Management Article 2015

Academy of Management Journal
2015, Vol. 58, No. 1, 279297.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0347
OSTRACISM, SELF-ESTEEM, AND JOB PERFORMANCE: WHEN

DO WE SELF-VERIFY AND WHEN DO WE SELF-ENHANCE?
D. LANCE FERRIS
The Pennsylvania State University
HUIWEN LIAN
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
DOUGLAS J. BROWN
RACHEL MORRISON
University of Waterloo
Self-esteem level has been positioned as a key mediating mechanism accounting for the
effects of ostracism on behaviors, invoking the notion that individuals seek to verify
their self-perceptions by behaving in a way that is consistent with those self-perceptions. However, evidence supporting the relation of ostracism and self-esteem level to
behavioral outcomes has been mixed. We argue that such mixed effects arise because
individuals may engage in behaviors alternately to verify their self-perceptions (suggesting a relation between self-esteem level and behavioral outcomes) or to selfenhance (suggesting no relation between self-esteem level and behavioral outcomes).
Within this framing, the question becomes: When do we self-verify and when do we
self-enhance? To that end, we position contingent self-esteemor the extent to which
individuals base their self-worth on outcomes in a particular domainas a determining factor in whether we self-verify or self-enhance, and present a moderated mediation model to account for varying relations between ostracism and job performance.
Our predictions regarding self-verification and self-enhancement motivation are fully
supported across two field samples using multi-wave, multi-source study designs.
Theoretical and practical implications for self-verification and self-enhancement motivation, as well as negative interpersonal behaviors at work, are discussed.
Ostracism, or being ignored or excluded by others (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Williams,
2001), represents a pervasive and universal social
phenomenon dating back to the beginning of recorded history (Forsdyke, 2005). Surveys have
found approximately 75% of respondents have experienced ostracism (e.g., from loved ones;
Faulkner, Williams, Sherman, & Williams, 1997),
and one survey found 66% of employees reported
being given the silent treatment at work (Fox &

Stallworth, 2005). Although ostracism as a topic of
research has only emerged within the last decade
(e.g., Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), in this short
time span, numerous studies indicate that ostracism has a number of undesirable consequences.
For example, ostracized individuals are more likely
to form aggressive intentions towards (Wirth,
Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010) and act aggressively against (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, &
Stucke, 2001) those who have ostracized them, are
more likely to experience distress (see Williams,
2007, for a review), and are more likely to display
an impaired ability to self-regulate impulsive actions (Oaten, Williams, Jones, & Zadro, 2008).
Within the ostracism literature, self-esteem level
or how positively or negatively an individual feels
about himself or herself has been highlighted as
an important mediating mechanism wherein lowered self-esteem is responsible for the effect of os-
We thank the participants of Singapore Management

Universitys Research Seminar Series for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Luke
Brun-Ping, Shereen Fatimah, and Sun Wu Kong for their
assistance with data collection. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to the third author. Correspondence concerning this article can be
addressed to D. Lance Ferris, Smeal College of Business,
The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA,
16802. (814) 865-5971. E-mail: lanceferris@gmail.com.
279
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
280
tracism on various outcomes (Williams, 1997).

Such models enable integration of the ostracism
literature with principles drawn from self-verification theory (Swann, 2012), wherein individuals
strive to verify their positive (or negative) selfviews by engaging in positive (or negative) behaviors. In particular, ostracism negatively affects our
self-perceptions and negative behaviors represent
our attempts to verify or demonstrate that our negative self-perceptions are accurate. Yet, at the same
time, the relation of ostracism to behavioral outcomes has proven mixed and contradictory (see
Ferris et al., 2008; Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, &
Schaller, 2007; Thau, Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007;
Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels,
2007; Williams & Sommer, 1997); these findings
mirror the mixed findings in the broader literature
on the relation between self-esteem level and outcomes (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs,
2003; Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007).
Taken together, these findings cast doubts on selfverification theorys ability to provide a framework
for ostracisms effects on outcomes. More broadly,
they bring into question whether a self-verification
motive, long held to be a fundamental driver of
human behavior (Swann, 1983, 2012), even exists.
In the present paper, we argue for a more nuanced view on when individuals self-verify (and,
hence, whether or not self-esteem level mediates
the effect of ostracism on outcomes). In particular,
we argue that whether or not individuals engage in
self-verification depends on contingent self-esteem.
Contingent self-esteem represents the extent to
which an individual bases his or her self-worth on
outcomes in a given domain, be it looking attractive, besting others, or having the approval of fam-
February
ily members (Crocker & Park, 2004; Crocker &

Wolfe, 2001; Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping,
2009b). As we shall outline below, we argue that, if
peoples self-worth is tied to a particular domain,
they will not seek to verify their negative self-perceptions via negative behaviors in that domain
rather, they will seek to self-enhance, or demonstrate to themselves and others that they excel in
that domain regardless of self-esteem levels. By
providing a novel theoretical model addressing
when we verify our self-perceptions and when we
self-enhance, we, in turn, speak to when we should
expect to see behavioral effects of ostracism. In
particular, global self-esteem level should not act as
a mediator of ostracisms effects when examining
behaviors (e.g., job performance) in a domain our
self-perceptions are contingent upon (e.g., the
workplace; see Figure 1).
The development of our model provides a number of contributions to the literature. First, in focusing on the essential moderating role of contingent
self-esteem, we provide a more nuanced, and ultimately more accurate, model outlining how ostracism relates to behavioral outcomes in the workplace compared to extant mediation models (Smart
Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007). In focusing on the essential mediating role of self-esteem
level, we also provide a point of convergence for
the literature on negative interpersonal behaviors
(e.g., undermining, bullying, or abuse) more generally. In particular, given that negative interpersonal
behaviors frequently carry connotations of rejection (implying decreased self-esteem), our model
can generalize to how other negative interpersonal
behaviors influence organizational behaviors. Our
model thus illustrates how awareness and consid-
FIGURE 1
The Moderated Mediation Relationship between Workplace Ostracism and Job Performance
2015
Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison
eration of both contingent self-esteem and global

self-esteem level can simultaneously contribute to
ostracism and negative interpersonal behavior research as a whole.
Second, by developing the rationale underlying
our model, we can account for previous contradictory findings regarding the relation between workplace ostracism and one of the most important criterion variables in organizational research: job
performance (Viswesvaran, 2001). Workplace ostracism research has, for example, provided equivocal findings in terms of the relation of ostracism to
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), with
some studies showing no relation (Ferris et al.,
2008) while other studies show a negative relation
(Thau et al., 2007). Within a moderated mediation
model, such mixed findings are to be expected
when moderating effects are not taken into account.
Finally, and most broadly, our model contributes
to the motivation literature by providing a theoretically driven model outlining when individuals
will self-verify and when individuals will self-enhance. We suggest individuals seek to perform at
maximal levels in domains in which their selfesteem is contingentregardless of self-esteem
level but otherwise seek to self-verify, or behave
consistent with their self-esteem level, in non-contingent domains. This insight is important in as
much as the motivation literature has framed selfverification and self-enhancement as preeminent
yet contradictory motives in human behavior
(Kwang & Swann, 2010). By positioning contingent
self-esteem as an influence on whether we selfverify or self-enhance, our work thus not only has
implications for the relation of ostracism to performance, but also reconciles two predominant motivation theories and improves our general understanding of why humans behave the way they do.
OSTRACISM, SELF-ESTEEM LEVEL,
AND SELF-VERIFICATION
Dating back to symbolic interactionist views of
the self that argued that an individuals sense of self
is rooted in interpersonal relationships (Mead,
1934), the notion that our self-perceptions are
largely influenced by how others view us (e.g., the
looking-glass self; Cooley, 1902) has been a mainstay of psychological research over the past century
(Leary & Baumeister, 2000). More recently, such
predictions are typically rooted within a sociometer theory framework (Leary & Baumeister, 2000;
Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Drawing
281
upon a wealth of literature demonstrating a strong

