ABSTRACT
Background and Aims
Workplace ostracism is a form of social exclusion that can undermine employee well‐being and organizational effectiveness. In Lebanon's socio‐political and economic crisis context, where job‐related stress is high, this study explores the impact of workplace ostracism on interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction, investigating the mediating roles of self‐esteem and psychological distress.
Methods
Our cross‐sectional study covered 650 Lebanese workers (mean age of 32.15 ± 10.32 years; 59.1% female; while 72.8% from the private sector). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the mediating roles of self‐esteem and psychological distress in the associations between workplace ostracism, interpersonal conflict, and job satisfaction.
Results
Psychological distress and self‐esteem both mediated the association between ostracism and interpersonal conflict, with distress showing the stronger indirect effect. For job satisfaction, only self‐esteem acted as a significant mediator.
Conclusion
This study offers insights into psychological pathways through which ostracism affects organizational outcomes. The findings emphasize practical interventions ‐such as mental support, self‐esteem building, and culturally sensitive strategies‐ that foster inclusivity and reduce conflict while encouraging further research across diverse organizational and contextual settings.
Keywords: job satisfaction, Lebanese employees, psychological distress, self‐esteem, workplace interpersonal conflicts, workplace ostracism
1. Introduction
Workplace ostracism is defined as the experience of being excluded, ignored, or rejected from social or professional interactions, by one person or a group, which can disrupt their ability to form and sustain positive relationships, achieve success at work, or maintain a good reputation within the workplace [1]. Unlike explicit forms of workplace aggression, such as bullying or harassment, workplace ostracism is often subtle, making it harder to detect and address while still causing profound psychological, social, and professional consequences [2].
Beyond its impact on individual well‐being, workplace ostracism has also been shown to shape employees' interpersonal relations and their overall evaluation of the work environment. Extensive research has examined the detrimental effects of ostracism on different organizational outcomes linking it to reduced job performance, decreased organizational commitment, and increased turnover intentions [3]. Furthermore, ostracized employees often perceive themselves as undervalued, marginalized, and invisible within their workplace, leading to profound emotional exhaustion, psychological and professional consequences [4]. As employees are the core engine of any institution and its driving force, protecting team spirit and unity is crucial for the survival of organizations and the development of their dynamics [5].
Until recently, research on ostracism largely overlooked the social and cultural factors that influence it in Arab societies, particularly Lebanon. This country triggers curiosity because it faced many challenges, yet it was able to survive long systemic crises, like economic collapse, geopolitical instability, and wars. Lebanon's unique religious variety, including 18 sects mainly divided between Muslims and Christians, with smaller groups like Druze, Hindus, and Jews etc [6]. The country's ongoing economic collapse, coupled with geopolitical unrest, and unpredictable events [6], have fostered high‐pressure work environments, in which employees may face significant stress, uncertainty about job security, and competing interests [7], all of which heighten the risk of social exclusion [7]. Lebanese employees were found to be among the most stressed and dissatisfied in the world, with 41% reporting unhappiness and 68% reporting daily stress [8]. In such demanding circumstances, exclusion of peers can become part of a survival mechanism and coping response, making workplace ostracism a very critical phenomenon for organizational psychology. Moreover, the collectivist culture in Lebanon, where social bonds and group affiliations are highly valued, can intensify the effect of ostracism [9]. While Lebanese workplaces and the responsible authorities are still lagging in terms of awareness and mitigation of ostracism, it is necessary to understand the psychological mechanisms giving ostracism its influence over employee psychological components and other work outcomes in this culturally specific context. In fact, leaders and work communities equipped with a clearer picture are better positioned to foster a sense of community and solidarity and design support structures that protect employees when formal national occupational support systems remain limited.
1.1. Workplace Ostracism and Interpersonal Conflict
Although workplace ostracism and workplace interpersonal conflict are closely related, they stand for conceptually distinct constructs. Workplace ostracism reflects passive social exclusion, characterized by being ignored or left out without direct confrontation, while workplace interpersonal conflict involves active and expressed disagreements or tensions between individuals or groups [1]. While ostracism may occur without overt hostility, interpersonal conflict typically entails direct interaction and opposition [10]. Clarifying this distinction is essential, as ostracism may function as a subtle antecedent stressor that alters emotional and cognitive processes, which subsequently increases the likelihood of overt interpersonal conflict [10]. If left unresolved, they can harm team cohesion, reduce productivity, and lower employee morale, leading to a hostile work environment and communication breakdowns [11].
Research shows a strong relationship between workplace ostracism and interpersonal conflict. Robinson et al. (2013) highlight that ostracized individuals may retaliate through passive‐aggressive or overtly aggressive behaviors, further intensifying workplace tensions [12]. In fact, experiencing ostracism often amplifies sensitivity, leading to frustration, mistrust, and misunderstanding with colleagues, thereby fueling further conflict [11]. Additionally, ostracism can trigger revenge‐driven behaviors, as excluded employees may engage in conflictual interactions to cope with or respond to their perceived mistreatment [11]. A meta‐analysis by O'Reilly et al. (2014) further explains this dynamic, suggesting that workplace ostracism is a significant predictor of both relational and task conflict, particularly in team‐based settings where collaboration is essential [2]. The literature also suggests that persistent ostracism can lead to a breakdown of social norms and cooperation within organizations, reinforcing cycles of conflict and exclusion [13]. Although reciprocal dynamics may exist over time, empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that workplace ostracism often works as an antecedent condition that heightens the risk of subsequent interpersonal conflict.
1.2. Workplace Ostracism and Job Satisfaction
A fundamental pillar of employee performance and well‐being is job satisfaction, referring to the level of contentment and fulfillment which employees experience about their work environment and roles [14]. It is a key factor shaping the long‐term career progression and overall life satisfaction [14]. High job satisfaction is associated with greater productivity, stronger employee loyalty, and organizational performance [14]. However, instances of microaggression and feelings of exclusion, such as workplace ostracism, can lead to negative perceptions of the organization and lower levels of job and organizational engagement, fulfillment, and motivation [3].
A meta‐analysis by Howard et al. (2020) confirmed that workplace ostracism is a significant predictor of job dissatisfaction across various industries and cultural contexts [15]. Research by Mao et al. (2021) suggests that the detrimental effects of ostracism on job satisfaction are particularly pronounced in collectivist cultures, where social belongingness plays a crucial role in workplace well‐being [16]. Moreover, workplace ostracism does not operate in isolation; it often interacts with other workplace stressors, such as interpersonal conflict and job insecurity, to amplify dissatisfaction [12]. Self‐esteem also plays a role in nurturing a fulfilling and rewarding professional environment. When it is compromised, employees are less likely to find satisfaction in their jobs, as their sense of competence and value within the organization is diminished [17]. Despite growing evidence linking workplace ostracism to these outcomes, less is known about the psychological processes through which such effects unfold. Given these findings, it is important to examine the mechanisms that may underline these relationships.
