Comunicar, n. 67, v. XXIX, 2021 | Media Education Research Journal | ISSN: 1134-3478; e-ISSN: 1988-3478

www.comunicarjournal.com

Cyberostracism: Emotional and behavioral consequences in interactions

Ciberostracismo: Consecuencias emocionales y conductuales en las interacciones en redes sociales

Simona Galbava. Junior Researcher, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University (Czechia) ([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5706-7105) Dr. Hana Machackova. Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University (Czechia) ([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9498-9208) Dr. Lenka Dedkova. Postdoctoral Researcher, Interdisciplinary Research Team on Internet and Society, Masaryk University (Czechia) ([email protected]) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0807-1183)

ABSTRACT This study focuses on the effect of cyberostracism on social networking sites. Based on the temporal need-threat model of , we examined a) reflexive reactions, specifically worsened mood and threats to the four fundamental needs (i.e., belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control), and b) reflective reactions, in the form of prosocial, antisocial, and avoidance behavior. We also focused on the role of social anxiety. Using the experimental tool Ostracism Online, we conducted an online experiment to manipulate ostracism, measure self-reported reflexive reactions, and measure reflective reactions in a newly developed cooperative financial game. The participants were 196 young Czech adults (age 18-30; 62% women). T-tests showed worsened mood and higher threat connected to all four of the fundamental needs in the reflexive stage in ostracized participants. Regression models showed that social anxiety had a small effect on reflexive reactions, but it did not moderate the effect of ostracism. The type of threatened need and social anxiety did not predict a reflective reaction. The only significant predictor of antisocial response was experienced ostracism. Even a mild form of ostracism such as the lack of reactions by strangers to a shared post can lead to negative emotional and behavioral consequences.

RESUMEN Este estudio se centra en el efecto del ostracismo cibernético en los sitios de redes sociales. Sobre la base de un modelo de necesidad temporal-amenaza del ostracismo, analizamos el efecto en reacciones reflexivas, específicamente el empeoramiento del ánimo y amenaza a cuatro necesidades fundamentales (sentido de pertenencia, autoestima, existencia con sentido y control), y la reacción reflexiva en forma de comportamiento prosocial, antisocial o evasivo. También nos concentramos en el papel que desempeña la ansiedad social. Mediante el uso de la herramienta experimental Ostracism Online (Ostracismo en línea), realizamos un experimento en línea en el que se manipuló el ostracismo, se midieron las reacciones reflexivas autoinformadas en un juego financiero cooperativo recientemente desarrollado. Los participantes fueron 196 adultos jóvenes checos (de 18 a 30 años; 62% mujeres). T-tests demostraron empeoramiento del ánimo y amenaza más alta en las cuatro necesidades fundamentales en la etapa reflexiva de los participantes ostracidos. Los modelos de regresión mostraron que la ansiedad social tenía poco efecto en las reacciones reflexivas, pero no moderaba el efecto del ostracismo. El tipo de necesidad amenazada y ansiedad social no predijo la reacción reflexiva; el único indicador significativo de la respuesta antisocial fue el ostracismo experimentado. Incluso una forma leve de ostracismo en forma de falta de reacciones por parte de extraños a la publicación compartida puede dar lugar a consecuencias emocionales y conductuales negativas.

KEYWORDS | PALABRAS CLAVE Cyberostracism, social exclusion, Ostracism Online, social networking sites, social anxiety, emotions. Ciberostracismo, exclusión social, Ostracism Online, redes sociales, ansiedad social, emociones.

Received: 2020-09-30 | Reviewed: 2020-10-31 | Accepted: 2020-11-16 | Preprint: 2021-01-15 | Published: 2021-04-01 DOI https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 | Pages: 9-19

1 10 Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 ofe l,21) hsotnocr eas ftelc fuaeo aaigitcdgtlaffordances digital paralinguistic of usage of lack the of because occurs often This 2015). al., et Wolf we ihteraosfrsc ramn.I sa nlaatsca hnmnnta ed onegative to leads that phenomenon social unpleasant an is It treatment. such for reasons the with (Williams reflexive, model in 1.2. that cyberostracism. conditions strongly helplessness, players. 2018; al., et Tobin 2017; al., et (Schneider post shared ostracism, of a signs on milder feedback with sufficient even excluded getting feel not can by people However, as 2015). such al., et Tobin 2017; al., et Cyberostracism reactions 1.1. the in differences individual understand better to The anxiety behavior. social antisocial of ostracism. and and role to prosocial mood the like in on reactions, changes focused reflective about like also and evidence study reactions, needs, more fundamental reflexive provide four the to the intend examined to we we threats design participants, Specifically, experimental adult the on cyberostracism. others applying to of By reactions reactions response. of emotional lack behavioral the the the predicts simulate and which guide to ostracism, ostracism we Moreover, experienced of model the 2018). need-threat al., to Tobinet temporal reactions 2017; (2009) al., Williams’ proposed et by method (Schneider research experimental Online the our Ostracism used (2015), which research al. of et line been Wolf the by follow has we Specifically, attention adults. scarce. research young is in of 2014). experience al., negative portion et of (Kowalski type large victimization this online a of target experiences (e.g., specifically date, complex would interactions To and which direct aggression research of However, users’ 2000). forms on direct al., focused networking more to social are et given on that Williams particularly environments internet, games; online the other discussions, on in ostracism happen and interactions encounter and social (SNS) people needs, today’s sites 2017), of fundamental al., part to et significant threat a (Ryan a Since online mood, 2009). worsened (Williams, a behaviors coping as antisocial such consequences, behavioral and emotional Introduction 1. https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 design. (PDA; Tobin etal.,2018;Wolf2015). experimental Instagram) al., 2016). increased our adapt Specific nSS srcs a aetefr finrn oen naca racmet eto (Donate section comments a or chat a in someone ignoring of form the take can ostracism SNS, On cyberostracism of experience the on focusing by knowledge current enrich to intend we study, our In acquainted not usually is and others by ignored is one which in exclusion social of form a is Ostracism Past 2018). is invoked Temporal study, of Hayes It correspond research After reflective, the has ostracism self-esteem, et of commonly Conversely, reactions because and al., method studies getting a been by thelackofPDAreactions. et need-threat modelofostracism few We 2000). on depression al., to and shown initial (Williams, use cyberostracism

