test Browse by Author Names Browse by Titles of Works Browse by Subjects of Works Browse by Issue Dates of Works

Advanced Search
& Collections
Issue Date   
Sign on to:   
Receive email
My Account
authorized users
Edit Profile   
About T-Space   

T-Space at The University of Toronto Libraries >
School of Graduate Studies - Theses >
Doctoral >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/32659

Title: How Much or How Many? Partial Ostracism and its Consequences
Authors: Banki, Sara
Advisor: Berdahl, Jennifer
Department: Management
Keywords: Ostracism
Issue Date: 20-Aug-2012
Abstract: Ostracism, the process of socially ignoring and excluding certain people, has attracted attention in recent years. Most studies have looked at full ostracism, in other words, when everyone in a group ignores a person. However, in real life, people are usually only partially ostracized – excluded by some members of a group and not by others. The present study is one of the first to provide an in-depth examination of reactions when different forms of partial ostracism occur in a group. It looks at partial ostracism in a field study and an experimental study. In the field study I proposed that because targets of partial ostracism receive mixed signals from their group, it is easier for them to interpret ostracism as an external event rather than internal; whereas in full ostracism because all the signs received by the target are the same, the target cannot interpret the act of ostracism in different ways. The results of the field study indicate that partial ostracism is not only more common than full ostracism at work, but targets of partial ostracism also make fewer internal attributions than do targets of full ostracism. The experimental study examined two dimensions of partial ostracism: activity exclusion (AE) and people exclusion (PE). Results indicate that as AE increases, i.e. targets are excluded from more activities, targets make fewer internal attributions, feel more threats to their basic needs (mediated by internal attributions), and have more desire to help others. As PE increases, targets feel more threats to their needs and put less effort into group tasks. Comparing AE and PE simultaneously, AE makes a difference in targets’ well-being while PE affects targets’ efforts in group tasks
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/32659
Appears in Collections:Doctoral

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Banki_Sara_201206_PhD_thesis.pdf4.57 MBAdobe PDF

Items in T-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.