Who is Less Likely to Ostracize? Higher Trait Mindfulness Predicts More Inclusionary Behavior

Abstract

Despite the pain ostracism (being excluded and ignored) causes, researchers have minimally investigated factors related to reducing its occurrence. We investigated the association between higher trait mindfulness (the tendency to be attentive to the present moment) and lower engagement in ostracism. In Study 1, employed adults scoring higher on trait mindfulness reported ostracizing coworkers less. In Study 2, participants possessing higher levels of trait mindfulness demonstrated greater inclusion of a fellow group member being ostracized by others in the group. Results suggested that attention, rather than empathy, was the psychological process responsible for greater inclusion of an ostracized group member by mindful individuals. Study 3 supported this conclusion, because participants responded similarly to those high in trait mindfulness when they were instructed to pay attention and ensure all players were included equally. Overall, we found that people with higher levels of trait mindfulness are more attentive to targets of ostracism.

Ostracism, or being excluded and ignored, is a detrimental experience for the target of ostracism because it harms the target’s relational needs of belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control, along with worsening the target’s mood (Williams, 2001). In fact, prolonged exposure to ostracism can lead to the long-term consequences of alienation, unworthiness, depression, and helplessness (Riva, Montali, Wirth, Curioni, & Williams, 2017). Ostracism is literally a painful experience; episodes of ostracism activate regions of the brain associated with physical pain (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). Ostracism also causes individuals to act in ways that may be harmful to others and themselves, including engaging in unethical behavior (Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015) and making riskier decisions (Buelow & Wirth, 2017). Moreover, at a societal level, ostracism was linked to violence at schools (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003) and workplaces (Neuman & Baron, 1998).

To make a person feel ostracized, individuals do not need to demonstrate overt acts, but rather ostracism can occur through a variety of subtle means. For instance, a person may feel ostracized simply because others use gender-exclusive language (e.g., “he” rather than “he or she”; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011). Additionally, individuals can feel excluded when someone temporarily forgets their name (King & Geise, 2011), by uncomfortable silences during an interaction (Koudenburg, Postmes, & Gordijn, 2011), by switching to a language unfamiliar to the target (Dotan-Eliaz, Sommer, & Rubin, 2009), or by exclusive laughter (Klages & Wirth, 2014). During one-on-one interactions, failing to receive eye contact from a computer avatar reduced basic need satisfaction (Wirth, Sacco, Hugenberg, & Williams, 2010). Even when a stranger stares through an individual (as if one does not exist), the individual feels less social connectedness (Wesselmann, Cardoso, Slater, & Williams, 2012). It does not necessarily take much for individuals to feel ostracized, and consequently, for people to become sources of ostracism—those who ostracize others.

Although ostracism may happen for a variety of reasons and intentions (Jones & Kelly, 2010; Williams, 2001), many of the above situations could occur in part because of the source’s inattentiveness. In fact, ostracism often occurs without the source’s “explicit negative attention” or “excessive explanation” (Williams, 2007, p. 429). For example, Robinson, O’Reilly, and Wang (2013) theorized that environmental features (e.g., high workload, quick deadlines) may cause people to unintentionally overlook others at work. For these reasons and others, people may enter a state of mindlessness, in which they become unaware of their surroundings, the presence of other people, or the needs of others. As a result of this lack of attention to others, ostracism may occur. Despite the lack of intent, such exclusion (e.g., oblivious ostracism) remains quite painful and distressing (Williams, 2001). Consequently, possessing personality characteristics associated with greater awareness and attention to the present moment might reduce the tendency to engage in ostracism.

Personality characteristics that promote an orientation towards the world should lead to an awareness of one’s current social surroundings, call attention to the needs of others, and encourage pro-social thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, thus mitigating the prevalence of ostracism. Trait mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003), which represents a person’s habitual level of awareness of and attention to the present moment, may be one such characteristic. To our knowledge, research has not investigated a personality characteristic, such as trait mindfulness, as a means to reduce the frequency of ostracism through greater inclusion. Therefore, the current research explored whether the trait mindfulness of potential sources of ostracism correlated with: 1) provoking less ostracism at work and 2) attempting to re-include an individual excluded by the group. We operationalized the related actions of ostracizing others less and re-including ostracized individuals as inclusionary behaviors.

Trait Mindfulness and Inclusionary Behaviors

Mindfulness is an internal resource that enhances our external awareness, increases attention capacity, and fosters a healthy acceptance of our daily struggles (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Therefore, when properly utilized, mindfulness can positively transform our interactions with others (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 1990). For example, state mindfulness has been linked to improved perspective taking and compassion towards others (Birnie, Speca, & Carlson, 2010; Tirch, 2010). Furthermore, mindfulness-based stress reduction programs and trait mindfulness have both been connected to greater empathy (Beitel, Ferrer, & Cecero, 2005; Birnie et al., 2010). Because higher empathy relates to pro-social behaviors (Habashi, Graziano, & Hoover, 2016), such as including others (Wesselmann, Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2013), higher trait mindfulness should correlate with increased inclusion of others. In romantic relationships, trait mindfulness has been linked to pro-social behaviors, including greater self-control and more accommodation (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007). Moreover, participants possessing higher levels of trait mindfulness exhibited more brain activity in regions associated with attention (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007). Distractions in our environment may lead to less pro-social behavior, while increased attention may produce more pro-social behavior (Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). Thus, the enhanced pro-social orientation and attention associated with trait mindfulness may help us to notice and care about individuals that we may have overlooked and to be more conscious and “present” during interactions with others (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

Previously, researchers conducted studies in both field and lab settings showing that increasing state mindfulness could increase inclusionary behaviors (Ramsey & Jones, 2015). Compared to a control group, participants who completed a mindfulness workshop and additional mindfulness exercises for two weeks reported that they ostracized co-workers less. Replicating their research in a controlled environment, a mindfulness exercise, compared to a neutral control exercise, led participants to throw a virtual ball more often to a group member who was being ostracized (not receiving the ball from the other group members). These studies provided a connection between state mindfulness and inclusionary behavior but the results are limited in three fashions. First, researchers argue that “trait (between-person) and state (within-person) effects are both conceptually and statistically independent” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 836; see also Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000), which suggests we cannot simply presuppose similar effects for trait mindfulness based on state mindfulness research. Second, the connection between mindfulness and inclusionary behavior was based on a manipulation of mindfulness compared to the more enduring trait of mindfulness, which is a better predictor of average tendencies over time (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Third, researchers in these studies and others (see Jensen, Niclasen, Vangkilde, Petersen, & Hasselbalch, 2016) did not investigate the mechanism for why mindfulness increased inclusionary behavior. We will advance research on trait mindfulness by examining specific psychological mechanisms associated with inclusionary behaviors.

