1 Introduction

At its core, ostracism is a subtle and invisible phenomenon that makes individuals or groups feel excluded from meaningful social interactions (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2023; Williams, 2007). Researchers consistently point to the distinctiveness of ostracism from other negative social interactions (Williams, 2007). It also needs to be distinguished from the wide range of other more direct, active, and engaging forms of being socially separated, perceived as rejection, which include acts of commission, i.e., directing excluding behaviours towards someone else (e.g., Molden et al., 2009; Richman & Leary, 2009; Riva & Eck, 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2016). The unique nature of ostracism consists in omission, isolating, avoiding someone, rather than offering them engagement in interaction (e.g., Freedman et al., 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2016; Williams & Zadro, 2005). And while acts of comission are perceived as more hurtful and threatening, researchers have found that ostracism, even when short-term and one-off, is a painful experience that goes beyond mere discomfort and undermines a sense of belonging even more powerfully than other expressions of hostility and antagonism (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2023; Williams, 2007). Taking into account that relational intentions are paramount (i.e., detachment; albeit without explicit expression that the partner is unwanted and avoided, but rather through lack of social attention and response), it is worth considering this relational dimension of action, and even using the term relational ostracism.

Although ostracising behaviours in everyday life have been studied for a long time, and more recently also utilizing qualitative methodologies, it is worth highlighting the distinct nature of the phenomenon in various everyday contexts in which it occurs, e.g. in groups of acquaintances and strangers, in social media and face-to-face relationships, in formal as well as romantic and friendship relationships, of different and similar genders, in the workplace or in the family, etc. (see Wesselmann et al., 2023). It is worth emphasising that while much is known about how ostracism is practiced in organizational contexts, research does not encompass the school context. As a result, there is far less knowledge about peer experiences of adolescents in the classroom environment (Bowker et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2022). Research in this area is underdeveloped, even though classrooms, as fairly stable formal groups (Hrbackova & Hrncirikova, 2022), provide a unique social context for research on inclusion and exclusion, as well as the behavioral manifestations of ostracism.

Previous studies have focused on expanding our understanding of the effects of ostracism and emotional injury among youth (Abrams et al., 2011; Bowker et al., 2014). When descriptions of behaviors are provided, being ignored by school peers or excluded from group activities is often labeled as “rejection” (Asher et al., 2001; Sunwolf & Leets 2004; Wainryb et al., 2014), or “polite exclusion” (Wiltgren, 2022). Passive forms of exclusion in the school context have not garnered as much research attention as bullying, leaving it unclear whether adolescents perceive and/or experience rejection and ostracism differently. Offering preliminary evidence that ostracism employed by adolescents in the classroom environment presents a peer difficulty appears to be a significant endeavor.

Through the perspectives of social psychology and symbolic interactionism, this study focuses on the study of ostracism as an act of communication within social encounters (Freedman et al., 2016; Pelliccio & Walker, 2022). Based on interviews with adolescents, this study aims to explore and describe the nature of specific forms of interaction among school class members as it is perceived and understood by students involved in ostracism. The findings are discussed in terms of the challenges faced by researchers and practitioners who seek to develop effective policies and strategies to counter the phenomena highlighted in this article, aiming to better understand how peer-exclusion strategies manifest in the behaviors of students in their daily school lives, viewed from the perspective of actors engaged in ostracism.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Terminological arrangements

According to recent work in this field, any situation in which a person is denied desirable social contact with others is collectively placed within a broader construct labelled “social exclusion” (e.g., Wesselmann & Williams, 2017; Wesselmann et al., 2023). Social exclusion can be further divided into two main phenomena: “rejection” and “ostracism”, as it is accepted that the experiences in both cases can be psychologically different because of the way exclusion is transmitted (e.g., Richman & Leary, 2009; Riva & Eck, 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2016). Ostracism is characterised primarily by ignoring a person and passively excluding them from participating in social activities (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2023; Williams & Zadro, 2005). For the sake of clarity, here we treat rejection and ostracism separately, while recognising that the way in which many forms of excluding behaviour are realised is on a continuum between inclusion and exclusion from interaction (Leary, 2001; Molden et al., 2009; Pelliccio & Walker, 2022).

2.2 Behavioural manifestations of ostracism among adolescents

Although it has been found that exclusion can take various forms, we have limited knowledge of the different variants in which ostracism manifests itself behaviourally. There also is a great deal of ambiguity around how adolescents use various means of ostracism to communicate exclusion in everyday peer interactions.

Leading researchers suggest that there are three general forms of ostracism: physical, social, and cyberostracism (Abrams et al., 2011; Williams & Zadro, 2005). Physical ostracism is considered distinct from social ostracism, as the ostracizer physically removes themselves from the presence, for example, by leaving and leaving the partner to interact alone. For instance, meetings take place behind closed doors or physical barriers are intentionally placed (Pelliccio & Walker, 2022). Physical ostracism in the classroom environment can be challenging to execute due to co-presence. This physical separation may be expressed through physical distances (moving away from others), grouping in secluded places, and physical inaccessibility. In the school setting, it is not uncommon to see students spatially isolated from peers, sitting alone during breaks, in the cafeteria away from others, not being part of desired social gatherings.

Social ostracism refers to situations where the ostracized individual is physically present among others but remains communicatively unacknowledged (Freedman et al., 2016). They are in close proximity but are not included in conversations; they are treated as invisible. Interactions are withheld, which can be manifested through not talking to a specific person, not greeting them, as well as using body language (avoiding eye contact) (Dytham, 2018; Wiltgren, 2022). Examples of such behaviors include “silent treatment,” not being chosen for group activities (e.g., Sunwolf & Leets 2004; Underwood, 2004; Wainryb et al., 2014).

Finally, cyberostracism denotes exclusion through communication technology (Abrams et al., 2011). It occurs when someone does not receive messages and comments, especially from relationally close individuals (e.g., replies to questions, requests, shares, likes, comments, shares). It also includes being outside a group sharing important messages and event invitations or lack of interest when others stop paying attention.

The aforementioned classification serves as an example of attempts to classify various practices of this form of exclusion. Such conceptualization may provoke controversy as the “social” aspect constitutes a key element of this behavior rather than a characteristic of one of its forms. However, it allows for some degree of organization of exclusion episodes based on how the exclusion is carried out.

In the school context, excluding behaviors have not received a clear division or definition. For example, behaviors such as refusing to talk, not being chosen for group activities or games, silent treatment, exclusion from after-school social gatherings, being left out of social activities, and not sitting close by are discussed in the literature as important aspects of relational aggression and victimization (e.g., Archer & Coyne, 2005; Underwood, 2004).

