bs_bs_banner

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2015), 18, 199208

DOI: 10.1111/ajsp.12101

Social exclusion influences attentional bias to social information

Mengsi Xu,1,2 Zhiai Li,1,2 Junhua Zhang,3 Lijing Sun,1,2 Lingxia Fan,1,2 Qinghong Zeng1 and
Dong Yang1,2
1

School of Psychology, Southwest University, 2Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality (Southwest University),
Ministry of Education, Chongqing and 3Center for Psychological Application, Department of Psychology, South
China Normal University, Guangzhou, China

Using three experiments, the present study investigates the impact of social exclusion on attention. Specifically,
we investigate whether social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues (smiling faces) or
social exclusion cues (angry faces) among an Asian population. The Cyberball game was adopted to manipulate
social inclusion or exclusion, and a dot-probe task was used to measure individuals responses to smiling or angry
faces. In Experiments 1 and 2, each trial consisted of either a smiling or angry face that was paired with a neutral
face. In Experiment 1, when the stimulus onset-asynchronies (SOA) were 500 ms, the inhibition of return
emerged, indirectly indicating that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to social acceptance cues. In Experiment
2, after setting the SOA to 200 ms, we found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to smiling faces
compared to neutral faces. In Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial, and we
found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to smiling faces compared to angry faces. Therefore, the
present study extends our understanding of the relationship between social exclusion and attention. Overall, it
appears that after social exclusion, the desire for social reconnection trumps the desire to avoid social exclusion.
Key words: attention, cyberball, emotion regulation, goal perspective, social exclusion, social monitoring
system.

Social exclusion and attentional bias

Humans have a fundamental need for positive social relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). From an evolutionary perspective, this need is adaptive because close
relationships can offer a greater likelihood of obtaining
food, security and reproduction. When the need to belong is
challenged by social exclusion, a variety of adverse consequences emerge, including negative moods, difficulties
with self-regulation and mental health problems (Cacioppo,
Hughes, Waite, Hawkley & Thisted, 2006; Macdonald &
Leary, 2005; Poulsen & Kashy, 2011).
Consequently, researchers have been interested in examining individual responses to social exclusion (Downey,
Khouri & Feldman, 1997; Jiang, Gao, Huang, DeWall &
Zhou, 2014; Maner, DeWall, Baumeister & Schaller, 2007;
Zhou, Vohs & Baumeister, 2009). Different theorists have
presented diverse models and predictions about social
exclusion. For example, Pickett and Gardner proposed the
Social Monitoring System (SMS) framework (Gardner,

Correspondence: Dong Yang, School of Psychology, Southwest

University, Tiansheng Road no. 1, BeiBei, Chongqing 400715,
China. Email: yangd@swu.edu.cn
Received 11 August 2014; revision 5 January 2015; accepted 5
January 2015.

Pickett, Jefferis & Knowles, 2005). The SMS framework

assumes that individuals possess a regulatory system
devoted to maintaining a stable and acceptable level of
social inclusion. According to this theory, when an individuals need to belong is challenged, he or she monitors
and uses social cues to initiate and facilitate social connections. In support of this model, Maner et al. reported that
social exclusion led participants to make efforts to forge
new social bonds by expressing a greater interest in making
new friends and a greater desire to work with others (Maner
et al., 2007). Moreover, DeWall et al. found that excluded
participants fixated more of their attention on smiling faces
than their included counterparts did during eye-tracking
tasks (DeWall, Maner & Rouby, 2009). This eagerness to
forge social bonds after social exclusion may also be consistent with the individuals goals and emotion regulation
(Gross & Thompson, 2007; Vogt, De Houwer, Moors, Van
Damme & Crombez, 2010). Specifically, after experiencing
social exclusion, excluded participants may desire
reconnection, and this top-down setting may influence the
deployment of attention and shift individuals attention to
positive social acceptance cues.
The Rejection Sensitivity Model (RSM) also attempts to
explain how individuals respond to social exclusion
(Downey et al., 1997). The RSM proposes that social
exclusion promotes an individuals rejection sensitivity and
motivates them to prioritize self-protection by focusing on
detecting exclusion cues. In support of this model, using

