why am i left out

8/2/2019 why am i left out

1/85

Why Am I Left Out?

Interpretations of Exclusion Affect Anti-Social and Pro-Social Behaviors

Amber DeBono

Winston-Salem State University

Mark Muraven

University at Albany, State University of New York


2/85

Abstract

Two major inconsistencies in social exclusion research have left a gap in our understanding of how

people perceive the exclusion experience. One discrepancy involves a meta-analysis that indicated

exclusion usually causes negative emotions (most notably anger and sadness), whereas another

meta-analysis determined there was no emotional impact from exclusion. Another inconsistency in

exclusion literature is that whereas multitude of studies that indicate exclusion increases aggressive

behavior, a few studies have suggested that exclusion increases pro-social behavior. Based on

these mixed findings, I proposed that when excluded individuals perceive the excluders to dislike

or disrespect them, these perceptions lead to different emotional states and that the specific

emotions of anger and sadness can lead to different behavioral responses (i.e., aggression and pro-

social behavior, respectively). Furthermore, negative emotions were predicted to be experienced

after some time was provided to process the exclusion experience. Two experiments manipulated

exclusion, reason for exclusion (dislike or disrespect), and the order the emotion measures were

administered (to allow some participants some time before reporting their emotional state).

Consistent with experimental hypotheses, Experiment 1 suggested that feeling disrespected and

angry mediated the relationship between feeling excluded and aggression. In Experiment 2, feeling

disliked and sad appeared to mediate the relationship between feelings of exclusion and pro-social

behavior. However, the idea that negative emotions would be reported after being allowed time to

process the exclusion experience was confirmed in Experiment 1, but not Experiment 2.

ii


3/85


4/85

thinking about their own eventual non-existence (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991;

Williams, 2001). Evidence suggests that all of these needs are threatened when people are socially

excluded (e.g., Jamieson, Harkins, & Williams, 2010).However, threatened needs have not led to

consistent theory of emotional or behavioral reactions to social exclusion. Perhaps the

methodologies designed to manipulate social exclusion will reveal a reason for why people can

have different emotional and behavioral responses when excluded.

Aggression and Exclusion

Consistently, research has demonstrated that exclusion leads to anti-social and relationship

damaging behaviors. For example, one experiment indicated that being ostracized online increased

aggression ((Warburton, Williams, & Cairns, 2006). In this study, the experimenter informed

participants that they were playing an internet game with two other participants, but this game was

programmed to randomly manipulate ostracism. Participants were either included in this virtual

ball-tossing game or were largely ignoredbeing left to watch the other players throw the ball to

each other. Ostracized participants were significantly more aggressive than those who were

included in the game. As compared to the average six grams of hot sauce allotted by included

participants, ostracized participants allotted an average of 27 grams more hot sauce to one of the

ostracizers who hated spicy food.

Several other experiments suggested that exclusion increases aggression towards all people

(Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Specifically, as compared to participants who were

informed that they would suffer from misfortune in the future, participants informed they would be

lonely in the future issued more negative job evaluations to someone who previously insulted

them. Thus, social exclusion may not only increase aggression against the excluders, but excluded

individuals may aggress against anyone who has previously insulted them.

4


5/85

Twenge and her colleagues conducted a follow-up experiment that indicated exclusion

increases aggression against innocent people who have no connection to the excluded individual or

the excluders (Twenge et al., 2001). Participants arrived in groups and briefly got to know one

another. Afterwards, participants were told the following: We are interested in forming groups in

which the members like and respect each other. Below, please name the two people (out of those

you met today) you would most like to work with (Twenge et al., 2001; p. 1063). Participants

who were told that they were not selected for group membership forced an innocent person

(someone who was supposedly is another experiment) to listen to louder noise than included

participants. Critically, because the excluded participants believed that the group members should

both like and respect each other, they may have made multiple attributions for their exclusion. That

is, by being told that the group members should like and respect each other, the excluded

individuals may have believed the excluders may have disliked them or not respected them.

Thus, current findings suggest that excluded individuals will attempt to harm the people

who excluded them as well as innocent third parties. However, from these results it remains

unclear how social exclusion is interpreted. This may be critical because social exclusion has not

only led to aggression, but also some pro-social responses. Thus, simply being excluded may not

completely explain the subsequent behavioral responses. That is, the exclusion experiences may

convey multiple messages to the excluded individual, which may affect the behavioral response.