1.3. Possible Mediating Role of Self‐Esteem and Psychological Distress
Self‐esteem, a principal component of one's self‐concept, is particularly vulnerable in environments where individuals are socially marginalized [18]. Research has shown that ostracized employees tend to experience diminished self‐esteem [18]. This erosion of self‐esteem can, in turn, affect how individuals relate to others in the workplace. The link between self‐esteem and aggression is debated by researchers. While several studies have failed to find a relation between low self‐esteem and externalizing problems, there are findings linking low self‐esteem with aggression, which can increase susceptibility to interpersonal conflicts. The directionality of this relationship remains challenging to be evaluated: low self‐esteem may act as a pre‐existing vulnerability that predisposes employees to conflict or may itself be a consequence of repeated relational strain, and the cross‐sectional designs of most available evidence do not allow a final affirmation.
In a similar vein, psychological distress reflects the emotional suffering that commonly manifests as anxiety, depression, and emotional exhaustion [19]. It is strongly associated with negative workplace outcomes, including more workplace interpersonal conflicts and decreased job satisfaction [13, 20]. In contexts where employees face ostracism, the cumulative effect of social exclusion and psychological distress can create a feedback loop that not only heightens interpersonal conflicts but also, further diminishes job satisfaction [13, 20]. For instance, research suggests that the psychological distress experienced by the ostracized employees can exacerbate defensive or avoidant behaviors, thereby intensifying interpersonal conflicts with colleagues [21]. Similarly, employees' psychological distress may lead to decreased job satisfaction by stimulating a sense of alienation that weakens their engagement with the organization [20]. The relevance of self‐esteem and psychological distress as explanatory mechanisms can be further understood through established theoretical frameworks that explain individuals' reactions to social exclusion.
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. Conservation of Resources Theory (COR) and Workplace Ostracism
The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory is a stress model based on the supposition that people strive to keep, protect, and build resources. Circumstances related to one's environment often threaten or cause a depletion of people's resources. The loss or threat of resources results in stress [22]. Resources may include tangible assets, social relationships, personal characteristics, and psychological energies that individuals value and look to protect. Within organizational settings, the COR theory has been widely applied to explain how workplace stressors such as role ambiguity, workload, interpersonal mistreatment, and social exclusion undermine employees' psychological well‐being and work‐related attitudes [22].
From a COR perspective, workplace ostracism constitutes a particularly potent stressor because it threatens multiple valued resources simultaneously, including social support, a sense of belonging, and self‐worth [22]. Empirical research in workplace contexts has linked ostracism to emotional exhaustion, psychological strain, reduced engagement, and negative job attitudes [23], suggesting that exclusionary experiences deplete employees' emotional and cognitive resources. As individuals experience sustained resource depletion, they may adopt defensive or maladaptive coping responses which are worth investigating within different job settings. Applied to the present model, COR theory offers a rationale for why ostracism may increase psychological distress specifically: the depletion of social and psychological resources lowers the ability of employees to regulate their emotional state and increases their vulnerability to interpersonal tension and unsatisfaction of one's job.
2.2. Need‐Threat Theory (NTT) and Psychological Processes
The Need‐Threat Theory (NTT) further elucidates the psychological consequences of ostracism by positing that experiences of social exclusion threaten four fundamental human needs: belonging, self‐esteem, control, and meaningful existence [21]. When these needs are threatened, individuals exhibit immediate emotional and cognitive responses, including distress, heightened vigilance to social cues, and altered self‐perceptions [21]. This framework has been widely used to explain how exclusionary experiences influence individuals' emotional regulation and behavioral responses across social contexts [21]. In workplace settings, unmet psychological needs resulting from ostracism have been associated with negative affect, withdrawal behaviors, reduced organizational identification, and impaired interpersonal functioning [23].
Although individuals may initially attempt to restore threatened needs through prosocial or compensatory behaviors, prolonged exposure to ostracism may exhaust the psychological resources necessary for such regulation [21]. As unmet needs accumulate, individuals may become more sensitive to interpersonal cues, more prone to misinterpretation of colleagues' behaviors, and less capable of regulating negative emotions during workplace interactions. Hence, within organizational research, the NTT may provide a psychological explanation for how exclusionary experiences translate into maladaptive interpersonal dynamics and diminished work‐related attitudes. In this study, this framework supports the idea that ostracism lowers self‐esteem specifically, especially that self‐esteem is one of the four needs NTT identifies as directly threatened by exclusion, and this can affect both the relationship with colleagues and the evaluation of their job.
2.3. Affective Events Theory (AET) in Workplace Settings
Beyond resource‐ and need‐based mechanisms, the AET offers a complementary perspective by emphasizing the role of discrete workplace events in shaping employees' emotional experiences over time [24]. It is a psychological model showing how workplace events induce emotional reactions (affect) in employees, which in turn influence their attitudes (like job satisfaction) and behaviors (like interactions), separating these emotion‐driven responses from purely cognitive evaluations [24]. While AET does not directly inform the hypothesized relationships, it provides a useful conceptual lens for interpreting how repeated exclusionary experiences may progressively shape interpersonal dynamics and job‐related attitudes. Taken together with COR and NTT, AET suggests that the accumulation of exclusionary events, not just a single occurrence, is what in the end shapes employees' conflict behavior and job evaluations, an idea calling for the use of a frequency‐based scoring whenever evaluating ostracism.
2.3.1. The Present Study
Taken together, these theories along with earlier empirical findings provide a complementary framework for understanding how workplace ostracism may translate into detrimental interpersonal and attitudinal outcomes. Both perspectives underscore the significant role of resource depletion and unmet psychological needs in shaping employees' emotional states and behavioral responses. Drawing on prior empirical findings and these theoretical frameworks, self‐esteem and psychological distress are proposed as key psychological mechanisms through which experiences of workplace ostracism may influence interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction. Specifically, workplace ostracism may erode employees' self‐esteem and heighten psychological distress, thereby increasing vulnerability to interpersonal tensions and reducing satisfaction with one's job. Therefore, this study aims to uncover how ostracism among Lebanese employees could relate to strained workplace relationships and diminished job satisfaction through the mediating effects of self‐esteem and psychological distress. Based on the theoretical and empirical considerations outlined above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
(H1) Greater levels of exposure to workplace ostracism are directly associated with more workplace interpersonal conflict and lower job satisfaction, and
(H2) both self‐esteem and psychological distress mediate the link of workplace ostracism to interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction.
3. Methods
3.1. Minimal Sample Size Calculation
The minimal sample size was calculated using the Fritz and MacKinnon formula [25], using an L of 7.85 for a 5% α error, a power of 80%, with a small effect size of 0.14, and k = 6 variables included in the model. Therefore, the minimum required sample size for the current study was determined to be 408.
3.2. Study Design and Sampling
This cross‐sectional study was conducted between November 25, 2024, and December 20, 2024, recruiting 650 employees from various backgrounds and industries across Lebanon's governorates. To facilitate data collection, an online survey was created using Google Forms and shared via a URL link and QR code. We used the snowball sampling method for recruitment. We first shared it with different social and community groups, who were asked to share it with other eligible individuals within their circles. Because recruitment relied on social and community networks, the sample's distribution across industries, occupational levels, and community groups reflects the aleatory composition of these referral chains rather than a stratified or quota‐based design; this is addressed further in the limitations. Only employees aged 18 and above were eligible with at least 1 year of service within their current institution; while declining to complete the survey, non‐Lebanese nationality, and Arabic illiteracy were considered exclusion criteria. Then, participants were guided to the questionnaire while no financial awards were granted for their participation.
