Social exclusion influences attentional bias to ... - Wiley Online Library

bs_bs_banner

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2015), 18, 199–208

DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12101

Social exclusion influences attentional bias to social information Mengsi Xu,1,2 Zhiai Li,1,2 Junhua Zhang,3 Lijing Sun,1,2 Lingxia Fan,1,2 Qinghong Zeng1 and Dong Yang1,2 1

School of Psychology, Southwest University, 2Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality (Southwest University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing and 3Center for Psychological Application, Department of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China

Using three experiments, the present study investigates the impact of social exclusion on attention. Specifically, we investigate whether social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues (smiling faces) or social exclusion cues (angry faces) among an Asian population. The Cyberball game was adopted to manipulate social inclusion or exclusion, and a dot-probe task was used to measure individuals’ responses to smiling or angry faces. In Experiments 1 and 2, each trial consisted of either a smiling or angry face that was paired with a neutral face. In Experiment 1, when the stimulus onset-asynchronies (SOA) were 500 ms, the inhibition of return emerged, indirectly indicating that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to social acceptance cues. In Experiment 2, after setting the SOA to 200 ms, we found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to smiling faces compared to neutral faces. In Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial, and we found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to smiling faces compared to angry faces. Therefore, the present study extends our understanding of the relationship between social exclusion and attention. Overall, it appears that after social exclusion, the desire for social reconnection trumps the desire to avoid social exclusion. Key words: attention, cyberball, emotion regulation, goal perspective, social exclusion, social monitoring system.

Social exclusion and attentional bias Humans have a fundamental need for positive social relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). From an evolutionary perspective, this need is adaptive because close relationships can offer a greater likelihood of obtaining food, security and reproduction. When the need to belong is challenged by social exclusion, a variety of adverse consequences emerge, including negative moods, difficulties with self-regulation and mental health problems (Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley & Thisted, 2006; Macdonald & Leary, 2005; Poulsen & Kashy, 2011). Consequently, researchers have been interested in examining individual responses to social exclusion (Downey, Khouri & Feldman, 1997; Jiang, Gao, Huang, DeWall & Zhou, 2014; Maner, DeWall, Baumeister & Schaller, 2007; Zhou, Vohs & Baumeister, 2009). Different theorists have presented diverse models and predictions about social exclusion. For example, Pickett and Gardner proposed the Social Monitoring System (SMS) framework (Gardner,

Correspondence: Dong Yang, School of Psychology, Southwest University, Tiansheng Road no. 1, BeiBei, Chongqing 400715, China. Email: [email protected] Received 11 August 2014; revision 5 January 2015; accepted 5 January 2015.

Pickett, Jefferis & Knowles, 2005). The SMS framework assumes that individuals possess a regulatory system devoted to maintaining a stable and acceptable level of social inclusion. According to this theory, when an individual’s need to belong is challenged, he or she monitors and uses social cues to initiate and facilitate social connections. In support of this model, Maner et al. reported that social exclusion led participants to make efforts to forge new social bonds by expressing a greater interest in making new friends and a greater desire to work with others (Maner et al., 2007). Moreover, DeWall et al. found that excluded participants fixated more of their attention on smiling faces than their included counterparts did during eye-tracking tasks (DeWall, Maner & Rouby, 2009). This eagerness to forge social bonds after social exclusion may also be consistent with the individuals’ goals and emotion regulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Vogt, De Houwer, Moors, Van Damme & Crombez, 2010). Specifically, after experiencing social exclusion, excluded participants may desire reconnection, and this top-down setting may influence the deployment of attention and shift individuals’ attention to positive social acceptance cues. The Rejection Sensitivity Model (RSM) also attempts to explain how individuals respond to social exclusion (Downey et al., 1997). The RSM proposes that social exclusion promotes an individual’s rejection sensitivity and motivates them to prioritize self-protection by focusing on detecting exclusion cues. In support of this model, using

