism experience
sadness and anger, damaging their need to belong and causing a feeling of insecurity
(Williams, 2007). When coping with this threat, there are two ways in which a person can
react. They can either adopt an aggressive attitude, where antisocial thoughts and behaviours
attempt to fortify efficacy of existence, needs of control and recognition; or react with
prosocial thoughts and behaviours in an attempt to fortify relational needs (Williams, 2007).
Previous research by Twenge & Campbell (2003) showed that narcissistic people act in the
first way explained by Williams (2007). People high in narcissism experience more anger and
act in a more aggressive way after being exposed to social rejection. In line with this, Ayduk,
Gyurak and Luerssen (2008) found that people with high rejection sensitivity, such as
narcissistic people, will show more retaliation after being rejected because they fear and do
not expect rejection.
If you take in to account that people high in narcissism rely on their heightened selfimage and self-esteem to maintain their feelings of superiority, ego-threat can have a greater
influence on people high in narcissism than on people low in narcissism. Furthermore, the
aggressive behaviour of people high in narcissism in reaction to ostracism, can be accounted
for, there are three main reasons for retaliation after ostracism. Firstly, narcissistic people
have a lack of concern for interpersonal relatedness (Raskin, Novacek and Hogan, 1991).
Their low need for affiliation and high need for power seems to result in behaviour where
narcissists are not afraid to be unkind, straightforward and passionate in their reactions.
Therefore they will not shy away to show anger, aggression and retaliation after being
excluded. Secondly, Ojanen, Findley and Fuller (2012) showed that narcissistic people show
more relational aggression and even physical aggression, in an attempt to reach their goals.
The goals that narcissistic people pursue in relationships are more focused on dominance, as
opposed to closeness. Thus people high in narcissism may show offensive behaviour in an
6
attempt to reach their goals, even though it may harm their social relationships. Raskin,
Novacek and Hogan (1991) find a third explanation for their motivation behind this
aggressive behaviour. They suggest that narcissism is positively related to self-enhancement
(as opposed to social desirability) where one tries to maintain self-esteem, this shows that
people high in narcissism find it more important to maintain their high self-view as opposed
to react in a more prosocial way and as a result being more socially desirable. Given these
three explanations for offensive mood and behaviour in narcissistic people, expected is that,
when ostracized, people high in narcissism will experience more negative mood and therefore
retaliate more. Therefore, hypothesis 1a is that, when ostracized, high narcissistic individuals
will retaliate more than low narcissistic individuals. Furthermore, hypothesis 1b is that, when
ostracized, high narcissistic individuals experience more negative mood than low narcissistic
individuals.
Baumeister and Vohs (2001) show that the preoccupation of a narcissist to maintain
their high esteem is often counterproductive. Because people high in narcissism lack
sensitivity to others’ concerns and social constrains and see other people as inferior they often
will not get recognition from their peers. The positive feedback that the narcissist is actually
looking for is withheld by their peers because people high in narcissism act in this anti-social
manner. Therefore, one might wonder if people high in narcissism act in the same anti-social
and aggressive way if not only personal relationships, but also the way to power and success
are at stake. Connections with high status others, or getting in good grace with the
management of a company can help you significantly to, for instance, get a promotion. If you
want to become successful, you need to ingratiate with high status people (Halevy, Chou,
Cohen & Livingston, 2012). When these high status people are the source of ego threat,
narcissistic people might react in a more prosocial way as apposed to the aggressive way they
would when their ego is threatened by low status people.
7
Status
People high in narcissism are determined to move up in social hierarchies (Baumeister
& Vohs, 2001). In order for them to do so they have to ingratiate with high status people.
They are focused on finding people with highly valued characteristics as an opportunity to
ingratiate with them for personal gain. People who have high prestige and dominance have
greater social influence and higher social standing (French & Raven, 1959), therefore people
who have such prestige can satisfy the needs of people high in narcissism who want to climb
in hierarchy.
