Abstract
Previous research has shown that ostracized participants seek inclusive cues, such as gaze directed at them, when trying to reaffiliate. However, instead of seeking reinclusion, ostracized individuals may sometimes withdraw from interactions if not offered an opportunity for reaffiliation. In the current study, after an ostracism manipulation with no reaffiliation opportunity, participants judged whether faces portraying direct gaze or slightly averted gaze (2°–8° to the left and to the right) were looking at them or not. Compared to an inclusion group and a non-social control group, ostracized participants accepted a smaller range of gaze directions as being directed at them, i.e., they had a narrower “cone of gaze”. The width of the gaze cone was equally wide in the inclusion and control groups. We propose that, without an opportunity for reaffiliation, ostracized participants may start to view other people as particularly unapproachable, possibly indicative of a motivational tendency to disengage from interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Interestingly, it has been found that awareness that one is being ostracized by a computer program does not make the experience any less distressing (Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). However, it could moderate other outcomes of ostracism, such as its effects on motivation and behavior. For instance, a recent study found that ostracism decreased participants’ prosocial behavior only when they were led to believe they were interacting with other human beings, rather than with a computer (Kothgassner et al., 2017). To ensure our results would not be influenced by participants’ suspicions, we chose to exclude participants who indicated awareness of the deception in Cyberball. This decision was made before collecting the data.
We also analyzed eye contact impression strength, combining data from both response windows (R1 and R2). The impression strengths were set in an ascending order (1 = not looking at me, strong impression, 2 = not looking at me, intermediate impression, 3 = not looking at me, weak impression, 4 = looking at me, weak impression, 5 = looking at me, intermediate impression, 6 = looking at me, strong impression). A Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that there were differences between the groups in the mean eye contact impression strength scores (χ2(2) = 6.36, p = 0.042). Mann–Whitney U tests showed that excluded participants reported weaker eye contact impression strengths than participants in the inclusion group (mean ranks were 17.98 and 27.02, respectively, U = 142.50, p = 0.019), and the control group (mean ranks were 18.95 and 26.87, respectively, U = 164.00, p = 0.043). There were no differences between the inclusion and control groups (mean ranks were 23.14 and 22.87, respectively, U = 250.00, p = 0.946). These results expand on our main finding by showing that ostracized participants (compared to participants in inclusion and control groups) not only considered a narrower range of gaze directions as being directed at them, but also reported weaker impressions of being looked at.
In the small-scale experiment, we randomly allocated participants (N = 42) to be included or excluded in Cyberball (inclusionary status, between subjects factor), ostensibly played with other participants either present in the laboratory, or located elsewhere (experiment setting, between subjects factor). After the manipulation, participants completed basic need, mood and pain questionnaires, as well as the Need to Belong Scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2013), Solitude-seeking Scale (Ren et al., 2016), and State Hostility Scale (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). We did not find evidence that ostracized participants in the two different settings responded differently on these scales. Two-way between-subject ANOVAs found an expected effect of inclusionary status on basic needs, mood, and pain (all ps < 0.001), but no effect of experiment setting (all ps > 0.1), or an interaction between the two factors (all ps > 0.1). On the other scales, which were more crucial for our research question, we found no main effects (all ps > 0.1) or interactions (all ps > 0.4). We chose not to proceed further with this research, as the scales did not appear to be very sensitive to our manipulations, and a very large sample size would likely be needed to detect interactions, and this was outside the scope of the current study.
References
Adams, R. B. Jr., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.3.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. M. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295215002.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.039.
Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Social exclusion and pain sensitivity: Why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422449.
Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D., Young, S. G., & Hugenberg, K. (2014). The impact of race and inclusionary status on memory for ingroup and outgroup faces. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.887565.
Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., & Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19(10), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x.
Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065.
Böckler, A., Hömke, P., & Sebanz, N. (2014). Invisible man: Exclusion from shared attention affects gaze behavior and self-reports. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613488951.
