all alone with sweaty palms — physiological arousal and ostracism
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Psychophysiology
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / i jpsycho
All alone with sweaty palms — Physiological arousal and ostracism
Michelle Kelly ⁎, Skye McDonald, Jacqueline RushbySchool of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, UnSydney, Australia, 2052. Tel.: +61 2 9385 3063; fax: +
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Kelly)
0167-8760/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. Alldoi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.008
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 3 September 2011Received in revised form 7 November 2011Accepted 15 November 2011Available online 28 November 2011
Keywords:CyberballOstracismSocial exclusionSkin conductanceAutonomic arousalPhysiological indices
Social exclusion, or ostracism, is universally perceived as a negative emotional experience and often leads topoor social outcomes for individuals and society. Although the experience of distress associated with beingostracized is innate, there has been very little investigation of the effects on the autonomic nervous system.This study provides objective evidence for the effects of ostracism on arousal (examined with skin conduc-tance levels) while participants played an internet ball-tossing game (Cyberball). Forty-two healthy under-graduate students participated in both inclusion and ostracism conditions. When participants wereincluded, there was a marked decrement in arousal over the course of the task, whereas there was no evi-dence of habituation when participants were ostracized. The implications of these results are discussed interms of the potential of differential autonomic activity to predict the coping strategies that people engagein following ostracism.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Social exclusion, or ostracism, causes an immediate experience ofself-doubt leading to emotional distress. It interferes with one's self-esteem, sense of belonging and even how meaningful existence isperceived to be. Furthermore, it can reduce one's sense of controlover a situation and lead to negative mood states (Williams andSommer, 1997). Ostracism is such a powerful social signal that is be-lieved to be one of the motivations behind mass shootings in high-schools in the United States (Leary et al., 2003).
No one is immune to the pain of social exclusion. This phenome-non can be observed in adults, in children, and in the animal kingdom.Ostracism can be experienced when rejected by individuals in one'sexisting in-group, or when attempting to establish a new socialgroup (Kerr and Levine, 2008). Individuals are so fearful of being so-cially excluded that they will comply, conform, and even changetheir appearance in order to manage the impression they give others(Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Maner et al., 2007; Williams et al.,2000), and ultimately protect their inclusionary status.
While a variety of paradigms have been used to examine ostracismin social psychology (e.g. Nezlek et al., 1997; Pickett et al., 2004) themost commonly used is an online ball throwing game called Cyberball(Williams et al., 2000; also see Williams and Jarvis, 2006). In this com-puterized task, the participant is invited to play ball with two otherplayers who are also “on-line”. In reality, the other two players arenot real, rather they are programmed by the experimenter to ignore
iversity of New South Wales,61 2 9385 3641..
rights reserved.
the real participant after the initial few throws. Participants view acomputer screen which presents either three or four players (onebeing themself), and they are told that the researcher is interested in‘the effects of mental visualization on task performance’. The playersare animated characters each with a name clearly labeled. When theparticipant receives the ball they can choose to throw it to any otherplayer by using the mouse to select that player. To increase the realityof the computer generated players, each is programmed to throw theball after varying intervals to imply different speeds of decision mak-ing. Despite the remote, artificial experience of social exclusion that oc-curs in this internet based computer task, the innate social signals areso powerful that after being ostracized for only a few minutes, partici-pants reported lower scores on the four fundamental needs of belong-ing, self-esteem, control and meaningful existence (Williams et al.,2000; Zadro et al., 2004), as well as changes in mood (Williams et al.,2000; although not always: see Zadro et al., 2004). In fact, it does noteven appear to matter whether the participants believe they areplaying with real people or just the computer, being ostracized by acomputer hurts just as much as being ostracized by real (or ostensiblyreal) people (Zadro et al., 2004).
Using Cyberball as a measure of ostracism, the robust nature ofthis phenomenon has been repeatedly demonstrated. For example,ostracism is just as devastating to those with high self-esteem as itis to those with low (Williams et al., 2000). It is equally affectedwhether the social exclusion is by a desirable or an undesirable (e.g.Klu Klux Klan) group (Gonsalkorale and Williams, 2007), and is notaffected by financial losses or gains associated with gaining the ball(van Beest and Williams, 2006).
