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

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 prosocial 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

Why Am I Left Out? Interpretations of Exclusion Affect Anti-Social and Pro-Social Behaviors Imagine that Joe discovers he is the only one in his workplace not invited to a co-workers party. How might Joe react to being left out? Would Joe become angry or would the exclusion shock him so that he could not label his emotional state? Would he react aggressively or make positive efforts so that he will be included in the future? Currently in social psychological research, there is some ambiguityalthough must research suggests that anger and aggression are likely to occur in response to exclusion, more recent research suggests that emotional numbness may occur and that pro-social behaviors are possible. These mixed findings may indicate that social exclusion is more complex than current theories suggest. Currently, minimal research has investigated what excluded people believe is the reason for their exclusion. That is, little is known about what social exclusion communicates to the excluded individual. To explain the mixed findings in exclusion research, the perceived reason for exclusion may explain these different emotional and behavioral responses. For this dissertation, the term social exclusion (sometimes regarded by social psychological researchers as ostracism or social rejection) will refer to a powerful and aversive experience, which involves being ignored or left out of a group (Williams, 2001). Social exclusion theories suggest that this specific type of rejection threatens basic human needs. For example, people need to feel they belong and when they do not, they experience mental and physical pain (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Humans also need to feel positive and self-confident in order to maintain self-esteem (Steele, 1988; Tesser, 1988). Additionally, people need to feel that they are in control of their environment so that they feel well-prepared for the future (Bandura, 1997; Seligman, 1975; Williams, 2007). Lastly, people may need to feel acknowledged by others so that they can resist

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.

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

12

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. Previous 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

(2005) found that disrespected participants who were salient of their need to belong felt less positive emotions than respected individuals. Also, research indicates that people who easily infer disrespect 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 insulter. 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

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

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 antisocially). 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

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, Cohens f2 = .23 and anger had a moderate effect on aggression, Cohens f2 = .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

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 5point 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

 = .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 10point 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

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

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 Measures section). 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

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

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

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 < 1. Thus, these results supported the experimental hypothesis and hence the emotional numbness hypothesis was supported only to a limited extent. That is, excluded participants were able to report their negative emotional state to a greater extent if they were provided with additional time to process the exclusion. Therefore, the subsequent analyses regarding emotion utilized later emotional assessments. Test of the Hypothesized Mediation Model Correlations. As displayed in Table 2, feeling excluded was positively correlated with feeling disrespected, as well as feeling disliked. This suggests that social exclusion led to two interpretations of the exclusionthat the excluders did not like them and did not respect them. As predicted (see Table 2), feeling disliked and disrespected were highly and positively correlated and feeling disliked was strongly and positively correlated with sadness. Furthermore, feeling disrespected was positively correlated with anger, as well as aggression. These correlations all provided initial evidence for the expected hypothesesthat feeling disrespected from exclusion would lead to anger and aggression, but that feeling disliked from exclusion would lead to feelings of sadness. However, feeling disliked was also positively correlated with anger. Likewise, feeling disrespected and sad were positively related. These last two correlations indicate some overlap

24

between these measured variables, as would be expected because sadness and anger are aspects of negative affect. This multicollinearity will be taken into account in the path analysis. Perceptions of Exclusion and Emotional States. To test the hypothesis proposed in Figure 2, several hierarchical multiple regression analyses tested the relationship between perceptions of exclusion and emotional experiences (see Table 4). In the first hierarchical analysis examining anger, in which I controlled for feeling disrespected by entering it first in the regression model (step 1) before entering feeling disliked as a predictor (step 2), the results indicated that feeling disrespected was significantly related to anger, even after feeling disliked was subsequently entered into the equation (see Table 4). The R2 indicated that feeling disliked did not predict a substantial amount of anger after feeling disrespected was already factored into the equation. As displayed later in Table 4, a subsequent hierarchical analysis was conducted to examine if feeling disrespected could significantly predict anger when feeling disliked was controlled for in the equation. In the first step, feeling disliked was entered as a predictor of anger, and in the second step, feeling disrespected was entered as the predictor. This analysis suggested that although feeling disliked and anger were correlated, when feeling disrespected was included as a predictor, feeling disliked was no longer a significant predictor. Indeed, by including feelings of disrespect in the equation, the fit of the equation improved significantly (see R2). Next, two hierarchical regression analyses examined the effects of feeling disrespected and disliked on sadness. When feeling disliked was entered in the first step and feeling disrespected in the second step, both feeling disliked and disrespected significant predicted sadness. By adding feeling disrespected as a predictor in the second step, the equation significantly improved (see R2 in Table 4). This finding suggests that feeling disrespected and feeling disliked may both increase

25

sadness. In a subsequent analysis, feeling disrespected was entered in the first step, and feeling disliked in the second step. As indicated by the R2 displayed in Table 4, by including feeling disliked in the regression equation, the regression fit significantly improved by 5%. Aggression. Although feeling excluded led to feeling both disliked and disrespected, several hierarchical regression analyses will examine feeling disliked or disrespected as predictors of aggression (see Table 5). Consistent with previous research (DeBono & Muraven, in review), when feeling disrespected was entered in the first step and disliked entered in the second step, feeling disrespected was a significant predictor of aggression, but feeling disliked was not a significant predictor. Indeed, feeling disliked did not improve the model fit. Thus, these results suggest that when people feel excluded, they do not aggress because they believe that the excluders dislike them, but rather because they believe they are not respected by them. Two hierarchical regression analyses examined the role of emotional states on aggression (see Table 5). In one analysis, anger was entered in the first step and sadness in the second step. When both anger and sadness were predictors for aggression, only anger significantly increased aggression, whereas sadness decreased aggression, but not significantly. Furthermore, as suggested by the R2, sadness did not significantly account for variance in the aggression measure. These results yielded further support for the experimental hypothesesanger (not sadness) was the primary predictor for increased aggressive behavior. In the next aggression analysis, sadness was entered in the first step and anger in the second step. The result suggested that anger was a significant predictor of aggression whereas sadness still did not predict aggression. By including anger in the equation, the R2 indicated a significant improvement in the predictability of aggression.

