This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 21 July 2015, At: 04:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion a
a
b
Ms. Janine Beha Beekman , Dr. Michelle L. Stock & Ms. Tara Marcus a
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States
b
Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, United States Accepted author version posted online: 15 Jul 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Ms. Janine Beha Beekman, Dr. Michelle L. Stock & Ms. Tara Marcus (2015): Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion, The Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion
cr ip
Email: [email protected] Affiliation 1:
us
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States Dr. Michelle L. Stock
Affiliation 1:
M an
Email: [email protected]
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States Ms. Tara Marcus
ed
Email: [email protected] Affiliation 1:
ce
Abstract
pt
Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, United States
The present study examined if trait need to belong and rejection sensitivity differentially moderate the impact of experimentally manipulated social exclusion on stress and affect.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
t
Ms. Janine Beha Beekman (Corresponding Author)
Participants (N = 132) completed a survey measuring need to belong and rejection sensitivity, and then were randomly assigned to be included or excluded during a game of Cyberball. A second survey then assessed perceived stress and negative affect, and a cortisol sample was taken. Controlling for gender and baseline cortisol levels, excluded participants high (versus low)
1
in need to belong had significantly higher post-exclusion cortisol levels, and reported greater perceived stress and negative affect. The moderating effect for rejection sensitivity was not found, however, and need to belong and rejection sensitivity were not correlated. Findings
cr ip
t
suggest that the need to belong moderates psychological and physiological responses to exclusion.
us
Cyberball
M an
Social exclusion threatens an individual’s fundamental drive to belong (Williams, 2001; 2007). Being excluded is harmful to well-being, in part because it evokes stress (Dickerson & Zoccola, 2013). Salivary cortisol is an efficient way to measure the physiological stress response in experimental settings (Zwolinski, 2012), and is one biometric that is popular to measure in
ed
experimental social psychology – a field increasingly interested in objective measurement (e.g.,
pt
Walla, Brenner, & Koller, 2011).
The link between social exclusion and self-reported perceived stress is well-established (Smart
1
ce
Richman & Leary, 2009) 1. Negative affect is also an established consequence of social exclusion
To confirm this link, prior to examining stress following exclusion experimentally, we
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Keywords: Social exclusion, cortisol, individual differences need to belong, rejection sensitivity,
conducted a pilot survey study assessing cross-sectional relationships between self-reported
social exclusion (Ostracism Experiences Scale; Gilman et al., 2013), and perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen, 1983); results showed that self-reported social exclusion is positively related to perceived stress (i.e. Williams, 2007).
2
(Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumesiter, 2009), even despite a financial reward for being excluded (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Extant literature is inconclusive, however, regarding whether lab-based exclusion affects objectively-measured stress, specifically cortisol response
cr ip
t
(Dickerson & Zoccola, 2013). For example, one experimental study with females revealed no changes in cortisol following Cyberball (Zöller, Maroof, Weik, & Deinzer, 2010), a standardized paradigm for social exclusion (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), while another study found that
us
stressor, compared to those who were included and then asked to speak publicly (Weik et al.,
M an
2012).
Inconclusive or conflicting cortisol evidence may be due to trait differences that covary with stress responses. For example, cortisol following exclusion is moderated by trait defensiveness
ed
(Blackhart et al., 2007) and self-esteem (Ford & Collins, 2010). Need to belong (NTB) is another trait that may moderate cortisol response to exclusion (Baumesiter & Leary, 1995). While the
pt
desire for interpersonal attachments is considered a fundamental human motivation, some people have an even greater desire for attachment and belonging than others. Such individuals may
ce
“care more” about social affiliation, and aim to (though often fail to) participate in compensatory behaviors to aid in social reconnection (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumesiter, 2009). They also have a better memory for and attend more to socially
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
excluded women (but not men) showed elevated cortisol in response to a public speaking
relevant information during the encounter (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), potentially exacerbating the negative effects of exclusion for those higher in NTB. This exacerbating effect has yet to be explored.
3
Rejection sensitivity (RS), which is distinct from NTB (Leary, 2005), has been shown to moderate emotional responses to rejection (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008). RS is characterized by an oversensitivity to rejection 2, and individuals high in RS are more affected by
cr ip
t
social rejection (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis & Khouri, 1998). RS may evolve from repeated rejection over time, and may predict maladaptive responses to rejecting environments that are motivated by a need to regain acceptance (Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005). While state RS
us
Sebastian, Vinding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010), there have been no published reports of
M an
individual differences in trait RS moderating reactions to Cyberball-induced exclusion. Emerging research suggests that being rejected and being excluded are distinct experiences that evoke different motivations (Molden et al., 2009), and may thus be differentially moderated by
ed
individual traits. For example, we expected that individuals who have a high NTB (a trait that has been associated with heightened awareness of social cues and desire for attachment; Pickett
pt
et al., 2004) would experience a heightened vulnerability to social exclusion via Cyberball, resulting in heightened stress, cortisol response, and negative affect. Conversely, we did not
ce
anticipate that RS would moderate responses to exclusion since it is typically associated with responses to rejection, and Cyberball-based exclusion does not explicitly connote low relational evaluation in the same way that rejection does. The present research assessed the potential
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
has been measured as an outcome following Cyberball in some studies (e.g. Masten et al., 2009;
moderating effects of both RS and NTB on the exclusion à stress and negative affect 2
Rejection is more overt than more passive exclusion and also connotes low relational
evaluation (Leary, 2005).
