Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Motive Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan Aydın, Deniz

Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness

MotiveMotive

Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan Aydın, Deniz Şahin, Hayal Yavuz & Savaş Orhan Aydın, Deniz Şahin, Hayal Yavuz & Savaş

CeylanCeylan

Hacettepe University Social Psychology LaboratoryHacettepe University Social Psychology Laboratory

OstracismOstracism

Ostracism is generally defined as Ostracism is generally defined as being ignored and excluded (Williams being ignored and excluded (Williams et. al., 2005)et. al., 2005) Without excessive explanation or Without excessive explanation or

explicit negative attention (Williams, explicit negative attention (Williams, 2007)2007)

Williams, K.D., Forgas, J.P., von Hippel, W., & Zadro, L. (2005). The social outcast: An overview. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection and Bullying (pp.1-16). NY: Psychology Press.

Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452.

Threatened NeedsThreatened Needs

Ostracism threatens four needs in Ostracism threatens four needs in humans:humans: BelongingBelonging ControlControl Self-esteemSelf-esteem Meaningful existenceMeaningful existence

Reactions to OstracismReactions to Ostracism

Immediate reactionsImmediate reactions Pain, hurt feelings, physiological arousalPain, hurt feelings, physiological arousal

Short-term reactionsShort-term reactions Attempts to regain needsAttempts to regain needs

Long-term reactionsLong-term reactions Learned helplessness, low self-esteem, Learned helplessness, low self-esteem,

suicidal thoughtssuicidal thoughts

Moderating Factors on Moderating Factors on ReactionsReactions

AttributionsAttributions Responsibility, control, self-other blameResponsibility, control, self-other blame

Individual differencesIndividual differences Attachment styles, needs for belonging, Attachment styles, needs for belonging,

control, self-esteemcontrol, self-esteem

Current StudyCurrent Study

The aim of this study was to explore,The aim of this study was to explore, Effects of being informed prior to Effects of being informed prior to

ostracismostracism Effects of the participants’ prior level of Effects of the participants’ prior level of

need to belong on,need to belong on, Needs of control, self-esteem, belonging and Needs of control, self-esteem, belonging and

meaningful existencemeaningful existence Positive and negative moodPositive and negative mood

ParticipantsParticipants

120 students participated the study120 students participated the study 11 students were excluded from 11 students were excluded from

analysis for not completing the scales analysis for not completing the scales properly.properly.

All of the participants were freshman All of the participants were freshman students in Hacettepe University or students in Hacettepe University or Izmir University of Economics.Izmir University of Economics.

Procedure: Procedure: Need to Belong Need to Belong ScaleScale Need to belong scale (Leary, Kelly, Need to belong scale (Leary, Kelly,

Cottrell, Schreindorfer, in press) was Cottrell, Schreindorfer, in press) was conducted to freshman students as conducted to freshman students as potential participants 2-3 weeks potential participants 2-3 weeks before the experiments began.before the experiments began.

5 point likert scale: higher scores 5 point likert scale: higher scores indicate higher needindicate higher need

Alpha=.70 Alpha=.70

Procedure: Procedure: Cover StoryCover Story

Participants were taken into the lab Participants were taken into the lab in 4 person groups and given consent in 4 person groups and given consent forms including the cover story.forms including the cover story.

They were told that they would be They were told that they would be participating an experiment on participating an experiment on ““mental visualisation skillsmental visualisation skills””

Procedure: Procedure: Cyberball GameCyberball Game

Participants were told that in order to assess their Participants were told that in order to assess their mental visualisation skills, they were to play a mental visualisation skills, they were to play a “ball-game” over internet in four people groups.“ball-game” over internet in four people groups.

The Cyberball game is developed by Williams, The Cyberball game is developed by Williams, Cheung and Choi (2000), in order to manipulate Cheung and Choi (2000), in order to manipulate ostracism condition.ostracism condition. The game is consisted of ball throwings between cartoon The game is consisted of ball throwings between cartoon

figures representing each player, lasting approximately figures representing each player, lasting approximately 50 throws.50 throws.

In ostracism condition, after the first 2-3 throws the In ostracism condition, after the first 2-3 throws the participant does not get the ball anymore.participant does not get the ball anymore.