26

Path Analysis. A path analysis was conducted to assess the mediation hypotheses proposed in Figure 3. As recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008), the Bootstrapping method was utilized to test mediation in this multiple mediator model. Bootstrapping estimates indirect effects by repeatedly sampling from the dataset. Furthermore, bootstrapping was found to increase statistical power and limits Type 1 errors (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004), which is critical in smaller sample sizes such as the sample size utilized in this study. Thus bootstrapping is an effective method to estimate standard errors, measure the magnitude of the indirect effects with confidence intervals and to determine the significance of the statistical estimates (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). By utilizing the path modeling technique, this path analysis should be the best statistical tool to test the proposed model because it controls for measurement error and disentangles the direct and indirect relationships among the measured variables. With path modeling, AMOS (Arbuckle, 1999) tested the proposed model in Figure 3. AMOS generated percentile confidence intervals to assess the indirect effects in this multiple mediator model (see 90% confidence intervals in Table 7). The variances and covariances of this experiments measured variables were interrelated from their linear relationships (see Table 6). The data for all variables included in the analyses were tested for skewness and kurtosis prior to conducting the mediation analyses to prevent any violations of statistical assumptions (see Table 2). All measured variables utilized for the mediation analyses were normally distributed. Parameter estimation was computed using the Maximum Likelihood method which compared the covariance matrices that represented the relationship between the models variables and the estimated covariance matrices of the restricted model. This method of estimation is appropriate for normally distributed data (Stone & Sobel, 1990). To begin, a full model in which

27

the relationship among all the variables was tested and the results are presented in Table 7. The errors associated with feeling disrespected and disliked were allowed to correlate because these variables were both highly correlated. Likewise, the error terms for sadness and anger were allowed to correlate due these variables high correlation and because both are attributes of overall negative affect. All of these measures were entered as manifest variables. Model fit. The results from these analyses indicated that the full model was a good fit. Specifically, the chi-square was not significant, 2(4) = 4.48, p = .35, and other estimates of goodness-of-fit such as the RMSEA, CFI, and NNFI were also excellent (see Table 8). In a subsequent path analysis (see Figure 5), the paths from feeling excluded to feeling disliked to sadness to aggression were set to zero. Thus, the effects of disrespect and anger were examined as mediators between social exclusion and aggression. This more parsimonious model was also a good fit, 2(3) = 5.60, p = .13. All other goodness-of-fit indices also suggested that this model fit the experimental data well (see Table 8). Furthermore, as indicated by the differences in the model chi-squares, the difference between this hypothetical model and the full model indicated that this model was had a similar fit. Thus, the impact of feeling disrespected and angry as a result of feeling excluded was a good predictor of aggressive responses. Direct and indirect effects. Utilizing 90% confidence intervals, the paths were consistent with the current hypotheses and with previous research (e.g., Leary et al., 2006; Twenge et al., 2001). Feeling socially excluded was positively and directly related to aggression (standardized coefficient = +.15). However, this relationship was qualified by the indirect effects between feeling excluded and aggression. Specifically, feeling socially excluded was related to feeling disrespected (standardized coefficient = +.60) and disliked (standardized coefficient = +.50). Furthermore, feeling angry mediated the relationship between feeling disrespected and aggression (standardized

28

indirect coefficient = +.03). Although feeling disliked increased sadness (standardized coefficient = +.27), sadness did not increase aggression (standardized indirect coefficient = -.01).

Discussion In general, the results of this experiment provided support for the proposed hypotheses. First, by allowing socially excluded people to report their emotional state after being provided time to process the exclusion experience, they reported more negative emotions than people had to report their emotional state immediately. Thus, excluded people may experience such shock that they were unable to decipher their emotional experience so quickly. This finding may explain why it is possible to have two meta-analyses in which one indicated that negative emotions result from exclusion (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009) and another that suggested excluded individuals experience an emotionally neutral state (Blackhart et al., 2009)these meta-analyses did not examine the same exclusion studies (although many of these studies were the same). Indeed, perhaps in specific exclusion studies, negative emotions were more evident when enough time was provided after being excluded. Examining the role of the amount of time past between the exclusion manipulations and emotional assessments in another meta-analysis may reveal that exclusion does eventually lead to a more negative emotional state. As for the proposed model indicated in Figure 2, the results suggested that both feeling disrespected and being in an angry emotional state mediated the relationship between social exclusion and aggression. These results were consistent with previous research that demonstrated that anger mediates the impact of social exclusion on aggression (Chow et al., 2008). Furthermore, these find-

29

ings agreed with previous research suggesting that feeling disrespect from exclusion, and not feeling dislike, increases aggression (DeBono & Muraven, in review). Still, these findings only confirmed part of the proposed model (see Figure 2). In Experiment 2, participants were given an opportunity to act pro-socially. Participants who believed they were excluded because they were disliked by the excluders should feel sad and react pro-socially. Participants who feel disrespected by the exclusion should feel angry, but not sad, and should not behave more pro-socially. Experiment 2 Method Participants and Design One-hundred and forty-six undergraduate students (77 men, 69 women) participated in this experiment for course credit. Another power analysis indicated that this should be a large enough sample size given previous effect sizes. One pilot study suggested that feeling disliked had a strong effect on sadness, Cohens f2 = .54 and sadness had a moderate effect on pro-social behavior, Cohens f2 = .10. To attain the desired power for these analyses (.80), this sample size was more than sufficient. Again, this sample size should be adequate for conducting the mediation analyses (Kline, 1998). Like in Experiment 1, participants were led to believe that they were participating in an experiment about group communication. Again, participants were either included or excluded, but excluded participants were told they were not liked, respected, or told no reason for their exclusion. Participants also responded to emotion questionnaires either immediately after the exclusion experience or after answering other questionnaires. However, for this experiment, the dependent variable for this experiment was pro-social behavior.

30

Procedure In general, Experiment 2 was quite similar to Experiment 1, but with pro-social behavior as the primary outcome. However, there were some important differences between these experiments. At the beginning of the experiment, participants did not respond to a Work Preference Inventory because this was not necessary for assessing pro-social behavior. However, the exclusion and emotional assessment manipulations remained the same, including all manipulation checks and emotion measures. Contrary to Experiment 1, participants were given an opportunity to indicate a desire to make new friends as a form of pro-social behavior (see Appendix D, similar to Maner et al., 2007). After participants responded to the PANAS and manipulation checks, the experimenter explained that a new (fictitious) student service called SUNY-Albany Connect was about to become operational. The experimenter explained further that SUNY was curious about undergraduates interest in the service and the degree to which they would be interested in using the service to make new friends. Participants read a summary about the program which stated that Albany Connect would facilitate school events (e.g., concerts and game nights) so that more friendships would be created on campus. The summary further described a $75 fee increase needed to cover the cost of this new program. Then, participants rated 10 statements (e.g., Meeting new friends is important to me.) for this pro-social measure (in Maner et al., 2007, Cronbachs = .96) on a 12-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 12 (strongly agree). In the current experiment, this measure was also reliable, Cronbachs = .93. In contrast to Experiment 1, participants did not then respond to the Aggression Questionnaire. Instead, everyone was subsequently probed for suspicion, debriefed, given credit, and released from the study.