3.3. Scales and Measurement
The self‐reported questionnaire was in Arabic and composed of two main sections, with an average completion duration of 20 min. The first section gathered sociodemographic information, including age, sex, and the Household Crowding Index (HCI). The HCI was calculated by dividing the number of people living in the household, excluding newborns, by the number of rooms, excluding the kitchen and bathrooms [26]. It was included as an indicator of living conditions and socioeconomic stress which may influence psychological distress and well‐being; therefore, it helps reflect potential confounding in the analysis. Additionally, two work‐related questions were included related to the type of organization (public/private) and the years of service. These variables capture structural and experiential differences in the work setting possibly affecting the exposure to workplace ostracism and patterns of interpersonal interaction. However, the specific industry or occupational sector (e.g., healthcare, education, banking) was not systematically coded as a categorical variable during data collection. The second section included the different measurement scales.
3.4. The Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS‐10)
The WOS‐10 was originally developed in 2008 by Ferris et al. to capture employees’ perceptions of being ignored or excluded in organizational settings and examine workplace mistreatment, interpersonal dynamics, and occupational well‐being [13]. It is a unidirectional tool consisting of 10 items that assess the extent to which employees feel excluded or ignored in their workplace [13]. Participants rate how frequently each statement has occurred over the past 6 months, using a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always) [13]. Items include “Your greetings have gone unanswered at work” and “You notice others would not look at you at work” (Appendix A). The total score is calculated by summing all item responses, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived ostracism [13] (Cronbach's α in this study = 0.96).
3.5. The Workplace Interpersonal Conflict Scale (WICS‐6)
The WICS‐6 in its six‐item short version, was refined by Wright et al. in 2017, and it is a unidimensional self‐reported measure designed to assess the frequency of conflicts between individuals in various organizational settings [27]. The scale was widely used to specifically capture overt interpersonal stressors, such as verbal hostility and confrontational interactions, which are conceptually relevant for examining conflict as an outcome of workplace strain and social exclusion [27]. Participants rate how often they have experienced workplace conflict over the past 30 days, on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Higher scores indicate greater levels of conflict, and an example item is” Had others yell at you at work” (Appendix B) [27]. (Cronbach's α in this study = 0.92).
3.6. The Generic Job Satisfaction Scale (Ar‐GJSS‐10)
The GJSS‐10 evaluates job satisfaction, independently from professions. Because job satisfaction reflects employees' global evaluations of their work environment, this scale is particularly suitable for assessment of attitudinal responses toward one's job within different contexts [28]. Created by Macdonald and Maclyntyre in 1997, it consists of 10 items that explore multiple dimensions of job satisfaction including salary, workload, relationship with colleagues, opportunities for career growth, and overall fulfillment (e.g., “I receive recognition for my good performance”) (Appendix C) [28]. The statements are rated using a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree, with higher scores indicating higher job satisfaction [28]. The Arabic version of this unidimensional scale has been previously validated among Arab employees [29] (Cronbach's α in this study = 0.95).
3.7. The Arabic‐Single Item Self‐Esteem (Ar‐SISE‐1)
This measure captures global self‐esteem as a core psychological resource relevant to individuals' responses to social exclusion [30]. It is a one‐item tool that uses a 5‐point Likert scale to rate the statement “I have high self‐esteem” from 1 (not at all true to me) to 5 (very true of me) (Appendix D), with higher scores indicating higher self‐esteem [30]. The Arabic version of this scale was previously validated among the Lebanese population as reliable and effective measure of self‐esteem [30].
3.8. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS‐8)
The Arabic version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS‐8) measures symptoms of psychological distress experienced over the past week related to depression, anxiety, and stress [19]. This tool has been previously used in occupational and organizational research to capture employees' emotional responses to workplace stressors, making it suitable for examining distress within work‐related contexts. In the present study, DASS‐8 was used as an index of generalized psychological strain reflecting employees' emotional responses to ongoing workplace stressors rather than as a diagnostic measure. It consists of 3 items of anxiety (e.g., “I felt close to panic”), 3 for depression (e.g., “I felt that I had nothing to look forward”), and 2 for stress (e.g., “I was using a lot of my mental energy”), with responses rated on a 4‐point Likert scale from 0 (“did not apply to me at all”) to 3 (“applied to me most of the time”) (Appendix E) [19]. The total score is calculated by dividing the sum of item scores by two, with higher scores reflecting greater levels of distress [19] (Cronbach's α in this study = 0.93).
3.9. Translation Process
The forward‐backward translation approach [31] was used for the non‐validated scales, WOS‐10, and WICS‐6. An external Lebanese translator translated the original English version into Arabic. Following this, a Lebanese psychologist with full proficiency in English translated the Arabic version back into English. The original English version was then compared to the retranslated version to detect and resolve any divergences. Lastly, a pilot study conducted with over 20 random employees with diverse backgrounds allowed the finalization of the survey used later in the study. Before running the analyzes, we conducted confirmatory factor analyzes to confirm the factor structure before any further testing.
3.10. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive and bivariate analyzes were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling were performed in R version 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024) using the lavaan package (version 0.6‐19). Skewness and Kurtosis values between −1 and +1 allowed the assumption of normal distribution for the workplace interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction scores. The comparison of continuous variables between two groups was conducted using the Student t‐test, while Pearson's correlation coefficient was employed to correlate two continuous variables.
Prior to testing the mediation model, the measurement properties of the study scales were examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the workplace ostracism and workplace interpersonal conflict scales. The CFA was conducted at the item level using the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV) estimator, which is appropriate for ordinal data.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was implemented to examine the structural association between workplace ostracism and workplace interpersonal conflict, with self‐esteem and psychological distress as possible mediators. The structural model was estimated by using the Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimator. Because self‐esteem was measured using a single‐item scale, it was treated as an observed variable in the structural model. Multiple indices were calculated to check the fit of the models: the Relative Chi‐square (χ2/df; < 5), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (close and acceptable fit are considered for values < 0.05 and < 0.11 respectively), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; < 0.05) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (≥ 0.90) [32]. Nagelkerke R2 values were calculated for each model, with values between 0.02 and 0.13 reflect small effect, whereas values between 0.13 and 0.26 and ≥ 0.26 indicate medium and large effect respectively [33]. Covariates entered in the model were those that showed a p < 0.25 in the bivariate analysis. All statistical tests were two‐sided, and a p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
4. Results
4.1. Participants
650 employees joined this study, with a mean age of 32.15 years and 59.1% females. More descriptive statistics of the sample are elaborated in Table 1.
Table 1.
Sociodemographic and other characteristics of the sample (N = 650).
| Variable | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 266 (40.9%) |
| Female | 384 (59.1%) |
| Organization type | |
| Private | 473 (72.8%) |
| Public | 177 (27.2%) |
| Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 32.15 ± 10.32 |
| Household crowding index (person/room) | 1.04 ± 0.48 |
| Years of service | 6.98 ± 7.09 |
| Workplace interpersonal conflict | 11.88 ± 5.32 |
| Job satisfaction | 32.29 ± 10.05 |
| Self‐esteem | 3.59 ± 1.11 |
| Psychological distress | 9.51 ± 6.29 |
4.2. Measurement Model
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the measurement properties of workplace ostracism and workplace interpersonal conflict. The one‐factor model of the workplace interpersonal conflict (χ2 [9] = 32.67, CFI = 0.999, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.064 [90% CI 0.041, 0.088], SRMR = 0.024) and workplace ostracism (χ2 [34] = 105.64, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.047 [90% CI 0.043, 0.052, SRMR = 0.043) scales showed excellent fit. All factor loadings were high, indicating strong item‐factor relationships. Internal consistency was excellent for the WOS (ω = 0.96 and α = 0.96) and the WICS (ω = 0.92 and α = 0.92). Convergent validity was supported, with average variance extracted (AVE) values of 0.74 for the WICS and 0.80 for the WOS (Table 2).
