ArticleBMC psychology2026
A grounded theory study of interpretive experiences in cyberostracism among university students.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the widespread use of social media, social exclusion in digital contexts (e.g., "being left on read" or being ignored in group chats) has become increasingly prevalent among university students. Previous research has primarily focused on its negative psychological consequences, while the process through which individuals interpret and construct the meaning of exclusion experiences remains underexplored. This study aimed to develop an interpretive framework of how university students experienced and negotiated ambiguous digital nonresponse within cyberostracism contexts using a grounded theory approach.
methodsA Straussian grounded theory approach was adopted. Using purposive sampling, theoretical sampling, and snowball sampling, 22 university students (aged 18-24) with experiences of cyberostracism were recruited for semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed through open, axial, and selective coding using constant comparative analysis until theoretical saturation was achieved.
resultsA five-stage interpretive model was developed, including (1) digital ostracism situations, (2) relational uncertainty and interpretive negotiation, (3) emotional responses, (4) behavioral adjustment, and (5) narrated changes in self-perception. Uncertainty emerged as a central interpretive experience through which participants made sense of ambiguous digital nonresponse. Participants' interpretations were shaped by relational closeness, communication expectations, prior interaction history, and platform norms.
conclusionsThis study provides a process-oriented interpretive account of how university students experience and negotiate cyberostracism in digitally mediated contexts. Rather than proposing a confirmed causal mechanism, the findings contextualize existing ostracism theories by showing how ambiguous digital nonresponse is interpreted within relational and communication contexts.
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.