Böckler, A., van der Wel, R. P., & Welsh, T. N. (2014). Catching eyes: Effects of social and nonsocial cues on attention capture. Psychological Science, 25(3), 720–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516147.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005.
Chen, T., Helminen, T. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2017). Affect in the eyes: Explicit and implicit evaluations. Cognition and Emotion, 31(6), 1070–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1188059.
Chen, T., Nummenmaa, L., & Hietanen, J. K. (2017). Eye contact judgment is influenced by perceivers’ social anxiety but not by their affective state. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00373.
Conty, L., George, N., & Hietanen, J. K. (2016). Watching eyes effects: When others meet the self. Consciousness and Cognition, 45, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.08.016.
Cuadrado, E., Tabernero, C., & Steinel, W. (2015). Motivational determinants of prosocial behavior: What do included, hopeful excluded, and hopeless excluded individuals need to behave prosocially? Motivation and Emotion, 39(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9460-z.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014634.
Driscoll, R. L., Barclay, P., & Fenske, M. J. (2017). To be spurned no more: The affective and behavioral consequences of social and nonsocial rejection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(2), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1114-6.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.010.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134.
E-Prime® (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Sharpsburg, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.
Ewbank, M. P., Jennings, C., & Calder, A. J. (2009). Why are you angry with me? Facial expressions of threat influence perception of gaze direction. Journal of Vision, 9(12), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.12.16.
Gamer, M., & Hecht, H. (2007). Are you looking at me? Measuring the cone of gaze. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.3.705.
Gamer, M., Hecht, H., Seipp, N., & Hiller, W. (2011). Who is looking at me? The cone of gaze widens in social phobia. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 756–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.503117.
Gross, E. F. (2009). Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online communication following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1787–1793. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016541.
Harbort, J., Witthöft, M., Spiegel, J., Nick, K., & Hecht, H. (2013). The widening of the gaze cone in patients with social anxiety disorder and its normalization after CBT. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(7), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2013.03.009.
Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS One, 10(5), e0127002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002.
Helminen, T. M., Kaasinen, S. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2011). Eye contact and arousal: The effects of stimulus duration. Biological Psychology, 88(1), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.07.002.
Hietanen, J. K., Leppänen, J. M., Peltola, M. J., Linna-aho, K., & Ruuhiala, H. J. (2008). Seeing direct and averted gaze activates the approach–avoidance motivational brain systems. Neuropsychologia, 46(9), 2423–2430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.029.
Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.78.
Konstabel, K., Lönnqvist, J., Walkowitz, G., Konstabel, K., & Verkasalo, M. (2012). The ‘Short five’(S5): Measuring personality traits using comprehensive single items. European Journal of Personality, 26(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.813.
Kothgassner, O. D., Griesinger, M., Kettner, K., Wayan, K., Völkl-Kernstock, S., Hlavacs, H., & Felnhofer, A. (2017). Real-life prosocial behavior decreases after being socially excluded by avatars, not agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.059.
Lakin, J. L., Chartrand, T. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19(8), 816–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511.
Lobmaier, J. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). The world smiles at me: Self-referential positivity bias when interpreting direction of attention. Cognition and Emotion, 25(2), 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931003794557.
Lyyra, P., Wirth, J. H., & Hietanen, J. K. (2017). Are you looking my way? Ostracism widens the cone of gaze. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1204327.
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, 92(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6.
McIntyre, C. W., Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Cross, S. A. (1991). The effect of induced social interaction on positive and negative affect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 29(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334773.
Molet, M., Macquet, B., Lefebvre, O., & Williams, K. D. (2013). A focused attention intervention for coping with ostracism. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1262–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.08.010.
Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.723.
Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2015). What you want to avoid is what you see: Social avoidance motivation affects the interpretation of emotional faces. Motivation and Emotion, 39(3), 384–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9459-5.
Powers, K. E., Worsham, A. L., Freeman, J. B., Wheatley, T., & Heatherton, T. F. (2014). Social connection modulates perceptions of animacy. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1943–1948. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614547706.