© 2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

200

eye-tracking methodology, Bangee et al. demonstrated that lonely young adults (i.e. with high rejection sensitivity) were more likely to view social threat stimuli as their first fixation and more likely to fix their attention on threat stimuli than non-lonely peers (Bangee, Harris, Bridges, Rotenberg & Qualter, 2014). In sum, the SMS framework emphasizes individual eagerness to renew social connections by shifting attention to inclusion cues, while the RSM stresses the significance of avoiding future exclusion by quickly detecting exclusion cues. Given that the need to belong is fundamental, it is probable that human responses to social exclusion occur at various levels of cognition, including both upstream (i.e. early-stage) and downstream (i.e. late-stage) cognitive processes (DeWall et al., 2009). The majority of existing studies have primarily focused on the relationship between social exclusion and downstream processes, such as memory (Gardner, Pickett & Brewer, 2000), judgement (Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004) and overt behaviours (Maner et al., 2007; Yanagisawa, Nishimura, Furutani & Ura, 2013; Zhou, Zheng, Zhou & Guo, 2009). However, few studies have examined the relationship between social exclusion and upstream cognitive processes, including attention. Since the upstream cognitive processes were carried out before the downstream cognitive processes, the early-stage (i.e. lower-order) cognitive processes might exert quite a significant influence on the late-stage (i.e. higher-order) cognition and behaviours. Indeed, researchers have asserted that early-stage cognitive processes, such as selective attention, mediate the interaction between perception and overt action (Houghton & Tipper, 1994). It is therefore important to explore the basic cognitive mechanisms underlying downstream cognitive processes. Thus far, only one study has directly investigated the relationship between social exclusion and attention (DeWall et al., 2009). Specifically, DeWall et al. (2009) performed four experiments to examine the impact of social exclusion on attention. The results of these studies reveal that, when compared to included participants, excluded participants exhibited greater attention to the cues pertaining to social acceptance. However, in DeWall et al., the duration of the social cues were relatively long (e.g. 1000 ms in Experiment 4); therefore, it is difficult to assess the exact process that underlies how participants deploy their attention during this period (e.g. the period when the social cues presented). Thus, it is necessary to further examine how social exclusion affects attention during shorter stimulus duration. Moreover, the studies of DeWall et al. were conducted with Western samples. There are known differences between Western (North American) and Eastern (particularly East Asian) cultures in many areas, including individualism and collectivism (Basu-Zharku, 2011; Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002) and cultural selfconstrual (Markus & Kitayama, 2010); therefore, it seems

Mengsi Xu et al.

necessary to explore whether social exclusion would bias attention to social acceptance or social exclusion cues in Asian samples. Consequently, in the present study, we examine whether social exclusion enhances attentional bias to social acceptance cues or social exclusion cues that were presented briefly to Asian participants. To address these issues, we first used the Cyberball game to manipulate social exclusion (Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000). Next, participants performed a dot-probe task that measured attentional bias (MacLeod, Mathews & Tata, 1986). Previous studies have demonstrated that smiles signal friendly interpersonal intentions and anger signals social threats (Brown & Moore, 2002; Knutson, 1996). Thus, in the dot-probe task, we used smiling faces to represent social acceptance and angry faces to represent social exclusion. We expected that if the relation between social exclusion and attention would be explained by the SMS model (Pickett & Gardner, 2005), social exclusion would promote an attentional bias to smiling faces. In contrast, if this relationship followed the RSM (Downey et al., 1997), we expected that participants would demonstrate an attentional bias to angry faces.

Experiment 1 Method Participants Participants included 40 Chinese university students (18 females, 22 males) between the ages of 19 and 24 years (M = 21.30 years, SD = 1.25). Participants were randomly assigned to either the inclusion or the exclusion group, and received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Participants were provided with an explanation of the experimental procedure and then an experimenter obtained participants’ verbal informed consent. After completing the dot-probe task, participants were debriefed and dismissed. Materials Face stimuli. The face stimuli were grey scale images of 18 adults (9 females, 9 males) who displayed smiling, angry or neutral facial expressions. Images were taken from the NimStim database and were resized to 135 × 180 pixels (Tottenham et al., 2009). Only faces with closed mouths were used because it was expected that the whiteness of the teeth in open-mouthed faces would provide a sharp visual contrast and distract participants (DeWall et al., 2009). Procedure Cyberball. The current study utilized a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball to manipulate social exclusion. In


Social exclusion influences on attention

201

Figure 1 Schematic overview of a trial during the dot-probe task. A trial started with the presentation of a fixation screen for 1000 ms, followed by the presentation of a face pair for 500 ms (Experiment 1) or 200 ms (Experiment 2 and 3). Then, the target (white dot) was presented. Participants had to indicate the location (left or right) of the target by pressing ‘1’ or ‘2’. Note: in Experiments 1 and 2, the face pair consisted of either a smiling or angry face that was paired with a neutral face; in Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial.