Table 2.
Standardized loading factors of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the WICS and WOS scales.
| Model 1: CFA of the workplace interpersonal conflict scale (WICS) | |
| WICS 1 | 0.78 |
| WICS 2 | 0.85 |
| WICS 3 | 0.90 |
| WICS 4 | 0.89 |
| WICS 5 | 0.87 |
| WICS 6 | 0.88 |
| Model 2: Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS) | |
| WOS 1 | 0.78 |
| WOS 2 | 0.89 |
| WOS 3 | 0.89 |
| WOS 4 | 0.88 |
| WOS 5 | 0.90 |
| WOS 6 | 0.90 |
| WOS 7 | 0.93 |
| WOS 8 | 0.92 |
| WOS 9 | 0.93 |
| WOS 10 | 0.91 |
4.3. Bivariate Analysis of Factors Associated With Workplace Interpersonal Conflict and Job Satisfaction Scores
Working in a public versus private organization was significantly associated with higher job satisfaction (Table 3). Moreover, higher self‐esteem was significantly associated with less workplace interpersonal conflict and higher job satisfaction, whereas higher psychological distress was significantly associated with higher workplace interpersonal conflict and lower job satisfaction (Table 4).
Table 3.
Bivariate analysis of factors associated with workplace interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction.
| Workplace interpersonal conflict | Job satisfaction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean ± SD | p | Effect size Cohen's d | Mean ± SD | p | Effect size Cohen's d |
| Sex | 0.14 | 0.118 | 0.62 | 0.040 | ||
| Male | 11.50 ± 5.27 | 32.05 ± 10.89 | ||||
| Female | 12.13 ± 5.35 | 32.46 ± 9.52 | ||||
| Organization type | 0.05 | 0.161 | < 0.001 | 0.392 | ||
| Private | 11.64 ± 5.48 | 33.35 ± 10.15 | ||||
| Public | 12.50 ± 4.83 | 29.46 ± 9.25 | ||||
Note: Numbers in bold indicate significant p values.
Table 4.
Pearson correlation matrix.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Workplace Interpersonal conflict | 1 | ||||||
| 2. Job satisfaction | −0.21*** | 1 | |||||
| 3. Age | −0.07 | 0.04 | 1 | ||||
| 4. Household crowding index | 0.07 | −0.08 | −0.01 | 1 | |||
| 5. Years of service | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.76*** | −0.04 | 1 | ||
| 6. Self‐esteem | − 0.27*** | 0.40*** | 0.10* | 0.01 | 0.12** | 1 | |
| 7. Psychological distress | 0.45*** | −0.08* | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.04 | −0.09* | |
| 8. Workplace ostracism | 0.78*** | −0.13** | −0.11** | 0.06 | −0.08* | −0.30*** | 0.42*** |
p < 0.05
p < 0.01
p < 0.001.
4.4. Analysis of Mediation
4.4.1. Workplace Interpersonal Conflict as the Dependent Variable
The structural mediation model was adjusted for sex, organization type, age, household crowding Index, and years of service. The model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data: χ2/df = 30.40/11 = 2.76, RMSEA = 0.052 [90% CI 0.031; 0.075], SRMR = 0.029 and CFI = 0.977.
Higher workplace ostracism was significantly associated with lower self‐esteem (standardized β = −0.301, p < 0.001) and higher psychological distress (standardized β = 0.499, p < 0.001). In turn, lower self‐esteem (standardized β = −0.05, p = 0.03) and higher psychological distress (standardized β = 0.141, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher workplace interpersonal conflict.
Both mediators showed significant indirect effects. Self‐esteem partially mediated the association between workplace ostracism and workplace interpersonal conflict (standardized indirect effect β = 0.015, p = 0.03), as did psychological distress (standardized indirect effect β = 0.070, p < 0.001). The total effect of workplace ostracism on workplace interpersonal conflict remained significant (standardized total effect β = 0.778, p < 0.001), indicating partial mediation (Figure 1). The model explained 62.8% of the variance in workplace interpersonal conflict.
Figure 1.
Structural equation model illustrating the associations between workplace ostracism, self‐esteem, psychological distress, and workplace interpersonal conflict. (a1) Relation between workplace ostracism and self‐esteem; (b1) Relation between self‐esteem and workplace interpersonal conflict; (a2) Relation between workplace ostracism and psychological distress; (b2) Relation between psychological distress and workplace interpersonal conflict; (c) Total effect of workplace ostracism on workplace interpersonal conflict (before accounting for the mediators); (c’) Direct effect of workplace ostracism on workplace interpersonal conflict (after controlling for the mediators self‐esteem and psychological distress); (c1) Indirect effect of workplace ostracism on workplace interpersonal conflict via self‐esteem; (c2) Indirect effect of workplace ostracism on workplace interpersonal conflict via psychological distress. The numbers stand for standardized regression coefficients and their standard errors. Values displayed are standardized regression coefficients (β) and their corresponding standard errors in parentheses. Significance levels: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001. Solid arrows represent modeled pathways between variables, whereas the Blue Arrow represents the total effect path (c), and the Dashed arrow represents the direct effect (c’) after accounting for both mediators.
The model was estimated using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Workplace ostracism was specified as the independent variable, workplace interpersonal conflict as the dependent variable, and self‐esteem and psychological distress as parallel mediators. The model was adjusted for the covariates retained in the final multivariable analysis.
4.4.2. Job Satisfaction as the Dependent Variable
The mediation analysis taking job satisfaction as the dependent variable was adjusted for the following covariates: organization type, household crowding index, and years of service.
The model was acceptable as follows: χ2/df = 3.01/1 = 3.01, RMSEA = 0.056, SRMR = 0.011 and CFI = 0.995 and TLI = 0.930.
Higher workplace ostracism was significantly associated with lower self‐esteem (β = −0.31; p < 0.001) and higher psychological distress (β = 0.54, p < 0.001). Higher self‐esteem was significantly associated with higher job satisfaction (β = 0.35, p < 0.001), whereas psychological distress was not significantly associated with job satisfaction (β = −0.02, p = 0.57).
Self‐esteem significantly mediated the association between workplace ostracism and job satisfaction (standardized indirect effect β = −0.110, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) [95% CI −0.169; −0.051]. In contrast, psychological distress did not mediate the association between workplace ostracism and job satisfaction (standardized indirect effect β = −0.01, SE = 0.03, p = 0.57) [95% CI −0.069; 0.049]. The total effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction remained significant (standardized total effect β = −0.21, p < 0.01). The direct effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction was not significant (standardized direct effect β = −0.09, p = 0.10), suggesting a full mediation through self‐esteem.
