Download Stuck in a moment and you cannot get out of it: The lingering effects

Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 39–43
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Stuck in a moment and you cannot get out of it: The lingering effects
of ostracism on cognition and satisfaction of basic needs q
Melissa T. Buelow a,⇑, Bradley M. Okdie a, Amy B. Brunell b, Zina Trost c
a
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University Newark, 1179 University Drive, Newark, OH 43055, USA
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University Mansfield, 1760 University Drive, Mansfield, OH 44906, USA
c
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76203, USA
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 15 July 2014
Received in revised form 24 November 2014
Accepted 25 November 2014
Keywords:
Ostracism
Fundamental needs
Decision making
Cognition
Working memory
a b s t r a c t
Ostracism negatively affects fundamental needs and may impair some cognitive functions. The present
study examined: (1) the duration of ostracism’s negative effects on fundamental needs, and (2) its
associated effects on higher-order cognitive abilities. Participants were randomly assigned to be included
or ostracized on Cyberball, and completed three assessments of fundamental needs over the course of
45–55 min, as well as measures of working memory, decision making, and task persistence. Results indicated significant decreases in fundamental needs immediately following ostracism and the persistence of
these effects past the reflexive stage. Additionally, ostracism impaired working memory, decision making,
and task persistence (but not basic attention). These results suggest that the negative effects of ostracism
can last longer than a few minutes and affect executive functions, suggesting the need to examine downstream consequences of ostracism.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Humans are social beings and have a fundamental need to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The negative effects of being ostracized
are pervasive, indicating social inclusion is necessary for healthy
psychological functioning (Williams, 2007). Much research has
investigated how the experience of being ignored and excluded
(i.e., ostracism; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; Williams & Nida,
2011) negatively affects emotional and mental health. However,
few have assessed the temporal stability of these effects on basic
needs and executive functions, which are the higher-order cognitive
abilities associated with frontal lobe functioning (Lezak, Howieson,
& Loring, 2004). The present study sought to examine the duration
of the effects of a single ostracism event on these factors.
1.1. Temporal effects of ostracism
Previous research suggests that individuals respond to ostracizing events in three stages (Williams, 2009). The Reflexive stage
includes immediate reactions to ostracism, during which pain is
experienced and the ostracism experience is thought to threaten
q
Author note: We thank Jim Wirth for his feedback on an earlier draft of this
manuscript.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (740) 755 7808; fax: +1 (740) 366 5047.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.T. Buelow).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.051
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
four fundamental psychological needs: belonging (forming lasting
social relationships), self-esteem, control (belief in your ability to
change your situation), and meaningful existence (belief your life
has meaning). Individuals report decreases in these fundamental
needs even after brief experiences of ostracism (Jamieson,
Harkins, & Williams, 2010; Lau, Moulds, & Richardson, 2009; van
Beest & Williams, 2006). Negative emotions are also experienced
(Chow, Tiedens, & Govan, 2008; Legate, DeHaan, Weinstein, &
Ryan, 2013). Thus, it is clear that there is an immediate pervasive
negative reaction to ostracism.
The second stage is the Reflective stage, during which coping
skills are employed to process ostracism (Williams, 2009). To date,
only three studies have examined temporal effects outside the
reflexive stage. These studies indicate that continued self-focus can
prolong the effects of ostracism (Sethi, Moulds, & Richardson,
2013), and the arousal associated with ostracism dissipates slowly
(Kelly, McDonald, & Rushby, 2012). Still other research indicates
ostracism’s effects diminish over time (Lau et al., 2009). In each of
these cases, a second assessment of fundamental needs occurred
within 10 min of the initial ostracizing event, leaving questions
about the time course and duration of ostracism’s effect unanswered.
Even fewer studies have examined ostracism’s effect during the
final (Resignation) stage, during which coping resources are
depleted and individuals become resigned to their ostracized state.
