Workplace Ostracism Scale

Abstract

The Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS) is a premier psychometric instrument developed by D. Lance Ferris, Douglas J. Brown, J. W. Berry, and Han Lian in 2008 to assess an employee’s subjective perception of being ignored, excluded, or socially isolated by colleagues within organizational settings. Rooted in social psychology and the temporal need threat model of ostracism, the instrument isolates covert acts of interpersonal omission from overt workplace aggression, incivility, and harassment. The definitive scale consists of 10 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point, empirically anchored frequency format ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). Extensively validated across corporate, healthcare, service, and public-sector environments, the WOS demonstrates a robust, unidimensional factor structure with extraordinary internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's $\alpha$ consistently exceeding .89 to .96, and McDonald's $\omega > .90$). Confirmatory factor analytic investigations establish its clear discriminant validity from related organizational mistreatment constructs, such as interpersonal injustice, workplace incivility, and abusive supervision. Extensive criterion-related validity studies establish the scale as a powerful predictor of psychological distress, emotional exhaustion, diminished job performance, decreased organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), and elevated turnover intentions. This comprehensive article provides an exhaustive psychometric review of the WOS, examining its theoretical architecture, psychometric parameters, structural validity, administrative nuances, and empirical implications for organizational behavior and occupational health psychology.

Keywords

Workplace Ostracism Scale, WOS, workplace ostracism, social exclusion, interpersonal mistreatment, temporal need threat model, social pain, employee well-being, counterproductive work behavior, psychological safety, organizational psychology, job burnout, psychometrics, factor analysis, construct validity

Authors

The Workplace Ostracism Scale was conceptualized, developed, and psychometrically validated through a collaborative initiative led by organizational behavior scholars:

• D. Lance Ferris, Ph.D. — Professor of Management at the Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University (formerly affiliated with Pennsylvania State University and Singapore Management University). Dr. Ferris specializes in workplace interpersonal mistreatment, self-esteem, organizational justice, and employee well-being.
• Douglas J. Brown, Ph.D. — Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. His scholarship centers on leadership processes, self-regulation, cognitive modeling, and social exchange dynamics at work.
• J. W. Berry, Ph.D. — Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Renowned internationally for his foundational contributions to cross-cultural psychology, acculturation models, and intercultural relations.
• Han Lian, Ph.D. — Professor of Management at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (formerly affiliated with the University of Kentucky). Dr. Lian's research explores leadership, employee deviance, workplace mistreatment, and the psychological mechanisms governing workplace dynamics.

Correspondence concerning the original validation article was primarily addressed to D. Lance Ferris, Department of Management, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Workplace Ostracism Scale is to provide organizational researchers, human resource professionals, and occupational health specialists with an empirically rigorous, standardized tool for capturing the incidence and intensity of social exclusion in the workplace. Prior to the seminal publication by Ferris et al. (2008), workplace interpersonal mistreatment research focused almost exclusively on overt, commission-based behaviors. Traditional scholarship investigated hostile physical aggression, verbal abuse, workplace incivility, bullying, and sexual harassment. While these hostile acts captured the active harm inflicted on employees, they systematically overlooked passive, silent, and omission-based interpersonal conduct that leaves targets feeling invisible and disconnected.

Workplace ostracism represents a pervasive yet inherently ambiguous phenomenon. Unlike active aggression, where a perpetrator commits a noticeable hostile act (e.g., yelling, belittling, or sabotaging equipment), ostracism occurs through non-events: words unspoken, greetings unreturned, invitations not extended, and eye contact withheld. Because modern labor regulations and corporate human resources codes of conduct impose strict penalties for overt workplace harassment, perpetrators frequently resort to covert behaviors. Ostracism allows instigators to inflict psychological damage while maintaining plausible deniability, avoiding direct disciplinary sanctions by claiming absentmindedness, professional absorption, or inadvertent oversight.