Though untested in the aforementioned experiments, feeling less liked (versus less respected) from

exclusion may impact the pro-social reactions to exclusion.

Pro-Social Behaviors and Exclusion

Unlike aggression, pro-social behavior is an act in which the actor intends to benefit

another, even if the act may cost the actor (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). In addition to the

5


6/85

empirical conclusions that social exclusion leads to aggression, a few studies indicate that

exclusion decreases pro-social behaviors. For example, several experiments indicated that social

exclusion made participants less generous, less helpful, and less likely to cooperate (Twenge,

Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007)

Notably, these findings contradict some of these authors own subsequent article in which

they argue that exclusion increases kindness to others (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller,

2007). The results of several experiments indicated that as compared to included participants,

excluded participants were more interested in making new friends, had a greater desire to work

with others, formed more positive impressions of strangers, and allocated more money to strangers

from their own potential earnings. In one of these experiments, participants primed to think about a

personal social rejection were more willing to pay a $75 school fee in order to have an opportunity

join a school-sponsored program to encourage friendships among undergraduates.

In a follow-up experiment, after participants arrived in groups and briefly got to know each

other, they were informed that they needed to form groups in which members both liked and

respected each other. The experimenter told some participants that that no one wanted to work with

them and other participants that everyone wanted to work with them. In this experiment, excluded

participants rated strangers to be more attractive and sociable than included participants (Maner et

al., 2007). Their research indicated that people with a low of fear of negative evaluation reacted

more pro-socially in response to exclusion than people with a high fear of negative evaluation.

Because this was a trait measure, it still remains unclear if having little fear of being evaluated

negatively was a consequence of exclusion that impacted pro-social behavior. Thus, they did not

investigate the underlying mechanism for why exclusion leads to pro-social behavior. Like in

previous research in which exclusion could be interpreted as an indicator of disrespect or disliked

6


7/85

(Twenge et al., 2001), this increase in pro-social behaviors could be due to feeling disliked or

disrespected by the excluders.

Other research exploring rejection's effect on pro-social behaviors also

did not examine participants attributions for the exclusion. For example,

participants that were left out of an online ball-tossing game were less likely to

socially loaf and instead worked harder on a cooperative task than included participants (Williams

& Sommer, 1997). Although the excluded participants were asked Why did the others stop

throwing the ball to you? the authors did not report if participants believed they were not liked or

not respected by the other players. This piece of information could indicate that their perceptions

of why they were excluded impacted their behavioral reactions.

Overall, these studies presented some evidence that social exclusion can increase pro-social

behaviors. However, the volume of research demonstrating this effect is limitedespecially when

compared to the vast amount of research indicating that higher rates of aggression are more likely

to result from exclusion. Furthermore, like the aggression research, it unclear what mechanism

may explain why participants would act pro-socially in response to exclusion. Perhaps the key to

understanding these disparate findings lies within the mediating emotional effects.

The Emotion Debate

In addition to these inconsistent behavioral outcomes, the emotional outcomes have varied

in exclusion research. Several, but not all, social exclusion studies have found a negative emotional

impact following social exclusion experiences (e.g., Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Leary, Koch, &

Hechenbleikner, 2001; Leary et al., 2006). Other evidence suggests that ostracism causes specific

negative emotional states. For example, one study indicated that ostracism increases sadness

(Oliver, Zadro, Huon, & Williams, 2001). Another study found that participants who imagined a

7


8/85

conversation in which they were ignored were sadder than participants who imagined an inclusive

conversation (Craighead, Kimball, & Rehak, 1979). Other research found that social rejection

increases anger (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001; Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). Indeed, in two

exclusion experiments, anger mediated the relationship between social exclusion and aggressive

behavior (Chow, Tiedens, & Govan, 2008).

However, other research concluded that emotions do not mediate the relationship between social

exclusion and aggressive behavior (Twenge et al., 2001; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003).

Two meta-analyses attempted to clarify whether exclusion increases negative affect.