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

200

eye-tracking methodology, Bangee et al. demonstrated that

lonely young adults (i.e. with high rejection sensitivity)
were more likely to view social threat stimuli as their first
fixation and more likely to fix their attention on threat
stimuli than non-lonely peers (Bangee, Harris, Bridges,
Rotenberg & Qualter, 2014). In sum, the SMS framework
emphasizes individual eagerness to renew social connections by shifting attention to inclusion cues, while the RSM
stresses the significance of avoiding future exclusion by
quickly detecting exclusion cues.
Given that the need to belong is fundamental, it is probable that human responses to social exclusion occur at
various levels of cognition, including both upstream (i.e.
early-stage) and downstream (i.e. late-stage) cognitive processes (DeWall et al., 2009). The majority of existing
studies have primarily focused on the relationship between
social exclusion and downstream processes, such as
memory (Gardner, Pickett & Brewer, 2000), judgement
(Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004) and overt behaviours
(Maner et al., 2007; Yanagisawa, Nishimura, Furutani &
Ura, 2013; Zhou, Zheng, Zhou & Guo, 2009). However,
few studies have examined the relationship between social
exclusion and upstream cognitive processes, including
attention. Since the upstream cognitive processes were
carried out before the downstream cognitive processes, the
early-stage (i.e. lower-order) cognitive processes might
exert quite a significant influence on the late-stage (i.e.
higher-order) cognition and behaviours. Indeed, researchers have asserted that early-stage cognitive processes, such
as selective attention, mediate the interaction between perception and overt action (Houghton & Tipper, 1994). It is
therefore important to explore the basic cognitive mechanisms underlying downstream cognitive processes.
Thus far, only one study has directly investigated the
relationship between social exclusion and attention
(DeWall et al., 2009). Specifically, DeWall et al. (2009)
performed four experiments to examine the impact of social
exclusion on attention. The results of these studies reveal
that, when compared to included participants, excluded participants exhibited greater attention to the cues pertaining to
social acceptance. However, in DeWall et al., the duration
of the social cues were relatively long (e.g. 1000 ms in
Experiment 4); therefore, it is difficult to assess the exact
process that underlies how participants deploy their attention during this period (e.g. the period when the social cues
presented). Thus, it is necessary to further examine how
social exclusion affects attention during shorter stimulus
duration. Moreover, the studies of DeWall et al. were conducted with Western samples. There are known differences
between Western (North American) and Eastern (particularly East Asian) cultures in many areas, including individualism and collectivism (Basu-Zharku, 2011;
Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002) and cultural selfconstrual (Markus & Kitayama, 2010); therefore, it seems

Mengsi Xu et al.

necessary to explore whether social exclusion would bias

attention to social acceptance or social exclusion cues in
Asian samples.
Consequently, in the present study, we examine whether
social exclusion enhances attentional bias to social acceptance cues or social exclusion cues that were presented
briefly to Asian participants. To address these issues, we
first used the Cyberball game to manipulate social exclusion (Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000). Next, participants
performed a dot-probe task that measured attentional bias
(MacLeod, Mathews & Tata, 1986). Previous studies have
demonstrated that smiles signal friendly interpersonal
intentions and anger signals social threats (Brown &
Moore, 2002; Knutson, 1996). Thus, in the dot-probe task,
we used smiling faces to represent social acceptance and
angry faces to represent social exclusion. We expected that
if the relation between social exclusion and attention would
be explained by the SMS model (Pickett & Gardner, 2005),
social exclusion would promote an attentional bias to
smiling faces. In contrast, if this relationship followed the
RSM (Downey et al., 1997), we expected that participants
would demonstrate an attentional bias to angry faces.

Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Participants included 40 Chinese university students (18
females, 22 males) between the ages of 19 and 24 years
(M = 21.30 years, SD = 1.25). Participants were randomly
assigned to either the inclusion or the exclusion group, and
received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Participants
were provided with an explanation of the experimental
procedure and then an experimenter obtained participants
verbal informed consent. After completing the dot-probe
task, participants were debriefed and dismissed.
Materials
Face stimuli. The face stimuli were grey scale images of
18 adults (9 females, 9 males) who displayed smiling,
angry or neutral facial expressions. Images were taken from
the NimStim database and were resized to 135 180 pixels
(Tottenham et al., 2009). Only faces with closed mouths
were used because it was expected that the whiteness of the
teeth in open-mouthed faces would provide a sharp visual
contrast and distract participants (DeWall et al., 2009).
Procedure
Cyberball. The current study utilized a virtual ball-tossing
game called Cyberball to manipulate social exclusion. In

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

Social exclusion influences on attention

201

Figure 1 Schematic overview of a trial during the dot-probe task. A trial started with the presentation of a fixation
screen for 1000 ms, followed by the presentation of a face pair for 500 ms (Experiment 1) or 200 ms (Experiment 2 and
3). Then, the target (white dot) was presented. Participants had to indicate the location (left or right) of the target by
pressing 1 or 2. Note: in Experiments 1 and 2, the face pair consisted of either a smiling or angry face that was
paired with a neutral face; in Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial.