Potential mechanisms of mindfulness.

Researchers showed that being mindful can improve social relationships, but the psychological mechanisms behind the effects of mindfulness are not well-documented and are often assumed (Jensen et al., 2016). Below, we review research related to two possible mechanisms for the effects of trait mindfulness on inclusionary behavior: empathy and attention.

Increased empathy.

Because mindfulness training increases empathy (Birnie et al., 2010), one assumed mechanism for the pro-social effects of mindfulness is greater empathy for others. Loving-Kindness Meditation (Salzberg, 1995), which is often included in mindfulness-based interventions, specifically asks participants to direct feelings of empathy towards others, including acquaintances, strangers, and those who have irritated them. This meditation technique increases feelings of social connectedness and positivity towards other people (Hutcherson, Seppala, & Gross, 2008). Trait mindfulness is also associated with increased fulfillment of the need of relatedness (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and pro-social behaviors in romantic relationships (Barnes et al., 2007). Consequently, enhancements of these other-oriented feelings might prompt pro-social behaviors, such as not ostracizing others or including targets of ostracism. Indeed, other-oriented motives (e.g., desire to compensate target of ostracism) and feelings (e.g., empathy for target) correlated with more inclusionary behavior towards targets of ostracism (Wesselmann et al., 2013).

Increased attention.

A second mechanism by which mindfulness may improve social relationships is through greater attention (Cahn & Polich, 2006). Researchers demonstrated the link between mindfulness and attention for both state and trait levels of mindfulness. As a state manipulation, participating in mindfulness meditation improved performance on tasks assessing sustained attention and working memory (Chambers, Lo, & Allen, 2008; Jensen, Vangkilde, Frokjaer, & Hasselbalch, 2012). Researchers have specifically examined trait mindfulness and attention less, but existing evidence points to a relationship between the two as well. For example, Creswell et al. (2007) showed that higher trait mindfulness correlated with greater activation of the prefrontal cortex, a brain region associated with attention.

Overview

Our research consisted of three studies exploring trait mindfulness and its association with inclusionary behaviors in the workplace (Study 1) and during an online group interaction (i.e., Cyberball; Studies 2 and 3). Based on previous research, in Study 1, we predicted that employees who possessed higher levels of trait mindfulness would report being a source of ostracism to a lesser degree (Hypothesis 1). To test our hypothesis in a more controlled fashion, subsequent studies used an existing online ball-tossing paradigm (i.e., Cyberball) that assessed a participant’s attempt to include a member being ostracized by the group (Ramsey & Jones, 2015; Wesselmann et al., 2013). This approach removed a limitation of Study 1, which relied on self-reports of how often participants were sources of ostracism. Using Cyberball, Study 2 investigated the relationship between trait mindfulness and inclusionary behavior. We predicted that participants with higher levels of trait mindfulness would more often include a group member being ostracized by the group (Hypothesis 2). This study also tested whether trait mindfulness predicted ball tossing above and beyond several motives examined in previous research (e.g., compensation, empathy). In addition, we investigated empathy for the target as a mediator. In Study 3, we used the same ball-tossing paradigm to test attention as an alternative process mechanism by manipulating whether or not participants received instructions to pay attention to the inclusion of the other group members.

Study 1

Method

Participants.

Working adults aged 18 and older were eligible to participate in this online study. We recruited participants from across the United States through email, networking websites, fliers posted on car windshields, listservs, and snowball sampling methods. They were compensated through entry into a drawing for one of three gift cards (one $50, two $15).

Participants were 239 employees. However, 21 participants were excluded from analyses because they were not employed (n=1) or due to missing data (n=20). Analyses central to our hypotheses did not significantly change by including these participants. The final sample consisted of 218 participants who were 69.72% female and ranged in age from 18 to 65 (M_age = 36.38). The majority of participants were Caucasian (88.53%), and 83.03% were employed full-time, with the remaining participants employed part-time (16.06%) or seasonally (0.92%). Their positions included business leaders (2.29%), process leaders (5.50%), people leaders (16.51%), technical/professional (40.83%), administrative (14.22%), and hourly (20.64%). Participants worked in a variety of industries, with education (24.31%), health care (12.39%), social services (10.55%), and government (8.72%) being the most common. Assuming the mean effect size in social-personality psychology (r = .21; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003), we required a sample of at least 173 participants to achieve a power of .80.

Materials and procedure.

Using SurveyMonkey, participants completed five questionnaires: 1) Workplace Ostracism Scale, 2) a measure of how much they engaged in ostracism towards others (i.e., perceived instigated ostracism), 3) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, 4) Perceived Stress Scale, 5) and a demographics questionnaire. To control for potential order effects, the order of measures was counterbalanced such that one form included the mindfulness scale before the ostracism measures and the second form incorporated the mindfulness scale after the ostracism measures. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two different orders based on the first letter of their last name.

Perceived instigated ostracism.

Participants indicated how much they perceived ostracizing others at work using a 6-item measure (α=.91). We adapted these items from the Workplace Ostracism Scale by Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008; e.g., “You have shut someone at work out of your conversations.”), such that participants responded as the source rather than the target of ostracism. Participants responded using a 1 (never) to 7 (always) scale.

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale.

We measured trait mindfulness using the 15-item (α=.88) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), which assesses open awareness and attention to present moment experiences. The scale consisted of items such as “I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present,” measured on a 1 (almost never) to 6 (almost always) scale. For this scale, all items were reverse-scored, such that higher scores represented higher levels of trait mindfulness.

Control variables.