relation between self-esteem level and relationships with others (see, e.g., Elliott, 1996; Gest,
Domitrovich, & Welsh, 2005; Kinnunen, Feldt, Kinnunen, & Pulkkinen, 2008, for examples of the
quality of social relationships predicting changes
in trait self-esteem over time), sociometer theory
posits that self-esteem level is responsive to an
individuals inclusion or exclusion by other people
(Leary et al., 1995). In being responsive to other
peoples perceptions, self-esteem level thus functions as a warning system of sorts, with feelings of
low self-esteem reflecting the risk that an individual may soon be, or may already be, excluded from
a group. Given the important role group membership played in early human history vis--vis the
provision of group resources, reproductive opportunities, and protection against predators, the development of such a warning system would have
provided evolutionary advantages compared to
those who were unaware of their imminent or actual ouster from a group.
As ostracism represents a form of exclusion, ostracism researchers have similarly predicted a negative relation between ostracism and self-esteem
level. Ostracism may be particularly devastating to
an individuals self-esteem level because he/she
may not know why he/she is being ostracized, and
any attempts to procure an explanation are met
with silence. As a result, individuals are left to
mentally catalogue all of their negative characteristics that may have resulted in ostracism, which
compounds the effects of a lack of social interaction. Consistent with this supposition, Williams
(1997) posited a needsthreat model of ostracism,
wherein exclusion threatens an individuals need
for self-esteem; meta-analytic summaries of the literature suggest this is particularly the case for ostracism occurring in the natural environment (versus experimental settings; Blackhart, Nelson,
Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009). Providing a more
general model of interpersonal rejection, Smart
Richman and Leary (2009) similarly proposed that
threat to an individuals relational value (indicated
by self-esteem level; Leary, 2005) represents the
core experience associated with rejection experiences in general.
In positioning self-esteem level as a key mediator of the effects of ostracism (Smart Richman &
Leary, 2009; Williams, 1997), these models allow
for integration of ostracism within a self-verification motivational framework. Self-verification, or
maintaining and verifying self-views through ac-
282
tions consistent with self-perceptions, is argued to

be a predominant human motive (Kwang & Swann,
2010). By demonstrating to others and ourselves
that our behaviors are aligned with our self-perceptions, acting in a self-verifying manner provides a
number of benefits to individuals. In particular,
acting in line with our self-perceptions induces a
sense of orderly coherence to our everyday lives
(i.e., we can readily integrate our behaviors within
our views of ourselves), as well as a sense of predictability in our interactions with others (i.e., we
have certain expectations of how others will view
us and how we will interact with them; Swann,
1983, 2012). Thus, acting in a self-verifying manner
provides a number of beneficial outcomes for individuals (see also Swann, 2012, for the utility of
self-verification motives for interpersonal and societal outcomes).
By causing an individual to view himself or herself
negatively, a self-verification perspective would argue that ostracism induces behaviors that are consistent with this negative self-perception (Korman,
1976)in other words, behaviors that serve a selfverifying purpose. Notably, the motive to self-verify extends even to negative self-perceptions. For
example, past research has shown that people attempt to elicit negative feedback (Swann, Wenzlaff,
Krull, & Pelham, 1992) and engage in submissive
behaviors (Swann & Read, 1981) consistent with
their negative self-perceptions as one way of convincing themselves and others of the veracity of
their self-views.
Within the organizational realm, self-verification
motives have frequently been used to suggest a
negative relation of self-esteem level to job performance, which, in turn, provides an explanation for
how ostracism has a negative effect on job performance. In particular, individuals with low selfesteem (compared to those with high self-esteem)
are more likely to perceive themselves as useless
failures that are no good at all, without good qualities or much to be proud of, and that they are not
equal to others and do things poorly compared to
others (as indicated by their responses to similarly
worded statements on self-esteem scales; e.g.,
Rosenberg, 1965). In an organizational environment, job performance behaviors represent one way
in which to verify such negative self-perceptions.
Representing behaviors that either help or harm the
organization as a whole (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002),
job performance behaviors are typically operationalized as in-role (or task) behaviors (IRBs), OCBs,
and deviant behaviors (Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran
February
& Ones, 2000). Each of these types of behaviors can

be considered avenues through which an individual can achieve self-verification. For example, to
verify to themselves and show to others that they
are useless failures, not equal to others, and do
things poorly, low self-esteem individuals should
be more likely to demonstrate deficient role performance or refrain from engaging in OCBs; to verify
that they do not have good qualities or much to be
proud of, low self-esteem individuals should be
more likely to engage in counternormative deviant
behavior. On the other hand, individuals with high
self-esteem seek to prove to themselves and others
that they are individuals of worth with a number of
good qualities, who perform as well as (if not better
than) others. For high self-esteem individuals,
maintaining exemplary role performance, helping
out others, and adhering to organizational norms of
productive behavior all serve to verify their
self-perceptions.
Thus, by decreasing self-esteem levels, ostracism
should induce individuals to engage in poorer job
performance, consistent with their negative selfperceptions. However, one problem with this explanation is that the effects of self-esteem level on
performance are typically highly variable. While
individual studies have linked decreased self-esteem to decreased IRBs, OCBs, and increased deviance (Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009a; Pierce & Gardner, 2004), empirical and narrative reviews of the
literature paint a picture of conflicting results, with
self-esteem levels relation to performance outcomes being characterized as weak, subject to moderation, or non-existent (Baumeister et al., 2003;
Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Judge & Bono,
2001). Consistent with such mixed findings, the
relation of ostracism to performance outcomes has
similarly evinced conflicting conclusions (see Balliet & Ferris, 2013; Ferris et al., 2008; Thau et al.,
2007; Williams & Sommer, 1997). Taken at face
value, this mix of supportive and unsupportive
findings would seem to suggest that sometimes individuals self-verify, and sometimes they do not.
We argue that the key determinant in whether or
not individuals engage in self-verification lies in
contingent self-esteem.
CONTINGENT SELF-ESTEEM AND
SELF-ENHANCEMENT
Contingent self-esteem represents a domain or
category of outcomes on which a person has staked
his/her self-esteem, so that a persons view of his/
2015
her value or worth depends on perceived successes

