Cyberostracism: Effects of Being Ignored Over the Internet

The paper investigates whether ostracism—being ignored and excluded—elicits negative psychological effects even in minimal, remote interactions online (cyberostracism). Building on evidence that Internet use can relate to loneliness and that users may experience being ignored online, the authors ask whether brief, impersonal exclusion over the Internet threatens fundamental needs (belonging, self-esteem, control, meaningful existence) and induces discomfort. They further test whether ostracism increases conformity as a coping response to refortify belonging. Study 1 tests if varying quantities of cyberostracism decrease belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence and increase aversive impact, with expected mediation by need threats and potential moderation by trait self-esteem. Study 2 tests whether prior cyberostracism increases subsequent conformity, and whether effects vary by in-group versus out-group sources of ostracism.

Ostracism is pervasive across species and cultures and functions to enforce group cohesion while harming targets (Gruter & Masters, 1986). Human targets of social ostracism report depressed mood, loneliness, anxiety, frustration, and helplessness; effects intensify with self-attributions and blatant rejection. Even imagined or role-played ostracism produces negative self-evaluations. Targets often dislike ostracizers yet may seek reacceptance. Williams (1997) proposed a need-threat model: ostracism uniquely and rapidly threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence, producing psychological discomfort and motivating coping responses to restore threatened needs (e.g., affiliation, conformity). Cyberostracism may be especially ambiguous due to limited cues and potential technological explanations, possibly altering which needs are threatened relative to face-to-face ostracism. Social identity theory suggests ostracism by in-group members may be especially threatening, leading to stronger conformity; attributional reasoning implies in-group ostracism may prompt more self-blame than out-group ostracism.

Study 1 (Internet flying-disc game): Participants: 1,486 individuals from 62 countries (64% female), recruited via universities, listservs, newsgroups, and links. Design: Single-factor between-subjects with four levels of quantity of ostracism—overinclusion (67% throws to participant), inclusion (33%), partial ostracism (20%), complete ostracism (0%). Trait self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) measured pre-experiment as a predictor. Procedure: On an online platform, participants believed they played a triadic virtual toss game with two others (computer-controlled). After one catch and one throw to ensure engagement, an algorithm implemented assigned inclusion/ostracism probabilities. Game continued until participants chose to quit (quit option after sixth throw). Measures: Manipulation check (self-reported percentage of throws received). Persistence (number of turns before quitting). Need threats assessed on 9-point items: belonging (“How much do you feel you belonged to the group?”; reverse scored), self-esteem as sociometer (“To what extent do you think the other participants value you as a person?”; reverse scored), control (“I am in control of my life”; reverse scored), meaningful existence (“Life is meaningless”). Aversive impact index combining mood (bad–good, sad–happy, tense–relaxed, rejected–accepted; reverse coded as needed), perceived intensity of ostracism (ignored/excluded vs noticed/included), and perceived group cohesiveness (liking others and being liked; reverse scored). Debriefing provided at end. Analyses: Multiple regressions and trend analyses; significance threshold p < .01 given large N. Mediation tested per Baron and Kenny (1986), with belonging and self-esteem as proposed mediators. Study 2 (Cyberball + conformity task): Participants: 213 final (after exclusions from 231 completers; initial site access N=501 with high attrition due to technical issues). 87% PC users; 13% Mac; participants from 14 countries (majority US and Australia). Design: 3 (group membership: in-group, out-group, mixed) × 2 (interaction: inclusion vs ostracism) between-subjects. Additional control group (n=20) completed the perception/conformity task without cyberball. Procedure: Cyberball game with 10 throws total; first three standardized so all players got one throw/catch. On throw 4, participant tossed; from throw 5 onward, inclusion group received the ball ~33% of time; ostracism group received no further throws. Group membership manipulation: ostensible co-players labeled as PC vs Mac users to induce in-group/out-group/mixed contexts based on participant’s own platform. During cyberball, thought bubbles allowed optional concurrent comments. After cyberball, all joined a new six-person group for a perceptual comparison task modeled on conformity paradigms: Six trials (Trials 3, 4, 6 were critical with unanimous incorrect responses from the first five ostensible members). Participants always responded sixth. Measures: Conformity operationalized as (a) mean percentage of critical trials conformed (0–100%) and (b) percentage of participants conforming at least once. Manipulation checks: perceived percentage of throws, recall of group composition; belonging (single 9-point item). Debriefing followed.

