We offer a unique paradigm for manipulating interpersonal rejection that models the complexities of real-life rejection, allows for significant participant immersion in the rejection experience, and requires limited materials. Our approach modifies an existing paradigm, the In Game, to encourage the development of coalitions whereby two individuals are included and one is rejected. The original In Game was developed to reflect real-life situations that involve the exchange of resources or use of power, legitimacy, and obligation. We fuse these elements with new features involving coalition formation to produce a powerful rejection manipulation. Results demonstrate that the modified In Game effectively and reliably produces coalitions that result in one randomly assigned individual being rejected. Moreover, rejection in this paradigm is linked to thwarted psychological need fulfillment and reduced positive affect. Implications of this unique paradigm for studying interpersonal rejection are considered along with suggestions for its successful implementation in other research.
BaumeisterR. F.DeWallC. N.CiaroccoN. J.TwengeJ. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589-604. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589
2.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
3.
BernsteinM. J.ClaypoolH. M. (2012a). Not all social exclusions are created equal: Emotional distress following social exclusion is moderated by exclusion paradigm. Social Influence, 7, 113-130. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.664326
4.
BernsteinM. J.ClaypoolH. M. (2012b). Social exclusion and pain sensitivity: Why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 185-196. doi:10.1177/0146167211422449
5.
BettsK. R.HinszV. B. (2013). Group marginalization: Extending research on interpersonal rejection to small groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 355-370. doi:10.1177/1088868313497999
6.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
7.
GalinskyA.SchweitzerM. (2015). Friend & Foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both. New York, NY: Crown Business.
8.
GerberJ.WheelerL. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468-488. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x
9.
GonsalkoraleK.WilliamsK. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176-1186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.392
10.
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.BakerM.HarrisT.StephensonD. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 227-237. doi:10.1177/1745691614568352
11.
JarvisB. G. (2006). MediaLab (Version 2006.2.40) [Computer Software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft.
12.
KassnerM. P.WesselmannE. D.LawA. T.WilliamsK. D. (2012). Virtually ostracized: Studying ostracism in immersive virtual environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 399-403. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0113
13.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
14.
KennyD. A.MannettiL.PierroA.LiviS.KashyD. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.126
15.
KrossE.BermanM. G.MischelW.SmithE. E.WagerT. D. (2011). Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 6270-6275. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102693108
16.
LearyM. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In LearyM. R. (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
LearyM. R.TwengeJ. M.QuinlivanE. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-132. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_2
18.
NezlekJ. B.KowalskiR. M.LearyM. R.BlevinsT.HolgateS. (1997). Personality moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235-1244. doi:10.1177/01461672972312001
19.
ParkE. S.HinszV. B. (2006). “Strength and safety in numbers”: A theoretical perspective on group influences on approach and avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 135-142. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9024-y
20.
PrattoF.PearsonA. R.LeeI.SaguyT. (2008). Power dynamics in an experimental game. Social Justice Research, 21, 377-407. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0075-y
21.
Smart RichmanL.LearyM. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116, 365-383. doi:10.1037/a0015250
22.
SmithA.WilliamsK. D. (2004). R U there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 291-301. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.8.4.291
23.
UttsJ. M.HeckardR. F. (2004). Mind on statistics (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole—Thomson Learning.
24.
WatsonD.ClarkL. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule—Expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
25.
WilliamsK. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
WilliamsK. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275-315. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
27.
WilliamsK. D.GovanC. L.CrokerV.TynanD.CruickshankM.LamA. (2002). Investigations into differences between social- and cyberostracism. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 65-77. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.65
28.
WilliamsK. D.JarvisB. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 38, 174-180. doi:10.3758/BF03192765
29.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006
30.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (2005). Riding the “O” train: Comparing the effects of ostracism and verbal dispute on targets and sources. Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations, 8, 125-143. doi:10.1177/1368430205051062