the Cyberball paradigm, participants are instructed to play

a game of virtual toss with two other players whom they do
not know and whom they do not expect to meet (Williams
& Jarvis, 2006).
We manipulated the degree of social exclusion and inclusion by varying the number of times participants received
the ball from the other players. Participants in the inclusion
group received the ball for roughly one third of the total
throws (40 total throws). In the social exclusion condition,
participants only received the ball twice at the beginning of
the game and did not receive the ball again for the remaining time (Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004).
Need Threat Scale. After finishing the Cyberball game,
participants completed the Need Threat Scale (van Beest &
Williams, 2006; Van Beest, Williams & Van Dijk, 2011).
This scale asked participants to make a self-assessment on
a five-point scale (1 = do not agree to 5 = agree) to
indicate their current level of satisfaction for feelings of
belonging (e.g. I felt as if I was one of the other players),
self-esteem (e.g. I had the idea that I had the same value
as the other players), meaningful existence (e.g. I think
that my participation in the game was useful), and control
(e.g. I felt in control over the game) during the game
( = 0.92). Lower scores represented an increased threat to
social needs and were used to assess the effectiveness of the
social exclusion manipulation (Williams, 2009).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Participants also completed the 20-item Positive and Negative
Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark & Tellegen,
1988). The PANAS includes 10 items assessing positive
emotions (e.g. interested, excited) and 10 items assessing
negative emotions (e.g. irritable, ashamed). Participants
were instructed to make a self-assessment on a five-point
scale (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely) to
measure their current emotional state ( = 0.97).

Dot-probe task. After completing the Cyberball game and

questionnaires, participants performed a dot-probe task
where they detected the location of a small dot after
being presented with a face pair (MacLeod et al., 1986)
(Fig. 1).
Each trial began with a crosshair at the centre of the
screen (1000 ms), and was followed by the face pairs displayed for 500 ms. Each face pair included two face
images, one depicting an emotional expression (smiling or
angry face) and one neutral expression. The position of the
face on the screen (i.e. left or right) was randomized. Face
pairs were randomly chosen from 36 potential face pairs
(18 smiling and 18 angry expressions paired with images of
the same actor with a neutral expression); each pair was
presented three times for a total of 108 trials.
After 500 ms, the face pair disappeared and a white dot
appeared on either the left or right side of the screen.
Participants were asked to press 1 if the dot appeared on
the left side and 2 if the dot appeared on the right side. The
location of the dot (left versus right) was randomized. The
task was designed so that in half of the trials the dot
appeared in the same location as the emotional face (congruent trials), and the dot appeared in the location of the
neutral face in the other half of the trials (incongruent
trials).
In this task, the key dependent variable is the reaction
time (RT) for congruent and incongruent trials. Attentional
bias occurs if the RTs for the congruent trials are faster than
those for the incongruent trials (MacLeod et al., 1986). In
contrast, if the RTs for the congruent trials are slower than
those for the incongruent trials, it represents the emergence
of inhibition of return (IOR) (Posner, Rafal, Choate &
Vaughan, 1985; Theeuwes & Van der Stigchel, 2006). IOR
refers to the tendency to inhibit orienting towards visual
locations that one has previously attended (Abrams &
Dobkin, 1994; Posner & Cohen, 1984; Posner et al., 1985).