However, their findings only further muddied the emotion debate. The results of one meta-analysis

indicated that social exclusion leads to a more negative mood state (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009).

However, another meta-analysis concluded that exclusion led to an emotionally neutral state and

these authors deduced this to be evidence for emotional numbness (Blackhart, Knowles, Nelson, &

Baumeister, 2009) and not negative emotions. Thus, it is still unclear if social exclusion causes an

emotional impact.

Additional support for the emotional numbness hypothesis comes from a report that

exclusion decreases empathetic expressions and reduces the predicted intensity of emotional

experiences (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). As compared to included participants, excluded

participants were less likely to express empathy when other people were experiencing emotional or

physical pain. They also predicted that they would feel less happy if their team won a sporting

event and feel less sad if their team lost. Thus, excluded individuals appeared to have difficulty

understanding their own emotions after being left out.

Perhaps when individuals are provided sufficient time to process the exclusion experience,

they will begin to interpret their perceptions of the exclusion and subsequently will report

8


9/85

experiencing negative emotions. Social pain theory suggests that exclusion should cause a negative

emotional reaction (MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Indeed, Leary and MacDonald expressed that

they were perplexed by the inconsistent emotional effects in exclusion research because these

findings challenge most current theories on emotions and aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson &

Bushman, 2002). Leary suggested that the inability to find an emotional impact from social

exclusion is a methodological and measurement issue, and not evidence for emotional numbness

(see personal communication from Leary, 2007 in Gerber & Wheeler, 2009). Furthermore, several

emotion theories suggest that people need to perceive and interpret an experience before they can

label their emotional experiences (e.g., Schacter & Singer, 1962; Schacter, 1964). These theories

are also supported by evidence that social stimuli are processed in the amygdala before emotions

can be expressed (Funayama, Grillon, Davis, & Phelps, 2001; Phelps, OConnor, Gatenby, Gore,

Grillon, & Davis, 2001). Thus, early assessments of emotion may lead to null effects because

excluded people have not yet deciphered their initial emotional state. Perhaps, they are shocked by

the experience and are still interpreting what the excluders were communicating. Clearly, further

investigation is needed to determine whether social exclusion impacts emotional states and if so,

how these emotions impact ultimate behaviors.

Evidently, there are two major debates in social exclusion research. In one debate, whether

exclusion increases negative emotions is still unclear. Also, whether exclusion increases aggressive

or pro-social behaviors leaves a gap in our understanding of reactions to social exclusion. The

underlying reason for why a person is excluded has been a neglected topic in exclusion research.

Thus, the message communicated by the excluders may be crucial to understand the emotional and

behavioral effects of social exclusion.

Interpretations of Exclusion

9


10/85

As implied by several emotion theories, before the excluded person feels an emotional

impact or a desire to react (in either a pro-social or anti-social way), the exclusion experience may

need to be perceived and interpreted (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Cannon, 1927; Hoffman, 1975;

James, 1884; Krebs, 1975; Schacter & Singer, 1962). For most people, social exclusion is a rare

occurrence, and there are many reasons why a person may be excluded. The exclusion may

initially be quite shocking and by taking the time to process what the excluders were

communicating to them, they may be able to label their emotional state. Thus, this could explain

why some research found no significant emotional impact from exclusion. These perceptions may

be important in understanding the relationship between exclusion and subsequent reactions.

Indeed, one study found that perceptions of social exclusion impacted both emotional and

behavioral reactions. Specifically, participants that perceived exclusion as unfair were angrier than

fairly excluded participants (Chow et al., 2008). Unfairly excluded men were told that they were

not chosen because guys arent team players and women were told that girls arent good at

computer games or dodge ball. Their analyses indicated that anger mediated the relationship

between perceiving exclusion as unfair and aggressive behavior. Thus, the way people are rejected

may determine the subsequent behaviors.

This investigation into exclusion as unfair is one of a few studies exploring perceptions of

exclusion. Perhaps, these perceptions merit a closer examination. As expected, excluded

participants often perceive they are less accepted and included than control or included participants

(e.g., Carter-Sowell, Chen, & Williams, 2008; Wirth & Williams, 2009; Zadro et al., 2004).