4
relationship. It also uses a physiological measure of stress – salivary cortisol – to assess the effects on stress objectively.
cr ip
t
Method
us
132 undergraduates (107 female, M age = 19.27, 94% White) participated for course credit. Data were collected in the laboratory during scheduled appointments between 12pm and
M an
6pm, to minimize the effect of circadian fluctuations on salivary cortisol levels. After the informed consent process, baseline salivary cortisol levels were measured. Cortisol was collected at baseline and post-manipulation. Next the participants filled out a survey on the computer to
ed
measure NTB, RS, filler items for another study, and demographics. Participants then played Cyberball (Williams et al., 2000): Three avatars, labeled with same-
pt
gender names of the purported other students, appeared on the computer screen. The participants
ce
were told to visualize what it would be like to play the game in person. In reality, the game was programmed to include or exclude participants. Participants randomly assigned to the inclusion condition (n = 63) received the ball 25% of the time; participants in the exclusion condition (n =
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Participants and Procedure
69) were tossed the ball only three times at the beginning of the game. Next, participants completed measures of perceived stress, affect, and a manipulation check. Finally, a second cortisol sample was taken 15 minutes after Cyberball, and participants were debriefed. All research activities were approved by the University’s institutional review board.
5
Measures Need to Belong. NTB was measured with a 10-item scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, &
t
Schreindorfer, 2013). A sample item is, “It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in
cr ip
other people’s plans” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). All items were averaged (α =
us
Rejection Sensitivity. RS was measured with the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (Kang & Chasteen, 2009). After reading nine scenarios, participants responded with how
M an
concerned they would be about getting rejected (1 = very unconcerned to 6 = not at all; reverse coded) and the likelihood of rejection (1 = not at all to 6 = very likely). Concern scores and reverse-coded likelihood scores were multiplied, and the mean of all consequent multiplied
ed
scores were averaged to create a score for RS (α = .82).
Cortisol. Salivary cortisol samples were sent to Salimetrics© for analysis using an enzyme
pt
immunoassay method. To collect the saliva sample, participants placed an oral swab underneath their tongue for 30 seconds (Beltzer et al., 2010). Cortisol samples were stored at -20°C until
ce
assayed. Saliva was thawed, vortexed, and centrifuged for 15 minutes. Once analyzed, Salimetrics© returned pretest cortisol levels, posttest cortisol levels, and mean cortisol level data
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
.78).
ug/dL) to the researchers for statistical analysis.
Perceived stress. Self-report stress was measured with two items, “I feel stressed” and “I feel distressed.” The two scores were averaged (r = .43, p < .001).
6
Negative affect. Participants reported the extent to which 8 negative adjectives (e.g., frustrated, upset) and 3 reverse-coded positive adjectives (e.g., calm, satisfied) described their current feelings (1 = not at all to 7 = very much, α = .78; Zadro et al., 2004).
cr ip
t
Perceived inclusion. As a manipulation check, participants were asked whether they were
content with how much they received the ball, how included they felt during the game, and how
M an
Results
us
Richardson, 2004). Scores were averaged (α = .78).
Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate the extent to which NTB, RS, exclusion condition (0 = include, 1 = exclude), and their interactions influenced cortisol levels, negative
ed
affect, and perceived stress. All analyses controlled for gender 3, as cortisol secretion can be influenced by gender and sex hormones (Hinkelmann et al., 2012; Marceau et al., 2013).
pt
Analyses including cortisol controlled for baseline cortisol, following previous research (e.g.
ce
Morris, Rao, Wang, & Garber, 2014). When an interaction was revealed, simple slopes were examined by calculating +/- 1 SD NTB and analyzing the exclusion effects for low and high NTB groups.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
much they enjoyed the game (1 = not at all to 7 = very much, e.g., Zadro, Williams, &
An ANCOVA revealed that excluded participants reported lower perceived inclusion (M = 2.18, SD = 1.14) than included participants (M = 4.52, SD = 1.13, F(1, 132) = 145.78, 95% CI [2.98, 3
Patterns of results were similar for both genders when examined separately.