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

202

Statistical analysis
First, a t-test was conducted to determine whether the social
exclusion manipulation was effective by comparing the
inclusion and exclusion groups on their Need Threat Scale
scores. Second, a t-test was used to compare the PANAS
scores (positive and negative emotion, respectively) of the
exclusion and inclusion groups. Finally, RTs during the
dot-probe task were analyzed using group (inclusion,
exclusion) congruency (congruent, incongruent) face
(smiling, angry) ANOVA. Group was the between-subjects
factor; congruency and face were the within-subjects
factors.
Results
Manipulation checks
For the Need Threat scores, the results reveal lower scores
for the exclusion group (M = 1.90, SD = 0.42) than for the
inclusion group (M = 3.19, SD = 0.62), t(38) = 8.83,
p < 0.01. These results suggest that the needs of excluded
participants were threatened compared to those of the
included participants, thereby confirming the effectiveness
of the social exclusion manipulation.
For the PANAS scores, the results demonstrate that
neither positive nor negative emotion scores significantly
differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 29.73, SD = 7.92 vs. M = 31.73, SD = 7.41,
t(38) = 0.65, p > 0.05; negative: M = 16.87, SD = 5.05 vs.
M = 15.00, SD = 3.27, t(38) = 1.48, p > 0.05). Consistent
with previous studies, these results suggest that social
exclusion did not affect emotion (DeWall & Baumeister,
2006; Twenge, Catanese & Baumeister, 2003).
Dot-probe task
The results of the ANOVA on RTs reveal a significant main
effect for congruency, F(1, 38) = 24.24, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.39,
with longer RT for the congruent trials (M = 627.02 ms,
SD = 13.20) than for the incongruent trials (M = 609.39 ms,
SD = 13.37), indicating the emergence of IOR.
Importantly, we also found a marginally significant interaction between group, congruency and face, F(1, 38) =
3.33, p = 0.07, 2 = 0.08. When the interaction was probed,
for the smiling face, a slower response for the congruent
trials than for the incongruent trials only existed for the
exclusion group (congruent: M = 607.18 ms, SD = 15.98;
incongruent: M = 583.76 ms, SD = 17.28, F (1, 38) =
14.21, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.27), but not the inclusion group
(congruent: M = 630.37 ms, SD = 18.99; incongruent:
M = 633.37 ms, SD = 20.53, F (1, 38) = 0.16, p > 0.05,
2 < 0.01). For the angry faces, a slower response for the
congruent trials than for the incongruent trials existed for
both the exclusion group (congruent: M = 615.09 ms,

Mengsi Xu et al.

SD = 19.04; incongruent: M = 590.15 ms, SD = 18.26,

F (1, 38) = 21.24, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.26) and the inclusion
group (congruent: M = 649.83 ms, SD = 22.15; incongruent: M = 625.00 ms, SD = 18.26, F (1, 38) = 13.12,
p < 0.01, 2 = 0.20) (Fig. 2). Moreover, for the inclusion
group, the response for congruent trials was slower for
angry face (M = 649.83 ms, SD = 22.15) than for smiling
face (M = 630.37 ms, SD = 18.53), F (1, 38) = 5.85,
p = 0.02, 2 = 0.13). No other significant difference was
observed.
Discussion
The aim of Experiment 1 was to explore whether social
exclusion leads to an attentional bias to social acceptance or
social exclusion cues. For the smiling faces, we found that
the RTs for the congruent trials were longer than for the
incongruent trials, indicating the emergence of IOR. One
important characteristic of IOR is that its occurrence at a
location follows only after attention has shifted to that
particular location. Therefore, the presence of IOR in the
exclusion group (and not the inclusion group) may indirectly indicate that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to
social acceptance cues, and leads to earlier attentional processing of these cues.
For the angry faces, we found that the RTs for the congruent trials were longer than those for the incongruent
trials, regardless of whether participants experienced
exclusion or inclusion; that is, IOR emerged for both
groups. These results suggest that angry faces may be processed at earlier stages, which is consistent with the anger
superiority effect (Hansen & Hansen, 1988; Holmes,
Bradley, Kragh Nielsen & Mogg, 2009). The anger superiority effect refers to the preferential processing of threatening faces. Specifically, preferential processing is thought
to have evolutionary advantages because it allows for a
quick response to threat-related stimuli (Ohman &
Mineka, 2001).
In sum, in Experiment 1, we found that the IOR for the
smiling faces only emerged among the excluded participants; this indirectly supports the notion that social exclusion promotes sensitivity to social acceptance cues. In
addition, the IOR for the angry faces was found in both the
exclusion and inclusion groups; thus, it appears that these
faces were processed at an earlier stage. However, these
results failed to provide direct evidence that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to acceptance or exclusion
cues (i.e. the RTs for the congruent trials were shorter than
for the incongruent trials). Therefore, in Experiment 2, we
attempted to clarify this finding by setting the SOA to 200
ms rather than 500 ms, which was used in Experiment 1.
We chose to adjust the SOA for two reasons. First, Klein
(2000) reported that when the SOA was short, the responses
for cued targets were faster than were those for uncued

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

Social exclusion influences on attention

203

Figure 2 Mean reaction time (in ms) as a function of group and congruency for smiling and angry faces in three
experiments (congruent means smiling-congruent trials and incongruent means smiling-incongruent trials). Errors
bars represent standard errors. , congruenct; , incongruent.

targets; however, when the SOA was longer, the response

was slower for cued targets than for uncued targets. Furthermore, Klein (2000) indicated that the crossover point
(where facilitation changed to inhibition) was between
200300 ms following the onset of a cue (Klein, 2000).
Second, when measuring event-related potentials (ERP),
Holmes et al. (2009) found that attentional bias to angry
faces appeared at 180250 ms following the onset of an
image of an angry face (Holmes et al., 2009). This result

also confirms that the angry expressions were processed at

earlier stages (earlier than 500 ms). Taken together, in
Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, the IOR for
smiling face emerged in the exclusion group, which indirectly indicates that social exclusion promotes attentional
bias to social acceptance cues, and leads to earlier
attentional processing of these cues. Therefore, in Experiment 2, by altering the SOA to 200 ms, we sought to
observe direct evidence of social exclusion enhancing

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

204

sensitivity to social acceptance cues or social exclusion

cues.