Their high need for appraisal and admiration from high status others, combined with
their assertive and arrogant way to communicate with low status others, often ends with a
negative evaluation from other people (Baumeister & Vohs, 2001). An indication that
narcissistic individuals may react differently to feedback from high versus low status others
can be seen from a study by Horton and Sedikides (2009). They showed that when narcissistic
people are exposed to negative feedback from high status others, they tend to cope with that in
a different way than when they receive negative feedback from low status others. When
dealing with ego threat from low status others, narcissists use a comparative strategy of self
protection, derogating an evaluator or a partner. They use a favourable comparison with
another person, where narcissistic individuals can protect themselves by asserting their
superiority over others. When ego threat is caused by high status others, narcissist find a way
to use a non comparative strategy to affirm their self image by, for example, degrading the
test on which one has failed, maintaining their ego by boosting self-esteem. In this case they
will not compare themselves with another person. This shows that narcissistic people are
reluctant to blame high status people for their failure. They do not appear to resort to
aggression or anger towards the evaluator, they rather blame their failure on another reason.
This strategy is used as a self-protective mechanism, this way they will not ruin the
8
opportunity to latch on to the person with high status, so that they can derive prestige as well
(Halevy et al., 2012). Narcissists see the evaluation coming from a high status person as a
self-enhancement opportunity because they see it as an opportunity to bolster their self image
and boost their chances of climbing in the hierarchy, where the evaluation from a low status
person has no such value in the eyes of narcissistic people (Horton & Sedikides, 2009).
People high in narcissism have an aptitude for having a self-protecting attitude
following ego threat. In most cases, they will react in an angry or aggressive manner. This
anti-social behaviour will not be beneficial though, if this ego threat is coming from a person
with a high status, because it might be more difficult to gain power and success in a group
when you show aggression towards people with high status within that group (Halevy et al.,
2012). Especially when a person is socially excluded, there are no alternative explanations to
blame their failure on besides blaming it on the person who ostracizes them. Showing
aggressive or angry behaviour might not be the best idea if the ostracizing person is someone
with a high status. Therefore the status of the person who is ostracizing could have a much
bigger impact on their reaction. If there is nothing or no one to blame but people with a high
status, narcissistic people might be a more reserved or even act in a prosocial way to come in
good grace with the ostracizing other.
As stated earlier, people can react to ostracism in different ways, people can have a
aggressive or retaliating reaction, or they can resort to a more prosocial attempt to be included
in the group (Halevy et al., 2012). It is likely that narcissistic people do not always adopt an
aggressive defence mechanism, but that they use a prosocial way to gain in power and self
esteem when a high status person ostracizes them. As a low status person does not provide
such a self-enhancement opportunity, it will be likely that they show a more anti-social
reaction when they are ostracised by low status others. To test this theory it is essential to find
out if the status of ostracizing people makes a difference in the reaction of people high in
9
narcissism on this social rejection. Therefore, hypothesis 2a is that, when ostracized by high
status others, high narcissistic individuals will retaliate less than when they are ostracized by
low status others. Hypothesis 2b is that, when ostracized by high status others, high
narcissistic individuals will experience more negative mood than when they are ostracized by
low status others.
Method
Participants and design
There were 160 students at the University of Amsterdam who participated in the
research. Of these participants, 96 were female and 64 male, the participants had an average
age of 23 (M = 22.76, SD = 5.89). For their participation students received a credit for a
mandatory curriculum or €3,50. A 2 (ostracism: exclusion versus inclusion) x 2 (status of
ostracizing person: high versus low) between subject design was used. The main dependent
variables were retaliation and mood. The independent variable was narcissism with
moderating effect of ostracism and status.
Procedure
When the participants arrived at the laboratory they were placed behind a computer,
they got an informed consent which they signed. They were told that further instructions are
given on the computer screen. The participants were given information about the purpose of
the research and they were told that the research takes about 30 minutes. The participants
were given the suggestion that the research tries to uncover the effect of cognitive capacity
and that they will be working with two other participants over the computer. This was done to
focus the participants towards the performance on the cognitive capacity test (see
manipulation of status) and to give the participants the impression that they will be working
10
with two other participants, when this is in fact not the case as the participants were
interacting only with the computer.
First the participants filled in a questionnaire measuring narcissism. Next the
participants completed a cognitive ability task after which the status of the others was
manipulated (see manipulation of status). The participants were given information about their
score on the cognitive ability task, they were told that the other two players either have scored
high or low on the cognitive ability task. The instructions emphasized the importance that the
participants had a good comprehension about the cognitive ability of the two other players.
