Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41417816›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Processing of social exclusion in a strict hierarchy.

Michael Niedeggen, Rudolf Kerschreiter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Michael NiedeggenDivision of Experimental Psychology and Neuropsychology, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9793-1471
Rudolf KerschreiterDivision of Social, Organizational, and Economic Psychology, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0281-0261

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hierarchy, SocialAdultBrainCuesElectroencephalographyEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41417816
PMCPMC12716733

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.