or failures or adherence to self-standards in that
domain (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001: 594). In essence,
contingent self-esteem denotes those domains in
life where success (or failure) causes us to feel
exceptionally good (or bad) about ourselves. Such
contingencies recognize that success and failure in
different domains do not hold equivalent implications for how we perceive ourselves. For example,
one persons self-esteem may be highly dependent
on how he or she looks but be relatively unaffected
by questions about his or her competence, while
another person may base his or her self-esteem on
the number of publications he or she has and be
unaffected by how he or she looks.
Contingent self-esteem represents a distinct construct from self-esteem level (high/low self-esteem,
assessed either by global self-esteem level measures
(e.g., Rosenberg, 1965) or domain-specific self-esteem measures (e.g., an individuals self-esteem
level at work; Pierce & Gardner, 2004), in that the
extent to which an individuals self-esteem is contingent on a particular domain has little relation to
whether that individuals self-esteem level is high
or low (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette,
2003; Kernis, 2003b). Similarly, contingent self-esteem is distinguishable from the importance of a
particular domain to an individual. In particular,
individuals may consider certain domains to be
important, but not make their self-worth contingent
upon it (Crocker, Luhtanen, & Sommers, 2004).
Consistent with this, it has been shown that the
extent to which an individuals self-esteem is contingent on workplace performance correlates only
moderately (between .34 and .48) with measures of
workplace importance such as work centrality and
work involvement (Ferris, Lian, Pang, Brown, &
Keeping, 2010). Moreover, given that contingent selfesteem measures directly assess whether or not selfesteem is contingent on a particular domain, their use
is theoretically more appropriate for research examining moderators of self-esteems effects.
As a specific marker of those domains where an
individuals self-worth is implicated, we argue that
contingent self-worth can be viewed as the extent
to which individuals seek to self-enhance in that
particular domain (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Ferris
et al., 2010). Self-enhancement represents the desire to view ourselves and be viewed by others
positively (Chen, Ferris, Kwan, Yan, Zhou, & Hong,
2013; Pfeffer & Fong, 2005). In contrast to selfverification theory, self-enhancement principles argue that individuals with negative self-perceptions
283
will not seek to verify their negative self-perceptions but will instead seek to portray themselves in
the most positive light possible (Sedikides, 1993).
We argue that a motive to self-enhance is particularly pointed in domains that self-worth is contingent upon. That is, because their self-worth is heavily invested in success and failure in contingent
domains, individuals will strive to avoid failure in
such domains, as failure in a contingent domain
arouses feelings of shame and anxiety that induce
fluctuations in state self-esteem (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003a; Deci & Ryan, 1995).
Given the potential negative self-relevant implications associated with failure in a contingent domain, it has been proposed that this desire to selfenhance and to demonstrate competence in a
contingent domain will override the desire to act in
a way that is consistent with an individuals selfperceptions (Ferris et al., 2009b, 2010). In other
words, rather than engaging in poor performance
consistent with self-esteem level when self-esteem
level is low (Korman, 1976), when an individuals
self-esteem is contingent on a domain, the individual should instead seek to do well in that domain
regardless of self-esteem level.
More generally, this suggests that contingent selfesteem moderates the effects of self-esteem level,
with self-esteem level not predicting an individuals behavior in a domain if the individuals selfesteem is contingent on that domain. With respect
to organizational settings, the extent to which the
individuals self-esteem is contingent on workplace
performance, or the importance of performance to
self-esteem (hereafter, IPSE), should similarly
moderate the relation of self-esteem level to job
performance (Ferris et al., 2010). That is, when
self-esteem is contingent on demonstrating good
performance at work, individuals should strive to
maintain high levels of job performance regardless
of their self-esteem level (i.e., individuals should
self-enhance, not self-verify). For those individuals
with high IPSE, poor job performance would arouse
aversive feelings of shame, and, hence, individuals
would be strongly motivated to demonstrate good
job performance at all times (Deci & Ryan, 1995).
Taken together, this theoretical framing of when
we self-enhance and when we self-verify, and its
concomitant implications for the relation of ostracism to behavioral outcomes, can be operationalized as a moderated mediation model explaining
the effects of ostracism on job performance (see
Figure 1). In particular, consistent with a sociometer perspective, we would expect ostracism to
284
lower self-esteem levels. These lowered self-esteem

levels, in turn, should induce self-verifying behavior consistent with self-perceptions (Korman, 1976;
Swann, 2012) be it increased deviance, or decreased IRBs and OCBs (Rotundo & Sackett,
2002)suggesting that self-esteem level mediates
the effect of ostracism on job performance. However, consistent with the notion that we only selfverify in domains upon which our self-esteem
is not contingent, we would expect that such mediated effects would, in turn, be moderated by IPSE:
when self-esteem is contingent on job performance,
individuals will seek to self-enhance and perform
well, regardless of factors such as low self-esteem.
This represents what is known as a moderated mediation effect, wherein a mediated effect is stronger
or weaker at different levels of a third variable
(here, IPSE; Edwards & Lambert, 2007).
More formally, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1. Workplace ostracism will have a
negative relation with self-esteem level.
Hypothesis 2. IPSE will moderate the relation
between self-esteem level and (a) IRBs, (b)
OCBs, and (c) deviant behavior, such that the
relation is stronger when IPSE is low.
Hypothesis 3. IPSE moderates the mediating
effect of self-esteem level on the relation between workplace ostracism and (a) IRBs, (b)
OCBs, and (c) deviant behavior, such that the
mediated effect of ostracism on OCB through
self-esteem level is stronger when IPSE is low.
To test our hypotheses, we collected two multisource, multi-wave samples. The first sample (Sample A) examined work peer-rated IRBs and OCBs as
outcome variables; the second sample (Sample B)
examined work peer-rated workplace deviance as
an outcome variable.
February
cruitment advertisements invited employed individuals to participate in a study on workplace attitudes and behaviors, and described participation
procedures (e.g., completing two online surveys)
and remuneration ($10 and a chance to win one of
two $100 prizes). Interested individuals were directed to complete an online pre-screen questionnaire, through which demographic information
was assessed (to ensure participants were full-time
workers) as well as the frequency with which they
interacted with other people at work (to ensure
participants interacted regularly with other organizational members). We obtained 569 individuals
who completed our pre-screen questionnaire; 398
fulfilled our pre-screen requirements and were sent
emails with a unique identifier code and links to
the online surveys at two points in time. The first
survey included a measure of workplace ostracism;
participants were also asked to nominate a work
peer (by providing a name and email address) who
could be contacted by the researchers. The second
survey, sent out approximately one week after the
completion of the first survey, assessed self-esteem
level. Finally, a link to an online survey was
emailed to work peers of those participants who
had completed the second survey, assessing focal
participants IPSE, IRBs, and OCBs. In order to
maximize response rates, we sent three reminder
emails (one week apart) to individuals who had not
completed the survey (Dillman, 2000).
Sample B. Procedures were largely the same as
those for Sample A, with the exception that participants2 were recruited using broader methods (advertisements placed in commuter and public areas,
newspapers, online forums) and compensation differed slightly ($10). Of 1,200 individuals who completed our pre-screen questionnaire, 761 met our
pre-screen requirements. The survey included measures of ostracism from coworkers and self-esteem
level. A link to an online survey was emailed to
METHOD
Procedure
Sample A. Participants1 were recruited through
advertisements posted to online forums. The re1
This sample was also used as Study 1 in Lian, Ferris,
and Brown (2012a); however, that study addressed a
different research question using a different theoretical
framework than the present study. Moreover, the measures used in this study differ from those used in the
previously published study.
This sample combined relevant data collected across

two different data collections: a dataset of 185 participants (used in Lian et al. (2012a) and Study 2 of Lian,
Ferris, & Brown (2012b)) and a second dataset of 88
participants (used in Study 3 of Lian et al. (2012b) and
Study 1 of Lian, Brown, Ferris, Liang, Keeping, & Morrison (2014)); however, those studies addressed different
research questions using different theoretical frameworks than the present study. Moreover, sample source
did not moderate any relations in our model, and the
measures used in this study differ from those used in the
previously published studies.
2015
work peers of those participants who had completed our survey, assessing focal participants
IPSE and deviant behaviors.
Participants
Sample A. Out of the 398 invites emailed to
potential participants, 297 individuals responded
and completed the first survey (75% response rate),
and 274 completed the second survey (92% retention rate). We next emailed a link to an online
survey to the work peers of those participants who
had completed the second survey; 158 responded
(58% response rate). Overall, we had 158 matched
data for our analyses.3 The mean age of focal participants was 32.28 years (SD 8.60) and the average hours worked per week was 39.61 (SD
4.51). Participants reported being employed in
their current organization an average of 3.86 years
(SD 4.15) and having worked in their present
position for 2.90 years (SD 3.72). Participants
(45% male) came from a diverse set of occupations
(e.g., clerk, technician, manager, accountant, consultant) and were employed in a variety of industries, including computers and mathematics (18%),
business and finance (14%), education (10%), sales
(8%), and government (7%).
The mean age of work peers (43% male) was
34.73 years (SD 9.05) and the average hours
worked per week was 39.94 (SD 5.69). To ensure
nominated work peers were qualified to report focal participants workplace behaviors, focal participants were asked to provide the contact of a work
peer with whom they worked closely and who
knew them well. Work peers were also asked how
well they knew focal participants; results indicated that work peers knew focal participants
fairly well (M 5.31 on a seven-point Likert scale
where 1 not at all and 7 extremely well;
SD 1.19). The work peers name (to whom the
survey link and the payment check was sent), email
address (where the survey link was sent), and residential address (where the check for payment was
sent) were checked to ensure focal participants
did not complete peer surveys.
3
We conducted t tests to examine whether focal participants whose work peers responded to our surveys
differed from those whose work peers did not respond.
No significant differences between the two groups were
found for age (t 1.58, p .10), gender (t .62, p
.10), tenure (t .52, p .10), workplace ostracism (t
.06, p .10), and self-esteem level (t .81, p .10).
285
Sample B. A total of 551 focal participants and

