Across five studies, we found consistent evidence that individuals who voluntarily seek solitude are at greater risk for ostracism. This conclusion is based on correlational evidence, using participants’ self-reported experiences and their perceptions of others’ experiences (Studies 1 and 2), as well as experimental evidence using verbal descriptions and simulated personality profiles (Studies 3–5). These findings were robust across the contexts of data collection: the United States and the Netherlands; online and in a laboratory; from college students and MTurk.
Importantly, our final study provides some insight into why people ostracize targets with higher preference for solitude. Ostracism intentions are related to both self-interested and other-regarding motives (Study 5). This finding supports and builds on Williams’ theorizing that people may use ostracism preemptively to avoid any aversive outcomes (Williams, 1997). Comparing the two motives further revealed that self-interest, wanting to avoid an unpleasant social interaction, was the primary motive underlying participants’ ostracizing intentions.
Our work also provides insights into general beliefs about solitude-seeking individuals (Studies 3–5): participants considered solitude-seeking individuals to be low in the need to belong, indifferent to belonging events, cold, competent, and introverted. While most of these evaluations are intuitive, given the conceptual link between preference for solitude and low sociality, the positive relationship between preference for solitude and competence is surprising. Past studies found that people believe that loneliness and introversion are associated with incompetence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Lau & Gruen, 1992), suggesting that lay people are able to distinguish preference for solitude from loneliness and introversion. Why do people perceive high (vs. low) solitude preference targets to be more competent? One possible interpretation is that preference for solitude is perceived as a sign of maturity, given that as people transition from adolescent to adulthood, choosing to spend time in solitude becomes more normative and purposeful (Coplan, Ooi, et al., 2019). Another possible interpretation is that preference for solitude is linked with independence in lay beliefs. In fact, wanting to be alone is termed as a motivation for independence in the fundamental social motives framework (Neel et al., 2016). Future research should try to better understand the intriguing link between preference for solitude and competence in lay beliefs.
Theoretical Contributions
The current research contributes to the growing literature on voluntary solitude. To date, there is a general lack of studies on the voluntary preference for solitude, and there are even fewer studies using adult samples or providing causal evidence (Coplan, Ooi, et al., 2019). Our research contributes to this literature by presenting clear evidence that having a strong preference for solitude is consequential in the interpersonal domain. The desire for “me time” is commonly experienced (e.g., Larson, 1990), and there are many potential benefits that voluntary solitude affords (e.g., Long et al., 2003). However, our research sheds light on potential barriers (and consequences) to seeking solitude—the risk of being ostracized and stigmatized.
The current studies suggest that the link between preference for solitude and ostracism could be dynamic and recursive. Targets of ostracism may withdraw from social interactions to minimize risk of additional social pain (Richman & Leary, 2009; Van Kleef et al., 2010). In past experiments, targets of ostracism (vs. inclusion) indicated stronger intentions to disengage from social situations (Pfundmair et al., 2015), more positive ratings of physical spaces that hinder social interaction (Meagher & Marsh, 2017), and, importantly, a higher preference for being alone in the following activity (Ren et al., 2020). Here, we showed that, ironically, the very response to ostracism (i.e., preference for solitude) may put targets at higher risk for ostracism in future social interactions. To fully establish this bidirectional causal link between preference for solitude and ostracism, future work should track participants longitudinally.
The current studies also broaden our understanding of who is ostracized. Focusing on the broad Big Five dimensions, past studies identified two risk factors: low agreeableness and low conscientiousness (Rudert et al., 2020). Notably, narrow traits are often able to better predict domain-specific behavioral outcomes, even when controlling for global traits (Dudley et al., 2006; Paunonen et al., 2003). Here, we focus on preference for solitude, a narrow, domain-specific trait, as both preference for solitude and ostracism are conceptually related to absence of social interactions (although in the case of ostracism, the absence is involuntary). We found that preference for solitude was associated with general ostracism experience, even while controlling for the Big Five traits (Study 1); in addition, participants did not consistently infer agreeableness or conscientiousness from targets’ preference for solitude (Studies 3–5: analyses on perceptions of targets). Taken together, these findings demonstrated that a narrow trait—preference for solitude—put individuals at heightened risk for ostracism above and beyond the known dispositional factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness. An interesting direction for future research is to explore other narrow, domain-specific traits (e.g., trait aggression) and examine multiple risk factors for ostracism in one study. This would allow researchers to examine the relative importance of each risk factor and any potential interaction effects between these factors.
