Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 1
Do You Feel Left Out of Your Family?:
An Examination of Family Communication
Patterns and Ostracism
Anna F. Carmon & Joan R. Poulsen
Familial bonds have the potential to satisfy our need for human
relationships, but they are also likely to cause us to be both victims and
sources of ostracism. Feelings of ostracism likely stem from communicative
experiences and may extend to perceptions of family satisfaction. It would
seem ostracism mediates the relationship between family communication
patterns and family satisfaction. Although the current study did not confirm
the proposed model of ostracism, an alternative model is discussed. Further,
individuals who are married and have children perceive less ostracism in
their families than individuals who are in single and do not have children.
he need for satisfying relationships is a fundamental human
T
desire (Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Although close
relationships, such as familial bonds, have the potential to satisfy this
need, they are also likely to cause individuals to be both victims and
sources of family ostracism (Faulkner, Williams, Sherman, &
Williams, 1997). Ostracism is defined as “ignoring and excluding
individuals or groups by individuals or groups” (Williams, 2007, p.
427), and, in this case, individuals’ families. All too often family
members suffer feelings of ostracism due to negative experiences
they may have had. These feelings of being ignored and excluded
(Williams, 1997, 2001) likely stem from communicative experiences
individuals have had in their families and may extend to their overall
perceptions of family satisfaction. One way to explain these
experiences of family ostracism is through family communication
patterns.
Families develop communicative patterns based on ‘‘knowledge
structures that represent the external world of the family and provide
a basis for interpreting what other family members say and do’’
(Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994, p. 276). These patterns are related to a
variety of individual and family outcomes. In this study, we attempt
to determine if family communication patterns are related to
perceptions of ostracism by family members and, ultimately,
perceptions of family satisfaction.
Anna F. Carmon (Ph.D., North Dakota State University, 2010) is an
Assistant Professor in the Division of Liberal Arts at Indiana UniversityPurdue University Columbus. Joan R. Poulsen (Ph.D., Michigan State
University, 2006) is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Science at
Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus. Correspondence should be
sent to the first author at [email protected].
2 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
Family communication patterns are the underlying, and often
unacknowledged, models guiding how individuals communicate both
inside and outside of their families (Vogl-Bauer, 2003). Family
communication patterns directly affect family behavior. However,
little research has explored the importance of one’s family
communication patterns as they pertain to experiences of ostracism in
the family. This study considers the relationship between family
communication patterns, ostracism, and family satisfaction, allowing
us to gain a deeper understanding of the communicative and
psychological experiences of families.
Review of Literature
Family Communication Patterns
Family communication patterns are based upon the mass media
work of McLeod and Chaffee (1972). Not only did these scholars
determine that family communication affected children’s use and
interpretation of mass media, but that those effects of family
communication lasted long into adulthood. Through this line of
research, McLeod and Chaffee (1972) created a measure of family
communication patterns based upon a model of co-orientation. This
model identified families as having either a socio-orientation or a
concept-orientation (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Socio-orientation
is the extent that families communicate to develop positive familial
relationships (McLeod & Chaffee, 1972). Concept-orientation is the
degree to which families encourage their children to develop their
own opinions and beliefs (McLeod & Chaffee, 1972).
Ritchie (1991) reconceptualized the co-orientation model of
family communication patterns to incorporate more general family
communication patterns. Family communication patterns allow
individuals to cognitively understand and make sense of their
families (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). How families perceive their
communication is affected by cognitive factors, such as families’
orientations towards conversation and conformity (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002).
Conversation orientation is the extent to which family members
are encouraged to engage in open communication (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002. Through open communication, family members are
able to realize each other’s points of view and talk about them until
they are mutually understood. Therefore, families who have high
conversation orientations openly communicate with each other about
a variety of topics. High conversation orientation families likely
experience fewer feelings of ostracism as they are encouraged to
openly discuss topics with divergent views within the family and
come to mutual understandings, rather than pushing family members
and their views aside. Families who have low conversation
orientations do not openly interact with each other and have few
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 3
topics they openly discuss among family members. These families
have less parent-child communication about daily thoughts, as well
as about their plans and hopes for the future (Kelly et al., 2002). Low
conversation orientation families would be more likely to experience
higher levels of ostracism than high conversation families as a result
of their decreased interaction and lack of open communication
between family members. Individuals, in these cases, would likely
feel excluded if their family members were not willing to hear their
opinions or ideas.
Conformity orientation is the extent to which family members
are encouraged to have similar attitudes, values, and beliefs (Koerner
& Fitzpatrick, 2002). Family members come to understand and adopt
the beliefs of others. High conformity orientation families encourage
uniformity in beliefs and opinions. It would seem that high
conformity orientation families would have increased perceptions of
ostracism as they would not be willing to accept differing values,
beliefs, and opinions. Families who have low conformity orientations
encourage independence and individuality in the beliefs of their
members. These families are concerned with each individual’s
development, even at the expense of weakening the family structure.