Zadro and colleagues (2006) examined socially anxious individuals,
finding increased levels of need threat 45 min after ostracism
40
M.T. Buelow et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 39–43
(during the Resignation stage). This finding suggests that ostracism’s effects have the potential to negatively affect cognition well
after an ostracizing event takes place. If fundamental needs are still
affected after 45 min, then other actions taking place during the
interim, such as tasks requiring cognitive abilities, may also be
affected. Thus, it is clear that ostracism has strong negative consequences; however, the temporal stability of these effects is still
unclear as is their effect on cognitive outcomes.
participated in the study for partial course credit. No inclusion or
exclusion criteria were utilized. Eight participants reported a history of depression or anxiety (five in the inclusion group, three in
the ostracism group). Most (64%) self-identified as Caucasian, and
55% were female. A computer malfunction caused the loss of some
participant demographic data (n = 9).
1.2. Ostracism and executive functions
2.2.1. Cyberball
To induce feelings of social ostracism or inclusion, all participants played Cyberball, a virtual ball toss game (Williams et al.,
2000). Cyberball has been used to induce a state of ostracism in
over 175 studies, with results similar to those of non-Cyberball
ostracism manipulations (e.g., Claypool & Bernstein, 2014; see
Williams & Jarvis, 2006, or Williams & Nida, 2011, for review). Participants were informed that they would be playing the game with
two other players over the Internet, and were asked to visualize
themselves, the situation, and the other players. If the ball was
thrown to them, they were instructed to click on the player they
chose to toss the ball to next. A total of 30 tosses were made, lasting approximately 2 min. Participants were randomly assigned to
an inclusion (n = 38) or ostracism (n = 36) condition. Those in the
inclusion condition received the ball about 33% of the time, while
those in the ostracism condition received the ball once from each
player at the start of the game and never again.
If ostracism effects persist over time, then the potential for
downstream consequences increases. One area where these consequences might emerge is on measures of executive functions, which
include higher-order cognitive processes such as working memory,
planning, organization, and decision making (Lezak et al., 2004).
Several brain areas linked to executive functions have been associated with the experience of ostracism. Intact executive functions
are important for the completion of many daily activities and have
been linked to frontal lobe functioning (Lezak et al., 2004). Based on
previous neuroimaging studies, these cognitive abilities may be
especially affected following an ostracizing experience.
Neuroimaging research indicates increased activation during
experiences of ostracism in the anterior and posterior cingulate
cortex, medial frontal cortex, and prefrontal cortex (Baird, Silver,
& Veague, 2010; Campbell et al., 2006; Eisenberger, Lieberman, &
Williams, 2003; Kross, Egner, Ochsner, Hirsch, & Downey, 2007).
Although neuroimaging research links brain areas associated with
executive functions to the experience of ostracism, only a few studies have directly examined performance on executive function
measures following ostracism. These studies found decreased performance on word search tasks (Lustenberger & Jagacinski, 2010)
and worse attention/working memory among adolescent females
(Hawes et al., 2012) immediately following ostracism. To date, no
studies have utilized validated neuropsychological measures of
executive functions in adult participants. Thus, research examining
how ostracism affects other executive functions, such as working
memory and decision making, is still needed.
The use of behavioral measures to corroborate neuroimaging
results is necessary as convergent evidence between neuroimaging
and cognitive and behavioral assessments is not always found
(e.g., Galton, Patterson, Xuereb, & Hodges, 2000) and when combined can increase predictive utility (e.g., Peters, Villeneuve, &
Belleville, 2014). Thus, it is not clear whether the frontal lobe activation changes reported in neuroimaging studies correlate with
impaired performance on formal executive function measures
associated with everyday cognition.
1.3. The present study
The aims of the present study were twofold: (1) to examine the
extent to which the negative effects of a single experience of ostracism on fundamental needs persist past the reflexive stage, and (2)
to examine the effects of ostracism on some executive functions
using validated neuropsychological measures. We hypothesized
that the effects of ostracism would last past the reflexive stage.