the Cyberball paradigm, participants are instructed to play a game of virtual toss with two other players whom they do not know and whom they do not expect to meet (Williams & Jarvis, 2006). We manipulated the degree of social exclusion and inclusion by varying the number of times participants received the ball from the other players. Participants in the inclusion group received the ball for roughly one third of the total throws (40 total throws). In the social exclusion condition, participants only received the ball twice at the beginning of the game and did not receive the ball again for the remaining time (Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004). Need Threat Scale. After finishing the Cyberball game, participants completed the Need Threat Scale (van Beest & Williams, 2006; Van Beest, Williams & Van Dijk, 2011). This scale asked participants to make a self-assessment on a five-point scale (1 = ‘do not agree’ to 5 = ‘agree’) to indicate their current level of satisfaction for feelings of belonging (e.g. ‘I felt as if I was one of the other players’), self-esteem (e.g. ‘I had the idea that I had the same value as the other players’), meaningful existence (e.g. ‘I think that my participation in the game was useful’), and control (e.g. ‘I felt in control over the game’) during the game (α = 0.92). Lower scores represented an increased threat to social needs and were used to assess the effectiveness of the social exclusion manipulation (Williams, 2009). Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Participants also completed the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS includes 10 items assessing positive emotions (e.g. interested, excited) and 10 items assessing negative emotions (e.g. irritable, ashamed). Participants were instructed to make a self-assessment on a five-point scale (1 = ‘very slightly or not at all’ to 5 = ‘extremely’) to measure their current emotional state (α = 0.97).

Dot-probe task. After completing the Cyberball game and questionnaires, participants performed a dot-probe task where they detected the location of a small dot after being presented with a face pair (MacLeod et al., 1986) (Fig. 1). Each trial began with a crosshair at the centre of the screen (1000 ms), and was followed by the face pairs displayed for 500 ms. Each face pair included two face images, one depicting an emotional expression (smiling or angry face) and one neutral expression. The position of the face on the screen (i.e. left or right) was randomized. Face pairs were randomly chosen from 36 potential face pairs (18 smiling and 18 angry expressions paired with images of the same actor with a neutral expression); each pair was presented three times for a total of 108 trials. After 500 ms, the face pair disappeared and a white dot appeared on either the left or right side of the screen. Participants were asked to press ‘1’ if the dot appeared on the left side and ‘2’ if the dot appeared on the right side. The location of the dot (left versus right) was randomized. The task was designed so that in half of the trials the dot appeared in the same location as the emotional face (congruent trials), and the dot appeared in the location of the neutral face in the other half of the trials (incongruent trials). In this task, the key dependent variable is the reaction time (RT) for congruent and incongruent trials. Attentional bias occurs if the RTs for the congruent trials are faster than those for the incongruent trials (MacLeod et al., 1986). In contrast, if the RTs for the congruent trials are slower than those for the incongruent trials, it represents the emergence of inhibition of return (IOR) (Posner, Rafal, Choate & Vaughan, 1985; Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006). IOR refers to the tendency to inhibit orienting towards visual locations that one has previously attended (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994; Posner & Cohen, 1984; Posner et al., 1985).


202

Statistical analysis First, a t-test was conducted to determine whether the social exclusion manipulation was effective by comparing the inclusion and exclusion groups on their Need Threat Scale scores. Second, a t-test was used to compare the PANAS scores (positive and negative emotion, respectively) of the exclusion and inclusion groups. Finally, RTs during the dot-probe task were analyzed using group (inclusion, exclusion) × congruency (congruent, incongruent) × face (smiling, angry) ANOVA. Group was the between-subjects factor; congruency and face were the within-subjects factors. Results Manipulation checks For the Need Threat scores, the results reveal lower scores for the exclusion group (M = 1.90, SD = 0.42) than for the inclusion group (M = 3.19, SD = 0.62), t(38) = −8.83, p < 0.01. These results suggest that the needs of excluded participants were threatened compared to those of the included participants, thereby confirming the effectiveness of the social exclusion manipulation. For the PANAS scores, the results demonstrate that neither positive nor negative emotion scores significantly differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 29.73, SD = 7.92 vs. M = 31.73, SD = 7.41, t(38) = −0.65, p > 0.05; negative: M = 16.87, SD = 5.05 vs. M = 15.00, SD = 3.27, t(38) = 1.48, p > 0.05). Consistent with previous studies, these results suggest that social exclusion did not affect emotion (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006; Twenge, Catanese & Baumeister, 2003). Dot-probe task The results of the ANOVA on RTs reveal a significant main effect for congruency, F(1, 38) = 24.24, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.39, with longer RT for the congruent trials (M = 627.02 ms, SD = 13.20) than for the incongruent trials (M = 609.39 ms, SD = 13.37), indicating the emergence of IOR. Importantly, we also found a marginally significant interaction between group, congruency and face, F(1, 38) = 3.33, p = 0.07, η2 = 0.08. When the interaction was probed, for the smiling face, a slower response for the congruent trials than for the incongruent trials only existed for the exclusion group (congruent: M = 607.18 ms, SD = 15.98; incongruent: M = 583.76 ms, SD = 17.28, F (1, 38) = 14.21, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.27), but not the inclusion group (congruent: M = 630.37 ms, SD = 18.99; incongruent: M = 633.37 ms, SD = 20.53, F (1, 38) = 0.16, p > 0.05, η2 < 0.01). For the angry faces, a slower response for the congruent trials than for the incongruent trials existed for both the exclusion group (congruent: M = 615.09 ms,