Evidence from a number of converging sources suggests that theeffects of ostracism are grounded in theories of survival (Williams,
310 M. Kelly et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
2009). In the animal kingdom, weaker members of the group are os-tracized to promote the survival of the group, often to the detrimentof the ostracized individual (Gruter and Masters, 1986b). In humans,the system for monitoring social exclusion (see Gardner et al., 2005;Leary et al., 1995, 1998; Pickett et al., 2004) is so sensitive that it ismore likely to over detect than under detect social exclusion, evenin the presence of early, ambiguous cues (cf. Haselton and Buss,2000; Haselton and Nettle, 2006; Williams, 2009). Early detection al-lows the opportunity to adjust behaviors in an attempt to rejoin thegroup (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997; Williams, 2007).
Changes in sympathetic galvanic skin conductance are a biologi-cally and psychologically relevant index of autonomic arousal that isrelevant to the exclusion response, although, it has not been used inthis way to date. Skin conductance is gaged in terms of either a briefphasic response to a single stimulus [skin conductance response(SCR)] or a slow tonic modulation of sympathetic arousal [skin con-ductance level (SCL)]. SCL is commonly used as an index of slow ad-justments in physiological arousal over time, and decreases are seenduring rest or sleep (Malmo, 1959). During simple habituation para-digms, in which participants are presented with a series of repetitivestimuli, SCL shows an initial increase (sensitization) with new ornovel stimuli, but rapidly habituates with stimulus repetition (Barryand Sokolov, 1993; Rushby and Barry, 2007). However, when partic-ipants are actively engaged in a task, habituation slows, or does notoccur (Barry, 2004; McDonald et al., 2011). Previous research has ex-amined the autonomic response evoked by an aversive stimulus suchas physical pain and found that skin conductance increases (Tursky,1974). Recent research with Cyberball in adolescent girls has alsoreported a relation between skin conductance changes in responseto ostracism and aggression (Sijtsema et al., 2011) although a detailedexamination of the unfolding changes associated with ostracism wasnot reported. Nor was there a control (non-ostracized condition) pro-vided for comparison. No studies to date have examined these effectsin an adult population.
The current research aimed to determine the electrophysiologicaldynamics of social exclusion by measuring SCL1 while adult partici-pants are engaged in the Cyberball task. It was expected that therewould be less habituation of SCL when participants were being ostra-cized (exposed to a social stressor) compared to when they were in-cluded in the game. Secondly, the study aimed to establish whetherthere was an association between self-reported ostracism and physi-ological markers of social distress using SC. As an improvement onprevious research designs that were either between subjects designs(van Beest and Williams, 2006; Williams et al., 2000; Zadro et al.,2004), or, a within subjects fixed-order design in which participantswere always included first (Eisenberger et al., 2003, 2007a, 2007b,2009; Sebastian et al., 2010), this study used a within-subjects designwith counter-balanced order across participants, with the aim of re-ducing subject variance and removing any possible order effects.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 42 (14 male) undergraduate psychology stu-dents, aged 18 to 30 years (M=19.98), participating in return forcourse credit in an Introductory Psychology course at the Universityof New South Wales, Australia. Participation was voluntary and in-formed consent was obtained in line with a protocol approved bythe University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Commit-tee. Participants were screened for a history of brain injury,
1 SCRs cannot be examined in the Cyberball task as participants do not receive theball during the exclusion condition, and therefore response patterns across the twoconditions cannot be compared. Accordingly, tonic changes in arousal (SCL) will beexamined.
developmental disorder, mental illness, depression, and any medicalcondition or medication that may affect arousal levels. Participantswere randomly assigned to complete either the inclusion or the ex-clusion condition first. One participant met exclusion criteria andwas removed from analyses.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. The CyberballThe Cyberball (Williams et al., 2000) computer based ‘ball tossing’
game was used for the current study. Participants were told theywould be playing a game of ‘catch-and throw’ with two other partici-pants over the internet with the aim of ‘investigating the effects mentalvisualization’. In reality, the other two players were programmed to ei-ther include or exclude the real participant from the game. Participantsplayed two versions of Cyberball. In the inclusion condition, throwswere distributed evenly to all players throughout the game. In the ex-clusion condition, participants received four balls at the beginning ofthe game and were ignored thereafter (29 tosses). In this study partic-ipants were not provided with photos of the other players or theirnames to avoid giving participants any other reason for disliking anoth-er player apart from the fact that they were being ostracized by thatperson.