273 work peers completed our survey (72% and
50% response rate for focal participants and work
peers, respectively). Overall, we had 273 complete
datasets for our analyses.4 The mean age of focal
participants was 34.10 years (SD 9.15) and the
average hours worked per week was 41.36 (SD
6.53). Participants reported being employed in
their current organization an average of 5.16 years
(SD 5.54) and having worked in their present
position for 3.62 years (SD 4.87). Participants
(41% male) came from a diverse set of occupations
(e.g., financial advisor, IT manager, teacher, realtor,
and customs officer) and were employed in a variety of industries, including business and finance
(13%), computers and mathematics (12%), government (8%), sales (7%), and education (7%).
The mean age of work peers (48% male) was
36.78 years (SD 10.26) and the average hours
worked per week was 40.53 (SD 6.75). As in
Sample A, focal participants were asked to provide
the contact of a work peer with whom they worked
closely and who knew them well, to ensure nominated work peers were qualified to report focal
participants deviant behavior. Work peers were
also asked how well they knew focal participants;
results indicated that work peers knew focal participants fairly well (M 5.49 on a seven-point
Likert scale where 1 not at all and 7
extremely well; SD 1.12). Again, work peers
name (to whom the survey link and the payment
check was sent), email address (where the survey
link was sent), and residential address (where the
check for payment was sent) were checked to ensure focal participants were not completing the
work peer surveys.
Measures
Workplace ostracism. We assessed workplace
ostracism with Ferris et al.s (2008) 10-item workplace ostracism scale. Sample A used the scales
4
We conducted t tests to examine whether focal participants whose work peers responded to our surveys
differed from those whose work peers did not respond.
No significant differences between the two groups were
found for tenure (t 1.81, p .07) or workplace ostracism (t 1.54, p .10). Significant differences between
the two groups were found for age (t 2.10, p .05),
gender (t 2.73, p .01), and self-esteem level (t
3.45, p .01). However, it is not clear how these differences can explain our findings.
286
original wording, which did not differentiate between ostracism from supervisors or coworkers
(e.g., Others ignored you at work), while Sample
B used a modified version that assessed ostracism
from coworkers specifically (e.g., Coworkers ignored you at work). Participants responded using
a seven-point Likert scale (1 never and 7
always).
Self-esteem level. Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item
self-esteem scale was used, with participants indicating their agreement with statements on a ninepoint Likert scale (1 very strongly agree and
9 very strongly disagree).
IPSE. Crocker et al.s (2003b) four-item competence-contingent self-esteem scale was adapted to
assess the importance of performance to self-esteem (see Ferris et al., 2010, for items).5 Work peers
rated the extent to which participants self-esteem
was contingent on being competent in the workplace (e.g., Doing well at work gives him/her a
sense of self-respect). Responses were made on a
seven-point scale (1 strongly disagree and
7 strongly agree).
IRBs and OCBs. Williams and Andersons (1991)
21-item scale was used to assess IRBs and OCBs in
Sample A. Of the 21 items, 7 measured interpersonally directed OCBs (OCBIs; e.g., Helps others
who have been absent), 7 measured organizationally directed OCBs (OCBOs; e.g., Conserves and
protects organizational property), and the other 7
measured IRBs (e.g., Meets formal performance
requirements of the job). Work peers indicated
their agreement regarding the extent to which their
coworkers engaged in each behavior on a five-point
Likert scale (1 strongly disagree and 5
strongly agree).
Workplace deviance. We assessed deviant behaviors with Bennett and Robinsons (2000) deviance scale adapted to measure workplace deviant
behaviors from a work peers perspective in Sample
B. Of the 19 items, 12 measured organizational
deviance (e.g., My work peer took property from
work without permission), and 7 measured inter5
Although originally a five-item scale, reliability for

the IPSE scale in Sample B was slightly below recommended values ( .69). After examining the itemtotal
correlations, we dropped one item (My work peers
opinion about himself/herself isnt tied to how well he/
she does at work) to improve reliability; we mirrored
this change for the IPSE measure in Sample A as well.
However, using either the four- or five-item scale produced equivalent results.
February
personal deviance (e.g., My work peer said something hurtful to someone at work). Work peers
indicated the frequency with which focal participants engaged in each behavior over the past year
on a seven-point Likert scale (1 never and
7 daily).
Data Analysis
Following Edwards and Lamberts (2007) framework, our moderated mediation hypothesis was
tested by showing that moderation occurs between
the mediating variable and the dependent variables
(i.e., between self-esteem level and IRB, OCB, and
workplace deviance) and that mediating effects
vary according to the level of the moderator (i.e.,
IPSE; Edwards & Lambert, 2007). We used two multiple regression models to test our moderated mediation hypothesis. The first model tested whether
workplace ostracism predicted self-esteem level
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007: Equation 3). The second
model included workplace ostracism, self-esteem
level, IPSE, and the interaction between self-esteem
level and IPSE in the regression equation with job
performance (i.e., IRB, OCB, and workplace deviance) as the dependent variables (Edwards & Lambert, 2007, Equation 10). Self-esteem level and IPSE
were centered prior to computing the interaction
term to reduce multicollinearity.
Integrating these two models (Edwards & Lambert, 2007: Equation 12), we used simple effects
analyses to calculate the strength of the direct effects of self-esteem level on job performance, and
the strength of the mediating (i.e., indirect) effects
of self-esteem level at both high and low levels of
the moderator (i.e., IPSE). Significance tests of
these direct effects, indirect effects, and their differences between high and low levels of the moderator were conducted with a bootstrap approach,
which produced 1,000 bootstrapping samples and
allowed us to construct bias-corrected confidence
intervals for each significance test (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Mooney & Duval, 1993). The bootstrap
approach is more advantageous than the more commonly used Sobel test approach as it overcomes the
high Type I error rate due to the violation of normal
distribution assumptions (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,
alphas, and correlations of the measured variables
for Sample A; Table 2 presents the same for Sample
2015
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics, Zero-Order Correlations, and
Alphas (Sample B)a
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, Zero-Order Correlations, and
Alphas (Sample A)a
Mean SD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WOS
IPSE
SE
OCBI
OCBO
IRB
1.90
5.09
3.71
4.02
3.89
4.08
1.13
1.07
.65
.57
.64
.57
.96
.18*
.33**
.33**
.38**
.43**
.85
.02
.38**
.28**
.35**
Mean SD
.87
.24** .85
.22** .59** .82
.26** .68** .77** .82
n 158. Female 0, male 1. WOS workplace ostracism; IPSE importance of performance to self-esteem; SE
self-esteem; OCBI individually directed organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBO organizationally directed organizational citizenship behaviors; IRB in-role behaviors. The numbers in bold on the diagonal are the alphas.
* p .05
** p .01
a
B.6 An examination of the zero-order correlations

provides preliminary support for our hypotheses,
with self-esteem level being significantly related to
its hypothesized antecedent, workplace ostracism
(r .33, p .01 in Sample A; r .46, p .01
in Sample B), and hypothesized outcomes, OCBI
(r .24, p .01), OCBO (r .22, p .01), IRB (r
.26, p .01), organizational deviance (r .33,
p .01), and interpersonal deviance (r .31,
p .01).
As shown in Table 3, in support of Hypothesis 1,
workplace ostracism was negatively related to selfesteem level ( .19, p .01 in Sample A;
.29, p .01 in Sample B). As shown in Table 4,
consistent with Hypothesis 2, the interaction between self-esteem level and IPSE significantly predicted OCBI ( .12, p .05), OCBO ( .13,
p .05), IRB ( .18, p .01), organizational
deviance ( .26, p .01), and interpersonal deviance ( .20, p .01); the additional proportion
of the variance in OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational
6
287
Consistent with past meta-analyses (e.g., Berry, Ones,

