Introduction

Social exclusion, or the experience of being ostracized or rejected, is extensively researched in social psychology. This pervasive social punishment affects mood, psychosocial needs, and behavior. Most experimental studies utilize one of three manipulations, but few studies compare these methodologies, thereby making it impossible to assess the differences between types of social exclusion. The current research features a 3 (manipulation) x 2 (inclusion/exclusion) design to understand how different types of social exclusion impact positive affect, negative affect, and threats to psychosocial need. Evidence for two competing theories regarding the mechanisms behind social exclusion are also discussed.

Model of Ostracism

Social exclusion prevents individuals from satisfying the fundamental psychological needs, thus resulting in worsened mood and hurt feelings, as well as behavior designed to repair and maintain the self (Williams & Sommer, 1997)

Mood Numbness Hypothesis

Social exclusion causes a numbing of affect, that is neither positive nor negative. This “deconstructed state” is defined by disordered time perception, lack of meaningful existence, lethargy, lack of emotion, and an escape from self-awareness (Twenge, Cantanese, & Baumeister, 2003).

---

Current Research

Ostracism: “Being ignored and excluded, and often occurs without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention” (Williams, 2007, p 429). The current induction features a Flash version of Cyberball wherein participants are passively excluded from a ball-tossing game with two online confederates (www.charisselpree.com/flash-cyberball)

Rejection: “A declaration by an individual or group that they do not (or no longer) want to interact or be in the company of the individual.” (Williams, 2007, p 429). The current induction informs participants that they were not chosen by online confederates.

A Future Alone: (i.e. hypothetical long-term social exclusion): “Being excluded, alone, or isolated, sometimes with explicit declarations of dislike, but other times not.” (Williams, 2007, p 429). The current induction informs participants that, due to their personality type, they will spend a future alone, devoid of meaningful social relationships.

Methods

N = 346 undergraduate students (American-Born, primary English speakers aged 18-28) (M_Age = 20.05; 73.4% Female; 44.8% White, 5.2% Black, 26.9% Asian, 11.0% Latino, 7.5% Other)

• Demographics: Gender, Race, Age, Online Behaviors
• Self-Esteem (Rosenberg 1965); Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, et al., 2003)
• Exclusion/Acceptance Manipulation
• 12-item Positive Affect, Negative Affect and Threats to Psychosocial Needs

Results

NOTE: Click on any of the images to enlarge.

Across all manipulation types, excluded participants reported significantly lower positive affect, greater negative affect and greater threats to psychosocial needs.

• No significant evidence for the Model of Ostracism: Regression analyses revealed that threats to psychosocial needs did not mediate effect of exclusion on Mood
• No significant evidence for Mood Numbness: One sample t-Tests revealed that responses from excluded participants were significantly different from neutral midpoint on Positive Affect (p = .023), Negative Affect (p < .001), and Psychosocial Needs (p < .001); when compared to no-manipulation pilot sample, effect sizes were smaller, but still significant.

Results By Manipulation