The researchers have documented that adolescents turn their backs on a rejected peer, deliberately do not respond when the peer speaks, and use non-verbal means, through gaze, facial expressions and gestures, when excluding others (Asher et al., 2001). Common behaviours towards peers included eye-rolling, the “death stare” or “daggers” (staring at someone in an intimidating way), the cold shoulder (turning away, standing in front of someone and blocking the entrance to the group), and silence from the group (Huntley & Owens, 2013; Shute et al., 2002). Research participants Huntley and Owens (2013) also indicated the experience of being “cut out of conversations” or having the group fall silent when they try to join in (p. 242).

Demonstrating exclusion also includes the “silent treatment” and avoidance of some peers, alienation, and also a wealth of non-verbal signs used by young people (Coyne et al., 2006; Dyches & Mayeux, 2012; Wiltgren, 2022). Negative facial expressions and gestures, such as throwing dirty looks, rolling eyes, tossing hair, and turning away from a peer, collusive looks, taunts from a distance, can carry serious intentions and are part of the arsenal of sophisticated exclusion tactics that adolescents engage in (Galen & Underwood, 1997; Owens et al., 2000b; Paquette & Underwood, 1999; Shute et al., 2002; Underwood, 2004; Xie et al., 2002).

2.3 Varieties of group ostracism: consensual and partial

From the perspective of social psychology and ecological approach, group processes are gaining increasing attention (Kim et al., 2022; Salmivalli, 2010). Placing the actors' actions in a group context suggests that the role of the whole group, and not just the ostraciser and the ostracised, is leading in the emergence, development, and elimination or suppression of social exclusion (Salmivalli, 2010; Salmivalli et al., 1996). What is characteristic of incidents of exclusion in the classroom is that, even if only two pupils—the perpetrator and the victim—are involved, the majority of children in the class seem to take on a specific role in relation to the incident (Salmivalli et al., 1996; Shute et al., 2002; Werner & Crick, 2004).

Sandstrom et al. (2017) believe that the severity of ostracism is associated with different numbers of accepting and excluding partners in the group (Sandstrom et al., 2017). These researchers document differences between complete unanimous ostracism and partial ostracism. They argue that the basis of this distinction lies in the ratio of ostracizers to members of the inclusion/integration group; when group members are in agreement, complete unanimous ostracism occurs, and when group behavior is mixed, partial ostracism occurs. Sandstrom et al. (2017) also demonstrated that group ostracism is most blatant when it is complete (unanimous), while different variants of partial (moderate and minimal) ostracism reflect configurations in which groups may be more or less friendly, as the presence of supportive allies mitigates and/or intensifies the effects of ostracism.

2.4 Current research

Formal classroom communities provide the research context for this study. However, peer ostracism in the classroom environment does not appear to have been thoroughly explored. The literature is dominated by studies focused on the effects of ostracism (e.g., Abrams et al., 2022; Wesselmann et al., 2023). There is a lack of analyses focused on how students engage in excluding practices that are less overt and less direct than rejection (Freedman et al., 2016).

Current research also suggests that insights into ostracism are needed not only from the ostracized themselves but also from adolescents engaging in exclusion (Wainryb et al., 2014), enabling a more comprehensive view of ostracism in its interactive context (Nezlek et al., 2015). Free descriptions of their own behaviors towards peers, precisely from the perspective of those engaged in exclusion, may provide valuable insights into the social interaction patterns associated with ostracism.

In view of the above arguments, by adopting an exploratory qualitative approach, this study aimed to capture peer behaviors in which adolescents engage and through which they exclude certain peers from the classroom group during social interactions.

3 Method

3.1 Participants

The adolescents aged 12 to 18 were the target group; 14 participants were male and 15 were female. They were all Caucasian. All participants held Polish citizenship. The research was conducted in public schools located in the central and eastern part of Poland. Students were placed in groups of approximately 16–31 students (average class size in these schools: 24 students). In grade 6 (n = 5), 7 (n = 6), 8 (n = 6), grade 1 of high school (n = 7), and grade 2 (n = 5). Schools were of medium size (from 300 to 600 students) and admitted students with low to moderate academic competencies.

To capture different types of environments, schools of different sizes and located both in cities (15 students from 3 schools), metropolitan suburbs (8 students from 3 schools), and rural areas (6 students from 2 schools) were selected. The researcher personally collaborated with all schools that prepared future teachers as part of their professional internships.

3.2 Data collection

29 semi-structured individual interviews were conducted. The adolescents described incidents in which their classmates were excluded in formal and informal social interactions and shared comments on social integration and disintegration in the school class peer environment. Simple social maps were used to initiate the conversation, which were drawn manually (Tubaro et al., 2016). These tools are playing an increasingly significant role in qualitative research at various stages of the research process. This type of visualization of network members as points and social connections between them, especially when drawn during direct interaction with the respondent and combined with qualitative interviews, can add valuable details regarding the size of the network, structure, and interpersonal closeness, while also encouraging the description of social practices and interactions. Various combinations of narration and visualization are used to strengthen the participants’ positions. This simple tool not only enhances dialogue but is primarily a method of exploration, as it stimulates reflection and insight, offering a more systematic, holistic picture of relationships, network dynamics, and social interaction methods and strongly supports their description in narration (Tubaro et al., 2016).

In this case, visualization was adopted as input data for in-depth interviews, as a tool through which data were collected, but data on the map and narration were gathered simultaneously (Hogan et al., 2007; Tubaro et al., 2016). The visual mapping of the class group allowed the young people to reflect more deeply on the social network and explore the changing dynamics of class members’ belonging. Participants could freely present their network in this specific social context of the classroom, categorizing classmates according to any selection criterion. The map aided in maintaining a fluid narrative, enabling questions about changes, connections, and other elements to be naturally addressed as they were arranged on the map. It also facilitated inquiries about specific connections or constellations: during the interview, the interviewer could easily inquire about contacts (‘alter’) in a specific position on the map according to their significance, interpreted as perceived relational closeness (e.g., very far from all other alters) or about a specific constellation (e.g., two connected dyads) and learn more about these relationships, their significance for respondents, and their impact on the network.

In accordance with suggestions from other researchers (e.g., Herz et al., 2014; Tubaro et al., 2016), the “pen and paper” technique adopted for this study proved to be simple, intuitive, and safe. Drawing the map took participants approximately 5 to 10 min and was interspersed with discussion. The interviewees were asked to name class members, groups, or other formations and place them on the map (e.g., “What is your class group? Can you draw your class and show how relationships in your class look? At the beginning, I would like you to draw a circle on a piece of paper and put the initials, nicknames, or symbols of all your classmates in it. You can highlight certain features and connections, for example, using arrows, lines, circles, etc. You don’t have to hurry”).

