The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

When ostracism is mandated: COVID-19, social

distancing, and psychological needs

Verena Graupmann & Michaela Pfundmair

To cite this article: Verena Graupmann & Michaela Pfundmair (2022): When ostracism is
mandated: COVID-19, social distancing, and psychological needs, The Journal of Social
Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2022.2026284

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2026284

View supplementary material

Published online: 01 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

This article has been awarded the Centre

for Open Science 'Open Data' badge.

This article has been awarded the Centre

for Open Science 'Open Materials' badge.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2026284

When ostracism is mandated: COVID-19, social distancing, and

psychological needs
Verena Graupmanna and Michaela Pfundmairb
a
DePaul University; bHochschule Des Bundes Fur Offentliche Verwaltung, Intelligence

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19 poses a unique psycholo­ Received 9 December 2020
gical challenge, especially in light of evidence for the importance of even Accepted 1 December 2021
minimal cues of inclusion. In a German (N = 546) and a US (N = 199) sample, Keywords
we examined the impact of work-related social distancing on the outcomes COVID-19; ostracism; social-
of ostracism, measuring need fulfillment in self-esteem, belonging, control, distancing
and meaning. Overall, social distancing was associated with decreased need
fulfillment. German participants reported a higher need fulfillment compared
to American participants. Compared to previous studies, social distancing
impacted self-related need fulfillment less than experimental manipulations
of ostracism, however more so than the baseline condition of inclusion.
Working, while social distancing was associated with greater need fulfill­
ment, as was identifying as male. Women reported lower need fulfillment
overall and this difference was mediated by the need to belong. Results are
discussed in terms of understanding self-related needs in different contexts
of isolation.

Our need to be with others is closely tied to human cultural-evolutionary history and at the basis of
how societies operate. Consequently, we are sensitive to even small indications of ostracism: an
adaptive disposition for a social animal (Spoor & Williams, 2007). In the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, people have been required to restrict social contact behaviors to limit the spread of the virus
in many regions of the world for extended time periods since its outbreak. In other words, people have
been mandated to deny themselves and others social interactions for a public health reason. When we
find ourselves isolated from others, although to none of our fault and for a valid reason, we may still
experience the psychological fallout associated with ostracism: decreases in self-esteem, belonging,
sense of control, and meaning (Williams, 2007). Under normal circumstances, the experienced distress
serves a purpose, allowing us to attend to future threats of ostracism; however, in the context of
a pandemic, it might add to the already prevailing uncertainty and anxiety (Brooks et al., 2020;
Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020; Sher, 2020). The present research examines – in an ostracism frame­
work – the psychological impact of social distancing measures in Germany and the US.

Social distancing
Social or physical distancing describes behavioral norms of avoiding close contact with others as
prescribed by public health guidelines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Social distancing
during the COVID-19 pandemic involves keeping a distance of 1.5 m from non-household contacts,
keeping social interactions to a minimum, avoiding large gatherings, and leaving the house only for

CONTACT Verena Graupmann VGRAUPMA@depaul.edu Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N Kenmore
Ave, Chicago, IL 60614-3504
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
2 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

essential activities (e.g., grocery shopping; CDC, 2020, July 29). In some instances, paired with stay-at-
home orders, social distancing measures may even fit the definition of quarantine, a more rigorous
norm that restricts the movement of those who have likely been exposed to a contagious disease.
While the physical aspect of social distancing is largely the same for those abiding by prescribed
norms and varies only in terms of household size (living alone versus with others), the psychological
aspect can vary greatly, especially in the extent to which people engage in technologically mediated
interaction. People working, while social distancing are likely to have more frequent interactions with
others at workplace or – when working remotely from home – in phone calls and video conferences, as
well as through e-mail and team software chats.

Ostracism and fundamental self-related needs

Ostracism as a threat to a person’s self, manifests in the feeling that something in the environment or
the person might impair positive outcomes. This general feeling is often described as psychological
distress (Williams, 2007). Lowered sense of fulfillment in four self-related psychological needs has
consistently been associated with the experience of ostracism (e.g., Zadro et al., 2004): belonging,
control, self-esteem, and meaning.
On a more general level, belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence are used as
a measure of a person’s current state of self to navigate a complex social environment (Graupmann,
2018; Sacchi et al., 2021). Self-related need fulfillment indicates how threatened versus safe a person
feels in terms of self-integrity.

Social distancing as a case of oblivious ostracism

Ostracism is described as a fundamentally ambiguous behavior (Williams, 1997), in that it is often
carried out unintentionally. Unintentional ostracism has specifically been coined “oblivious ostra­
cism” (Williams, 1997) in the literature, and captures the psychological experience of social distancing:
Oblivious ostracism does not communicate punitive intent (unlike, e.g., the “silent treatment”;
Williams et al., 1998), only lack of regard (Sommer et al., 2001). However, Williams (1997) suggests
that such a lack of regard for a person’s existence might be even more threatening to self-related needs:
“I would venture to speculate that oblivious ostracism might be the worst kind of ostracism, in that is
likely to threaten all four needs . . .” (p. 151). In accordance with this notion, being forgotten by others
has been shown to have a similarly negative impact on meaning as being explicitly rejected as
a cooperation partner (King & Geise, 2011). The isolation experienced when social distancing clearly
shares the non-punitive aspect of oblivious ostracism. On the other hand, social distancing during
COVID-19 does not imply a disregard for another person’s existence and – in that respect–is likely
perceived as less threatening than other forms of oblivious ostracism.
Social distancing is distinct from the usually studied ostracism situation, not only because it is not
intended to be punitive, and thus falls into the category of oblivious ostracism, but also because it is
a mutually executed isolation behavior. Here, we are specifically interested in the psychological
experience of not receiving socially inclusive cues, which are so closely tied to our social sense of
self, and which we therefore expect to mirror the experience of being ostracized.

Social distancing, and self-related needs

By looking at social distancing during COVID-19, i.e., a severe reduction of face-to-face interactions
and direct cues of social inclusion for people on a daily basis, we expect that self-related needs will be
impacted in similar ways as under conditions of ostracism. It is, however, important to acknowledge
factors mostly absent in COVID-19-related social distancing compared to the usually studied ostra­
cism: Social distancing is a chosen normative behavior that does not imply that the excluded person is
perceived as a burden to others, as is the case for most instances of ostracism studied in the literature
(Wesselmann et al., 2012). The lack of usual socializing that comes with social distancing is not
attributed to a failure to meet social expectations or social attractiveness standards. Therefore,
importantly, social distancing – as a form of oblivious ostracism – lacks the punitive aspect of
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

intentional ostracism, as well as the existence-denying connotation of some forms of oblivious

ostracism. In that sense, the isolation that comes with social distancing does not bear the same
threatening self-related information, i.e., cues to the individual that behavior needs to be adjusted to
ensure inclusion.
On the other hand, even ostracism by undesirable others (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007), as well
as not receiving direct eye-contact by a computerized face (Wirth et al., 2010) or basic civil attention
(often not even consciously processed; Wesselmann et al., 2012) leads to consistent decreases in the
fulfillment of self-related basic needs. According to the notion of an evolved ostracism detection
system (Kerr & Levine, 2008; Spoor & Williams, 2007), this suggests that feelings about the self are
impacted even if lack of inclusion does not allow for clear attributions and is unrelated to relevant
social judgment.
In light of these considerations, we expect the impact of social distancing to be noticeable on
measures of self-related needs, however, likely not to the same extent as acutely experienced episodes
of directed ostracism studied in standard laboratory experiments, e.g., using a computerized ball-
tossing game (Cyberball [Williams et al., 2000]) where participants are either included or excluded by
other players.

The present research: self-related needs, social distancing, and context

Looking at the phenomenon of social distancing in the context of COVID-19 public health measures
in the spring of 2020 from an ostracism perspective, the current research examines fulfillment of basic
self-related needs: belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaning. Our primary hypothesis is that people
experience less need fulfillment when they engage in more (i.e., no work and no telework) compared to
less isolating forms of work-related social distancing. In the same vein, on the basis of previous
research showing the impact of oblivious ostracism (King & Geise, 2011) and even of ostracism lacking
self-relevant information (Wirth et al., 2010), we predict that the effect of social distancing is
comparable (if less severe) to the effects of ostracism manipulations. We further examined how
these outcomes relate to culture and gender.

Cross-cultural differences
Cross-cultural research on the impact of ostracism suggests that people in more collectivistic cultures
are less impacted by ostracism, partly due to a more interdependently defined sense of self being less
threatened by individual-level exclusion (Pfundmair, Graupmann et al., 2015; Uskul & Over, 2017).
We were therefore interested in differences between national-cultural context (Germany-US), in light
of the US scoring higher on country-level individualism dimension (IND = 91, Hofstede et al., 2010)
than Germany (IND = 67), as well as whether individual-level collectivism explains variation in how
social distancing affects need fulfillment. Specifically, we predicted Germans and those higher in
collectivism to report greater need-fulfillment than Americans and those lower in collectivism.

Pandemic living, gender, and need to belong

In light of observations – echoed in the media (Gaskell, , April 1) and in the research (Chung & Van
der Lippe, 2020) – that social distancing-related working-from-home arrangements result in unequal
distribution of household and childcare work unfavorable to women, we were also interested in gender
differences. Growing up internalizing female gender roles, women are more prone to forming and
maintaining relationships (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). These differences find reflection in how men
and women fulfill belongingness needs: women tend to fulfill belongingness needs within more closely
knit social relationships (family, friends), whereas men tend to fulfill them in larger groups with more
collective identities (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997). There is reason to assume that collective identities
and connections to larger groups can be maintained more effectively remotely than social connections
4 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

through closer relationships that rely more on one-on-one interactions. In addition, staying at and
working from home likely makes traditional role expectations of women facilitating and maintaining
relationships more salient. At the same time, these very tasks have become difficult to fulfill, leading us
to predict that women will report lower need fulfillment than men in the context of prolonged
mandated social distancing.
The need-to-belong construct describes the general desire to affiliate with others, as measured by
the Need-to-Belong Scale (Leary et al., 2013). For women who engage in social distancing, in
particular, the need to belong should be higher due to the lack of opportunities to engage in one-on-
one interactions. We therefore predict that a difference in need fulfillment would be mediated by
a greater need to belong in women during the COVID pandemic.
We tested our primary hypothesis and predictions in a survey study with a German and a US
sample. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the
IRB of the US university.

Method
Participants
We conducted a power analysis to test the adequacy of our sample size to detect a global effect in
a MANOVA with six groups and four response variables (primary hypothesis) using G*Power (Faul
et al., 2007). We specified an alpha level of .05, a 1-β error probability of .95, and a conservative small
effect size f2 of .01. The results suggested a recommended sample size of 774.

US sample
One hundred and ninety-nine undergraduate students (mean age = 20.53, SD = 2.81; 51 men, 146
women, 2 non-binary; 90 European American, 11 African American, 29 Asian, 56 Latino, 13 other) were
recruited from an urban Midwestern university’s participant pool from 2020–05-05 to 2020–06-05; at
the time of the data collection, students were not living on campus due to COVID-related precautions.

German sample
Five hundred and forty-six students and employees of a German university (mean age = 29.38, SD =
13.86; 125 men, 415 women, 4 non-binary, 2 specified no gender; 493 German, 13 mixed-German, 38
other nationality, 2 specified no nationality) volunteered to take part in this study from 2020–04-02 to
2020–04-24.
COVID-related restrictions were very similar in both locations during the time of data collection.
All students were learning remotely.

Materials and procedure

The study was devised online using Qualtrics (US) and Unipark (Germany). After giving informed
consent, participants were asked to respond to a number of questionnaire items regarding the need to
belong (Leary et al., 2013; 10 items, e.g., “I do not like being alone.”; α = .78) and collectivism (Yoo
et al., 2011; six items, e.g., “Individuals should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of
the group.”; α = .84). Next, participants indicated self-related need fulfillment on a 20-item scale
(Jamieson et al., 2010) assessing self-esteem (e.g., “I feel good about myself”; α = .85) control (e.g., “I
feel I have control over the course of events”; α = .75), belongingness (e.g., “I feel I belong to a group”;
α = .75), and meaningful existence (e.g., “I feel meaningless”; α = .80). Participants responded to all the
questions on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very much) with lower values indicating less and higher
values more need fulfillment. Translated German versions of the scale were used with the German
sample.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

Participants next responded to items regarding their current COVID-19-related social distancing
behaviors, indicating which of six statements best described their social distancing behavior
(“Complete quarantine (not leaving the house), not working.” “Complete quarantine (not leaving
the house), working from home.” “Social distancing [leaving the house for essential errands and/or
exercise outdoors], not working.” “Social distancing [leaving the house for essential errands and/or
exercise outdoors], working from home.” “Social distancing [leaving the house for essential errands
and/or exercise outdoors], regular work outside of home.’ “No social distancing measures.”). They also
indicated their mean number of personal contacts per day. Finally, participants were given basic
demographic information (age, identified gender, race/ethnicity [US], nationality [Germany]).
The full methodology and data can be accessed openly at https://osf.io/mqhd3/?view_only=
1d6e58cf37cb4efe8e529cdc3abf0e77.

Results
Social distancing behaviors
In the US sample, 19 participants (9.5%) indicated complete quarantine without working, 8 partici­
pants (4.0%) complete quarantine with working from home. A majority of participants reported less
rigorous forms of social distancing: 75 participants (37.7%) indicated social distancing without
working, 49 participants (24.6%) social distancing with the home office, and 44 participants (22.1%)
social distancing with regular work outside of home. Only four participants (2.0%) indicated no social
distancing measures. A similar pattern emerged in the German sample. Thirteen participants (2.4%)
indicated complete quarantine without working, eight participants (1.5%) complete quarantine with
working from home. Also, here, most participants reported less rigorous forms of social distancing:
193 participants (35.3%) indicated social distancing without working, 221 participants (40.5%) social
distancing with the home office and 108 participants (19.8%) were socially distancing with regular
work outside of home. Only three participants (0.5%) indicated no social distancing.

Social distancing measures and need fulfillment in Germany and the US

We conducted a 3 (social distancing: without working vs. home office vs. regular work) × 2 (country:
USA vs. Germany) MANOVA on the four needs, to examine the effect of social distancing on need
fulfillment depending on country. Notably, we excluded the other three distancing measures (com­
plete quarantine with and without work, no measures) as only a non-representative minority reported
these. For descriptive statistics, see, Table 1.
A significant main effect of social distancing, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(8,1362) = 3.50, p = .001, ηp2 = .02,
95%CI = [.004, .03] emerged, as well as univariate main effects of social distancing for belonging, F
(2,684) = 3.14, p = .044, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .03], self-esteem, F(2,684) = 3.26, p = .039, η2p = .01,
95%CI = [.00, .03], and meaningful existence, F(2,684) = 11.06, p < .001, η2p = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .06].
LSD post-hoc comparisons showed that social distancing without working was associated with less
fulfillment of needs for belonging, self-esteem, and meaningful existence than social distancing with

Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the main study variables in the social distancing conditions.
Social distancing Country

Without working Home office Regular work USA Germany

(n = 268) (n = 270) (n = 152) (n = 168) (n = 522)
Belonging 3.50 (0.82) 3.73 (0.80) 3.71 (0.77) 3.38 (0.88) 3.72 (0.76)
Self-esteem 3.30 (0.89) 3.45 (0.84) 3.52 (0.80) 3.19 (0.94) 3.48 (0.81)
Control 2.58 (0.78) 2.77 (0.77) 2.73 (0.80) 2.96 (0.80) 2.60 (0.76)
Meaningful existence 3.45 (0.86) 3.69 (0.79) 3.92 (0.73) 3.70 (0.92) 3.63 (0.79)
Note. Higher scores indicate greater need fulfillment.
6 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

home office, ps ≤ .033 and compared to social distancing with regular work outside of home, ps ≤ .010.
Whereas the latter did not differ for belonging and self-esteem, ps ≥ .438, social distancing with the
home office was associated with less feelings of meaningful existence than social distancing with
regular work outside of home, p < .001. There was a significant main effect of country, Wilks’s Λ = .85,
F(4,681) = 29.96, p < .001, ηp2 = .15, 95%CI = [.10, .19]. Significant univariate main effects of country
for belonging, F(1,684) = 21.04, p < .001, η2p = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .06], self-esteem, F(1,684) = 13.36, p <
.001, η2p = .02, 95%CI = [.004, .04], and control, F(1,684) = 28.28, p < .001, η2p = .04, 95%CI = [.02,
.07], suggested that Germans experienced greater fulfillment of needs for belonging and self-esteem,
however, lower fulfillment of need for control than Americans. There was no significant interaction
effect, Wilks’s Λ = .99, F(8,1362) = 1.30, p = .241, ηp2 = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .01].1,2
The effect of work-related social distancing on need fulfillment in relation to collectivism was
probed by means of a moderated regression analysis using the Process tool (Hayes, 2013; model 1). We
entered the three kinds of social distancing and collectivism (standardized) as independent variables
and the combined index of all four needs served as the dependent variable. The model revealed
significant main effects of social distancing without working vs. social distancing with home office
(X1), b = .20, SE = .06, t(684) = 3.47, p < .001, 95%CI = [.09, .32], and social distancing without
working vs. social distancing with regular work (X2), b = .25, SE = .07, t(684) = 3.69, p < .001, 95%CI =
[.12, .39]: Social distancing without working was associated with less need fulfillment than social
distancing with home office and with regular work outside of home. However, the model showed no
other significant effects: Neither a main effect of collectivism, b = .04, SE = .04, t(684) = 0.98, p = .330,
95%CI = [−.04, .12] nor interaction effects of X1 with collectivism, b = −.04, SE = .06, t(684) = −0.67,
p = .501, 95%CI = [−.16, .08], or of X2 with collectivism, b = −.13, SE = .07, t(684) = −1.88, p = .061,
95%CI = [−.26, .01], emerged.

Comparison with experimental manipulations of ostracism and inclusion

To compare need fulfillment during COVID-19 with need fulfillment under experimental manipula­
tions of ostracism and inclusion (pre-COVID-19) depending on the country, we conducted a 3
(condition: COVID-19 vs. ostracism vs. inclusion) × 2 (country: USA vs. Germany) MANOVA on
the four needs. For the ostracism and inclusion condition, we used an existing pre-COVID-19 cross-
cultural data set using a standard (Cyberball [Williams et al., 2000]) ostracism manipulation (pub­
lished in Pfundmair & Wetherell, 2019; Studies 1 and 2]). Since different scales have been used, we
standardized the dependent variables.
There was a significant main effect of condition, Wilks’s Λ = .74, F(8,1826) = 36.78, p < .001, ηp2 =
.14, 95%CI = [.11, .16]. Significant univariate main effects of condition emerged for belonging, F
(2,916) = 132.28, p < .001, η2p = .22, 95%CI = [.18, .27], self-esteem, F(2,916) = 56.05, p < .001, η2p =
.11, 95%CI = [.07, .15], control, F(2,916) = 86.68, p < .001, η2p = .16, 95%CI = [.12, .20], and
meaningful existence, F(2,916) = 61.53, p < .001, η2p = .12, 95%CI = [.08, .16]. LSD post-hoc
comparisons showed that, during COVID-19, participants reported greater fulfillment of needs for
belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence than participants who were experimentally
excluded, ps < .001. However, they also reported lower fulfillment of the needs for belonging, self-
esteem, control, and meaningful existence than participants who were experimentally included, ps <
.001. There was also a main effect of country, Wilks’s Λ = .98, F(4,913) = 3.99, p = .003, ηp2 = .02, 95%
CI = [.002, .03]. Significant univariate main effects of country emerged for belonging, F(1,916) = 8.82,
p = .003, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.001, .03], and self-esteem, F(1,916) = 4.47, p = .035, η2p = .005, 95%CI =
[.00, .02]: Americans reported lower fulfillment of needs for belonging and self-esteem overall
compared to Germans. Interestingly, these country effects were qualified by a significant interaction
with condition, Wilks’s Λ = .94, F(8,1826) = 7.10, p < .001, ηp2 = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .04]. We found
signification interactions for belonging, F(2,916) = 3.77, p = .023, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .02], self-
esteem, F(2,916) = 4.05, p = .018, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .02], and control, F(2,916) = 8.71, p < .001,
η2p = .02, 95%CI = [.005, .04]. Simple main effect analyses showed no difference between Germans and
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

Figure 1. Comparison of need fulfillment during COVID-19 with experimental manipulations of exclusion and inclusion.

Americans in the inclusion condition, ps ≥ .272. However, in the ostracism condition, Germans
reported greater fulfillment of needs for belonging, self-esteem, and control than Americans, ps ≤ .020.
Similarly, during COVID-19, Germans reported greater fulfillment of the need for belonging and self-
esteem than Americans, but lower fulfillment of need for control, ps < .001, see, Figure 1.

Effect of gender
To investigate the effect of gender on self-related needs by country, we conducted a 2 (gender: male vs.
female) × 2 (country: USA vs. Germany) MANOVA on the four needs. Notably, we excluded
participants who had indicated no or a non-binary gender. For descriptive statistics, see, Table 2.
Next, we conducted a mediation analysis using the Process tool (Hayes, 2013; model 4, 5000
bootstrap samples), to explore whether the need to belong mediated the relationship between gender
and fulfillment of self-related needs. As a dependent variable, we used the combined index of all four
needs. The total effect was significant, b = −.21, SE = .06, t(735) = −3.57, p < .001, 95%CI = [−.33,
−.09], indicating less need fulfillment among female participants. The indirect effect of gender on
need fulfillment was statistically different from zero, as evidenced by a bootstrap confidence interval
not containing zero, b = −.07, SE = .02, 95% CI = [−.11, −.03]. The direct effect of gender on need

Table 2. Standardized means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for the main study variables.
COVID-19 Pre-COVID-19

Male Female Male Female

(n = 176) (n = 561) (n = 66) (n = 110)
Belonging 0.07 (0.64) −0.03 (0.73) 0.05 (0.92) −0.04 (0.96)
Self-esteem 0.13 (0.73) −0.04 (0.81) 0.07 (0.85) −0.05 (0.92)
Control 0.23 (0.68) −0.08 (0.70) 0.12 (0.96) −0.09 (0.86)
Meaningful existence 0.12 (0.65) −0.04 (0.77) 0.10 (0.86) −0.07 (0.97)
Note. Higher scores indicate greater need fulfillment. There was a significant main effect of gender, Wilks’s Λ = .97, F
(4,730) = 5.59, p < .001, ηp2 = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .05]. Significant univariate main effects of gender emerged for
belonging, F(1,733) = 5.97, p = .015, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .03], self-esteem, F(1,733) = 5.00, p = .026, η2p = .01,
95%CI = [.00, .02], control, F(1,733) = 21.63, p < .001, η2p = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .06], and meaningful existence, F
(1,733) = 5.35, p = .021, η2p = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .02]. Specifically, female identified participants indicated lower
fulfillment of needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence than male identified partici­
pants. The known main effect of country reemerged, Wilks’s Λ = .87, F(4,730) = 26.81, p < .001, ηp2 = .13, 95%CI =
[.08, .17]. Significant univariate main effects of country emerged for belonging, F(1,733) = 16.91, p < .001, η2p = .02,
95%CI = [.01, .05], self-esteem, F(1,733) = 17.68, p < .001, η2p = .02, 95%CI = [.01, .05], and control, F(1,733) =
22.51, p < .001, η2p = .03, 95%CI = [.01, .06]: Americans showed greater fulfillment of need for control, but lower
fulfillment of needs for belonging and self-esteem overall compared to Germans. No significant interaction
emerged, Wilks’s Λ = .99, F(4,730) = 2.37, p = .051, ηp2 = .01, 95%CI = [.00, .03].3
8 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

Figure 2. Results of the mediation analysis: During COVID-19, women indicated a higher need to belong and this translated into less
need satisfaction (black). Pre-COVID-19, women indicated a higher need to belong, however, this did not translate into less need
satisfaction (gray).

fulfillment was still significant when chronic need to belong was included as a mediator, b = −.14,
SE = .06, t(735) = −2.55, p = .011, 95%CI = [−.26,.-03], indicating a partial mediation: Women
indicated a higher need to belong than men and this translated into less need fulfillment, see
Figure 2.4
To check whether this gender effect was present before COVID-19, we ran a 2 (gender: male vs.
female) × 2 (country: USA vs. Germany) MANOVA on the four needs in the existing pre-COVID-19
cross-cultural data set (published in Pfundmair & Wetherell, 2019; Studies 1 and 2]). All dependent
variables were standardized for comparability.
There was neither a main effect of gender, Wilks’s Λ = .97, F(4,169) = 1.31, p = .268, ηp2 = .03,
95%CI = [.00, .07], nor of country, Wilks’s Λ = 1.00, F(4,169) = 0.22, p = .930, ηp2 = .01, 95%CI =
[.00, .01], nor an interaction effect, Wilks’s Λ = .97, F(4,169) = 1.25, p = .292, ηp2 = .03, 95%CI =
[.00, .07].5
In the pre-COVID-19 sample, we also explored whether the need to belong mediated the relation­
ship between gender and need fulfillment, using the same tool. As a dependent variable, we used the
combined index of all four standardized basic needs; the need to belong as the mediator was also
standardized. Neither the total effect, b = −.15, SE = .13, t(174) = −1.15, p = .252, 95%CI = [−.41, .11]
nor the indirect effect, b = −.04, SE = .04, 95% CI = [−.12, .02], nor the direct effect, b = −.11, SE = .13, t
(174) = −0.83, p = .409, 95%CI = [−.37, .15], were significant. Thus, no mediation effect emerged, see,
Figure 2 (gray).
Additional analyses filtering for age are provided with the Online Supplementary.

Discussion
In both the US and the German sample, almost all participants (98.0% and 99.5% respectively)
engaged in some form of social distancing. Notably, the degree of isolation in terms of work-mode
impacted the extent to which people experienced their self-related needs as fulfilled: People engaged in
work of any form felt better in terms of their psychological needs, however, comparing those working
from home with those working outside the home, only sense of meaning was impacted. This suggests
that working remotely or on site helped satisfy self-related needs and that going out into the world to
work might add to a sense of meaning, presumably due to more social interactions. Interestingly,
social distancing in terms of a person’s work situation was associated with deprived feelings of
meaningful existence particularly strongly, and this deprivation persisted, even when controlling for
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

personal contacts – contrary to that of other needs. This is noteworthy because a lower sense of
meaning is not only associated with relational desires but reflects existential concerns, which points to
a similarity with the experience of oblivious ostracism (Williams, 1997, 2007).
Finding Germans feeling better in terms of self-esteem and belonging compared to Americans
while finding Americans reporting higher feelings of control partially replicates cross-cultural findings
(Pfundmair, Aydin et al., 2015). It suggests that a more individualistic cultural background (here: US)
is associated with being more threatened by exclusion. However, cultural background does not interact
with the effect of social distancing measures on need fulfillment, confirming our overall assumption
that different degrees of social distancing affect self-related needs.
Comparisons with data from the same kind of cross-cultural samples in which participants had
been randomly assigned to an inclusion or ostracism condition substantiate the notion that social
distancing has a similar effect on psychological well-being as ostracism manipulations: Need fulfill­
ment during social distancing was expectedly lower than under condition of inclusion, but slightly
higher than under acute conditions of directed ostracism. In line with previous cross-cultural research
on ostracism (Pfundmair, Aydin et al., 2015; Uskul & Over, 2017), Germans appeared less impacted by
both distancing and ostracism than Americans in self-esteem and belonging. Interestingly, Germans
experienced higher fulfillment of the need for control than Americans in the pre-COVID-19 ostracism
condition, but lower fulfillment of the need for control under COVID-19 distancing. Whereas our
country-level predictions for cultural differences were confirmed in the data, we did not find these
reflected in the collectivism data. This means that cultural differences beyond those captured with our
collectivism measures have impacted our results.
In this study, we compare field data with existing experimental cross-cultural data using Cyberball
ostracism manipulation. Due to the bulk of the literature on ostracism looking to Cyberball as the
standard ostracism paradigm, it appears as a particularly strong comparison for a current phenom­
enon that is examined newly from this theoretical perspective. To also provide a comparison with
existing data on naturally occurring ostracism, we decided to additionally compare our social distan­
cing effects with that of another field study in which a confederate looked at passersby as though air
(vs. eye contact or eye contact and smile; Wesselmann et al., 2012). During COVID-19, people
reported similar feelings of disconnection6 (M = 2.39, SD = 0.82, n = 745) as passersby who were
looked as though air (M = 2.45, SD = 1.21, n = 76), p = .564. However, people during COVID-19 felt
more disconnected than passersby who were acknowledged (M = 1.95, SD = 1.02, n = 79), p < .001, and
passersby who were acknowledged and smiled at (M = 1.96, SD = 1.19, n = 84), p < .001. This supports
and even strengthens our findings of social distancing being comparable to (here: oblivious) ostracism.
As predicted, there was a gender difference specific to prolonged mandated social distancing, such
that women reported lower fulfillment of all four needs while socially distancing. We found this
outcome to be mediated by the need to belong: Women indicated a higher need to belong than men
and this was associated with lower need fulfillment. Importantly, however, while we found women to
also indicate a generally higher level of need to belong in the pre-COVID-19 samples in both countries
need to belong did not mediate between gender and need fulfillment then: High need to belong was not
associated with less need fulfillment in the pre-COVID-19 sample. In other words, women’s greater need
to belong did not impact self-related wellbeing when experiencing inclusion or ostracism pre-COVID
-19. Finding this relationship uniquely in the COVID-19 sample therefore might indicate that the
COVID-19-measures related ostracism is particularly difficult for women to cope with, since customary
fulfillment of belongingness needs is not as available, while role expectations might be hyper-salient.
This however, is only speculation, since we did not examine gender role expectations in this study.

