The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis.
Abstract
Researchers have shown great interest in the antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism, which has led to an expansive body of research. In light of this work, the current article fulfills the need for a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes associated with workplace ostracism. We begin our review by adapting a victimization perspective to understand ostracism as a triadic social process between the victim, perpetrator, and the environment. The meta-analytic results then support that leadership characteristics are the strongest related antecedents of workplace ostracism, followed by certain aspects of personality (e.g., Big Five) and contextual characteristics (e.g., social support). The results also show that workplace ostracism very strongly relates to deviance, and it strongly relates to other performance outcomes (e.g., core-performance, helping, voice), well-being outcomes (e.g., psychological well-being, emotions, self-perceptions), and organizational perceptions (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment, justice). We also show that the relationship of performance, well-being, emotions, and self-perceptions when measured after ostracism was comparable to their relationship when measured before ostracism. These results suggest that the outcomes of ostracism are less certain than previously thought, as they may instead be antecedents of ostracism. Finally, we call for future research to investigate this notion, along with further integration of the victimization perspective as well as the study of contextual predictors and moderators. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015 · Cited by 5,965
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089134 · Cited by 3,849
Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259136 · Cited by 3,256
Cited by
Inclusive leadership: how leaders sustain or discourage work group inclusion
Shore, L. M., & Chung, B. G. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601121999580 · Cited by 303
A review on health and well‐being at work: More than stressors and strains
Sonnentag, S., Tay, L., & Nesher Shoshan, H. (2023) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12572 · Cited by 212
Agreeableness and Its Consequences: A Quantitative Review of Meta-Analytic Findings
Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2022) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/10888683211073007 · Cited by 130
What is (not) ghosting? A theoretical analysis via three key pillars
Schokkenbroek, J. M., Telari, A., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108637 · Cited by 17
Hou, C., Li, S., Shi, H., & Liu, Z. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1384279 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., & Smith, M. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 577-596
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2976085166
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 143
- FWCI
- 61.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/apl0000453
- The paper
- Howard, M. C., Cogswell, J. E., & Smith, M. B. (2020). The antecedents and outcomes of workplace ostracism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000453
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.