Study 1: Manipulation check: Participants accurately perceived differing inclusion levels; overinclusion M perceived throws ≈ 50% (SD 19%), inclusion 34% (SD 13%), partial 26% (SD 14%), complete 12% (SD 9%). Quantity of ostracism significantly predicted perceived percentage of throws (ΔR² ≈ .474), F(3,1478)=449.1, p<.01; trend primarily linear (R²=.472; small quadratic improvement to R²=.477). Persistence: Main effect of ostracism on turns played, ΔR²=.012, F(3,1478)=6.2, p<.01; complete ostracism led to fewer turns (M=11.0) than inclusion (M=13.7), t=2.92, p<.05, and partial (M=15.0), t=4.12, p<.01; curvilinear relation (small linear and quadratic effects; R²=.009). Aversive impact: Strong main effect of ostracism, ΔR²=.293, F(3,1478)=219.3, p<.01; aversive impact increased monotonically across conditions (overinclusion M=24.45; inclusion 27.73; partial 34.58; complete 44.75), with significant differences between each level (ts=3.32–23.45, ps<.01). Trait self-esteem: Lower self-esteem associated with higher aversive impact, ΔR²=.046, F(1,1478)=102.3, p<.01; no Quantity × Self-esteem interaction. Need threats: Ostracism increased threatened belonging (R²=.332, F=234.2, p<.01) and threatened self-esteem (R²=.097, F=53.2, p<.01); no effects on perceived control (R²=.001, ns) or meaningful existence (R²=.001, ns). Mediation: Belonging and self-esteem each mediated the ostracism→aversive impact link; adding belonging reduced ostracism effect (ΔR²=.01, F=19.8, p<.01) and adding self-esteem reduced it further (ΔR²=.14, F=139.76, p<.01). Both belonging (β≈3.30, SE=.12) and self-esteem (β≈1.24, SE=.12) uniquely predicted aversive impact when entered together (ps<.001). Although control and meaningful existence were not affected by ostracism levels, higher threats to these needs correlated with higher aversive impact (control R²=.049, F=77.0, p<.01; meaningful existence R²=.032, F=49.6, p<.01). Study 2: Manipulation checks: Inclusion reported higher perceived throws than ostracism (M=39% vs 21%), F(1,163)=63.2, p<.05. In ostracism conditions, participants ostracized by in-group overestimated throws relative to out-group/mixed; inclusion conditions did not differ by group type. Most participants (82%) correctly recalled group composition; pretask descriptions showed in-group favoritism in valence ratings. Conformity: Ostracized participants conformed more than included (mean percent of critical trials: M=27% SD=30% vs M=18% SD=28%), F(1,163)=4.01, p<.05. No main effect of group membership and no interaction with ostracism. By the “at least once” metric, ostracized participants showed higher rates (e.g., in-group: 52% vs 35%; out-group: 53% vs 37%; mixed: 63% vs 38%). Belonging: Ostracized participants reported lower belonging than included (M=3.11 SD=2.07 vs M=4.65 SD=2.62), F(1,163)=14.4, p<.01; interaction indicated belonging dropped for out-group and mixed ostracism relative to inclusion, but not for in-group ostracism (where belonging reports were similar to inclusion). Thought bubbles: Few analyzable attributions; some expressed feeling ignored, rejected, or angry.

Both studies demonstrate that even minimal, anonymous exclusion online (cyberostracism) produces reliable negative effects: decreased belonging and socially based self-esteem, worse mood, heightened feelings of exclusion, and reduced perceived group cohesiveness. Study 1 supports the need-threat model by showing that belonging and sociometer self-esteem mediate aversive impact. Control and meaningful existence did not vary by ostracism in this brief, remote context, possibly due to reduced salience in cyber settings or less sensitive, more trait-like measurement wording. The curvilinear persistence pattern suggests partial inclusion sustains engagement (akin to partial reinforcement), whereas complete exclusion hastens withdrawal. Study 2 extends beyond self-reports, showing that prior cyberostracism increases conformity to a new group’s unanimous errors, consistent with attempts to refortify belonging through normative alignment. Conformity increases regardless of whether ostracizers were in-group or out-group, suggesting ostracism by anyone may be sufficiently aversive to trigger belonging-restorative behavior. Self-report anomalies under in-group ostracism (overestimated inclusion; unchanged belonging) coupled with elevated conformity suggest participants were affected but unwilling to acknowledge exclusion, or that mere in-group categorization bolstered perceived inclusion. Overall, findings indicate cyberostracism can threaten inclusionary needs and shape behavior, even absent face-to-face cues or anticipated future interaction, underscoring ostracism’s potency as a social influence process.

This work introduces and validates an Internet-based paradigm for studying cyberostracism, showing that brief, anonymous exclusion online threatens belonging and sociometer self-esteem, increases aversive affect, and promotes subsequent conformity. The results support Williams’s (1997) need-threat model and suggest that targets cope with short-term ostracism by engaging in behaviors (e.g., conformity) that may restore belonging. The paradigm demonstrates feasibility and reach of Internet-based social psychology while revealing ostracism’s potency in minimal conditions. Future research should: refine measures of control and meaningful existence in cyber contexts; strengthen group identification manipulations to test in-group versus out-group dynamics; examine long-term cyberostracism effects (e.g., depression, alienation) and boundary conditions; analyze attributions in real-time; and address methodological challenges inherent to online experimentation.

- Internet-based constraints: high dropout rates (especially Study 2) potentially introduce self-selection bias; technical lags and browser incompatibilities affected completion. - Participant identity and context cannot be verified or controlled (possible misreporting of demographics; varied testing environments). - Measures of control and meaningful existence may have been too abstract/trait-like to detect momentary change; cyber context may differentially engage these needs. - Thought-bubble data were sparse for attributional coding. - Group identification manipulation (PC vs Mac) may have been too weak to detect predicted in-group amplification effects on behavior. - Persistence measure confounded by opportunity to quit and task design; cyberball standardized to 10 throws in Study 2 to mitigate this. - Some manipulation checks (in-group ostracism) suggested distorted self-reports, complicating interpretation of belonging perceptions.