The overall model explained 19.5% of the variance in job satisfaction (R2 = 0.195). These findings show that the association between workplace ostracism and job satisfaction work through reduced self‐esteem (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Structural equation model illustrating the associations between workplace ostracism, self‐esteem, psychological distress, and job satisfaction. (a1) Relation between workplace ostracism and self‐esteem; (b1) Relation between self‐esteem and job satisfaction; (a2) Relation between workplace ostracism and psychological distress; (b2) Relation between psychological distress and job satisfaction; (c) Total effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction (before accounting for the mediators); (c’) Direct effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction (after controlling for the mediators self‐esteem and psychological distress); (c1) Indirect effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction via the mediating effect of self‐esteem; (c2) Indirect effect of workplace ostracism on job satisfaction via the mediating effect of psychological distress. Values displayed are standardized regression coefficients (β) and their corresponding standard errors (SE) in parentheses. Significance levels: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Solid arrows represent modeled pathways between variables, whereas the Blue Arrow represents the total effect path (c), and the Dashed arrow represents the direct effect (c’) after accounting for both mediators. X indicates a statistically non‐significant path
The model was estimated using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Workplace ostracism was specified as the independent variable, job satisfaction as the dependent variable, and self‐esteem and psychological distress as parallel mediators. The model was adjusted for the covariates retained in the final multivariable analysis.
5. Discussion
This study examined the mediating roles of self‐esteem and psychological distress in the associations between workplace ostracism, workplace interpersonal conflict, and job satisfaction among Lebanese employees. After establishing an adequate measurement model and acceptable structural model fit, we were able to distinguish two psychological pathways. Importantly, the measurement properties of the study scales were first verified using confirmatory factor analysis with the WLSMV estimator, showing excellent model fit and strong reliability. The structural models were then estimated using validated measurement structures, and when necessary, factor‐score‐based SEM, resulting in acceptable overall model fit. These steps ensured that the mediation findings were based on adequately validated constructs.
Our findings suggest that the support for the mediation hypothesis (H2) was partial rather than uniform across outcomes in contrast to (H1). Both psychological distress and self‐esteem mediated the association between ostracism and interpersonal conflict, but the direct effect of ostracism on conflict remained significant even after accounting for both mediators, indicating only partial mediation for this outcome. For job satisfaction, only self‐esteem emerged as a significant mediator; psychological distress did not mediate this association. Not all proposed pathways were therefore confirmed, and this is reflected throughout the interpretation below.
5.1. From Ostracism to Interpersonal Conflicts
Consistent with prior research, workplace ostracism was strongly associated with increased interpersonal conflict. For instance, workplace ostracism was previously reported to be positively related to coworker conflict, supervisor conflict, and task conflict [34]. Similarly, experimental evidence showed that exclusion heightens irritability, automatic aggression, and hostile interpretations of social cues, all of which may contribute to conflict escalation [35]. Hence, our findings further emphasize that despite its passive nature, ostracism consequences may result in more overt interpersonal tensions. Beyond affirming this association, the present study extends prior literature by clarifying the psychological mechanisms underlying this relationship. Both psychological distress and self‐esteem showed significant indirect effects, although the mediation through distress was stronger, suggesting that immediate emotional disruption may be a more proximal driver of interpersonal conflict at work than longer‐term self‐evaluations. Psychological distress emerging as the primary mediator suggests that the emotional strain produced by exclusion may reduce employees' capacity to regulate negative affect, increasing vulnerability to defensive, confrontational, or avoidant behaviors. The self‐esteem mediation pathway also echoes previous findings, where its low levels were linked to disengagement, resignation, and even aggressive behaviors [11]. These processes may amplify interpersonal tensions, although the stronger mediation through distress indicates that acute emotional dysregulation, rather than self‐evaluative processes, is the central mechanism driving conflict.
5.2. From Ostracism to Job Satisfaction
Our result agrees with existing literature from different industries and countries over the association of workplace ostracism with reduced job satisfaction. For instance, consistent outcomes were retrieved from organizational studies within the healthcare sector in Finland [36], and multinational industrial companies in Indonesia [37]. To explain this, an individual's sense of capability and appreciation promoted within healthy organizational environments are key pillars of job satisfaction [28], and exposure to prolonged exclusion can erode these pillars and consequently impair fulfillment. Importantly, self‐esteem—but not psychological distress—mediated this association. In fact, ostracism weakened employees' sense of worth, which subsequently reduced their job satisfaction. This pattern aligns with research showing that impaired self‐esteem plays a leading role in shaping ostracized employees' perceptions of their recognition, competence, and value within their organizations, which in turn reduces performance and job satisfaction [28, 36]. In contrast, distress did not play a mediating role, supporting the idea that job satisfaction is a relatively stable, broader, and more cognitive evaluation of one's role and work environment, which makes it less susceptible to transient emotional states [38]. Therefore, more fundamental factors, such as self‐esteem, may play a greater prominent role in shaping such long‐term evaluations while psychological distress is more likely to manifest in acute behavioral responses, such as interpersonal conflicts, rather than altering cognitive outcomes like job satisfaction [30].
These differentiated pathways are best read together with the relative size of each mediated effect, rather than through the theories alone. For interpersonal conflict, psychological distress had a larger indirect effect than self‐esteem, and the direct effect of ostracism on conflict remained significant even after accounting for both mediators which is a pattern of partial mediation. This fits the COR reading: as psychological resources are depleted and opportunities for recovery remain limited, distress intensifies, increasing emotional reactivity and reducing individuals' capacity to regulate interpersonal behavior [22]; the surviving direct effect further suggests that ostracism shapes conflict through channels beyond either mediator, such as direct retaliatory behavior, that this model does not capture.
For job satisfaction, by contrast, self‐esteem was the only significant mediator, psychological distress played no mediating role, and the direct effect of ostracism became non‐significant once self‐esteem was accounted for which is a pattern of full mediation. This fits into the NTT's emphasis on self‐worth: because job satisfaction is an evaluative judgment about the value of one's work, ostracism appears to act on it almost entirely by undermining self‐esteem, which is one of the four needs the theory identifies as directly threatened by exclusion [21], rather than through the emotional strain that instead mediated the conflict pathway. Together, the contrast between partial and full mediation across the two outcomes suggests that COR's resource‐depletion mechanism and NTT's self‐worth mechanism are not competing explanations but complementary ones, each dominant for a different consequence of ostracism.
AET further complements these theories by emphasizing that recurrent workplace experiences, rather than isolated incidents, shape employees' affective trajectories and subsequent behaviors [24]. In fact, repeated micro‐exclusions worsen emotional reactivity and fuel interpersonal conflict [24]. Similarly, it may gradually erode employees' evaluations of their job, even in the absence of overt mistreatment [24]. Future research could build on AET to evaluate the impact of single events of exclusion in contract to repeated episodes and assess longer‐term outcomes particularly in environments where exclusion is culturally amplified.