2.2.2. The Cyberball QuestionnaireThe Cyberball Questionnaire addressed (a) the four fundamental
needs (3 questions per need), and (b) current mood. These wererated on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. The fun-damental needs questions were: Sense of belonging (“I felt disconnect-ed”, “I felt rejected”, “I felt like an outsider”), Control (“I felt I hadcontrol over the course of the interaction”, “I felt powerful”, “I felt supe-rior”),Meaningful existence (“I felt non-existent”, “I felt meaningless”, “Ifelt invisible”), and Self-esteem (“I felt good about myself”, “I felt liked”,“My self-esteem was high”). The mood questions were: “My moodis”… good, bad, happy, sad, friendly, unfriendly, tense, and relaxed, “Ifelt angry” and “My feelings were hurt”. Four remaining questionswere included to check the effectiveness of the manipulation, that is,how excluded or included participants felt: “I felt included”, “I felt ex-cluded”, and, “Assuming 33% of the time you would receive the ball ifeveryone received it equally, what percent of the throws did youreceive?”. The final question thanked the participant and asked “Inthe space below, please list any thoughts you have about today'sstudy. Were you ever suspicious or was there anything strange aboutthe game? Please list any thoughts you like. You will have 3 minutes.Press the bEsc> key if you are finished early”. This question gave par-ticipants the opportunity to express whether they questioned the au-thenticity of the social interaction.
All questionnaires were computerized versions presented in Med-ialab (Empirisoft Corporation, Version 2008.1.33).
2.3. Psychophysiology recording
Physiological data was acquired with a PowerLab 8/30 Data Acqui-sition System (AD Instruments, Castle Hill, Australia) at a samplingrate of 100 Hz. The PowerLab was triggered by Inquisit (Version3.0.4.0; Millisecond Software, 2010) software that precisely synchro-nized timing of responses with recording of the data acquisition sys-tem. Skin conductance was recorded continuously from two dry,bright-plated bipolar electrodes placed on the distal volar surface ofdigits II and IV of the non-dominant hand (left in all participants).
2.4. Data reduction and analysis
Participants were asked to relax for 2 min to get a baseline mea-sure of arousal (i.e. skin conductance level) prior to commencementof the task. In order to examine changes in arousal over the course
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Belonging Self-esteem Control Meaningful Existence
5-po
int
Lik
ert
Scal
e
Fundamental Needs
Ostracism
Inclusion
Fig. 1. Mean (SE) self-reported levels of needs of belonging, self-esteem, control andmeaningful existence when participants are ostracized versus when they are included.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5-P
oint
Lik
ert
Scal
e
Mood
Ostracism
Inclusion
Fig. 2. Mean (SE) self-reported mood when participants are ostracized versus whenthey are included.
311M. Kelly et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
of the game, the raw skin conductance traces were extracted offline in10-second epochs throughout the game. Changes in skin conductancelevels (SCL) were quantified for each subject, for each epoch, as thedifference between the mean value obtained for the 2-minute base-line period and the mean value occurring for each 10-second epochthroughout the game. These data were log transformed to improvenormality.
The data were analyzed in a series of repeated-measures ANOVAs,with within-subject factors of condition (inclusion versus exclusion),and time (baseline data for each 16×10 s epochs). Within time, sim-ple planned contrasts were examined to obtain linear, quadratic andcubic trends over trials. Greenhouse–Geisser type correction wasnot necessary because single degree of freedom contrasts are not af-fected by the violations of sphericity assumptions common inrepeated-measures analyses of physiological data (O'Brien andKaiser, 1985).
2.5. Procedure
Upon arrival to the laboratory the experimental procedure wasexplained and informed consent was acquired. Demographic infor-mation was collected from participants. Electrodes to measure skinconductance were attached and participants were asked to keepthat hand as still as possible. Participants were observed throughoutthe experiment via video monitor. Participants were asked to relaxfor up to 10 min while their SCLs stabilized, the final 2 min of thisdata was recorded to obtain a baseline measure of skin conductance.Following this they played the first Cyberball game. They then com-pleted the Cyberball Questionnaire and a questionnaire gathering de-mographic information. Participants then played a second game ofCyberball, including pre- and post-rest periods and a repeated versionof the Cyberball Questionnaire. Participants were then debriefed re-garding the deceptive nature of Cyberball and asked not to discussthe experiment with other students.
