Multilingual Groups: Effects of Linguistic Ostracism on Felt Rejection and Anger, Coworker Attraction, Perceived Team Potency, and Creative Performance

Abstract

We defined linguistic ostracism (LO) as any situation in which people converse in a language that others cannot understand (as opposed to linguistic inclusion [LI], in which people converse in a language that others do understand). Participants were exposed to either LO or LI by two Russian-speaking confederates. Participants then performed a creativity (brainstorming) task expecting to be evaluated individually or to reconvene with their groups and be evaluated collectively. Results revealed that targets of LO compared to LI reported more rejection and anger, less attraction toward their coworkers, and lower perceived team potency. In the group work condition, targets high in social self-efficacy (SSE) performed better following LO (compared to LI), whereas those low in SSE performed worse. No effects emerged in the individual work condition. Targets' levels of rejection sensitivity were positively associated with aggressively charged ideas following LO but not LI. We conclude that LO is psychologically aversive for targets and hampers group-based performance among those who lack confidence in their social abilities. Future areas of research as well as implications for multilingual organizations are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates award (#0097405) to Richard Wiener and Kristin Sommer and a National Institute of Mental Health award (#MH066828–01) to Kristin Sommer. We thank Yevgeniya Granovskaya and Martha Goldman for serving as confederates in this study.

Notes

¹The amount of time confederates spent speaking Russian ranged from 140 to 340 sec, for an average of 248 sec (about 4 min). Variation in the use of Russian across sessions could be attributed to variation in the overall amount of conversation taking place. Confederates attempted to match the conversational pace set by the participant.

Note. LI = linguistic inclusion; LO = linguistic ostracism.

^a n = 39.

^b n = 41.

²Exploratory analyses with these dependent measures revealed no main effects or interactions involving sex of participant. Sex was not included in any subsequent analyses. Also note that work condition was not included in the analyses examining variance in emotional outcomes, team potency, and coworker attraction because this manipulation occurred after these measures were assessed.

Note. SSE = social self-efficacy.

Note. RS = rejection sensitivity.

³We initially separated aggressive uses into animate objects (e.g., to smash a bug) and inanimate objects (e.g., to break a window). The Language × RS interaction replicated for both animate objects, t(71) = 2.07, p < .05, pr = .24, and inanimate objects, t(71) = 2.35, p < .05, pr = .27. Because the patterns of data were identical, we collapsed across these two types of aggressive uses.