The WOS was designed to capture this subtle interpersonal reality. In applied organizational settings, the scale serves as an indispensable diagnostic instrument for occupational health audits. Chronic exposure to workplace exclusion erodes psychological safety, poisons organizational climate, and initiates severe physiological and psychological strain in targets. In clinical and counseling settings tailored to career transition and occupational rehabilitation, the WOS provides clinicians with an objective metric to validate a patient's subjective feelings of isolation, alienation, and organizational rejection. In basic research, the WOS operationalizes exclusion as an antecedent, mediator, or moderator within complex nomological networks, clarifying how relational estrangement depletes motivational and regulatory resources, escalates voluntary turnover, undermines team coordination, and impairs employee health.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the WOS is workplace ostracism, formally defined as the extent to which an organizational member perceives that they are ignored or excluded by other individuals in their employment setting. Workplace ostracism is conceptualized as a subjective, perception-driven phenomenon; it is the target's psychological appraisal of relational devaluation, social neglect, and interpersonal invisibility that drives subsequent cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions, regardless of the objective motivations of the alleged perpetrators.

To establish construct clarity, workplace ostracism must be delineated from several neighboring yet conceptually distinct forms of organizational mistreatment:

• Acts of Omission versus Acts of Commission: Overt aggression, bullying, and emotional abuse are fundamentally acts of commission, where perpetrators engage in deliberate, tangible behaviors designed to harm, intimidate, or demean the target. Conversely, ostracism is defined by acts of omission—the withholding of expected social behaviors, communication, and interpersonal validation.
• Workplace Incivility: Defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with an ambiguous intent to harm, characterized by rude, discourteous, or disrespectful actions (e.g., interrupting a speaker, making condescending remarks). Incivility is typically active and communicative, whereas ostracism involves a total withdrawal of social presence and responsiveness.
• Interactional Injustice: Refers to an employee's appraisal of whether they are treated with dignity, courtesy, and respect by authority figures during decision-making processes. Although ostracism correlates with low interpersonal justice, ostracism captures social disconnection from any organizational actor (supervisors, peers, and subordinates alike) across informal everyday routines, rather than formal managerial encounters.
• Workplace Bullying and Mobbing: Bullying involves persistent, repeated, and escalating hostile behaviors over a prolonged timeframe, accompanied by an explicit power imbalance between perpetrator and target. While severe ostracism can manifest as a tactic within bullying campaigns, ostracism can occur in isolated, episodic, lateral, or bottom-up configurations without systemic malicious campaigns or formal status differentials.

The psychological construct consists of several interrelated experiential manifestations captured by the scale items:

1. Direct Social Invisibility: The feeling that one does not exist within the visual, cognitive, and physical awareness of coworkers (e.g., coworkers walking out when the person enters a room, or treating the person as an empty space).
2. Communicative Cessation and Avoidance: The deliberate termination or withholding of conversational engagement (e.g., greetings left unanswered, coworkers shutting the individual out of ongoing professional conversations, or refusing to speak).
3. Physical and Spatial Segregation: Active avoidance in shared occupational spaces (e.g., employees avoiding physical proximity, sitting involuntarily isolated in bustling dining halls or collaborative zones).
4. Informal and Peripheral Exclusion: The systematic withholding of invitations to casual, non-mandatory social rituals (e.g., coffee breaks, informal lunches, or hallway water-cooler banter), which signal relational acceptance and informal network membership.

A crucial attribute of this construct is its structural unidimensionality. While ostracism can manifest across varied physical and verbal contexts, the target experiences these episodes as a singular, unified psychological climate: the acute, painful recognition of being socially cast out from the workplace community.

Theoretical Framework

The development and theoretical validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale are grounded in social-psychological and organizational theories that explain how human beings react to relational exclusion and social devaluation.

Williams's Temporal Need Threat Model

The primary theoretical bedrock of the WOS is the Temporal Need Threat Model advanced by Kipling D. Williams (1997, 2001, 2007). Williams posits that human beings possess an evolutionary, biologically hardwired sensitivity to ostracism, as social exclusion historically threatened human survival by severing access to group protection, shared resources, and collective foraging. Williams conceptualizes the human response to ostracism as occurring in three temporal stages:

• The Reflexive Stage: At the immediate onset of ostracism, individuals detect exclusion indiscriminately and experience instantaneous social pain. Research in social cognitive neuroscience (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003) demonstrates that ostracism activates the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and the anterior insula—the identical neural circuitry responsible for processing the affective distress of physical pain. Concurrently, ostracism instantly threatens four fundamental human needs:
  1. The Need to Belong: Severing social bonds and signaling that the individual is no longer an accepted group member (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
  2. The Need for Self-Esteem: Inciting self-blame, self-doubt, and the distressing attribution that one possesses undesirable, repulsive, or unvalued qualities.
  3. The Need for Control: Stripping the target of agency, because their communicative initiatives receive no acknowledgment, rendering them powerless to influence the interaction.
  4. The Need for a Meaningful Existence: Evoking feelings of "social death" and existential insignificance by demonstrating that the individual's presence or absence has zero impact on the social collective.
• The Reflective Stage: Following immediate detection, individuals allocate cognitive and emotional resources to evaluate the situation, assign causal attributions, and enact coping strategies. In an attempt to fortify belonging and self-esteem, targets may initially engage in prosocial, compliance-oriented, or ingratiating behaviors. Conversely, if targets seek to reclaim control and visibility, they may resort to provocative, defiant, or hostile counter-actions.
• The Resignation Stage: When ostracism is chronic, pervasive, and inescapable—as frequently observed in toxic workplace environments where employees must remain due to financial obligations—the target's coping resources are fully exhausted. This phase leads to profound alienation, clinical depression, learned helplessness, psychological withdrawal, and somatic distress.

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

From an organizational perspective, Hobfoll's (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory explains why workplace ostracism is uniquely debilitating. COR theory maintains that individuals possess a finite pool of psychological, cognitive, energetic, and relational resources, and are fundamentally motivated to preserve, protect, and accumulate these resources. The threat of resource loss or actual resource depletion produces severe psychological stress.

Being subjected to workplace ostracism inflicts a catastrophic drain on an employee's internal resources. First, deciphering whether one is genuinely being ignored or if coworkers are merely preoccupied demands extensive cognitive monitoring, inducing rumination and cognitive overload. Second, coping with the social pain of exclusion requires intensive emotional regulation, which rapidly depletes ego-regulatory capacity. Consequently, employees starved of social support have insufficient energetic reserves remaining to allocate toward core task performance, high-quality collaboration, or organizational citizenship behaviors. To stem further resource loss, targets enter a defensive self-preservation state, disengaging from the organization, harboring cynicism, and eventually pursuing turnover.

Social Identity and Social Exchange Theories

Workplace ostracism also disrupts basic tenets of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). Employees derive essential components of their self-concept, social identity, and prestige from membership in workgroups. When coworkers refuse to interact with an individual, the individual's social identity within the organization collapses. Simultaneously, the implicit psychological contract of mutual respect and reciprocity is severed. Because the social environment fails to reciprocate fundamental human decencies, the ostracized employee reciprocates with withholding discretionary organizational effort, withdrawing commitment, and engaging in counterproductive work behaviors aimed at the workplace community.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validities of the Workplace Ostracism Scale were established through a series of rigorous empirical investigations by Ferris et al. (2008), followed by widespread independent replication in the organizational sciences.

Construct and Content Validity

Ferris and colleagues generated an initial pool of items reflecting the core operational definition of workplace ostracism, derived from Williams's foundational taxonomy. Content validity was scrutinized through expert panel evaluation to ensure that items exclusively captured the experience of being ignored or excluded, without conflating the measure with active aggression or overt incivility. Items exhibiting semantic ambiguity, domain contamination, or low conceptual clarity were removed, culminating in an exploratory 13-item pool that underwent empirical testing.

Discriminant Validity

A vital imperative for the developers was proving that workplace ostracism represents an empirically distinct construct rather than a redundant re-labeling of existing mistreatment measures. Using nested confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) comparisons across multiple independent samples, Ferris et al. (2008) examined the WOS alongside conceptually related constructs:

• Workplace Incivility: Measured via the Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001). CFA results demonstrated that a two-factor model distinguishing ostracism from incivility fit the data significantly better than a single-factor constrained model ($\Delta\chi^2$ tests were statistically significant at $p < .001$, with improved CFI and RMSEA indices).
• Interpersonal and Interactional Justice: Measured via standard Colquitt (2001) scales. Ostracism demonstrated moderate negative correlations with interactional justice ($r \approx -.40$ to $-.50$), yet structural models confirmed their distinctiveness; ostracism captured informal, horizontal peer dynamics rather than authoritative procedural/relational treatment from supervisors.
• Abusive Supervision: Measured via Tepper's (2000) scale. While abusive supervision involves downward active hostility from formal leaders, the WOS demonstrated discriminant validity, as ostracism captures diffuse social exclusion emanating from coworkers across all hierarchical levels.
• Perceived Organizational Support (POS): The WOS showed negative associations with POS, but factor analytical comparisons established that systemic organizational valuation is structurally distinguishable from localized interpersonal exclusion.

