↓ Skip to main content

Softening the Blow of Social Exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Softening the Blow of Social Exclusion: The Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01570
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gili Freedman, Kipling D. Williams, Jennifer S. Beer

Abstract

Social exclusion is an interactive process between multiple people, yet previous research has focused almost solely on the negative impacts on targets. What advice is there for people on the other side (i.e., sources) who want to minimize its negative impact and preserve their own reputation? To provide an impetus for research on the interactive nature of exclusion, we propose the Responsive Theory of Social Exclusion. Our theory postulates that targets and sources' needs are better maintained if sources use clear, explicit verbal communication. We propose that sources have three options: explicit rejection (clearly stating no), ostracism (ignoring), and ambiguous rejection (being unclear). Drawing on psychology, sociology, communications, and business research, we propose that when sources use explicit rejection, targets' feelings will be less hurt, their needs will be better protected, and sources will experience less backlash and emotional toil than if sources use ambiguous rejection or ostracism. Finally, we propose how the language of rejections may impact both parties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 47 39%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 11%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,297,134
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,612
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,533
of 328,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#94
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.