Further, it would seem low conformity orientation families would be
less likely than high conformity orientation families to experience
ostracism as they encourage personal development and are more
open to and accepting of differing values, beliefs, and opinions.
Ostracism
Ostracism is defined as “ignoring and excluding individuals or
groups by individuals or groups” (Williams, 2007, p. 427). Ostracism
can manifest in a number of ways, including excluding people from
information, engaging in the silent treatment, and not including
individuals in group activities (Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelly, &
Williams, 2009; Wittenbaum, Shulman, & Braz, 2010; Wright &
Roloff, 2009). Further, individuals can experience ostracism in a
variety of contexts, but it is particularly relevant within families.
Regardless of how and where individuals experience ostracism, the
experiences are all generally painful and upsetting (Williams, 2007).
Communication plays a critical role in each of the ways
ostracism can be displayed in interpersonal relationships. For
instance, information exclusion is one of the common ways ostracism
manifests itself in the family (Jones, et al., 2009). Information
exclusion is particularly relevant when new individuals join groups,
when individuals do not understand something, or when individuals
purposely choose not share information with those in their social
groups. Individuals who feel they have been excluded from
information, report not only feeling uninformed, but also feel they are
4 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
not typical group members and, ultimately, not a part of the in-group
(Jones et al., 2009).
Ostracism, specifically the use of the silent treatment, is
considered a social form of punishment in many cases (Williams,
Shore, & Grahe, 1998). The use of the silent treatment by an
individual or group when other people are around demonstrates
rejection at the social level. Further, victims of this ostracizing
behavior may realize they are being rejected, but may be unaware or
unsure of the cause of the rejection. This rejection-related uncertainty
is uncomfortable for victims, often motivating them to determine
what they did wrong in order to cause such treatment and leading to
high levels of self-scrutiny (Sommer, Williams, Ciarocco, &
Baumeister, 2000; Williams, 2001). These feelings of ostracism and
the resulting uncertainty negatively affects victims in many ways.
Individuals who have experienced either short-term or
prolonged ostracism have reported decreased self-esteem, sense of
belonging, and control (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000, Zadro,
Williams, & Richardson, 2004). Further, individuals also report
increased feelings of anger, sadness, hurt feelings, and pain
(Williams & Zadro, 2005). It would seem individuals who have
received negative treatment from their families in the form of
ostracism will likely experience decreased levels of family
satisfaction as they become uncomfortable in their positions in their
families as well as uncomfortable with their feelings about
themselves.
Addressing the role and effects of ostracism in the family is
important for understanding how family members treat each other
may ultimately affect their overall views of their families and family
experiences. Fitness (2009) suggests a variety of factors that may
contribute to preferential treatment among family members. These
factors include birth order, degree of genetic relatedness, and family
dynamics related to scapegoating. Biological relatedness seems to be
an important factor in determining who to include and exclude in
families (Dunn, O’Connor, & Levy, 2002). More specifically,
children are more likely to exclude non-biological siblings and
stepparents than their biological siblings and biological parents when
drawing pictures of their families. Further, children were also likely
to draw their biological parents together; regardless of their marital
status. What little we know about ostracism in close relationships
suggests that it is indeed a powerful phenomenon. Zadro (2004)
conducted in-depth interviews with people who reported
experiencing exclusion, and of those, over 30% were at the hands of
a spouse/significant other. Many reported severe psychological and
even physical effects. Yet, ostracism within a relationship does not
necessarily lead to its dissolution. The need for belonging is so strong
people may be motivated to stay in a poor relationship.
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 5
One of the normative expectations of adult life is that one will
enter into a stable romantic relationship (Erikson, 1980) and start a
family. When individuals do not fulfill these expectations, either by
not marrying, divorcing, losing their spouse or by not having
children, they may ultimately violate the norms in their families
whether by choice or chance. Early ostracism research suggests
someone is likely to be a target of exclusion and ostracism if they
disobey norms (Schachter, 1959). Research about children
(Sandstrom, Cillessen, & Eisenhower, 2003), from anthropological
studies (Kurzban & Leary, 2001), and even a laboratory experiment
(Schacter, 1959) concur that when someone violates a norm, people
near him or her will use ostracism as a means of social control and as
a display of status.