3. Results
3.1. Manipulation check
Participants accurately perceived the percentage of throws theyreceived in the inclusion (M=33.26%) and exclusion (M=9.6%) con-ditions. T-tests revealed that participants' reported percentage ofballs received in each condition were not significantly different tothe actual receipt of the ball. Thus, participants were cognitivelyaware of their level of inclusion in the game. In response to the ques-tion of whether there was anything suspicious about the game, 11 ofthe 41 participants reported some doubts over the reality of the game.
3.2. Self-reported levels of fundamental needs
The three questions assessing each fundamental need were evalu-ated for internal consistency. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for eachneed were: self-esteem=0.77; belonging=0.65; control=0.64;and meaningful existence=0.75. Given that the individual items foreach of the four needs demonstrated adequate internal consistencythe items were averaged to form an overall score for self-esteem, be-longing, control and meaningful existence to be used in analyses.
Participants reported lower levels in each of the four needs ofbelonging t (41)=−11.17, pb0.001, self-esteem t (41)=−5.61,pb0.001, control t (41)=−8.43, pb0.001, and meaningful existencet (41)=−9.9, pb0.001 in the ostracism condition when compared tothe inclusion condition (see Fig. 1). Order was added as a covariate tocheck whether the order (included first, excluded second, or viceversa) affected self-report. No significant interaction was observed.Given that the intended deception was not successful with 11 of the41 participants, analyses were conducted separately on the sub-
group of non-believers. Significant differences on the fundamentalneeds questions were maintained (largest p=0.025).
3.3. Mood
Mood, as assessed by the Cyberball post-measure was rated signif-icantly more negatively following the ostracism condition when com-pared to the inclusion condition (all psb0.01). Participants reportedthat their feelings were hurt more and that they felt more angry fol-lowing being ostracized compared with when they were included(p=b0.01). See Fig. 2.
3.4. Psychophysiological data
To manage the effects of expectations following the initial game,baseline measures of SCL were examined for order effects. Partici-pants began the second condition with higher SCLs than when theybegan the first condition [t (40)=8.88, pb0.001]. However, therewas no significant difference as to the magnitude of the change inSCLs depending on the order in which they participated in each con-dition [t (39)=0.09, p>0.05].
There was a significant linear trend over time [F (1, 40)=33.23,pb0.001] suggesting that independent of condition, arousal as mea-sured by SCL, decreased over the course of the experiment. As canbe seen in Fig. 3 there was also a significant time×condition (ostra-cism versus inclusion) interaction [F (1, 40)=8.25, p=0.007],
1.08
1.1
1.12
1.14
1.16
1.18
1.2
1.22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Log
SC
L +
1
10s Epochs
Inclusion
Ostracism
Fig. 3. Mean change in SCL for inclusion and ostracism conditions over the course of theexperiment. The arrow depicts when exclusion begins for the ostracized group, determinedby the last time that the participant receives the ball.
312 M. Kelly et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
reflected by a marked difference in arousal over the course of theexperiment for the ostracism compared with the inclusion condition.Specifically, ostracized participants did not habituate to the sameextent as included participants.
To determine the effect of having suspicions of the reality of thegame, skin conductance data for those 11 participants who were notconvinced they were playing with other real players was analyzedseparately. Again, a significant linear trend over time [F (1, 10)=24.931, p=0.001] suggested that independent of condition, arousalas measured by SCL, decreased over the course of the experiment.We also observed a significant cubic trend over time×condition (os-tracism versus inclusion) interaction [F (1, 10)=4.927, p=0.05],possibly suggesting that skepticism delayed the physiological experi-ence of social exclusion (see Fig. 4).
Finally, analyses were conducted on the sample after removingthe suspicious participants. Again, a significant linear trend overtime was observed [F (1, 29)=17.437, pb0.001], along with a signif-icant time×condition (ostracism versus inclusion) interaction [F (1,29)=5.703, p=0.024].
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.11
1.13
1.15
1.17
1.19
1.21
1.23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Log
SC
L +
1
10s Epochs
Inclusion
Ostacism
Fig. 4. Mean change in SCL for the ostracism and inclusion conditions, over the courseof the experiment for those participants who were suspicious of the manipulation. Thearrow depicts when exclusion begins for the ostracized group, determined by the lasttime that the participant receives the ball.