Based on previous neuroimaging research, we hypothesized that
ostracism would decrease performance on measures of attention,
working memory, and decision making.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Seventy-four undergraduate students (ages 18–38, Mage = 19.50
[SD = 3.09]) at a regional campus of a large Midwestern university
2.2. Measures and manipulation
2.2.2. Response to ostracism
The 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS;
Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) and the Cyberball-specific Need
Threat measure (Van Beest & Williams, 2006) assessed how participants currently felt. On the PANAS, responses to the positive and
negative state mood items were averaged separately, with higher
scores indicating greater levels of positive/negative mood (internal
consistency: a = .89–.91). The Need Threat measure assesses
threats to four basic fundamental needs: belonging, self-esteem,
control, and meaningful existence. Higher total scores on each subscale indicate higher levels of the measured need (internal consistency: a = .68–.83).
2.2.3. Outcome measures
Neuroimaging research has shown that the anterior cingulate
cortex and prefrontal cortex are affected following an ostracizing
experience. In order to assess the brain regions utilizing neuropsychological measures, we administered tests of working memory
(linked with the anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex) and decision making (prefrontal cortex) (Lezak et al., 2004). A measure of
task persistence was included to measure frontal/executive systems more generally.
Working memory was assessed with the Digit Span subtest from
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008).
Participants repeat increasingly lengthy strings of digits in the same
order (Forwards), reversed (Backwards), and in numerical order
(Sequencing). The longest successful digit span on each section
was used to determine performance on this task (Wechsler, 2008).
Performance on Digit Span Forwards assesses basic attention,
whereas Digit Span Backwards and Sequencing assess working
memory and mental manipulation (Lezak et al., 2004; Wechsler,
2008). The WAIS-IV Technical Manual (Wechsler, 2008) summarizes
previous research indicating greater working memory demands
during Backwards and Sequencing compared to Forwards. However,
there are known correlations between Digit Span performance more
generally and the Verbal Comprehension Index (Wechsler, 2008),
likely due to the verbal and auditory nature of the task.
Decision making was assessed with the Iowa Gambling Task
(IGT; Bechara, 2008; Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson,
41
M.T. Buelow et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 39–43
1994). The standard, 100-trial IGT was administered. During the
task, participants select cards one at a time, earning money and
sometimes also losing money. Decks A and B have high immediate
rewards but long-term negative outcomes, whereas Decks C and D
have lower immediate rewards but long-term positive outcomes.
In addition, Decks A and C experience losses on 50% of trials while
Decks B and D experience losses on only 10% of trials (for additional information, see Bechara, 2008). The percent selections from
each individual deck were examined for the first 40 (‘‘decision
making under ambiguity’’) and last 60 (‘‘decision making under
risk,’’ Brand, Recknor, Grabenhorst, & Bechara, 2007) trials (Block
1 and Block 2, respectively; Brand et al., 2007). The IGT has been
validated as a measure sensitive to prefrontal cortex impairment,
and has been shown associated with performance on other standard executive tasks including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
and the Tower of Hanoi (see Bechara, 2008, for discussion).
Participants’ level of task persistence was measured using an
unsolvable puzzle task. Participants were told that they could take
as much time as needed to trace a geometric figure without lifting
their writing instrument. The duration of time spent attempting to
solve the puzzle can be conceptualized as a measure of self-control
or effort (see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998).
Executive functions include volition and self-regulation (Lezak
et al., 2004), and performance on this task may help tap into these
processes.
2.3. Procedure
The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review
Board, and all participants provided written informed consent.
Participants first completed Cyberball, followed by the Digit Span,
IGT, and unsolvable puzzle tasks in a counterbalanced order. In
order to track the effects of ostracism over time, the Need Threat
measure and PANAS were administered immediately after Cyberball and at two additional times (see Section 3). The length of the
study session following Cyberball administration varied, depending on the time spent on the puzzle task.
