ArticlePloS one2025
Processing of social exclusion in a strict hierarchy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
Exclusion is defined as a significant reduction of involvement or interaction with others. This threatens our social need for belonging and triggers a negative affective response. The response is associated with a P3 effect in the event-related brain potentials (ERP) indicating that the processing of exclusion is characterized by a violation of the expected social involvement. The majority of experimental findings relies on the Cyberball setup, in which two putative co-players exclude the participant in a virtual ball-tossing game. The current studies challenge the previous findings by introducing a novel paradigm, Cyberband, which simulates participation in an orchestra setting. Here, exclusion is defined by reducing the number of cues provided by a putative conductor. In experiment 1, the number of cues exclusively directed to the individual (solo) was reduced. In contrast to previous Cyberball findings, the self-reported threat to belonging as well as the P3 effect were clearly diminished. In experiment 2, participants were excluded from joint actions. Here, a reduced participation in common actions (tutti), but not in dyadic actions (duets), enhanced the P3 effect. In both experiments, the reduced participation primarily affected the expression of an early frontal ERP positivity (P2) indicating a change of cue salience. In sum, these results indicate that exclusion is processed differently if attributed to a single decider: The experience is reported to be less painful, and ERP signatures of a violation of the expected participation - prominent in the established Cyberball setup - are predominantly elicited by an exclusion from joint actions.
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.