Thus, some individuals may violate family norms by not being
in a stable, romantic relationship or having children. Therefore, it
may be the case that unmarried persons (single, divorced, widowed)
or individuals who are not parents may feel more ostracized than
married people or parents by those in their families who are in stable
relationships and/or have children. It may also be that married people
and people who have children feel more included from the simple
fact that they have a spouse and/or children who potentially can offer
a stable source of inclusion relative to unmarried, non-parents. One’s
status compared to his or her family norms, regarding relational
status or children, will likely affect their overall perceptions of
ostracism. For instance, if an individual chooses to marry and have
children, but the rest of his or family does not, he or she may feel
ostracized due to violating family norms. Indeed, someone married
with three children could feel very out of place in an extended family
in which few others married or had children at all. However, despite
recent shifts in society, such as older age of first marriage and birth
of the first child, as well as growing acceptance of co-habitation
before marriage, 70% or more of high school students express that
they expect to marry, most by age 25 (Manning, Longmore, &
Giordano, 2007). Thus, since it is a societal norm to marry and have
children (rather than not), the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Individuals who report their marital status as single,
divorced, or widowed will feel more ostracized by their families
than individuals who report their marital status as married.
H2: Individuals who do not have children will feel more
ostracized by their families than individuals who have children.
Family Satisfaction
Family satisfaction is how generally satisfied an individual is
with his or her family and his or her primary family relationships
(Carver & Jones, 1992). These relationships can include spousal
relationships, parent-child relationships, sibling relationships, and
6 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
grandparent-grandchild relationships, among others. Because these
relationships are the most enduring relationships individuals will
have (Vogl-Bauer, 2003), it is important to understand how
individuals’ satisfaction with these relationships is affected by their
perceptions of ostracism within their families.
Currently little to no research has specifically examined the
relationship between perceptions of ostracism and family satisfaction,
but some research has examined variables that can be linked to
ostracism. For instance, both the amount of self-disclosure
(Finkenhauer, Engels, Branje, & Meeus, 2004) and topic avoidance,
(Caughlin & Golish, 2002) tied to information exclusion, and are, in
turn, related to perceptions of family satisfaction in parent-child
relationships. Roberto, Carlyle, Goodall, and Castle (2009) also
found that communicative responsiveness defined as listening and
being sensitive to the needs of others, is positively related to
perceptions of relational satisfaction within the same relationship.
Taken together, it seems that people are more satisfied with
their families when there is open communication between family
members. Although families do communicate differently (conformity
vs. conversational orientations), the fact that there is open
communication, and structure to that communication, should still
promote greater satisfaction with one’s family. However, if a family
member feels ostracized, he or she is functionally experiencing a lack
of open communication, which should, in turn predict lower levels of
family satisfaction. In effect, communication patterns will not matter
as much if communication is closed, or absent, as is often the case
with ostracism. Thus, the relationship between perceptions of family
communication patterns and perceptions of family satisfaction likely
will be mediated by how ostracized individuals feel by their family
members. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posited:
H3: Perceptions of ostracism mediate the relationship between
perceptions of conversation orientation and conformity
orientation and perceptions of family satisfaction.
Method
Participants
Three hundred and ten individuals completed an online survey
using the online survey website through Survey Monkey. Of these
310 participants, 35 were removed because they failed to complete
all necessary measures for testing the hypotheses. Thus, the final
sample was 285 participants, including 217 women and 66 men, with
two participants choosing not to report their biological sex. The
average age of the participants was 24.47 years, with a range of 18 to
66 years. Participants were asked to indicate all ethnicities that
applied to them: Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (n = 7),
African descent/African American (n = 7), Caucasian/White (n =
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 7
274), Hispanic/Latino/Latina (n = 4), Middle Eastern (n = 2), and
Native American/American Indian (n = 4). Participants reported their
marital status as single (i.e., never married; n = 153, 53.7%),
married/life-long commitment (n = 103, 36.1%), separated/divorced
(n = 25 8.8%), widowed (n = 2, .7%) and two participants chose not
to report their marital status. Participants reported that they had
children (n = 103, 36.1%), that they did not have children (n = 180,
63.2%), and two participants chose not to report if they had children.
Procedures
Participants completed a 145-question online survey, not all of
which were relevant to the current study, in approximately 20 to 30
minutes. Participants were gathered using a convenience sample. An
email was sent to the researchers’ friends and families and posted on
their Facebook walls requesting the voluntary participation of
individuals over the age of 18. Participants were also recruited
through classroom announcements and emails to students at a small,
Midwestern university. Students were offered partial course or extra
credit for participation in the study, depending on instructor policy.
Once participants accessed the online survey, they were directed to a
page explaining informed consent as well as an overview of the
study. Participants were also asked to forward the survey link to other
individuals who met this criterion.
Measures
Family communication patterns. To measure family
communication patterns, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick’s (1990) Revised
Family Communication Patterns Instrument (RFCP) was used. The
RFCP is comprised of two dimensions: conversation orientation and
conformity orientation. This measure includes 26 items on a fivepoint Likert scale, with responses from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. Possible scores for each subscale range from five to 65,
with higher scores indicating stronger inclinations towards that
orientation. Sample items from the conversation orientation
dimension include “My parents encourage me to challenge their ideas
and beliefs” and “I can tell my parents almost anything.” Sample
items from the conformity orientation dimension include: “My
parents sometimes become irritated with my views if they are
different from theirs” and “In our home, my parents usually have the
last word.” The reliability of the two subscales was excellent,
Cronbach’s α = .95 and .83 respectively.