Results

31

Before examining the effects of the manipulation checks, the scales used to assess feelings of exclusion, disrespect and dislike were again tested for reliability. Consistent with Experiment 1, responses to items asking how included and excluded the participants felt were negatively correlated, r = -.64, p < .001. The included item was reverse scored and added to the excluded item to create a composite score for feelings of exclusion. Again, the dislike ( = .87) and disrespect ( = .91) scales were reliable. The negative affect portion of the PANAS was also reliable ( = .76). In addition, the sadness ( = .78) and hostility subscales had adequate reliability ( = .86). Effectiveness of Exclusion Manipulation Next, the effectiveness of the exclusion manipulation was assessed. In a one-way ANOVA, excluded participants felt more excluded than included participants, F(1, 143) = 14.05, p < .001. This result suggests that the exclusion manipulation was again an effective way to manipulate social exclusion. Next, several planned contrasts revealed specific differences between the experimental groups. Although Experiment 1 did not find a significant difference between the disrespected and excluded group and the exclusion only group, in this experiment the disrespected group felt more disrespected than the group that was only excluded, t(142) = 2.20, p = .03. Although Experiment 1 did not find that disliked participants felt more disliked than participants who were only excluded, disliked participants in this experiment felt significantly more disliked than excluded participants who were not given a reason for their exclusion, t(142) = 2.12, p = .04. Although the disrespect and dislike feedback appeared to more successfully manipulate the extent to which excluded participants perceived being disrespected or disliked, the primary focus of this research is still on the perceptions of the exclusion. Thus, the subsequent analyses will concentrate on the self-reported feelings of disrespect and dislike and not the disrespect and dislike feedback.

32

Because there was a strong correlation between feeling disliked and disrespected, a MANOVA analyzed the effect of exclusion on both feeling disliked and disrespected. Again, this analysis revealed that excluded participants felt significantly more disrespected, F(1, 144) = 12.10, p = .001, and disliked, F(1, 144) = 6.20, p = .01, than included participants. Overall, social exclusion appeared to increase both feelings of disrespect and dislike. Test of the Negative Emotion Hypothesis Before testing the model (see Figure 2), the emotional numbness hypothesis was tested again (see Figure 1). As in Experiment 1, an ANOVA was conducted to examine if excluded participants were in a significantly more negative mood than included participants, but only when the mood measure was administered after the manipulation checks. The results of this experiment indicated that the interaction between time between the manipulation measure and exclusion condition was not significant (see Table 10), F < 1, ns. Because the amount of time allotted before the emotional assessment did not impact responses for excluded participants, all emotional assessments were examined in subsequent analyses. Test of the Hypothesized Mediation Model Correlations. To test the prediction displayed in the lower portion of Figure 2, several correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among the measured variables (see Table 11). Feeling disrespected and disliked were positively correlated and feeling disliked was positively correlated with both sadness and interest in making friends. On the other hand, feeling disrespected was positively correlated with anger, but not correlated with interest in Albany Connect. These correlations suggest that although exclusion may decrease pro-social behavior instead of increasing pro-social behavior, the subsequent interpretations and emotional reactions from social exclusion did affect pro-social behavior as expected.

33

Several correlations also demonstrated some overlap between the measured variables. For example, sadness and anger were positively correlated. Also, feeling disrespected was positively correlated with sadness and feeling disliked was positively related to anger. Thus, this overlap will need to be considered in subsequent analyses. Perceptions of Exclusion and Emotional States. Several hierarchical regression analyses tested the relationships between the perceptions of exclusion and specific negative emotions (see Figure 2 and Table 13). In a hierarchical analysis with feelings of disrespect entered in the first step and feeling disliked entered in the second step, only feeling disrespected significantly increased anger. When feelings of dislike were entered into the equation, the fit did not significantly improve (see R2 in Table 12). This result is consistent with the analyses from Experiment 1. A follow-up analysis examined feeling disrespected as a predictor of anger when controlling for feeling disliked. For this analysis, feeling disliked was entered in the first step and feeling disrespected was entered in the second step. In agreement with Experiment 1, feeling disliked did not significantly predict self-reported anger and the R2 indicated that including feelings of dislike as a predictor did not improve the regression equation. Combined, these analyses suggested that feeling disrespected predicted anger better than feeling disliked. A subsequent analysis examined sadness as the dependent variable. Feeling disliked was entered in the first step and feeling disrespected was entered in the second step. Although feeling disliked and sadness were significantly correlated, feeling disliked was not a significant predictor of sadness when controlling for feeling disrespected. Indeed, feeling disrespected was a significant predictor of sadness and improved the fit of the regression equation (see R2 in Table 12). This finding was inconsistent with Experiment 1 because in that experiment, feeling disliked remained a significant predictor of sadness even when feeling disrespected was taken into account. Thus, this

34

result from Experiment 2 was contrary to the hypothesesthis analysis indicated that feeling disrespected predicted sadness better than feeling disliked. A follow-up sadness analysis examined feeling disrespected entered in the first step and feeling disliked in the second. Contrary to the results from Experiment 1, the R2 indicated that feeling disliked did not significantly improve the fit of the regression equation. Pro-Social Behavior. Next, several hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine if feeling disrespected or disliked affected pro-social behavior (see Table 13). In the first analysis, when feeling disliked was entered in the first step and disrespected entered in the second, neither feeling disliked nor disrespected were significant predictors of pro-social behavior. By including feeling disrespected in the equation, the regression fit did not significantly improve. Likewise, when feeling disrespected was entered in the first step and feeling disliked was entered in the second, feeling disliked was not a significant predictor and it did not significantly improve the fit of the equation (see R2 in Table 13). Thus, this finding suggests that a lack of a direct relationship between self-reported perceptions of exclusion and pro-social behavior. Next, self-reported emotions were examined as predictors of pro-social behavior. As displayed in Table 13, another hierarchical regression indicated that when sadness was entered in the first step and anger was entered in the second step, sadness resulted in greater interest in Albany Connect, whereas anger did not have a significant effect on this desire to make friends. As indicated by the R2, anger also did not significantly improve the regression equation. To examine if sadness would improve the ability to predict pro-social behavior after controlling for anger, sadness was entered as a predictor in the first step and anger was entered in the second case. In this analysis, the R2 suggested that the inclusion of sadness into the equation significantly improved the fit.

35

Overall, with a few noted exceptions, the predicted sequential reactions to feeling excluded outlined in Figure 2 were confirmed in this experiment. Path Analysis. To test the mediation of perceptions of exclusion and emotional states on pro-social behavior, a path analysis was conducted (see Figure 6). In AMOS, a path analysis was conducted on the model to test the causal relationships among the measured experimental variables. More precisely, the model should reveal if both feeling disliked and sadness mediates the relationship between social exclusion and interest in making friends. All measured variables were tested for skewness and kurtosis before conducting these mediation analyses in order to prevent violations of statistical assumptions (see Table 11). The data did not appear to violate the statistical assumptions for normality. The correlations and covariance matrix of the sample data are displayed in Tables 11 and 14 respectively. Again, computations for parameter estimation utilized the Maximum Likelihood method and bootstrapping estimated the standard errors, measured the magnitude of the indirect effects, and determined the significance of the estimates. A full model initially assessed the relationship between the variables as presented in Figure 6. Consistent with Experiment 1, the errors associated with feelings of disrespect and dislike were allowed to correlate in the full model. Also, sadness and anger were allowed to correlate because they were both highly correlated and because the items used to assess anger and sadness are utilized to measure overall negative affect. All of these self-report measures were entered as manifest variables. Model fit. All fit indices indicated that the full model was a good fit (see Table 16). The coefficients associated with these paths were tested with t-tests to confirm if they have significant effects on interest in making friends (see Table 15). Consistent with the mediation hypotheses, all