7
3.53]), demonstrating that the exclusion manipulation was effective. Baseline and postmanipulation cortisol were highly correlated (r = .87), indicating only small changes in cortisol were detected. Gender correlated rejection sensitivity and negative affect, such that women
cr ip
t
reported greater rejection sensitivity (r = .18) and greater negative affect (r = .36). Negative affect and perceived stress were also positively correlated (r = .67). RS and NTB were not correlated (r = .05). NTB x Exclusion and RS x Exclusion interactions were examined in
us
Cortisol. Controlling for baseline cortisol and gender, exclusion did not predict post-
M an
manipulation cortisol level (b = -.00, t = -.06, 95% CI [-.11, .05]). The RS x Exclusion interaction was not significant (b = .01, t = 1.12, 95% CI [-.01, .29]). However the interaction between exclusion condition and NTB was significant (b = .09, t = 1.99, 95% CI [.01, .18]):
ed
Among participants high in NTB, those who were excluded had higher post-manipulation cortisol levels than those who were included (see Figure; b = .10, t = 2.10, 95% CI [.02, .17]);
pt
there was no significant effect of condition among participants low in NTB (b = .07, t = 1.65,
ce
95% CI [-.13, .08]).
Perceived stress. Excluded participants reported higher stress (b = .79, t = 2.05, p < .04, 95% CI [.027, 1.55]). The NTB x Exclusion interaction was significant (b = 1.20, t = 2.52, 95% CI [.36,
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
separate regression models on all dependent variables 4,5.
4
RS x NTB x Exclusion 3-way interactions were not significant for any of the dependent
variables. 5
Significant results held when RS was included as a covariate in all models examining NTB.
8
1.95]). Among participants high in NTB, excluded participants reported higher stress than included participants (see Figure; b = 1.90, t = 3.42, 95% CI [.29, 2.52]). Among participants low in NTB, exclusion condition did not significantly affect perceived stress (b = 1.20, t = 2.52,
cr ip
t
95% CI [-1.05, 1.51]). The RS x Exclusion interaction on perceived stress was not significant (b = .03, t = .33, 95% CI [-.14, .19]).
us
[.66, 1.31]). Once again, the RS x Exclusion interaction was not significant (b = -.02, t = -.30, 95% CI [-.11, .08]), but the Exclusion x NTB interaction was (see Figure; b = .91, t = 3.37, 95%
M an
CI [.38, 1.44]). Among participants high in NTB, excluded participants reported worse affect (b = 1.28, t = 5.78, 95% CI [.84, 1.72]) than included participants. Among low NTB participants,
Discussion
ed
exclusion condition was not significant (b = .38, t = 1.31, 95% CI [-.21, .97]).
pt
Our findings have implications for understanding who might experience greater perceived and
ce
“below the surface” stress following exclusion. Exclusion via Cyberball increases perceived stress and negative affect, and while it does not elicit detectable self-report or physiological responses in everyone, individual differences in trait NTB moderate its physiological and
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Negative affect. Excluded participants reported more negative affect (b = .98, t = 5.95, 95% CI
psychological effects. For those high in NTB, an association exists between exclusion and cortisol that may impact well-being.
The present findings provide researchers with an individual trait (NTB) that should be considered when examining cortisol reactivity and affective responses to social exclusion.
9
Individual differences in RS, however, did not impact these reactions to exclusion. It is possible that RS and NTB would both moderate these effects after rejection, since RS has previously been associated with reactions to rejection (e.g. Ayduk et al., 2008). However, rejection was not
cr ip
t
explored in the present study, and future research is needed to explore the differential dynamics following rejection versus exclusion.
us
they should both exacerbate the negative effects of it, just as other trait-level variables have impacted the strength of the effects of exclusion on cortisol (Blackhart et al., 2007). However,
M an
“vulnerability” alone cannot account for the differential moderating effects of RS and NTB on cortisol and self-report stress following exclusion. A distinction in how RS vs. NTB develop may explain why there was no moderating effect of RS, while there was a moderating effect of NTB:
ed
RS evolves over time from repeated exposure to rejection (Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005), while NTB is theorized to be a more stable and innate personality trait (Leary et al, 2013).
pt
Therefore, individuals with high RS may be less likely to “admit” stress because they are used to repeated exposure to it, more so than individuals with a high NTB. Individuals high in NTB, on
ce
the other hand, are more perceptive to unpleasant social cues (Pickett et al., 2004) and suffer more affectively and physiologically following exclusion. This increased suffering may potentially lead to downstream health and psychological outcomes that arise from allostatis
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Conceptually, if NTB and RS each represent a general “vulnerability” to the effects of exclusion,
(stress over time), such as weakened adaptive processes and increase disease susceptibility (Sinha & Jastreboff, 2013). If interventions take place to reduce the negative effects of social exclusion, they should take into account differences in trait NTB, since individuals with a high NTB may experience the most negative outcomes.