3.5. Relationship between the self-reported measures and the autonomicexperience of ostracism
There were no significant correlations found between the psycho-physiological measures and the self-reported measures of ostracism.
4. Discussion
While ostracism once served to enhance group survival (Gruterand Masters, 1986a), in modern society it has been shown to havedevastating effects on individuals (Leary et al., 2003), and arguablyon society (Palinkas et al., 2004). In experimental settings it hasbeen observed to have immediate, detrimental effects on self-reported mood and self-esteem. However, with the exception of ahandful of fMRI studies there has been no investigation of the psycho-physiological effects of ostracism in adults.
In the current investigation, the ostracism manipulation was per-ceived accurately by participants, that is, participants were awarewhen they were included versus excluded from the interaction. Consis-tent with previous research (Zadro et al., 2004), following ostracism,participants scored themselves lower on self-esteem, belonging, con-trol, meaningful existence and mood. It was also the case that decre-ments on the fundamental needs scales were observed to be of asimilar magnitude whether participants experienced the inclusion con-dition followed by ostracism or vice versa.
It is important to note that a number of participants were suspi-cious of the manipulation following their initial game. Even so, signif-icant differences on self-report data between the ostracism andinclusion condition were still evident when these participants wereanalyzed separately. So despite questioning the authenticity of theother players, participants still reported feeling worse for being ostra-cized. This result is consistent with past studies that have shown thata number of manipulations that act to remove the human element ofthe ostracism experience still resulted in hurt feelings (Eisenberger etal., 2003, 2006; Zadro et al., 2004). In one of the few studies undertak-en to investigate the autonomic correlates of ostracism using theCyberball paradigm, we found that participants displayed higherlevels of arousal when they were being ostracized than when theywere included. This finding is in line with similar observationswhen an individual is experiencing other types of stressors such asphysical pain (Cioffi and Holloway, 1993), the mental stress associat-ed with problem solving (Lackner et al., 2010), and viewing negativeemotions (Winton et al., 1984). There is also supporting evidence tosuggest that heart rate slows in response to unexpected social rejec-tion (Gunther Moor et al., 2010). Whenwe examined the small subsetof participants who were suspicious of the manipulation we failed tofind an interaction based on condition. We did however observe acubic interaction with condition, suggesting that while both groupsshowed differential linear effects between the inclusion and ostra-cism conditions, the effects were delayed for the suspicious partici-pants. Removal of the suspicious participants from the overallsample did not change the results.
We propose that the higher arousal levels observed in the ostracismgroup are likely to be the result of the stress associated with socialpain. Such a conclusion is consistent with functional magnetic resonanceimaging (fMRI) data that has demonstrated that the brain regions impli-cated in emotion and attention are differentially involved in the genera-tion of SCRs (Critchley et al., 2000). Increases in SCLs are associated withenhanced activity in the premotor cortex, the left medial occipitotem-poral junction and the anterior cingulate cortex (Nagai et al., 2004).Using the Cyberball paradigm Eisenberger et al. (2003) demonstratedthat the dorsal regions of the anterior cingulate cortex are also activatedwhen individuals were experiencing social exclusion. Interestingly, this isthe same part of the brain that is commonly activated when one isexperiencing the distress of physical pain (Rainville et al., 1997) andloss of social connections (see Lieberman, 2007 for review). Conversely,
313M. Kelly et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
reductions seen in SCLs have been associated with increased activity inthe ventromedial prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex (Nagai etal., 2004). Eisenberger et al also found increased activation in the rightventral area of the prefrontal cortex, a region often associated with inhi-bition of pain distress and regulation of negative affect (Kalisch et al.,2005; Levesque et al., 2003). Our research supports the fMRI work.While the imaging studies implicate a neural network associated witharousal (skin conductance), social sensitivity and distress, our work con-firms a functional relation between arousal and social exclusion.