36

coefficients were positive and significant except for the path from feeling excluded and anger to pro-social behavior. Next, a follow-up analysis was conducted on the primary hypothesis that feeling excluded would lead to feeling disliked which would lead to greater sadness which would increase prosocial behavior (see Figure 8). To test this model, the paths from social exclusion to disrespect and disrespect to anger to pro-social behavior were constrained to zero. Goodness-of-fit indices indicated that this more parsimonious model was also a good fit for the experimental data (see Table 16). The difference between this model and the full model suggested that this simpler model explained the experimental data nearly as well as the full model (see Chi-Square analysis in Table 16). Given that feelings of exclusion and dislike were experimentally manipulated and that these variables were measured in the order presented in the model, this model provides evidence that the link between feelings of exclusion and pro-social behaviors was mediated by the causal influence of feeling disliked on sadness. Direct and indirect effects. Contrary to the experimental hypothesis, but consistent with previous research that suggested that exclusion decreases pro-social behaviors (Twenge et al., 2007), feeling socially excluded was negatively related to an interest in making friends, but this relationship was not significant (standardized coefficient = -.13). However, several indirect effects explained the relationship between feeling excluded and interest in making friends (see Figure 6 and Table 15). The relationship between social exclusion and anger was mediated by feeling disrespected (standardized indirect coefficient = +.34). Again, social exclusion and sadness mediated by feeling disliked by the exclusion (standardized indirect coefficient = +.32). In this experiment, feeling sad mediated the relationship between feeling disliked and interest in making friends (standardized indirect coefficient = +.04). Yet, anger did not significantly increase the

37

desire to make friends (standardized coefficient = +.06). These findings suggest that the mediation of the causal relationship between feeling disliked and sadness was able to predict when more prosocial behaviors would result from feeling excluded.

Discussion The results of this experiment were consistent with the primary prediction displayed in the lower portion of Figure 2. That is, the analyses for this experiment indicated that feeling disliked and subsequently sad mediated the relationship between exclusion and pro-social behaviors. Furthermore, these findings were consistent with the literature that suggests people experience sadness when excluded (Craighead et al., 1979; Oliver et al., 2001) and that sadness increases pro-social behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 1992; Rothbart et al., 1994). Thus, although feeling excluded did not directly affect pro-social behavior, it is important to note that sadness (and not anger) increased pro-social behavior. The hypothesis that negative emotions would be reported after being provided time to process the exclusion was not supported in this experiment. Before answering the emotion assessment, the only difference between this experiment and the previous one was whether participants responded to the work preference questionnaire. This seems to be an unlikely cause for why negative emotions were expressed in later assessments in Experiment 1, but not Experiment 2. Thus, the underlying reason for these incongruous results remains unclear. Therefore, this experimental hypothesis only received the limited support seen in Experiment 1. General Discussion These experiments provided evidence in support of several hypotheses. As indicated in Figure 3, Experiment 1 suggested that when given time to process the exclusion experience, ex-

38

cluded people will report negative emotions, yet may not report negative emotions immediately after being excluded. The results of these experiments also showed support for the hypothesis illustrated in Figure 2: feeling disrespected from exclusion will increase anger and subsequent aggression. On the other hand, Experiment 2 revealed that feeling disliked predicted greater sadness which increased pro-social behavior, as measured by an interest in making new friends (even at a financial cost). Overall, these experiments suggested that the perceived reason as to why a person is left out may have a critical impact on the emotions experienced and subsequent behavioral reactions.

Limitations However, these experiments provided limited support to other hypotheses. For example, the prediction that feeling excluded would lead to more pro-social behavior was unfounded. Instead, the results suggest that feeling disliked and sad as a result of feeling excluded impacted prosocial behavior. This may explain why so few exclusion studies have found exclusion leading to pro-social behavior. In contrast, the direct link between feelings of exclusion and aggression was confirmed, along with the evidence of the intervention of feelings of disrespect and anger. Exclusion researchers might consider comparing the likelihood of reacting to exclusion with aggression or pro-social behavior, while bearing in mind the potential for several intervening variables. Another limitation was the inability to replicate the finding that exclusion would lead to a more negative mood if people were provided the time and opportunity to reflect on the experience. Thus, it is difficult to state with confidence that people will experience negative emotions when given time to decipher their internal state. Possibly, it was not the time that passed, but rather the evaluation of the exclusion experience while responding to the manipulation checks, that caused

39

more negative emotions to be reported in Experiment 1. In the future, exclusion researchers may need to examine the effects of both time and intervening tasks as potential influences on emotional reactions to exclusion. Another limitation in this paper is that these experiments both utilized the same manipulation of social exclusion. In both experiments, participants were informed that no one wanted to work with themwhich means excluded participants were actively rejected in both experiments. Indeed, some research has suggested that how a person is excluded, such as being directly rejected or being ignored, may determine the perceptions and reactions to the exclusion experience (Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009). Their findings suggested that direct rejection, such as being derogated for a contribution to a group (similar to the exclusion manipulation utilized in Experiments 1 and 2), led to more behaviors to prevent further rejection. However, being ignored by the group led to more behaviors related to making new relationships. Furthermore, direct rejection led to more feelings related to anger whereas being ignored led to feelings related to sadness. In light of the present research, direct rejection and being ignored may result in different perceptions of the exclusion experience. That is, people who are directly rejected may tend to believe the excluders do not respect them whereas people who are ignored may believe the rejecters do not like them. Thus, these findings may be due to how the person is ignored, as the authors suggest, but may also be due to perceiving the rejecters as disliking or disrespecting them. Further research should examine if perceiving disrespect or dislike from being actively rejected or passively ignored affect pro-social and anti-social behavioral reactions. Another limitation of this research is that these experiments were conducted in a laboratory which may or may not extend to exclusion experiences outside of the laboratory. Although the laboratory controlled for variables that are uncontrollable in the real world, this research would ben-

40

efit from examining reactions to exclusion in more natural social settings. The measures for aggressive and friendly behaviors are not meant to be indicative of real world responses. Instead, they may illustrate tendencies for anti or pro-social reactions to exclusion. Although this research pointed out some potential mechanisms that may underlie why excluded people may react with either pro or anti-social behavior, these experiments did not address some important moderators in current exclusion research. For example, rejection sensitivity (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008), fear of negative evaluation (Maner et al., 2007), and narcissism (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) have been found to moderate the effect of social exclusion on aggression. That is, people who are more rejection sensitive or narcissistic tend to be more aggressive in their reactions to social exclusion. Furthermore, gender may further moderate the effect of rejection sensitivity on social exclusion. For example, several studies suggested that social rejection increased pro-social behaviors such as ingratiation, but only when the rejection was particularly selfdefining in regard to the participants gender (Romero-Canyas, Downey, Reddy, Rodriguez, Cavanaugh, & Pelayo, 2010). On the other hand, rejection increased hostility and decreased supportive behaviors for rejection-sensitive women in romantic relationships (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Showing these variables moderate the relationship between exclusion and aggression through the mediating process of emotional attributions would provide a strong test of the current hypotheses. Furthermore, because the participants recruited for this research were all undergraduate students, the generalizability of this research is additionally limited. It is possible that young children may perceive exclusion differently than college students. Perhaps, children may believe that being liked is more important than being respected. Indeed, respect may be interpreted differently for children and adolescents than for adults (Shwalb & Shwalb, 2006). If this is the case, the behav-