Then a short conversation (“commented network maps”, Herz et al., 2014), took place, during which participants provided subjective justifications for their choices regarding grouping, labeling, and placing the data on the map, thus indicating the significance of peer relationships, the type of resources they offer, conflicts, limitations, and how they developed and evolved over time (e.g., “How would you describe your class? Are the formed packs/groups closed to other class members? Could you explain why they are drawn in a specific place, e.g., why they are so close/far from each other? On the class drawing, mark where you would place yourself. Mark a circle of acquaintances/friends. How would you describe your relationships with the rest of the class? Could you give an example of how this manifests in relationships? What do daily contacts look like?”).

The map was left on the table and played an important role throughout the entire interview. It is worth noting that the respondents willingly worked with the map. Many participants returned to the drawing without encouragement throughout the rest of the interview to add additional supplements or corrections, both to visualize certain aspects of the narration or to systematize information (e.g., explaining certain topics, connecting them with specific groups of people drawn on the map) and to draw inspiration from the map for generating narratives.

Descriptions of exclusionary events emerged naturally, and all participants freely discussed their experiences. None of the interview questions specifically addressed exclusion, ostracism, or other topics such as “keeping away” or “zero interactions” presented in this article. Numerous statements about exclusionary behaviors emerged in response to questions about circles of acquaintances/friends. Respondents explained complex relationships with preferred and avoided peers for shared activities (during classroom teamwork or sports games), seating arrangements, socializing, sharing information and favors, etc. Also, while describing the network structure, placing points on the map, and explaining contacts within exclusive circles of acquaintances/friends, issues of “not maintaining relationships” came to the forefront, stimulating reflection on the social comfort zone and class members grouped as either most important and close relationships or currently less important ones.

During the conversation, attention was paid to the interactive context of described events and behaviors of social actors. Perceiving social behaviors of actors through the prism of their placement in specific relationships or social structures aligns with the assumptions of the adopted analytical approach (Tubaro et al., 2016) and the conceptualization of ostracism (Nezlek et al., 2015). As part of this line of inquiry, a series of questions were asked with particular emphasis on the extent to which other class group members were present or absent during described exclusion episodes and the role they played in this experience (e.g., “Did more people participate in this event and how did they react? Who from the class group provided support/integration and could support both sides?”).

The interviews were recorded with the consent of the participants and then transcribed. Interviews lasted from approximately 20 to 120 min; the average interview duration was 42 min. All interviews were conducted in a quiet place in schools by trained assistants. Anonymous citations are linked to gender, age (e.g., F12), class (e.g., 7).

There are several advantages of using interviews, which guided the choice of the appropriate method (Underwood et al., 2018). Earlier researchers conducted a fruitful analysis of exclusion episodes by asking adolescents for their own reports. Retrospective narratives of adolescents are generally rich in detail, contain insightful descriptions of complex events and a wide range of situational contexts (e.g., Bowker et al., 2014; Dyches & Mayeux, 2012; Sunwolf & Leets 2004; Wainryb et al., 2014; Wiltgren, 2022), and are usually not limited by the researcher’s preconceptions and imposed definitions.

Episodes of exclusion were selected from the interviews with adolescents that could provide an understanding of how they engage in ostracism. It was decided that accounts from the perspective of the person subjected to the ostracising practices would be omitted.

3.3 Ethical considerations

The study actively followed the ethical guidelines for the study in every respect. The students’ guardians were given a form containing information about the study and were asked to give written consent so that their children could take part. To guarantee the anonymity of the adolescents, their names were changed at the stage of transcription. During the interviews, the research assistants reminded and respected the rules regarding the right to refuse to answer and to withdraw from the interview at any time. The recordings were deleted when the interview was transcribed.

3.4 Data analysis

All interviews were first examined personally by the author of the article in their entirety through a close reading of the transcripts. From this material, significant extracts were selected for more detailed analysis. These were excerpts where participants discussed their experiences and perceptions of exclusion-related behaviors relatively extensively. The researcher’s selection of described events was based on several criteria: the description focused on actual behaviors during a specific episode rather than dispositional characteristics; the described behavior took place during social interaction (involving a minimum of two actors in close proximity and in a social situation requiring engagement in interactions); the respondent initiated or engaged in the behavior with others; the behavior (constituting ostracism) involved avoiding interaction or withholding contact with an unwanted partner (but the participant’s insight that their action was taken with the intent to exclude or omit a peer from activities or interactions was not decisive; although most were fully aware of the excluding intentions of their actions and the effects of events); the intensity of actions was low (it was assumed that intensity refers to the strength of explicit, direct, identifiable, and reportable actions occurring between actors); the described incident was embedded in the social context of the group. Not all descriptions of events were considered to meet these criteria, as they did not provide sufficient information for a detailed analysis.

In the third step of the analysis, the main themes were distinguished and similar data were coded within the preliminary themes. Herz et al. (2014) provide a comprehensive proposal for an analytical procedure for interpreting interviews with a social map geared towards qualitative analysis and based on interactionism. They suggest sequencing the analysis during the interpretative session. To achieve this, they propose questions related to network structure, actor embedding, and types and quality of relationships, their impact on all network actors (Herz et al., 2014; Tubaro et al., 2016).

The following criteria were used to explore the behaviours constituting peer ostracism in the classroom setting: types of situations, recurring patterns of behavior, number of students involved in incidents and their role (as supporters/accomplices of the perpetrator, uninvolved witnesses, peers potentially ready to provide basic support and integration for the excluded individual), as well as prior relationships between the actors. Subsequently, the text was comprehensively reexamined; significant units and the main themes were analysed again to ensure that the recurring data was encoded in each of them. Through this process, themes have been refined, a broader understanding and deeper insights have been gained in relation to the researchers’ initial understanding and the relevant research.

3.5 Audit procedure

To enhance the reflective quality of the analysis and findings in the final stage of the study, three external reviewers with expertise in ostracism in the school environment participated. Two of them were members of advisory teams involved in school interventions related to social exclusion. One was a teacher with experience in educational work with students in grades 7 and 8. The audit process aimed to increase the rigor of the study by eliminating unnecessary bias and obtaining assurance from experts that all significant decisions made were appropriate. Similarly, several participants were asked to provide feedback on whether the final themes and interpretations accurately represented the experiences and perspectives they shared.

4 Results: behaviours that represent ostracism in the peer environment of a classroom

Several cases of ostracism incidents were identified, and the descriptions provided from the perspective of the involved actors yielded more information about the types of exclusionary behaviors occurring in the classroom environment. Specifically, the main categories identified are: (1) Avoidance, (2) Suspension/removal from the group and (3) Complete ostracism. Each of the main categories is discussed in more detail below.