Following the status manipulation, the participants played an interactive online game,
Cyberball (Williams, 2007) and were told that they will interact with two other participants
who are located in other computer cubicles in the laboratory. The game was used to
manipulate ostracism by others (see manipulation of ostracism). The participants think this is
done by real participants when it is actually done by the computer. At the conclusion of the
online game the participants completed additional questionnaires about mood. Then the
participants were asked to complete an arithmetic task in which they had to count backwards
in steps of seven. They had to skip numbers ending with three or two. The participants were
asked to divide ten minutes of counting backwards between themselves and the other two
players of the online game. The higher the amount of minutes the participants gave to the two
other players, the higher their score on retaliation. The experiment was concluded with
questionnaires where the manipulations was checked. The participants were debriefed and
they collected their monetary reward of curriculum.
Manipulation of Status. Status of the other two alleged participants who were
playing the online game was manipulated using a cognitive ability task. Participants
completed 20 items of the Remote Association Test (Mednick, 1962). In this task the
participants are given three words, and have to give a word that can be associated with these
11
three words (for example: paper, value and wallet; money). This test was done to eventually
give information about the cognitive capacity, and therefore status, of the other two
participants. Status is someone’s relative rank in a hierarchy. The place in this hierarchy is
based on someone’s skills, effort and intellect. By manipulation of cognitive capacity, we
created a hierarchy in which people derive a high status (high score on cognitive capacity) or
a low status (low score on cognitive capacity). The participants were given the scores of the
other two players. These scores indicate how well the other to participants did on this test.
The scores for the other players were either both very good (better than 90% to 98% of all
participants) or very bad (worse than 90% to 98% of all participants). If these two participants
scored high on the cognitive capacity, the participant thinks that they have a high status. If the
other two participants scored low on this task, the participant will think they have a low
status. The participant was given no information about their own score, and was told that the
other participants also had no information about his or her score. This was done to factor out
the possibility that their own performance on the test will effect the results.
Manipulation of Ostracism. The game Cyberball (Williams, 2007) is played on the
internet. It has been extensively used in previous research to manipulate ostracism and social
exclusion. There are three ball tossers where the middle ball tosser is representing the
participant. The three ball tossers toss the ball for 40 throws, where if the ball is thrown to the
participant they can click on the player they want to throw the ball to. In the ostracism
condition the ball will be thrown twice to the participant in the beginning of the game,
hereafter the ball will not be thrown at the participant again. In the inclusion condition the
participant receives the ball in 33 percent of the throws.
12
Independent measures
Narcissism. Narcissism was measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI; Raskin & Terry, 1988) which contains 40 items such as; “I find it easy to manipulate
people” and “I will be a success”. The questions were answered on a true/false scale. The NPI
had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .82. A median split was done to create a new
dichotomous variable which indicated if someone was high or low on narcissism.
Dependent measures
Mood. Mood was measured with the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)
questionnaire containing 11 items measuring the extent to which the participants felt; angry,
hurt, happy, irritated, sad, tense, cheerful, nervous, satisfied, frustrated and disappointed. The
questions were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all and 7 = very much so). After
reversing the scores for happy, cheerful and satisfied, the combined score of all 11 items
represents the score on negative mood. PANAS had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .92.
Retaliation. Retaliation was measured using a counting backwards task. This task is
mathematical, and contains ten minutes of counting backwards in steps of seven. Participants
need to skip numbers ending with a two or a three. The participants can divide the ten minutes
between themselves and the other players. They could choose to do none or to do the full ten
minutes themselves. The choice of tasks was based on a pilot study (N = 501), where the
participants were asked to choose out of 10 tasks (for example an accuracy test, reaction-time
test or a memory test) which one was their most favourite task and which one was the most
annoying (or least favourite task). Participants perceived the counting backwards task as most
annoying. Retaliation was measured as the number of minutes that were allocated to the other
players, to complete the counting backwards task. The more minutes they allocate to the other
participants, the higher their score on retaliation. When the participants choose to do a high
number of minutes themselves they will score high on prosocial behaviour. After they allocate
13
the minutes to the other players and themselves they have to do the task for the number of
minutes they allocate to themselves.
Manipulation checks
Ostracism. The manipulation of ostracism was checked using five questions
(Williams, 2007); “What percent of the throws were thrown to you?”, “To what extent were
you included by the other participants during the game?”, “To what extent were you excluded
by the other participants during the game?”, “I had the feeling that the ball was thrown as
often to me as to the other participants.” and “I had the feeling that I didn’t get the ball as
often as the other participants. The first question is answered on a 1%-100% scale. The latter
four questions can be answered on a 7-point scale (1=not at all and 7=very much so) and had
an Alpha coefficient of .94.