41

ioral reaction to disrespectful exclusion may be quite different for children. To investigate this possibility, future research may test this model with younger and older populations. The generalizability of this experiment is also limited due to the single source of data collection. Indeed, several replications of these experiments would be needed to examine if the proposed model in Figure 2 holds. Single data sources may have led to inflated correlations among the measured variables (e.g., Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991). If further research is conducted on the proposed model, a meta-analysis may more accurately ascertain the strength of the relationships between the perceptions of exclusion, and the emotional and behavioral reactions.

Strengths and Implications Although this dissertation may have some weaknesses, there are several important strengths that should offset any limitations. For example, by utilizing an experimental approach, as opposed to a correlational methodology to investigate this proposed model, the causal model proposed in Figure 2 is more clearly supported. That is, the directional paths between the measured variables are supported by the sequence in which the variables were manipulated and measured. Possibly, a questionnaire study could suggest a similar model to the ones proposed in Figure 2, but this experimental approach supported the theoretically causal paths in these models. The results of these experiments also clarified some inconsistent research in social exclusion literature. As suggested by Chow and his colleagues (2008), anger mediated the relationship between exclusion and aggression, but this mediation occurred as a result of feeling disrespected by the excluders. Furthermore, sadness, which previously was investigated in exclusion research as an aspect of hurt feelings (e.g., Buckley et al., 2004; Snapp & Leary, 2001), mediated the relationship between feeling disliked and pro-social behaviors. Thus, these experiments suggest the

42

importance of examining the mediating effects of exclusion on behavioral reactions, such as specific emotional reactions. These experiments may also explain why exclusion can cause both anti and pro-social reactions. Although untested in previous studies on exclusions effects on aggression (e.g., Twenge et al., 2001) and pro-social behaviors (e.g., Maner et al., 2007), these results indicated that the messages communicated to the excluded individual impact the emotions and subsequent behavioral reactions. That is, feeling disliked or disrespected by the exclusion impacted specific negative emotions and whether or not people react with an aggressive or friendly response. Although several intervening and underlying processes were unexplored in previous research, these experiments revealed that the interpretations and emotional factors can lead to considerably different behavioral outcomes. One more strength of the model is its suggestion of several underlying mechanisms for reactions to social exclusion. Few studies previously considered the processes underlying the triggers for anti-social and pro-social reactions to exclusion. Furthermore, the results of these studies indicated that the social exclusion experience is complex. Specifically, Experiment 2 suggested that social exclusion has the potential to both increase and decrease pro-social behaviors. That is, depending on the perception of the exclusion, emotional responses may vary, leading to disparate behavioral responses. In addition to these strengths, this research also complements other current studies that have examined peoples perceptions of the exclusion experience. For example, one study demonstrated that if an individual in excluded by one person, but included by another, the inclusive individual is perceived as an excluderleading to less feelings of belongingness (Chernyak & Zayas, 2010). Thus, excluded individuals may make errors in deciphering who is taking part in the rejec-

43

tion. Similar research has found that excluded individuals, as a result of the exclusion experience, tend to perceive even ambiguous stimuli as more hostile (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009). This misperception also accounted for higher rates of aggression. Therefore, the tendency to falsely believe that inclusive people are excluders may be due to this hostility bias, which could be another important factor in determining behavioral and emotional reactions to exclusion. Other research has demonstrated that when an excluded individual perceives the excluders to be members of an important in-group (such as members of the same political party or ethnicity), feelings of rejection were more pronounced than when excluded by members of an out-group. Thus, perhaps devaluing the importance of the rejecters could be a way to make people feel less rejected, which could impact subsequent behavioral responses. Combined, the current experiments along with other research examining the perceptions of exclusion is quite complex and worthy of further exploration. This research is also unique in that it suggested possibilities for curbing aggressive behavior and promoting pro-social behavior. Most previous research has focused on personality traits such as rejection sensitivity (Ayduk et al., 2008) and self-esteem (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) as potential characteristics that can impact aggressive behaviors. But these traits are, of course, resistant to change. However, as this dissertation suggests, an easier method than changing personality traits would be to provide a reason for exclusion that could reduce aggression and encourage prosocial actions. That is, any indication that the exclusion was due to a lack of respect would be imprudent for increasing positive reactions or reducing negative reactions whereas suggesting that the rejection was due to being disliked could both reduce aggressive tendencies and increase pro-social reactions. Thus, the results of these experiments imply some real-world suggestions to exclude

44

peoplewhen it is necessarysuch as rejecting people in a way that indicates they are still respected, but perhaps not well-liked. Future research may also consider other messages conveyed by exclusion and how these messages impact emotional states and behavioral reactions. For example, people are often not picked to be on a sports team because they are simply not good at that sport. When people are not included due to a lack of ability, they may react differently than people who feel disrespected or disliked by the excluders. Nonetheless, not being picked for a team may make the aspiring player feel disrespected or disliked by the team. Other reasons for exclusion, including having a lack of ability to be part of a social group, may be a fruitful line of follow-up research. In addition to these potential directions for future research, the results from these experiments may also inform research on interpersonal outcomes. Shelton and Richeson (2005) found that whites would like to have more contact with blacks and vice versa, but they fear that the outgroup would reject them. However, when asked to explain why a person of another race would not initiate contact with them, people attributed these inactions to the other persons lack of interest. They also found that these perceptions of rejection may mean that rejected individuals would not gain from programs such as the fictitious Albany Connect program designed to encourage friendships on campus. Further research should consider rejection from a racial out-group to examine if these types of rejection would still result in more pro-social behavior. At the beginning of this dissertation, the imaginary Joe was excluded from his co-workers party. The findings of these studies may have important implications for such common social exclusion experiences. Often, people who are socially rejected are not provided a reason for why they are excluded. Indeed, the fictitious Joe may have conjured up many reasons for his exclusion from the party. The results of these experiments suggest that if Joe believed the excluders did not respect

45

him, he would become angry, more likely to retaliate, and be resistant to forming new relationships. Perhaps if someone, like Joe, cannot be a part of the group, it would be best to provide a reason that does not indicate that the excluders disrespect the excluded individual. By providing a reason for leaving someone out of a social group, the excluded person may not misconstrue the intentions of the excluders, but instead accept the rationale for being left out. Possibly, Joe would tend to be friendlier and less aggressive to his co-workers. Indeed, to know how to help someone like Joe refrain from aggressing and instead choosing to pursue new relationships would serve as a great benefit for social psychology and anyone who has been socially excluded.

References Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos 4.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Small Waters. Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal

46

of Management, 17, 571-587.

Ayduk, O., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). An expectancy-value model of personality

diathesis for depression: Rejection sensitivity and depression in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 868-877.

Ayduk, O., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejection

aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: the case of rejection sensitivity, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775-782.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. 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. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165-295. Benditt, T. ( 2008).Why respect matters. Journal of Value Inquiry, 42, 487496. Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected:

47

Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248-264. Blackhart, G. C., Knowles, M. L., Nelson, B. C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analysis review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269-309. Bourgeois, K. S., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with rejection: Derogating those who choose us last. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 101-111. Buckley, K., Winkel, R., & Leary, M. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 1428. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452459. Butler, M. & Maruna, S. (2009). The impact of disrespect on prisoners aggression: Outcomes of experimentally inducing violence-supportive cognitions. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 235-250. Cannon, W. B. (1927) The James-Lange theory of emotion: A critical examination and an alternative theory. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 10-124. Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143-153. Chernyak, N., & Zayas, V. (2010). Being excluded by one means being excluded by all:

48

Perceiving exclusion from inclusive others during one-person social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 582-585. Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. (2008). Excluded feelings: Emotional responses to social ostracism predicts aggressive reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 896-903. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "Experimental ethnography.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945-960. Craighead, W. E., Kimball, W. H., & Rehak, P. J. (1979). Mood changes, physiological responses, and self-statements during social rejection imagery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 47, 385 396. Curtis, R.C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284-290. DeBono, A. E., & Muraven, M. (in review). Perception of rejection: Feeling disrespected leads to greater aggression than feeling disliked. Manuscript submitted for publication. de Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335-1341. de Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Am i respected or not?: Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research, 18, 121-153. Denham, S. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral predictors of preschool peer ratings. Child Development, 61, 11451152. DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social

49

exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1-15. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45-59. Dodge, K. A. & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of threats to the self. Child Development, 58, 213-224. Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 13271343. Downey, G., Mougios, V., Ayduk, A., London, B., & Shoda, Y. (2004). Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system. Psychological Science, 10, 668-673. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Troyer, D., Speer, A. L., Karbon, M., & Switzer, G. (1992). The relations of maternal practices and characteristics to children's vicarious emotional responsiveness. Child Development, 63, 583-602. Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York: Wiley. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.

50

Funayama, E. S., Grillon, C., Davis, M., & Phelps, E. A. (2001). A double dissociation in affective modulation of startle in humans: Effects of unilateral temporal lobectomy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 721729 Gawronski, B., & Walther, E. (2008). The TAR effect: When the ones who dislike become the ones who are disliked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1276-1289. Gerber, J. & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468-488. Graham, S. & Hudley, C. (1994). Attributions of aggressive and nonaggressive AfricanAmerican male early adolescents: A study of construct accessibility. Developmental Psychology, 30, 365-373. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderation of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81-103. Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Developmental Psychology, 11, 607-622. Hoffman, M. L. (1998). Varieties of empathy-based guilt. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and Children. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Isen, A. M. (1990). The influence of positive and negative affect on cognitive organization: Some implications for development. In N. Stein, B. Leventhal, 51

& J. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion (pp. 75-94). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. James, W. (1884). What is emotion?, Mind, 9, 188-205. Jamieson, J., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 690-702. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134-1146. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford Press. Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145-166). New York: Oxford University Press. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-132. Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331-348. MacDonald, G. & Leary M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship

52

between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the "porcupine problem." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42-55. Molden, D. C., Lucas, G. M., Gardner, W. L., Dean, K., & Knowles, M. L. (2009). Motivations for prevention or promotion following social exclusion: Being rejected versus being ignored. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 415-431. Oldehinkel, A. J., Rosmalen, J. G. M., Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., & Ormel, J. (2007). Being admired or being liked: Classroom social status and depressive problems in early adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 417-427. Oliver, K., Zadro, L., Huon, G., & Williams, K. (2001). The role of interpersonal stress in overeating among high and low disinhibitors. Eating Behaviors, 2, 19-26. Phelps, E. A., OConnor, K. J., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., Grillon, C., Davis, M. (2001) Activation of the left amygdala to a cognitive representation of fear. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 437441.

53

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, and L. B. Snyder (Eds), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J. & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection lead to ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 119-148. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21-39. Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), New York: Academic Press, 4979. Schachter, S. & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399.

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91-107. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.

54

Shwalb, B. J., & Shwalb, D. W. (2006). Concept development of respect and disrespect in American kindergarten and first- and second-grade children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 114, 67-80. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 24 (pp. 93-159). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Snapp, C. M., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Hurt feelings among new acquaintances: Moderating effects of interpersonal familiarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 315-326. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of self. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (21), NY: Academic Press, 261-302. Stone, C. A., & Sobel, M. E. (1990). The robustness of estimates of total indirect effects in covariance structure models estimated by maximum likelihood. Psychometrika, 55, 337352. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 181-227. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 5666.

55

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). Isnt it fun to get the respect that were going to deserve? Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261-272. 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. Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K., & Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it hurt?: The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443-477. Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 213-220. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Emotions, moods, traits, and temperaments: Conceptual distinctions and empirical findings. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 89-93). New York: Oxford University Press. Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford. Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452. Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: does rejection lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693706. Wirth, J., & Williams, K. D. (2009). They don't like our kind": Consequences of being ostracized while possessing a group membership. Group Processes and Intergroup

56

Relations, 12, 111-127. Wojciszke, B., Abele, A. E., & Baryla, W. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 973990. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, selfesteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.

Figure 1. Hypothesis 1: Model of emotional reactions to social exclusion

57

Social Exclusion

Immediate Emotion Assessment

Time passes to process the exclusion

Lack of Negative Emotions Reported

Later Emotional Assessment

Negative Emotions Reported

Figure 2. Hypothesis 2: Model of hypothetical reactions toward social exclusion.

58

59

Figure 3. Experiment 1: Mean Scores for Negative affect as a function of the exclusion and emotional assessment manipulations 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Emotion Measured Emotion Measured First Last Experimental Condition Negative Affect Included Excluded

60

Figure 4. Experiment 1: Full Path Model

Efdl

Esad

.25
Feel Disliked

.20 .27
Sadness

.50

-.15 .37

Emath

.51 .07

.15
Feel Excluded

.12

.24

Aggression

.60

Efdr

Eang

.26 .36
Feel Disrespected

.18 .34
Anger

Note: All path coefficients are significant except the path from sadness to aggression. Each number in the right upper corner is the measurement error associated with that variable.

61

Figure 5. Experiment 1: Restricted Path Model

Emath

.05
Aggression

Feel Excluded

.60

Efdr

Eang

.22 .36
Feel Disrespected

.17 .41
Anger

Note: All path coefficients are significant. Each number in the right upper corner is the measurement error associated with that variable.