2.4. Data analysis
To assess the effect of the ostracism manipulation, independent-samples t-tests were conducted on the PANAS and the Need
Threat measures. To assess differences on the additional administrations of the Need Threat measure, mixed-model ANOVAs were
conducted. Finally, independent-samples t-tests were conducted
comparing the two groups on the remaining measures (Digit Span,
IGT, unsolvable puzzle).
differences in mood immediately following ostracism, so the
reporting of the additional administrations is omitted. For the
remaining analyses, Time 1 occurred immediately following Cyberball, Time 2 20–30 min after Cyberball, and Time 3 45–55 min following Cyberball. These time intervals represented the length of
time needed to complete the counterbalanced cognitive tasks.
3.2.1. Belonging
The main effect of time was significant, F(2, 110) = 3.61, p = .03,
gp2 = .06, indicating belonging was lower at Time 1 than Time 2
(p = .02) and Time 3 (p = .05), with no differences between Time
2 and Time 3 (p = .98). The main effect of group was also significant, F(1, 55) = 28.84, p < .01, gp2 = .34. Participants in the ostracism
group (M = 2.75, SD = 1.50) reported lower belonging than participants in the inclusion group (M = 4.28, SD = 0.99), p < .001. The
time by group interaction was significant, F(2, 110) = 6.71,
p = .002, gp2 = .11. At Time 1, individuals in the ostracism group
(M = 2.23, SD = 1.07) reported lower levels of belonging than individuals in the inclusion group (M = 4.35, SD = 0.97), p < .001. Those
who were ostracized (Time 2: M = 2.96, SD = 1.53; Time 3:
M = 3.06, SD = 1.78) continued to report lower levels of belonging
than those who were included (Time 2: M = 4.29, SD = 0.94; Time
3: M = 4.19, SD = 0.80), ps < .01. Thus, ostracized individuals felt
lower belonging overall and this persisted across all three time
points.
3.2.2. Self-Esteem
The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 110) = 1.52,
p = .22. There was a significant main effect of group, F(1, 55) =
7.46, p = .008, gp2 = .12. Those who were ostracized (M = 5.01,
SD = 1.28) reported lower levels of self-esteem compared to those
who were included (M = 5.67, SD = 0.98), p = .008. The time by
group interaction was not significant, F(2, 110) = 1.40, p = .25. Thus,
ostracized individuals reported lower self-esteem independent of
time point.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for study variables.
Ostracism
M
Post PANAS-P
Post PANAS-N
3.1. Group differences in demographics and responses to ostracism
Need threat
Post B
Post SE
Post C
Post ME
DS-F
DS-B
DS-S
Unsolvable puzzle
There were no differences between groups in age, t(60) = 0.70,
p = .49; or gender, v2(1, N = 64) = 0.33, p = .57. Immediately following the Cyberball task, individuals in the ostracism condition
reported lower levels of Belonging (Cohen’s d = 2.14), Self-Esteem
(Cohen’s d = 0.77), Control (Cohen’s d = 1.53), and Meaningful
Existence (Cohen’s d = 1.39) than individuals in the inclusion condition (see Table 1).
IGT
A Block 1
B Block 1
C Block 1
D Block 1
A Block 2
B Block 2
C Block 2
D Block 2
3. Results
3.2. Persistence of ostracism effects
Mixed ANOVAs with condition as the between-subjects variable
and time as the within-subjects variable were conducted on each
of the four fundamental needs (see Fig. 1). There were no
Inclusion
SD
M
t
p
SD
2.53
1.76
0.94
0.79
2.51
1.48
0.83
0.71
0.11
1.58
.92
.12
2.23
4.72
2.21
2.59
6.38
5.00
5.84
366.23
1.07
1.43
1.33
1.45
1.26
1.32
1.39
259.80
4.43
5.65
4.15
4.36
6.89
5.07
6.59
539.21
0.98
0.95
1.20
1.07
1.34
1.63
1.45
294.69
8.25
2.96
5.96
5.40
1.54
0.19
2.02
2.31
<.001
<.01
<.001
<.001
.13
.85
.05
.03
24.84
30.73
22.26
22.10
15.00
33.12
20.70
31.18
6.68
9.77
6.90
7.47
7.03
15.11
12.79
18.25
20.50
32.00
23.36
24.14
15.38
26.29
24.38
33.95
5.93
9.09
7.22
10.20
7.25
9.74
11.35
17.22
2.80
0.55
0.63
0.92
0.22
2.21
1.24
0.63
<.01
.59
.53
.36
.83
.03
.22
.53
Note: PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Positive (P) or Negative (N)
subscale, administered before (Pre) or after (Post) ostracism manipulation; Need
Threat = Belonging (B), Self-Esteem (SE), Control (C), or Meaningful Existence (ME);
DS = Digit Span, Forwards (F), Backwards (B), or Sequencing (S); IGT = Iowa Gambling Task, percent deck (A, B, C, D) selections by Trials 1–40 (Block 1) and Trials 41–
100 (Block 2); Unsolvable puzzle: time spent on puzzle in seconds.