However, the message communicated by social exclusion may be more complex than feeling part

of the group or not. Several studies concluded that excluded people perceived they were excluded

because they were not well-liked (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Leary & Baumeister, 2000).

10


11/85

Thus, being left out can communicate multiple messages to the excluded individual: you are not

accepted, you are not included, and you are not liked by us.

Furthermore, exclusion may additionally inform people that they are not respected by the

excluders. Several experiments demonstrated that participants excluded in a game of Cyberball felt

more disrespected by the excluders than included participants (DeBono & Muraven, in review).

Also, when the excluded participants were provided feedback that the rejecters did not respect

them, they were more aggressive than included or respectfully excluded participants. Additional

research corroborates the notion that feeling disrespected may increase aggression. For example,

men who were insulted and disrespected became more angry and aggressive than men in control

conditions (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996). Further research suggests that being

respected is an important aspect of being accepted by social groups (de Cremer, 2002; de Cremer

& Tyler, 2005). In one experiment, exclusion was manipulated by informing participants that their

personality was either the same or different from the personality types of the other group members

(de Cremer, 2002). People who were respected, but marginalized from the group based on the

personality feedback, were more likely to contribute financially to the group as compared to

included group members. Furthermore, de Cremer and Tyler (2005) found that disrespected people

with a high need to belong were less likely to cooperate than respected individuals with a high

need to belong. Combined, these studies suggest that whether people perceive the excluders to be

respecting them may lead to different emotional and behavioral responses. Indeed, if disrespect

leads to anger, this may explain why exclusion, if excluded people feel disrespected by the

excluders, can lead to aggression.

Of course, the concepts of dislike and disrespect are not completely unrelated because both

being disliked and disrespected require a negative appraisal or evaluation (Benditt, 2008;

11


12/85

Gawronski & Walther, 2008). But, they may be distinct concepts because the information

conveyed by disrespecting or disliking another is quite different. For example, some have proposed

that being disliked is displayed by a lack of fondness or enjoyment of another, whereas being

disrespected would be seen as a lack of regard or consideration (Wojciszke, Abele, & Baryla,

2009). Conversely, perceiving a person to be warm would indicate a well-liked person, whereas

perceiving competence indicates a respected person (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010;

Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999). Thus, according to these definitions, one could be disliked, but

respected and vice versa.

Believing that the excluders either dislike or do not respect the excluded individual may

impact the emotions experienced. That is, excluded individuals need to answer the questionwhy

am I being excluded? After coming to a response to this question, they may be able to report

specific negative emotions. Thus, once excluded individuals perceive the excluders to be

disrespecting or disliking them, the emotional numbness effect may subside and the negative

emotions found in some research (e.g., Chow et al., 2008; Leary et al., 2006) may come to fruition.

But which negative emotions should excluded people experience? Perhaps, these emotions depend

on whether excluded individuals believe they are disliked or disrespected by the excluders.

Dislike Increases Sadness and Pro-social Behavior. Several studies provide evidence

that links exist between exclusion, feeling disliked, and sadness. In one study, when participants

recalled events when they felt their relationship with another was unimportant, participants tended

to report that their feelings were hurt (Buckley et al., 2004; Snapp & Leary, 2001). Similarly,

another study found that people who recalled times when their feelings were hurt also tended to

recall times when they were rejected or betrayed by another (Vangelesti, Young, Carpenter-

Theune, & Alexander, 2005). Furthermore, some evidence suggests that feeling disliked puts

12


13/85

people in a bad mood (Curtis & Miller, 1986) and increases sadness (Oldehinkel, Rosmaen,

Veenstra, Dijkstra, & Ormel, 2007). Another study found that participants who described an

unwanted separation often reported that they experienced sadness (Ayduk, Downey, & Kim,

2001). Thus, if people believe they are being left out because they are not liked, they should

experience a negative emotional state characterized by sadness.

Other theories propose that sadness is likely to increase acts of kindness. For example,

Eisenberg and her colleagues (1992) suggested that people prone to sadness are more sympathetic

and better able to respond to others needs. Hoffman (1998) further proposed that, developmentally

speaking, pro-social behaviors emerge after learning empathy. Indeed, a child study found that sad

children were more likely to express empathy whereas angry children were less likely to be

empathetic (Rothbart, Ahardi, & Hershey, 1994). These pro-social behaviors may be critical

toward being re-included because pro-social behaviors were related to greater likeability (Denham,

McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt, 1990). Thus, when an excluded individual feels disliked, they may

experience sadness, which may result in more pro-social reactions. Indeed, this would be an

adaptive reaction to social exclusion.