Status. The first question in checking the manipulation of status was asked directly
after the manipulation; “The two other players have a high cognitive capacity”. This question
was answered on a true/false scale. At the end of the experiment the manipulation of status
was checked again using five questions which were developed for this study; “The two other
players have a high status”, “I respect the two other players”, I think the two other players are
intelligent”, “I like the two other players” and “I think the other two players are admired”.
These items were answered on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree)
and had an Alpha coefficient of .77.
14
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the correlations of the independent and dependent variables. The ostracism
condition was negatively correlated with emotion, and positively correlated with need for
belonging, need for control, self esteem and need for existence. However, status is not
correlated with any of the variables. There are correlations of narcissism and emotion,
retaliation and need for belonging.
Table 1
Correlations Variables
Manipulation checks
Ostracism
To check whether the manipulation was done successfully a 2 (narcissism: high versus
low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) x 2 (status: high versus low) ANOVA was
executed. Participants who were assigned to the exclusion condition experienced that the
percentage of ball tosses that was thrown to them was significantly lower (M = 18.10, SD =
9.16) than the participants who were assigned to the inclusion condition (M = 44.28, SD =
19.48), F (1,152) = 126.89, p < .001, η² = .46. Furthermore, people who were high in
narcissism also reported that the percentage of ball tosses that was thrown to them was
significantly higher (M = 30.74, SD = 20.58) than participants low in narcissism (M = 28,67,
15
SD = 18,98), F = (1,152), 4.05, p = .046, η² = .03. There was no effect of status on the
mentioned percentage ball throws (F (1,152) = 0.85, n.s.). There was no interaction found
between ostracism and narcissism (F (1,152) = 1.72, n.s.). Furthermore there were no
interaction effects found between ostracism condition, narcissism and status (all Fs (1,152) <
2.44, n.s.).
Complementary to this manipulation check, the participants were also asked to report
on the extent to which they felt excluded. Participants who were assigned to the exclusion
condition experienced a significantly higher level of exclusion (M = 5.83, SD = .66) than
people who where assigned to the inclusion condition (M = 3.15 , SD =1.5), F (1,152) =
219.72, p < .001, η² = .59. An interaction effect was found between status and narcissism (F
(1,152) = 8.66, p = .004, η² = .05.). This interaction effect is shown in Figure 1. Simple
effects analysis showed that there was a significant effect of status for participants high in
narcissism, F (1,159) = 5.51, p = .02, η² = .03. People high in narcissism felt less excluded
when ostracized by a high status other (M = 4.37, SD = 1.78) than when they were ostracized
by someone with a low status (M = 5.16, SD = 1.56). For participants low in narcissism the
effect of status was not significant, F(1,159) = 3.27, n.s.
Figure 1. Interaction effect Status and Narcissism on Feelings of Exclusion
16
Although the manipulation of ostracism was done successfully, there was an additional
interaction effect of narcissism and status on feeling of exclusion.
Status
A Chi-Square analysis revealed that participants who were assigned to the high status
condition agreed that the other two participants had a high cognitive capacity (97,5%, n = 78
of 80) in comparison to the low status condition (2,5%, n = 2 of 80), χ2(1, N = 160) = 148.2, p
<0,001, ϕ = ,96.
The perception of status was also higher in the high status condition (M = 4.35, SD =
1.07) in comparison with the low status condition (M = 3.35, SD = .97), F (1,152) = 41.5, p <
.001, η² = .21. Further analysis revealed a main effect of ostracism on status, showing that
people who were ostracized perceived others to have a lower status (M = 3.65, SD = 1.05)
than people who were not ostracized (M = 4.09, SD = 1.2), F (1,152) = 5.84, p = .017, η² =
.04. An interaction effect was found between status and narcissism F (1,152) = 6.08, p = .015,
η² = .04, as shown in Figure 2. Simple effects analysis showed that there was a significant
effect of status, this effect was significant for participants low in narcissism, were people high
in narcissism perceived a higher status when ostracized by a high status other (M = 4.48, SD
= 1.04) than when they were ostracized by someone with a low status (M = 3.09, SD = 1.08),
F (1,152) = 8.23, p =.005, η² = .05. Participants low in narcissism also perceived a higher
status when ostracized by a high status other (M = 4.18, SD = 1.1) than when they were
ostracized by a low status other (M = 3.58, SD = .82), F (1,152) = 37.41, p < .001, η² = .19.