Convergent and Criterion-Related Predictive Validity

The WOS displays powerful convergent and criterion-related predictive validity, exhibiting expected, theoretically congruent correlations with critical organizational and psychological outcomes:

• Psychological Well-Being and Strain: WOS scores exhibit strong positive correlations with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), psychological distress ($r = .45$ to $.55$), workplace depression, anxiety, and the emotional exhaustion dimension of the Maslach Burnout Inventory ($r > .50$).
• Need Satisfaction Deficits: In alignment with Williams's framework, WOS scores negatively correlate with target measures of belongingness ($r = -.52$), self-esteem ($r = -.43$), personal control ($r = -.38$), and meaningful workplace existence ($r = -.48$).
• Job Attitudes: Strong negative correlations are consistently observed between the WOS and job satisfaction ($r = -.40$ to $-.58$), affective organizational commitment ($r = -.35$ to $-.50$), and perceptions of workplace psychological safety.
• Workplace Behaviors: WOS scores reliably predict reductions in organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals (OCB-I) and the organization (OCB-O). Concurrently, the scale positively predicts counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and interpersonal deviance ($r = .30$ to $.45$), as ostracized targets withhold collaboration or retaliate against the hostile climate.
• Turnover Intentions: Across multi-wave and longitudinal field studies, workplace ostracism emerged as one of the strongest unique predictors of voluntary turnover intentions ($r = .40$ to $.52$), frequently surpassing the predictive magnitude of workplace incivility.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Workplace Ostracism Scale has been rigorously documented across numerous empirical investigations spanning various industries, cultures, and occupational sectors.

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the initial multi-study scale validation series by Ferris et al. (2008), the final 10-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency reliability:

• Study 1 (Scale Refinement Sample): In an initial heterogeneous sample of working adults, the preliminary items demonstrated exceptional internal consistency, enabling the reduction to the optimal 10 items without sacrificing scale integrity.
• Study 2 (University Staff Field Sample): The 10-item WOS achieved a Cronbach's coefficient alpha ($\alpha$) of .89, demonstrating that the scale items homogenously tap into the core construct of ostracism.
• Study 3 (Independent Corporate Sample): Cross-validation in an independent organizational sample yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .89.
• Study 4 (Multi-Source Replication Sample): In an organizational field investigation incorporating coworker and supervisor ratings, self-reported WOS internal consistency reached an alpha of .94.

Subsequent independent studies globally have reaffirmed these findings. Meta-analytic syntheses on workplace ostracism (e.g., Howard et al., 2020) report sample-weighted average Cronbach's alphas for the WOS hovering between .90 and .94. When modern psychometricians evaluate the scale using composite reliability (CR) and McDonald's coefficient omega ($\omega$), values consistently exceed .91, confirming that the scale is virtually free of random measurement error and possesses adequate precision for both basic academic research and diagnostic individual assessment.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal field research employing cross-lagged panel designs reveals that the WOS exhibits moderate to high temporal stability across time intervals ranging from two weeks to one year (test-retest correlations typically span $r_{tt} = .55$ to $.72$). This stability profile matches theoretical expectations: while workplace ostracism is a dynamic interpersonal condition sensitive to environmental shifts and personnel changes (reflecting state-like properties), persistent dysfunctional group dynamics frequently lock targets into prolonged, chronic exclusion (reflecting stable environmental exposure).

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality and construct validity of the Workplace Ostracism Scale were established using rigorous Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) techniques during the scale development process.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Item Reduction

The initial validation work initiated by Ferris et al. (2008) generated an empirical pool of 13 candidate items. These 13 items were administered to an initial sample of employed respondents to determine the latent factor structure. Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Maximum Likelihood extraction methods were utilized.

Evaluation of the resulting scree plot and Kaiser's eigenvalue-greater-than-one criterion ($lambda > 1$) pointed unambiguously to a dominant, single general factor accounting for the vast majority of common variance. However, factor loadings and item-total correlations revealed psychometric weaknesses in three specific candidate items:

• Item 11: "You have been included in conversations at work (reverse coded)." — This reverse-coded item exhibited unacceptable cross-loadings, a low item-total correlation, and generated an artificial method-effect factor, a well-documented hazard of reverse-worded items in mistreatment inventories.
• Item 12: "Others at work stopped talking to you." — This item displayed linguistic ambiguity, frequently conflating short-term conversational pauses with systematic social exclusion, resulting in lower primary factor saturation.
• Item 13: "You had to be the one to start a conversation in order to be social at work." — This item cross-loaded onto introversion and social initiative rather than pure passive exclusion, failing to attain the strict .40 factor loading retention threshold.