Disrespect Increases Anger and Aggression. Much empirical evidence and theories on

anger and aggression suggest a strong link between feeling excluded, disrespected, and angry.Pre-

vious research indicated that in addition to feeling disliked, excluded participants also felt more

disrespected (DeBono & Muraven, in review).In contrast to being disliked, feeling disrespected

appears to increase hostility, anger, and aggressive behaviors (Cohen et al., 1996; Butler &

Maruna, 2009; Greenberg, 1993). According to one emotion theory, insult is the primary cause of

anger (Lazarus, 1991), which is empirically supported by research indicating that a single insult is

a sufficient justification for violence (Butler & Maruna, 2009). Furthermore, de Cremer and Tyler

13


14/85

(2005) found that disrespected participants who were salient of their need to belong felt less posi-

tive emotions than respected individuals. Also, research indicates that people who easily infer dis-

respect from the actions of others also have higher levels of anger and aggression (Dodge &

Somberg 1987; Graham & Hudley 1994). Indeed, anger also conveys a powerful signal to the in-

sulter. Averill (1983) proposed that when insulted people can convince the insulter that they are

angry, they may also convince the insulters to rectify their disrespectful actions.

Resolving the Emotional and Behavioral Inconsistencies

Therefore, whether excluded individuals interpret the exclusion experience as an indicator

that they are disliked or disrespected, excluded people should eventually experience a more

negative mood than included people. Although there is strong empirical evidence that suggests

anger may mediate the relationship between feeling disrespected and aggression and sadness may

mediate the relationship between feeling disliked and pro-social behavior, these relationships may

only be revealed if negative emotions are able to be reported following an exclusion experience.

According to the emotional numbness hypothesis, emotions related to anger and sadness are not

typically experienced by the socially excluded, but rather that they experience shock and are

unable to report negative emotions. Thus, if the emotional numbness hypothesis is correct in that

shock and a lack of emotion is experienced after exclusion, these mediators may not be revealed.

Because previous research has demonstrated that feeling disrespected is associated with

anger (Cohen et al., 1996), which is strongly predictive of aggression (Anderson & Bushman,

2002), the mediation of anger might only be revealed when time is allowed to interpret the

exclusion. Likewise, the idea that sadness might mediate the relationship between feeling disliked

from exclusion and pro-social behavior may only occur if time is provided to process the exclusion

experience. Because time may be required to process the unusual experience of exclusion in order

14


15/85

to report a negative emotional state, it will be critical to examine if allowing time to pass after

being excluded can result in reporting negative emotions.

After allowing people to time decipher their internal state (Anderson & Bushman, 2002),

people who believe they are excluded because they are not respected should become angry (Cohen

et al., 1996). This anger should transfer to behavioral tendencies to be more aggressive (Anderson

& Bushman, 2002). In contrast, those who believe they are excluded because they are disliked

should become sadder and this sadness may increase pro-social tendencies (Eisenberg et al., 1992;

Oldehinkel et al., 2007; Rothbart et al., 1994). These effects should be specific to excluded, but not

included individuals. Because anger and sadness are highly correlated (e.g., Isen, 1990), path

analyses and hierarchical regression will need to be conducted to assess the unique effects of anger

and sadness on both aggression and pro-social behavior.

Hypotheses

Hence, these inconsistencies in the exclusion literature led to the development of several

hypotheses. First, as shown in Figure 1, social exclusion should result in negative emotions, but

only after being allowed time to process the exclusion experience. Thus, when emotions are

measured immediately after exclusion, excluded participants may not report negative emotions as

much as when they are provided time to examine their internal state. Second, as indicated in Figure

2, social exclusion may result in two interpretationsexcluded people may believe that the

excluders either do not like or do not respect them. To the extent that people feel disrespected from

the exclusion, they should become angry and subsequently aggressive. On the other hand, to the

extent that people feel disliked as a result of feeling excluded, they should experience emotions

15


16/85

related to sadness which should result in pro-social behaviors. Thus, the interpretations of the

exclusion experience as an indicator that excluded individuals are disliked or disrespected should

be critical in how they respond both emotionally and behaviorally.

