Personality Psychology (740)

         a blog


Hales et al., (2016)

Filed under: Uncategorized — drcb @ 4:53 pm
29 Comments to “Hales et al., (2016)”
  1. Carly Tocco says:

    After reading the Hales article, I enjoyed seeing the bidirectional relationship between being “disagreeable” and ostracism empirically studied. Right from the start, the authors address the unknown direction of the relationship in the introduction. While I found both parts interesting, I personally have not considered that disagreeableness can be “caused” by being ostracized. Even after a brief period of ostracism, subjects gave confederated MORE hot sauce than subjects who were not ostracized (Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). This goes to show that environmental influences and events can change not only behavior, but begs the reader to ask if it can change personality as well. Study 1 confirmed that ostracism and agreeableness were negatively correlated. Study 2 reported that people are more likely to ostracize a target who is lower in agreeableness, although this study was not done in vivo. I immediately started to think of the differences between stating I would ostracize someone and actually doing it. In Study 3, the Mason vignette was again used. As Caroline and I will be presenting on this article, we both noticed that the vignette was always a male figure. Would ostracism change or be affected by gender? Is it easier to ostracize a male versus a female? Nonetheless, the authors checked many other contributing factors such as fairness, liking, a gender differences in the subjects. I was not surprised that female subjects were more hesitant to ostracize the disagreeables and less hesitant to include the agreeables. While the authors attributed this difference to females being more communally oriented, I initially believed this would occur due to possible higher empathy/sympathy. The part of this paper that I found the be most noteworthy was that ostracism had an affect on becoming more disagreeable because people become angry and sad and that this affect can be LONG-LASTING! This supports theories that personality can indeed change overtime based on life events and that ostracism can be a particularly negative life event with lasting results.

    • Chalana Martin says:

      I have to agree with you Carly. It was very interesting

    • Hande says:

      Hi Carly,

      I agree with your comment in regards to the reason females are more hesitant to ostracize could be due to empathy/sympathy. I also think that traditionally female preferred occupations usually require more empathy/sympathy like teachers, nurses whereas occupations that are widely preferred by males are seen as more cutthroat like stock brokers or business/finance. Hopefully, in the near future we won’t make this kind of a comparison 🙂
      Overall, the study was interesting but to ostracize someone also depends on how invested you are in that person, we would be less likely to consider ostracizing a close friend comparing to “Mason”.

      • Tiara Newson says:

        I definitely understand where you are coming from Hande. Professions that require more empathy and agreeableness have seen to be occupied by women more so than men. This is likely caused to the fact that women naturally are known to have more of a nurturing nature, but a great portion is because woman have always been directed to be nurses, teachers, etc., and also agreeable. Most likely this will not be the case in the future, because things are definitely changing.

      • Carly Tocco says:

        When first reading the article I did not think about occupation differences as contributory to male/female differences. This was a great point! I too hope this discrepancy will continue to shrink with time.

      • Ashley Olivera says:

        Very interesting point guys! I agree, I think there would definitely be some evidence of sex differences when it comes to the active decision to ostracize someone. In general, women are seen as more empathic and nurturing, which would make the process of ostracism that much more difficult when its against a woman. It would have been interesting to see them use a female name for the vignettes. Although, woman tend to be more empathic and understanding, would that still be true if female participants were determining the potential ostracism of another female? It may be possible that a woman can gain more sympathy from men than from another woman. As the saying goes “Never send a man to do a woman’s job”.

      • Daniel Saldana says:

        Awesome point guys. Just to play devil’s advocate, if what everyone is seemingly proposing–which I believe is a generational shift regarding greater representation and equality among professions–perhaps there would be a similar relationship/loop as we’ve seen in this article. Being ostracized leads to greater levels of disagreeableness, and, we may hypothesize that being in occupations where we have to c