Family ostracism. To measure perceptions of family ostracism,
a revised version of Carter-Sowell’s (2010) Ostracism Experience
Scale was used. Questions were changed from “in general” to “in my
family” in order to have participants consider their family situations
8 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
specifically. This measure includes eight items on a five-point scale
from hardly ever to almost always. Possible scores for the scale
range from five to 40, with higher scores indicating more severe
ostracism experiences. Sample items include “In general, my family
treats me like I’m in solitary confinement” and “In general, my
family ignores me during conversation.” The reliability of this scale
was excellent, Cronbach’s α = .91.
Family satisfaction. To measure family satisfaction, Carver
and Jones’ (1992) Family Satisfaction Scale (FSS) was used. The
FSS includes 19 items on a five-point Likert scale, with responses
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Possible scores for
this measure range from 19 to 95, with higher scores indicating
increased perceptions of family satisfaction. Sample items include “I
am happy with family just the way it is” and “My family is one of the
least important aspects of my life.” The reliability of this scale was
excellent, Cronbach’s α = .94.
Results
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis suggested that individuals who report their
marital status as single, divorced, or widowed will feel more
ostracized within their families than individuals who report their
marital status as married or life-long committed relationship. Because
there was a severe difference in group sizes (very few divorced or
widowed participants), only single individuals and married/life-long
committed relationships could be compared. Therefore, an
independent samples t-test was conducted to test the differences in
perceptions of ostracism between those who are single/never married
and those we are in life-long relationships. Participants’ marital status
resulted in significantly different perceptions of family ostracism (t
(251) = 2.33, p < .001). Individuals who were married or in life-long
committed relationships reported significantly lower levels of
ostracism (M = 9.25, SD = 3.19) than individuals who were single
and never married (M = 10.44, SD = 4.43).
The second hypothesis suggested that individuals who do not
have children will feel more ostracized than individuals who do have
children. An independent samples t-test was conducted to test this
hypothesis. Whether or not participants had children resulted in
significantly different perceptions of family ostracism (t (276) = 9.24,
p < .001). Individuals who had children reported significantly lower
levels of ostracism (M = 9.38, SD = 3.69) than individuals who did
not have children (M = 10.51, SD = 4.46).
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 9
Model Testing
The model presented in Figure 1 was operationalized to include
the variables measured in the study (H3). Figure 2 depicts the
statistical model that was tested. First, a correlation analysis was
performed. Results are shown in Table 1. Next, LISREL 8.80 was
used to evaluate the fit of the predicted statistical model (see path
diagram presented in Figure 2). The covariance matrix used in the
analysis is presented in Table 2. Standardized maximum likelihood
parameter estimates are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 1:
Proposed Model
Conversation
Orientation
Ostracism
Family
Satisfaction
Conformity
Orientation
The path from conversation orientation to ostracism and the
path from ostracism to family satisfaction were significant. However,
the path from conformity orientation to ostracism was not significant.
Overall, the model does not appear to fit the data well (2 [2, N =
285] = 27.52, p < .001; GFI = .95; AGFI = .77; IFI = .89; CFI = .89;
RMSEA = .21). Three of the four goodness of fit indices failed to
meet the standard rule of thumb of .90 and the RMSEA failed to meet
the standard rule of thumb of .10 (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). Thus, the
explaining the data. Compared to the original model, family
satisfaction is predicted to mediate the relationship between
conversation orientation and perceptions of ostracism. LISREL 8.80
predicted model is not consistent with the data. Further, in analyzing
the predicted model, LISREL 8.80 proposed a modification better
was again used to evaluate the fit of this alternative model.
Standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates are shown in
Figure 3. Overall, this model appears to be a much better fit for the
data than the hypothesized model (2 [1, N = 285] = .15, p = .70; GFI
= 1.00; AGFI = 1.00; IFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00).
Discussion
This study examined how individuals’ perceptions of family
communication patterns, specifically conversation orientation and
conformity orientation, are related to perceptions of family ostracism
and family satisfaction. Individuals who were married or in life-long
10 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
Conformity
Orientation
-4.84
-16.97**
Family
Satisfaction
-5.93**
Family
Ostracism
Conversation
Orientation
Figure 2:
Predicted Path Model with Standardized Parameter Estimates
-1.38
df = 2
**p < .001
Table 1:
Correlations among Constructs
1.
Conversation
Orientation
2.
Conformity
Orientation
3.
Ostracism
4.