Mengsi Xu et al.

suggest that social exclusion did not affect emotional states

in Experiment 2.
Dot-probe task

Experiment 2

The Cyberball game, Need Threat Scale, PANAS and dotprobe task were conducted in an identical fashion as in
Experiment 1. The only change from Experiment 1 was the
previously mentioned change to the SOA (set to 200 ms in
Experiment 2) during the dot-probe task.

The results of the ANOVA on RTs reveal a significant main

effect for congruency, F(1, 40) = 16.08, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.29,
with faster responses for the congruent trials (M = 549.15
ms, SD = 11.32) than for the incongruent trials (M = 563.63
ms, SD = 12.04). Importantly, we also found a significant
interaction between group, congruency and face, F(1, 40) =
12.21, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.23. When the interaction was probed,
for the smiling face, a faster response for the congruent trials
than for the incongruent trials only existed for the exclusion
group (congruent: M = 530.87 ms, SD = 14.35; incongruent:
M = 557.87 ms, SD = 15.35, F(1, 40) = 16.49, p < 0.01,
2 = 0.29), but not the inclusion group (congruent:
M = 570.46 ms, SD =15.79; incongruent: M = 568.06 ms,
SD = 16.89, F(1, 40) = 0.11, p < 0.05, 2 < 0.01). For the
angry faces, a faster response for the congruent trials than for
the incongruent trials only existed for the inclusion group
(congruent: M = 550.56 ms, SD = 18.78; incongruent:
M = 575.10 ms, SD = 19.89, F(1, 40) = 12.21, p < 0.01,
2 = 0.23), but not the exclusion group (congruent:
M = 544.69 ms, SD = 17.07; incongruent: M = 553.51 ms,
SD = 18.08, F(1, 40) = 1.91, p > 0.05, 2 = 0.05) (Fig. 2).
Moreover, for the inclusion group, the response for congruent trials was faster for angry face (M = 550.56 ms,
SD = 18.78) than for smiling face (M = 570.46 ms,
SD = 15.79), F (1, 40) = 4.83, p = 0.03, 2 = 0.11). No other
significant difference was observed.

Statistical analysis

Discussion

Analyses similar to those used in Experiment 1 on Need

Threat scores, PANAS scores and RTs in the dot-probe task
were used.

Based on the results of Experiment 1, we set the SOA at 200

ms in Experiment 2 to investigate whether social exclusion
promotes attentional bias to social acceptance or social
exclusion cues. The results show that, for the smiling faces,
responses were faster for the congruent trials than for the
incongruent trials, but only among the excluded participants.
These results suggest that social exclusion enhances sensitivity to smiling faces and demonstrates an enhanced
attentional bias to social acceptance cues. For the angry
faces, the RTs for the congruent trials were shorter than for
the incongruent trials among the inclusion group, suggesting
that only the inclusion group had an attentional bias to social
exclusion cues. Consequently, the results of Experiment 2
provide further evidence that social exclusion may promote
attentional bias to social acceptance cues. However, in
Experiment 2, we could not directly conclude whether the
eagerness to reconnect was stronger than the goal of avoidance since the smiling faces and the angry faces were paired
separately with a neutral face. Therefore, in Experiment 3 we
sought to provide a firmer, clearer demonstration of the
relationship between exclusion and attention. Specifically,

Method
Participants
Participants were a different group of 42 Chinese university
students (28 females, 14 males) between the ages of 19 and
24 years (M = 21.37 years, SD = 1.42). Each participant
received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Prior to
beginning the study, participants were informed about the
procedure and provided informed verbal consent. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the inclusion
or the exclusion group. After completing the dot-probe task,
participants were debriefed and dismissed.
Materials
Face stimuli. The same stimuli used in Experiment 1 were
used in Experiment 2.
Procedure