We included measures of participants’ personal experiences with ostracism and stress as control variables in the analyses, because of their relationship to instigating ostracism and their inclusion in previous mindfulness research (Ramsey & Jones, 2015). Due to negative reciprocity, sources of ostracism may retaliate for their own experiences as targets of ostracism (Poulsen & Carmon, 2015). Consequently, the 10-item (α=.91) Workplace Ostracism Scale (WOS; Ferris et al., 2008) assessed the frequency with which participants experienced ostracism within the workplace (e.g., “Others at work treated you as if you weren’t there.”) using a 1 (never) to 7 (always) scale. Sources of ostracism experience stress (Legate, DeHaan, Weinstein, & Ryan, 2013) and we wanted to account for this stress in our analyses. Therefore, the 4-item (α=.77) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) measured the degree to which participants appraised life situations as stressful (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983; e.g., “Considering the past month, how often have you felt that things were going your way?”), using a 1 (never) to 5 (very often) scale. Responses were coded such that higher scores indicated greater stress.

Results

Potential order effects were not significant. For simplicity, we excluded measure order from these results. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and correlations between variables.

Table 1.

Intercorrelations Between Key Variables for Study 1

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Perceived Stress Scale	2.43	.67	--
2. Workplace Ostracism Scale	1.38	.63	.20**	--
3. Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	4.38	.78	−.42***	−.28***	--
4. Instigated Ostracism	1.63	.81	.20**	.42***	−.31***	--

Note. N=218.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

We performed a hierarchical regression analysis to determine whether trait mindfulness predicted how often participants instigated ostracism at work, over and above the two covariates: personal experiences with ostracism and stress. Even after accounting for the covariates, as trait mindfulness increased, participants reported ostracizing others less, b = −.20, t(214) = −2.75, p = .006, ΔR²=.028 (Table 2). Without covariates, the pairwise correlation for trait mindfulness and instigated ostracism was r = −.31, p<.001. These results supported Hypothesis 1.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Instigated Ostracism for Study 1

	Instigated Ostracism
Predictor	b	t	95% CI	R2 for model	R2 change
Step 1
Perceived Stress Scale	.15+	1.91	[−.01, .30]
Workplace Ostracism Scale	.52***	6.39	[.36, .68]
				.193***
Step 2
Perceived Stress Scale	.06	.73	[−.10, .22]
Workplace Ostracism Scale	.47***	5.72	[.31, .63]
Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	−.20**	−2.75	[−.34, −.06]
				.220***	.28**

Note. N=218.

⁺p<.10.

^*p<.05.

^**p<.01.

^***p<.001.

Betas are unstandardized coefficients. CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

As hypothesized, employees higher in trait mindfulness reported ostracizing others less at work. Although we included positive design elements by using a non-student sample and asking about real-world behavior, the Study 1 method may suffer from various measurement challenges, including socially desirable responding, demand characteristics, common method bias, and faulty memory. Despite these limitations, the results point to a personality variable (trait mindfulness) being associated with ostracizing others less.

Because the inclusion of covariates did not affect major conclusions (i.e., the size of the relationship between trait mindfulness and inclusionary behaviors), a reviewer suggested that we instead conceptualize stress as personal distress and examine it as a motive/mediator in the remaining studies. Given that our measure of stress in Studies 2 and 3 actually assessed participants’ reactions to others’ exclusion, this conceptualization made sense. Therefore, rather than including perceived stress as a covariate, we utilized it as a proxy for personal distress, a component of empathy. Personal distress is the self-focused component of empathy that reduces helping behavior (Graziano & Habashi, 2010), and therefore could act as a mediator in our results. Typically, trait mindfulness is correlated with experiencing less stress (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Consequently, this lower stress could be associated with greater prosocial behavior (i.e., inclusion) in our remaining studies.

Study 2

Study 2 aimed to replicate Study 1 by examining a behavioral, rather than a self-reported, outcome. To do this, we examined if participants, especially those with higher levels of trait mindfulness, would detect and aid an individual ostracized by the group during an online ball-tossing game (Cyberball; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). Using this paradigm was advantageous, because it was used successfully as a dependent measure of including group members in previous research (Wesselmann et al., 2013). During this ball-tossing game, we expected that participants scoring higher in trait mindfulness would allocate a larger percentage of their tosses to an ostracized player compared to an included player, which would demonstrate a relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing only in the ostracism condition.

Furthermore, we tested potential process mechanisms by measuring several different motives to assess whether they accounted for the predicted relationship between mindfulness and inclusionary behavior directed towards the ostracized player. Previously, Wesselmann et al. (2013) demonstrated that participants included a group member ostracized by others to the extent that participants desired to compensate the ostracized group member (i.e., include the ostracized member to make up for the ostracism by the other group members). Empathy-related emotions also positively correlated with how often participants included a group member ostracized by others in the group (Wesselmann et al., 2013). In addition, anger (Wesselmann, Williams, & Wirth, 2014) and a punitive motive (Wesselmann et al., 2013) influenced decisions to ostracize a burdensome group member. We revised these last two scales to measure participants’ reactions to the sources of ostracism (rather than possible targets) so that we could examine if these motives predicted how often participants threw to the ostracized group member.

Method

Participants.

Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk), 295 participants from the United States earned $1.00 for participating. Thirty-nine participants failed one or both attention checks and were subsequently removed. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 256 participants who were 55.86% female, 87.11% Caucasian, and ranged in age from 19 to 74 years (M_age = 38.77 years).

Assuming the mean effect size in social-personality psychology (r = .21; Richard et al., 2003), to detect the expected relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing in the ostracism condition with a power of .70, we required 151 participants in that condition. Therefore, we aimed to collect data from 302 participants (151 for each condition). Unfortunately, excluding the above participants led us to slightly miss our target.

Procedure.

After providing consent, participants created a non-identifying username and learned they would participate in a mental visualization exercise called Cyberball, along with three other participants, who were actually computer agents. During a 60-toss game, participants were asked to toss the ball to other players while mentally visualizing (e.g., the environment, other players).

Participants played one of two Cyberball games, determined through random assignment. In the included target condition, Cyberball was programmed such that the computer players threw to everyone equally. In the ostracized target condition, two of the computer players were programmed to ostracize the third computer player (i.e., the target player), after they each threw to the target player once. Therefore, in the ostracized target condition, it was up to the participant to throw the ball to the ostracized target player to maintain equality of tosses for each player. We counterbalanced the position of the ostracized group member.

Measures.

Ball tossing.