Family
Satisfaction
**p < .001
1
–
2
-.300**
3
-.323**
4
.437**
–
.023
-.054
–
-.730**
–
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 11
Table 2:
Covariance Matrix
1.
Conversation
Orientation
2.
Conformity
Orientation
3.
Ostracism
4.
Family
Satisfaction
* p < .01
1
255.15
2
-35.54
3
21.09
4
90.18
57.65
.91
-9.87
18.06
-42.48
185.28
**p < .001
committed relationships reported significantly lower levels of
ostracism than individuals who were single and never married.
Further, individuals who had children reported significantly lower
levels of ostracism than individuals who did not have children.
Within the proposed model, the path from conformity orientation to
ostracism was not significant. However, the paths from conversation
orientation to ostracism and from ostracism to family satisfaction
were significant. Overall, the predicted model was not consistent
with the data.
In relation to the first hypothesis, there was a significant
difference found between individuals in life-long committed
relationships and those who were single and never married in their
perceptions of family ostracism. Individuals, who were married
and/or in committed relationships, perceived less ostracism from
their families than did single, never married individuals. Further, in
regards to the second hypothesis, there was a significant difference
found between individuals who had children and those who did not
have children in their perceptions of family ostracism. Individuals
who had children perceived less ostracism from their families than
did individuals who did not have children. Considering that the
average age of our sample was 24, and that most people expect to
marry by age 25 (Manning et al., 2007), our sample may represent a
unique developmental time when people are considering marriage or
children heavily. Thus, those who are unmarried or not parents may
feel a heightened sensitivity to such expectations. Our results both
support the idea that individuals who do not fulfill expectations of
marrying and/or having children perceive themselves to be more
12 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
ostracized by their families than individuals who are in committed
relationships and/or have children (Erikson, 1980).
-17.00**
Family
Ostracism
8.15**
FF
Family
Satisfaction
CCC
Conversation
Orientation
Figure 3:
Post Hoc Path Model with Standardized Parameter Estimates
df = 1
**p < .001
It is important to put this finding in perspective. First, although
our findings indicate significant differences between married and
unmarried participants, and parents and non-parents in our sample,
the difference is relative. Consider that the ostracism scale ranges
from possible scores of 5 to 40. The averages for our sample hover
around nine for ‘less ostracized’ persons and 10 for more ostracized
persons. Thus, it appears that there is not truly severe or strong
ostracism being experienced, on average, for this sample. This should
not discount the finding that parents and married persons tend to
experience less ostracism than their unmarried / non-parent
counterparts. But it is telling that the difference, while certainly
significant, is not extreme and drastic. Unmarried persons are not
shunned outcasts and married persons are not completely immune
from ostracism.
Alternatively, it may be that families choose to engage in
ostracizing behaviors, such as excluding people from information,
engaging in the silent treatment, and not including individuals in
group activities (Jones, et al., 2009; Wittenbaum, et al., 2010; Wright
& Roloff, 2009), as a means of social control and displaying status.
While families may or may not intentionally ostracize their family
members because of their of their relationship and family planning
choices, these behaviors may serve as their means of dealing with
choices they may not support.
A related explanation stems from the logistics surrounding
many social events within families, which may tend to naturally
accommodate couples and people with children more than single
people. For instance, family discussions may revolve around
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 13
common experiences such as marital issues, accomplishments of
their children, and good-natured venting about the common stresses
of married/parental life. Thus, single people may have less in
common with married family members and parents, and may be less
able to participate in certain family conversations about such issues.
In turn, married family members and those with children may view a
single person as less similar to themselves. Indeed, common
statements such as “Life is different with children, you don’t
understand until you have them yourself” imply that parenthood may
be an exclusive in-group. If indeed single people are viewed as an
out-group, it seems quite understandable that they will experience
more rejection and perhaps ostracism (Pepitone & Wilpizeski, 1960).
Further, married individuals or those in committed life-long
relationships may perceive less ostracism in their families as they
have spouses who can provide a stable source of inclusion. This
suggests that, in addition to the economic and psychosocial benefits
provided by marriage, marriage also provides daily companionship
and lowers feelings of social isolation. Therefore, it seems likely that
these individuals would be less likely to perceive themselves as being
excluded from family social activities if they have spouses who fill
these needs.
Additionally, it may not be that marital status and/or parental
status leads to ostracism, rather it is also possible that people who
happen to get excluded more by their families also happen to be less
likely to be married or have children of their own. Indeed
intrapersonal dynamics, like personality or career goals, could very
well make it less likely that a person is married or a parent. In turn,
such dynamics may also be the root cause of exclusion from one’s
family. Consider a hypothetical family member who is socially
awkward or just plain unpleasant. Such qualities are likely to lead
this person to be both excluded by family, and less likely to have
satisfying relationships (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). In
essence, causal direction cannot be established by this study, nor can
all confounds be eliminated, but exploring the link between marital
and parental status and family ostracism certainly warrants further
investigation to explore these dynamics.
