Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

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.

Howard, Matt C., Cogswell, Joshua E., Smith, Mickey B.·2020·Journal of Applied Psychology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000453

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 143 references

Cited by

See all 408

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.