In control condition (all-included) participant gets the In control condition (all-included) participant gets the ball as often as the others do.ball as often as the others do.

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.

Procedure: Procedure: PANAS and Need PANAS and Need Threat ScaleThreat Scale

After the completion of cyberball game, After the completion of cyberball game, participants were asked to fill two scalesparticipants were asked to fill two scales Positive-Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark & Positive-Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark &

Tellegen, 1988; adopted by Gençöz, 2000) - 7 pointTellegen, 1988; adopted by Gençöz, 2000) - 7 point Positive affect: higher scores indicate higher positive moodPositive affect: higher scores indicate higher positive mood Negative affect: higher scores indicate higher negative Negative affect: higher scores indicate higher negative

moodmood Need Threat Scale (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; Need Threat Scale (Van Beest & Williams, 2006;

adopted by res. gr.) – 7 pointadopted by res. gr.) – 7 point BelongingnessBelongingness Self-esteemSelf-esteem ControlControl Meaningful existenceMeaningful existence

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.

Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, 19-26.

Higher scores indicate lower threat

DesignDesign

A 2: need to belong level (high vs. A 2: need to belong level (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism vs. (informed ostracism, ostracism vs. control) design was used.control) design was used. PANAS scores and need threat scale PANAS scores and need threat scale

scores were analyzed by this design.scores were analyzed by this design.

Manipulation ChecksManipulation Checks

Participants were asked to guess the Participants were asked to guess the percentage of the ball that had been percentage of the ball that had been thrown to them during the game.thrown to them during the game. All inclusion: % 35.5All inclusion: % 35.5 Informed ostracism: %15.6Informed ostracism: %15.6 Ostracism: %10.7Ostracism: %10.7

Informed OstracismInformed Ostracism OstracismOstracism All InclusionAll Inclusion

High NTBHigh NTB Low NTBLow NTB High High NTBNTB

Low NTBLow NTB High High NTBNTB

Low NTBLow NTB

PANASPANAS

Positive AffectPositive Affect 3.44 3.44 (1.25)(1.25)

3.70 3.70 (1.21)(1.21)

3.70 3.70 (1.36)(1.36)

2.99 2.99 (0.82)(0.82)

4.64 4.64 (1.14)(1.14)

4.34 4.34 (1.02)(1.02)

Negative AffectNegative Affect 2.65 2.65 (0.95)(0.95)

2.20 2.20 (1.04)(1.04)

2.65 2.65 (1.17)(1.17)

2.54 2.54 (1.02)(1.02)

2.06 2.06 (1.31)(1.31)

2.12 2.12 (1.19)(1.19)

Need Threat ScaleNeed Threat Scale

BelongingnessBelongingness 2.84 2.84 (1.54)(1.54)

3.45 3.45 (1.56)(1.56)

2.48 2.48 (1.57)(1.57)

2.58 2.58 (1.31)(1.31)

4.87 4.87 (1.44)(1.44)

5.06 5.06 (1.29)(1.29)

Self-EsteemSelf-Esteem 4.29 4.29 (1.61)(1.61)

5.48 5.48 (1.20)(1.20)

4.14 4.14 (1.38)(1.38)

4.04 4.04 (1.40)(1.40)

5.60 5.60 (1.20)(1.20)

5.90 5.90 (1.12)(1.12)

ControlControl 2.81 2.81 (1.07)(1.07)

3.40 3.40 (1.54)(1.54)

2.85 2.85 (1.50)(1.50)

2.88 2.88 (1.46)(1.46)

4.58 4.58 (1.32)(1.32)

4.82 4.82 (1.18)(1.18)

Meaningful Meaningful ExistenceExistence

2.91 2.91 (1.75)(1.75)

4.08 4.08 (1.54)(1.54)

2.85 2.85 (1.74)(1.74)

3.09 3.09 (1.52)(1.52)

5.22 5.22 (1.32)(1.32)

4.97 4.97 (1.47)(1.47)

Results: Results: PANASPANAS

A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on PANAS scores effect of ostracism condition on PANAS scores ((Wilks’ Wilks’ = . = .8282, , FF((55, 1, 10303) = ) = 55..2929, , pp < .001, < .001, ² ² = .= .09).09). Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant

effect of ostracism condition on positive affect scores effect of ostracism condition on positive affect scores ((FF((22, 1, 10606) = ) = 88..99, , pp < .001, < .001, ² = .² = .14). The positive affect 14). The positive affect scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.between ostracism conditions.

