ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Goal adjustment processes as coping responses to a blocked goal: the sample case of ostracism.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Flexible Goal Adjustment Predicts Well-Being Before and After Retirement.Journal of aging research · 2026Article
- Individual differences in goal adjustment: convergence and divergence among three theoretical models.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recently, Rühs et al. (2022) used an adapted ostracism-paradigm to study goal adjustment processes, and goal disengagement processes (GD) in particular, as regulatory responses to goal-blocking situations such as ostracism. The present study conceptually replicates this study and extends it by inclusion of sub-personal indicators of GD in the paradigm. Methods: The goal to belong to a newly formed group was induced in 188 participants (Induction Phase). Afterwards, blockage of this goal was experimentally manipulated via ostracism: Participants were either included or excluded from their group in a virtual ball game (Cyberball, Blockage Phase). Finally, participants worked alone on a cognitive task to give regulatory responses some time to unfold. After each phase, dependent measures were recorded (e.g., indicators of GD and well-being). Results: Exclusion (vs. inclusion) in Cyberball lead to a decrease in subjective attainability of the belonging goal (goal blockage) and to affective-cognitive and behavioral GD (e.g., explicit devaluation of the belonging goal and the own group, behavioral deprioritization of ostracizing compared to new group members in a following game). However, ostracism had no effect on implicit group evaluation (repeated IATs showed a constant own group bias) and although excluded participants recovered from ostracism-induced impairments in emotions and needs, associations between recovery and GD indicators were mixed. Discussion: Most of the results of Rühs et al. (2022) could be replicated. Beyond that, the present study showed divergence of personal and sub-personal indicators of cognitive-affective GD (i.e., change in explicit and implicit group evaluations). This illustrates the importance of combining personal and sub-personal perspectives in GD research. Taken together, the study contributes to a conceptual and functional clarification of GD processes and, at the same time, offers a fruitful new perspective on coping with ostracism.
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.