5.3. Empirical Reading in Cross‐Cultural Contexts
The present findings converge with evidence from Western organizational settings, including studies from the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, where workplace ostracism reliably predicts higher psychological distress, increased interpersonal conflict, and reduced job satisfaction [2, 12, 15]. These similarities suggest that the direction of ostracism's effects reflects broadly shared psychological responses to social exclusion. However, much of this literature has examined these outcomes in isolation or through single processes, leaving the differentiation of psychological pathways relatively underexplored. Interestingly, our results reveal a distinctive pattern in the Lebanese context: psychological distress primarily translated into relational disruption, whereas job satisfaction was only shaped through self‐esteem. This differentiation suggests that, distress may be channeled behaviorally through interpersonal interactions, while cognitive evaluations of work depend more strongly on self‐worth.
Despite the fact that cultural orientation (e.g., individualism‐collectivism) was not directly measured in this study, a plausible cultural interpretation intended to situate the findings within the Lebanese context based on previous literature showing it collectivist tendencies. In fact, an interesting differentiation between our findings and the ones in more individualistic settings lies in the self‐esteem pathway. In Finnish healthcare organizations, self‐esteem was found to only partly mediate the association between workplace ostracism and job satisfaction [36]. The convergence of self‐esteem as a mediator across both an individualistic (Finland) and a collectivist (Lebanon) setting suggests that its relevance to job satisfaction may generalize across cultural contexts, while the relative weight of self‐esteem as a mediator may still vary with the broader cultural and economic backdrop against which exclusion is experienced.
This configuration may reflect the interaction between collectivist norms and structural constraints. Lebanon's organizations are highly rooted in collectivist orientations, where social belonging, group cohesion, and interpersonal harmony carry substantial social weight and play a vital role in shaping professional identity [16]. In such environments, workplace ostracism may be particularly threatening because exclusion signals not only interpersonal rejection but also symbolic removal from the collective unit that defines one's social and professional worth. Emotional strain resulting from ostracism may be expressed behaviorally within interpersonal domains—manifesting as tension or conflict—rather than cognitively incorporated into job evaluations. At the same time, ongoing economic instability may increase the reliance on job security and income [39], encouraging employees to compartmentalize emotional distress and support relatively stable job satisfaction. Hence, when job security is threatened, employees may regulate or suppress overt psychological distress to preserve stability and avoid further damage. However, exclusion that touches one's core identity, like self‐esteem, directly challenges their self‐value internally and within the group. This is an evaluative dimension that is less easily managed through emotional regulation.
This deeper layer of understanding clarifies our findings. In fact, in economically constrained collectivist environments, ostracism may activate resource‐protection processes consistent with COR theory, while simultaneously intensifying need‐threat processes tied to relational worth. As such, the dominant psychological pathway of ostracism may not be universal but structurally conditioned by how cultural norms and economic vulnerability shape the meaning of exclusion. Rather than assuming a universal affective mechanism, future theorizing should consider how contextual pressures influence whether ostracism primarily activates emotional strain or identity‐based vulnerability.
5.4. Practical Implications
The findings of our study give many practical ways for organizations to lower the damage of ostracism. Because psychological distress is the main factor in the conflict pathway, it is important to invest in mental health supports. Examples include counseling services, stress‑management workshops, and early screening for distress. This can help employees build resilience and reduce conflicts. Because self‑esteem had a wider mediating role, this suggests that interventions to reinforce employees' sense of competence and recognition may be effective. We link this to prior studies that value mentorship, constructive feedback, and recognition systems for improving self‑perceptions and job attitudes [40]. Moving to the collectivist context in Lebanese workplaces, it is important to adapt any approach to the culture. Reinforcing social bonds is key to softening the psychological impact of exclusion. Based on this, inclusive team‑building activities, peer‑support networks, and open communication structures can be helpful. Another point can be leadership training programs, as they can raise leaders' awareness of subtle behaviors and teach them to encourage more inclusive communication [28]. To finish, unnamed reporting channels and regular evaluations give employees safe ways to express their concerns. All this can allow organizations to monitor and respond proactively to exclusion at work.
5.5. Limitations
This study, while offering valuable insights, has several limitations that should be noted. First, its cross‐sectional design prevents proving causality or temporality between variables. We acknowledge that because recruitment relied on snowball sampling through social and community networks, the sample's spread across industries and subgroups reflects the composition of these referral chains rather than a stratified design, and cross‐referenced. This form of selection bias should be considered when interpreting both the strength and the generalizability of the associations reported here, and future studies should consider probability‐based or stratified sampling frames to help address it. To minimize other common method bias from the reliance on self‐reported data, participants were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers, yet social desirability bias could not be ignored. The use of an online survey may have resulted in some selection bias due to limited access for certain groups including illiterate individuals or those lacking internet access, selecting against employees with less privileges. Sex was considered a binary variable (male/female) without including other options due to the cultural sensitivity within Arab settings. This should be addressed in future research. A direct question on total household income was not included, as income reporting in Lebanon can be in multi‐currency and the high‐inflation context has become increasingly unreliable and prone to non‐response. The HCI was therefore favored as a more stable proxy of material living conditions. Also, no specific exclusion criteria were implemented such as preexisting psychiatric disorders or mental conditions. No specific industry or occupational sector variables were included which can also limit our ability to formally assess how the associations reported here may vary across occupational sectors. We also acknowledge that some constructs represent different exposure timeframes. The scales' differing reference periods reflect their original validated designs rather than a common period of time. For example, the WOS‐10 was developed using a 6‐month window to capture a more cumulative experience of exclusion [13], whereas the WICS‐6 was validated over a 30‐day period to capture more recent, discrete conflict behaviors with reduced recall burden [27]; both timeframes, and all scales timelines, were preserved without modifying any of the validated scale's original psychometric properties. However, this temporal inconsistency may increase measurement error. Furthermore, response bias may arise from the time length of the survey, approximately 20 min, which might have influenced the respondents and their motives. Recall bias could affect the accuracy in questions related to past events. Although the Arabic‐Single Item Self‐Esteem scale is validated, a single‐item measure may not fully capture self‐esteem. Being a single‐item indicator prevented its specification as a latent construct within the SEM framework. Consequently, it was modeled as an observed variable, and future studies should consider multi‐item measures of self‐esteem to allow full latent modeling. Lastly, the unmeasured or unaccounted‐for variables may introduce residual confounding bias. This bias suggests that there may be more factors beyond those considered in this study that could affect the association between relevant variables; therefore, future research should address this limitation by considering expanding the scope of their investigations.
6. Conclusion
This study advances the understanding of workplace ostracism by identifying two distinct psychological mechanisms through which exclusion affects employees: psychological distress as the stronger pathway to interpersonal conflict (alongside a smaller but significant self‐esteem pathway), and self‐esteem as the main pathway to job satisfaction. Our findings are particularly important in a culture that gives value to relationships and lacks protective resources. These findings emphasize that interventions should be tailored differently for emotion‐based outcomes like conflict (including counseling, stress‐management training, and early distress screening) and cognition‐based outcomes like job satisfaction (including mentorship, recognition systems, and constructive feedback). They also emphasize that cultural context is not merely a neutral or background setting but a meaningful factor shaping the psychological impact of exclusion. This highlights the need for group leaders to carefully consider and evaluate workplace ostracism and its consequences, considering the macroenvironmental settings. Future research should also examine whether the dominance of distress versus self‐esteem differs across cultural systems with varying levels of collectivism, power distance, and economic stability. Investigations into the mediating pathways linking ostracism, job satisfaction, and interpersonal conflict should also encourage further studies to expand the literature. Additionally, cross‐cultural longitudinal studies would be particularly valuable for clarifying how chronic versus episodic ostracism influences the depletion or restoration of psychological resources over time. Finally, incorporating organizational variables such as leadership style, team climate, and structural support systems may help map the conditions under which each psychological pathway becomes more or less noticeable, and refine intervention strategies aimed at supporting ostracized by creating more inclusive and cohesive workplaces.