17
Figure 2. Interaction effect Status and Narcissism on Perceived status
Although the manipulation of status was done successfully, there were some
differences found in how high or low narcissistic participants perceived these status
differences.
Effects of Ostracism
Retaliation
This analysis was done to check whether our hypothesis that narcissistic people
retaliate more under ostracism was supported. The effects of ostracism and narcissism on
retaliation were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism: high versus low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion
versus exclusion) x 2 (status: high versus low) ANOVA. People high in narcissism showed
more retaliation (M = 8.39, SD = 2.12) than people low in narcissism (M = 7.7, SD = 1,76), F
(1,156) = 4,6, p = .034, η² = .038. There was no effect of ostracism on retaliation, F (1,156) =
.06, n.s, nor was there an effect of status (F (1,156) = .68, n.s. The analysis also showed that
there were no interaction effects between ostracism, status and narcissism on retaliation, all Fs
(1,156) < 4.14, n.s. Although narcissistic people showed more retaliation overall, hypothesis
1a which stated that this would be more under ostracism was not confirmed.
18
Mood
This analysis was done to check whether our hypothesis that people high in narcissism
experience more negative mood following ostracism was confirmed. The effects of ostracism
and narcissism on mood were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism: high versus low) x 2
(ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) x 2 (status: high versus low) ANOVA. Analysis
showed a main effect of ostracism on mood, as well as a main effect of narcissism on mood.
Participants who where ostracized showed more negative mood (M = 3.66, SD =1.14) than
participants who were not ostracized (M =2.56, SD =.99) F (1,156) = 36.48, p < .001, η² =
.19.. Participants high in narcissism also showed more negative mood (M =3.4, SD = 1.31)
than participants low in narcissism (M =2.93, SD =1.04) F (1,156) = 4,13, p = ,044, η² = .02.
There was no interaction effect found of narcissism, status and ostracism on mood, all Fs
(1,156) < 2.08, n.s. Furthermore, there was no effect of mood on the retaliation that the
participants showed, F(1,156) = .96, n.s. Although people high in narcissism showed more
negative mood overall, hypothesis 1b which stated that this would be more severe under
ostracism is not confirmed. Our expectation that ostracism would cause more negative mood
was confirmed.
Effects of Status under Ostracism
Retaliation
This analysis was done to check whether our hypothesis that people high in narcissism
will retaliate less when ostracized by a high status other is correct. The effects of status and
narcissism under ostracism on retaliation were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism: high versus
low) x 2 (status: low versus high) ANOVA within the ostracism exclusion condition. A main
effect of narcissism on retaliation was found. People high in narcissism showed more
retaliation (M = 8.5, SD = 1.59) than people low in narcissism (M = 7.5, SD = 1,78), F (1,85)
19
= 5,59, p = .020, η² = .09. There was no effect of status on retaliation, F (1,85) = 2,02, n.s.
The analysis also showed that there was no interaction effect between status and narcissism
on retaliation, F (1,85) = .49, n.s. Although people high in narcissism retaliate more overall,
our hypothesis 2a that this effect would be actually less if they were ostracized by a high
status other is not confirmed.
Mood
This analysis was done to check whether our hypothesis that when people high in
narcissism are ostracized by high status others they will experience more negative mood. The
effects of status and narcissism under ostracism on mood were tested by doing a 2
(narcissism: high versus low) x 2 (status: low versus high) ANOVA within the ostracism
exclusion condition where status was the independent variable and mood was the dependent
variable. Participants high in narcissism showed more negative mood (M = 3.89, SD =1.16)
than participants low in narcissism (M =3.37, SD =1.06) F (1,85) = 4,85, p = .030, η² = .076.
There was no effect found of status on mood, F (1,85) = 1.24, n.s. There was no interaction
effect found of narcissism and status on mood, F (1,85) = 1.1, p = n.s. Further analysis
showed that mood under ostracism, had no effect on retaliation F(1,85) = 1.14, n.s. Although
people high in narcissism showed more negative mood overall, our hypothesis 2b that mood
would be more negatively influenced if they were ostracized by high status others is not
confirmed.