4.1 Category 1: avoidance

From the participants’ descriptions, it appears that avoidance tends to relate to relationships with unfamiliar peers, with whom closer contacts have not been formed or have developed into antipathetic relationships. It is worth noting that avoidance sometimes also applies to former friends who try to get out of each other’s way after a relationship break-up, and even appears in many friendship groups as the price of belonging and an expression of selective tolerance of other members. These behaviours are addressed to classmates who are insufficiently close and of low relational value to the person who subjects them to avoidance. Recipients of avoidance are described as annoying, aggressive and attacking, outsiders, those who “don’t like it” or are from another world, culprits, enemies, hanging out with the uncool, low-ranking, etc. Participants reported motives for avoidance vary widely: peer preference; breaking off contact after conflict and in retaliation (punishment) after undesirable behaviour; protective buffering to avoid conflict in antagonistic relationships; prevention of lowering one’s position in the group due to maintaining contact with people of low reputation; breaking off contact after moving/entering friendship groups that keep a great distance with certain individuals or other groups, and prevention of potential humiliation, accusations and aggression. Behind the avoidance, there is an undisguised dislike of the person/group in question; and the distance is perceived as mostly mutual. Withdrawal from such antagonistic relationships and interactions is interpreted by participants as an intentional action, motivated explicitly as defence, less often as a punishment. Participants also say that this is sometimes a last resort, because when direct communication is not effective, it is the only way to avoid escalating conflict or negative aversive experiences, especially when the contact is emotionally intense (overt antipathy, hostility).

Participants observe in both themselves and their peers a range of strategies to disengage from both relationships and social interactions, which are structured around three strategic actions: Avoiding contact, Physical distance and moving away and Ignoring. They share common features: (1) the actions are rarely temporary, (2) they are partial in nature, as excluding actions are undertaken by a small number of class members; there are many available class members potentially supporting/integrating, (3) they are performed in a small circle or dyad, and (4) there is little sense of relational obligations between actors (social distance).

4.1.1 Strategy: avoiding contact (“Zero interactions”)

Participants emphasise that the aim of their aspirations and efforts is to maintain “zero interaction”, as far as possible, with selected classmates who, as a result, remain outside their social network. They report that they stop initiating communication altogether and withdraw from situations that expose them to unwanted social contact. And while sometimes students may selectively engage in ostracising activities, suspending isolation and taking collective action in a given situation, minimising interactions (especially of a social nature) prevails.

4.1.1.1 Avoiding interactions along with physical distance

As participants understand it, communicative and physical disengagement is the primary means of avoiding unwanted encounters, used in antipathetic as well as more neutral-distanced relationships. The ostracised are seen as unimportant or as a threat. A large number of respondents emphasise that they do not need or want contacts with specific class members in the future. And, at the same time, such withdrawal from relations and encounters is, in their view, an easily feasible, very common and accepted action (“with us it’s normal”):

if we don’t like someone, we just don’t talk to them and don’t keep in touch. Everyone takes care of themselves and there is no pressure to stay with each other. We don’t get in each other’s way, and we don’t try to get close to each other. There are a few people with whom I have not exchanged a single word in two years. (F16, II)

Engaging in unwanted interactions is often interpreted as “getting into a fight”, i.e., leading to an unnecessary clash. One respondent describes how arguments “evade him” because he consciously prevents them by physically moving away, ensuring that he doesn’t remain in the same places, and minimising the act of bestowing direct negative attention on disliked individuals.

4.1.1.2 Excluding from informal meetings

Excluding from social situations can manifest itself as omission and lack of invitations, e.g., when class members go to the school playground together at break time or when they are not considered desirable partners for joint activities at a given time. One respondent says how every year at the end of the school year, he organises a party (bonfire) for the whole class and explains why he invited all but two of his classmates, revealing his dilemma and protective motive:

Because she was mates with one such Natalia and well.... ehhh. And sort of... well... And I didn’t want to invite them. I would invite them, but the rest of the guys wouldn’t want to come then.... And I wanted to tell Kinga to come on her own, but all in all, I preferred not to say anything so she wouldn’t make a drama out of it. (M12, 6)

4.1.1.3 Excluding from access to support and resources

Respondents told us that information sharing and helping behaviour are embedded in student culture, being the common norm. While emotional support generally is exclusively a commitment of close friends, being a member of the class offers certain privileges and bonuses. Obtaining help mainly refers to copying answers during tests and copying homework (given to be done at home, but generally copied from colleagues during breaks or other lessons). Access to these valuable goods is usually open to the majority of class members (those in need). However, it is sometimes limited according to the key of personal preferences and antipathies and membership of a social circle. One respondent describes how her class has two separate circles on social media (“my” and “that” class group):

We help each other there, and we send everything there together with sentences... If someone doesn’t have an assignment, then we give someone to write it down, we help each other, so it’s normal, we give each other everything. And on that other group, practically no one shares anything. (F16, I)

4.1.2 Strategy: physical distance and moving away

Moving away is recognised by participants as a strategic safety measure, i.e., aimed at ensuring that unwanted interaction does not occur, as well as a tool for breaking contact and withdrawal. One respondent describes manoeuvring and keeping out of the way of an unwanted peer before and during an interaction:

... as soon as she walked up to someone, practically everyone, you know, moved away from her... I, for example, when I saw her, I was just like “ok” from a distance and I didn’t go near her. Not that I was somehow, you know, running away from her (laughs). It’s just that when I saw her, I didn’t feel the need to be anywhere close to her... And because the rooms were big, it wasn’t difficult to avoid her there. There was no need for any special actions. (F14, 8)

The search for a safe space and a way to improve comfort in antipathetic relationships involves adjusting the distance in the room, as highlighted by one respondent. She moves away to break contact, to distance herself from annoying behaviour, to avoid forced and aversive interactions, not to be drawn into attacking provocations in an unequal clash. Physical distance replaces verbal explanations and uncomfortable confrontations, becoming a message of rejection:

Kuba is the class douchebag, he just likes to make a douchebag of himself, he’s always telling his sometimes really pathetic jokes and enjoys it when others laugh at him... On top of that, he is kind of sleazy, once, at break, he took off his shoe and sniffed it in front of others. He tried to make us laugh like that, but it was awful. Yuck... I don’t like him... He always pisses me off during music classes because there are fewer tables in that room, so he sits next to me and he makes a fuss. That’s why I always change my seat so that I don’t give him the opportunity, well, I don’t leave the door open. (F14, 7)

4.1.3 Strategy: ignoring

Ignoring blocks the possibility of sustaining the interaction. According to respondents’ accounts, it is the most common response to the behaviour of an undesirable person or group (their verbal comments or attempts to engage in interaction). This group of behaviours appeared most often in the context of social activities, but ignoring was also observed during more formal exchanges, e.g. during lessons. In the participants’ understanding, ignoring has the character of a situational action, although it may occur regularly in a given interactional set-up, being rather an established coping strategy in aversive antagonistic relationships, when avoidance is an “insufficient solution”. Several varieties of ignoring were identified, indicating that participants differentiate the actions used strategically: Silent ignoring, Impolite ignoring, Overlooking, and Ignoring requests for information.