Results
Manipulation checks
For the Need Threat scores, the exclusion group (M = 1.50,
SD = 0.34) had lower scores than the inclusion group
(M = 3.43, SD = 0.28), t(40) = 10.81, p < 0.01. These
results suggest that the needs of the excluded participants
were threatened while those of the included participants
were not threatened, thereby confirming the effectiveness
of the manipulation of social exclusion.
For the PANAS scores, the results indicate that
neither the positive nor the negative emotion scores differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 30.71, SD = 3.79 vs. M = 32.10, SD = 4.90,
t(40) = 0.55, p > 0.05; negative: M = 17.87, SD = 3.84 vs.
M = 16.18, SD = 4.72, t(40) = 1.64, p > 0.05). These results

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

Social exclusion influences on attention

205

Method

sion group (M = 3.63, SD = 0.60), t(40) = 9.08, p < 0.01.

These results suggest that the needs of the excluded participants were threatened while those of the included
participants were not threatened, thereby confirming the
effectiveness of the manipulation of social exclusion.
For the PANAS scores, the results indicate that neither
the positive emotion nor the negative emotion scores differed between the exclusion and inclusion groups (positive: M = 30.38, SD = 5.63 vs. M = 31.00, SD = 5.59,
t(40) = 0.36, p > 0.05; negative: M = 17.81, SD = 6.87 vs.
M = 18.48, SD = 5.58, t(40) = 0.35, p > 0.05). These
results suggest that social exclusion does not affect emotional state.

Participants

Dot-probe task

Participants were a separate sample of 42 Chinese university students (32 females, 10 males) between the ages of 18
and 24 years (M = 20.60 years, SD = 1.74); each participant
received 15 RMB for taking part in the study. Prior to
beginning the study, participants were informed about the
procedure and provided their informed verbal consent. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the inclusion or the exclusion group. After completing the dot-probe
task, participants were debriefed and dismissed.

The results of the ANOVA on RTs only reveal a significant

interaction between group and congruency, F(1, 40) = 7.56,
p < 0.01, 2 = 0.16. When the interaction was probed, for
the exclusion group, responses were faster for the smilingcongruent trials (M = 585.32 ms, SD = 15.04) than for the
smiling-incongruent trials (M = 596.79 ms, SD = 14.50),
F(1, 40) = 6.23, p = 0.02, 2 = 0.14. However, for the inclusion group, no significant differences were found (congruent: M = 581.56 ms, SD =15.03; incongruent: M = 575.16
ms, SD = 14.49, F(1, 40) = 1.94, p = 0.17, 2 = 0.05)
(Fig. 2). These results suggest that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance rather than
attention to social exclusion cues.

we paired smiling and angry faces during each trial instead

of showing one of them with a neutral face. Based on
previous studies, we hypothesized that after experiencing
social exclusion, if the eagerness of reconnection wins over
the goal of avoidance, the RTs on the congruent trials for
smiling face should be faster than the incongruent trials;
however, if the goal of avoidance is stronger than the goal of
reconnection, the RTs during the congruent trials for the
angry face should be faster than the incongruent trials.

Experiment 3

Materials
Face stimuli. The stimuli that were used in Experiments 1
and 2 were used in Experiment 3.

Discussion
Procedure
The Cyberball game, Need Threat Scale, PANAS and dotprobe task were conducted in an identical fashion as in
Experiment 2. The only change from Experiment 2 was that
both smiling and angry faces were shown during each trial
instead of showing either a smiling face of an angry face
paired with a neutral face.
Statistical analysis
Analysis of the Need Threat scores and PANAS scores was
similar to that conducted in Experiment 2. RTs during the
dot-probe task were analyzed using group (inclusion,
exclusion) congruency for smiling face (smilingcongruent, smiling-incongruent) ANOVA. Group was the
between-subjects factor; congruency for smiling face was
the within-subjects factor.
Results
Manipulation checks
For the Need Threat scores, the results show lower scores for
the exclusion group (M = 2.11, SD = 0.48) than for the inclu-

In Experiment 3, both smiling and angry faces were shown

during each trial; this was done to directly test whether
social exclusion promoted a stronger attentional bias to
social acceptance cues or social exclusion cues. The results
show that, for the exclusion group, the response was faster
for the smiling-congruent trials than for the smilingincongruent trial. Therefore, the results of Experiment 3
provide direct evidence that after experiencing social exclusion, the desire for social reconnection may trump the
desire to avoid further exclusion.