Additional analyses
Some additional analyses were done to determine what might mediate the found effect
of ostracism on mood. As previous research found that need for belonging, need for control,
esteem and meaningful existence are severely damaged due to ostracism (Zadro et al., 2004),
it is important to find out how these constructs are influenced by ostracism, and if there may
be differences to be found between people high or low in narcissism. Ostracism causes ego
20
threat, narcissistic people have known to have a strong reaction to this ego threat. Stucke
(2003) showed that narcissistic people show less self esteem, feeling of control and
belongingness after ego threat. Therefore it can be expected is that these constructs are
damaged due to ostracism, even more so in people high in narcissism in comparison with
people low in narcissism.
The effects of ostracism on feeling of belonging were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism:
high versus low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) ANOVA. People who were
ostracized showed less feeling of belonging (M = 3.07 , SD = 1.07) than people who were not
ostracized (M = 4.92, SD = 1.12), F (1,156) = 108.45, p < .001, η² = .42. There was no effect
of narcissism on feeling of belonging, F (1,156) = 2.54, n.s. The analysis also showed that
there was no interaction effect between ostracism and narcissism on feeling of belonging, F
(1,156) = .01, n.s. A marginal interaction effect was found between narcissism and status on
feeling of belonging, F (1,156) = 2.84, p = .094, η² = .02.
The effects of ostracism on feelings of control were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism:
high versus low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) ANOVA. People who were
ostracized showed less feelings of control (M = 3.11, SD =.85) than people who were not
ostracized (M =4.39, SD = .91), F (1,156) = 81.5, p < .001, η² = .360. There was no effect of
narcissism on feelings of control, F (1,156) = 1.2, n.s. The analysis also showed that there was
no interaction effect between ostracism and narcissism on feelings of control, F (1,156) = 1.9,
n.s.
The effects of ostracism on self-esteem were tested by doing a 2 (narcissism:
high versus low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) ANOVA. People who were
ostracized showed less self-esteem (M = 3.81, SD = 1.06) than people who were not
ostracized (M = 4.87, SD = 1.03), F (1,156) = 40.74, p < .001, η² = .20. There was no effect of
21
narcissism on self-esteem, F (1,156) = .45, n.s. The analysis also showed that there was no
interaction effect between ostracism and narcissism on self-esteem, F (1,156) = .05, n.s.
The effects of ostracism on feelings of meaningful existence were tested by doing a 2
(narcissism: high versus low) x 2 (ostracism: inclusion versus exclusion) ANOVA. People
who were ostracized showed less feelings of meaningful existence (M =3.37, SD =.98) than
people who were not ostracized (M = 4.78, SD = 1.23), F (1,156) = 63.55, p < .001, η² = .31.
There was no effect of narcissism on feelings of meaningful existence, F (1,156) = 1.84, n.s.
The analysis also showed that there was no interaction effect between ostracism and
narcissism on feelings of meaningful existence, F (1,156) = 1.08, n.s.
These additional analyses showed that, although these constructs are all damaged by
ostracism, this is not more so the case in people high in narcissism.
Discussion
Literature have long revealed ways in which narcissistic people react more angry and
aggressive in ego threatening social situations than non-narcissists (Stucke & Sporer, 2002;
Twenge & Campbell, 2003; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). But how different are narcissistic
people when they are exposed to one of the most substantial ego threats there is; ostracism.
Effects of ostracism have known to be extensive. Changes in mood are radical after being
ostracized, victims feel more angry and sad and become more insecure after they are
ostracized (Williams, 2007). These changes are bound to be even more severe in people high
in narcissism. This is due to the ego threat that ostracism causes, a threat that narcissistic
people find very difficult to cope with (Stucke, 2003). Their ego is threatened by (a feeling of)
failing which has a negative effect on their mood, self-esteem and sense of control and
belongingness (Stucke, 2003; Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996; Baumeister, Heatherton &
Tice, 1993). This effect could have even more severe consequences if people high in
22
narcissism are not just ostracized by anyone, but by someone with a high status. The status of
the person that ostracizes someone can be very relevant to establishing how threatening this
social exclusion is. Being ostracized by someone with a high status can have more unfortunate
implications for the self, this is because people with a high status have more social influence
within the group, therefore they can be the cause of a lower place in the social hierarchy
(French & Raven, 1959), something that people high in narcissism fear, as they want to
become successful and powerful . Research from Horton & Sedikides (2009) have shown that
narcissistic people react in a different way after being criticized by people with a high status.
Therefore, in this paper we tried to find out if people high in narcissism are influenced
differently than people low in narcissism following ostracism, and if status of the person that
ostracizes has an effect on these differences.