Never-the-less, it is important to consider alternative explanationsfor our findings. Importantly, other imaging studies have investigatedother explanations for the physiological changes observed during theCyberball task. Rule (or expectancy) violation has been proposed as aprocess that occurs following the occurrence of a behavior that is in-consistent with socially accepted conduct, for example, when the par-ticipant becomes the target of exclusion. For example, Sommervilleand Decety (2006) proposed differential roles of the dorsal anteriorcingulate cortex (dACC) (expectancy violation) and the ventral anteri-or cingulate cortex (vACC) (social acceptance and rejection) using adifferent social rejection paradigm. Employing the Cyberball paradigm,Bolling et al. (2011) observed a role for both the vACC and the dACC inthe psychological response to social exclusion. Specifically, they pro-posed the vACC to be a primary emotional response, while the dACCmediated a secondary response representing the cognitive appraisalof the experience of rejection. Our measure of arousal could reflect ei-ther rule violation or social rejection. However, the pattern of perfor-mance is more suggestive of the latter. If our observed differences inSCLs were the result of expectation violation, we would anticipatethat, after 10 or 15 failures to receive the ball, the participant would in-stead begin to expect NOT to receive the ball. Thus, the SCLs shouldbegin to habituate well before the end of the game. This was notobserved.
We were not able to demonstrate any relationship between the psy-chophysiological measures of ostracism and the perceived, self-reportedeffects of ostracism. This lack of concordance between self-report andpsychophysiological measures is well established (Gudjonsson, 1981;Weinberger et al., 1979). There is some evidence that the way peoplecope with stress can affect the accuracy with which they self-report it,for example, those who deny the effects may show less consistencywith their physiological measures (Weinstein et al., 1968).
An unavoidable limitation of our study was the use of a within sub-jects design. This was a deliberate choice to improve on previous de-signs that have used between subjects comparisons, assuming onegroup is equal to the other in terms of all other variables. While afew have used a within-subjects fixed-order design, this introducesproblems associated with expectation bias. The current study im-proved upon previous work by employing a within-subjects designwhere the order of conditions was counterbalanced across participantsthus controlling for expectations. In the current study there were a mi-nority of participants reporting suspicions in the questionnaire follow-ing the first game, regardless of whether they were ostracized orincluded. We addressed the possible effects of this bias in a numberof ways. While not reported here, data was also examined using a tra-ditional between subjects design, that is, comparing groups on only thefirst condition they completed. Consistent with previous research wedemonstrated the self-reported effects of ostracism between thosewho were and were not ostracized in their first exposure to the para-digm. Furthermore, we showed differential physiological responses toostracism with these naïve groups. We also examined how self-reportand physiological data changed from one condition to the next, forthe same participants using a within-subjects design, thus ruling outany incidental group differences as may affect between-subjects de-signs. Remarkably, in the first Cyberball study to employ a within-subjects design we established that both subjective and objectivedata revealed the strong effects of ostracism despite participantsplaying the game on two occasions.
One potential confound for our within subjects design was that,given that immediate social exclusion is highly aversive, the anticipa-tion of future exclusion may threaten the individual and invoke anx-iety (Kerr and Levine, 2008), potentially inflating ‘baseline’ measuresprior to their second game. However, our data suggests that this wasnot an issue in the current study. All participants started their secondgame with higher SCLs than in their first game regardless of whichcondition they participated in first, and there was no apparent differ-ence between groups in the magnitude of inflation preceding theirsecond game.
There are a number of other possibilities for extending research inautonomic arousal following social exclusion. One exciting directionis to investigate whether autonomic activity differentially mediatesthe coping strategies that one engages in following ostracism.Williams (2007) has identified four likely categories of responses tothe experience of ostracism. They are to conform to or change our be-havior to become more socially acceptable, to provoke recognition ofthe self by becoming aggressive, to shut down both emotionally andcognitively, and to ostracize or withdraw oneself to prevent furtherostracism and social pain. The reasons why people engage in oneform of coping over another are not yet clear. Sijtsema et al. (2011)showed that teenage girls who had a heightened “fight or flight” re-sponse as well as high rejection sensitivity displayed more physicalaggression than their peers, however, this is yet to be replicated inadults. Psychophysiological exploration of these traits may providevaluable insights into whether somatic feedback directs either a hos-tile or collaborative style response.
By considering group inclusion as an evolutionary important partof future survival, and thus viewing social exclusion as a major threatto personal safety, it can help us to understand the extreme threat-response reaction that ostracism can provoke in humans and animalsalike. This physiological data along with recent fMRI data can help au-thenticate the existing self-reported data on the distress associatedwith ostracism, and further assist us in the understanding of strate-gies undertaken to reduce the pain.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a grant from the Australian NationalMedical and Health Research Council.We are grateful to the psychologystudents who volunteered to participate in this research.