62

Figure 6. Experiment 2: Full Path Model

Efdl

Esad

.21
Feel Disliked

.29 .21
Sadness Epro

.46

.83

.21 .37 .05

-.13
Feel Excluded

-.05 .35
Eang

Pro-Social

Efdr

.65 .42
Feel Disrespected

.06 .27 .56

Anger

Note: All paths were significant except for the path coefficients from social exclusion and anger to pro-social behavior.

63

Figure 7. Experiment 2: Restricted Path Model

Efdl

Esad

.21
Feel Disliked

.26 .51
Sadness

.46

.20

Epro

.04
Feel Excluded Pro-Social

Note: All path coefficients are significant. Each number in the right upper corner is the measurement error associated with that variable.

64

Running head: WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 1 Experiment 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Variables Anger M Inclusion (Emotion Measured First) Inclusion (Emotion Measured Last) Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Exclusion (Emotion Measured Last) Disrespected Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Disrespected Exclusion (Emotion Measured last) Disliked Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Disliked Exclusion (Emotion Measured Last) SD M Sadness SD Aggression M SD

65

6.92 6.71 7.64 8.07

1.35 1.07 1.87 2.40

7.95 7.25 8.20 9.93 9.81 7.31 8.16 8.68

3.45 2.07 3.00 3.75 5.01 1.68 4.29 4.05

5.89 9.44 10.30 12.40 17.15 15.25 7.13 8.71

5.31 7.82 9.72 8.99 8.07 9.08 8.08 8.04

10.49 6.85 8.80 7.41 8.87 2.89 1.81 4.26

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

66

Table 2 Experiment 1: Correlations among Measured Variables 1 1. Feel Socially Excluded 2. Feel Disliked 3. Feel Disrespected 4. Negative mood 5. Anger 6. Sadness 7. Aggression N M SD Skew Kurtosis 2 3 4 5 6 7

.50** .60** .23** .33** .29** .19* 133 9.48 3.87 -.47 -1.02

.56** .36** .31** .40** .07 133 40.56 16.65 .53 .32

.30** .41** .39** .24** 133 41.81 17.25 .36 -.16

.69** .65** .17 133 14.16 4.99 2.55 8.34

.59** .22* 133 8.02 3.21 2.99 11.72

.05 133 8.30 3.46 1.47 2.26

133 10.71 8.81 .58 -.54

Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01

66

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

67

Table 3 Experiment 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Emotion Assessment Manipulation Negative Affect M Included Group (Emotion Measured First) Included Group (Emotion Measured Last) All Excluded Groups (Emotion Measured First) All Excluded Groups (Emotion Measured Last) SD

13.72 4.78 12.28 2.22 13.87 5.05 15.30 5.57

67

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

68

Table 4 Experiment 1: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Feelings of Anger and Sadness B Anger Step 1 Feel Disrespected Step 2 Feel Disrespected Feel Disliked Step 1 Feel Disliked Step 2 Feel Disliked Feel Disrespected Sadness Step 1 Feel Disliked Step 2 Feel Disliked Feel Disrespected Step 1 Feel Disrespected Step 2 Feel Disrespected Feel Disliked Note. N = 133, *p < .05 S.E.B R2 R2

.08 .07 .02 .06 .02 .06

.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02

.41* .32* .12 .31* .12 .34*

.17*

.18* .10*

.01

.18*

.08*

.08 .06 .05 .08 .05 .06

.02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02

.40* .27* .24* .39* .24* .27*

.16*

.20* .15*

.04*

.20*

.05*

68

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

69

Table 5 Experiment 1: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Aggression B Aggression Step 1 Feel Disrespected Step 2 Feel Disrespected Feel Disliked Step 1 Anger Step 2 Anger Sadness Step 1 Sadness Step 2 Sadness Anger Note. N = 133, *p < .05 S.E.B R2 R2

.12 .15 -.05 .59 .80 -.33 .12 -.33 .80

.04 .05 .05 .23 .29 .27 .22 .27 .29

.24* .29* -.09 .22* .29* -.13 .05 -.13 .29

.06

.06 .05*

.06* .00

.01

.06*

.06*

69

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 6 Experiment 1: Covariances among Measured Variables 1 1. Feel Excluded 2. Feel Disliked 3. Feel Disrespected 4. Negative Affect 5. Angry 6. Sad 7. Aggression 15.01 32.28 40.11 4.43 4.06 3.89 6.41 2 3 4 5 6 7

70

277.28 159.64 29.85 16.81 23.15 10.30

297.44 25.99 22.85 23.27 36..17

24.92 11.08 11.25 7.36

10.33 6.60 6.12

11.99 1.38

77.60

70

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 7 Experiment 1: Mediation Effects of Social Exclusion on Aggression Path Exclusion Aggression Exclusion Disrespect Exclusion Dislike Disrespect Anger Dislike Sad Disrespect Sad Dislike Anger Anger Aggression Sad Aggression Estimate .34 2.67 2.15 .06 .06 .05 .02 .71 -.38 S.E. .20 .31 .32 .02 .02 .02 .02 .27 .27 p .05 .005 .006 .004 .01 .03 .21 .02 .15 CI (lower) .04 2.34 1.78 .04 .03 .02 -.01 .30 -.83 CI (upper) .66 3.15 2.64 .09 .08 .07 .05 1.40 .06

71

71

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 8 Experiment 1: Summary of Model Fit Indices Model 1. Full 2. Restricted Overall 2 4.48 5.60 df 4 3 RMSEA .03 .08 NNFI ..99 .94 CFI 1.00 .97 1.12 (1) .58 2 (df) p

72

72

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 9 Experiment 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Variables
Anger M Inclusion (Emotion Measured First) Inclusion (Emotion Measured Last) Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Exclusion (Emotion Measured Last) Disliked Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Disliked Exclusion (Emotion Measured last) Disrespected Exclusion (Emotion Measured First) Disrespected Exclusion (Emotion Measured Last) SD M Sadness SD Pro-Social M SD

73

7.53 7.60 7.67 9.07 9.05 8.53 10.73 9.36

2.29 2.06 3.06 4.78 4.26 3.83 5.18 4.36

6.80 7.75 7.67 9.29 8.00 8.59 8.67 8.77

1.86 2.22 3.53 4.07 3.39 2.58 4.45 3.09

80.87 80.50 78.86 64.79 70.36 62.94 84.73 69.50

19.13 24.35 16.55 25.84 24.06 22.45 25.64 23.68

73

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Table 10 Experiment 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental Variables
Pro-Social M SD

74

Inclusion Exclusion Disliked Exclusion Disrespected Exclusion

82.50 71.61 70.12 72.92

25.56 20.41 23.58 25.69

Table 11 74

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

75

Experiment 2: Correlations among Measured Variables 1 1. Feel Socially Excluded 2. Feel Disliked 3. Feel Disrespected 4. Negative mood 5. Anger 6. Sadness 7. Interest in making friends N M SD Skew Kurtosis 2 3 4 5 6 7