The percentage of participants’ tosses to the ostracized player constituted the primary dependent measure (see Wesselmann et al., 2013). In the included target condition, we selected one of the three players randomly to be the target player for evaluation, due to there being no differences in inclusion by the confederate players. The percentage of participants’ tosses to this target player served as the corresponding dependent measure.

Ball-tossing motives.

In this research, we also investigated whether trait mindfulness predicted ball-tossing behavior above and beyond motives examined by previous research, including a compensation motive, empathy for the target, personal distress, a punitive motive, and anger towards the sources. We also investigated these motives as possible mediators for the expected relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing.

Because participants’ reactions to the target of ostracism might influence their ball-tossing decisions, five questions (α=.65) assessed participants’ attempts to compensate the target of ostracism: “I threw the ball to [confederate’s username] because he or she was excluded and ignored by the other players,” “I treated [confederate’s username] like I would want to be treated,” “I threw the ball to [confederate’s username] because I felt bad for him or her,” “I made an effort to throw the ball to players who I noticed were not often being thrown to during the game,” and “I tried to make sure that all players received the ball equally.” The first three questions came from Wesselmann et al. (2013), and the last two questions were generated for this study. Additionally, as a separate measure, participants indicated how much sympathy and compassion they felt for the target of ostracism (Wesselmann et al., 2014). Participants responded to two items (r_sb = .85) on a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much so) scale: “To what extent did you feel sympathy (compassion) towards [confederate’s username]?” The Stress Adjective Checklist (SACL; King, Burrows, & Stanley, 1983) served as a proxy for personal distress. Participants responded to eight adjectives (e.g., distressed, bothered, peaceful; α=.91). Using a scale from 0 (definitely did not feel) to 3 (definitely felt), participants indicated how much they felt each adjective during Cyberball. We reverse-scored responses to the positive adjectives, such that higher values characterized greater personal distress during Cyberball.

Furthermore, participants’ reactions to the sources of ostracism (those ostracizing the target player) might influence participants’ ball-tossing decisions. Three questions from Wesselmann et al. (2013) measured participants’ attempts to punish the sources of ostracism (punitive motive). Participants responded to these three questions for both sources of ostracism, and all six ratings were combined into a single index (α=.96): “I tried to make [confederate’s username] feel excluded to teach him or her a lesson,” “I chose to throw the ball as often as I did to [confederate’s username] because he or she was annoying me,” and “I tried to make [confederate’s username] feel excluded and ignored because he or she was different from us.” These questions used a 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so) scale. Additionally, participants rated their anger and disgust toward the two sources of ostracism (Wesselmann et al., 2014). Using a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much so) scale, participants answered these two items for both sources: “To what extent did you feel anger (disgust) towards [confederate’s username]?” These two ratings about both sources were combined into a single index (α=.95).

Trait mindfulness.

Trait mindfulness was measured using the MAAS (α=.92), which participants completed at the study’s end.

Attention checks.

To assess the attentiveness of our participants, two attention checks were inserted near the middle and end of the questionnaires (“Select the option corresponding to always for this statement” and “Select the option that corresponds to very infrequently”).

Results

Major conclusions were consistent regardless of whether or not analyses included all participants or just those who correctly answered the attention checks. Also noteworthy, participants’ scores on trait mindfulness did not differ significantly between the included target (M = 4.53, SD = .95) and ostracized target conditions (M = 4.71, SD = .82), t(254) = 1.62, p=.11, d=.20, suggesting that the manipulation did not affect how participants responded.

Trait mindfulness and ball tossing.

To test whether trait mindfulness predicted ball tossing to the target player, we used a moderated regression analysis, which included one continuous predictor (MAAS), one manipulated moderator variable (1 = included target vs. −1 = ostracized target game), and one dependent variable (percentage of throws to the target player). All predictors were mean-centered. Specifically, we conducted this analysis to determine whether game type (ostracized vs. included target) moderated the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing to a target player. Overall, the model predicted a significant amount of variance in ball tossing, R² = .203, p<.001. The analysis revealed a main effect for game type, b = −6.28, 95% CI [−7.97, −4.60], t(252) = −7.35, p<.001, such that participants tossed the ball more to the target player who was ostracized (M = 46.76, SD = 14.28) rather than included (M = 34.00, SD = 13.22). There was no main effect for trait mindfulness, b = .80, 95% CI [−1.11, 2.71], t(252) = .83, p=.409, but a significant interaction between trait mindfulness and game type occurred, b = −2.69, 95% CI [−4.62, −.77], t(252) = −2.75, p = .006.

We investigated the interaction further by analyzing the simple slopes separately for each game type. In the ostracized target condition, trait mindfulness predicted the percentage of ball tosses to the target player, b = 3.66, 95% CI = [.55, 6.77], t(118) = 2.33, p = .021, R²=.044. Specifically, participants scoring higher on trait mindfulness allocated more of their tosses to the player being ostracized by the group, which supported Hypothesis 2. In the included target condition, trait mindfulness did not predict the percentage of ball tosses to the target player, b = −1.72, 95% CI [−4.09, .64], t(134) = −1.44, p = .15, R²=.015.

Ball-tossing motives.

We conducted analyses to determine how the motives related to each other and trait mindfulness, and whether trait mindfulness predicted ball tossing above and beyond these other motives. To conduct these analyses, data from the punitive, anger, and personal distress measures were dichotomized using a median split (low = −1, high = 1), because most participants selected the lowest value on the scale (see MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Because trait mindfulness only predicted ball tossing in the ostracized target condition, data from the included target condition are not analyzed here. Correlations for the ostracized target condition are available in Table 3.

Table 3.

Intercorrelations Between Ball Tossing, Trait Mindfulness, and Motives in the Ostracized Target Condition (Study 2)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	4.71	.82	--
2. Percentage of Tosses to Ostracized Target	46.76	14.28	.21*	--
3. Compensation Motive	4.01	1.23	.06	.26**	--
4. Punitive Motivea	−.68	.73	−.18*	.07	.10	--
5. Empathy Towards Target	3.78	2.35	.08	.24**	.47***	.23*	--
6. Anger Towards Sourcea	−.58	.82	−.23*	.06	.14	.62***	.21*	--
7. Personal Distress (SACL)a	−.13	1.00	−.33***	.02	−.02	.40***	.05	.42***	--

Note. N=120.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

^aDichotomized measure (−1 = low, 1 = high).