Mengsi Xu et al.

SD = 19.04; incongruent: M = 590.15 ms, SD = 18.26, F (1, 38) = 21.24, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.26) and the inclusion group (congruent: M = 649.83 ms, SD = 22.15; incongruent: M = 625.00 ms, SD = 18.26, F (1, 38) = 13.12, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.20) (Fig. 2). Moreover, for the inclusion group, the response for congruent trials was slower for angry face (M = 649.83 ms, SD = 22.15) than for smiling face (M = 630.37 ms, SD = 18.53), F (1, 38) = 5.85, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.13). No other significant difference was observed. Discussion The aim of Experiment 1 was to explore whether social exclusion leads to an attentional bias to social acceptance or social exclusion cues. For the smiling faces, we found that the RTs for the congruent trials were longer than for the incongruent trials, indicating the emergence of IOR. One important characteristic of IOR is that its occurrence at a location follows only after attention has shifted to that particular location. Therefore, the presence of IOR in the exclusion group (and not the inclusion group) may indirectly indicate that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to social acceptance cues, and leads to earlier attentional processing of these cues. For the angry faces, we found that the RTs for the congruent trials were longer than those for the incongruent trials, regardless of whether participants experienced exclusion or inclusion; that is, IOR emerged for both groups. These results suggest that angry faces may be processed at earlier stages, which is consistent with the anger superiority effect (Hansen & Hansen, 1988; Holmes, Bradley, Kragh Nielsen & Mogg, 2009). The anger superiority effect refers to the preferential processing of threatening faces. Specifically, preferential processing is thought to have evolutionary advantages because it allows for a quick response to threat-related stimuli (Ohman & Mineka, 2001). In sum, in Experiment 1, we found that the IOR for the smiling faces only emerged among the excluded participants; this indirectly supports the notion that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to social acceptance cues. In addition, the IOR for the angry faces was found in both the exclusion and inclusion groups; thus, it appears that these faces were processed at an earlier stage. However, these results failed to provide direct evidence that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to acceptance or exclusion cues (i.e. the RTs for the congruent trials were shorter than for the incongruent trials). Therefore, in Experiment 2, we attempted to clarify this finding by setting the SOA to 200 ms rather than 500 ms, which was used in Experiment 1. We chose to adjust the SOA for two reasons. First, Klein (2000) reported that when the SOA was short, the responses for cued targets were faster than were those for uncued



203

Figure 2 Mean reaction time (in ms) as a function of group and congruency for smiling and angry faces in three experiments (congruent means smiling-congruent trials and incongruent means smiling-incongruent trials). Errors bars represent standard errors. , congruenct; , incongruent.

targets; however, when the SOA was longer, the response was slower for cued targets than for uncued targets. Furthermore, Klein (2000) indicated that the crossover point (where facilitation changed to inhibition) was between 200–300 ms following the onset of a cue (Klein, 2000). Second, when measuring event-related potentials (ERP), Holmes et al. (2009) found that attentional bias to angry faces appeared at 180–250 ms following the onset of an image of an angry face (Holmes et al., 2009). This result

also confirms that the angry expressions were processed at earlier stages (earlier than 500 ms). Taken together, in Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, the IOR for smiling face emerged in the exclusion group, which indirectly indicates that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues, and leads to earlier attentional processing of these cues. Therefore, in Experiment 2, by altering the SOA to 200 ms, we sought to observe direct evidence of social exclusion enhancing


204

sensitivity to social acceptance cues or social exclusion cues.