.46** .65** .22** .28** .28** -.06 146 9.91 3.88 -.63 -.76

.86** .40** .44** .51** -.05 146 41.47 14.78 .31 .40

.43** .52** .53** -.02 146 45.75 17.01 .35 .49

.73** .68** .16 146 13.91 4.02 1.31 .40

.54** .13 146 8.66 3.87 1.95 .40 .20* 146 8.17 3.22 1.55 .40 74.00 23.42 -.30 .40

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01

Table 12 75

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

76

Experiment 2: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Anger and Sadness B Anger Step 1 Feel Disrespected Step 2 Feel Disrespected Feel Disliked Step 1 Feel Disliked Step 2 Feel Disliked Feel Disrespected Sadness Step 1 Feel Disliked Step 2 Feel Disliked Feel Disrespected Step 1 Feel Disrespected Step 2 Feel Disrespected Feel Disliked Note. N = 146, *p < .05 S.E.B R2 R2

.12 .13 -.01 .11 -.01 .13

.02 .03 .04 .02 .04 .03

.52* .56* -.05 .44* -.05 .56*

.27*

.27* .18*

.00

.27*

.08*

.11 .05 .07 .10 .07 .05

.02 .03 .03 .01 .03 .03

.51* .21 .35* .53* .35* .21

.26*

.29* .28*

.03*

.29*

.01

Table 13

76

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

77

Experiment 2: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Pro-Social Behavior B Pro-Social Step 1 Feel Disliked Step 2 Feel Disliked Feel Disrespected Step 1 Sadness Step 2 Sadness Anger Step 1 Anger Step 2 Anger Sadness Note. N = 146, *p < .05 S.E.B R2 R2

-.08 -.22 .14 1.46 1.34 .19 .79 .19 1.34

.13 .26 .23 .59 .71 .59 .50 .59 .71

-.05 -.14 .10 .20* .18 .03 .13 .03 .18

.00

.01 .04

.01

.04 .02

.00

.04*

.02

Table 14 77

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

78

Experiment 2: Covariances among Measured Variables 1 1. Feel Excluded 2. Feel Disliked 3. Feel Disrespected 4. Negative Affect 5. Angry 6. Sad 7. Interest in Friends 15.06 26.59 42.58 3.44 4.25 3.48 -5.24 2 3 4 5 6 7

218.40 216.12 23.87 24.87 24.24 -18.23

289.34 29.07 34.20 29.04 -7.46

16.19 11.34 8.75 14.70

14.97 6.69 11.78

10.35 15.11

548.50

Table 15 78

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

79

Experiment 2: Mediation Effects of Social Exclusion on Pro-Social Behavior Path Exclusion Pro-Social Exclusion Disrespect Exclusion Dislike Disrespect Anger Dislike Sad Disrespect Sad Dislike Anger Anger Pro-Social Sad Pro-Social Estimate -.79 2.83 1.77 .13 .05 .07 -.01 .34 1.51 S.E. .50 .27 .25 .04 .03 .03 .03 .67 .66 p .13 .009 .009 .004 .17 .009 .64 .49 .02 CI (lower) -1.65 2.43 1.36 .07 -.01 .03 -.11 -.54 .61 CI (upper) -.03 3.32 2.15 .22 .09 .11 .05 1.69 2.64

Table 16 79

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

80

Experiment 2: Summary of Model Fit Indices Model 1. Full 2. Restricted Overall 2 5.22 5.90 df 4 3 RMSEA .05 .08 NNFI .99 .94 CFI 1.00 .97 .68 (1) .82 2 (df) p

80

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Appendix A: Work Preference Questionnaire

81

Work Preference Questionnaire

1.How much do you like Art & Design? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

2.How much do you like English/Writing? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

3.How much do you like Biology? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

4.How much do you like Chemistry? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

5.How much do you like Math and Statistics? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

6.How much do you like History? 1 2 I HATE IT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I LOVE IT

81

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Appendix B. Measurement of Feeling Disrespected and Disliked Instructions: For the following items, indicate how much you feel this way RIGHT NOW. Feel Disrespected Scale 1. Disrespected 2. Undervalued 3. Insulted 4. Dishonored 5. Insignificant 6. Respectable* 7. Honored* 8. Valued* 9. Highly Regarded* 10. Important* 11. Unimportant 12. Significant* 13. Offended * signifies reverse scored items Feel Disliked Scale 1. Disliked 2. Unfriendly 3. Sociable* 4. Kind* 5. Friendly* 6. Agreeable* 7. Funny* 8. Likeable* 9. Unkind 10. Cold 11. Unsociable 12. Disagreeable 13. Distant

82

82

WHY AM I LEFT OUT Appendix C. Aggression Measure Task Assignment

83

The other participants you have been working with will have to work for 30 minutes on tasks you assign to them. You will decide what types of tasks they will have to work on. Make sure that you end up assigning the participants 30 minutes total. Circle the amount of minutes when you decide how long the other participants should work on each task. Your experimenter will return in a few minutes.
1.

MATH AND STATISTICS TASK - 30 minutes: Algebra, basic math, and statistics.

a. 10 minute task: Solving algebraic equations

1 2 Minutes Minutes

10

b. 10 minute task: Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Divi-

sion Problems 0 10 Minutes Minutes

c. 10 minute task: Solving statistical problems

0 1 Minutes Minutes
2.

10

ART & DESIGN TASK - 30 minutes: Coloring, Painting, and Clay Work.
a. 10 minute task: Coloring with Crayons

1 2 Minutes Minutes

10

83

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

b. 10 minute task: Painting

84

0 10 Minutes Minutes c. 0 10 Minutes Minutes

10 minute task: Clay and Sculpture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Appendix D. Experiment 2: Pro-Social Measure to Assess Interest in Making Friends

SUNY's Albany CONNECT Bringing students together one event at a time

SUNY is thinking about developing a new student serviceAlbany CONNECTthat will organize and put on student events (such as concerts, game nights, etc.) with the overarching goal of connecting Albany students with each other and facilitating the establishment of new friendships. Student fees will have to be increased by $75 to cover the cost of this student service. Before SUNY develops Albany CONNECT, it must gain an understanding of the degree to which students feel that they could be benefited by the service. Please answer the following questions based on how you could be benefited from Albany CONNECT using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 strongly agree

strongly disagree

neither agree nor disagree

1. _____ I have a strong interest in meeting new friends. 2. _____ Connecting with SUNY-Albany students is important to me.

84

WHY AM I LEFT OUT

3. _____ I would be willing to pay a small monetary cost to connect with students and meet new friends. 4. _____ The Albany CONNECT service would benefit me in terms of connecting with other Albany students. 5. _____ Albany CONNECT is a student service that I might try. 6. _____ I am interested in the Albany CONNECT service. 7. _____ If Albany CONNECT put on a social event (e.g., concert, game night), I would be motivated to try to attend. 8. _____ I believe that I could benefit from a service like Albany CONNECT. 9. _____ Meeting new friends is important to me. 10. _____ I would be in favor of having a student service like Albany CONNECT on campus. Thanks for filling out this survey regarding Albany CONNECT!!!

85

85