Laugh and the World Laughs With You?
The Effects of Ostracism and Group Status on Nonverbal Behavior
Sally D. Farley, Dresden N. Lackey, Deborah H. Carson, Darci Smith, & Terrence Pope
Results and Discussion
Abstract
Introduction
Ø  According to the temporal need-threat model,
ostracism has negative effects on belonging, self-esteem,
control, and meaningfulness needs (Williams & Nida,
2011).
Ø  To minimize the effects of social exclusion and avoid
further isolation, ostracized individuals tend to engage
in pro-social behaviors in order to reestablish their
place within a social group (Maner, DeWall,
Baumeister & Schaller, 2007).
Ø  After facing ostracism, individuals attend more acutely
to nonverbal cues from others, seeking the opportunity
to engage in nonverbal reciprocity (Williams & Nida,
2011).
Ø  Nonverbal behavior is subtle and therefore has a low
cost if not reciprocated (Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin,
2008).
Ø  Nonconscious mimicry of nonverbal behaviors
(especially directed toward in-group members) can
help establish rapport, liking, and trust, which serve to
heal the pain experienced from ostracism (Lakin et al.,
2008).
Ø  Examples of affiliative nonverbal behaviors that serve
as an adaptive response to social exclusion (Chartrand
& Dalton, 2009) include laughter and smiling (Platow
et al., 2005).
Ø  Hypothesis: We predicted an interaction between
ostracism and in-group status such that ostracized
individuals would selectively increase affiliative
behaviors (laughter, smiling and nodding) and
decrease distancing behaviors (eye-rolling and headshaking) toward in-group members.
Method
Ø  Data were collected from University of Baltimore
undergraduate students (N=92, 22 men and 70
women).
Ø  First, Ps played Cyberball, an online video game, with
two false computer-generated players. Ostracized Ps
were tossed the ball only twice and then excluded
from play, but included Ps were passed the ball an
equal number of times by the computer-generated
players.
Ø  Next, in a “separate study,” Ps were video-recorded
while watching a four-minute video of a female
student who frequently laughed and smiled. Ps were
either told that the woman attended the University of
Baltimore (in-group) or Johns Hopkins University
(out-group). The following behaviors were coded:
laughter, smiling, head-nodding, head-shaking, and
eye-rolling.
Ø  Two raters blind to condition independently coded the
five behaviors, yielding strong intra-class correlation
coefficients ranging from .87 to .94 (p < .001).
Ø  To resolve issues with positive skewness and kurtosis, we
performed square-root transformations on the nonverbal
measures.
Ø  A series of 2 (ostracized vs. included) x 2 (in-group vs.
out-group) between subjects ANOVAS yielded no
significant effects. A one-way ANOVA revealed that the
group status manipulation was ineffective at inducing
liking for the confederate, F(1, 91) = 1.15, p = .29.
Rather, regardless of assigned group status, Ps (N = 42)
who felt as if the woman was part of their in-group
liked her more (M = 6.94, SD = 1.44) than those who
did not (N = 44)(M = 5.41, SD = 1.86), F(1, 84) =
18.11, p < .001.
Ø  Thus additional analyses were conducted with perceived
group status (rather than assigned group status) as the
predictor variable (after omitting 6 participants who
were uncertain).
Ø  The predicted interaction did emerge for smiling, F(1,
81) = 5.54, p = .02. See Figure. Ps smiled most
frequently at in-group members following ostracism. No
other effects were significant.
Ø  Future research should examine a more salient group
characteristic, such as gender, as the basis for group
differentiation.
9
References
8
Raw Smiling Frequency
This study examined cyberostracism and in-group status
on nonverbal signals of affiliation/dis-affiliation.
Participants engaged in Cyberball (Williams & Jarvis,
2006) prior to watching a film of a woman who they
believed was either a member of their in-group or outgroup. Although actual in-group status did not affect the
dependent measures, there was a significant interaction
between perceived in-group status and ostracism for
smiling. The highest rate of smiling occurred in the
ostracized in-group condition, suggesting that
individuals attempted to redress their belongingness
deficiencies by directing affiliative behavior toward
perceived in-group members.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ostracized
Outgroup
Included
Ingroup
Figure. Raw smiling frequency as a function of ostracism
and perceived group membership
16th Annual Meeting of SPSP
Long Beach, CA
February, 2015
Ø  Chartrand, T. L., & Dalton, A. N. (2009). Mimicry: It’s ubiquity,
importance, and functionality. In Oxford Handbook of Human Action
(pp. 458–483). Oxford University Press.
Ø  Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like
you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to
social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19, 816–822.
Ø  Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F. & I., & Schaller, M. (2007).
Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving
the “porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 42-55.
Ø  Platow, M. J. at al. (2005). “It’s not funny if they’re laughing”: Selfcategorization, social influence, and responses to canned laughter.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 542–550.
Ø  Williams, K., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in
research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research
Methods, 38, 174-180.
Ø  Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and
coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75.