4.1.3.1 Silent ignoring

This form of ignoring is characterised by manifesting indifference through reticence and silence. The discontinuation of responses to a partner’s initiatives and not sustaining the interaction is interpreted by participants as a simple form of “coping” with the irritation. The interruption of the conversation is accompanied by a reduction in eye contact (e.g. shifting attention from the partner to an object, avoiding gaze, lowering or turning the head away). One of the participants describes his own reserved response as a conscious withdrawal of expressing resentment. At the same time, his relationship with his classmate is so aversive and chronic that ignoring is interpreted as the highest form of benevolent toleration of someone’s presence and undesirable behaviour. This example also clearly demonstrates how distancing and disengagement is perceived as protective mechanisms, transitioning from reactive actions to strategic responses in the face of repeated disruptive comments from a peer:

It was hard for me to accept this comment from him, but I only ignored it. It may not be the most accepting behaviour, but nevertheless it was the best by my standards.... Some people really disliked his comments on test grades or midterm papers. I admit that it annoyed me too... it somehow made me so outraged, annoyed and felt bad about it. I just didn’t enter into a discussion with him. (F14, 8)

4.1.3.2 Impolite ignoring (Disclosure of disapproval and non-verbal devaluation)

Participants note that in many situations silence is accompanied by signals of disapproval (mild or harsh). The expression of resentment and annoyance tends to be a spontaneous response, but some participants even believe that using non-verbal means to “let the unwanted interlocutor know” in blunt terms that he or she is being pushy or unwelcome is not only seen as appropriate, but also strategic. Facial expressions and gestures (e.g. eye-rolling, avoidance of exchanging glances, sarcastic smiles, significant changes in body posture), paraverbal means (e.g. sighs, yawns) and behaviour directed towards group members (e.g. ironic or pitying smiles exchanged surreptitiously with the audience) thus complete the basic message of not maintaining interaction with a particular person.

In the following example, the respondent describes how a group of several friends reacts when a classmate actively initiates interactions by expressing aspirations to join in. The concealment of perpetration behind the forms “they” and “we” is noteworthy, but the respondent does not hide her lack of relationship-building attitude at all, emphasising her inability to respond without irritation and aggression towards a colleague perceived as an intruder:

There is also Malwina, who is terribly keen to get to join our group and sits in front of us all the time. And when there’s something funny, she turns to us and laughs, silly. Well, the girls would show her with their faces that they didn’t want her... They started to ignore her completely and just talked to each other.... And when she turns to us, we just don’t pay attention to her at all. Well, because she’s some kind of freak! (F16, II)

4.1.3.3 Omission during interactions

Respondents also describe instances where an unwanted person is met with indifference despite their presence. The conversation or joint action goes on, but no one directs an invitation (questions, comments) towards him or her or picks up the initiative (no acts to complete the exchange), as if they were invisible.

A more extreme form of this behaviour towards an unwanted participant in a meeting was to deliberately change the subject to prevent people from joining in and taking part in the completion of the story, as described by one respondent:

She’s a total freak... Damn, she is dreaming she can be in our pack.... Once, we went with the class to the open air, and she wants to join us ... And to make her go away, we started talking about Julka’s wedding, she hadn’t been at... And then Monika started showing pictures of the party at her house, and she didn't know anyone there.... So, we managed to discourage her (laughs). (F18, II)

4.1.3.4 Ignoring requests for information

Participants described situations where a message (e.g. a request for information) on an online platform was ignored or the response was significantly delayed, while the same colleagues gave quick responses to other peers. When adolescents wanted to show social distance, they refrained from responding quickly or at all. Manifesting exclusion in this form towards a group of female colleagues whom they strongly disliked was recounted as follows:

they are oversensitive about their appearance; they just go to the bathroom all the time and fix their hair. (…) All in all, we don’t talk to them. Even on our Facebook group. Well, unless they approach us directly, then we write back to them, but not always. (M17, II)

4.2 Category 2: suspension/expulsion from the group

The behaviours found within this category differ from “Avoidance” in several important ways: (1) social degradation, as the person subjected to the action acquires the status of an excluded person in the group, (2) numerical advantage of the individuals engaged in ostracizing actions (class versus an individual; group of friends versus group member), (3) punitive motive (exclusion is a punishment), and (4) often temporary nature.

Participants clearly emphasise the collective nature of performing an action (or the process of supporting the leader or person initiating this form of rejection). The person subjected to degradation and collective condemnation described is generally (or used to be) an accepted member of the group. However, his or her act, considered by the group to be exceptionally shameful and of high importance, results in him/her being temporarily suspended from membership rights, i.e. from access to social conversations at breaks and to resources shared by group members (information and favours such as homework, copying during tests) and after-school meetings. Respondents point out that it is sometimes difficult to rebuild one’s position after such an episode of exclusion, but generally the most severe sanctions, such as the silent treatment, subside and interaction resumes, with the demoted person being integrated into some group with a lower reputation or functioning on the fringes of the social network.

Ostracising actions are divided into two subcategories, as they can refer to two types of punishment (Suspension of communication and Blocking access to resources) or a combination of both.

4.2.1 Strategy: suspension of communication

Episodes of refusal of contact for a person who had done something that was considered a breach of the norm in the group were described as temporary. After a while, the group would forget about the event, and contacts would return to normal. Of course, there were times when the excluded person was met with more aggressive forms of condemnation from some members of the class, but the vast majority of peers just communicated their disappointment by temporarily withdrawing from interaction.

One of the incidents described took place in a lesson when, against the whole group, a member of the class pushed for a dissenting aspiration (he wanted to write a test, and the class begs for it to be rescheduled). The excluded person is seen as the one who “wants to make things difficult for others” and who breaks the rule of “agreeing with the majority of the class” on issues of negotiations on the test. From the extensive narrative, we can learn that the signaler, who is the only one reminding the teacher about the test, is avoided by all of his classmates for some time. He is perceived as the only person who can stop the process, so if he doesn’t take the opportunity to improve, social isolation from the group may become permanent, both in school and beyond:

Well, and then we were just a bit offended and didn’t speak to him... I think if he repents, it’s like he’ll get a clean slate, so he won’t do it again. So, if it happens again, it’s more likely the class will decide there’s no hope for him simply, so, then he won’t have any classmates anymore. (F16, I)

Respondents refer to the group’s punitive reaction to another particularly recognizable act, which the group perceives as “betraying the class” (reporting to the teacher about a group that skips classes). Because everyone’s reputations are threatened in such cases, the group responds with anger. The punishment (not speaking) is, however, temporary and is revoked after the culprit tries to apologise for his or her act. Ignoring, although here taking the form of demonstrating “offence”, replaces the strategy of reproach and argument, and isolation is a form of temporary punishment.

