Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Motive Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan Aydın, Deniz."— Presentation transcript:

1 Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Ostracism in Relation to Belongingness Motive Alp Giray Kaya, Gonca Çiffiliz, Yasemin Abayhan, Orhan Aydın, Deniz Şahin, Hayal Yavuz & Savaş Ceylan Hacettepe University Social Psychology Laboratory

2 Ostracism Ostracism is generally defined as being ignored and excluded (Williams et. al., 2005) Ostracism is generally defined as being ignored and excluded (Williams et. al., 2005) Without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention (Williams, 2007) Without excessive explanation or explicit negative attention (Williams, 2007) Williams, K.D., Forgas, J.P., von Hippel, W., & Zadro, L. (2005). The social outcast: An overview. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection and Bullying (pp.1-16). NY: Psychology Press. Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,

3 Threatened Needs Ostracism threatens four needs in humans: Ostracism threatens four needs in humans: Belonging Belonging Control Control Self-esteem Self-esteem Meaningful existence Meaningful existence

4 Reactions to Ostracism Immediate reactions Immediate reactions Pain, hurt feelings, physiological arousal Pain, hurt feelings, physiological arousal Short-term reactions Short-term reactions Attempts to regain needs Attempts to regain needs Long-term reactions Long-term reactions Learned helplessness, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts Learned helplessness, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts

5 Moderating Factors on Reactions Attributions Attributions Responsibility, control, self-other blame Responsibility, control, self-other blame Individual differences Individual differences Attachment styles, needs for belonging, control, self-esteem Attachment styles, needs for belonging, control, self-esteem

6 Current Study The aim of this study was to explore, The aim of this study was to explore, Effects of being informed prior to ostracism Effects of being informed prior to ostracism Effects of the participants’ prior level of need to belong on, Effects of the participants’ prior level of need to belong on, Needs of control, self-esteem, belonging and meaningful existence Needs of control, self-esteem, belonging and meaningful existence Positive and negative mood Positive and negative mood

7 Participants 120 students participated the study 120 students participated the study 11 students were excluded from analysis for not completing the scales properly. 11 students were excluded from analysis for not completing the scales properly. All of the participants were freshman students in Hacettepe University or Izmir University of Economics. All of the participants were freshman students in Hacettepe University or Izmir University of Economics.

8 Procedure: Need to Belong Scale Need to belong scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, Schreindorfer, in press) was conducted to freshman students as potential participants 2-3 weeks before the experiments began. Need to belong scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, Schreindorfer, in press) was conducted to freshman students as potential participants 2-3 weeks before the experiments began. 5 point likert scale: higher scores indicate higher need 5 point likert scale: higher scores indicate higher need Alpha=.70 Alpha=.70

9 Procedure: Cover Story Participants were taken into the lab in 4 person groups and given consent forms including the cover story. Participants were taken into the lab in 4 person groups and given consent forms including the cover story. They were told that they would be participating an experiment on “mental visualisation skills” They were told that they would be participating an experiment on “mental visualisation skills”

10 Procedure: Cyberball Game Participants were told that in order to assess their mental visualisation skills, they were to play a “ball- game” over internet in four people groups. Participants were told that in order to assess their mental visualisation skills, they were to play a “ball- game” over internet in four people groups. The Cyberball game is developed by Williams, Cheung and Choi (2000), in order to manipulate ostracism condition. The Cyberball game is developed by Williams, Cheung and Choi (2000), in order to manipulate ostracism condition. The game is consisted of ball throwings between cartoon figures representing each player, lasting approximately 50 throws. The game is consisted of ball throwings between cartoon figures representing each player, lasting approximately 50 throws. In ostracism condition, after the first 2-3 throws the participant does not get the ball anymore. In ostracism condition, after the first 2-3 throws the participant does not get the ball anymore. In control condition (all-included) participant gets the ball as often as the others do. In control condition (all-included) participant gets the ball as often as the others do. Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K.T., & Choi, W. (2000). CyberOstracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,

11 Procedure: PANAS and Need Threat Scale After the completion of cyberball game, participants were asked to fill two scales After the completion of cyberball game, participants were asked to fill two scales Positive-Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988; adopted by Gençöz, 2000) - 7 point Positive-Negative Affect Scale (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988; adopted by Gençöz, 2000) - 7 point Positive affect: higher scores indicate higher positive mood Positive affect: higher scores indicate higher positive mood Negative affect: higher scores indicate higher negative mood Negative affect: higher scores indicate higher negative mood Need Threat Scale (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; adopted by res. gr.) – 7 point Need Threat Scale (Van Beest & Williams, 2006; adopted by res. gr.) – 7 point Belongingness Belongingness Self-esteem Self-esteem Control Control Meaningful existence Meaningful existence Van Beest, I, & Williams, K.D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve negatif duygu ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, Higher scores indicate lower threat

