Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34296120›Full record

ArticleCerebral cortex communications2020

Neurophysiological and Psychological Consequences of Social Exclusion: The Effects of Cueing In-Group and Out-Group Status.

Michael Jenkins, Sukhvinder S Obhi

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebral cortex communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael JenkinsDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2394-9019
Sukhvinder S ObhiDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, Canada.
McMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exclusion by outgroups is often attributed to external factors such as prejudice. Recently, event-related potential studies have demonstrated that subtle cues influence expectations of exclusion, altering the P3b response to inclusion or exclusion. We investigated whether a visual difference between participants and interaction partners could activate expectations of exclusion, indexed by P3b activity, and whether this difference would influence psychological responses to inclusion and exclusion. Participants played a ball-tossing game with two computer-controlled coplayers who were believed to be real. One period involved fair play inclusion while the other involved partial exclusion. Avatars represented participants, with their color matching participant skin tone, and either matching or differing from the color of coplayer avatars. This created the impression that the participant was an ingroup or outgroup member. While ingroup members elicited enhanced P3b activation when receiving the ball during exclusion, outgroup members showed this pattern for both inclusion and exclusion, suggesting that they formed robust a-priori expectations of exclusion. Self-reports indicated that while these expectations were psychologically protective during exclusion, they were detrimental during inclusion. Ultimately, this study reveals that expectations of exclusion can be formed purely based on visual group differences, regardless of the actual minority or majority status of individuals.

Indexed as

cyberballevent-related potentialsexclusiongroup dynamicsP3b

Identifiers

PMID34296120
PMCPMC8152886
OpenAlexW3081618584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.