Theoretical implications
Ostracism in itself had no effect on retaliation, participants showed no more or less
retaliation after being ostracized, even though people high in narcissism showed more
retaliation overall. This complements earlier research of Penney and Spector (2002), they
found that narcissistic people show more egotism and aggression, resulting in more
counterproductive work behaviour, a form of retaliation. Nonetheless hypothesis 1a, which
stated that retaliation from people high in narcissism would be more severe under ostracism
was not confirmed. Similar results were found for the effect of ostracism on mood. Although
ostracism caused more negative mood overall, and people high in narcissism showed more
negative mood overall, hypothesis 1b which stated that negative mood of people high in
narcissism would be higher under ostracism was not confirmed.
There was no effect found of status on either mood or retaliation, meaning that the
status of the ostracizing other did not effect behaviour or mood. Therefore, hypothesis 2a,
which stated that, when ostracized by a high status other, people high in narcissism would
23
retaliate less than people low in narcissism was not confirmed. Hypothesis 2b, which stated
that when ostracized by a high status other, people high in narcissism would show more
negative mood than people low in narcissism was not confirmed. However, there was an
unexpected explanation for this.
Interestingly, we found that ostracism had an effect on perception of status differences.
When people are ostracized they perceived the person who was ostracizing them as having a
lower status. The analysis also shows that people high in narcissism were more susceptible for
these status differences. People high in narcissism felt less excluded when they were
ostracized by someone with a high status than when they were ostracized by someone with a
low status. This finding could be explained by, assuming ostracism from a high status other
causes more ego threat, the fact that narcissistic people use their imagination to cope with
stress. Raskin and Novacek (1991) showed in their study that, when dealing with everyday
stress, narcissistic people develop a coping mechanism where they fantasize about themselves
in an very optimistic manner. They imagine themselves as well accomplished and successful
and they bolster their self-esteem by these fantasies. Our findings suggest that narcissistic
people not only imagine positive events about themselves that are not real, they deny negative
events to cope with ego threat and maintain their high esteem.
Limitations and future research
The results failed to show differences in retaliation after ostracism, an effect that has
consequences for all the findings in this study. This finding was unexpected, even more when
it was clear that ostracism did have an overall effect on mood. This gap in significant results
may mean that people, after being ostracized, have more negative feelings, but are not willing
to act on this negative mood. However, an alternative explanation can be given as well. The
math task that participants had to do to show how much they retaliated against other people
was at the very end of the experiment, and there was a large proportion of participants that
24
allocated the full ten minutes of doing this task to the other persons, so that they would be
finished themselves. The task itself was perceived as very annoying and difficult, it could be
that participants were reluctant to do the task either way, even if they did not feel the need to
retaliate. The content validity of this task to measure retaliation can therefore be criticized. A
solution to this problem could be to make the math task less annoying and difficult, or to
make sure that the math task is not at the very end of the experiment. A different way to
measure retaliation, that is to let participants administer hot sauce to another person who does
not like spicy food (Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg & McGregor, 1999) could also be used
instead.
Another explanation for not confirming some of the hypotheses can be the high
amount of psychology students participating in the experiment, which compromises the
ecological validity of the experiment. In their first year, the students have to participate a
certain amount of hours in research. This has an effect on their ability to recognize
manipulations, and therefore make these manipulations less valuable to use in research. For
instance, some of the participants indicated that they had done the game Cyberball (Willams,
2007) before and that they knew they were being ostracized via computer and not by real
persons. Although research have shown that the negative effects of ostracizing still occur
when someone knows this exclusion is being manipulated, one can assume that the effects of
the manipulated ostracism may be less invasive. This limitation can be eliminated by doing an
experiment outside of the laboratory. Although manipulation of variables can be very
successful, if one doesn’t have to manipulate these variables because they already exist in the
field, effects can be much more prominent. Even though it is much more difficult to test under
the same conditions in the field, effects of ostracism and status differences are bound to be
more strong when they do not have to be manipulated. With a field study, preferably in a
company where participants actually work together, effects of ostracism and status could be
25
stronger. Not only will the effect of social exclusion or inclusion be much more radical, the
effect of status of the ostracizing other can have serious consequences for ones feelings and
actions. If people know they have to continue working with people with status differences, the
change of them acting in either retaliating or prosocial manner after ostracism is more
probable, there is simply much more at stake in a real working environment. In a field study,
you can derive status differences in position or responsibility. Ostracism could be measured
by doing a test that measures feelings of exclusion. Retaliation could be measured by
measuring counterproductive work behaviour, and prosocial behaviour by measuring
organisational citizenship behaviour. One can imagine that implications are much more
important in those circumstances, and the effects of ostracism and status may be different or
stronger.