Author Contributions
Verginia Moubarak: conceptualization, methodology, validation, Visualization, writing – original draft. Melyssa Assaf: validation, visualization, writing – review and editing. Rabih Hallit: conceptualization, methodology, validation, visualization. Diana Malaeb: methodology, validation, visualization. Sami El Khatib: investigation, resources, validation, visualization, project administration. Mariam Dabbous: investigation, resources, validation, visualization, project administration. Fouad Sakr: investigation, resources, validation, visualization, project administration. Sahar Obeid: conceptualization, methodology, validation, visualization, supervision. Feten Fekih‐Romdhane: conceptualization, methodology, validation, visualization, supervision. Souheil Hallit: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, validation, writing original draft, visualization, supervision.
Ethics Statement
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the Institutional Review Board of Notre Dame de Secours in November 2024 (CR: 4/2024). Before starting the survey, participants were presented with a short description of the study's purpose, objectives, as well as the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses, with their right to voluntarily continue or quit the questionnaire at any time. The consent information presented to participants before starting the survey also explicitly stated that their anonymized responses would be used for research purposes and could be included in a scientific publication. The main investigator provided their contact information for further clarifications in case any participants had a question. An electronic informed consent was considered obtained from each participant when they affirmatively responded to the first question asking whether they consented to take part in the study before proceeding. All methods were conducted following relevant guidelines and regulations.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The adherence to Gulf Medical University does not alter our adherence to the journal's policies on sharing data and materials.
Transparency Statement
Souheil Hallit and Sahar Obeid affirm that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported, that no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all participants. The Gulf Medical University provided support in the form of salaries for D.M, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS‐10)
The following statements are about situations you could have gone through. Please indicate how often this has happened to you in the past 6 months.
| Never | Occasionally | Sometimes | Somewhat frequently | Often | Quite frequently | Always | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Others ignored you at work. | |||||||
| 2. Others left the area when you entered. | |||||||
| 3. Your greetings have gone unanswered at work. | |||||||
| 4. You involuntarily sat alone in a crowded lunchroom at work. | |||||||
| 5. Others avoided you at work. | |||||||
| 6. You noticed others would not look at you at work. | |||||||
| 7. Others at work shut you out of the conversation. | |||||||
| 8. Others refused to talk to you at work. | |||||||
| 9. Others at work treated you as if you were not there. | |||||||
| 10. Others at work did not invite you or ask you if you wanted anything when they went out for a coffee break |
Appendix B. The Workplace Interpersonal Conflict Scale (WICS‐6)
For the next set of questions, please show how often each happen by circling one response next to each question. In the past 30 days, how often have you:
| Never | Almost never | Sometimes | Often | Very often | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Felt like you were treated unfairly by others at work? | |||||
| 2. Had a disagreement with others over the work you do? | |||||
| 3. Been shown a lack of respect or felt underappreciated by others at work? | |||||
| 4. Been treated with hostility or rude behavior by others at work? | |||||
| 5. Had others yell at you at work? | |||||
| 6. Been blamed or criticized for something that was not your fault by others at work? |
Appendix C. General Job Satisfaction Scale (GJSS‐10)
| 1 = Totally disagree | 2 = Disagree | 3 = Neither agree nor disagree | 4 = Agree | 5 = Totally agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. In my work, I can apply my abilities | |||||
| 2. I receive recognition for my good performance | |||||
| 3. I feel good to work in this organization | |||||
| 4. I feel comfortable with my co‐workers | |||||
| 5. My job gives me job security | |||||
| 6. My salary is enough | |||||
| 7. In general, I have a good work | |||||
| 8. I think work is good for my health | |||||
| 9. I agree well with my superiors and those in charge of me | |||||
| 10. The company cares about me |
Appendix D. Single Item Self‐Esteem (SISE‐1)
Please explain to what extent the following statement applies to you:
“I have high self‐esteem”:
-
o
Not true at all.
-
o
Not true for me.
-
o
Part is true to me.
-
o
True to me.
-
o
It is very true to me.
Appendix E. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS‐8)
Please read each phrase and circle the number 0, 1, 2, or 3 that indicates how much the phrase has applied to you over the past week. There are no right or wrong answers. The rating scale is as follows:
| It did not apply to me at all | Apply to me to some extent, or for some time | Apply to me greatly, or a large part of the time | Apply to me often or most of the time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. I felt like I was using a lot of nervous/psychological energy | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 2. I was worried about situations where I might panic, lose control, and make myself foolish. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 3. I felt like I had nothing to look forward to | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 4. I found it difficult to relax | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 5. I felt sad and depressed/sad | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 6. I felt like I was about to panic | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 7. I could not get excited about anything. | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 8. I felt scared without any logical/good reason | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Moubarak V., Assaf M., Hallit R., et al., “The Mediating Roles of Self‐Esteem and Psychological Distress on the Link of Workplace Ostracism to Interpersonal Conflict and Job Satisfaction: A Cross‐Sectional Study,” Health Science Reports 9 (2026): e73051, 10.1002/hsr2.73051.
Feten Fekih‐Romdhane, Souheil Hallit and Sahar Obeid are last coauthors.
Contributor Information
Sahar Obeid, Email: saharobeid23@hotmail.com.
Souheil Hallit, Email: souheilhallit@usek.edu.lb.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the restrictions from the ethics committee/institutional review board (data are owned by a third‐party, the Notre‐Dame des Secours Hospital). The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to Dr Ziad El Khoury, member of the ethics committee (ziadelkhourymd@usek.edu.lb). Other researchers can access these datasets and would be able to access these data in the same manner as the authors by sending an email to Dr Ziad El Khoury. We confirm that other researchers would be able to access this data in the same manner as the authors and that the authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.