More broadly, the current studies shed light on the question of why people ostracize others. Empirical attention has been given to self-interested or malicious reasons such as using ostracism to punish deviant or burdensome behaviors (Schachter, 1951; Wesselmann et al., 2013; Wirth et al., 2020). Our research adds to this literature by showing that people may have self-interested and other-regarding reasons for ostracizing others. This other-regarding motive for ostracism is in fact not uncommon in our daily life: people may stay silent during an argument with their partner to avoid saying anything harmful, refrain from inviting a busy coworker out for drinks so as not to distract them, or withhold information from a friend when they believe the information may hurt their feelings (a form of partial ostracism; Jones & Kelly, 2013). All these behaviors, albeit motivated by genuine concerns for the target individual, are still examples of the act of ostracizing.
Limitations and Additional Future Directions
In Studies 3 to 5, we used hypothetical profiles to manipulate preference for solitude. This approach is limited in two ways. First, the profiles (e.g., the verbal descriptions in Study 3) may not represent the actual levels of preference for solitude of individuals people encounter in their social environment. Recognizing this potential issue, in Studies 4 and 5, we used a data-driven approach of generating the hypothetical profiles. Second, the profiles made the information of preference for solitude explicit to the participants. In real life, people sometimes indeed make interpersonal decisions based on explicit personality information, for instance, in the domains of personnel selection (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996) and romantic partner choice (Hall et al., 2010). Yet, at other times, people lack explicit knowledge of their interaction partners. Is preference for solitude a visible trait in social interaction? In other words, can people accurately infer others’ preference for solitude?
Past studies have not examined this question directly. However, there is suggestive evidence that people readily detect the preference for solitude in others. For example, children are able to recognize their peers’ preference for solitude and interact with these individuals accordingly (e.g., overlook them; Harrist et al., 1997). Similarly, adult participants can detect their friends’ motivation to spend time alone (referred to as independence) with some accuracy (Huelsnitz et al., 2020). Generally, people accurately detect personality traits in a target person based on brief interactions or minimal information (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Tskhay & Rule, 2014). Moreover, compared with other traits, extroversion (a related construct) is more visible and more accurately rated by perceivers (Connelly & Ones, 2010).
Another limitation in our experiments is that we measured participants’ ostracism intentions; yet intentions do not necessarily predict actual behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991). However, we speculate that there is a relatively strong link between ostracism intentions and behavior (vs. other active forms of exclusion such as physical aggression; Kerr & Levine, 2008). Ostracism does not require an action (Williams, 1997, 2009). In fact, it may take minimal effort to engage in ostracizing (e.g., not saying hello; Kerr & Levine, 2008). In addition, the ambiguous nature of ostracism makes it hard to be documented and thus sources may not be held accountable. It has been shown that ostracism (vs. harassment) is perceived to be more socially acceptable and less regulated at the workplace (O’Reilly et al., 2015). Finally, people tend to underestimate others’ social sufferings caused by ostracism (Nordgren et al., 2011), suggesting that the act of ostracizing is believed to be relatively inconsequential, which may further contribute to the link between intentions and behavior.
In addition to the limitations of the experiments, we collected data from Western countries (the United States and the Netherlands) in all five studies. This puts constraints on the generalizability of the results to other cultural contexts. It has been observed that people in Western cultures are more encouraged to be sociable and expressive, whereas people from East Asian cultures are more encouraged to be shy and self-reflective (Chen, 2010; Ding et al., 2015; Oyserman et al., 2002). Consistent with this observation, past research has suggested that solitude is more valued and experienced more positively in East Asian cultures than in Western cultures (Jiang et al., 2019). Thus, solitude-seeking individuals might be perceived more positively and at less risk for ostracism in East Asian cultures versus Western cultures. These ideas point to a fruitful avenue for future research.
Finally, future research should examine whether or not people’s judgments of those who prefer solitude are accurate. Participants in our studies assumed that preference for solitude is an undesirable disposition in social interactions. They anticipated interactions to be unpleasant for themselves and for the target individual. But are these valid concerns? We speculate that people might over-rely on preference for solitude as a predictor of social interaction outcomes. Because preference for solitude is not an indicator of a lack of interest in social interactions (Coplan, Ooi, et al., 2019), the need to affiliate is a basic need that applies to everyone (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and that the immediate impact of ostracism is universally aversive regardless of dispositional characteristics of the targeted individual (McDonald & Donnellan, 2012), it is likely that individuals with a high preference for solitude would enjoy social interactions as much as others. Dispelling these misconceptions of solitude-seeking individuals might be an effective strategy to promote inclusive behaviors.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment