Social Ostracism by coworkers: does rejection lead to loafing or compensation - Essay Example

Social ostracism is a phenomenon which every individual faces at some point in life. It could be at workplace, at home, with peers, individually or collectively. Social ostracism can elicit negative reactions and people can employ harmful techniques to manipulate the behavior of others. While the title of the article clearly states the subject of study is – does rejection lead to loafing or compensation – the introduction does not give a clear thesis statement. It merely states that it would ‘briefly introduce a model to understand the complexities and consequences’ and ‘examine one of these consequences’ through an experiment. Loafing has not been mentioned at all in the thesis statement. Besides, it does not even state whether it would conduct previous research and whether it would refer to journals or books. The chapter has not been broken up into a Literature review section, methodology and a discussions and conclusion section. In nutshell, the introduction does not state the purpose of the research clearly and the methodology that would be used. Comment on previous research The article has employed literature review as a method to understand the subject through study of previous research. In examining the issue, the author undertook literature review but the introduction of the paper does not give any indication on the sources of information that will be used – whether through books or through journals. Literature search is a significant step in the research process (Reed, n.d.). The literature review section should contain an introduction, main body and a conclusion. It does not contain a proper introduction for literature review. The author has researched through literature even as early as 1959, when the situation could have been entirely different; mindset of people changes over such a long period. The research done conveys what others have done in the field and “offers predictions” on the outcome of the experiment. The predictions are based on past researches but this should be addressed as literature review. The author could have referred to the past research to base assumption instead of using it in the experiment section to offer predictions. Any opinion should be backed with evidence to make the literature review of acceptable quality (Caprette, 1995). This has been followed as the author has referred to the works of others or mostly quoted them. The author has weaved others’ views in the text in the right fashion and the need-based model has been well laid out. The literature review demonstrates familiarity with the subject. He has been successful in summarizing information for the reader. The article explains what social ostracism is but the references used have not been chronologically arranged. In the review of the experimental literature on social ostracism, though, references have been arranged in chronological order. The bibliography at the end does not quote page numbers in many instances. Methodology The methodology section, even though not named, contains the details of the experiment conducted. Experimental research method has been used to determine whether ostracism leads to loafing or compensation. According to Wimmer & Dominick (2003) experimental research method allows for the control of an environment, subject and variables to produce a cause and effect relationship. In this method, variables can be isolated but chances of other researchers replicating the study are quite high. An artificial environment has to be created which can alter the subject’s behavior. Researcher may also be biased, which is often counteracted with the double-blind technique. A major drawback is that some questions just cannot be answered through the experimental research method and may require other methods such as case studies. In the case of this article, the form of ostracism chosen was not the most typical form or the most punitive form, but a simple form which could be manipulated. This is a disadvantage in the experimental research method as the results also may be biased. The author already admits that past research has demonstrated conflicting results. The research situation, however, did not provide for the participants to exit or punish the ostracizers. This would compel the participants to attempt for re-inclusion once ostracized. In fact, the participants were not provided with any explanation for their ostracism so that no action or decision could be taken by them. Another drawback in the experimental research method is, as in this case, the participants were given incentives to participate. The psychology students were given extra course credits for participation, which again signifies that results would not be genuine. Besides, the experiment was between three independent variables (levels, work conditions and gender), which make it difficult to weigh and compare results. To some extent the participants were bound, as two confederates had been included, and the situation this created that the participants were forced to sit on a particular chair which allowed for free videotaping. All other constraints were imposed like keeping the participants occupied by asking them to fill up the questionnaire. Even the work condition was manipulated. The participants were made to believe that they had been randomly ostracized. As far as creating a situation is concerned, this was the best possible that could be done to make the evens appear normal to the participants. The confederates were strengths in this experiment that helped create as natural an atmosphere as possible. As can be observed, everything is a cause and effect relationship and hence not much importance can be given to the result. The work condition too was manipulated; the confederates were included or removed at will. Even though the participants were allowed to talk about their feelings after being ostracized, it cannot be as real life situations. Case study would definitely be a better option to determine the effects of ostracism. Formalized research methodology helps to keep the researchers honest, unbiased and helps reduce errors. Secondly it helps to convince the readers that the results are authentic and reliable (Sumser cited by Radford & Goldestien, 2002). Besides, the researchers could predict the results due to details of past research being available. This too leads the researchers to mould the situation accordingly. Since this research was subjective, it cannot be free from bias or errors. Carefully designed statistical models would better help to collect data scientifically (Neill, 2006). Comments on Results The results section and the discussion section have been segregated. The result section presents and illustrates the findings. Interpretation has been left to the discussion section. Tables and figures have been given to illustrate the findings. This section is comprehensive and the data has been analyzed and presented in a systematic manner. The researcher has analyzed the data in different ways, from different angles, emphasizing on the finding and confirming the theme of the research at every stage. As the author states, even casual observation could give an impression that ostracism can lead to negative traits. ANOVA was used for calculations, which is the latest in statistical calculations. The findings conformed to the purpose of the research that level of interaction was the highest in the inclusion condition and lowest in the control condition. Group cohesion was also highest in the inclusion condition. Although the comparisons were planned, but the ostracized participants felt more rejected than others. The self-reported effort was also consistent with the previous findings and predictions and even the finding that no motivation loss was observed is social loafing. Each of their finding is consistent with previous research, which demonstrates that as the researchers were aware of the results and could predict, the manipulations were easier to organize. The number and types of data analyses carried out are appropriate and sufficient. The researcher has constantly discussed the central question, the sub-questions and arrived at a conclusion through different means. He has identified and summarized the key issues. Each paragraph or a sub-heading points out to a particular observation and conclusion relevant to the topic of research. The results demonstrate interpretation of results, with the support of data collected from the participants but prior knowledge seems to guide the researchers at every stage. Discussions The strength of the experiment is that the researchers tried to create a normal situation of ostracism but nothing can be comparable to a real life case study. Discussions have been dealt with in depth. The results agree with the theory of the paper and enough evidence from the data analysis has been provided. The discussion deals with several hypotheses and each have been dealt with conclusively. The report also refers to constraints in research findings and suggests guidelines for further research, for instance whether ostracism could have positive consequences at least in the short-term. It implies that it is not conclusive in its findings. It has used primary data and it restates the research paper and the relevancy of the subject (Caeti & Sloat, 2001). It presents the conclusions of all the analyses. In fact, overall, the result portion of the report is the most comprehensive and conclusive. Enough references have been included. While discussions are comprehensive, and primary data has been analyzed, the experimental research method used to confirm previous studies, is unethical. References: Caeti T J & Sloat C (2001), Guidelines for Writing a Administrative Research Paper, 26 Sep 2006 Caprette D R (1995), Writing Research Papers, 26 Sep 2006 Neill J (2006), Qualitative versus Quantitative Research, http://wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.html 26 Sep 2006 Radford G P & Goldstein S Z (2002), Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Volume 7 Number 4 2002 pp. 252-256 Reed (n.d.), Performing a Literature Review, 26 Sep 2006 Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. (2003). Mass media research: An introduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Read More