4.2.2 Strategy: removal from the group

Many respondents describe episodes of ostracism towards a class member, whose act brings negative consequences for the peer group as a whole (e.g. negative grades, extra tests and withdrawal of some form of relief and benefits by the teacher, such as permissions to report unpreparedness, blocking the possibility of correcting tests, etc.). If the situation is repeated or the culprit feels no guilt, expresses no remorse, in the judgement of peers, they are unconcerned about the needs of others and even demonstrate this, then the peer group communicates frustration and separates itself from this person.

One respondent describes in detail how breaking the “no reporting to teachers” rule ended not only in permanent “removal” from the class group on the social networking site, but also in exclusion from a fairly close-knit friendship group. In addition to social alienation, expulsion here means lack of access to social information and support in matters of learning. This reaction from the class community was triggered by two members of the class, who sent screenshots of the messages to the class teacher and, because of this, two other classmates (authors of offensive posts about teachers) were called to the headmaster and suffered formal consequences:

Well, they could have just not sent it, but they did. These girls betrayed us and did something they shouldn’t have done. They’re not even in that group on Messenger anymore, we deleted them straight away... They’re sticking together now as two, because practically nobody wants to talk to them or hang out with them anymore after that situation because they behaved so horribly. They only talk to people from other classes, but somehow, they don’t keep in touch with anyone from our class. Everyone has moved away from them. They don’t laugh at them, they don’t tease them, now they ignore them. (F16, I)

Gossipers, if their intrigues were exposed by a strong leader, were subjected to radical degradation, one element of which was disengagement. Exclusion from the friendship group, especially if it had punitive motives, often led to social ostracism within the larger group, described as “everyone turning away from her,” initiating the process of complete exclusion.

4.3 Category 3: complete ostracism

Respondents pointed out that excluding specific individuals in the classroom is neither situational nor temporary; it concerns those who are chronically rejected. The cases of ostracism presented had several features in common: (1) conducted of the larger group and the attitude of the group members described as consistent, (2) the actions are carried out against the person with the lowest position in the class, (3) the chronic nature, and (4) lack of supportive peer interactions and relationships.

Complete ostracism, in light of the reported experiences of young people, is a cumulative phenomenon, leading to multidimensional exclusion from the reciprocity system. It manifests itself in broken bonds and leads to very low levels of participation in the mainstream peer group. The overall nature of this phenomenon involves the co-occurrence of multiple forms of exclusionary treatment affecting all aspects of social life in the classroom.

Withheld interaction encompasses various areas, including social activities at school, after-school gatherings, communal activities during lessons, exclusion from information flow and group decision-making, as well as limited access to the support shared by everyone in the group. Classmates are fully aware that those ostracized are going through difficult situations, yet they participate in removing any physical and social contacts with them and avoid active intervention. Although they are not interested in exacerbating social isolation but also in improving and alleviating the situation, they do not even provide them with the most basic level of support. Respondents emphasize the consistency of behavior and the continuity of minimal social interactions over a longer period of time. Moreover, they perceive the involvement of all class members in withholding interactions (“no one”, not a single class member can provide support and integration):

He always sits alone, nobody talks to him. Sometimes, he asks about something in class, what is the assignment or something. In gym class, he is the last one to be picked, and when there is group work, either the teacher assigns him somewhere or someone takes pity and takes him along, so he doesn’t have to do everything himself. (F12, 7)

He has nothing. He has nobody. He lives like a hermit. Nobody talks to him, nobody wants to sit with him or work with him in class..., he sits in the corridor, always alone. There is no one, nor are there any mates outside the class. There is no relationship. (M14, 8)

When the interruption of communication is complete and prolonged, the separation is often already at a very serious stage. One respondent pointed out some difficulty in determining the affiliation of people no one liked (“is he or she in our group or not?”):

it should be noted that um, no one in our group was kicked out. And in a way, Iga is in this group, she is included, but on a different basis. No one confides in her, no one invites her to parties, in gym class no one ever wants her on the team, no one picks her for group work, and Iga is usually alone at break time, too. No one listens to her opinion either, no one even asks for her point of view, most things happen away from her. (F14, I)

4.3.1 Strategy: social alienation

Participants reported that usually in their classes everyone engaged in informal communication in wider or narrow friendship subgroups. Ostracised class members were described as being completely alienated from interactions with classmates, as indicated by a lack of greetings, not initiating conversations, not being invited to meetings, and physical distancing. One respondent describes an example of an extreme form of isolation, which takes the form of collusion within a group, when it is agreed behind the back of the rejected person that there is a “ban” on contacts with her:

Natalia has been persuading everyone from the beginning to cut Ania off from the rest of the class...., she would tell us not to talk to her... And lately, all in all, it was somehow so strange, because Ania was standing nearby, and I didn’t know if, since I was saying hello to everyone, I should say hello to her too...? In the end, I pretended not to have seen her. (F13, 7)

4.3.2 Strategy: cessation of corrective actions

Participants emphasise that a person who engages in undesirable behaviour repeatedly, initially receives guidance from the group about expectations and “repair” and offers of inclusion. This does not include a group member deemed to be deviant. One respondent describes the exclusion of a classmate who is now “not considered as a class member”. The peer would insult others, say stupid things in class, prance around, want to be funny, which already gave him the position of an outsider. However, the class completely moved away from him when the headmaster got a complaint that it was revealed that he had insulted others on Facebook:

because it breaks all boundaries. Everyone looks at him from a distance, moves away from him... There is also no point in explaining to him that this is not the way to do things, because even though he has been punished, he does it again anyway. I think when his friends in class turn their back on him, he’ll get something out of it... He usually still talks to Bartek sometimes. But apart from Bartek, everyone avoids him, and everyone knows not to write back to his stupid comments, because he will immediately start insulting them and won’t back down. (F16, I)

4.3.3 Strategy: exclusion from access to information, support and group decision making

Complete exclusion from the group means the loss of relationships and the loss of all privileges enjoyed by other class members. Respondents frequently observed that peers only shared knowledge when instructed by teachers, and they did so unkindly. Some participants also stated that they forgot about such a group member, and only realised after some time that he or she had been left out (e.g. some information had not been relayed). Those who were completely excluded were regarded as superfluous in the decision-making process, as emphasised by one respondent’s comments:

in general, discussions and votes in our class are not fully democratic, although everyone has a chance to express their opinion. Well, except perhaps for those who are always overlooked, like our recluses. (F13, 7)

5 Discussion

This study focuses on the peer-excluding behaviours that adolescents present, specifically a particular passive variant of these behaviours, as a contribution to documenting acts of ostracism in adolescents’ everyday social lives. Notably, this study is one of the first to use the ecology of the classroom as the actual peer world in which ostracism occurs. While most observations on ostracism among adolescents come from interactions in laboratory settings (e.g., Sandstrom et al., 2017), and ignoring has previously been treated as equivalent to overtly rejecting an undesirable person in naturally occurring situations of entry into school informal groups (Asher et al., 2001; Sunwolf & Leets, 2004; Wainryb et al., 2014), or a form of social aggression (Shute et al., 2002), the present study complements this research and shows how ostracism can also be realised within larger formal peer groups.