We used a hierarchical regression analysis to determine if trait mindfulness predicted ball tossing to the ostracized player, above and beyond the other motives (Table 4). If it did, then the analysis would demonstrate that trait mindfulness did not duplicate the predictive power of motives studied in previous research. After including the compensation and punitive motives, empathy for the target, anger towards the sources, and personal distress in Step 1 (R²=.085), trait mindfulness still predicted percentage of tosses to the ostracized player in Step 2, b = 3.86, t(113) = 2.35, p = .021, ΔR²=.042. The compensation motive also remained a marginally significant predictor of ball tossing, b = 2.19, t(113) = 1.89, p = .062, while the punitive motive, empathy for the target, anger towards the sources, and personal distress were non-significant predictors.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Tosses to Ostracized Target (Study 2)

	Percentage of Tosses to Ostracized Target
Predictor	b	t	95% CI	R2 for model	R2 change
Step 1
Compensation Motive	2.25+	1.89	[−.11, 4.59]
Punitive Motive	.38	.17	[−4.17, 4.93
Empathy Towards Target	.88	1.39	[−.3.8, 2.13]
Anger Towards Source	−.26	−.12	[−4.37, 3.86]
Personal Distress (SACL)	.18	.13	[−2.70, 3.06]
					.085+
Step 2
Compensation Motive	2.19+	1.89	[−11, 4.50]
Punitive Motive	.45	.20	[−4.01, 4.91]
Empathy Towards Target	.72	1.16	[−.51, 1.96]
Anger Towards Source	.26	.12	[−3.80, 4.31]
Personal Distress (SACL)	1.05	.71	[−1.87, 3.97]
Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	3.86*	2.35	[.60, 7.13]
				.128*	.42*

Note. N=120.

⁺p<.10.

^*p<.05.

^**p<.01.

^***p<.001.

Betas are unstandardized coefficients. CI = confidence interval.

Given past research showing the connection between mindfulness and empathy (Birnie et al., 2010), we wanted to investigate if empathy was a psychological mechanism involved in the relationship between higher trait mindfulness and more ball tosses to the ostracized player. We also explored all of the alternative motives (e.g., compensation) as psychological mechanisms. Initial examination of the correlations in Table 3, suggested that empathy, personal distress, and the alternative motives were not mediators, because none of these motives correlated significantly with both trait mindfulness (predictor variable) and ball tossing (dependent variable). Formal mediation analyses using bootstrapping confirmed this conclusion, because confidence intervals for all potential mediators contained zero (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The confidence interval for anger towards the sources came closest to not containing zero, 95% CI = [−1.53, .35].

Discussion

The results supported our hypothesis that trait mindfulness positively correlates with inclusionary behavior of an ostracized target. In the ostracized target condition, participants with higher levels of trait mindfulness devoted a higher percentage of tosses to the ostracized player. Trait mindfulness did not correlate with ball tossing behavior in the included target condition.

Furthermore, we replicated past research (Wesselmann et al., 2013) by showing that participants’ desire to compensate targets of ostracism predicted the percentage of ball tosses to those players. However, we extended this research by demonstrating that trait mindfulness predicted re-inclusion of ostracized players beyond compensation and other motives. Moreover, results did not support empathy for the target, personal distress, or the other motives as mediators for the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing. Because empathy did not receive support as a mediator, in Study 3, we used an experimental manipulation of attention to investigate attention as a possible psychological mechanism responsible for the relationship between trait mindfulness and inclusionary behavior (see moderation-of-process designs; Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). This is plausible given that higher trait mindfulness is theoretically related to greater attentional capacity (Cahn & Polich, 2006).

Study 3

Study 3 used similar methods as Study 2. However, instead of manipulating game type (included vs. ostracized target), we manipulated whether or not participants received instructions to pay attention to the other players during Cyberball. All participants played the ostracized target version of Cyberball. When participants received no attentional instructions, we expected to replicate the ostracized target condition in Study 2 (i.e., positive association between trait mindfulness and ball tossing to the ostracized player). However, if greater attention accounted for the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing, we expected that this relationship would disappear when participants received instructions to pay attention to the other players, because these participants would demonstrate increased attention and therefore compensate the ostracized group member (Hypothesis 3).

Method

Participants.

Through MTurk, we recruited 376 participants from the United States who earned $0.75. Sixty-three participants failed one or both attention checks used previously, resulting in a final sample of 313 participants who were 58.15% female, 79.87% Caucasian, and ranged in age from 19 to 77 years old (M_age = 39.86 years). We tried to achieve greater power than Study 2 and planned for some participants being excluded from analyses. Therefore, assuming the mean effect size in social-personality psychology (r = .21; Richard et al., 2003), in order to detect the expected relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing in the control condition with power of .80, we required 173 participants in that condition. Therefore, we desired a final sample of 346 participants (173 for each condition). Once we excluded participants for failing attention checks, we fell slightly short of our target.

Procedure.

The procedure in this study mirrored the ostracized target condition in Study 2, with the addition of an attentional manipulation. When participants received instructions for the Cyberball game, they were randomly assigned to receive no additional instructions (control condition) or the attentional instructions (attention condition). Participants in the attention condition were told: “Pay attention to the other players. Make sure that all players receive the ball an equal number of times.” To increase the likelihood that participants noticed these instructions, they appeared twice during the Cyberball instructions, once near the beginning and again near the end.

Measures.

After playing Cyberball, participants rated their compensation motive (α=.72), empathy for the target (r_sb = .90), punitive motive (α=.92), anger towards the sources (α=.91), and personal distress (SACL; α=.90). Then, participants completed the MAAS (α=.92) at the study’s end. Embedded within these measures were the same attention checks used in Study 2. We also included a manipulation check for the attentional instructions: “Before the mental visualization game, were you instructed to make sure that all players received the ball an equal number of times?” Participants could respond with “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t remember.”

Results

Consistent with Study 2, analyses did not include participants who failed one or both attention checks. Importantly, analyses of the full sample mirrored the results reported below, but the added statistical noise from inattentive participants produced some marginal (p<.10) rather than significant (p<.05) findings. Also noteworthy, participants noticed the attention manipulation, because 91.1% of participants in the attention condition correctly recalled receiving the additional instructions. In contrast, 78.8% of control participants denied receiving those instructions and 17.3% did not remember. Moreover, participants’ scores on trait mindfulness did not differ significantly between the control (M = 4.60, SD = .90) and attention conditions (M = 4.58, SD = .83), t(311) = .16, p=.88 d=.02, suggesting that the manipulation did not affect how participants responded.