In relation to the third hypothesis, this study proposed a model
of family satisfaction, suggesting that perceptions of conversation
orientation and conformity orientation predict perceptions of
ostracism and, ultimately, perceptions of family satisfaction.
However, this model did not serve as a good fit for the data. The only
significant paths in the predicted model were between conversation
orientation and ostracism and between ostracism and family
satisfaction.
Perceptions of conversation orientation were negatively related
to perceptions of ostracism, meaning the more open communication
14 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
families engaged in, the less likely they were to perceive ostracism
from their families. Through the use of open communication,
families have the opportunity to discuss each other’s points of view
and talk through differences until they are understood (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002), thus decreasing the chances of perceived
ostracism if family members are engaged in interactions aimed at
striving to understand alternative views. Therefore, it seems equally
as likely that those from low conversation families would perceive
higher levels of ostracism, as their views may not be welcome in
their families. Further, low conversation orientation families are
likely to engage in information exclusion (Jones et al., 2007), through
their lack of interaction, leading to increased perceptions of ostracism
in the family.
Perceptions of conformity orientation were initially thought to
be related to perceptions of ostracism. However, the results of this
study suggest there is no relationship between conformity orientation
and perceptions of family ostracism. Conformity orientation has to do
with how much individuals are encouraged by their family members
to have similar attitudes, values, and beliefs (Koerner & Fitzpatrick,
2002). These results suggest that conformity orientation may be a
better predictor of attitudes related to specific topics and beliefs,
rather than how much general ostracism individuals perceive in their
families. It may be that families high in conformity orientation
simply avoid controversial topics and that family members
understand and follow this norm in how they communicate with one
another. Although this certainly may limit the scope of conversation
topics, it also makes sense that this approach would allow for
inclusion of all members (so long as they follow the norm).
Conformity orientation may not have originally intended effects on
perceptions of family ostracism; however, future research should be
conducted to further clarify if a relationship exists between
conformity orientation and perceptions of family ostracism.
Perceptions of ostracism were negatively related to perceptions
of family satisfaction, meaning the more ostracism individuals
perceived, the less satisfied they were with their families. This
supports previous research suggesting that ostracizing behaviors,
such as the amount of self-disclosure, lack of communicative
responsiveness, and topic avoidance are also negatively related to
perceptions of family satisfaction (Caughlin & Golish, 2002;
Finkenhauer et al., 2004; Roberto et al., 2009). While previous
research has only demonstrated a relationship between specific,
potentially ostracizing behaviors’ relationship and family
satisfaction, this study demonstrated a clear link between overall
perceptions of family ostracism and family satisfaction. This link is
in line with prior work demonstrating ostracism experiences are
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 15
painful and upsetting in a variety of ways. Our finding that family
satisfaction is negatively associated with ostracism also supports
prior work which has found that targets of ostracism tend not to like
the sources of exclusion (Williams, 2007; Poulsen & Kashy, in
press). It could be that targets of family ostracism do not particularly
like family members who ostracize them, prompting a lower level of
family satisfaction.
In analyzing the predicted path model, LISREL proposed a post
hoc to better explain the data, one in which family satisfaction
mediates the relationship between conversation orientation and
ostracism. The first part of this model proposes that conversation
orientation leads to family satisfaction. This suggestion of a
relationship between perceptions of conversation orientation and
family satisfaction is not surprising. Previous research has linked
conversation orientation to a variety of outcomes associated with
family satisfaction, such as the ability to develop effective
communication skills and interpersonal relationships (Koerner &
Fitzpatrick, 2002; Koesten, 2004; Koesten & Anderson, 2004) and
the ability to engage in person-centered communication (Burleson,
Delia, & Applegate, 1995). Therefore, it makes sense that individuals
who are able to develop positive family relationships through
communication are more satisfied with their relationships than
individuals who are not able to foster their family relationships
through open communication.
The post-hoc model suggests that conversation orientation
positively predicts family satisfaction, which, in turn, is negatively
linked with perceptions of ostracism. This new model would extend
the existing research by highlighting the potentially multi-directional
nature of the relationship between perceptions of family ostracism
and perceptions of family satisfaction. This suggests that it is
possible for someone to feel excluded because of low family
satisfaction; or feel less satisfied because of exclusion from family.
This may indicate that there is a dissatisfaction-ostracism feedback
loop in which people feel ostracized, causing them to feel less
satisfied with their family, which may trigger them to withdraw from
their family, leaving them less satisfied, thus entering a cycle of
dissatisfaction and ostracism. Another possibility worth exploring in
the future is the existence of a third variable. For instance, perhaps
levels of family satisfaction and ostracism are both caused by a
common underlying factor such as perceived lack of fit or low
similarity with one’s family. Such explanations should be tested in
future work.