General discussion
The aim of the present study was to examine if social
exclusion enhances attentional bias to briefly presented
social acceptance or social exclusion cues in an Asian
population. Using a dot-probe task, excluded and included
participants were asked to detect the location of a dot following the presentation of a face pair (one face was smiling
or angry, the other face was neutral in Experiments 1 and 2;
one face was smiling, the other face was angry in Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, the

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

206

IOR emerged, which indirectly suggests that these faces

were processed at an earlier stage. In Experiment 2, we set
the SOA to 200 ms and found that social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues compared
to neutral cues. In Experiment 3, when we showed both
smiling and angry faces during each trial, we found that
social exclusion still promotes attentional bias to social
acceptance cues compared to social exclusion cues. Taken
together, the results from the three experiments reveal that
social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues, and eagerness to reconnect was stronger than
desire to avoid.
In Experiment 1, when the SOA was 500 ms, we found
that the IOR for the smiling faces only emerged among the
excluded participants. As previously mentioned, one important characteristic of the IOR is that its occurrence at a
location follows only after attention has shifted to that
particular location (Klein, 2000). Therefore, in the current
study, the presence of the IOR for smiling faces in the
exclusion group (and not the inclusion group) may indirectly indicate that social exclusion promoted sensitivity to
social acceptance cues, and led to the earlier attentional
processing of these cues. Consequently, in subsequent
studies, we set the SOA to 200 ms to directly test the effects
of social exclusion on attention.
In Experiment 2, when the SOA was 200 ms, we found
that social exclusion enhanced attentional bias to smiling
faces. More importantly, in Experiment 3, after showing
both smiling and angry faces during each trial instead of
pairing one of them with a neutral face, we still found the
attentional bias to smiling face among excluded participants.
These results are consistent with our predictions and with the
existing literature (DeWall et al., 2009; Gardner et al., 2005;
Maner et al., 2007). Specifically, the results obtained could
be explained by the SMS framework (Gardner et al., 2005).
According to the SMS framework, individuals use a regulatory system to maintain an acceptable level of social inclusion. Once the need to belong has been threatened, the goal
of individuals is to compensate for the deficit in belonging.
In order to achieve this goal, individuals monitor their environment for information that may provide them with opportunities to renew social connections (DeWall et al., 2009;
Vogt et al., 2010). Therefore, after being excluded by others,
eagerness to recover the deficit in belonging may promote
participants sensitivity to images of smiling faces.
The second explanation for the attentional bias to social
acceptance cues demonstrated herein can be drawn from
the literature on emotion regulation. Specifically, researchers have indicated that attentional deployment is one of the
primary strategies used to regulate emotion (Gross &
Thompson, 2007). Thus, when individuals are excluded,
they may turn their attention to positive social acceptance
cues in order to regulate their emotions. Indeed, a recent
study verified this hypothesis (DeWall et al., 2011). Spe-

Mengsi Xu et al.

cifically, when using implicit measures of individual reactions to exclusion, excluded participants became highly
attuned to positive emotional cues. Thus, after participants experienced social exclusion in the current study, they
may have diverted their attention to cues of positive social
acceptance in order to quickly regulate their emotions.
The need to belong is fundamental in humans and it can be
challenged by social exclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Previous studies have primarily focused on the impact of
social exclusion on downstream processes, such as memory,
judgement and overt behaviours. The current study extends
this body of literature by investigating the relationship
between social exclusion and attention (an upstream cognitive process). The findings presented herein suggest that
social exclusion may motivate individuals to renew their
social connections, an effect that manifests itself in both
downstream and upstream cognitive processes. Furthermore, the attentional bias to a smiling face still exists when
the smiling face is paired with an angry face, indicating that
after experiencing social exclusion, the desire for social
reconnection may trump the desire to avoid further exclusion. Finally, from a broader perspective, our results suggest
that excluded and included participants might treat social
information in different ways. Specifically, while the
included participants focus on the threatening meaning of
social information, the excluded participants pay more
attention to the acceptance meaning of social information.
While the current study has numerous strengths, it also
has some limitations. First, we treated smiles as a measure
of social acceptance. However, the smiling face may
provide complex information. For example, while the
Duchenne smile represents cooperation and acceptance
(Brown & Moore, 2002), the non-Duchenne smile may
conceal negative information (Ekman, Friesen &
OSullivan, 1988). Therefore, it may be inappropriate to
place all smiles in one category. Second, we did not consider the potential influence of individual differences. For
instance, some studies have shown that participants with
social anxiety avoid all social information (Brown, Silvia,
Myin-Germeys & Kwapil, 2007). Third, we only recruited
Asian participants; therefore, our conclusions cannot be
directly generalized to Western participants. Fourth, the
facial expression used in the current study included both
Asian and non-Asian faces. This should be avoided in
future studies after considering the other-race effect, which
refers to better recognition of faces from ones own race
than faces of another race (Anzures et al., 2013). Future
studies are needed to address whether excluded participants
show different attentional biases to different types of smiles
and whether these effects are influenced by the individual
differences. Furthermore, future studies are needed to
include both Western and Eastern participants to explore
whether there are cross-cultural differences in the impact
of social exclusion on attention. Moreover, event-related