& Sackett, 2007; Dalal, 2005; LePine, Erez, & Johnson,
2002), both studies observed high correlations among the
facets of job performance. Using an overall measure of
OCB (i.e., summing OCBI and OCBO; LePine et al., 2002)
or an overall measure of deviance (i.e., summing organizational and interpersonal deviance; Ferris et al., 2009)
produced similar results to those reported here. Consistent with norms in the literature, we present the results
for each factor separately; for more information on the
results using overall measures, please contact the second
author.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
WOS (coworker) 1.82 1.07 .97

IPSE
5.24 1.00 .19** .76
SE
3.88 .67 .46** .12
.89
OD
1.64 .96 .59** .28** .33** .93
ID
1.59 .94 .59** .23** .31** .86** .90
n 273. Female 0, male 1. WOS workplace ostracism; IPSE importance of performance to self-esteem; SE
self-esteem; OD organizational deviance; ID interpersonal
deviance. The numbers in bold on the diagonal are the alphas.
** p .01
a
deviance, and interpersonal deviance explained by

the interaction term were also significant (R2
.02, p .05; R2 .02, p .05; R2 .05, p .01;
R2 .03, p .01; and R2 .02, p .01,
respectively).
We next calculated simple effects at high and low
levels of IPSE ( 1 SD around the mean). The path
estimates indicated that the strength of the relationship between self-esteem level and IRBs and OCBs
varied depending on IPSE levels. As seen in Table 5, in support of Hypothesis 2, for employees
with low levels of IPSE, self-esteem level was more
strongly related to OCBs, IRBs, and workplace deviance (PYM .30, p .01; PYM .29, p .05;
PYM .37, p .01; PYM .40, p .01; and
PYM .30, p .01, for OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance,
respectively) than for those with high levels of IPSE
(PYM .04, ns; PYM .01, ns; PYM .01, ns;
PYM .12, ns; and PYM .10, ns, for OCBI, OCBO
IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal
deviance, respectively), with the difference being
significant ([.30] [.04] .26, p .05; [.29]
[.01] .28, p .05; [.37] [.01] .39, p .01;
TABLE 3
The Effects of Workplace Ostracism on Self-Esteema
Variable
Sample A
Sample B
Intercept
WOS
R2
3.71** (.05)
.19** (.04)
.11**
3.87** (.04)
.29** (.03)
.21**
a
n 158 and 273 for Sample A and Sample B, respectively.
Female 0, male 1. WOS workplace ostracism. Workplace
ostracism refers to coworkers in Sample B. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients (standard error estimates are
listed in parentheses).
** p .01
288
February
TABLE 4
Self-Esteem Level by Importance of Performance to Self-Esteem Predicting OCBs, IRBs, and Deviancea
Step 1
Step 2
Variable
OCBI
OCBO
IRB
OD
ID
Intercept
WOS
SE
IPSE
R2
Intercept
WOS
SE
IPSE
SE IPSE
R2
4.02** (.04)
.11** (.04)
.14* (.08)
.18** (.04)
.24**
4.02** (.05)
.10** (.04)
.17* (.08)
.18** (.04)
.12* (.07)
.02*
.26
3.89** (.05)
.17** (.04)
.12 (.08)
.13** (.04)
.20**
3.89** (.05)
.16** (.04)
.15 (.08)
.13** (.04)
.13* (.07)
.02*
.22
4.08** (.04)
.16** (.04)
.13* (.06)
.15** (.04)
.28**
4.09** (.04)
.15** (.04)
.18** (.06)
.16** (.04)
.18** (.05)
.05**
.33
1.67** (.05)
.47** (.05)
.10 (.08)
.16** (.05)
.38**
1.65** (.05)
.44** (.05)
.14 (.08)
.16** (.05)
.26** (.07)
.03**
.41
1.61** (.05)
.48** (.05)
.06 (.08)
.11* (.05)
.36**
1.60** (.05)
.45** (.05)
.10 (.08)
.11* (.05)
.20** (.07)
.02**
.38
Overall R2
a
n 158 and 273 for Sample A and Sample B, respectively. Female 0, male 1. WOS workplace ostracism; SE self-esteem;
IPSE importance of performance to self-esteem; OCBI individually directed organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBO organizationally directed organizational citizenship behaviors; IRB in-role behaviors; OD organizational deviance; ID interpersonal
deviance. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients (standard error estimates are listed in parentheses). All lower-order terms used
in interactions were standardized prior to analysis.
* p .05
** p .01
[.40] [.12] .52, p .01; and [.30]

[.10] .40, p .01, for OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance, respectively). Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 depict the
relation between self-esteem level and OCBI,
OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance (respectively) at both low and high
levels of IPSE; the relation is stronger when IPSE is

low rather than high.
Having established that IPSE moderates the effect
of self-esteem level on job performance, we next
examined whether the indirect effect of ostracism
on job performance varied depending on IPSE
levels (i.e., moderated mediation; Hypothesis 3).
TABLE 5
Analysis of Simple Effectsa
Dependent Variables
IPSE
Direct Effects
(PYX)
PMX
PYM
Indirect Effects
(PYMPMX)
Total Effects
(PYX PYMPMX)
OCBI
Low
High
Differences
Low
High
Differences
Low
High
Differences
Low
High
Differences
Low
High
Differences
.10**
.10**
.00
.16**
.16**
.00
.15**
.15**
.00
.44**
.44**
.00
.44**
.44**
.00
.19**
.19**
.00
.19**
.19**
.00
.19**
.19**
.00
.29**
.29**
.00
.29**
.29**
.00
.30**
.04
.26*
.29*
.01
.28*
.37**
.01
.39**
.40**
.12
.52**
.30**
.10
.40**
.06**
.01
.05*
.06*
.00
.06*
.08**
.00
.08**
.12**
.03
.15**
.09*
.03
.12**
.16**
.11**
.05*
.22**
.16**
.06*
.23**
.15**
.08**
.56**
.41**
.15**
.54**
.42**
.12**
OCBO
IRB
OD
ID
a
PYX path from workplace ostracism to dependent variables; PMX path from workplace ostracism to self-esteem; PYM path from
self-esteem to dependent variables.
* p .05
** p .01
2015
289
FIGURE 2
Interaction between Self-Esteem and IPSE
on OCBI
FIGURE 4
Interaction between Self-Esteem and IPSE on IRB
Table 5 shows that workplace ostracism had a

stronger indirect effect on IRBs and OCBs for those
who had low levels of IPSE (PYMPMX .06, p
.01; PYMPMX .06, p .05; PYMPMX .08, p
.01; PYMPMX .12, p .01; and PYMPMX .09,
p .05 for OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance, respectively) than
for those who had high levels of IPSE (PYMPMX
.01, ns; PYMPMX .00, ns; PYMPMX .00, ns;
PYMPMX .03, ns; and PYMPMX .03, ns, for
OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and
interpersonal deviance, respectively); the strength
of these indirect relationships differed significantly
depending on IPSE levels ([.06] [.01] .05,
p .05; [.06] [.00] .06, p .05; [.08]
[.00] .08, p .01; [.12] [.03] .15, p .01;
and [.09] [.03] .12, p .01, for OCBI, OCBO,
IRB, organizational deviance, and interpersonal deviance, respectively). Figures 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
depict the mediated (i.e., indirect) effects of workplace ostracism (through self-esteem level) on
OCBI, OCBO, IRB, organizational deviance, and in-
terpersonal deviance (respectively) at both low and

high levels of IPSE; the indirect effects are stronger
when IPSE is low rather than when it is high. These
results fully support Hypothesis 3.
FIGURE 3
Interaction between Self-Esteem and IPSE
on OCBO
DISCUSSION
In the present paper, we argue that whether or
not individuals self-verify or self-enhance depends
on contingencies of self-esteem; integrating this
prediction with ostracism models suggesting that
self-esteem level acts as a mediator of ostracisms
effects, we proposed and tested a novel model to
better understand how workplace ostracism influences job performance. Across two field samples
using multi-source, multi-wave data, our results
help to uncover both mediating and moderating
mechanisms responsible for ostracisms effect on
employee job performance. In so doing, our study
makes contributions to the ostracism, self-esteem,
and motivation literatures.
FIGURE 5
Interaction between Self-Esteem and IPSE on
Peer-Rated Organizational Deviance
290
FIGURE 6
Interaction between Self-Esteem and IPSE on
Peer-Rated Interpersonal Deviance
February
FIGURE 8
The Indirect (Mediated) Effect of Workplace
Ostracism on OCBO at High and Low Levels
of IPSE
Implications for Ostracism and Negative