Though our originally proposed model suggested that both
conversation and conformity orientations would lead to different
perceptions of ostracism and, ultimately, perceptions of satisfaction,
the post-hoc model suggests that conformity orientation was not an
16 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
effective predictor of ostracism, thus it was removed from the model.
Prior research suggests that conformity orientation is an inconsistent
predictor of family satisfaction; our findings mirror this (PunyanuntCarter, 2008; Shearman & Dumlao, 2008). The post-hoc model
proposes conversation orientation predicts perceptions of family
satisfaction, which then predicts perceptions of ostracism. This
suggests open communication about many topics is related to
perceptions of family satisfaction. It also suggests that how families
communicate is less telling about ostracism and more telling about
satisfaction. It seems individuals’ perceptions of their families may
be linked more with ostracism than how families communicate. Thus,
it may be that both perceptions of family satisfaction and ostracism
are determined in large part by individuals’ family communication
patterns.
Because LISREL proposes models based only on their fit with
the current data, assuming that the post-hoc model is an accurate
representation of the family satisfaction and ostracism would be
premature because this post hoc model might simply be an artifact of
the current data set. In particular, we do not know the extent to which
a relationship between conversation orientation, family satisfaction,
and ostracism is partially or fully mediated or whether it exists at all.
Therefore, research should test both the proposed model and the posthoc model using broader samples.
Limitations
Like all studies, this one is not without limitations. First, a
convenience, rather than a random, sample was used, which limits
the overall generalizability of the study’s results. Further, the sample
consisted predominantly of Caucasian females.
Males and
individuals from different cultural backgrounds may have resulted in
different findings than those presented here. Future research should
use a random sample with more diversity to improve the
generalizability of the results.
Second, the first hypothesis could not be analyzed as originally
planned due to the unequal marital status group sizes (i.e.,
single/never
married,
married/life-long
commitment,
separated/divorced, and widowed). Therefore, future research should
attempt to address separated/divorced and widowed individuals, as
these are likely to be the individuals most ostracized from their
families as they are no longer living the societal norm of being
married and are now living on their own, either voluntarily or
involuntarily. By addressing the experiences of these individuals, we
will be able to more completely understand the phenomenon of
ostracism in families.
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 17
Finally, it should be a priority to test the possibility that the
relationship between ostracism and family satisfaction may be driven
by one or more underlying factors. Such factors as perceived
similarity with one’s family should be examined. Additionally,
longitudinal work could be implemented to study the presence of a
dissatisfaction-ostracism loop in family communication patterns.
Future Research
In addition to the suggestions mentioned above, there are
several additional opportunities for future research. First, researchers
should continue to test the post-hoc model of family ostracism, where
perceptions of family satisfaction serve as the mediator between
conversation orientation and family ostracism. Future testing of this
model will allow researchers to determine whether this model is
simply an artifact of the current data set or if it provides a new means
for understanding family ostracism.
Second, while the majority of research conducted about
ostracism is done within the psychology discipline; future research
should continue to explore other communicative predictors and
outcomes associated with ostracism. Specifically, research should
address how the perceptions of internal and external family privacy
boundaries affect perceptions of ostracism within the family. It would
seem that individuals with more free-flowing privacy boundaries
would perceive less ostracism in their families than individuals with
more regimented privacy boundaries. Further, researchers could also
address how perceptions of ostracism in the family affect perceptions
of relational uncertainty among family members. It would seem that
individuals who perceive low levels of ostracism in their families
would perceive the lowest levels of relationship uncertainty, while
individuals who perceive a moderate amount of ostracism in their
families would perceive the highest levels of relationship uncertainty,
as they attempt to negotiate their positions in their families.
Finally, while the focus of the current study was not about the
sexuality of the participants, future research should explore how
individuals’ sexualities and relationship status affect their perceptions
of ostracism within their families. Will openly homosexual, single
individuals perceive higher levels of ostracism than openly
homosexual individuals in committed relationships? Or will all
homosexual individuals perceive similar levels of ostracism in their
families due to the fact they live lifestyles counter to societal norms?
Further research would allow us to answer these questions.
Conclusion
As individuals seek to fulfill their need to belong, they
unfortunately are likely to face the irony of being both the victim and
the source of ostracism in their many relationships (Faulkner et al.,
18 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
1997). It is important to address these experiences in the most
enduring relationships individuals have: the family. This study
provides a glimpse into one particular communicative influence,
namely family communication patterns, on perceptions of ostracism
within the family. While the proposed model of family satisfaction
was not a good fit for the data, the data illuminated a possible, multidirectional relationship between perceptions of ostracism and family
satisfaction. It also demonstrated that fulfilling societal norms such as
marrying and having children is likely to reduce feelings of familial
exclusion for several reasons. Future research would allow for a more
complete understanding of ostracism experiences within families.