References
- 1. Hitlan R. T., Cliffton R. J., and DeSoto M. C., “Perceived Exclusion in the Workplace: The Moderating Effects of Gender on Work‐Related Attitudes and Psychological Health,” North American Journal of Psychology 8, no. 2 (2006): 217–236. [Google Scholar]
- 2. O'Reilly J., Robinson S. L., Berdahl J. L., and Banki S., “Is Negative Attention Better Than no Attention? The Comparative Effects of Ostracism and Harassment at Work,” Organization Science 26, no. 3 (2015): 774–793. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Sodhi M. S., “How to Reduce Microaggression and Other Negative Racial Experiences at Work With Continuous Improvement,” Production and Operations Management 34, no. 3 (2024): 423–435. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Sommer K. L., Williams K. D., Ciarocco N. J., and Baumeister R. F., “When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words: Explorations into the Intrapsychic and Interpersonal Consequences of Social Ostracism,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 23, no. 4 (2001): 225–243. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Biriowu C. S. and Chikwe J. E., “Employee Engagement and Organizational Survival,” World Journal of Innovative Research 9, no. 5 (2020): 79–92. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Houwayji S., “The Influence of Risk Management Practices on Financial Market Stability: Insights From Lebanon,” Dutch Journal of Finance and Management 7, no. 1 (2024): 25671. [Google Scholar]
- 7. DeGhetto K., Russell Z. A., and Ferris G. R., “Organizational Change, Uncertainty, and Employee Stress: Sensemaking Interpretations of Work Environments and the Experience of Politics and Stress.” Power, Politics, and Political Skill in Job Stress (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2017), 105–135. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Gilson A., Safranek C. W., Huang T., et al., “How Does ChatGPT Perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment,” JMIR Medical Education 9 (2023): e45312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Xu X., Kwan H. K., and Li M., “Experiencing Workplace Ostracism With Loss of Engagement,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 35, no. 7/8 (2020): 617–630. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Castellini G., Consonni D., and Costa G., “Conflicts in the Workplace, Negative Acts and Health Consequences: Evidence From a Clinical Evaluation,” Industrial Health 61, no. 1 (2022): 40–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Poon K. T., Jiang Y., and Teng F., “Putting Oneself in Someone's Shoes: The Effect of Observing Ostracism on Physical Pain, Social Pain, Negative Emotion, and Self‐Regulation,” Personality and Individual Differences 166 (2020): 110217. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Robinson S. L., O'Reilly J., and Wang W., “Invisible at Work,” Journal of Management 39, no. 1 (2013): 203–231. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Ferris D. L., Brown D. J., Berry J. W., and Lian H., “The Development and Validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale,” Journal of Applied Psychology 93, no. 6 (2008): 1348–1366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Zanabazar A. and Jigjiddorj S., “The The Mediating Effect of Employee Loyalty on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Performance,” Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun 9, no. 2 (2021): 467–484. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Howard M. C., Cogswell J. E., and Smith M. B., “The Antecedents and Outcomes of Workplace Ostracism: A Meta‐Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 105, no. 6 (2020): 577–596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Li M., Xu X., and Kwan H. K., “Consequences of Workplace Ostracism: A Meta‐Analytic Review,” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021): 641302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Ghaleh R. J., Mohsenipouya H., Hosseinnataj A., Al‐Mamun F., and Mamun M. A., “Job Satisfaction and the Role of Self‐Esteem and Self‐Efficacy: A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Iranian Nurses,” Nursing Open 11, no. 6 (2024): e2215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Zhang C., Chen B., Bao Y., He J., Wu F., and Zhao Y., “Effects of Social Exclusion on Self‐Evaluation: Domain Discrepancy Based on the Big Two Model,” Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9 (2024): 849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Ali A. M., Alkhamees A. A., Hallit S., Al‐Dwaikat T. N., Khatatbeh H., and Al‐Dossary S. A., “The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 8: Investigating Its Cutoff Scores in Relevance to Loneliness and Burnout Among Dementia Family Caregivers,” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (2024): 13075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Wu L. Z., Yim F. H., Kwan H. K., and Zhang X., “Coping With Workplace Ostracism: The Roles of Ingratiation and Political Skill in Employee Psychological Distress,” Journal of Management Studies 49, no. 1 (2012): 178–199. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Williams K. D., “Ostracism: A Temporal Need‐threat Model.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, 2009). 41, 275–314. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Hobfoll S. E., “Conservation of Resources,” American Psychologist 44, no. 3 (1989): 513–524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. He Y., Zimmerman C. A., Carter‐Sowell A. R., and Payne S. C., “It's the Reoccurring Thoughts That Matter: Rumination over Workplace Ostracism,” Occupational Health Science 4, no. 4 (2020): 519–540. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Weiss H. M. and Cropanzano R., “Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work,” Research in Organizational Behavior 18 (1996): 1–74. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Fritz M. S. and MacKinnon D. P., “Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect,” Psychological Science 18, no. 3 (2007): 233–239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Melki I. S., Beydoun H. A., Khogali M., Tamim H., and Yunis K. A., “Household Crowding Index: A Correlate of Socioeconomic Status and Inter‐Pregnancy Spacing in an Urban Setting,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58, no. 6 (2004): 476–480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Wright R. R., Nixon A. E., Peterson Z. B., et al., “The Workplace Interpersonal Conflict Scale: An Alternative in Conflict Assessment,” Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 22, no. 3 (2017): 163–180. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Macdonald S. and Maclntyre P., “The Generic Job Satisfaction Scale: Scale Development and Its Correlates,” Employee Assistance Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1997): 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- 29. Ali M. and Dafous M., “Validation of a Generic Job Satisfaction Scale Among Libyan Arabs: Exploring Its Association With Mental Health Outcomes,” Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 28 (2024): 101699. [Google Scholar]
- 30. Fekih‐Romdhane F., Bitar Z., Rogoza R., et al., “Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Self‐Report Single‐Item Self‐Esteem Scale (A‐SISE),” BMC Psychiatry 23, no. 1 (2023): 351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Beaton D. E., Bombardier C., Guillemin F., and Ferraz M. B., “Guidelines for the Process of Cross‐Cultural Adaptation of Self‐Report Measures,” Spine 25, no. 24 (2000): 3186–3191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Byrne B. M., Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus (Routledge, 2011). [Google Scholar]
- 33. Cohen J. W., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Erlbaum, 1988). 2nd ed. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Chung Y. W., “The Mediating Effects of Organizational Conflict on the Relationships Between Workplace Ostracism With In‐Role Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” International Journal of Conflict Management 26, no. 4 (2015): 366–385. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Zhang D., Li S., Shao L., Hales A. H., Williams K. D., and Teng F., “Ostracism Increases Automatic Aggression: The Role of Anger and Forgiveness,” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (2019): 2659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Manninen S. M., Koponen S., Sinervo T., and Laulainen S., “Workplace Ostracism in Healthcare: Association With Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Perceived Health,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 80, no. 5 (2024): 1813–1825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Wati D. and Nilasari B. M., “Job Satisfaction as Mediator of Workplace Ostracism and Perceived Organizational Support on Turnover Intention.” Achieving Sustainable Business Through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science (Springer, 2024), 719–728. [Google Scholar]
- 38. Judge T. A., Weiss H. M., Kammeyer‐Mueller J. D., and Hulin C. L., “Job Attitudes, Job Satisfaction, and Job Affect: A Century of Continuity and of Change,” Journal of Applied Psychology 102, no. 3 (2017): 356–374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Dagher J., Boustani N. M., and Khneyzer C., “Unlocking HRM Challenges,” Administrative Sciences 14, no. 4 (2024): 63. [Google Scholar]
- 40. Yikilmaz I., Surucu L., and Guleryuz I., “Workplace Ostracism: Impact on Psychological Distress, Counter‐Productive Work Behavior, and Turnover Intention,” Third Sect Soc Econ Rev 58, no. 3 (2023): 1718–1735. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the restrictions from the ethics committee/institutional review board (data are owned by a third‐party, the Notre‐Dame des Secours Hospital). The dataset supporting the conclusions is available upon request to Dr Ziad El Khoury, member of the ethics committee (ziadelkhourymd@usek.edu.lb). Other researchers can access these datasets and would be able to access these data in the same manner as the authors by sending an email to Dr Ziad El Khoury. We confirm that other researchers would be able to access this data in the same manner as the authors and that the authors did not have any special access privileges that others would not have.