Research Overview

In two experiments, participants were included or excluded by a group of other participants

(similar to the exclusion manipulation utilized by Leary, Tambor, Terdal & Downs, 1995). Some

participants were allowed to come to their own conclusions for why they were being excluded

whereas others were provided a reason for the exclusion. Specifically, bogus feedback informed

some participants that they were not respected or not liked by the excluders. This manipulation was

designed to convince excluded individuals to believe that they were not respected or liked by the

excluders. As a comparison, other participants were included by the group. After the exclusion

manipulation, participants responded to manipulation checks to assess how excluded, disrespected,

and disliked participants felt as a result of their experimental condition. Also, they responded to

mood measures specifically targeted to measure sadness and anger as potential mediators. For

some participants, they reported their emotions immediately afterward and others were given more

time to process their emotional state. In Experiment 1, the dependent variable was aggression and

in Experiment 2 it was pro-social behavior. When socially excluded people believed that they were

not respected, they became angry and ultimately reacted with aggression (i.e., behave anti-

socially). In contrast, when people were excluded because they were disliked, they experienced

emotions related to sadness and this sadness resulted in reactions to establish and promote new

relationships (i.e., behave pro-socially).

Experiment 1

Method

16


17/85

Participants and Design

A total of 136 undergraduates (78 men; 58 women) from the University at Albany

participated in this experiment, but three of these participants were excluded from the analyses

because they guessed the hypothesis of the experiment. A power analysis indicated that this sample

size should have been more than enough participants given the effect sizes observed in prior

studies (e.g., Twenge et al., 2001). A pilot study suggested that the effect sizes from feeling

disliked and disrespected when socially excluded were large, Cohens d= 1.10 and 1.61

respectively. Also, feeling disrespected had a strong effect on anger, Cohensf2 = .23 and anger

had a moderate effect on aggression, Cohensf

2

= .16. Using Klines (1998) recommendation of 10

participants per path in path model analyses, this sample size was also adequate for conducting

mediation analyses required for testing the proposed hypotheses.

Participants signed up for a one hour experiment purported to investigate group

communication. They were randomly assigned to one of four primary experimental conditions:

exclusion due to a lack of respect, exclusion due to not liking the participant, exclusion without

feedback, or inclusion without feedback. Also, participants either responded to mood measures

immediately after being excluded (or included) or after answering other sets of questionnaires.

Feeling disrespected from exclusion should mediate the relationship between feeling excluded and

anger. Anger was measured as a potential mediator between perceiving disrespect from the

exclusion and the dependent variable aggression.

Measures

Feelings of Exclusion Measure. To assess feelings of exclusion, two items were

administered to participants following the exclusion manipulation: I feel included by the other

participants and I feel excluded by the other participants. These two items which were

17


18/85

negatively correlated, r= -.64,p < .001. The item about inclusion was reverse scored and summed

with the exclusion item to create a composite score for feelings of exclusion.

Feeling Disrespected and Disliked Measures. The 26 items displayed in Appendix A

were designed to assess how disrespected and disliked they felt after being excluded or included.

Previously, these scales had demonstrated acceptable reliability, yielding a Cronbachs of .89

and .92 respectively (DeBono & Muraven, in review). These items were rated on a 7-point scale

from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much). For this experiment, the disrespect and dislike measures were

reliable again, Cronbachs = .91 and .88 respectively. The feelings of disrespect and dislike

scales were moderately correlated with each other, r= .56,p < .001.

Positive and negative affect scale (PANAS-X; Watson & Clark, 1994). The PANAS is a

60-item measure of both positive and negative affect. Participants were asked to respond on a 5-

point scale to items such as sad and angry by indicating the extent to which they felt that way right

now. In addition to the 20 items that measure positive and negative affect, the hostility/anger and

sadness subscales were administered to participants. Among samples of college students, adults,

and psychiatric patients, the following are the median reliability coefficients for each subscale:

Hostility/Anger = .85 and Sadness = .87. For this experiment, the negative affect, sadness,

and hostility scales were all reliable: Cronbachs = .84, .87, and .86 respectively.