insufficient have resignation proposed to 2016); the carry and this experiences resignation. the In current • tosses,

shown, higher Pages that it, the new after lack in the 9-19 by meaning 2009). PDA feedback other is they experimental experiences long-term of satisfaction ostracized Wolf a ostracism, often a The of reaction do acquisition reaction words, ostracism et This of not first used for al. ostracism, support receive participant that of of even two shared (2015) model method one-click versions can cyberostracism, the are can is phases within or, associated need lead the described describes Ostracism content which lead to at of ball plays examine tools to least, to are the a to again. sadness belong is group described and pleasant the virtual with impossible (e.g., and the validation especially Online. the game better Unfortunately, of effect feelings explained (Burrow (Hayes a feeling ball-tossing strangers feelings “Like” below, with Ostracism aligns to on of of of study of being social ostracism et & two in alienation, on ostracism of with the Rainone, al., (Schneider a game with this or happiness, , temporal media. noticed Online third 2016) the three situation our called in in experiences is worthlessness, 2017; For three experimental simulates (Wohn not young other and, et need-threat Cyberball self-worth, our a al., included does Reich “♥” phases: as online adults study, 2017; et prior not the of al., on et ilas 2009). Williams, hl ofe l 21)sceddi eiyn h eaieipc nalfu ed sn h new the using needs four all on impact negative the verifying in succeeded (2015) al. et Wolf while reason). specific a with dealing than more (even self-esteem for hurtful is which that, deserved they why pain physical of experience the to similar neuroanatomically is that pain social of experience the with Vlebr ee,20) ro tde hwdta oilaxeyi ikdt diinlngtv online negative additional to linked is anxiety social that showed studies Prior 2007). Peter, & (Valkenburg group a of part being lower denied is the person in a because manifests endangered ostracism is by belong to caused need pain the that social explained of (2009) experience The associated 2003). is it al., reflex; a et basically (Eisenberger is it and quickly, occurs detection The 2011). Wesselmann, & (Williams hymyhv ee potnte ocmest o h nieeprecswt nte interaction another with experiences online the for compensate because to experience opportunities online compensation and negative social fewer a rejection, with to have of line vulnerable may signs more In be slightest they 2009). even (Miller, the may negatively people even anxious rather register socially situations quickly hypotheses, unclear they people interpret anxious others, to re- socially from tend to general, evaluations they intend In we of characteristic. anxiety, afraid personal social more this of of are role effects the moderating about possible knowledge the prior examine on based However, factors. personality anxiety Social 1.2.2. design; same the affect. with positive ostracism in of decrease effect the the on re-examine effect will presumed effect we the the study, examine verify also our to will in failed we (2017) Thus, moreover, al. need. et control Schneider a by replication on subsequent the method, Online Ostracism 2003; affect al., positive et in (Eisenberger decrease anger a and to sadness, related anxiety, also includes one is which situation, ostracism the affect, (likened the solve negative existence by cannot in meaningful thus caused increase to and pain an threat reaction social and any the The encounter of not control. form does loses the one also in since threat and existential death”) “social an to to lead also can Ostracism pl ontv n eairlsrtge opoedtwr eoey codn oteneed-fortification the to According recovery. toward proceed to strategies behavioral and cognitive apply reaction Reflective 1.2.3. socially that hypothesis threatening. the more re-examine as will ostracism threatening we of more experience assumptions, be more the these therefore, perceive is a could, on people show Online it Based anxious that not Ostracism people. and did that task, anxious study consideration Cyberball socially the recover into the for though to than take Regarding Even interactive longer we socially take reactions, task. and others. anxiety immediate Cyberball personal of social the the posts higher in by the with effect induced their on people moderating ostracism on commenting that of posts about experience found writing the fretted (2006) of from fear they al. greater and et had wall, they Zadro else’s not friendship, cyberostracism, would someone for anxiety they request on and that a or anxiety worried or social own were message between people a link anxious for strong feedback socially a receive Specifically, found Facebook. (2014) on al. interactions et during McCord instance, For experiences. on reflections to leads treatment such for reasons the of awareness of lack A relationship. dual Williams a control. or and existence, meaningful self-esteem, belonging, needs: human four the of satisfaction accordingly act to person a large allow of and a development ostracism had the of to signs have mild led might even probably detect This exclusion to reproduction. social mechanism and adaptive and survival innate ostracism for an chances existence, perspective, individual’s meaningful self-esteem, an evolutionary belonging, on an impact needs: From fundamental four the control. to and threat a and mood in change ...Reflexive 1.2.1. h rgnlter ttsta h elxv ecinsol erssatt h fet fstainland situational of effects the to resistant be should reaction reflexive the that states theory original The However, studies. experimental in examined been already have ostracism of effects proposed These nterfetv hs,pol lbrt n vlaeteeioeo srcs n subsequently and ostracism of episode the evaluate and elaborate people phase, reflective the In a in manifest which ostracism, experienced to reactions immediate the includes phase reflexive The 1.Otaie epewl ei os odta o-srczdpeople. non-ostracized than mood worse a in be will people Ostracized and control, H1b. self-esteem, • belonging, from satisfaction lower derive will people Ostracized H1a. • 2 srczdidvdaswt ihrsca nit ileprec oe ed satisfaction. needs lower experience will anxiety social higher with individuals Ostracized H2. • ennfleitneta o-srczdpeople. non-ostracized than existence meaningful phase © SN 1134-3478 ISSN: • -SN 1988-3293 e-ISSN: • ae 9-19 Pages

Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 11 12 Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 eeasrdo hi nnmt n hi ih oqi taytm.Priiat rvddifre consent informed provided Participants time. any at quit to right their and anonymity their of assured were h oe festopsil epne orcvrfo h xeineo srcs:pooiland prosocial ostracism: of experience the from recover to responses possible two offers model The Mle,20) easm htscal niu epewl o att otnet neatwt h group the with interact to continue to want not will people anxious socially that assume we 2009)– (Miller, 2009). (Williams, t14=.1 p=.229). (t(194)=1.21, yohss people hypothesis, odtos h srczdcniinicue 8priiat 4%o h ape.Tegop did groups The sample). the of (45% (χ participants gender 88 experimental in two differ included secondary, of significantly had one condition to not 67% ostracized assigned randomly SD=2.80); The were Participants (M=22.51, education. 18-30 conditions. sample primary final aged 1% The women) and on difficulties. tertiary, (62% based technical 32% participants reported either largest or 196 excluded, The 2015) of were al., it. comprised Therefore, finished et participants Wolf 246 Fifty from 7€. and (adapted approximately study checks of the manipulation. manipulation entered prizes experimental people five during 671 of of occurred one total attrition win A to used. chance was a sampling was convenience incentive An groups. Facebook Participants 2.1. methods and Material 2. rejection of risk a is there where situations social –because them. avoid account ostracized to into that introversion tend reaction study, anxiety this their social type take of In this not explore levels does further 2016). high hypothesis to with al., need-fortification intend We people et the ostracism. Though (Ren experiencing model after reaction. solitude the of for to desire added higher a was predicted reaction evasive the Recently, of line this to the contribute predict needs to threatened intend most we the study, of our available dyads In any mentioned in more above needs. reflected the reaction. some be respective whether least will examining at people by fortify ostracized research to that assumed order each on be in focuses can research response Most it behavior. so consequences antisocial or separately, prosocial negative is reaction it possible whether of the regardless involved, of people antisocial regardless an reaction choose should a more existence provoke are meaningful who to and people tend control hand, other they for the needs because On the self-esteem. response, to results and then belonging respect which of with re-inclusion, satisfaction for threatened the chances in the increase increase should an manner in prosocial a in Reacting antisocial. https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 In people. survey. real the with after the to explained interacting according was were differed the manipulation they they fulfill The To and that pre-programmed, condition. believe were experimental 2.2.3). reactions to assigned (section their misled and which task participants were after financial other participants the 2.2.1), cooperative the reality, (section a study, task Then, in the group again checks. demographics, of a group manipulation aim about in and the questions engaged questionnaire, with items), mood they of interacted anxiety and Then participants of comprised need-satisfaction SNS. effect reflexive was of the the study use completed alleviate their they the (to about of 1965) question They (Rosenberg, part a items and first participants. self-esteem online The worded other positively with anxiety, survey. task the group entering a by to contribute and questionnaire a complete to asked instruments and Procedure 2.2. nNvme 09 esae nivtto o atcpto nti td nCehuniversities’ Czech in study this in participation for invitation an shared we 2019, November In other the than reactions extreme more show people ostracized that stated (2015) al. et Wesselmann atcpnswr odta h td xmndSSues niebhvo n htte ol be would they that and behavior online users’ SNS examined study the that told were Participants 3.Otaie niiul ihhge oilaxeywl edt hoea vsv response. evasive an choose to tend will anxiety social higher with individuals Ostracized