Bolded values indicate significance at the p < .05 level.
42
M.T. Buelow et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 39–43
4. Discussion
Fig. 1. The x-axis represents both group (inclusion, ostracism) and time point (Time
1, Time 2, Time 3) of the assessment of fundamental needs. The y-axis represents
the average score on each subscale of the fundamental needs measure.
3.2.3. Control
The main effect of time was not significant, F(2, 110) = 0.39,
p = .68. There was a significant main effect of group, F(1, 55) =
26.56, p < .001, gp2 = .33. Lower levels of control were reported by
those who were ostracized (M = 2.44, SD = 1.38) than those who
were included (M = 4.04, SD = 1.30), p < .001. The time by group
interaction was not significant, F(2, 110) = 1.69, p = .19. Thus, ostracized individuals reported lower levels of control independent of
time point.
3.2.4. Meaningful existence
The main effect of group was significant, F(1, 55) = 12.47,
p = .001, gp2 = .19. Those who were ostracized (M = 3.19, SD =
1.68) reported lower levels of meaningful existence than those
who were included (M = 4.30, SD = 1.18), p = .001. The main effect
of time was marginal, F(2, 110) = 2.91, p = .06, gp2 = .05 (scores at
Time 1 lower than scores at Time 3, p = .05). The time by group
interaction was significant, F(2, 110) = 4.40, p = .02, gp2 = .07. At
Time 1, individuals in the ostracism group (M = 2.59, SD = 1.45)
reported lower levels of meaningful existence than individuals in
the inclusion group (M = 4.36, SD = 1.11), p < .001. Those who were
ostracized (M = 3.33, SD = 1.76) continued to report lower levels of
meaningful existence than those who were included (M = 4.29,
SD = 1.26) at Time 2, p = .02. No differences were seen at Time 3
(Ostracism: M = 3.66, SD = 1.83; Inclusion: M = 4.25, SD = 1.30),
p = .16. Thus, ostracized individuals felt lowered meaningful existence overall, and this persisted across Time 2 but not Time 3.
3.3. Ostracism and cognition
Ostracized individuals had lower Digit Span Sequencing
(Cohen’s d = 0.53) but not Forwards or Backwards (Table 1), indicating working memory difficulty on only one of the two tasks.
During the early IGT trials, ostracized individuals exhibited worse
performance, as they selected more from a deck widely considered
indicative of pathological decision making (Deck A; Bechara, 2008)
(Cohen’s d = 0.69). This riskiness persisted into the final IGT trials,
as ostracized participants continued to make riskier decisions
(greater Deck B selections; Cohen’s d = 0.54). Participants who
were ostracized gave up more quickly on the unsolvable puzzle
than those who were included (Cohen’s d = 0.62), showing less
task persistence.
The present study is one of the first to examine the duration of
ostracism’s negative effects beyond the reflexive stage, and the first
to demonstrate deficits in some executive functions in adults using
standard neuropsychological tasks. The current findings expand
our understanding of the enduring negative impact of a single
ostracizing event on psychological outcomes and highlight potential mechanisms by which such outcomes may emerge.