Mengsi Xu et al.

suggest that social exclusion did not affect emotional states in Experiment 2. Dot-probe task

Experiment 2

The Cyberball game, Need Threat Scale, PANAS and dotprobe task were conducted in an identical fashion as in Experiment 1. The only change from Experiment 1 was the previously mentioned change to the SOA (set to 200 ms in Experiment 2) during the dot-probe task.

The results of the ANOVA on RTs reveal a significant main effect for congruency, F(1, 40) = 16.08, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.29, with faster responses for the congruent trials (M = 549.15 ms, SD = 11.32) than for the incongruent trials (M = 563.63 ms, SD = 12.04). Importantly, we also found a significant interaction between group, congruency and face, F(1, 40) = 12.21, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.23. When the interaction was probed, for the smiling face, a faster response for the congruent trials than for the incongruent trials only existed for the exclusion group (congruent: M = 530.87 ms, SD = 14.35; incongruent: M = 557.87 ms, SD = 15.35, F(1, 40) = 16.49, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.29), but not the inclusion group (congruent: M = 570.46 ms, SD =15.79; incongruent: M = 568.06 ms, SD = 16.89, F(1, 40) = 0.11, p < 0.05, η2 < 0.01). For the angry faces, a faster response for the congruent trials than for the incongruent trials only existed for the inclusion group (congruent: M = 550.56 ms, SD = 18.78; incongruent: M = 575.10 ms, SD = 19.89, F(1, 40) = 12.21, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.23), but not the exclusion group (congruent: M = 544.69 ms, SD = 17.07; incongruent: M = 553.51 ms, SD = 18.08, F(1, 40) = 1.91, p > 0.05, η2 = 0.05) (Fig. 2). Moreover, for the inclusion group, the response for congruent trials was faster for angry face (M = 550.56 ms, SD = 18.78) than for smiling face (M = 570.46 ms, SD = 15.79), F (1, 40) = 4.83, p = 0.03, η2 = 0.11). No other significant difference was observed.

Statistical analysis

Discussion

Analyses similar to those used in Experiment 1 on Need Threat scores, PANAS scores and RTs in the dot-probe task were used.

Based on the results of Experiment 1, we set the SOA at 200 ms in Experiment 2 to investigate whether social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance or social exclusion cues. The results show that, for the smiling faces, responses were faster for the congruent trials than for the incongruent trials, but only among the excluded participants. These results suggest that social exclusion enhances sensitivity to smiling faces and demonstrates an enhanced attentional bias to social acceptance cues. For the angry faces, the RTs for the congruent trials were shorter than for the incongruent trials among the inclusion group, suggesting that only the inclusion group had an attentional bias to social exclusion cues. Consequently, the results of Experiment 2 provide further evidence that social exclusion may promote attentional bias to social acceptance cues. However, in Experiment 2, we could not directly conclude whether the eagerness to reconnect was stronger than the goal of avoidance since the smiling faces and the angry faces were paired separately with a neutral face. Therefore, in Experiment 3 we sought to provide a firmer, clearer demonstration of the relationship between exclusion and attention. Specifically,

Method Participants Participants were a different group of 42 Chinese university students (28 females, 14 males) between the ages of 19 and 24 years (M = 21.37 years, SD = 1.42). Each participant received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Prior to beginning the study, participants were informed about the procedure and provided informed verbal consent. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the inclusion or the exclusion group. After completing the dot-probe task, participants were debriefed and dismissed. Materials Face stimuli. The same stimuli used in Experiment 1 were used in Experiment 2. Procedure

Results Manipulation checks For the Need Threat scores, the exclusion group (M = 1.50, SD = 0.34) had lower scores than the inclusion group (M = 3.43, SD = 0.28), t(40) = −10.81, p < 0.01. These results suggest that the needs of the excluded participants were threatened while those of the included participants were not threatened, thereby confirming the effectiveness of the manipulation of social exclusion. For the PANAS scores, the results indicate that neither the positive nor the negative emotion scores differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 30.71, SD = 3.79 vs. M = 32.10, SD = 4.90, t(40) = −0.55, p > 0.05; negative: M = 17.87, SD = 3.84 vs. M = 16.18, SD = 4.72, t(40) = 1.64, p > 0.05). These results



205

Method

sion group (M = 3.63, SD = 0.60), t(40) = −9.08, p < 0.01. These results suggest that the needs of the excluded participants were threatened while those of the included participants were not threatened, thereby confirming the effectiveness of the manipulation of social exclusion. For the PANAS scores, the results indicate that neither the positive emotion nor the negative emotion scores differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 30.38, SD = 5.63 vs. M = 31.00, SD = 5.59, t(40) = −0.36, p > 0.05; negative: M = 17.81, SD = 6.87 vs. M = 18.48, SD = 5.58, t(40) = −0.35, p > 0.05). These results suggest that social exclusion does not affect emotional state.