Given the lack of research on the ways in which exclusion is communicated (Freedman et al., 2016), particularly those involving adolescents’ choice of how to manifest exclusion in the school environment, the current research has helped to fill this gap. Previous studies have also failed to provide clear descriptions of the actual behaviours involved in performing peer ostracism, as they focused more on the reactions of adolescents subjected to ostracism (e.g., Abrams et al., 2011; Bowker et al., 2014). In addition, there was a lack of descriptions of what adolescents actually do during social exclusion, presented from the perspective of those directly behind engaging in ostracising activities (Wainryb et al., 2014). Therefore, this study focuses specifically on the behavioural typology of forms of peer ostracism in the classroom environment, from the perspective of the group members involved in the ostracism. The resulting set of categories reflects the wide range of ostracism that acts as sources of perceived disintegration in dyadic relationships and between a group and one of its members.

Certain behaviours associated with ostracism appear to be universal and occur in a wide range of areas of everyday life, such as refusing to talk to a person by not answering them, not choosing someone to share an activity with, excluding someone from the circulation of information (e.g., Leontovich & Gulyaeva, 2018; Nelson et al., 2008; Nezlek et al., 2015; Sommer et al., 2001; Williams et al., 1998; Zadro et al., 2008). However, as shown in this study, they can also be specific to the environment in which young people engage in relationally aggressive behaviours that not only serve to exclude but raise the social standing of perpetrators and are used to make others feel uncomfortable (Shute et al., 2002).

In addition, this study provides preliminary data on the process of exclusion within the school context, demonstrating how adolescents directly involved in ostracising activities manage their own exclusionary behaviour. Previous research suggests that an ostraciser may pursue an intention to cause harm (e.g., Nezlek et al., 2015), seek to punish (e.g., Williams, 2007; Zadro et al., 2008), perform humiliation of others to increase his or her standing (e.g., Xie et al., 2002), or use fleeting signals to maintain the appearance of innocence and not suffer consequences (e.g., James & Owens, 2005; Shute et al., 2002).

It is worth emphasizing that the co-presence, interdependence, and involuntary nature characteristic of the organizational environment (in this case, the school/class) generate a diversity of ways in which we receive and give treatment to others in managing aversive relationships, especially when they deteriorate or interact with avoided actors (Hess, 2003). Although all forms of non-engagement in interactions belong definitionally to the practices of ostracism, when relational commitments require such engagement, in actual situations of unwanted social encounters among adolescents, numerous microaggressions are observed at the nonverbal and proxemic level, and the lack of contact is manifested as a demonstration of cultural alienation (Wiltgren, 2022). Although attempts to link ostracism with other organizational behaviors, such as lack of friendliness or incivility and hostility, demonstrate that ostracism can communicatively manifest in various ways (e.g., Wesselmann et al., 2023), in many actual situations, the restriction and interruption of interactions do not seem subtle, invisible, or accidental at all, although they occur in silence and without explanation (Freedman et al., 2016; Zadro et al., 2008).

Participants in this study deny having malicious, deceitful, manipulative, domineering and aggressive intentions. However, they also do not hide their dislike (antipathy) towards those colleagues whose presence they barely tolerate. They indicate that they simply want nothing to do with them and have no need to communicate with them. This is either because these individuals are irrelevant to them as relational partners or because they are a threat to their personal (sometimes group) goals, needs, and preferences. This is like the form of permanent cutting-off described by Zadro et al. (2008), which differs from other ignoring tactics in that it does not aim to punish or manipulate. Participants in these studies often perceived their behaviour as neutral and defensive, even despite of clear contempt and hostility. Interrupting contact was treated here as a deliberate way of avoiding confrontational, aversive, or uncomfortable interactions and staying out of potential conflict. Thus, the interpretations of this section of adolescents (involved in ostracism) may shed new light on this social experience and the embedding of practices of ignoring the presence of unwanted actors without risking sanctions and opposition. The aggressive and rude aspects of such behaviours are less pronounced for perpetrators (Freedman et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2022). And while hostile attacks may be considered as non-normative behaviour, avoidance is seen by participants as a form of achieving their own comfort; benign, and harmless due to the buffering effects of integrating others.

Support for these findings can also be provided by other research on passive avoidance strategies, which has captured that it matters whether actors have the intention to maintain the relationship and whether they perceive the conflict as a short-term disagreement or a long-term personality clash (e.g. Agarwal & Prakash, 2022; Card, 2007; Casper & Card, 2010; Roloff & Wright, 2009; Wang et al., 2012). Behaviours manifested by avoidance of contact, especially when they represent hostility and are used over an extended period of time, take the communicative forms described in research as “exit” and “withdrawal” (Hess, 2000, 2003; Wang et al., 2012), and “leaving the scene” (Oetzel et al., 2000). However, none of these strategies, even when reflecting intense hostility, fully captures the plight of students in school peer groups, where belonging is determined by publicly asserting one’s commitment and disengaging from relationships with those identified as being “outside” communities. And despite some freedom to leave the relationship, staying away from the other person or staying close to them but avoiding any communication may require conscious monitoring of one’s behaviour (Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, the researchers suggest that ostracism may be easier to maintain when interaction is infrequent, or interdependence is low (Zadro et al., 2008).

Although the adolescents in our sample claim that they sometimes try to avoid stimulating negative interaction, just as caring partners do, they mostly strike a balance between hostility and indifference, as indicated by the tone of the interaction. In addition, the results suggest that, for adolescents, non-communication and avoidance serves multiple functions and is a strategic and active activity, as previously shown in adult research (Agarwal & Prakash, 2022; Wang et al., 2012; Wright & Roloff, 2009). Silence can be very loud and even several years of disengagement does not necessarily prevent people sharing the same house from fulfilling formal roles (Zadro et al., 2008). According to our data, the ostraciser uses body movements, facial expressions, emotional vocal intonations, and also uses eye contact and a whole range of antagonising elements (sarcastic tone, turning away, humiliating gestures, intense and hostile staring, sneering smile). He/She communicates their feelings, but also subtly interacts with the “audience” (i.e., the peer group), convincing others of their effectiveness and credibility; and sometimes they do so very explicitly, recruiting the group into an alliance. Signals are constantly being sent out; the ostracised person also continually broadcasts messages, subjected to evaluation by the group. By being in the same space, social actors notice each other’s reactions and their attitude expressed in this way, even when verbal interaction is completely minimised (Wiltgren, 2022).

