ArticleHeliyon2024
The effect of ostracism on prospective memory in problem solving.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successfully generating plans, while seemingly straightforward, can be riddled with external and internal interferences. One important possible source of interference is ostracism, which has been consistently shown to induce negative psychological effects in various executive functions. Therefore, understanding the impact of unforeseen ostracism on planning is vital to a broad spectrum of the population, from university students, whose self-esteem partly derives from social acceptance, to healthcare professionals, whose performance oftentimes relies on peer feedback. An individual's ability to navigate through intended actions is an evaluation of their prospective memory (PM), which is traditionally divided into three consecutive phases: (1) planning, (2) recall, and (3) performance. This study primarily focused on the impacts of ostracism via Cyberball simulation on the first two phases of PM in the Tower of London (TOL), an assessment of executive functioning designed specifically to test planning ability during problem solving. Using Bayesian analysis, the study found substantial evidence of there being no difference in planning success between social exclusion and inclusion conditions. However, an individual's sex had significant effects on their planning success at baseline (i.e., inclusion condition). Surprisingly, there was no difference in performance between male participants and female participants when excluded, suggesting that ostracism may play an equalizing role. In addition, male participants both listed more moves at planning and recalled more moves, which led to no difference between sexes in terms of recall percentage. This study underscores a need to consider various factors such as sex and differing perceptions of ostracism when analyzing and addressing problem solving performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.