Trait mindfulness and ball tossing.

Similar to Study 2, we used moderated regression to analyze the data and to test our hypothesis that the additional instructions to pay attention to the other players would eliminate the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing in the attention condition. We contrast coded the condition variable (−1 = control, 1 = attention) and all predictors were mean-centered. Overall, condition, trait mindfulness, and their interaction accounted for a significant amount of variance in ball tossing, R²=.139, p<.001. We found a main effect of condition, such that participants in the attention condition tossed the ball to the ostracized player more often (M = 53.22, SD = 14.70) than did participants in the control condition (M = 42.48, SD = 14.01), b = 5.38, 95% CI [3.79, 6.97], t(309) = 6.67, p<.001. No main effect occurred for trait mindfulness, b = .66, 95% CI [−1.19, 2.51], t(309) = .70, p=.482. However, consistent with Hypothesis 3, a significant interaction between trait mindfulness and condition emerged, b = −2.09, 95% CI [−3.94, −.24], t(309) = −2.23, p = .027.

To further explore the interaction, we analyzed simple slopes separately for each condition. Replicating Study 2, in the control condition, trait mindfulness predicted the percentage of ball tosses to the ostracized player, b = 2.75, 95% CI [.30, 5.20], t(154) = 2.22, p = .028, R²=.031. However, in the attention condition, trait mindfulness did not predict the percentage of tosses to the ostracized player, b = −1.43, 95% CI [−4.23, 1.37], t(155) = −1.01, p = .314, R²=.007. Importantly, as reported above, the attention instructions did not reduce ball tossing variability, eliminating the alternative explanation that the null result occurred because of factors that reduce correlations: restricted range and zero variance in the measurement. See Tables 5 and 6 for descriptive statistics and correlations.

Table 5.

Intercorrelations Between Ball Tossing, Trait Mindfulness, and Motives in the Control Condition (Study 3)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	4.60	.90	--
2. Percentage of Tosses to Ostracized Target	42.48	14.01	.18*	--
3. Compensation Motive	3.90	1.40	.06	.35***	--
4. Punitive Motivea	−.38	.93	−.11	−.03	.19*	--
5. Empathy Towards Target	3.95	2.49	.04	.19*	.57***	.23**	--
6. Anger Towards Sourcea	−.23	.98	−.17*	.06	.19*	.56***	.36***	--
7. Personal Distress (SACL)a	−.09	1.00	−.19*	.04	.11	.34***	.09	.28***	--

Note. N=156.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

^aDichotomized measure (−1 = low, 1 = high).

Table 6.

Intercorrelations Between Ball Tossing, Trait Mindfulness, and Motives in the Attention Condition (Study 3)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	4.58	.83	--
2. Percentage of Tosses to Ostracized Target	53.22	14.70	−.08	--
3. Compensation Motive	4.50	1.27	−.12	.44***	--
4. Punitive Motivea	−.54	.84	−.18*	.08	.29***	--
5. Empathy Towards Target	4.15	2.53	.01	.19*	.65***	.32***	--
6. Anger Towards Sourcea	−.27	.96	−.26**	.12	.40***	.53***	.41***	--
7. Personal Distress (SACL)a	.08	1.00	−.28***	.03	.09	.32***	.13	.35***	--

Note. N=157.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

^aDichotomized measure (−1 = low, 1 = high).

Ball-tossing motives.

The above results supported attention as the psychological mechanism associated with trait mindfulness and inclusionary behavior. To examine the role of the other motives, we further analyzed data from the control condition. Replicating Study 2, additional analyses did not support empathy, personal distress, or the other motives as the psychological process. Trait mindfulness continued to predict ball tossing to the ostracized player in the control condition, even after including empathy for the target and other motives in the analysis, b = 2.67, t(149) = 2.20, p = .029, ΔR²=.027 (see Table 7). In this condition, the compensation motive significantly predicted the percentage of tosses to the ostracized player, b = 3.67, t(149) = 4.01, p < .001, while the other four motives were non-significant predictors. Moreover, empathy, personal distress, and the alternative motives did not correlate with both trait mindfulness and ball-tossing behavior (Table 5). Therefore, we concluded again that none of these motives mediated the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing. Bootstrapping analyses confirmed this conclusion. Again, the confidence interval for anger towards the sources came closest to not containing zero, 95% CI [−.89, .15].

Table 7.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Tosses to Ostracized Target in Control Condition (Study 3)

	Percentage of Tosses to Ostracized Target
Predictor	b	t	95% CI	R2 for model	R2 change
Step 1
Compensation Motive	3.76***	4.07	[1.93, 5.59]
Punitive Motive	−2.36	−1.65	[−5.17, .46]
Empathy Towards Target	−.13	−.23	[−1.21, .95]
Anger Towards Source	1.15	.83	[−1.58, 3.88]
Personal Distress (SACL)	.39	.34	[−1.87, 2.64]
					.140***
Step 2
Compensation Motive	3.67***	4.01	[1.86, 5.47]
Punitive Motive	−2.40	−1.71	[−5.18, .38]
Empathy Towards Target	−.21	−.38	[−1.28, .86]
Anger Towards Source	1.59	1.15	[−1.14, 4.32]
Personal Distress (SACL)	.78	.68	[−1.48, 3.03]
Trait Mindfulness (MAAS)	2.67*	2.20	[.27, 5.06]
				.167***	.027*

Note. N=156.

^*p<.05.

^**p<.01.

^***p<.001.

Betas are unstandardized coefficients. CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

Overall, the results of the control condition replicated Study 2, showing that higher levels of trait mindfulness predicted a higher percentage of ball tosses to an ostracized group member. Trait mindfulness significantly predicted ball-tossing behavior above and beyond the desire to compensate the ostracized member, an important motive established by previous research (Wesselmann et al., 2013). Again, results did not support empathy, personal distress, or the other motives as mediators. Rather, results suggested that attention might be the underlying process mechanism for why higher mindfulness correlated with greater inclusion of an ostracized group member by the participant. In the attention condition, we instructed participants to notice their group members and make sure everyone received the ball equally. These instructions eliminated the positive correlation between trait mindfulness and ball tossing to the ostracized player, suggesting that greater attention to others is the psychological process associated with trait mindfulness. If trait mindfulness were operating through another mechanism, we would have seen a positive correlation between trait mindfulness and ball tossing in the attention condition as well, because trait mindfulness would have contributed additional explanatory power.