Aggression measure (Lieberman et al., 1999). To assess aggressive behavior, participants

were allowed to assign minutes of math or art work to the other (phony) participants who hated

math, but loved art (see Appendix B). This version of the hot sauce task has been utilized in

previous research (DeBono & Muraven, in review) and in the present experiment, the amount of

minutes assigned for algebra, basic math, and statistics, also had acceptable reliability, Cronbachs

= .77. The minutes assigned for the art work items also had an acceptable reliability, Cronbachs

18


19/85

= .76. However, the minutes of math work assigned are the critical part of this aggression

measure. The amount of math work assigned was positively correlated with trait aggression, r= .

25,p = .004, and with a desire to get back at the other (phony) participants, r= .47,p < .001.

Aggression was not significantly correlated with usage of the Work Preference Questionnaire, r=

-.09,p = .32. This may mean that aggressive participants disregarded the other (phony)

participants preferences. Overall, these correlations indicated that deciding how much math work

to give to people who hate math was a valid measure aggression.

Materials and Procedure

Upon arrival to the laboratory, the experimenter asked participants for their name and

escorted them in a laboratory room. Participants were informed that three other participants were in

the other laboratory rooms. For female participants, they were told that these participants were

women and for male participants, they were told that the participants were men. In reality, no other

participants were working with the participants enrolled in the study. Although the experimenter

pretended at times to check in on the bogus participants, there were no actual people or

confederates utilized in this experiment. To begin, participants completed a Work Preference

Questionnaire (see Appendix B) to assess how much they liked different academic topics on a 10-

point scale (similar to the aggression measure developed in Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg, &

McGregor, 1999). These inventories were utilized later for the aggression measure. The

experimenter pretended to gather the inventories from the other phony participants as well. This

included walking down the hallway to the other rooms and waiting two minutes before re-entering

the participants room.

To begin the social exclusion manipulation, the experimenter instructed participants to

write a brief description about themselves and how they spend their time. After the experimenter

19


20/85

pretended give the same instructions to the phony participants about this task, the experimenter

returned with copies of phony descriptions from the bogus participants written in female writing

for women and male writing for men. The experimenter presented participants with these three

descriptions: Im a student here at Albany and I work on-campus. I like to spend my time hanging

out with friends., When Im not in class or working here at school, my time is spent having fun

with my friends., and Im from NY and I like to hang out and play different sports on the

weekends with friends. These descriptions were pre-tested in a pilot study and were written

purposely to be similar and vague so that participants would not favor one participant over another.

After reading these descriptions, the experimenter asked participants to write down who

they would want to work with the most on a future task and who they would want to work with the

least. The experimenter stated, Please make your decision while I check in with the other

participants. The experimenter returned two minutes later, collected the participants answers and

pretended to collect the others responses. Two minutes later, the participants were randomly

assigned to one of four conditions. In the inclusion condition, participants were told that all three

of the other (phony) participants wanted to work with them. For the exclusion condition without

any provided feedback, participants were told that none of the other (phony) participants wanted to

work with them. Participants assigned to receive a reason for their exclusion were informed by the

experimenter why no one wanted to work with them. Specifically, participants who were

disrespectfully excluded were told the following: I spoke with the other participants and they all

said that they didnt want to work with you because they didnt respect you. Participants assigned

to the disliking exclusion condition were told, I spoke with the other participants and they all said

that they didnt want to work with you because they didnt like you.

20


21/85

Afterwards, the experimenter informed all participants that the study was designed to

examine communication with group members who both want and do not want to work together, so

they would have to work on the rest of the experiment alone. Participants responded to several

questionnaires including a manipulation check for the effectiveness of the exclusion and

respect/like manipulations and two open-ended questions: What do you think about who the other

participants wanted to work with? and What do you think the other participants are like?

Participants emotional state was assessed with the Positive and Negative Affective Schedule

(PANAS; see Measuressection). To determine if allowing time for participants to interpret the

exclusion experience and subsequently gauge their emotional state, participants either initially

responded to the PANAS or the manipulation checks and open-ended questions. Participants who

responded to the manipulation checks and open-ended questions first had five more minutes to

process the exclusion experience than participants who responded to the PANAS first.