10
Finally, the differences in the NTB/RS findings may also be a consequence of the method used to manipulate the social stressor: While Cyberball is a conservative proxy for real-life exclusion, it is axiomatically different than explicit rejection by peers or close friends. The underlying
exclusion from rejection, are topics for further exploration.
us
Janine Beha Beekman and Michelle L. Stock are affiliated with the Psychology Department,
Northwestern University. References
M an
George Washington University. Tara Marcus is affiliated with the Feinberg School of Medicine,
ed
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejection– aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of
pt
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 775-782.
ce
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. Beltzer, E. K., Fortunato, C. K., Guaderrama, M. M., Peckins, M. K., Garramone, B. M., &
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Author Notes
cr ip
t
cognitive and motivational mechanisms that distinguish high NTB and high RS groups, and
Granger, D. A. (2010). Salivary flow and alpha-amylase: collection technique, duration, and oral fluid type. Physiology & Behavior, 101(2), 289-296. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumesiter, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-
11
analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269-309.
cr ip
rejection and acceptance by peers. Biological psychology, 75(3), 267-276.
t
Blackhart, G. C., Eckel, L. A., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Salivary cortisol in response to acute social
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
us
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that
M an
counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 45.
Dickerson, S. S. & Zoccola, P. M. (2013). Cortisol responses to social exclusion. In DeWall, C. N. (Ed): Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion.
ed
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of
pt
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545.
ce
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Ford, M. B.. & Collins, N. L. (2010). Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychological
responses to interpersonal rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 405-419.
12
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.
cr ip
t
Gilman, R., Carter-Sowell, A., DeWall, C., Adams, R. E., & Carboni, I. (2013). Validation of the Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 319-330.
us
Salivary α‐Amylase in Biobehavioral Research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
M an
1098(1), 122-144.
Hinkelmann, K., Botzenhardt, J., Muhtz, C., Agorastos, A., Wiedemann, K., Kellner, M., & Otte, C. (2012). Sex differences of salivary cortisol secretion in patients with major depression. Stress, 15(1), 105-109.
ed
Kang, S. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2009). The development and validation of the Age-Based Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. The Gerontologist, 49(3), 303-316.
pt
Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & B.
ce
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A. & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Granger, D. A., Kivighan, K. T., El‐Sheikh, M. O. N. A., Gordis, E. B., & Stroud, L. R. (2007a).
the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610-624. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111-132.
13
Marceau, K., Ruttle, P. L., Shirtcliff, E. A., Hastings, P. D., Klimes‐Dougan, B., & Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2013). Within‐person coupling of changes in cortisol, testosterone, and DHEA across the day in adolescents. Developmental Psychobiology.
cr ip
t
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.
us
Morris, M. C., Rao, U., Wang, L., & Garber, J. (2014). Cortisol reactivity to experimentally
Anxiety, 31(1), 44-52.
M an
manipulated psychosocial stress in young adults at varied risk for depression. Depression and
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-
ed
1107.
Romero-Canyas, R. & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection Sensitivity as a Predictor of Affective and
pt
Behavioral Responses to Interpersonal Stress: A Defensive Motivational System. In K.D.
ce
Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.) The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying. New York: Psychology Press. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang J. (2010). Rejection
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 415.
sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality, 78,
119-148.
Sinha, R., & Jastreboff, A. M. (2013). Stress as a common risk factor for obesity and addiction. Biological Psychiatry, 73(9), 827-835.
14
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365.
cr ip
t
Sykes, C. J. (1992). A nation of victims: The decay of the American character. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
us
analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social
M an
Psychology Review, 8(3), 308-319.
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 Walla, P., Brenner, G., & Koller, M. (2011). Objective measures of emotion related to brand
ed
attitude: A new way to quantify emotion-related aspects relevant to marketing. PloS one, 6(11), e26782.
pt
Weik, U., Maroof, P., Zöller, C., & Deinzer, R. (2012). Pre-experience of social exclusion
ce
suppresses cortisol response to psychosocial stress in women but not in men. Hormones and Behavior, 58, 891-897.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-
over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762. Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism : the power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425.
15
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 692-697.
cr ip
t
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, self-esteem, and
us
Zöller, C., Maroof, P., Weik, U., & Deinzer, R. (2010). No effect of social exclusion on salivary
1294-1298.
M an
cortisol secretion in women in a randomized controlled study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(9),
Zur, O. (1994). Rethinking Don’t Blame the Victim: Psychology of Victimhood. Journal of Couple Therapy, 4, 15-36.
ed
Zwolinski, J. (2012). Psychological and neuroendocrine reactivity to ostracism. Aggressive
pt
Behavior, 38(2), 108-125.
ce
Received: 11 Aug 2014 Accepted: 24 Jun 2015
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567.
16
Figure. NTB interacts with exclusion condition to predict cortisol, perceived stress, and negative
cr ip us M an ed pt ce Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
t
affect.