Qualter, P., Rotenberg, K., Barrett, L., Henzi, P., Barlow, A., Stylianou, M., & Harris, R. A. (2013). Investigating hypervigilance for social threat of lonely children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9676-x.
Ren, D., Wesselmann, E., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616169.
Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., & Montali, L. (2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): Effects of ostracism on obedience. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(3), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.883354.
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020013.
Sacco, D. F., Wirth, J. H., Hugenberg, K., Chen, Z., & Williams, K. D. (2011). The world in black and white: Ostracism enhances the categorical perception of social information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 836–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.001.
Schulze, L., Lobmaier, J. S., Arnold, M., & Renneberg, B. (2013). All eyes on me?! Social anxiety and self-directed perception of eye gaze. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1305–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.773881.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
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), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250.
Smart Richman, L., Martin, J., & Guadagno, J. (2016). Stigma-based rejection and the detection of signs of acceptance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615598376.
Somerville, L. H., Heatherton, T. F., & Kelley, W. M. (2006). Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection. Nature Neuroscience, 9(8), 1007–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1728.
Stoyanova, R. S., Ewbank, M. P., & Calder, A. J. (2010). “You talkin’ to me?” Self-relevant auditory signals influence perception of gaze direction. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1765–1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388812.
Syrjämäki, A. H., Lyyra, P., Peltola, M. J., & Hietanen, J. K. (2017). When a look is not enough: No evidence for direct gaze facilitating recovery after social exclusion. Social Cognition, 35(6), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.6.601.
Tanaka, H., & Ikegami, T. (2015). Fear of negative evaluation moderates effects of social exclusion on selective attention to social signs. Cognition and Emotion, 29(7), 1306–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.977848.
Tuscherer, T., Sacco, D. F., Wirth, J. H., Claypool, H. M., Hugenberg, K., & Wesselmann, E. D. (2015). Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2152.
Uono, S., & Hietanen, J. K. (2015). Eye contact perception in the west and east: A cross-cultural study. PLoS One, 10(2), e0118094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118094.
Wesselmann, E. D., Cardoso, F. D., Slater, S., & Williams, K. D. (2012). To be looked at as though air: Civil attention matters. Psychological Science, 23(2), 166–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427921.
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., & Bernstein, M. J. (2017). Expectations of social inclusion and exclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00112.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641.
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), 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748.
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765.
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated feelings. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430298012002.
Wirth, J. H., Lynam, D. R., & Williams, K. D. (2010a). When social pain is not automatic: Personality disorder traits buffer ostracism’s immediate negative impact. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(3), 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.001.
Wirth, J. H., Sacco, D. F., Hugenberg, K., & Williams, K. D. (2010b). Eye gaze as relational evaluation: Averted eye gaze leads to feelings of ostracism and relational devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210370032.
Wirth, J. H., & Williams, K. D. (2009). ‘They don’t like our kind’: Consequences of being ostracized while possessing a group membership. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098780.
Xu, M., Li, Z., Zhang, J., Sun, L., Fan, L., Zeng, Q., & Yang, D. (2015). Social exclusion influences attentional bias to social information. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12101.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007.
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 meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006.
Zwolinski, J. (2014). Does inclusion after ostracism influence the persistence of affective distress? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and. Practice, 18(4), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000012.
Digital Art Zone [DAZ] 3D Studio (Version 4.6) [Computer software]. Salt Lake City, UT: Daz Productions, Inc.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank James H. Wirth for his comments on an earlier draft. We also thank Hanneli Sinisalo for collecting data for the small-scale experiment.
Funding
This research was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation and the Academy of Finland MIND programme (Grant #266187 to J. H.), and a personal grant from the Emil Aaltonen Foundation to A. S.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest
Ethical approval
All procedures in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the studies.
Data availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available to not compromise participant consent, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Syrjämäki, A.H., Lyyra, P. & Hietanen, J.K. I don’t need your attention: ostracism can narrow the cone of gaze. Psychological Research 84, 99–110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0993-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0993-8