Following these questions (approximately 10 minutes after the end of the exclusion

manipulation), all participants aggression was measured using a math version (see Appendix C) of

the hot sauce allocation method (DeBono & Muraven, in review; Lieberman et al., 1999). The

experimenter asked all participants to help decide what kind of task the other (phony) participants

would work on for the duration of the experiment. Upon agreeing (all participants agreed), they

were given a sheet with various math (basic math, statistical problems, and algebra) and art

(coloring, clay work, and painting) tasks with the numbers zero to 10 listed underneath. The

experimenter presented participants with three Work Preferences Questionnaires (see Appendix B)

from the other phony participants that indicated they hated math (i.e., circled the numbers 1, 2 or 3

on 10-point scale) and loved art (i.e., circled 8, 9 or 10 on 10-point scale). Participants were told

that that the other (phony) participants needed to work on a task for the next thirty minutes and it

21


22/85

was the participants choice to decide how that time was spent. The choice was completely up to

the participants; participants were permitted to assign as few or as many minutes to any of the six

tasks as long as the total amounted to 30 minutes. To assess if participants intended to hurt the

excluders with the assigned math work, they responded to the following items: I assigned the

amount of math work in order to get back at them. and To what extent did you use the Work

Preference Inventories? after making the assignment. Lastly, participants responded to the short

version of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). Before leaving, participants were

probed for suspicion through answering the following questions: What did you think the

experiment was about?, What did you think about the other participants? and How did you

decide how much math work the other participants had to do?. As previously mentioned, three

participants guessed the experimental hypotheses when responding to these questions and their

data were not included in the analyses. Afterwards, all participants were debriefed, asked if they

were experiencing any negative emotions, provided contact information for mental health

professionals, and given credit for their participation. No participants reported feeling negative

emotions prior to leaving the laboratory.

Results

Effectiveness of Exclusion Manipulation

First, the exclusion manipulation was tested for its effectiveness. As compared to included

participants, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that participants in the three

excluded groups felt more excluded than the included group based on their responses to the

22


23/85

manipulation check questionnaire,F(1, 131) = 119.79, p < .001 (see all means and standard

deviations in Table 1). This suggests that the exclusion manipulation was an effective way to

manipulate feelings of exclusion.

Next, several t-tests were conducted to assess the effectiveness of the dislike and disrespect

feedback. Although excluded participants who were told they were disrespected felt more

disrespected than excluded participants who were not provided a reason for their exclusion, this

difference was not significant, t(129) = 1.52,p = .13. Disliked participants reported feeling more

disliked than those that were not given a reason for the exclusion, but this difference also did not

reach significance t(129) = 1.44,p = .15. These results indicate that the disrespect and dislike

feedback may not have significantly convinced excluded individuals that the excluders either did

not respect or dislike them. Because the excluded groups similarly felt disrespected and disliked

from the exclusion experience, as well as the primary interest of these studies being the perceptions

of the exclusion, the subsequent analyses will focus on the self-reports on feelings of exclusion,

disrespect, and dislike, instead of the manipulations of these concepts.

Due to the moderate correlation between the feeling disliked and disrespected scales, a

MANOVA was performed to analyze the effect of exclusion on both feeling disliked and

disrespected. This analysis revealed that excluded participants felt more disrespected,F(1, 131) =

46.40,p < .001, and disliked by the excluders,F(1, 131) = 32.13,p < .001. That is, as compared to

included participants, excluded participants felt more disliked and disrespected.

Test of the Negative Emotion Hypothesis

Next, to test the hypothesis that excluded people will report more negative emotions if they

are provided time to process the exclusion experience, a 2 (early vs. late emotion assessment) x 4

(exclusion condition) ANOVA indicated an interaction among the experimental groups for

23


24/85

negative emotion (see Figure 3),F(3, 130) = 2.45,p = .07. A follow-up planned contrast revealed

that for participants who had the PANAS administered after the manipulation checks, excluded

participants reported a more negative mood than included participants, t(63) = 2.33,p = .02. This

difference was not significant if mood was assessed immediately after the exclusion experience, t

Documents

why am i left out