17
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion a
a
b
Ms. Janine Beha Beekman , Dr. Michelle L. Stock & Ms. Tara Marcus a
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States
b
Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, United States Accepted author version posted online: 15 Jul 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Ms. Janine Beha Beekman, Dr. Michelle L. Stock & Ms. Tara Marcus (2015): Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion, The Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Need to Belong, not Rejection Sensitivity, Moderates Cortisol Response, Self-Reported Stress, and Negative Affect Following Social Exclusion
cr ip
Email: [email protected] Affiliation 1:
us
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States Dr. Michelle L. Stock
Affiliation 1:
M an
Email: [email protected]
The George Washington University, Psychology Department, Washington, United States Ms. Tara Marcus
ed
Email: [email protected] Affiliation 1:
ce
Abstract
pt
Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, United States
The present study examined if trait need to belong and rejection sensitivity differentially moderate the impact of experimentally manipulated social exclusion on stress and affect.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
t
Ms. Janine Beha Beekman (Corresponding Author)
Participants (N = 132) completed a survey measuring need to belong and rejection sensitivity, and then were randomly assigned to be included or excluded during a game of Cyberball. A second survey then assessed perceived stress and negative affect, and a cortisol sample was taken. Controlling for gender and baseline cortisol levels, excluded participants high (versus low)
1
in need to belong had significantly higher post-exclusion cortisol levels, and reported greater perceived stress and negative affect. The moderating effect for rejection sensitivity was not found, however, and need to belong and rejection sensitivity were not correlated. Findings
cr ip
t
suggest that the need to belong moderates psychological and physiological responses to exclusion.
us
Cyberball
M an
Social exclusion threatens an individual’s fundamental drive to belong (Williams, 2001; 2007). Being excluded is harmful to well-being, in part because it evokes stress (Dickerson & Zoccola, 2013). Salivary cortisol is an efficient way to measure the physiological stress response in experimental settings (Zwolinski, 2012), and is one biometric that is popular to measure in
ed
experimental social psychology – a field increasingly interested in objective measurement (e.g.,
pt
Walla, Brenner, & Koller, 2011).
The link between social exclusion and self-reported perceived stress is well-established (Smart
1
ce
Richman & Leary, 2009) 1. Negative affect is also an established consequence of social exclusion
To confirm this link, prior to examining stress following exclusion experimentally, we
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Keywords: Social exclusion, cortisol, individual differences need to belong, rejection sensitivity,
conducted a pilot survey study assessing cross-sectional relationships between self-reported
social exclusion (Ostracism Experiences Scale; Gilman et al., 2013), and perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale; Cohen, 1983); results showed that self-reported social exclusion is positively related to perceived stress (i.e. Williams, 2007).
2
(Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumesiter, 2009), even despite a financial reward for being excluded (van Beest & Williams, 2006). Extant literature is inconclusive, however, regarding whether lab-based exclusion affects objectively-measured stress, specifically cortisol response
cr ip
t
(Dickerson & Zoccola, 2013). For example, one experimental study with females revealed no changes in cortisol following Cyberball (Zöller, Maroof, Weik, & Deinzer, 2010), a standardized paradigm for social exclusion (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), while another study found that
us
stressor, compared to those who were included and then asked to speak publicly (Weik et al.,
M an
2012).
Inconclusive or conflicting cortisol evidence may be due to trait differences that covary with stress responses. For example, cortisol following exclusion is moderated by trait defensiveness
ed
(Blackhart et al., 2007) and self-esteem (Ford & Collins, 2010). Need to belong (NTB) is another trait that may moderate cortisol response to exclusion (Baumesiter & Leary, 1995). While the
pt
desire for interpersonal attachments is considered a fundamental human motivation, some people have an even greater desire for attachment and belonging than others. Such individuals may
ce
“care more” about social affiliation, and aim to (though often fail to) participate in compensatory behaviors to aid in social reconnection (Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumesiter, 2009). They also have a better memory for and attend more to socially
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
excluded women (but not men) showed elevated cortisol in response to a public speaking
relevant information during the encounter (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004), potentially exacerbating the negative effects of exclusion for those higher in NTB. This exacerbating effect has yet to be explored.
3
Rejection sensitivity (RS), which is distinct from NTB (Leary, 2005), has been shown to moderate emotional responses to rejection (Ayduk, Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008). RS is characterized by an oversensitivity to rejection 2, and individuals high in RS are more affected by
cr ip
t
social rejection (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis & Khouri, 1998). RS may evolve from repeated rejection over time, and may predict maladaptive responses to rejecting environments that are motivated by a need to regain acceptance (Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005). While state RS
us
Sebastian, Vinding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010), there have been no published reports of
M an
individual differences in trait RS moderating reactions to Cyberball-induced exclusion. Emerging research suggests that being rejected and being excluded are distinct experiences that evoke different motivations (Molden et al., 2009), and may thus be differentially moderated by
ed
individual traits. For example, we expected that individuals who have a high NTB (a trait that has been associated with heightened awareness of social cues and desire for attachment; Pickett
pt
et al., 2004) would experience a heightened vulnerability to social exclusion via Cyberball, resulting in heightened stress, cortisol response, and negative affect. Conversely, we did not
ce
anticipate that RS would moderate responses to exclusion since it is typically associated with responses to rejection, and Cyberball-based exclusion does not explicitly connote low relational evaluation in the same way that rejection does. The present research assessed the potential
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
has been measured as an outcome following Cyberball in some studies (e.g. Masten et al., 2009;
moderating effects of both RS and NTB on the exclusion à stress and negative affect 2
Rejection is more overt than more passive exclusion and also connotes low relational
evaluation (Leary, 2005).