References
Aspinwall, L.G., Taylor, S.E., 1997. A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping.Psychological Bulletin 121, 417–436.
Barry, R.J., 2004. Stimulus significance effects in habituation of the phasic and tonicorienting reflex. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 39, 166–179.
Barry, R.J., Sokolov, E.N., 1993. Habituation of phasic and tonic components of theorienting reflex. International Journal of Psychophysiology 15, 39–42.
Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R., 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117,497–529.
Bolling, D.Z., Pitskel, N.B., Deen, B., Crowley, M.J., McPartland, J.C., Mayes, L.C., Pelphrey,K.A., 2011. Dissociable brain mechanisms for processing social exclusion and ruleviolation. NeuroImage 54, 2462–2471.
Cioffi, D., Holloway, J., 1993. Delayed costs of suppressed pain. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 64, 274–282.
Critchley, H.D., Elliott, R., Mathias, C.J., Dolan, R.J., 2000. Neural activity relating togeneration and representation of galvanic skin conductance responses: a functionalmagnetic resonance imaging study. The Journal of Neuroscience: the Official Journalof the Society for Neuroscience 20, 3033–3040.
Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D., Williams, K.D., 2003. Does rejection hurt? An FMRIstudy of social exclusion. Science 302, 290–292.
Eisenberger, N.I., Jarcho, J.M., Lieberman, M.D., Naliboff, B.D., 2006. An experimentalstudy of shared sensitivity to physical pain and social rejection. Pain 126, 132–138.
Eisenberger, N.I., Gable, S.L., Lieberman, M.D., 2007a. Functional magnetic resonanceimaging responses relate to differences in real-world social experience. Emotion7, 745–754.
Eisenberger, N.I., Taylor, S.E., Gable, S.L., Hilmert, C.J., Lieberman, M.D., 2007b. Neuralpathways link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses.NeuroImage 35, 1601–1612.
314 M. Kelly et al. / International Journal of Psychophysiology 83 (2012) 309–314
Eisenberger, N.I., Inagaki, T.K., Rameson, L.T., Mashal, N.M., Irwin, M.R., 2009. AnfMRI study of cytokine-induced depressed mood and social pain: the role ofsex differences. NeuroImage 47, 881–890.
Gardner, W.L., Pickett, C.L., Knowles, M., 2005. Social snacking and shielding: usingsocial symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In:Williams, K.D., Forgas, J.P., Von Hippel, W. (Eds.), The Social Outcast: Ostracism,Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying. Psychol. Press, New York, pp. 227–242.
Gonsalkorale, K., Williams, K.D., 2007. The KKK won't let me play: ostracism even by adespised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology 37, 1176–1186.
Gruter, M., Masters, R.D., 1986a. Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: anintroduction. Ethology and Sociobiology 7, 149–158.
Gruter, M., Masters, R.D., 1986b. Ostracism as a social and biological phenomenon: anintroduction. Ethology and Sociobiology 7, 149–158.
Gudjonsson, G.H., 1981. Self-reported emotional disturbance and its relation toelectrodermal reactivity, defensiveness and trait anxiety. Personality and IndividualDifferences 2, 47–52.
Gunther Moor, B., Crone, E.A., van der Molen, M.W., 2010. The heartbrake of socialrejection: heart rate deceleration in response to unexpected peer rejection.Psychological Science 21, 1326–1333.
Haselton, M.G., Buss, D.M., 2000. Error management theory: a new perspective onbiases cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78,81–91.
Haselton, M.G., Nettle, D., 2006. The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionarymodel of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, 47–66.
Kalisch, R., Wiech, K., Critchley, H.D., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J.P., Oakley, D.A., Allen, P.,Dolan, R.J., 2005. Anxiety reduction through detachment: subjective, physiological,and neural effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17, 874–883.
Kerr, N.L., Levine, J.M., 2008. The detection of social exclusion: evolution and beyond.Group Dynamics 12, 39–52.
Lackner, H.K., Goswami, N., Hinghofer-Szalkay, H., Papousek, I., Scharfetter, H., Furlan,R., Schwaberger, G., 2010. Effects of stimuli on cardiovascular reactivity occurringat regular intervals during mental stress. Journal of Psychophysiology 24, 48–60.
Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K., Downs, D.L., 1995. Self esteem as an interpersonalmonitor: the sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology2, 518–530.