Interpersonal Behavior Literatures
While our work provides a framework for ostracisms effects on job performance, it is important to
note that ostracism represents but one of a variety
of negative interpersonal behaviors (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). As such, our model may help
to account for how negative interpersonal behaviors in general (e.g., undermining, bullying, etc.)
influence job performance. Although the ostracism
literature in particular has focused on decreased
self-esteem level as an outcome based on its compatibility with sociometer theory, all negative interpersonal behaviors (e.g., bullying) include potential implications of rejection. It therefore stands
to reason that decreased self-esteem level is a universal consequence of receiving such treatment. In
this sense, our model simply scratches the surface
in terms of its potential explanatory power for both
accounting for how negative interpersonal treatment influences organizational outcomes and for
providing a common framework to a highly fragmented literature. Given that work on negative in-
terpersonal behaviors has witnessed a proliferation

of constructs over the years (Sackett & DeVore,
2001), our model provides a way to integrate these
findings by focusing on what the constructs have in
common: a threat of rejection and a threat to
self-worth.
Conceptualizing ostracisms effects on performance through a moderated mediation model also
provides several implications for organizations.
First, by outlining a mediating mechanism of ostracisms effects, a better understanding is gained regarding why ostracism relates to job performance.
Given self-esteem level has been shown to be related to organizational constructs such as leader
treatment and role characteristics (Ferris et al.,
2009), this suggests the potential for organizational
interventions designed to bolster an individuals
self-esteem level to potentially counteract ostracisms negative effects on self-esteem level (though
FIGURE 7
Ostracism on OCBI at High and Low Levels
of IPSE
FIGURE 9
Ostracism on IRB at High and Low Levels
of IPSE
2015
FIGURE 10
Ostracism on Peer-Rated Organizational
Deviance at High and Low Levels of IPSE
see Hiller & Hambrick, 2005, for potential organizational problems associated with overly positive
self-views). Second, by outlining a moderator of
ostracisms effects, a better understanding is gained
regarding for whom ostracism will relate to job
performance. In particular, only those whose selfesteem was not contingent upon workplace performance evinced performance decrements in the
face of workplace ostracism. This suggests that
organizations may wish to implement programs
designed to select or develop employees with high
IPSE. However, caution should be exercised prior
to undertaking such steps, as previous studies
have also shown that contingent self-esteem can
lead to negative consequences for individuals
(e.g., feeling depressed following negative feedback in the contingent domain; Crocker et al.,
2003b). Given workplace ostracism and contingent
self-esteem research is still relatively new, more
research is necessary prior to making firm suggestions to managers.
Implications for Self-Esteem and
Motivation Literatures
Aside from contributions to the ostracism and
negative interpersonal behavior literatures, our reFIGURE 11
Ostracism on Peer-Rated Interpersonal Deviance
at High and Low Levels of IPSE
291
sults also contribute to the literature on self-esteem

level. In particular, recent research has questioned
the relation of self-esteem to various outcomes (e.g.,
Baumeister et al., 1996, 2003), suggesting that propositions stemming from self-verification (Swann,
1992) theories are typically not supported; other
reviews argue the opposite, saying self-verification
is a preeminent motive that influences behavior
(Kwang & Swann, 2010). Our work suggests that
such conflicting findings are to be expected when
the role of contingent self-esteem is not considered:
in particular, when self-esteem is contingent on a
domain, individuals will not seek to self-verify in
that domain, but, instead, will self-enhance. When
self-esteem is not contingent on a domain, individuals with low self-esteem are free to engage in
self-verifying behavior because such behavior
is not as threatening to individuals. In this sense,
we believe that it is premature to suggest self-esteem level is unrelated to outcomes, or that selfverification is the preeminent motive, but, rather,
that whether we self-verify or self-enhance is subject to moderation.
More broadly, in suggesting a novel boundary
condition (contingent self-esteem) for self-verification and self-enhancement theories of human motivation, our model speaks to fundamental questions about the hotly contested relation between
self-verification and self-enhancement motivation
theories. Despite the fact that these theories make
contradictory predictions regarding the relation of
self-esteem level to behavioral outcomes, research
on each theory continues apace, seemingly ignoring the apparent contradiction between the theories. In organizational research, both self-verification (Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012; Swann,
Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004) and self-enhancement
postulates (Hideg & Ferris, 2014; Pfeffer & Fong,
2005) are interwoven into many topics in organizational behavior; by positioning contingent self-esteem as an index of whether or not individuals
self-verify or self-enhance in a particular domain,
our results similarly speak to the broad swath of research questions implicated by these theories. As but
one example, whether individuals seek self-verifying
or self-enhancing feedback has been a topic of much
debate (see Kwang & Swann, 2010), and the relation
of self-esteem to feedback-seeking in organizations
has similarly evinced mixed results (Ashford, Blatt,
& VandeWalle, 2003). A straightforward extension
of our work would suggest that individuals only
seek self-verifying feedback in domains within
which they do not base their self-worth (see Ash-
292
ford et al., 2003, for a similar conclusion). Going

forward, researchers using self-verification or selfenhancement theories would be well advised to
incorporate contingent self-esteem into their theoretical predictions.
Our results also contribute to the nascent contingent self-esteem literature. Typically, contingent
self-esteem research has focused on the negative
effects of contingent self-esteem. Such work has
focused on how negative feedback relevant to the
domain self-esteem is contingent upon can cause
depression; more generally, the pursuit of self-esteem in contingent domains is viewed as having a
variety of negative effects on an individuals wellbeing (see Ferris, 2014, for a review). However, our
results point to a more positive side of contingent
self-esteem: when self-esteem is contingent on a
domain, individuals seek to excel in that domain
and can maintain high levels of performance, even
in the face of decreased self-esteem. Although this
work does not discount the potential downsides
associated with contingent self-esteem, we believe
it is important to acknowledge that contingent selfesteem can have an upside as well. More generally,
our findings can be integrated with past research to
suggest that contingent self-esteems moderating effects may differ depending on the outcome examined: high contingent self-esteem can buffer against
negative effects on job performance, though it may
exacerbate negative effects on well-being. This
proposition, of course, is speculative; more research explicitly integrating behavioral and wellbeing outcomes within the same study is needed to
test this idea.
Strengths, Limitations, and Directions
for Future Research
Our paper possesses a number of strengths, including replicating our core theoretical model
across multiple samples, contexts, and dependent
variables, increasing confidence in its generalizability. Our field studies also minimize common
method variance (CMV) concerns through the use
of multi-wave, multi-source designs, both of which
are recommended strategies for reducing CMV effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). Moreover, across both our field studies, our
interaction findings also argue against a CMV interpretation of our results, given that interactions have
been shown to be robust against the effects of CMV
in that a CMV explanation for an interaction would
require the non-parsimonious supposition that
February
CMV effects change in magnitude along with the