Participants

Dot-probe task

Participants were a separate sample of 42 Chinese university students (32 females, 10 males) between the ages of 18 and 24 years (M = 20.60 years, SD = 1.74); each participant received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Prior to beginning the study, participants were informed about the procedure and provided their informed verbal consent. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the inclusion or the exclusion group. After completing the dot-probe task, participants were debriefed and dismissed.

The results of the ANOVA on RTs only reveal a significant interaction between group and congruency, F(1, 40) = 7.56, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.16. When the interaction was probed, for the exclusion group, responses were faster for the smilingcongruent trials (M = 585.32 ms, SD = 15.04) than for the smiling-incongruent trials (M = 596.79 ms, SD = 14.50), F(1, 40) = 6.23, p = 0.02, η2 = 0.14. However, for the inclusion group, no significant differences were found (congruent: M = 581.56 ms, SD =15.03; incongruent: M = 575.16 ms, SD = 14.49, F(1, 40) = 1.94, p = 0.17, η2 = 0.05) (Fig. 2). These results suggest that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance rather than attention to social exclusion cues.

we paired smiling and angry faces during each trial instead of showing one of them with a neutral face. Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that after experiencing social exclusion, if the eagerness of reconnection wins over the goal of avoidance, the RTs on the congruent trials for smiling face should be faster than the incongruent trials; however, if the goal of avoidance is stronger than the goal of reconnection, the RTs during the congruent trials for the angry face should be faster than the incongruent trials.

Experiment 3

Materials Face stimuli. The stimuli that were used in Experiments 1 and 2 were used in Experiment 3.

Discussion Procedure The Cyberball game, Need Threat Scale, PANAS and dotprobe task were conducted in an identical fashion as in Experiment 2. The only change from Experiment 2 was that both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial instead of showing either a smiling face of an angry face paired with a neutral face. Statistical analysis Analysis of the Need Threat scores and PANAS scores was similar to that conducted in Experiment 2. RTs during the dot-probe task were analyzed using group (inclusion, exclusion) × congruency for smiling face (smilingcongruent, smiling-incongruent) ANOVA. Group was the between-subjects factor; congruency for smiling face was the within-subjects factor. Results Manipulation checks For the Need Threat scores, the results show lower scores for the exclusion group (M = 2.11, SD = 0.48) than for the inclu-

In Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial; this was done to directly test whether social exclusion promoted a stronger attentional bias to social acceptance cues or social exclusion cues. The results show that, for the exclusion group, the response was faster for the smiling-congruent trials than for the smilingincongruent trial. Therefore, the results of Experiment 3 provide direct evidence that after experiencing social exclusion, the desire for social reconnection may trump the desire to avoid further exclusion.

General discussion The aim of the present study was to examine if social exclusion enhances attentional bias to briefly presented social acceptance or social exclusion cues in an Asian population. Using a dot-probe task, excluded and included participants were asked to detect the location of a dot following the presentation of a face pair (one face was smiling or angry, the other face was neutral in Experiments 1 and 2; one face was smiling, the other face was angry in Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, the


206

IOR emerged, which indirectly suggests that these faces were processed at an earlier stage. In Experiment 2, we set the SOA to 200 ms and found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues compared to neutral cues. In Experiment 3, when we showed both smiling and angry faces during each trial, we found that social exclusion still promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues compared to social exclusion cues. Taken together, the results from the three experiments reveal that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues, and eagerness to reconnect was stronger than desire to avoid. In Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, we found that the IOR for the smiling faces only emerged among the excluded participants. As previously mentioned, one important characteristic of the IOR is that its occurrence at a location follows only after attention has shifted to that particular location (Klein, 2000). Therefore, in the current study, the presence of the IOR for smiling faces in the exclusion group (and not the inclusion group) may indirectly indicate that social exclusion promoted sensitivity to social acceptance cues, and led to the earlier attentional processing of these cues. Consequently, in subsequent studies, we set the SOA to 200 ms to directly test the effects of social exclusion on attention. In Experiment 2, when the SOA was 200 ms, we found that social exclusion enhanced attentional bias to smiling faces. More importantly, in Experiment 3, after showing both smiling and angry faces during each trial instead of pairing one of them with a neutral face, we still found the attentional bias to smiling face among excluded participants. These results are consistent with our predictions and with the existing literature (DeWall et al., 2009; Gardner et al., 2005; Maner et al., 2007). Specifically, the results obtained could be explained by the SMS framework (Gardner et al., 2005). According to the SMS framework, individuals use a regulatory system to maintain an acceptable level of social inclusion. Once the need to belong has been threatened, the goal of individuals is to compensate for the deficit in belonging. In order to achieve this goal, individuals monitor their environment for information that may provide them with opportunities to renew social connections (DeWall et al., 2009; Vogt et al., 2010). Therefore, after being excluded by others, eagerness to recover the deficit in belonging may promote participants’ sensitivity to images of smiling faces. The second explanation for the attentional bias to social acceptance cues demonstrated herein can be drawn from the literature on emotion regulation. Specifically, researchers have indicated that attentional deployment is one of the primary strategies used to regulate emotion (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Thus, when individuals are excluded, they may turn their attention to positive social acceptance cues in order to regulate their emotions. Indeed, a recent study verified this hypothesis (DeWall et al., 2011). Spe-