Leary, M.R., Haupt, A.L., Strausser, K.S., Chokel, J.T., 1998. Calibrating the sociometer:the relationship between interpersonal appraisals and state self-esteem. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 74, 1290–1299.
Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M., Smith, L., Phillips, S., 2003. Teasing, rejection, and violence:case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior 29, 202–214.
Levesque, J., Eugene, F., Joanette, Y., Paquette, V., Mensour, B., Beaudoin, G., Leroux, J.M.,Bourgouin, P., Beauregard, M., 2003. Neural circuitry underlying voluntarysuppression of sadness. Biological Psychiatry 53, 502–510.
Lieberman, M.D., 2007. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes.Annual Review of Psychology 58, 259–289.
Malmo, R.B., 1959. Activation: a neurophysiological dimension. Psychological Review66, 367–386.
Maner, J.K., DeWall, C.N., Baumeister, R.F., Schaller, M., 2007. Does social exclusionmotivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology 92, 42–55.
McDonald, S., Rushby, J., Li, S., de Sousa, A., Dimoska, A., James, C., Tate, R., Togher, L.,2011. The influence of attention and arousal on emotion perception in adultswith severe traumatic brain injury. International Journal of Psychophysiology 82,124–131.
Nagai, Y., Critchley, H.D., Featherstone, E., Trimble, M.R., Dolan, R.J., 2004. Activity inventromedial prefrontal cortex covaries with sympathetic skin conductancelevel: a physiological account of a “default mode” of brain function. NeuroImage22, 243–251.
Nezlek, J.B., Kowalski, R.M., Leary, M.R., Blevins, T., Holgate, S., 1997. Personalitymoderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 1235–1244.
O'Brien, R.G., Kaiser, M.K., 1985. MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measuresdesigns: an extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin 97, 316–333.
Palinkas, L.A., Prussing, E., Reznik, V.M., Landsverk, J.A., 2004. The San Diego EastCounty school shootings: A qualitative study of community level post-traumaticstress. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 19, 113–121.
Pickett, C.L., Gardner, W.L., Knowles, M., 2004. Getting a cue: the need to belong andenhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30,1095–1107.
Rainville, P., Duncan, G.H., Price, D.D., Carrier, B., Bushnell, M.C., 1997. Pain affect encodedin human anterior cingulate but not somatosensory cortex. Science 277, 968–971.
Rushby, J.A., Barry, R.J., 2007. Event-related potential correlates of phasic and tonicmeasures of the orienting reflex. Biological Psychology 75, 248–259.
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K.D., Blakemore, S.J., 2010. Social brain developmentand the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition72, 134–145.
Sijtsema, J.J., Shoulberg, E.K., Murray-Close, D., 2011. Physiological reactivity and differentforms of aggression in girls: moderating roles of rejection sensitivity and peerrejection. Biological Psychology 86, 181–192.
Sommerville, J.A., Decety, J., 2006. Weaving the fabric of social interaction: articulatingdevelopmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the domain of motorcognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 179–200.
Tursky, B., 1974. Physical, physiological and psychological factors that affect painreaction to e!ectric shock. Psychophysiology 11, 95–112.
van Beest, I., Williams, K.D., 2006. When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracismstill hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 918–928.
Weinberger, D.A., Schartz, G.E., Davidson, R.J., 1979. Low-anxious, high-anxious, andrepressive coping styles: psychometric patterns and behavioural and physiologicalresponses to stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 88, 369–380.
Weinstein, J., Averill, J.R., Opton, E.M., Lazarus, R.S., 1968. Defensive styles and discrepancybetween self-report and physiological indices of stress. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 10, 406–413.
Williams, K.D., 2007. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology 58, 425–452.Williams, K.D., 2009. Chapter 6 ostracism: a temporal need-threat model. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 41, 275–314.Williams, K.D., Jarvis, B., 2006. Cyberball: a program for use in research on interpersonal
ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods 38, 174–180.Williams, K.D., Sommer, K.L., 1997. Social ostracism by coworkers: does rejection lead to
loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 693–706.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.Winton, W.M., Putnam, L.E., Krauss, R.M., 1984. Facial and autonomic manifestations of
the dimensional structure of emotion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology20, 195–216.
Zadro, L., Williams, K.D., Richardson, R., 2004. How low can you go? Ostracism by acomputer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40,560–567.