The ordinal effects of ostracism

A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies

C.H.J. Hartgerink, I. van Beest, J.M. Wicherts, K.D. Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

172 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We examined 120 Cyberball studies (N = 11,869) to determine the effect size of ostracism and conditions under which the effect may be reversed, eliminated, or small. Our analyses showed that (1) the average ostracism effect is large (d > |1.4|) and (2) generalizes across structural aspects (number of players, ostracism duration, number of tosses, type of needs scale), sampling aspects (gender, age, country), and types of dependent measure (interpersonal, intrapersonal, fundamental needs). Further, we test Williams’s (2009) proposition that the immediate impact of ostracism is resistant to moderation, but that moderation is more likely to be observed in delayed measures. Our findings suggest that (3) both first and last measures are susceptible to moderation and (4) time passed since being ostracized does not predict effect sizes of the last measure. Thus, support for this proposition is tenuous and we suggest modifications to the temporal need-threat model of ostracism.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)UNSP e0127002
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Sampling

Cite this

Hartgerink, C.H.J. ; van Beest, I. ; Wicherts, J.M. ; Williams, K.D. / The ordinal effects of ostracism : A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies. In: PLoS ONE. 2015 ; Vol. 10, No. 5. pp. UNSP e0127002.
@article{945735a1c9664e6dae51ce6448b1f5cb,
title = "The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies",
abstract = "We examined 120 Cyberball studies (N = 11,869) to determine the effect size of ostracism and conditions under which the effect may be reversed, eliminated, or small. Our analyses showed that (1) the average ostracism effect is large (d > |1.4|) and (2) generalizes across structural aspects (number of players, ostracism duration, number of tosses, type of needs scale), sampling aspects (gender, age, country), and types of dependent measure (interpersonal, intrapersonal, fundamental needs). Further, we test Williams’s (2009) proposition that the immediate impact of ostracism is resistant to moderation, but that moderation is more likely to be observed in delayed measures. Our findings suggest that (3) both first and last measures are susceptible to moderation and (4) time passed since being ostracized does not predict effect sizes of the last measure. Thus, support for this proposition is tenuous and we suggest modifications to the temporal need-threat model of ostracism.",
author = "C.H.J. Hartgerink and {van Beest}, I. and J.M. Wicherts and K.D. Williams",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0127002",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "UNSP e0127002",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE",
number = "5",

}

The ordinal effects of ostracism : A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies. / Hartgerink, C.H.J.; van Beest, I.; Wicherts, J.M.; Williams, K.D.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 5, 2015, p. UNSP e0127002.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The ordinal effects of ostracism

T2 - A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies

AU - Hartgerink, C.H.J.

AU - van Beest, I.

AU - Wicherts, J.M.

AU - Williams, K.D.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - We examined 120 Cyberball studies (N = 11,869) to determine the effect size of ostracism and conditions under which the effect may be reversed, eliminated, or small. Our analyses showed that (1) the average ostracism effect is large (d > |1.4|) and (2) generalizes across structural aspects (number of players, ostracism duration, number of tosses, type of needs scale), sampling aspects (gender, age, country), and types of dependent measure (interpersonal, intrapersonal, fundamental needs). Further, we test Williams’s (2009) proposition that the immediate impact of ostracism is resistant to moderation, but that moderation is more likely to be observed in delayed measures. Our findings suggest that (3) both first and last measures are susceptible to moderation and (4) time passed since being ostracized does not predict effect sizes of the last measure. Thus, support for this proposition is tenuous and we suggest modifications to the temporal need-threat model of ostracism.

AB - We examined 120 Cyberball studies (N = 11,869) to determine the effect size of ostracism and conditions under which the effect may be reversed, eliminated, or small. Our analyses showed that (1) the average ostracism effect is large (d > |1.4|) and (2) generalizes across structural aspects (number of players, ostracism duration, number of tosses, type of needs scale), sampling aspects (gender, age, country), and types of dependent measure (interpersonal, intrapersonal, fundamental needs). Further, we test Williams’s (2009) proposition that the immediate impact of ostracism is resistant to moderation, but that moderation is more likely to be observed in delayed measures. Our findings suggest that (3) both first and last measures are susceptible to moderation and (4) time passed since being ostracized does not predict effect sizes of the last measure. Thus, support for this proposition is tenuous and we suggest modifications to the temporal need-threat model of ostracism.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0127002

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0127002

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - UNSP e0127002

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

ER -