4
relationship. It also uses a physiological measure of stress – salivary cortisol – to assess the effects on stress objectively.
cr ip
t
Method
us
132 undergraduates (107 female, M age = 19.27, 94% White) participated for course credit. Data were collected in the laboratory during scheduled appointments between 12pm and
M an
6pm, to minimize the effect of circadian fluctuations on salivary cortisol levels. After the informed consent process, baseline salivary cortisol levels were measured. Cortisol was collected at baseline and post-manipulation. Next the participants filled out a survey on the computer to
ed
measure NTB, RS, filler items for another study, and demographics. Participants then played Cyberball (Williams et al., 2000): Three avatars, labeled with same-
pt
gender names of the purported other students, appeared on the computer screen. The participants
ce
were told to visualize what it would be like to play the game in person. In reality, the game was programmed to include or exclude participants. Participants randomly assigned to the inclusion condition (n = 63) received the ball 25% of the time; participants in the exclusion condition (n =
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Participants and Procedure
69) were tossed the ball only three times at the beginning of the game. Next, participants completed measures of perceived stress, affect, and a manipulation check. Finally, a second cortisol sample was taken 15 minutes after Cyberball, and participants were debriefed. All research activities were approved by the University’s institutional review board.
5
Measures Need to Belong. NTB was measured with a 10-item scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, &
t
Schreindorfer, 2013). A sample item is, “It bothers me a great deal when I am not included in
cr ip
other people’s plans” (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). All items were averaged (α =
us
Rejection Sensitivity. RS was measured with the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (Kang & Chasteen, 2009). After reading nine scenarios, participants responded with how
M an
concerned they would be about getting rejected (1 = very unconcerned to 6 = not at all; reverse coded) and the likelihood of rejection (1 = not at all to 6 = very likely). Concern scores and reverse-coded likelihood scores were multiplied, and the mean of all consequent multiplied
ed
scores were averaged to create a score for RS (α = .82).
Cortisol. Salivary cortisol samples were sent to Salimetrics© for analysis using an enzyme
pt
immunoassay method. To collect the saliva sample, participants placed an oral swab underneath their tongue for 30 seconds (Beltzer et al., 2010). Cortisol samples were stored at -20°C until
ce
assayed. Saliva was thawed, vortexed, and centrifuged for 15 minutes. Once analyzed, Salimetrics© returned pretest cortisol levels, posttest cortisol levels, and mean cortisol level data
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
.78).
ug/dL) to the researchers for statistical analysis.
Perceived stress. Self-report stress was measured with two items, “I feel stressed” and “I feel distressed.” The two scores were averaged (r = .43, p < .001).
6
Negative affect. Participants reported the extent to which 8 negative adjectives (e.g., frustrated, upset) and 3 reverse-coded positive adjectives (e.g., calm, satisfied) described their current feelings (1 = not at all to 7 = very much, α = .78; Zadro et al., 2004).
cr ip
t
Perceived inclusion. As a manipulation check, participants were asked whether they were
content with how much they received the ball, how included they felt during the game, and how
M an
Results
us
Richardson, 2004). Scores were averaged (α = .78).
Multiple regression analyses were used to investigate the extent to which NTB, RS, exclusion condition (0 = include, 1 = exclude), and their interactions influenced cortisol levels, negative
ed
affect, and perceived stress. All analyses controlled for gender 3, as cortisol secretion can be influenced by gender and sex hormones (Hinkelmann et al., 2012; Marceau et al., 2013).
pt
Analyses including cortisol controlled for baseline cortisol, following previous research (e.g.
ce
Morris, Rao, Wang, & Garber, 2014). When an interaction was revealed, simple slopes were examined by calculating +/- 1 SD NTB and analyzing the exclusion effects for low and high NTB groups.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
much they enjoyed the game (1 = not at all to 7 = very much, e.g., Zadro, Williams, &
An ANCOVA revealed that excluded participants reported lower perceived inclusion (M = 2.18, SD = 1.14) than included participants (M = 4.52, SD = 1.13, F(1, 132) = 145.78, 95% CI [2.98, 3
Patterns of results were similar for both genders when examined separately.