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

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

14 Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion High NTB Low NTB High NTB Low NTB High NTB Low NTB PANAS Positive Affect 3.44 (1.25) 3.70 (1.21) 3.70 (1.36) 2.99 (0.82) 4.64 (1.14) 4.34 (1.02) Negative Affect 2.65 (0.95) 2.20 (1.04) 2.65 (1.17) 2.54 (1.02) 2.06 (1.31) 2.12 (1.19) Need Threat Scale Belongingness 2.84 (1.54) 3.45 (1.56) 2.48 (1.57) 2.58 (1.31) 4.87 (1.44) 5.06 (1.29) Self-Esteem 4.29 (1.61) 5.48 (1.20) 4.14 (1.38) 4.04 (1.40) 5.60 (1.20) 5.90 (1.12) Control 2.81 (1.07) 3.40 (1.54) 2.85 (1.50) 2.88 (1.46) 4.58 (1.32) 4.82 (1.18) Meaningful Existence 2.91 (1.75) 4.08 (1.54) 2.85 (1.74) 3.09 (1.52) 5.22 (1.32) 4.97 (1.47)

15 Results: PANAS A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on PANAS scores (Wilks’  =.82, F(5, 103) = 5.29, p <.001,  ² =.09). A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on PANAS scores (Wilks’  =.82, F(5, 103) = 5.29, p <.001,  ² =.09). Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on positive affect scores (F(2, 106) = 8.9, p <.001,  ² =.14). The positive affect scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions. Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on positive affect scores (F(2, 106) = 8.9, p <.001,  ² =.14). The positive affect scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.

16 Results: PANAS Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion PANAS Positive Affect 3.58 (1.22) 3.41 (1.20) 4.48 (1.07)* Negative Affect 2.41 (1.01) 2.61 (1.09) 2.09 (1.23)

17 Results: Need Threat Scale A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on Need Threat scale scores (Wilks’  =.61, F(5, 103) = 6.92, p <.001,  ² =.22). A 2: need to belong (high vs. low) x 3: ostracism condition (informed ostracism, ostracism, all inclusion) MANOVA revealed a significant main effect of ostracism condition on Need Threat scale scores (Wilks’  =.61, F(5, 103) = 6.92, p <.001,  ² =.22).

18 Results: Need Threat Scale Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on belongingness need scores (F(2, 106) = 26.97, p <.001,  ² =.34). The belongingness need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions. Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on belongingness need scores (F(2, 106) = 26.97, p <.001,  ² =.34). The belongingness need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.

19 Results: Need Threat Scale Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion Need Threat Scale Belongingness 3.16 (1.56) 2.53 (1.45) 4.97 (1.35)* Self-Esteem 4.91 (1.51)* 4.10 (1.37)* 5.76 (1.15)* Control 3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)* Meaningful Existence 3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*

20 Results: Need Threat Scale Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on self-esteem need scores (F(2, 106) = 12.88, p <.001,  ² =.19). The self- esteem need scores were highest in all inclusion condition, lower in informed ostracism condition and lowest in ostracism condition. All conditions differed significantly from each other. Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on self-esteem need scores (F(2, 106) = 12.88, p <.001,  ² =.19). The self- esteem need scores were highest in all inclusion condition, lower in informed ostracism condition and lowest in ostracism condition. All conditions differed significantly from each other.

21 Results: Need Threat Scale Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion Need Threat Scale Belongingness 3.16 (1.56) 2.53 (1.45) 4.97 (1.35)* Self-Esteem 4.91 (1.51)* 4.10 (1.37)* 5.76 (1.15)* Control 3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)* Meaningful Existence 3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*

22 Results: Need Threat Scale Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on control need scores (F(2, 106) = 20.15, p <.001,  ² =.27). The control need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions. Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on control need scores (F(2, 106) = 20.15, p <.001,  ² =.27). The control need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.

23 Results: Need Threat Scale Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion Need Threat Scale Belongingness 3.16 (1.56) 2.53 (1.45) 4.97 (1.35)* Self-Esteem 4.91 (1.51)* 4.10 (1.37)* 5.76 (1.15)* Control 3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)* Meaningful Existence 3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*

24 Results: Need Threat Scale Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on meaningful existence need scores (F(2, 106) = 17.25, p <.001,  ² =.25). The meaningful existence need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions. Follow-up ANOVA’s showed that there was a significant effect of ostracism condition on meaningful existence need scores (F(2, 106) = 17.25, p <.001,  ² =.25). The meaningful existence need scores were higher in all inclusion condition than both ostracism conditions. There was no significant difference between ostracism conditions.

25 Results: Need Threat Scale Informed Ostracism Ostracism All Inclusion Need Threat Scale Belongingness 3.16 (1.56) 2.53 (1.45) 4.97 (1.35)* Self-Esteem 4.91 (1.51)* 4.10 (1.37)* 5.76 (1.15)* Control 3.12 (1.35) 2.86 (1.46) 4.71 (1.23)* Meaningful Existence 3.52 (1.72) 2.95 (1.63) 5.09 (1.39)*

26 Discussion Results show that prior levels of need to belong had no effect on need threat scores and affect scores. Results show that prior levels of need to belong had no effect on need threat scores and affect scores. Being informed that a person is going to be ostracized by a certain rule of the game does not reduce the effects of ostracism on threatening needs and lowering affect. This result is consistent with prior studies that reactions to ostracism are automatic in nature. Being informed that a person is going to be ostracized by a certain rule of the game does not reduce the effects of ostracism on threatening needs and lowering affect. This result is consistent with prior studies that reactions to ostracism are automatic in nature.

27 Thank you for listening…


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

Similar presentations


Ads by Google