Do individual differences alter reactions to ostracism? Dorothee Dietrich

1. Do individual differences alter reactions to ostracism? DorotheeDietrich Results Manipulation Check. Participants in the ostracism felt significantly more rejected than in the acceptance condition (t (47) = 4.12, p < .001). Aggression. Aggression was significantly higher in the ostracism condition than in the acceptance condition (t (47) = 3.47, p < .001). in order to examine Williams’ (2007) claim that reactions to ostracism are uniform regardless of individual differences, we examined the correlations between the relevant trait measures and reactions to ostracism measures (feelings of rejection, written aggression measures), in the ostracism and acceptance conditions. Introduction According to Williams (2007) reactions to ostracism occur in 3 stages: immediate, short-term, and long-term effects. The immediate stage involves pain and distress to all who experience ostracism regardless of individual or situational variations. The purpose of the current study was to examine the validity of Williams’ claim that individual differences, i.e., need to belong or desirability for control, do not moderate the impact of ostracism on individuals’ reactions to ostracism. Conclusions Ostracized participants felt more rejected and were more aggressive than accepted participants, confirming previous research. Participants’ sense of rejection and aggression did not vary according to their need to belong or desire for control which is in line with Williams’ (2007) claims that reactions in the immediate stage are indeed uniform, regardless of individual differences. • Method • 2-group between-subjects design • ostracism & acceptance (control) • 49 undergraduate participants Individual Differences Measures Need to belong (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell & Schreindorfer 2005) 2. Desirability of control (Burger & Cooper, 1979) Ostracism Manipulation. We utilized Cyberball in which the participant plays a toss and catch game with three other (virtual) players in an online interface. In the ostracism condition, the other players stopped throwing the ball to the participant partway into play. In the acceptance condition, the participant was included throughout play (Williams & Jarvis, 2006). Aggression Measures. Participants gave feedback on their virtual partners on a 10-item written aggression measure (Dietrich, Hawkinson, & Palo, 2010) based on average agreement with ten statements: “The other members of my team completed the task well” “I feel this team was a success” “I would recommend my team to participate in a follow-up study”. At the end, a manipulation check item was given: “I felt rejected during the Cyberball game.” References Burger, J. & Cooper, H. (1979). The desirability of control, Motivation & Emotion, 3, 381-393. Dietrich, D., Hawkinson, K., & Palo, A. (2010). Self-monitoring as a moderating factor of aggressive responses. Presented at the eleventh annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Las Vegas, NV. Leary, M.R., Kelly, K.M., Cottrell, C.A., & Schreindorfer, L.S. (2006). Individual differences in the need to belonging: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript. 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. Williams, K.D. (20007). Ostracism.Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425-452. Williams, K. D. & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 174-180. Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. 2013.