H3c. • control or existence meaningful of needs the in satisfied less are tend who will people self-esteem or Ostracized belonging H3b. of needs • the in satisfied less are who people Ostracized H3a. • iltn ocos natsca response. antisocial an choose to tend will ocos rsca response. prosocial a choose to hoebhvosta ilsrnte hi ottraee ed Wlim,2009). (Williams, needs threatened most their strengthen will that behaviors choose • ae 9-19 Pages 2 1=.1,p.3) g t14=.3 =66,nrSSusage SNS nor p=.666), (t(194)=0.43, age p=.339), (1)=0.912, eeivle nteeprmn;teohrpoie n ecin eeporme.Fo h provided the From participants programmed. the were only reactions reality, In and profiles online. other people other the with experiment; task the group in short a involved solve were to had they that told were rt nitoutr aarp bu hmevs nti td,w olwdasmlrpoeue though procedure, similar a followed we study, this In themselves. about paragraph introductory an write h 9ie oe oeie “ etIwsual oifuneteato fohr” a eee due deleted was others”– of action the influence to unable was I felt –“I item (one model 19-item The cognitive the in piloted and revised then were descriptions The students. university mostly were They 1040caatr)t nrdc hmevst h ru.Te h atcpnswr se o“meet” to asked were participants the Then group. the to themselves introduce to characters) (140-400 eg,“ etIblne otegop) =.,SD=0.95, M=3.3, group”), the to belonged I felt “I (e.g., aiiy toecm h iiain fCbralb iuaigastainwihcnb nonee on encountered be can which situation a simulating by Cyberball of limitations the overcame it validity, pin,tepriiat hs hi ipa aeadapoiepcue hyas rt hr text short a wrote also They picture. profile a and name display their chose participants the options, feprmna odtoscudesr ihritra aiiy huholn diitainlmtdthe limited administration online though procedure. validity, the internal of assignment control higher random overall ensure and external could manipulation in pre-programmed conditions the experimental limited validity, of was internal the procedure last Concerning experimental used would media. was the social part animation Although an this credibility, that increase To connection. where instructed it. and established in were profiles the engaged Participants other they represent that the 1). to important inspect was (Figure to it “Likes” and were minutes, receive they three and where “Like” room, virtual could pre-programmed they a in others the usae’soe eecmue yaeaigteases eognns a esrdwt ieitems five with measured was Belongingness The answers. RMSEA=.056). the SRMR=.080, averaging CFI=.976, by (TLI=.972, computed were fit scores satisfactory subscales’ a disagree, had (1=Strongly discrimination) scale low Likert to feelings five-point the a and of (lavaan R items dimensions in CFA 20 four agree). with assesses 5=Strongly manipulation tool the The during experienced 2009). (Williams, Questionnaire Need-Satisfaction control the in and, group) reactions a Reflexive in 2.2.2. “Likes” participants amount). of the average amount the condition, least (i.e., experimental the “Likes” the (i.e., four In profile received received participants their seven). members condition, on to pre-programmed “Like” two the one from conditions, only (ranging both received “Likes” In of corner. amount same left the upper the in profile participant’s addressed. were (n=10)– 30 to 18 aged (n=5). SNS, interviews to of backgrounds users different –the population from considered people the asking from by people race only and gender, age, of terms in diversity maximum the Ostracism 2.2.1. eognns,sl-sem ennfleitne n oto eemaue ihteReflexive the with measured were control and existence, meaningful self-esteem, Belongingness, the with displayed, were participant’s) the (including profiles nine of total a experiment, the In their In We dpe srcs nie(ofe l,21)t aiuaetelvlo srcs.Participants ostracism. of level the manipulate to 2015) al., et (Wolf Online Ostracism adapted rgnlsuy ofe l 21)cetd1 r-rgamdpoie n re oachieve to tried and profiles pre-programmed 11 created (2015) al. et Wolf study, original akg) sn WS ofre h ordmninlstructure. four-dimensional the confirmed UWLS, using package), α .4.Sl-semwsmaue ihfive with measured was Self-esteem =.842. © SN 1134-3478 ISSN: • -SN 1988-3293 e-ISSN: • ae 9-19 Pages

Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 13 14 Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 eervre,adtefnlsoewscmue sa vrg M39,SD=0.88, (M=3.94, average an as computed was score final the and reversed, were h atcpn eevdcei f80Z.Svno h r-rgamdpaesrcie sufficient a received players pre-programmed the of Seven 800CZK. of credit received participant The eg,“ etivsbe()) =.,SD=0.89, M=3.3, (R)”), invisible felt “I (e.g., 1Srnl iare =togyare dpe rmWlim’(09.Teies“nr”ad“sad” and “angry” items The (2009). Williams’ from adapted agree) 5=Strongly disagree, (1=Strongly 1Dfntl o,5Dfntl yes). 5=Definitely not, (1=Definitely maximize to order in money manage collectively to was task The evasive). antisocial, prosocial, (e.g., HaadHb,w efre eiso needn -et.W ple ofroicreto to correction Bonferroni applied We t-tests. independent of series a performed we H1b), and (H1a 27,p.0,d=1.87. p<.001, 12.71, tm (e.g., items etpwru”,M25 SD=0.85, M=2.5, powerful”), felt eolt 02 eg,“ mnrosmxn ihpol o’ nwwl” ihaseso four- a summing on by answers computed with was well”) score know final don’t The SD=7.38, I (M=23.06, agree). people items 4=Strongly the with disagree, mixing (1=Strongly nervous scales am Likert point “I (e.g., 2012) Denollet, & anxiety Social 2.2.5. non- average”. the “above of or 94% and average” average average” “around an “below either option was chose ‘Likes’ the generally chose group of there They group ostracized number that ostracized average. the the Above consider consider of or you 94% we average, would accordingly, Around answered “If how average, four), Below around answered was: Participants example, question (for received?” you group first the The in ‘Likes’ of 2015). number al., et (Wolf manipulation ended, was manipulation manipulation of the Internalization 2.2.4. request, the analysis to the responded in included participants not After was debriefing. response not tested. by evasive chose followed be the they prevalence, not if low could evasive the and H3c to (16%), Due and request (1.7%). the game refused the they play when to the antisocial (82%), in money position meant the participant’s loan provided the the strengthened Refusing which game, game. the the play play to to able both be game. allow not asked would then would player which player this loan, other 200CZK; the 300CZK only a received One for 1,000CZK). participant game. to the 500CZK the (e.g., play a money to of game required credit of was amount game 19€) a approximately assigned – randomly (500CZK was amount everyone minimum that The told amount. were different Participants profit. overall group’s the reactions Reflective 2.2.3. https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 (Table group control the in existence, than was meaningful group hypothesis self-esteem, (ostracized) null experimental (belongingness, the the needs in reject lower four to were p-value all mood required and of the control) satisfaction and testing; the multiple expected, in As error 1 Type p<.01. a of risk the reduce reactions t(153.65)=- Reflexive 3.1. SD=0.64), more (M=1.93, felt group condition control experimental used the the was than in manipulation SD=0.87) participants expected, of (M=3.36, As excluded internalization and groups. measuring ignored between items difference the the across test score to average The manipulation. Results 3. odwsmaue ihfu tm “ elgo/redyagysd)o iepitLkr scale Likert five-point a on good/friendly/angry/sad”) feel (“I items four with measured was Mood oilaxeywsmaue ihte1-tmSotFr fSca neato nit cl (Kupper Scale Anxiety Interaction Social of Form Short 10-item the with measured was anxiety contribution Social their liked others if and excluded, ignored, felt participants if asked items other Three of internalization the about items control four included we ostracization, of effect the verify To they when prosocial as coded was response Their ways. three in respond could participant The reactions reflective measuring game financial cooperative a of form the in was task group second The ots h yohssta srczdpol r oengtvl fetdi hi elxv reactions reflexive their in affected negatively more are people ostracized that hypotheses the test To the checked we First, 26. Statistics SPSS IBM with conducted were analyses following The Ifl ie”,M30 SD=0.83, M=3.0, liked”), felt “I • ae 9-19 Pages α =.915). α =.724. α .9.Maigu xsec a esrdwt items 5 with measured was existence Meaningful =.792. α .1.Cnrlwsmaue ihfu tm eg,“I (e.g., items four with measured was Control =.812. α =.827). eentsgiiat hs o asmn,w rsn h eut fse Tbe3.Terslsindicate results The 3). (Table 3 step of results the present we parsimony, for thus, significant; not were supported. not were digteitrcintr i o infcnl mrv n oe (all model any improve significantly not did term interaction the Adding ie,wtotteitrcin al 2). Table interaction; the without (i.e., needs of were gender) satisfaction (age, the variables predict Control to regressions control). and linear existence, multiple meaningful hierarchical self-esteem, four (belongingness, conducted we (H2), 1). ru opie ftoewosoe oeto ennfleitneo oto.Teewsn significant no (χ was There reaction control. prosocial reflective provocative or the existence a a meaningful and with the on self-esteem; association lowest groups: or scored with belongingness two who on those participants most created lowest of comprised scored We the the group who with participant that those the antisocially. of while hypothesized behave comprised prosocially, We group would behave need would need power/provocation subsample. inclusionary threatened ostracized satisfied) (least an threatened on most independence of test 3 step of results the present we effects, main the interpret To supported. not was (all model H2 Adding any hence, men. improve significant; among significantly satisfaction not self-esteem did higher showed term effect interaction gender the weak A negatively. step), needs (third four step). all anxiety (fourth social anxiety step), social (second and condition condition experimental the of the interaction by the followed and step, first the in entered supported. ru.Hwvr hntsigamdlwt srcs stesnl rdco,w on htotaimhad ostracism that control found we the predictor, than single the often as more ostracism only reaction with The model antisocial a response. the testing antisocial chose when However, the people chose group. ostracized people that why suggests explain sufficiently result not significant did needs threatened the step). that (fourth to interactions their sample and total step), (third the needs step), with of (first satisfaction age) regressions (gender, separate each controls logistic the the of moderated step), to magnitude (second according four the 1=antisocial) ostracism (0=prosocial, by performed outcome We affected binary was the reaction predict needs. the threatened whether the tested we of relationship, the explore further Reflective 3.3. Moderation 3.2. h fetszsrne ewe .-.,soigmdrt olreefcs 1 n 1 eethus were H1b and H1a effects. large to moderate showing 0.5-0.9, between ranged sizes effect The ots h yohssrltdt h elcieratos(3,Hb,w efre 2× a performed we H3b), (H3a, reactions reflective the to related hypotheses the test To predicted anxiety social and Ostracism similar. was steps three first the in results of pattern general The responses reflexive and ostracism between relationship the moderates anxiety social whether test To hs eut ugs htteei odrc ikbtentems hetndne n ecin To reaction. and need threatened most the between link direct no is there that suggest results These reactions frfeiereactions reflexive of 2 18)003 =96 rmrV.0) oHaadH3b and H3a so V=.006), Cramer p=.956, (1,81)=0.003, ∆R © 2 SN 1134-3478 ISSN: ≤ 0)adteitrcin eenot were interactions the and .06) ∆R 2 ≤ 03,adteinteractions the and .013), • -SN 1988-3293 e-ISSN: • ae 9-19 Pages 2 χ 2 -

Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 15 16 Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 a on o efete,tene o oto,admo.Teefnig r ossetwt previous with consistent are findings These mood. and control, for need the self-esteem, for found was lhuhahge ee fsca nit a eae otelwrstsato fnes hr a no was there needs, of satisfaction lower the to related was anxiety social of level higher a Although =nioil codn ocnrl gne,ae frtse) srcs scn tp,sca nit (third anxiety social step), (second ostracism step), (first age) (gender, controls to according 1=antisocial) response. ver a tp,adteritrcin(orhse) h ia oe,icuigteitrcintr,wsnot was term, interaction the including model, final The step). (fourth -2LL=160.14, interaction significant, their (0=prosocial, reaction and predict step), to analysis additional an conducted We response. antisocial and ostracism https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 with consistent are results These supported. not was hypothesis our thus, ostracism; on effect moderation whether is an yield question would valid project, a group a and in strong, participate effect. to rather negative together still stronger getting is even students exclusion than as effect threatening such the form less conditions, the slightly Nevertheless, real-life the in is more ostracism of SNS environment. that magnitude a possible offline on the is group an study, It hoc-created our in subscales. ad In the an for within d>|1.4|. smaller feedback as bit insufficient to a reflexive effect of refers even the the and work of d=0.96 that of (Hartgerink was magnitude However, manipulation effect average studies Cyberball baseline an 2.0. used in that showed to studies 2015) that 1.0 120 al., from of states et meta-analysis ranges (2009) A effect effect ostracism. Williams the moderate offline of on a research magnitude 2015). and the al., ostracism, existence, et to meaningful Wolf response and 2009; belonging (Williams, to research related needs phase). the reflective the for users (i.e., when found meaning reaction, some was delayed it effect a give of and the part situation the as of process and theory to phase) opportunity the reflexive the the on immediately had (i.e., both Based have ostracism reactions user of examined experience Online. we the 2009), Ostracism after (Williams, method ostracism of experimental model the need-threat temporal with (SNS) sites networking ostracism. again, conclusion was, and predictor Discussion significant 4. only The anxiety. social the of effect main the We ntescn nlss eivsiae hte h elxv ecini oeae ysca anxiety. social by moderated is reaction reflexive the whether investigated we analysis, second the In strong A mood. and needs, four all to threat a to led ostracism of experience the that show results The social on ostracism of experience the to react people young how examine to was study this of aim The ekpeitv blt n xlie ny47 ftevrac Nglek’ R (Nagelkerke’s variance the of 4.7% only explained and ability predictive weak y lofrhrepoe h oeo oilaxeya osbemdrtrfrterltosi between relationship the for moderator possible a as anxiety social of role the explored further also • χ ae 9-19 Pages 2=.0) n ete a h neato,nor interaction, the was neither and .006), = (∆R2 p=.059 2(5)=10.65, 2 ftereflective the of ) eslan 01.Hwvr rfrnefrti epnemyas eafce ysca desirability social by affected be also may response this for preference However, 2011). Wesselmann, osndmo.I diin h feto srcs nnesstsato srssatt h oeainof moderation the to resistant is satisfaction needs on ostracism of effect the addition, In mood. worsened response. evasive the changing or eliminating financial recommend cooperative we the (i.e., method created the Also, power. statistical the affected have could which this contradict results Our control and hypothesis. existence need-fortification meaningful the of by needs postulated the in as threatened antisocially, most react those would while prosocially, react would vnd-otl 08.Det h o rprino viac epne ewr iie oafcson focus a to limited were we response, avoidance of proportion low the to Due 2008). (van-de-Mortel, nioilrsos oeotnta epei oto odto.N te rdcosfrteantisocial the for an predictors choose other No condition ostracized condition. an control in a People in people reaction. than evasive often antisocial the more an chooses choose response rest one antisocial the reaction; no prosocial almost a choose and people most reaction; to phase, reflective and the control, In existence, meaningful anxiety. self-esteem, social belong, to needs the of satisfaction lower the to lead can Conclusions research, 4.2. future For formulation. its by influenced prevalence. was low reaction to this due reaction of evasive proportion an low include the not that could possible we 1996), is result, It a al., as and, et drawbacks (Peduzzi some the significantly had responses, task) increased reflective regressions of logistic representation moderated unequal the for social existing to requirement from due partners size from Furthermore, sample “Likes” of classmates). effects implement as the to (such of try examination circles from could the research suffers for future allow still Thus, would design that above. discussed experimental procedures briefly the was which Cyberball, validity, than ecological lower conditions real-life represents adequately more research future to and DeWall, threat Limitations 4.1. & additional an (Chester and narcissism 2008), as al., such et (Ayduk 2018), sensitivity al., rejection control. relationship et 2003), the Campbell, to (Ren We moderators & Twenge response important 2016; manipulation. antisocial other or during be and direct to may needs no ostracism however, order there of anxiety; between Nevertheless, in satisfaction social of found. the that effect was of the believe differences effect examining individual level we by moderating the reactions the Thus, on these on explain focus further phase only to action. to reflexive better than attempted particular be the rather would a in factors it for situational threatened response, that motives antisocial or needs interpretation an so the specific Our for explain ostracism, with preference the to only group. of explain reaction simplistic control experience the too the the linked than be to that may often only hypothesis but more linked the response, response was that antisocial antisocial response. response is the the behavioral antisocial predicted chose the The needs people and individual ostracized found. if need explored was threatened further effect most we no the analysis, between follow-up association the no In was there hypothesis: rsca n nioilreactions. antisocial and prosocial epehv h pino eicuin hypee rsca epne(wne 05 ilas& Williams if 2005; that, (Twenge, hypothesis response the prosocial with a consistent prefer are they results re-inclusion, These of reaction. option evasive the an have chose people one no almost and anxiety social member. of family moderation a the or to friend suggest resistant a we is nevertheless, from Thus, phase anxiety; comes reflexive social 2016). ostracism the with al., if whether people on et to focus threatening Scissors could especially 2018; be research al., not further may not et strangers is (Hayes of “Likes” response ostracism of that the the number noted that total provides be the who to should that as vulnerable suggests it important research more However, Some as be 2014). strangers. may al., from threat people “Likes” et of anxious obtained (McCord feelings participants socially stronger communication the though online support even in would experiences ostracism, which negative to factor due a not needs is fundamental anxiety to social that suggests This 2006). the idnso rvosrsac nterfeiersos ootaim(cnie ta. 07 ar tal., et Zadro 2017; al., et (Schneider ostracism to response reflexive the on research previous of findings ncnlso,orsuysosta vnvr utesgso srcs pna o ruso SNS on groups hoc ad upon ostracism of signs subtle very even that shows study our conclusion, In Online Ostracism though First, mind. in limitations several with interpreted be should findings Our etse hte epeworpre h ihs het ntenest eogadself-esteem and belong to needs the in threats highest the reported who people whether tested We nterfetv hs,ms epecoeapooilrato.Ters hs natsca reaction antisocial an chose rest The reaction. prosocial a chose people most phase, reflective the In © SN 1134-3478 ISSN: • -SN 1988-3293 e-ISSN: • ae 9-19 Pages

Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 17 18 Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 h aeo eeto sensitivity. rejection of case The 5111) C.https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820066 ACM. 1501-1510). Disorders Affective of Journal Media Electronic & Broadcasting of Journal yu,Ö,Gua,A,&Lese,A 20) niiuldfeecsi h eeto–grsinln ntehtsueparadigm: sauce hot the in link rejection–aggression the in differences Individual (2008). A. Luerssen, & A., Gyurak, Ö., Ayduk, References 19-27828X. no. well-being” adolescent’s on Agency develop Funding to help could phenomenon this of understanding better strategies. an a coping is influence; effective help ostracism to and Unfortunately, difficult PDA experiences. is allowing/using cyberostracism that of negative experience consequences with negative cope teachers possible and the the understand as of to the such students aware at interactions, be these especially should moderating mind, lessons, and online. online in occur guiding of work) for conclusions and responsible these education are (including keep who interactions should those social We of Specifically, amount belonging. substantial a of when sense and time, interaction present a social inducing online experience, can in in this we (PDA) and role findings, with affordances digital these their subtle even paralinguistic on that, very of Based importance suggest a well-being. the study understand psychological is better this their it regarding of Although endangered results partially the are strangers. ostracism, people by of provided form were often-unintentional reactions an these while contribution, shared were response https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-01 Facebook. on Likes receiving around behaviors and Attitudes Like? a in being What’s of effects (2016). The S. Wengrovitz, In ostracism: & media M., Social Burke, and (2017). L., behaviour P. Vorderer, Scissors, social & online S., of Reich, review F., online. A Hopp, excluded M., media? Bindl, social B., are Zwillich, social F., How Schneider, (2017). D. McInerney, & connectedness. D., Gray, K., Allen, T., Ryan, aggression. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136 and Ostracism (1965). people: M. hurt Rosenberg, people Hurt (2018). online. K. satisfaction , Williams, need & and E., interactions Wesselmann, Symbolic D., - Ren, Likes Zero (2018). Behavior, L. variable Human Heling, per & events F., of Schneider, number S., the Reich, of study simulation A https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3 (1996). A. analysis. (Eds.), Feinstein, regression Hoyle & T., logistic H. Holford, in R. E., & Kemper, Leary, J., Concato, R. P., M. Peduzzi, In behavior social embarrassability. in and differences shyness, individual anxiousness, Social anxiety. (2009). and R.S. uses Miller, SPS. Social and Facebook: SIAS (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.020 of C. versions 23-27. Levinson, abbreviated & T., Introducing Rodebaugh, population: B., general McCord, the in anxiety Social (2012). J. Denollet, & N., Kupper, digital paralinguistic through ostracism Perceived you: “Likes” nobody media. When media. social social in (2018). within affordances C. Carr, affordances digital & paralinguistic E., Interpreting Wesselmann, meanings: R., Cyberball many Hayes, 120 click, of One Meta-Analysis A (2016). D. Ostracism: Wohn, of & Effects C., Ordinal Carr, The R., Hayes, (2015). W. K.D., exclusion. & W., social J.M., of Studies. I., study Beest fMRI van An C., hurt? Hartgerink, on rejection room—Effects Does chat (2003). virtual K. via Williams, 302 Ostracism & (2017). M., P. Lieberman, Boggio, N., & dACC Eisenberger, D., by pain. Amodio, moderated and M., is anger Asthana, aggression needs, O., basic retaliatory Lapenta, on L., narcissism Marques, of A., feedback effect Donate, media The social alarm: positive the rejection. between Sound to links reactivity (2016). moderates Purpose C. DeWall, get? & I D., did Chester, likes many How self-esteem. (2017). and N. Rainone, & A., Burrow, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004 oasi . imti . cree,A,&Ltanr .(04.Blyn ntedgtlae rtclrve n eaaayi of meta-analysis and review critical A age: digital the in Bullying (2014). youth. M. among Lattanner, research & cyberbullying A., Schroeder, G., Giumetti, R., Kowalski, hswr a eevdfnigfo h zc cec onain rjc Mdligteftr:Udrtnigteipc of impact the Understanding future: the “Modelling project Foundation, Czech the from funding received has work This SW’6 rceig fte1t C ofrneo optrSpotdCoeaieWr oilComputing Social & Work Cooperative Computer-Supported on Conference ACM 19th the of Proceedings ’16: CSCW 54) 9-9.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134 290-292. (5643), LSONE PLoS 43.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.026 34-38. 19, , Research Relationships of Journal ora fEprmna oilPsychology Social Experimental of Journal optr nHmnBehavior Human in Computers 80 on nti td.Otaimwsmnpltdb h ml ubro ecin othe to reactions of number small the by manipulated was Ostracism study. this in found , 10 712 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.043 97-102. , ora fPersonality , of Journal rneo nvriyPress. University Princeton self-image . adolescent the and Society 5,e170.