level of the moderator (Evans, 1985).
Despite these strengths, some limitations should
be noted. First, our use of convenience samples
indicates that caution should be exercised before
generalizing our results to the general population.
However, as Highhouse and Gillespie (2009) point
out, the most relevant concern is whether or not the
theoretical tenets are applicable to the sample used,
which we believe to be the case presently. A second
limitation lies in the fact that our field data is
cross-sectional in nature, and hence conclusions
regarding causality are necessarily limited. For example, while we have posited that IPSE mitigates
the effect of self-esteem level on performance, the
concept of IPSE suggests that performance should
also affect self-esteem. At the same time, the data
presented in our paper cannot accurately test this
notion for two reasons. First, given that variations
in performance should initially influence state, not
trait, self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004), such effects may only emerge over time, after changes in
state self-esteem have been able to influence trait
self-esteem in a bottom-up fashion. Second, for performance to influence the (state or trait) self-esteem
of those high on IPSE, self-rated performance measures must be used, as the influence of performance
on self-esteem for people high in IPSE will depend
on if they feel they are achieving their own personal standards of performance. Given self-rated
performance does not correlate strongly with ratings from other sources, such as those we have used
(Mabe & West, 1982), our data would not be wellsuited to test this idea.7
A second limitation regarding causality is that,
while we have posited that ostracism causes poor
job performance, it is also possible that poor job
performance similarly causes individuals to be ostracized (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Although an
experimental study may seem an obvious approach
through which to tease out causality, experimental
7
Consistent with this, when we examined our performance variables interacting with IPSE to predict trait
self-esteem in our field data, the interaction was not
significant for our in-role or citizenship behavior performance variables. The interaction between deviance and
IPSE was significant, but the form of the interaction
did not match the prediction that high IPSE would result
in a greater effect of deviance on trait self-esteem; rather,
at high levels of IPSE, there was no relation between trait
self-esteem and deviance. Additional details regarding
these analyses are available from the second author.
2015
manipulation of (state) self-esteem is inappropriate

for examining self-verification strivings, as individuals strive to verify trait, not state, self-perceptions
(Swann, 2012). Nevertheless, we remain confident
in the causal ordering of our variables, in that our
ordering is theoretically appropriate and builds on
both field and experimental results, which have
demonstrated, for example, that ostracism, and decreased social support, decreases self-esteem (Kinnunen et al., 2008; Williams, 2007), and that individuals with decreased self-esteem exhibit different
behavioral patterns to selectively seek out self-verification in novel situations (see Swann, 2012, for a
review).
One potential direction for future research is to
integrate the front end of our modelthe relation
between ostracism and self-esteem levelwith a
contingent self-esteem perspective as well. The
contingent self-esteem literature suggests that individuals differ in the extent to which their selfesteem is contingent on relationships with other
individuals (Park & Maner, 2009), which, in turn,
would suggest that the extent to which ostracism
impacts self-esteem level may be moderated by relationship-contingent self-esteem. Relatedly, the
extent to which individuals vary in their need to
belong (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), or are
excluded by groups that have minimal salience to
individuals identity (Callero, 1985), may also moderate the effects of ostracism. However, it has also
been argued that detecting ostracism may represent
an automatic process (Williams & Zadro, 2005), as
the ability to quickly detect current (or imminent)
ostracism would be naturally selected over time,
and the benefits of such detection would increase
an individuals chance of reproducing his or her
genes. Consistent with this, studies have shown
that ostracism appears to produce a negative response regardless of who is doing the ostracizing,
be it in-group or out-group members (Williams et
al., 2000), despised individuals (e.g., Ku Klux Klan
members; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), or even
by others whom the ostracized individual knows
have been explicitly instructed to ostracize the participant (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004).
Similarly, Leary et al. (2003) recruited individuals
who self-reported that their self-esteem level
was not influenced by the opinion of others; when
put in situations where they were excluded, these
participants nevertheless demonstrated decreases
in self-esteem level (see also Pickett et al., 2004).
With that being said, such studies have focused on
the immediate effects of ostracism on self-esteem
293
level; it is possible that, over time, individuals who

rate their self-esteem as being less contingent on
relationships may be less likely to display decreased self-esteem over time (see, e.g., Zadro, Boland, & Richardson, 2006).
A second direction for future research lies in
examining other ways in which ostracisms relation
to performance is moderated. As a reviewer noted,
while we have outlined an indirect (through selfesteem) moderated (by IPSE) path, other constructs
may moderate the direct effect of ostracism on performance. In particular, the extent to which an
individuals work tasks are interdependent with
others in the work group should particularly exacerbate the effect of ostracism on performance: when
an individuals job performance is dependent on
the input of others, to be ostracized by these same
others will produce a correspondingly harsher effect of ostracism on job performance. Finally, although our work focuses on how an individual
difference variable (IPSE) influences how individuals react to ostracism, recent research suggests
that altering aspects of the situationfor example,
by casting doubt on whether the individual is being
ostracized (Derfler-Rozin, Pillutla, & Thau, 2010) or
intervening to boost positive affect following ostracism (Tai, Zheng, & Narayanan, 2011) can also
mitigate the negative effects of ostracism. This suggests the possibility of a three-way interaction such
that, even for individuals with low IPSE, the effects
of ostracism are mitigated through situational interventions. Such predictions represent an interesting
direction for future research by outlining when ostracisms negative effects may be neutralized even
for those whose self-esteem is not contingent upon
workplace performance.
REFERENCES
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. 2003. Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on
feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal
of Management, 29: 773799.
Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. 2013. Ostracism and prosocial
behavior: A social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
120: 298 308.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs,
K. D. 2003. Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or
healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 4: 1 44.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. 1996. Relation
294
of threatened egotism to violence and aggression:

The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103: 533.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a
measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85: 349 360.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their
common correlates: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 410 424.
Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., &
Baumeister, R. F. 2009. Rejection elicits emotional
reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor
lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192
studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 13: 269 309.
Callero, P. L. 1985. Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48: 203215.
Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, M., Yan, M., Zhou, M., &
Hong, Y. 2013. Self-loves lost labor: A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of
Management Journal, 56: 1199 1219.
Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order.
New York, NY: Scribner.
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K.
2003a. When grades determine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female
engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 507516.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette,
A. 2003b. Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 894 908.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., & Sommers, S. R. 2004.
Contingencies of self-worth: Progress and prospects.
European Review of Social Psychology, 15: 133
181.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. 2004. The costly pursuit of
self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130: 392 414.
February
ing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 112: 140 150.
Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The
tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 122.
Elliott, M. 1996. Impact of work, family, and welfare
receipt on womens self-esteem in young adulthood.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 80 95.
Evans, M. G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of
correlated method variance in moderated multiple
regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 36: 305323.
Faulkner, S. J., Williams, K. D., Sherman, B., & Williams,
E. 1997. The silent treatment: Its incidence and
impact. Presented at 69th annual meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Ferris, D. L. 2014. Contingent self-esteem: A review and
applications to organizational research. In M. Gagn
(Ed.), Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory: 127142.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. 2008.
The development and validation of the Workplace
Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
1348 1366.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. 2009a. Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The
mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 279 286.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M.
2009b. When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 13451353.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. 2001. Contingencies of selfworth. Psychological Review, 108: 593 623.
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Pang, F. X. J., Brown, D. J., &

Keeping, L. M. 2010. Self-esteem and job performance: The moderating role of self-esteem contingencies. Personnel Psychology, 63: 561593.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship

between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 12411255.
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. 2012.

Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: The
role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38:
1788 1811.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1995. Human agency: The basis

for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy,
agency, and self-esteem: 3150. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Forsdyke, S. 2005. Exile, ostracism, and democracy:

The politics of expulsion in ancient Greece. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Derfler-Rozin, R., Pillutla, M., & Thau, S. 2010. Social

reconnection revisited: The effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity, trust, and general risk-tak-
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. 2005. Racial/ethnic bullying:

Exploring links between bullying and racism in the
U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66:
438 456.
2015
Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. 2005. Peer

academic reputation in elementary school: Associations with changes in self-concept and academic
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97: 337
346.
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. 2007. The KKK wont
let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup
hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37:
1176 1186.
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. 2014. Support for employment
equity policies: A self-enhancement approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123: 49 64.
Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2009. Do samples really
matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg
(Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and
urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the
organizational and social sciences: 247266. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Conceptualizing
executive hubris: The role of (hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 297319.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core
self-evaluations traitsself-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability
with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80 92.
Kernis, M. H. 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14: 126.
Kinnunen, M., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Pulkkinen, L.
2008. Self-esteem: An antecedent or a consequence
of social support and psychosomatic symptoms?
Cross-lagged associations in adulthood. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42: 333347.
Korman, A. K. 1976. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management
Review, 1: 50 63.
Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B., Jr. 2010. Do people embrace
praise even when they feel unworthy? A review of
critical tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
14: 263280.
295
ity of disclaimers about the effects of social feedback

on self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29: 623 636.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L.
1995. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The
sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68: 518 530.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature
and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87: 52 65.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Peer responses to low
performers: An attributional model of helping in the
context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26: 67 84.
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping,
L. M., & Morrison, R. 2014. Abusive supervision and
retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of
Management Journal, 57: 116 139.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. 2012a. Does power
distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive
supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97: 107123.
Lian, H., Ferris, D., & Brown, D. J. 2012b. Does taking the
good with the bad make things worse? How abusive
supervision and leadermember exchange interact to
impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117: 4152.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. 1982. Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67: 280 296.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller,
M. 2007. Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the porcupine problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 4255.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. 1993. Bootstrapping: A
non-parametric approach to statistical inference.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leary, M. R. 2005. Sociometer theory and the pursuit of

relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem.
European Review of Social Psychology, 16: 75
111.
Oaten, M., Williams, K. D., Jones, A., & Zadro, L. 2008.

The effects of ostracism on self-regulation in the
socially anxious. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 27: 471504.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. The nature and

function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 32. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Park, L. E., & Maner, J. K. 2009. Does self-threat promote

social connection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96: 203217.
Leary, M. R., Gallagher, B., Fors, E., Buttermore, N., Baldwin, E., Kennedy, K., & Mills, A. 2003. The invalid-
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2005. Building organization

theory from first principles: The self-enhancement
296
motive and understanding power and influence.

Organization Science, 16: 372388.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. 2004. Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 10951107.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. 2004. Self-esteem within
the work and organizational context: A review of the
organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of
Management, 30: 591 622.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879 903.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. 2002. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance to global ratings of job performance: A
policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 66 80.
Sackett, P. R. 2002. The structure of counterproductive
work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships
with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10: 511.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. 2001. Counterproductive
behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K.
Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychologyVol.
1: Personnel psychology: 145164. London, U.K.:
Sage Publications.
Sedikides, C. 1993. Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65:
317338.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7:
422 445.
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. 2009. Reactions to
discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other
forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive
model. Psychological Review, 116: 365383.
Swann, W. B., Jr. 1983. Self-verification: Bringing social
reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G.
Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self, vol. 2: 33 66. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swann, W. B., Jr. 1992. Seeking truth, finding despair:
Some unhappy consequences of a negative self-concept. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
1: 1518.
February
Swann, W. B., Jr. 2012. Self-verification theory. In P. Van

Lang, A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: 23 42. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K.
2007. Do peoples self-views matter? Self-concept
and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62: 84 94.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J.
2004. Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29: 9 27.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. 1981. Self-verification
processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17:
351372.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Wenzlaff, R. M., Krull, D. S., & Pelham,
B. W. 1992. Allure of negative feedback: Self-verification strivings among depressed persons. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 101: 293306.
Tai, K., Zheng, X., & Narayanan, J. 2011. Touching a
teddy bear mitigates negative effects of social exclusion to increase prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2: 618 626.
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. 2007. Selfdefeating behaviors in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal
work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:
840 847.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco,
N. J., & Bartels, J. M. 2007. Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 92: 56 66.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke,
T. S. 2001. If you cant join them, beat them: Effects
of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 1058
1069.
Viswesvaran, C. 2001. Assessment of individual job performance: A review of the past century and a look
ahead. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil &
C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial,
work, & organizational psychologyVol. 2: Organizational psychology: 110 126. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. 2000. Perspectives on
models of job performance. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 8: 216 226.
Williams, K. D. 1997. Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski
(Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors: 133170.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Williams, K. D. 2001. Ostracism: The power of silence.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2015
Williams, K. D. 2007. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 425 452.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. 2000. Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:
748 762.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. 1997. Social ostracism
by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 693706.
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. 2005. Ostracism: An indiscriminate early detection system. In K. D. Williams,
J. P. Forgas & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and
bullying: 19 34. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
297
trol, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 560 567.
D. Lance Ferris (lanceferris@gmail.com) is an assistant

professor of management and organization in the Smeal
College of Business at The Pennsylvania State University; he has no known superpowers. He received his PhD
in industrial/organizational psychology at the University
of Waterloo in Waterloo, Canada. His research primarily
focuses on motivation, including self-enhancement, selfverification, approach/avoidance, and self-determination
motivation processes.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction

and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17: 601 617.
Huiwen Lian (huiwen@ust.hk) is an assistant professor of

management in the School of Business at the Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology. She received her
PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from the
University of Waterloo. Her current research focuses on
leadership, motivation, and workplace deviance.
Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams,

K. D. 2010. Eye gaze as relational evaluation:
Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and
relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 869 882.
Douglas J. Brown (djbrown@uwaterloo.ca) is an associate

professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo. He
received his PhD from the University of Akron. His current research interests include leadership, motivation,
employee well-being, and workplace deviance.
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. 2006. How long

does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 692 697.
Rachel Morrison (rjmorris@uwaterloo.ca) is a doctoral

student of industrial/organizational psychology at the
University of Waterloo. Her current research focuses on
how leadership influences employees deviance both at
work and at home.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. 2004. How

low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, con-

Management Article 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Article 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

2015, Vol. 58, No. 1, 279297.

OSTRACISM, SELF-ESTEEM, AND JOB PERFORMANCE: WHEN

being given the silent treatment at work (Fox &

We thank the participants of Singapore Management

Academy of Management Journal

tracism on various outcomes (Williams, 1997).

ily members (Crocker & Park, 2004; Crocker &

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

eration of both contingent self-esteem and global

upon a wealth of literature demonstrating a strong

Academy of Management Journal

tions consistent with self-perceptions, is argued to

& Ones, 2000). Each of these types of behaviors can

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

her value or worth depends on perceived successes

Academy of Management Journal

lower self-esteem levels. These lowered self-esteem

This sample combined relevant data collected across

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

Sample B. A total of 551 focal participants and

Academy of Management Journal

Although originally a five-item scale, reliability for

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

B.6 An examination of the zero-order correlations

Consistent with past meta-analyses (e.g., Berry, Ones,

WOS (coworker) 1.82 1.07 .97

deviance, and interpersonal deviance explained by

Academy of Management Journal

[.40] [.12] .52, p .01; and [.30]

levels of IPSE; the relation is stronger when IPSE is

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

Table 5 shows that workplace ostracism had a

terpersonal deviance (respectively) at both low and

Academy of Management Journal

Implications for Ostracism and Negative

terpersonal behaviors has witnessed a proliferation

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

sults also contribute to the literature on self-esteem

Academy of Management Journal

ford et al., 2003, for a similar conclusion). Going

CMV effects change in magnitude along with the

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

manipulation of (state) self-esteem is inappropriate

level; it is possible that, over time, individuals who

Academy of Management Journal

of threatened egotism to violence and aggression:

ing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Pang, F. X. J., Brown, D. J., &

Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship

Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. 2012.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1995. Human agency: The basis

Forsdyke, S. 2005. Exile, ostracism, and democracy:

Derfler-Rozin, R., Pillutla, M., & Thau, S. 2010. Social

Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. 2005. Racial/ethnic bullying:

Ferris, Lian, Brown, and Morrison

Gest, S. D., Domitrovich, C. E., & Welsh, J. A. 2005. Peer

ity of disclaimers about the effects of social feedback

Leary, M. R. 2005. Sociometer theory and the pursuit of

Oaten, M., Williams, K. D., Jones, A., & Zadro, L. 2008.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. The nature and

Park, L. E., & Maner, J. K. 2009. Does self-threat promote

Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. 2005. Building organization

Academy of Management Journal