7
3.53]), demonstrating that the exclusion manipulation was effective. Baseline and postmanipulation cortisol were highly correlated (r = .87), indicating only small changes in cortisol were detected. Gender correlated rejection sensitivity and negative affect, such that women
cr ip
t
reported greater rejection sensitivity (r = .18) and greater negative affect (r = .36). Negative affect and perceived stress were also positively correlated (r = .67). RS and NTB were not correlated (r = .05). NTB x Exclusion and RS x Exclusion interactions were examined in
us
Cortisol. Controlling for baseline cortisol and gender, exclusion did not predict post-
M an
manipulation cortisol level (b = -.00, t = -.06, 95% CI [-.11, .05]). The RS x Exclusion interaction was not significant (b = .01, t = 1.12, 95% CI [-.01, .29]). However the interaction between exclusion condition and NTB was significant (b = .09, t = 1.99, 95% CI [.01, .18]):
ed
Among participants high in NTB, those who were excluded had higher post-manipulation cortisol levels than those who were included (see Figure; b = .10, t = 2.10, 95% CI [.02, .17]);
pt
there was no significant effect of condition among participants low in NTB (b = .07, t = 1.65,
ce
95% CI [-.13, .08]).
Perceived stress. Excluded participants reported higher stress (b = .79, t = 2.05, p < .04, 95% CI [.027, 1.55]). The NTB x Exclusion interaction was significant (b = 1.20, t = 2.52, 95% CI [.36,
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
separate regression models on all dependent variables 4,5.
4
RS x NTB x Exclusion 3-way interactions were not significant for any of the dependent
variables. 5
Significant results held when RS was included as a covariate in all models examining NTB.
8
1.95]). Among participants high in NTB, excluded participants reported higher stress than included participants (see Figure; b = 1.90, t = 3.42, 95% CI [.29, 2.52]). Among participants low in NTB, exclusion condition did not significantly affect perceived stress (b = 1.20, t = 2.52,
cr ip
t
95% CI [-1.05, 1.51]). The RS x Exclusion interaction on perceived stress was not significant (b = .03, t = .33, 95% CI [-.14, .19]).
us
[.66, 1.31]). Once again, the RS x Exclusion interaction was not significant (b = -.02, t = -.30, 95% CI [-.11, .08]), but the Exclusion x NTB interaction was (see Figure; b = .91, t = 3.37, 95%
M an
CI [.38, 1.44]). Among participants high in NTB, excluded participants reported worse affect (b = 1.28, t = 5.78, 95% CI [.84, 1.72]) than included participants. Among low NTB participants,
Discussion
ed
exclusion condition was not significant (b = .38, t = 1.31, 95% CI [-.21, .97]).
pt
Our findings have implications for understanding who might experience greater perceived and
ce
“below the surface” stress following exclusion. Exclusion via Cyberball increases perceived stress and negative affect, and while it does not elicit detectable self-report or physiological responses in everyone, individual differences in trait NTB moderate its physiological and
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Negative affect. Excluded participants reported more negative affect (b = .98, t = 5.95, 95% CI
psychological effects. For those high in NTB, an association exists between exclusion and cortisol that may impact well-being.
The present findings provide researchers with an individual trait (NTB) that should be considered when examining cortisol reactivity and affective responses to social exclusion.
9
Individual differences in RS, however, did not impact these reactions to exclusion. It is possible that RS and NTB would both moderate these effects after rejection, since RS has previously been associated with reactions to rejection (e.g. Ayduk et al., 2008). However, rejection was not
cr ip
t
explored in the present study, and future research is needed to explore the differential dynamics following rejection versus exclusion.
us
they should both exacerbate the negative effects of it, just as other trait-level variables have impacted the strength of the effects of exclusion on cortisol (Blackhart et al., 2007). However,
M an
“vulnerability” alone cannot account for the differential moderating effects of RS and NTB on cortisol and self-report stress following exclusion. A distinction in how RS vs. NTB develop may explain why there was no moderating effect of RS, while there was a moderating effect of NTB:
ed
RS evolves over time from repeated exposure to rejection (Romero-Canyas & Downey, 2005), while NTB is theorized to be a more stable and innate personality trait (Leary et al, 2013).
pt
Therefore, individuals with high RS may be less likely to “admit” stress because they are used to repeated exposure to it, more so than individuals with a high NTB. Individuals high in NTB, on
ce
the other hand, are more perceptive to unpleasant social cues (Pickett et al., 2004) and suffer more affectively and physiologically following exclusion. This increased suffering may potentially lead to downstream health and psychological outcomes that arise from allostatis
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Conceptually, if NTB and RS each represent a general “vulnerability” to the effects of exclusion,
(stress over time), such as weakened adaptive processes and increase disease susceptibility (Sinha & Jastreboff, 2013). If interventions take place to reduce the negative effects of social exclusion, they should take into account differences in trait NTB, since individuals with a high NTB may experience the most negative outcomes.