We acknowledge that our attention manipulation included both an instruction to pay attention and a directive to include the other players equally. However, we believe that the instruction to pay attention was the primary influence on participants’ behavior. First, previous research shows that participants already possess a motivation to include others equally (Wesselmann et al., 2013), even those who deviate from the group in a non-burdensome way (Wesselmann, Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2015). In fact, researchers (Wesselmann et al., 2013) had to go to the extreme by making a Cyberball player burdensome (i.e., hold the ball 16-seconds) to eliminate this natural inclination towards inclusion. Therefore, asking participants to include everyone equally only asked them to behave as they normally would. Second, had our instructions to include the other players equally created an injunctive norm, we would have expected a significant reduction in variability in the attention condition. However, this was not the case, because the variability in ball tossing to the ostracized player was nearly identical in the attention (SD = 14.70) and control conditions (SD = 14.01). Together, these points suggest that the instruction to include all players equally did not direct participants to behave in a way that overpowered the instructions to pay attention.

Meta-Analysis of Key Results Across Studies

To test the robustness of the relationship between trait mindfulness and inclusionary behavior across studies, we conducted a meta-analysis of the correlations from our three studies (see Goh, Hall, & Rosenthal, 2016). Using the correlation between trait mindfulness and inclusionary behavior (i.e., instigated ostracism in Study 1, ball tossing to ostracized player in Study 2, ball tossing to ostracized player in control condition of Study 3) from each of our studies, we calculated an overall effect size, r = .25, 95% CI [.16, .33], z = 5.53, p<.000001. This meta-analysis of our three studies provided further evidence for the predicted relationship.

General Discussion

In three studies, we found that people with higher levels of trait mindfulness reported ostracizing others less at work and directed more of their inclusionary behavior towards individuals being ostracized by a group. Through this research, we established that a naturally-occurring individual difference variable correlated with the inclusion of ostracized group members. Previously, Wesselmann et al. (2013) demonstrated that participants tossed a ball to an ostracized group member to the extent that they desired to compensate that member. In our research, we also found that the compensation motive marginally or significantly predicted the percentage of ball tosses to an ostracized group member. Moreover, our research expanded upon this finding by showing that the variable of trait mindfulness did not simply duplicate the compensation motive from Wesselmann et al. (2013). Trait mindfulness, which did not correlate with the compensation motive or empathy for the target of ostracism, contributed additional predictive power, helping to explain more variance in participants’ inclusionary behavior towards an ostracized group member.

Previously, researchers linked mindfulness to two psychological processes that could explain our results: greater empathy for others (Birnie et al., 2010) and greater activation in areas of the brain associated with attention (e.g., prefrontal cortex; Creswell et al., 2007). However, our results are only consistent with the latter. In Studies 2 and 3, results did not support empathy as a mediator between trait mindfulness and ball tossing. In Study 3, an instruction to pay attention to the inclusion of all group members eliminated the relationship between trait mindfulness and ball tossing, showing that when we made participants pay attention, they acted like individuals high in trait mindfulness and re-included the ostracized group member. Together, these results support the interpretation that mindful individuals are more likely to notice others’ presence and circumstances (i.e., enhanced external attention), which is consistent with research showing that people with higher levels of trait mindfulness also exhibit more brain activity in the prefrontal cortex (Creswell et al., 2007). Therefore, our studies extended previous research related to the re-inclusion of ostracized individuals by providing evidence for the usefulness of accounting for a new variable (trait mindfulness) and demonstrating process (attention). This research also adds to the mindfulness literature, because process mechanisms have often been assumed rather than directly examined (see Jensen et al., 2016).

Implications

The current research expands on the limited, but growing, body of research on sources of ostracism (see Wesselmann & Wirth, 2015). To date, researchers have focused more on ostracism from the perspective of targets rather than sources (see Williams & Nida, 2011). The relatively limited research on sources has focused on the psychological effects of ostracizing others when induced to be a source of ostracism (e.g., Legate et al., 2013; Poulsen & Kashy, 2012) or the conditions under which ostracism occurs autonomously (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2013). Although researchers recently examined how the target’s characteristics contribute to being ostracized (Hales, Kassner, Williams, & Graziano, 2016) and the acceptability of ostracism (Rudert, Reutner, Greifeneder, & Walker, 2017), to our knowledge, personality has not been linked to the likelihood of being a source of ostracism. Our research suggests that individuals higher in trait mindfulness are less likely to become sources of ostracism. Therefore, these individuals may also be less likely to experience the aversive psychological effects of being a source of ostracism (see Wesselmann & Wirth, 2015).

Furthermore, these results may help validate the MAAS as a self-report measure of mindfulness, because researchers have debated the validity of such mindfulness measures (Brown, Ryan, Loverich, Biegel, & West, 2011; Grossman, 2011). For example, Grossman (2011) questioned whether the mindset measured by trait mindfulness scales, such as the MAAS, matches the Buddhist and mindfulness-based intervention conceptualizations of mindfulness, which emphasize being nonjudgmental, patient, tolerant, and kind. These qualities and others are not evident in the items on the MAAS. Even so, mindfulness-based interventions and the MAAS have resulted in similar outcomes in ostracism research. Using traditional mindfulness-based interventions, Ramsey and Jones (2015) showed that engaging in these exercises led participants to engage in greater inclusionary behaviors (e.g., ostracize others less). In the current research, we provided evidence that trait mindfulness correlates with similar outcomes. Participants who scored higher on trait mindfulness also engaged in greater inclusionary behaviors. These results may provide some validity for the MAAS as a self-report measure of mindfulness, because the MAAS predicted outcomes similar to those produced by mindfulness-based interventions. Regardless of this debate about the MAAS and other self-report measures of mindfulness, the current research shows the utility of measuring trait mindfulness to predict who will engage in more inclusionary behaviors.