Practical implications
Narcissism as a trait tends to be increasing (Campbell et al., 2011). People with
narcissistic traits are focused on getting success and power (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002).
Due to their hard work, persistence and approach motivation, where they focus on
approaching pleasurable opportunities as opposed to avoid painful experiences, they often
make it to managerial functions in companies (Foster & Trimm, 2008). To have shown how
narcissistic people act under ostracism has great benefits in managing their, sometimes,
difficult attitude. This experiment has shown that a negative evaluation coming from someone
with a high status is ignored and denied by people high in narcissism, as a result of a coping
mechanism that protects their ego’s from being harmed. Managers could use this information
and avoid giving such evaluations (for instance feedback) by people with a high status. Insight
in consequences of social exclusion or inclusion by people with all kinds of differences such
as status, is vital.
26
Conclusion
Ostracism and social exclusion unfortunately are common in a work environment.
Effects are damaging for mood and behaviour, and are therefore of great influence on the well
being of companies. This study also showed that when ostracized by people with a high
status, people high in narcissism found a way to cope with possibly harming effects of this
exclusion. They deny that they were excluded at all. This coping mechanism may have a
bigger influence on mood and behaviour as foreseen, and people high in narcissism could use
this mechanism in all kinds of situations, such as negative feedback, disappointment or
conflict. More knowledge in how status differences affect narcissistic people is vital,
especially in a world where social structure is everything.
27
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ayduk, O., Gyurak, A. & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejectionaggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775-782.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to selfregulation failure – Negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 64, 141-156.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103,
5-33.
Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 12, 206-210.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and
direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.
Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio G. (2011). Narcissism in
organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 268-284.
Foster, J. D., & Trimm, R. F. (2008). On being eager and uninhibited: Narcissism and
approach-avoidance motivation. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 34, 10041017.
Gardner, D. G., Pierce, J. L. (2011). A question of false self-esteem Organization-based selfesteem and narcissism in organizational contexts. Journal of managerial psychology, 26,
682-699.
28
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.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R. (2012). Status Conferral in Intergroup Social
Dilemmas: Behavioral Antecedents and Consequences of Prestige and Dominance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 351-366.
Horton, R. S, & Sedikides, C. (2009). Narcissistic Responding to Ego Threat: When the
Status of the Evaluator Matters. Journal of Personality, 77, 1493-1525.
John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self perception. Individual
differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 206-219.
Leary, M. R., Terry, M. L., Allen, A. B., & Tate, E. B. (2009). The concept of ego threat in
social and personality psychology: In ego threat a viable scientific construct?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 151-164.
Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggresion:
Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behaviour, 25, 331-348.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psyhological Revies, 69,
220-232.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of Narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196.
Ojanen, T., Findley, D., & Fuller, S. (2012). Physical and Relational Aggression in Early
Adolescence: Associations with Narcissism, Temperament, and Social Goals.
Aggressive Behavior, 38, 99-107.
Penny, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Do
Bigger Egos Mean Bigger Problems? International journal of selection and
assessment, 10, 126-134.
29
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Beharvior Research Methods Instruments &
Computers, 36, 717-731.
Raskin, R., & Novacek, J. (1991). Narcissism and the use of fantasy. Journal of clinical
psychology, 47, 490-499.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 911-918.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis
of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 74, 672-685.
Smalley, R. L., & Stake, J. E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening feedback: Selfesteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 483-495.
Stucke, T. S. (2003). Who's to blame? Narcissism and self-serving attributions following
feedback. European Journal of Personality, 17, 465-478.
Stucke, T. S. and Sporer, S. L. (2002), When a Grandiose Self-Image Is Threatened:
Narcissism and Self-Concept Clarity as Predictors of Negative Emotions and
Aggression Following Ego-Threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509-532.
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 Aggression. Personality and social
psychology bulletin, 29, 261-272.
30
Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls
with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82,
819-834.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review Psychology, 58, 425-452.
Zadro, L., Williams, K., & 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, 560-567.
31