Mengsi Xu et al.

cifically, when using implicit measures of individual reactions to exclusion, excluded participants became highly attuned to positive emotional cues. Thus, after participants experienced social exclusion in the current study, they may have diverted their attention to cues of positive social acceptance in order to quickly regulate their emotions. The need to belong is fundamental in humans and it can be challenged by social exclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Previous studies have primarily focused on the impact of social exclusion on downstream processes, such as memory, judgement and overt behaviours. The current study extends this body of literature by investigating the relationship between social exclusion and attention (an upstream cognitive process). The findings presented herein suggest that social exclusion may motivate individuals to renew their social connections, an effect that manifests itself in both downstream and upstream cognitive processes. Furthermore, the attentional bias to a smiling face still exists when the smiling face is paired with an angry face, indicating that after experiencing social exclusion, the desire for social reconnection may trump the desire to avoid further exclusion. Finally, from a broader perspective, our results suggest that excluded and included participants might treat social information in different ways. Specifically, while the included participants focus on the threatening meaning of social information, the excluded participants pay more attention to the acceptance meaning of social information. While the current study has numerous strengths, it also has some limitations. First, we treated smiles as a measure of social acceptance. However, the smiling face may provide complex information. For example, while the Duchenne smile represents cooperation and acceptance (Brown & Moore, 2002), the non-Duchenne smile may conceal negative information (Ekman, Friesen & O’Sullivan, 1988). Therefore, it may be inappropriate to place all smiles in one category. Second, we did not consider the potential influence of individual differences. For instance, some studies have shown that participants with social anxiety avoid all social information (Brown, Silvia, Myin-Germeys & Kwapil, 2007). Third, we only recruited Asian participants; therefore, our conclusions cannot be directly generalized to Western participants. Fourth, the facial expression used in the current study included both Asian and non-Asian faces. This should be avoided in future studies after considering the other-race effect, which refers to better recognition of faces from one’s own race than faces of another race (Anzures et al., 2013). Future studies are needed to address whether excluded participants show different attentional biases to different types of smiles and whether these effects are influenced by the individual differences. Furthermore, future studies are needed to include both Western and Eastern participants to explore whether there are cross-cultural differences in the impact of social exclusion on attention. Moreover, event-related



207

potentials could be used to further examine the electrophysiological correlates of the impact of social exclusion on attention due to their high temporal resolution. Conclusion Using three experiments, we investigated whether social exclusion enhances attentional bias to a set of social

References Abrams, R. A. & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 20 (3), 467–477. Anzures, G., Quinn, P. C., Pascalis, O., Slater, A. M., Tanaka, J. W. & Lee, K. (2013). Developmental origins of the other-race effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22 (3), 173–178. doi: 10.1177/ 0963721412474459. Bangee, M., Harris, R. A., Bridges, N., Rotenberg, K. J. & Qualter, P. (2014). Loneliness and attention to social threat in young adults: Findings from an eye tracker study. Personality and Individual Differences, 63, 16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.039. Basu-Zharku, I. O. (2011). Effects of collectivistic and individualistic cultures on imagination inflation in Eastern and Western cultures. Student Pulse, 3 (02), 1–5. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong – desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental humanmotivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3 .497. Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I. & Kwapil, T. R. (2007). When the need to belong goes wrong: The expression of social anhedonia and social anxiety in daily life. Psychol Sci, 18 (9), 778–782. doi: 10.1111/ j.1467-9280.2007.01978.x. Brown, W. M. & Moore, C. (2002). Smile asymmetries and reputation as reliable indicators of likelihood to cooperate: An evolutionary analysis. 11; 3 In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 11, pp. 59–78). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C. & Thisted, R. A. (2006). Loneliness as a specific risk factor for depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and

acceptance cues or social exclusion cues that were briefly presented to an Asian population. The results indicate that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues. The present study extends our understanding of the relationship between social exclusion and attention; specifically, the findings suggest that after social exclusion the desire for social reconnection may be stronger than the desire to avoid further exclusion in an Asian population.