Results: Results: PANASPANAS

Informed Informed OstracismOstracism

OstracismOstracism All InclusionAll Inclusion

PANASPANAS

Positive AffectPositive Affect 3.58 (1.22)3.58 (1.22) 3.41 (1.20)3.41 (1.20) 4.48 (1.07)*4.48 (1.07)*

Negative AffectNegative Affect 2.41 (1.01)2.41 (1.01) 2.61 (1.09)2.61 (1.09) 2.09 (1.23)2.09 (1.23)

Results: Results: Need Threat ScaleNeed Threat Scale

A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on Need Threat scale effect of ostracism condition on Need Threat scale scores (scores (Wilks’ Wilks’ = . = .6161, , FF((55, 1, 10303) = ) = 66..9292, , pp < .001, < .001, ² = .² = .22).22).


Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on significant effect of ostracism condition on belongingness need scores (belongingness need scores (FF((22, 1, 10606) = ) = 2626..9797, , pp < .001, < .001, ² = .² = .34). The belongingness need scores 34). The belongingness need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.difference between ostracism conditions.





BelongingnessBelongingness 3.16 (1.56)3.16 (1.56) 2.53 (1.45)2.53 (1.45) 4.97 (1.35)*4.97 (1.35)*

Self-EsteemSelf-Esteem 4.91 (1.51)*4.91 (1.51)* 4.10 (1.37)*4.10 (1.37)* 5.76 (1.15)*5.76 (1.15)*

ControlControl 3.12 (1.35)3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46)2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)*4.71 (1.23)*


3.52 (1.72)3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63)2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*5.09 (1.39)*


Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on self-significant effect of ostracism condition on self-esteem need scores (esteem need scores (FF((22, 1, 10606) = ) = 1212..8888, , pp < .001, < .001, ² = .² = .19). The self-esteem need scores were 19). The self-esteem need scores were highest in all inclusion condition, lower in highest in all inclusion condition, lower in informed ostracism condition and lowest in informed ostracism condition and lowest in ostracism condition. All conditions differed ostracism condition. All conditions differed significantly from each other.significantly from each other.







ControlControl 3.12 (1.35)3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46)2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)*4.71 (1.23)*


3.52 (1.72)3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63)2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*5.09 (1.39)*


Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on control significant effect of ostracism condition on control need scores (need scores (FF((22, 1, 10606) = ) = 2020..1515, , pp < .001, < .001, ² ² = .= .27). The control need scores were higher in all 27). The control need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.between ostracism conditions.







ControlControl 3.12 (1.35)3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46)2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)*4.71 (1.23)*


3.52 (1.72)3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63)2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*5.09 (1.39)*


Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on significant effect of ostracism condition on meaningful existence need scores (meaningful existence need scores (FF((22, 1, 10606) = ) = 1717..2525, , pp < .001, < .001, ² = .² = .25). The meaningful 25). The meaningful existence need scores were higher in all inclusion existence need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.conditions.







ControlControl 3.12 (1.35)3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46)2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)*4.71 (1.23)*


3.52 (1.72)3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63)2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*5.09 (1.39)*

DiscussionDiscussion

Results show that prior levels of need to Results show that prior levels of need to belong had no effect on need threat scores belong had no effect on need threat scores and affect scores.and affect scores.

Being informed that a person is going to be Being informed that a person is going to be ostracized by a certain rule of the game ostracized by a certain rule of the game does not reduce the effects of ostracism on does not reduce the effects of ostracism on threatening needs and lowering affect. This threatening needs and lowering affect. This result is consistent with prior studies that result is consistent with prior studies that reactions to ostracism are automatic in reactions to ostracism are automatic in nature.nature.

Thank you for listening…Thank you for listening…

Documents

Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Motive Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan Aydın, Deniz