The straw that broke the camel's back: How attributions and a mental tipping point shape lived reactions to subtle workplace exclusion

Receivers tend to react in a variety of ways to subtle workplace exclusion, but after fifteen years of research, it is still unclear when receivers react in which way, and why. To address this question, we interviewed receivers about their lived experiences. In contrast to the assumption in the field that receivers know they are excluded, we found that receivers initially struggled with attributional ambiguity. In questioning their own perception and role, receivers responded prosocially to repair the relationship. If that failed or drained them, receivers started withdrawing. Eventually, receivers’ attributional ambiguity is resolved, and they enter the phase of attributional clarity, shifting to external attributions only. We label the specific moment when attribution ambiguity is resolved the ‘mental tipping point’. The mental tipping point is accompanied by a shift in reactions. If receivers aim to restore justice, they react by calling out; if they deem that unfruitful, they resign. Three triggers enabled the occurrence of the mental tipping point: accumulation of exclusion incidents, social comparison, and external nudges. We integrate and visualize our findings in the Subtle Workplace Exclusion Attribution and Reaction (SWEAR) model. Our study integrates and advances theory on subtle workplace exclusion and attributions and offers an agenda for research to better understand and manage it.