References
Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1995). The
socialization of person-centered communication: Parents’
contributions to their children’s social-cognitive and
communication skills. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti
(Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34-76). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carter-Sowell, A. R. (2010). Salting a wound, building a callous, or
throwing in the towel? The measurement and effects of chronic
ostracism experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Carver, M. D., & Jones, W. H. (1992). The family satisfaction scale.
Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 71-84.
Caughlin, J., & Golish, T. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”:
Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in
stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30,
78-106.
Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., & Levy, I. (2002). Out of the picture: A
study of family drawings by children: From step-, single-parent,
and non-step families. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 31, 505-512. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3104_9
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Company.
Faulkner, S., Williams, K., Sherman, B., & Williams, E. (1997). The
‘Silent Treatment’: Its incidence and impact. Presented at the
Annual Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2004).
Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 66,195-209.
Fitness, J. (2005). Bye bye black sheep: The causes and
consequences of rejection in family relationships. In K. D.
Williams, J .P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying.
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 19
Sydney Symposium in Social Psychology (pp. 263-278). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication
schemata within the family. Human Communication Research,
20, 275–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural
equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, E. E., Carter-Sowell, A. R., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D.
(2009). ‘I’m out of the loop’: Ostracism through information
exclusion. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 157174. doi: 10.1177/1368430208101054
Kelly, L., Keaten, J. A., Finch, C., Duarte, I. B., Hoffman, P., &
Michels, M. M. (2002). Family communication patterns and
the development of reticence. Communication Education, 51,
202-209.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of
family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70-91.
Koesten, J. (2004). Family communication patterns, sex of subject,
and communication
competence.
Communication
Monographs, 71, 226-244.
Koesten, J., & Anderson, K. (2004). Exploring the influence of
family communication patterns, cognitive complexity, and
interpersonal competence on adolescent risk behaviors. Journal
of Family Communication, 4, 99-121.
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of
stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 187-208. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187
Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). The
changing institution of marriage: Adolescents’ expectations to
cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559575. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00392.x
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social
reality. In. J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (pp.
50-59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Pepitone, A., & Wilpizeski, C. (1960). Some consequences of
experimental rejection. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 60, 359-364. doi: 10.1037/h0042405
Poulsen, J. R., & Kashy, D. A. (in press). Two sides of the coin:
How sources and targets of exclusion perceive themselves and
one another. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2008). Father-daughter relationships:
Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal
communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports,
25, 23-33.
20 Carmon & Poulsen
Iowa Journal of Communication
Reis, H. T., Collins, W., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship
context of human behavior and development.
Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 844-872.
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic
analysis and
conceptual reinterpretation. Communication
Research, 18, 548-565.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication
patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal
relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544.
doi: 10.1177/009365090017004007
Roberto, A. J., Carlyle, K. E., Goodall, C. E., & Castle, J. D. (2009).
The relationship between parents’ verbal aggressiveness and
responsiveness and young adult children’s attachment style and
relational satisfaction with parents. Journal of Family
Communication, 9, 90-106. doi: 10.1080/15267430802561659
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Eisenhower, A. (2003).
Children’s appraisal of peer rejection experiences: Impact on
social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12, 530550. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00247
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Shearman, S. M., & Dumlao, R. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison
of family communication patterns and conflict between young
adults and parents. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 186211.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is
satisfying about satisfying events?: Testing ten candidate
psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 325-339. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F.
(2000). When silence speaks louder than words: Explorations
into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social
ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 225-243.
doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2203_9
Vogl-Bauer, S. (2003). Maintaining family relationships. In D. J.
Canary & M. Dainton
(Eds.), Maintaining relationships
through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural
variations (pp. 31-49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five
personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2012, pp. 1-21
Carmon & Poulsen 21
and
Individual
Differences,
37,
1519-1530.
doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),
Aversive interpersonal behavior (pp. 133-170). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 425-452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
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. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent
treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated feelings.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 117-141.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: The indiscriminate
early detection system. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & V.
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social
exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Sydney Symposium of Social
Psychology Series (pp. 19-34). New York, NY: Taylor &
Francis.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Shulman, H. C., & Braz, M. E. (2010). Social
ostracism in task groups: The effects of group composition.
Small
Group
Research,
41,
330-353.
doi:10.1177/1046496410363914
Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2009). Relational commitment and
the silent treatment. Communication Research Reports, 26, 1221. doi: 10.1080/08824090802636967
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can
you go?: Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower selfreported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and
meaningful experience. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 560-567. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
Zadro, L. (2004). Ostracism: Empirical studies inspired by realworld experiences of silence and exclusion (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.