Additionally, the obtained results suggest that ostracising behaviors yield different outcomes in various peer community configurations, i.e., based on the number of excluding and accepting group members (Dytham, 2018; Owens et al., 2000a; Sandstrom et al., 2017; Shute et al., 2002). The behavioural typology of peer ostracism should therefore include complete ostracism associated with group conformity. Narrative reports indicate that many subtly aggressive non-confrontational actions involve more people, or the community becomes a tool of attack (Xie et al., 2002). Ostracising actions can be observed by peers and positively reinforced in the context of friendship (Field et al., 2006; Salmivalli et al., 2011; Werner & Crick, 2004).

Despite the clear individualistic orientation and the dominance of personal protective motives evident in the ostracising actions described by our participants, the actions had a clear consolidation formula, particularly those carried out against “outsiders” in the class. Ostracism was not seen as group-oriented, but as consensual (everyone similarly thinks he is weird; everyone does it; nobody provides support/integration). There is a consensus among students regarding exclusion, which is considered appropriate for those members whose behavior is perceived as destructive and non-normative. Thus, this study offers more clarity on the issue of adolescents engaging in negative treatment of peers ranking low on the status pyramid and the importance of loss of reputation as a valid argument for the use of ostracism.

6 Limitations directions for further research

This study has some limitations typical of qualitative research, such as a small sample size, the possibility of respondent bias, hidden views, omitted information, and the limited possibility of generalising the findings to other cultural settings. Maximum sampling diversity was chosen to overcome these problems, but triangulation and mixed approaches may be used in the future. The results presented here would also be strengthened if a similar study were conducted in a larger context and with larger samples. In such a study, it would be interesting, for example, to deductively test the set of categories identified in this study or to use them to analyse data obtained by other methodologies (see Dyches & Mayeux, 2012; Owens et al., 2000a, 2000b; Wiltgren, 2022).

Due to little previous research, or a focus on the aggressive aspects, further analysis is required to comprehend the implications of ostracism for adolescents, the underlying causes of ostracism, and the actions that schools and parents can and should take in response. Additional research is also necessary to investigate how teachers, in comparison to students, perceive the signals of exclusion to which they have access.

In order to make more holistic explanations of the ostracism that adolescents engage in, subjective data can also be used to capture what is considered the norm of inclusivity and peer support in the social environment of the classroom. It is useful to trace adolescents’ interpretations of what they perceive as right and wrong, along with a clear definition of their own boundaries for accepting some of the negative behaviour and limits on problem-solving activities that take place in their peer groups (Huntley & Owens, 2013).

We have also examined only one type of social exclusion, so it would be worthwhile in future research to explore other types of exclusion, or to analyse whether acts of ostracism co-occur with other varieties of mistreatment, as these issues have received relatively little empirical attention. As we find a number of “Ambivalences” (see Leary, 2001) towards isolating colleagues in the participants’ descriptions, it seems an interesting line of analysis to explain the phenomenon of a heightened risk of ostracism directed at those group members who do not adhere to interaction norms, such as those perceived to be socially disengaged (Kerr & Levine, 2008), disruptive (Wainryb et al., 2014), have a high preference for being alone (Ren & Evans, 2021), or withdraw from social interactions to minimise social injury (Richman & Leary, 2009).

One important question, which also has no clear answers, is when ostracism ceases to be a normative and adaptive response and becomes a form of victimisation (Sunwolf & Leets 2004; Wainryb et al., 2014; Williams, 2007). Other researchers also ask how to separate deliberate exclusion from the group from the right to choose one’s own friends (Huntley & Owens, 2013). Therefore, an interesting direction for future research might be, for example, to compare adolescents’ understanding of exclusion cases deemed “deliberately hostile”, deceitful or manipulative with the interpretations of the episodes collected in this study (Leets & Sunwolf, 2005; Owens et al., 2000a, 2000b; Page & Charteris, 2017; Shute et al., 2002; Wainryb et al., 2014). A suggestion for further research would also be to delineate in more detail the difference between “oblivious ostracism” and deliberate action (Sommer et al., 2001), indifference versus manifesting that one’s presence is irrelevant, that a person is unworthy of attention (Zadro et al., 2008), distancing oneself from strained relationships versus being concerned about preserving one’s partner’s “face” (Freedman et al., 2016), based on meanings established in youth culture.

A more detailed analysis of the issue of the perpetration issue could prove valuable in comprehending the origin of indifference towards “misbehavior” and the low need to invest effort in strategies to mitigate exclusion (Kim et al., 2022). By subjectively framing adolescents’ actions and focusing on the choices they make when confronted with the challenges of inclusion and exclusion (Wang et al., 2012), it will be possible determine whether young people consider the potential outcomes of the response strategy they are using, or if they perceive an opportunity to engage in alternative, milder forms of exclusion (Wesselmann and Williams, 2017).

7 Implications for practice

Numerous urgent areas have been suggested for future clarification, which does not exempt professionals from considering what steps to take to curb this deeply troubling and harmful behavior.

To support efforts to improve social integration in classroom settings, developing a taxonomy of excluding behaviors seems paramount. From a practical standpoint, detailed descriptions of specific behaviors may be useful in detecting and resolving cases of ostracism. Increased reflection and awareness may also impact readiness to intervene in exclusionary situations that we might overlook because they appear innocuous, seemingly polite, or barely noticeable (Wesselmann et al., 2023; Wiltgren, 2022).

The excluding behaviors documented in this work may also serve as a basis for designing discussions and training workshops for professionals and youth on polite and friendly ways of distancing oneself from peers in the school environment. Clear guidelines on civic behaviors or expressive reactions in regulating relationships in the teenage world are also needed. Greater emphasis should also be placed on youth reflection on perceiving ostracism as a tolerated or desirable means of communication and resolving problematic relationships and unwanted social encounters (Freedman et al., 2016; Hess, 2003; Huntley & Owens, 2013).

It would be worthwhile to make ostracism a central part of discussions in schools to explain how organizations regulate systematic disrespectful violations (e.g., not greeting, manifesting that someone’s presence is irrelevant, etc.) (Wiltgren, 2022), how they can improve social monitoring through long-term practices of voice and citizenship behaviors in creating more welcoming environments.

8 Summary

To explore social exclusion, we adopted theoretical framework of social interactionism and focused on the different types of strategies and means used to communicate inclusion and exclusion by the actors involved in social exchange. Although research on the communication of social exclusion, through means collectively defined as ostracism, is still in its initial stage, the work sheds more light on the uniqueness of ostracism and on the somewhat neglected theme of the multitude of methods in which ostracism is realised.

The findings offer a consistent set of categories that can be useful in identifying peer ostracism in the classroom environment. They also provide descriptions of peer behaviour that can be perceived as a form of exclusion or peer aggression; importantly, these are recognised by the perpetrators themselves. Finally, this study suggests an urgent need for further subjective exploration of the phenomenon, by allowing young people to freely describe acts of omission in peer interactions that are an important and integral part of their everyday experience.