This research has important everyday implications for reducing or preventing ostracism. In organizations, these findings have applications for selection or assignment of employees. For example, depending on the nature of the work (e.g., need for teamwork or sharing information), organizations may want to consider a candidate’s level of mindfulness when filling a position. Alternatively, based on manipulations of mindfulness (Ramsey & Jones, 2015), individuals lower in trait mindfulness might benefit from mindfulness programs to enhance their inclusion of others. Moreover, knowing that attention may be the psychological mechanism behind trait mindfulness points to a simpler means to reducing ostracism—merely instructing others to pay attention or developing processes at work that encourage people to notice each other may decrease ostracism.

Limitations

These studies investigated trait mindfulness, a personality characteristic that was measured rather than manipulated. Consequently, our key results were correlational and claims about causal order cannot be made. We cannot say that trait mindfulness causes people to engage in more inclusionary behavior. Despite this limitation, from research that has manipulated state mindfulness, we know that a more mindful state leads people to ostracize others less (Ramsey & Jones, 2015). Therefore, existing experimental research complements the conclusions from the current research by establishing a causal relationship between a mindful state and engaging in less ostracism.

Furthermore, these studies simplified the complexity of our social world. Study 1 assessed real-world behavior, but self-report data exhibit limitations, including self-presentation biases and memory errors. Study 2 addressed these limitations by examining actual behavior in a more controlled setting. However, in the real world, numerous people and events can compete for our attention at one time, challenging our attentional capacities. In Cyberball, there were minimal distractions. To know the true strength of trait mindfulness as a resource for reducing ostracism, greater complexity needs to be added to future studies. Nonetheless, research provides evidence that people in a more mindful state exhibit greater sustained attention when faced with distractors (Jensen et al., 2012; Lutz, Slagter, Rawlings, Francis, Greischar, & Davidson, 2009) and improved working memory (Chambers et al., 2008). Therefore, we might expect that people with higher trait mindfulness would continue to be more attentive to others, even in the presence of some distractions.

Future Directions

The current research shows that trait mindfulness correlates with more inclusionary behavior, but the robustness of this effect should be further investigated by examining possible boundary conditions. We cannot be sure that trait mindfulness correlates with reduced ostracism for all motives for ostracizing (Jones & Kelly, 2010; Williams, 2001). Future research can examine if trait mindfulness predicts lower levels of oblivious or unintentional ostracism, but not ostracism with a more purposeful motive (e.g., punitive, defensive; Williams, 2001). Furthermore, the characteristics of the ostracized member should also receive attention. Recent research shows that people ostracize others who are a burden to the group (Wesselmann et al., 2014). Would a person scoring high on trait mindfulness show patience with a burdensome member? If trait mindfulness increases attention to an ostracized member, and that attention drives a person’s inclusion of the ostracized member, then a mindful person may continue to include a burdensome member. Conversely, if trait mindfulness also makes a person more attuned to the group’s purpose for engaging in ostracism (e.g., punishing a burdensome player), people scoring higher on trait mindfulness could potentially exhibit greater levels of exclusion.

Moreover, we found evidence that attention might be the psychological mechanism involved in the link between trait mindfulness and greater inclusion of an ostracized group member. However, future research can bolster this conclusion by measuring attention in other ways. For example, the heat mapping function in Qualtrics (i.e., tracking where participants click; McIntyre & Graziano, 2016) or eye tracking (Ware, Lassiter, Patterson, & Ransom, 2008) might be used to determine if participants’ visual attention is particularly directed at the ostracized member. This proposed future research can be used to pinpoint if people with higher trait mindfulness exhibit greater attention selectively to the social aspects of the environment (e.g., McIntyre & Graziano, 2016) or more generally to all aspects of an environment. As described earlier, potential sources of ostracism often show attention to the social goal of including everyone equally (Wesselmann et al., 2013). Therefore, the enhanced attention of more mindful individuals may also be selectively directed at the social aspects of the environment.

Furthermore, researchers demonstrated a link between a mindful state and empathy (Birnie et al., 2010), but we did not find this same association with trait mindfulness. Jensen et al. (2016) actually noted the absence of empathy from the items of the MAAS. Although state and trait mindfulness might produce similar results (e.g., more inclusionary behaviors), the psychological processes could be different. In fact, a meta-analysis by Giluk (2009) demonstrated that trait mindfulness correlated with all Big Five dimensions. The strongest associations occurred with neuroticism (negative correlation) and conscientiousness (positive correlation), and smaller positive correlations appeared with agreeableness, openness, and extraversion. Given these associations, people with higher trait mindfulness may exhibit greater attention through a variety of processes. For example, people scoring lower on neuroticism are less self-focused and individuals scoring higher on conscientiousness are more deliberate and rely less on habit when responding (Giluk, 2009). The somewhat weaker relationship with agreeableness could also explain why empathy did not play a significant role in our results. In contrast, state manipulations of mindfulness theoretically should not affect personality, and therefore, the associated process may be more uniform and depend on the specific mindfulness intervention used. Given these observations, future research should take a closer look at the similarities and differences between state and trait mindfulness, how robust their effects are on reducing ostracism, and the associated processes.

Finally, given that our research established that personality correlates with how often people include others, more research should investigate how a source’s personality and individual differences could influence the use of ostracism. Wirth and Wesselmann (2016) suggested several individual differences that could influence an individual becoming a source. For instance, whether a source has a collectivistic or individualistic self-construal may play a role, because collectivists are more focused on interdependence with others, whereas individualists focus on being unique (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Future research could investigate if sources high in collectivism may use ostracism to protect the group by ostracizing a problematic group member, or conversely, refrain from ostracizing an individual, knowing how harmful ostracism is to the target. Future research may also find that a source is more apt to ostracize an out-group member (e.g., Brewer & Kramer, 1985), relative to an in-group member, especially a threatening out-group member. Lastly, a source’s basic individual traits may hasten the ostracism of an individual. For instance, sources possessing low agreeableness (Graziano & Tobin, 2009) may be more apt to ostracize due to fewer concerns about smooth interactions.

Conclusion

People can be bombarded by numerous distractions, leading them to inadvertently ostracize others as a result of not paying attention. However, people who score higher on trait mindfulness exhibit greater attention to their surroundings and are more likely to include others, especially others who are being excluded by the group. We hope that our research encourages researchers to look at personality and individual differences as an approach to studying how ostracism may be decreased.