Choice availability and incentive structure determine how people cope with ostracism

People vary greatly in their responses to being ignored and excluded by others (i.e., ostracism). Based on previous research, responses to ostracism are typically classified as prosocial, antisocial, and withdrawal behavior. However, studying these behaviors in isolation can limit our understanding of the decision-making process behind these behaviors. Offering multiple response options provides deeper insights into response preferences. Additionally, using a cost-benefit approach to assess behavioral outcomes provides a useful framework for understanding response preferences beyond the mere availability of choices. In five pre-registered experiments (total N = 2145), we manipulated the availability of choice options and incentive structure of different behavioral responses towards the source of ostracism. Our findings reveal that when all options were equally non-costly, ostracized individuals preferred prosocial behaviors (Studies 1–3). When withdrawal offered solitude rather than inactivity, it became just as likely as prosocial responses (Study 4). Despite the potential risk of losing future rewards, withdrawal even became the dominant choice when prosocial and antisocial options incurred immediate costs (Study 5). These findings show how experimental changes can shift the perceived meaning of responses. Overall, our work highlights the importance of considering both choice variety and a cost-benefit framework in understanding coping behaviors in social exclusion research. • Choice options and incentives significantly alter preferred responses to ostracism. • Prosocial responses dominate when options are non-costly. • Withdrawal increases when seen as solitude seeking and favored when rewarding. • Though often the primary subject of research, antisocial responses are least common. • Contrary to prevailing theories, responses to ostracism are flexible and dynamic.