10
Finally, the differences in the NTB/RS findings may also be a consequence of the method used to manipulate the social stressor: While Cyberball is a conservative proxy for real-life exclusion, it is axiomatically different than explicit rejection by peers or close friends. The underlying
exclusion from rejection, are topics for further exploration.
us
Janine Beha Beekman and Michelle L. Stock are affiliated with the Psychology Department,
Northwestern University. References
M an
George Washington University. Tara Marcus is affiliated with the Feinberg School of Medicine,
ed
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the rejection– aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejection sensitivity. Journal of
pt
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 775-782.
ce
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. Beltzer, E. K., Fortunato, C. K., Guaderrama, M. M., Peckins, M. K., Garramone, B. M., &
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Author Notes
cr ip
t
cognitive and motivational mechanisms that distinguish high NTB and high RS groups, and
Granger, D. A. (2010). Salivary flow and alpha-amylase: collection technique, duration, and oral fluid type. Physiology & Behavior, 101(2), 289-296. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumesiter, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-
11
analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269-309.
cr ip
rejection and acceptance by peers. Biological psychology, 75(3), 267-276.
t
Blackhart, G. C., Eckel, L. A., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Salivary cortisol in response to acute social
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
us
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that
M an
counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 45.
Dickerson, S. S. & Zoccola, P. M. (2013). Cortisol responses to social exclusion. In DeWall, C. N. (Ed): Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion.
ed
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of
pt
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 545.
ce
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074-1091.
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Ford, M. B.. & Collins, N. L. (2010). Self-esteem moderates neuroendocrine and psychological
responses to interpersonal rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 405-419.
12
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.
cr ip
t
Gilman, R., Carter-Sowell, A., DeWall, C., Adams, R. E., & Carboni, I. (2013). Validation of the Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 319-330.
us
Salivary α‐Amylase in Biobehavioral Research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
M an
1098(1), 122-144.
Hinkelmann, K., Botzenhardt, J., Muhtz, C., Agorastos, A., Wiedemann, K., Kellner, M., & Otte, C. (2012). Sex differences of salivary cortisol secretion in patients with major depression. Stress, 15(1), 105-109.
ed
Kang, S. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2009). The development and validation of the Age-Based Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. The Gerontologist, 49(3), 303-316.
pt
Leary, M. R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & B.
ce
von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A. & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Granger, D. A., Kivighan, K. T., El‐Sheikh, M. O. N. A., Gordis, E. B., & Stroud, L. R. (2007a).
the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610-624. Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111-132.
13
Marceau, K., Ruttle, P. L., Shirtcliff, E. A., Hastings, P. D., Klimes‐Dougan, B., & Zahn‐Waxler, C. (2013). Within‐person coupling of changes in cortisol, testosterone, and DHEA across the day in adolescents. Developmental Psychobiology.
cr ip
t
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.
us
Morris, M. C., Rao, U., Wang, L., & Garber, J. (2014). Cortisol reactivity to experimentally
Anxiety, 31(1), 44-52.
M an
manipulated psychosocial stress in young adults at varied risk for depression. Depression and
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-
ed
1107.
Romero-Canyas, R. & Downey, G. (2005). Rejection Sensitivity as a Predictor of Affective and
pt
Behavioral Responses to Interpersonal Stress: A Defensive Motivational System. In K.D.
ce
Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.) The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying. New York: Psychology Press. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang J. (2010). Rejection
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 415.
sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality, 78,
119-148.
Sinha, R., & Jastreboff, A. M. (2013). Stress as a common risk factor for obesity and addiction. Biological Psychiatry, 73(9), 827-835.
14
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365.
cr ip
t
Sykes, C. J. (1992). A nation of victims: The decay of the American character. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
us
analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social
M an
Psychology Review, 8(3), 308-319.
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 Walla, P., Brenner, G., & Koller, M. (2011). Objective measures of emotion related to brand
ed
attitude: A new way to quantify emotion-related aspects relevant to marketing. PloS one, 6(11), e26782.
pt
Weik, U., Maroof, P., Zöller, C., & Deinzer, R. (2012). Pre-experience of social exclusion
ce
suppresses cortisol response to psychosocial stress in women but not in men. Hormones and Behavior, 58, 891-897.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-
over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762. Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism : the power of silence. New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58(1), 425.
15
Zadro, L., Boland, C., & Richardson, R. (2006). How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 692-697.
cr ip
t
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, self-esteem, and
us
Zöller, C., Maroof, P., Weik, U., & Deinzer, R. (2010). No effect of social exclusion on salivary
1294-1298.
M an
cortisol secretion in women in a randomized controlled study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(9),
Zur, O. (1994). Rethinking Don’t Blame the Victim: Psychology of Victimhood. Journal of Couple Therapy, 4, 15-36.
ed
Zwolinski, J. (2012). Psychological and neuroendocrine reactivity to ostracism. Aggressive
pt
Behavior, 38(2), 108-125.
ce
Received: 11 Aug 2014 Accepted: 24 Jun 2015
Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567.
16
Figure. NTB interacts with exclusion condition to predict cortisol, perceived stress, and negative
cr ip us M an ed pt ce Ac
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:49 21 July 2015
t
affect.
17