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002 e0127002. (5), LSONE, PLoS , Epidemiology Clinical of Journal , 12,9-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.08.014 90-98. 136(1-2), • , Psychology Social Experimental of Journal oilMda+Society + Media Social ae 9-19 Pages scooia Bulletin, Psychological p.1611.TeGifr rs.https://bit.ly/3myP2k4 Press. Guilford The 176-191). (pp. 9,e141.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184215 e0184215. 12(9), , 84 60 3,3138 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12164 361-368. (3), 1,1117 https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1127248 171-187. (1), , 73 https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2017.13 8. 8-9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.052 385-393. , , 3,12 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118800309 1-2. 4(3), , 4,17-17 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618 1073-1137. 140(4), 69 3-3.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.005 232-236. , 49 1) 1373-1379. (12), 44 3,775-782. (3), optr nHmnBehavior, Human in Computers urn pno in Opinion Current adokof Handbook optr in Computers Science, 34 (pp. , ar,L,Bln,C,&Rcado,R 20) o ogde tls?Tepritneo h fet fotaimi h socially the in ostracism of effects the of persistence The last? it does long How media social (2006). A R. online: Richardson, anxious. Ostracism & C., (2015). Boland, K. L., Williams, Zadro, & J., Lueckmann, S., paradigm. Kraaijeveld, ostracism J., on Ruff, affordances A., digital Levordashka, paralinguistic W., Wolf, of effect The “Like”? a https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0162 is affective support. How social (2016). perceived R.A. In Hayes, & C.T., aggression. Carr, and D.Y., Wohn, ostracism between link Internet. The the aggression (2011). over E. ignored Wesselmann, being & of K., Effects Williams, Cyberostracism: (2000). , Psychology W. Social Choi, and & (Ed.), C., Zanna Cheung, P. K., M. Williams, In model. need-threat temporal A psychology Ostracism: ostracism. (2009). to K. responses Williams, for Motivations (2015). K. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00040 Williams, & D., research. Ren, self-report E., in Wesselmann, bias response desirability Social Nursing it: friends. Faking to (2008). closeness and T. their rejection, Mortel, and social van-de communication Narcissism, online deserve? adolescents’ to and Psychology going Preadolescents’ Developmental we’re (2007). that J. Peter, respect & the P., Valkenburg, get to fun it Isn’t aggression. (2003). W. Campbell, & J., Twenge, w ne .(05.We ossca eeto edt grsin h nlecso iutos acsim mto,and (Eds.), emotion, Hippel narcissism, von situations, W. of & bullying Forgas, influences and J. The rejection, Williams, aggression? K. to In lead connections. rejection replenishing social does When (2005). J. Twenge, oi,S,Vna,E,Vrene . ar,A 21) het oblnigo aeok ukn n ostracism. and Lurking Facebook: on belonging to Threats (2015). A. Saeri, Influence & M., Verreynne, E., Vanman, S., Tobin, Relations Intergroup T bn . cemt,S,&Fec,L 21) h oeo ru iei ecin ootaimadinclusion. and ostracism to reactions in size group of role The (2018). L. French, & S., McDermott, S., obin, , ora fEprmna oilPsychology Social Experimental of Journal , 25 10 p.3-1.Pyhlg rs.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803813 Press. Psychology 37-51). (pp. p.4647.Esve cdmcPes https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1 Press. Academic Elsevier 406-407). (pp. esnlt n oilPyhlg Bulletin Psychology Social and Personality 4,4-8 https://bit.ly/2JfgZyP 40-48. (4), 14.https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2014.893924 31-42. , eairRsac Methods Research Behavior , 7,11-03 https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217702723 1014-1033. 21(7), p.2222.Pyhlg rs.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203942888 Press. Psychology 202-212). (pp. 79 yepyhlg,Bhvo,adSca Networking Social and Behavior, Cyberpsychology, 5,7872 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748 748-762. (5), , 43 2,2727 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.267 267-277. (2), , 47 , 2,3133 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0475-x 361-373. (2), 42 , 29 5,6267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007 692-697. (5), 2,2122 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202239051 261-272. (2), , h oilotat srcs,sca exclusion, social Ostracism, outcast: social The 9,562-566. 19(9), © SN 1134-3478 ISSN: dacsi xeietlsocial experimental in Advances h scooyo oilcnlc and conflict social of psychology The rnir nPsychology in Frontiers utainJunlo Advanced of Journal Australian • -SN 1988-3293 e-ISSN: ora fPersonality of Journal ru rcse & Processes Group , 40-40. 6, Social • ae 9-19 Pages

Comunicar, 67, XXIX, 2021 19