longitudinal analyses. Psychology and Aging, 21 (1), 140–151. doi: 10.1037/08827974.21.1.140. DeWall, C. N. & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 1–15. DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K. & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (4), 729–741. doi: 10.1037/a0014634. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A. & Reid, M. W. (2011). Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity. Emotion, 11 (3), 623–636. doi: 10.1037/ a0023534. Downey, G., Khouri, H. & Feldman, S. I. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later adjustment: The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention. Rochester symposium on developmental psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 85–114). Rochester, NY, USA: University of Rochester Press. xvii. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. & O’Sullivan, M. (1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (3), 414. Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L. & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (4), 486–496. doi: 10.1177/0146167200266007. Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V. & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (11), 1549–1560. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167205277208.

Gross, J. J. & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. Handbook of Emotion Regulation, 3, 24. Hansen, C. H. & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 917–924. Holmes, A., Bradley, B. P., Kragh Nielsen, M. & Mogg, K. (2009). Attentional selectivity for emotional faces: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychophysiology, 46 (1), 62–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008 .00750.x. Houghton, G. & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53–112). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press. xiv. Jiang, M., Gao, D. G., Huang, R., DeWall, C. N. & Zhou, X. Y. (2014). The devil wears Prada: Advertisements of luxury brands evoke feelings of social exclusion. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (4), 245– 254. doi: 10.1111/Ajsp.12069. Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (4), 138– 147. Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20 (3), 165–182. Macdonald, G. & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131 (2), 202–223. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202. MacLeod, C., Mathews, A. & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95 (1), 15–20. 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,


208

92 (1), 42–55. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1 .42. Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspect Psychol Sci, 5 (4), 420–430. doi: 10.1177/1745691610375557. Ohman, A. & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108 (3), 483–522. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1), 3–72. doi: 10.1037// 0033-2909.128.1.3. Pickett, C. L. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The social monitoring system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response to social exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology series (pp. 213–226). New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press. xxii. Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L. & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (9), 1095–1107. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167203262085. Posner, M. I. & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and Performance, 10, 531–556. Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S. & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2 (3), 211–228. Poulsen, J. R. & Kashy, D. A. (2011). Two sides of the ostracism coin: How sources and

Mengsi Xu et al.

targets of social exclusion perceive themselves and one another. Group Processes & Intergroup, 15 (4), 457–470. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430211430517. Theeuwes, J. & Van der Stigchel, S. (2006). Faces capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return. Visual Cognition, 13 (6), 657–665. doi: 10.1080/13506280 500410949. Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T. A., et al. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168 (3), 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05 .006. 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 (3), 409–423. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409. van Beest, I. & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (5), 918–928. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918. Van Beest, I., Williams, K. D. & Van Dijk, E. (2011). Cyberbomb: Effects of being ostracized from a death game. Group Process Interg, 14 (4), 581–596. doi: 10.1177/ 1368430210389084. Vogt, J., De Houwer, J., Moors, A., Van Damme, S. & Crombez, G. (2010). The automatic orienting of attention to goalrelevant stimuli. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 134 (1), 61–69. doi: 10.1016/ j.actpsy.2009.12.006. 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 (6), 1063– 1070. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 748. Williams, K. D. & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38 (1), 174–180. doi: 10.3758/Bf03192765. Yanagisawa, K., Nishimura, T., Furutani, K. & Ura, M. (2013). The effects of general trust on building new relationships after social exclusion: An examination of the ‘Settoku Nattoku Game’. Asian J Soc Psychol, 16 (2), 133–141. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12021. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D. & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower selfreported levels of belonging, control, selfesteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (4), 560–567. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006. Zhou, X. Y., Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). The symbolic power of money: Reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychol Sci, 20 (6), 700–706. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02353.x. Zhou, X. Y., Zheng, L. W., Zhou, L. X. & Guo, N. (2009). The act of rejecting reduces the desire to reconnect: Evidence for a cognitive dissonance account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (1), 44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.011.