Following psychometric purification, these three items were eliminated (indicated with asterisks in development archives), leaving a refined, parsimonious 10-item unidimensional scale. All 10 retained items demonstrated robust standardized factor loadings on the primary latent ostracism factor, with loadings ranging from .62 to .85.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the structural integrity of the 10-item unifactorial model, Ferris et al. (2008) conducted confirmatory factor analyses on independent validation samples using structural equation modeling (SEM) software. The 10-item single-factor model demonstrated exceptional goodness-of-fit indices:

• Relative Chi-Square ($\chi^2 / df$): Consistently within the desired threshold of < 2.5.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely equaled or exceeded .95 to .98, well above the conventional .90 threshold for acceptable fit and meeting Hu & Bentler's stringent .95 criterion.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ranged between .94 and .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values spanned .04 to .06, indicating low residual error and superior population approximation.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Maintained below .04.

Subsequent measurement invariance testing across gender, organizational tiers, and cross-cultural cohorts (e.g., North American, European, and East Asian business organizations) has confirmed full metric, scalar, and structural invariance. This confirms that respondents across diverse demographics conceptualize, process, and respond to the 10 items of the WOS through an equivalent psychological frame.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications, testing parameters, and scoring protocols for the Workplace Ostracism Scale are detailed below:

• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; occupational health and organizational behavior survey instrument.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or secure online survey platforms (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap). Suitable for individual diagnostic evaluation or large-scale organizational census audits.
• Target Population: Working adults, active employees, organizational teams, management professionals, and clinical occupational therapy clients across all corporate, medical, industrial, and service domains.
• Item Count: 10 authentic validated items (derived from an original 13-item development pool; items 11, 12, and 13 were excluded during validation).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete.
• Response Format: A 7-point Likert-type frequency scale developed on the empirical scale anchors of Bass, Cascio, and O'Connor (1974):
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Once in a while
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Fairly often
  • 5 = Often
  • 6 = Constantly
  • 7 = Always
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 10 items of the final scale are positively keyed (there are no reverse-scored items in the final 10-item instrument).
  • Composite Score Calculation: Compute the mean of the 10 items for each respondent (sum of all item scores divided by 10), generating an overall score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00. Alternatively, an absolute cumulative sum score can be computed, ranging from 10 to 70.
  • Higher composite scores indicate greater perceived workplace ostracism, social exclusion, and relational isolation.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • 1.00 – 1.99 (Minimal to Nil Ostracism): Typical of healthy, socially integrated work environments where exclusion is an anomaly or absent.
  • 2.00 – 2.99 (Low to Mild Ostracism): Occasional episodes of social neglect; while not pervasive, it warrants monitoring of team communication dynamics and informal climate.
  • 3.00 – 4.49 (Moderate Ostracism): Clinically and organizationally significant exclusion. Targets experience persistent social friction, resulting in depleted regulatory energy, diminished organizational identification, and elevated strain.
  • 4.50 – 7.00 (Severe to Chronic Ostracism): Pervasive, systemic workplace isolation. Reflective of the "resignation stage" of the temporal need threat model; strongly associated with acute depressive symptoms, burnout, functional alienation, severe counterproductive work behavior, and immediate turnover intentions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Workplace Ostracism Scale was officially published in 2008 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The formal citation and intellectual documentation are owned and copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA).

• Academic and Research Use: The scale items, response formats, and scoring protocols are published within the public domain of peer-reviewed psychological science for non-commercial, academic, thesis, and scholarly research. Researchers may administer the WOS in empirical studies without payment of royalties, provided that full scientific credit and formal APA bibliographic citation are extended to Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008).
• Commercial and Organizational Consulting Applications: Use of the instrument for commercial profit, fee-for-service management consulting, proprietary employee diagnostic systems, or integration into commercial enterprise software requires formal permission and licensing agreements from the American Psychological Association's Permissions Office / Copyright Clearance Center.

References

• Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. F., & O'Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036655
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
• Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
• Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Damage to the personal and organizational bottom line. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
• Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
• Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
• 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(6), 1348–1366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013327
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. A., & Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(6), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000453
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
• Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
• Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9354-3_7
• Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. Guilford Press.
• Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641
• 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, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)