Most previous research has assessed these needs immediately
after ostracism (e.g., Jamieson et al., 2010; Lau et al., 2009;
Williams et al., 2000). The previous studies that have assessed time
effects had individuals answer self-focused questions that likely
led to increased rumination about the ostracizing event, in turn
increasing the duration of its effects (Sethi et al., 2013), or found
effects in socially anxious individuals only (Zadro et al., 2006). By
having participants complete cognitive tasks unrelated to social
interaction following Cyberball, the current study tested the negative effects of a single ostracism experience on fundamental needs
and cognitive task performance over time when attention was
diverted away from the self.
The results indicate that the negative effects of an experience of
ostracism on fundamental needs last into the Resignation stage
even when participants are not permitted to ruminate. Participants
in the present study continued to endorse decreased fundamental
needs up to 55 min following the ostracism event, despite using
that time to complete unrelated cognitive tasks. Thus, we have
shown the negative effects of a single ostracism experience can linger and negatively affect both task persistence and performance.
We have also shown initial evidence that ostracism affects
some executive functions. Previous research has shown negative
effects of ostracism on cognitive abilities (Hawes et al., 2012),
and functional neuroimaging research implicates areas associated
with executive functions (Baird et al., 2010; Campbell et al.,
2006; Eisenberger et al., 2003; Kross et al., 2007). Our results
indicate ostracism can negatively affect decision making (Iowa
Gambling Task) and some working memory processes (Digit Span
Sequencing), as well as decrease task persistence (Unsolvable
Puzzle). No group differences were found on a basic attention task,
which is easier to complete than working memory tasks (Lezak
et al., 2004; Wechsler, 2008), and this difference in performance
based on task complexity is consistent with previous research in
ostracism (Hawes et al., 2012). The lingering loss of fundamental
needs following ostracism may negatively affect tasks that require
more cognitive effort—when those systems may be occupied
recovering from ostracism. These finding suggest that future
research on ostracism should focus on more complex cognitive
functions.
This study is the first to show the negative effects of ostracism
on decision making, and corroborate neuroimaging results using a
less expensive, behavioral measure. On the IGT, participants are
given little information, needing to carefully attend to the wins/
losses to maximize profit. Our results indicated ostracized individuals chose more from Deck A, the riskiest deck (Bechara, 2008),
during early trials. Thus, participants who recently experienced
ostracism may have focused more on the high immediate gains
associated with this deck, ignoring the long-term negative consequences. After the risks of each deck became apparent (i.e., Block
2), ostracized individuals continued to make riskier decisions by
selecting more from Deck B. Deck B, like Deck A, is associated with
large immediate gains and long-term losses; however, the losses
only occur on 10% of trials (50% with Deck A; Bechara, 2008). Continued selections from Deck B indicate a continued focus on immediate rather than long-term outcomes (Buelow, Okdie, & Blaine,
2013). When experiencing ostracism in the real world, individuals
M.T. Buelow et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 76 (2015) 39–43
may make short-sighted decisions, such as engaging in risky
behaviors that have a potential for long-term negative outcomes.
In addition, ostracized individuals may attempt to regain control
or engage in activities to gain immediate gratification to fill those
missing needs. Finally, individuals with neurological disorders
often show impairments on cognitive tasks, including those measuring decision making. As individuals with neurological disorders
are at greater risk for social exclusion, it is possible that these cognitive changes may be due in part to the experience of ostracism in
one’s daily life, and future research should investigate this potential occurrence.
4.1. Limitations
One limitation of the present study is that not all executive
functions were assessed, highlighting the need for future research
to examine how ostracism impacts other executive functions such
as inhibition, problem solving, and cognitive flexibility. Assessing
cognitive performance hours or even days later would allow for
an understanding of the long-term effects of an isolated ostracism
experience on cognition. Also, the current study failed to find
increased negative mood following the ostracism event. However,
the measure used to assess affect (PANAS) may not have accurately
captured the mood elements that typically decline in the ostracism
literature (e.g., the PANAS does not measure ‘‘anger’’). Moreover,
the participants were given paper-and-pencil measures of the
PANAS and Need Threat after the study manipulation. This, albeit
brief, interaction with the study researcher could have raised participants mood enough to nullify group differences. Finally, some
researchers argue that being ostracized can lead to a numbness
or flattening of affect (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge,
2005; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003), indicating further
research is needed on how ostracism affects different aspects of
the emotional experience.