Limitations and future research directions

There are some limitations to the current research. Even though both samples are from a university
context and in roughly the same time frame in locations that had almost parallel social distancing
protocols at the time of data collection, we cannot know for certain the extent to which social
10 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

distancing was perceived as normative in the respective samples, especially in light of the fast moving
public opinion on COVID-19 and parallel socio-political events in either country. Notably, the killing
of George Floyd, the related protests, and national debate in the US did not affect our overall pattern of
results although there was a drop in belonging for US participants after this incident (see Footnote 2).
Also, despite the parallels, there are differences in age distribution, with the US sample being
younger than the German sample. Older people may have experienced different challenges during the
early pandemic (e.g., childcare and work demands), which potentially contributed to differences in the
samples. To increase comparability, we re-ran our analyses by only including participants under 26,
which created a more age-homogenous sample (see Online Supplementary). Only slight differences to
the current result pattern emerged: Different restrictions on social distancing measures affected
fulfillment of the need for meaningful existence (but not other needs), and, during COVID-19,
women compared to men were primarily threatened by their needs for belonging and control,
which was still mediated by higher need to belong. The country differences replicated entirely.
Thus, differences in age distribution did not greatly affect our findings.
Also, we cannot rule out that the differences in need fulfillment related to work status were also due
to simply not having a job, since we did not collect data on circumstances of participants’ employment
status. In addition, those who worked in conditions of no social distancing during the time of data
collection, in many cases, might have been considered essential workers, some even on the medical
care front lines of COVID-19, and might therefore have experienced a more meaningful existence in
these generally threatening times. This is an alternative explanation of our results that we cannot
completely rule out on the basis of our data and that will warrant future research. Similarly, while we
assume from our communication with students in remote classes at the time, which undergraduate
students counted remote online learning as “working from home” we cannot be certain if all student
participants shared this perception while completing the questionnaire.
While effect sizes are relatively large compared to inclusionary status and country, they are
comparatively smaller for gender differences. Further, it is likely that family situation plays a role in
how gender role expectations affect people’s experience of social distancing. Future studies would
benefit from looking into specific aspects of living with family (e.g., presence of children, living with
a male partner, etc.) and into salience of role expectations.

Conclusion
At the time of writing this manuscript, it looks as though social distancing as a way to contain COVID-
19 will stay with us for a while. In the reported study, we examined this new normative behavior from
the lens of ostracism research. Even though it does not convey the same informational value about the
self as directed and oblivious ostracism do, COVID-19 related social distancing was – like ostracism
studied with experimental manipulations – experienced as a threat to self-related motives.
Understanding how mandated self-isolation affects people’s fundamental psychological needs is
crucial when evaluating the psychological cost of pandemic public health measures.
The current findings also emphasize the importance of understanding oblivious ostracism more
generally, as it relates to people perceiving a lack of inclusionary cues, even when ostracism is not
intended. This has particular relevance when it comes to matters of (non-)representation of diverse
backgrounds and identities. When encountering situations, in which one’s ethnic, racial, or cultural
background, or other aspects of identity are not considered, lack of inclusion is experienced and self-
related needs are threatened. The more we know about the ways in which ostracism happens even
when it is not intended or part of a normative public health measure (as for COVID-19-related social
distancing), the more we can prevent or intervene in situations where people might experience it as
such.
Moreover, finding the impact of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic on self-related
needs, converges with previous research that substantiates the notion of an evolved ostracism detection
system (Spoor & Williams, 2007) employed to ensure the vital need for inclusion is not threatened in the
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

long run. The over-detection bias of instances of ostracism impacts well-being in the form of thwarted
self-need as an initial response to the situation. However, as theorized in Williams (2009) temporal
need-threat model, this distress can be alleviated by subsequent reflection on the context and meaning of
the ostracism incident (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2013) and differs depending on cultural context (Uskul &
Over, 2017). This emphasizes the importance of looking at context variables and how they might inform
appraisals of the isolation associated with social distancing. In the current study, we found work context,
culture, and gender modulating the impact of social distancing on self-related need fulfillment.
Even though the current circumstances are unique, and it is difficult to predict for how long social
distancing as a public health measure will be in place, isolating oneself from desired contact with
others to avoid negative consequences is always part of people’s socio-behavioral repertoire and
warrants better understanding in the context of ostracism research.