4.2. Conclusions and future directions
The results of the current study suggest that a single ostracism
experience negatively affects some executive functions, and its
effects on fundamental needs can persist beyond the reflexive
stage. Future research should continue to investigate the duration
of these effects and the extent to which they may impact other
executive functions. If the negative consequences of ostracism persist beyond a short period of time, they could impact subsequent
tasks hours or even days later. That is, having a brief ostracism
experience may subsequently affect the ability to successfully navigate future tasks that require higher-order cognitive functions.
Finally, while the present results relied on a single ostracizing
experience, one might imagine that repeated experiences of ostracism might lead individuals to chronic failure on tasks that require
intact executive functions.
References
Baird, A. A., Silver, S. H., & Veague, H. B. (2010). Cognitive control reduces sensitivity
to relational aggression among adolescent girls. Social Neuroscience, 5, 519–532.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is
the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social
exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
589–604.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529.
43
Bechara, A. (2008). Iowa gambling task professional manual. Lutz: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to
future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition,
50, 7–15.
Brand, M., Recknor, E. C., Grabenhorst, F., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decisions under
ambiguity and decisions under risk: Correlations with executive functions and
comparisons of two different gambling tasks with implicit and explicit rules.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 86–99.
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., & Blaine, A. L. (2013). Seeing the forest through the
trees: Improving decision making on the Iowa gambling task by shifting focus
from short- to long-term outcomes. Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience, 4, 773.
Campbell, W. K., Krusemark, E. A., Dyckman, K. A., Brunell, A. B., McDowell, J. E.,
et al. (2006). A magnetoencephalography investigation of neural correlates for
social exclusion and self-control. Social Neuroscience, 1, 124–134.
Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of
anger in antisocial responses to ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 896–903.
Claypool, H. M., & Bernstein, M. J. (2014). Social exclusion and stereotyping: Why
and when exclusion fosters individuation of others. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 106, 571–589.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt?
An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292.
Galton, C. J., Patterson, K., Xuereb, J. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). Atypical and typical
presentations of Alzheimer’s disease: A clinical, neuropsychological,
neuroimaging and pathological study of 13 cases. Brain, 123, 484–498.
Hawes, D. J., Zadro, L., Fink, E., Richardson, R., O’Moore, K., et al. (2012). The effects
of peer ostracism on children’s cognitive processes. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9, 599–613.
Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate
performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
690–702.
Kelly, M., McDonald, S., & Rushby, J. (2012). All alone with sweaty palms—
Physiological arousal and ostracism. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
83, 309–314.
Kross, E., Egner, T., Ochsner, K., Hirsch, J., & Downey, G. (2007). Neural dynamics of
rejection sensitivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 945–956.
Lau, G., Moulds, M. L., & Richardson, R. (2009). Ostracism: How much it hurts
depends on how you remember it. Emotion, 9, 430–434.
Legate, N., DeHaan, C. R., Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Hurting you hurts me
too: The psychological costs of complying with ostracism. Psychological Science,
24, 583–588.
Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment
(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lustenberger, D. E., & Jagacinski, C. M. (2010). Exploring the effects of ostracism on
performance and intrinsic motivation. Human Performance, 23, 283–304.
Peters, F., Villeneuve, S., & Belleville, S. (2014). Predicting progression to dementia
in elderly subjects with mild cognitive impairment using both cognitive and
neuroimaging predictors. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 38, 307–318.
Sethi, N., Moulds, M. L., & Richardson, R. (2013). The role of focus of attention and
reappraisal in prolonging the negative effects of ostracism. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 110–123.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the
deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of
emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
409–423.
Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays,
ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-fourth edition (WAIS-IV). San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. Zanna (Ed.).
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279–314). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being
ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
748–762.
Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on
ostracism and interpersonal acceptance. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 38, 174–180.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75.
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence
of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 692–697.