Notes
1. To control for personal contacts, we conducted the 3 (social distancing) × 2 (country) MANOVA on the four
needs including number of personal contacts as covariate. Again, significant main effects of social distancing and
of country emerged, ps < .001, but no interaction effect, p = .330. The univariate main effects a revealed similar
pattern as without the covariate, however, the effects of social distancing for belonging and self-esteem were
reduced to marginal significance, p = .051 and .054.
2. During the time of data collection, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis.
This event was followed by nationwide protests. To investigate whether this affected need fulfillment in US
participants, we separated the US sample in before (n = 142) and after the incident (n = 51; for 6 participants, no
date was recorded). A 3-way (USA/May 25 vs. USA/after May 25 vs. Germany) MANOVA on the four needs
resulted in significant main effects on the multivariate, p < .001, and univariate levels, p < .001, for all needs except
meaningful existence, p = .131. Post-hoc tests showed that Germans expressed greater fulfillment of needs for
belonging and self-esteem and lower fulfillment of need for control than US participants, independent of the time
of data collection, ps < .001. Interestingly, however, US participants expressed greater fulfillment of need for
belonging before than after May 25, p = .017. Overall, the events – though impacting the US participants’
responses to some extent did not affect our general pattern of results.
3. Again, we controlled for personal contacts by re-conducting the 3 (social distancing) × 2 (gender) MANOVA on
the four needs, however, including number of personal contacts as covariate. Significant main effects of gender
and of country emerged ps < .001, as well as a significant interaction effect, p = .042. The univariate main effects
a revealed similar pattern than without the covariate and, similar to the pattern before, the univariate interaction
effects obtained no significance, ps > .112.
4. The same pattern of results emerged when including number of personal contacts as covariate into this mediation
analysis.
5. We also calculated a 2 (gender: male vs. female) × 2 (country: USA vs. Germany) × 2 (condition: exclusion vs.
inclusion) MANOVA on the four needs. No main or interaction effects with gender emerged, ps > .169.
6. To use a variable as comparable as possible to the item “How disconnected do you feel from others?” used in
Wesselmann et al. (2012), we reverse coded our belongingness subscale. Both variables (the reverse coded
belongingness variable in this study and the disconnection variable in the previous study) had a response scale
from 1 to 5.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors
Verena Graupmann is an associate professor at DePaul University in Chicago. Her research focuses on how people
respond to threats to central self-motives across cultures.
12 V. GRAUPMANN AND M. PFUNDMAIR

Michaela Pfundmair is a Professor of Psychology in the Faculty of Intelligence at the Federal University of
Administrative Sciences in Berlin, Germany. Her main line of research is on the consequences of social exclusion and
the psychology of radicalization.

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/mqhd3/.

Open scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices
Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/mqhd3/.

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness:
Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.
1.38
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The
psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395(10227),
912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8
CDC. (2020, July 29). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Prevention & treatment. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html
Chung, H., & Van der Lippe, T. (2020). Flexible working, work–life balance, and gender equality: Introduction. Social
Indicators Research, 151(2), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2025-x
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the
social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/
BF03193146
Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there” his” and” hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender
differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77(3), 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.642
Gaskell, A. (2020). Breaking down the gender divide to survive working from home. Forbes. 1 April, 2020. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2020/04/01/breaking-down-the-gender-divide-to-survive-working-from-home
/#57d2ca1b20cf
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1176–1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.392
Graupmann, V. (2018). Show me what threatens you, and I can tell who you are: Perception of threat and the self. Self
and Identity, 17(4), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1412346
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-
Hill.
Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882
Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 12(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39
King, L. A., & Geise, A. C. (2011). Being forgotten: Implications for the experience of meaning in life. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 151(6), 696–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2010.522620
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale:
Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2013.819511
Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N., Dosil-Santamaria, M., Picaza-Gorrochategui, M., & Idoiaga-Mondragon, N. (2020). Stress,
anxiety, and depression levels in the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in a population sample in the northern
Spain. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 36(4), e00054020. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00054020
Pfundmair, M., Aydin, N., Du, H., Yeung, S., Frey, D., & Graupmann, V. (2015). Exclude me if you can: Cultural effects
on the outcomes of social exclusion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022115571203
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Pfundmair, M., Graupmann, V., Frey, D., & Aydin, N. (2015). The different behavioral intentions of collectivists and
individualists in response to social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 363–378. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167214566186
Pfundmair, M., & Wetherell, G. (2019). Ostracism drives group moralization and extreme group behavior. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 159(5), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1512947
Sacchi, S., Brambilla, M., & Graupmann, V. (2021). Basking in detected vice: Outgroup immorality enhances self-view.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(3), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219895320
Sher, L. (2020). COVID-19, anxiety, sleep disturbances and suicide. Sleep Medicine, 70, 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sleep.2020.04.019
Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than words:
Explorations into the intrapsychic and interpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 23(4), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1207/153248301753225694
Spoor, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In J. P. Forgas, M. Haselton, &
W. Von Hippel (Eds.), The evolution of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 279–292).
Psychology Press.
Uskul, A. K., & Over, H. (2017). Culture, social interdependence, and ostracism. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 26(4), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417699300
Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). To be looked at as though air: Civil attention
matters. Psychological Science, 23(2), 166–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427921
Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., Swim, E., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Rumination hinders recovery from ostracism.
International Journal of Developmental Science, 7(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-1312115
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.748
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated
feelings. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430298012002
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133–170).
Plenum.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 236–247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00004.x
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41,
275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze
leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210370032
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual
level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(34), 193–210. doi/
full/10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower
self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006