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

Social exclusion influences on attention

207

potentials could be used to further examine the electrophysiological correlates of the impact of social exclusion
on attention due to their high temporal resolution.
Conclusion
Using three experiments, we investigated whether social
exclusion enhances attentional bias to a set of social

References
Abrams, R. A. & Dobkin, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on
eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and
Performance, 20 (3), 467477.
Anzures, G., Quinn, P. C., Pascalis, O., Slater,
A. M., Tanaka, J. W. & Lee, K. (2013).
Developmental origins of the other-race
effect. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 22 (3), 173178. doi: 10.1177/
0963721412474459.
Bangee, M., Harris, R. A., Bridges, N.,
Rotenberg, K. J. & Qualter, P. (2014). Loneliness and attention to social threat in young
adults: Findings from an eye tracker study.
Personality and Individual Differences, 63,
1623. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.039.
Basu-Zharku, I. O. (2011). Effects of collectivistic and individualistic cultures on
imagination inflation in Eastern and
Western cultures. Student Pulse, 3 (02),
15.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The
need to belong desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental humanmotivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3),
497529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3
.497.
Brown, L. H., Silvia, P. J., Myin-Germeys, I. &
Kwapil, T. R. (2007). When the need to
belong goes wrong: The expression of social
anhedonia and social anxiety in daily life.
Psychol Sci, 18 (9), 778782. doi: 10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2007.01978.x.
Brown, W. M. & Moore, C. (2002). Smile
asymmetries and reputation as reliable indicators of likelihood to cooperate: An evolutionary analysis. 11; 3 In S. P. Shohov (Ed.),
Advances in psychology research (Vol. 11,
pp. 5978). New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Cacioppo, J. T., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J.,
Hawkley, L. C. & Thisted, R. A. (2006).
Loneliness as a specific risk factor for
depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and

acceptance cues or social exclusion cues that were briefly

presented to an Asian population. The results indicate that
social exclusion promotes attentional bias to social acceptance cues. The present study extends our understanding of
the relationship between social exclusion and attention;
specifically, the findings suggest that after social exclusion
the desire for social reconnection may be stronger than the
desire to avoid further exclusion in an Asian population.

longitudinal analyses. Psychology and

Aging, 21 (1), 140151. doi: 10.1037/08827974.21.1.140.
DeWall, C. N. & Baumeister, R. F. (2006).
Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social
exclusion on physical pain tolerance and
pain threshold, affective forecasting, and
interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 115.
DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K. & Rouby, D. A.
(2009). Social exclusion and early-stage
interpersonal perception: Selective attention
to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (4), 729741.
doi: 10.1037/a0014634.
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L.,
Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A. & Reid,
M. W. (2011). Automatic emotion regulation
after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity.
Emotion, 11 (3), 623636. doi: 10.1037/
a0023534.
Downey, G., Khouri, H. & Feldman, S. I.
(1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later
adjustment: The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth
(Eds.), Developmental perspectives on
trauma: Theory, research, and intervention.
Rochester symposium on developmental
psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 85114). Rochester,
NY, USA: University of Rochester Press.
xvii.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V. & OSullivan, M.
(1988). Smiles when lying. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (3),
414.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L. & Brewer, M. B.
(2000). Social exclusion and selective
memory: How the need to belong influences
memory for social events. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (4), 486496.
doi: 10.1177/0146167200266007.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V. &
Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking
in: Loneliness and social monitoring.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31 (11), 15491560. doi: 10.1177/
0146167205277208.

Gross, J. J. & Thompson, R. A. (2007).

Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. Handbook of Emotion Regulation, 3,
24.
Hansen, C. H. & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding
the face in the crowd: An anger superiority
effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54 (6), 917924.
Holmes, A., Bradley, B. P., Kragh Nielsen, M.
& Mogg, K. (2009). Attentional selectivity
for emotional faces: Evidence from human
electrophysiology. Psychophysiology, 46
(1), 6268. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008
.00750.x.
Houghton, G. & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model
of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.),
Inhibitory processes in attention, memory,
and language (pp. 53112). San Diego, CA,
USA: Academic Press. xiv.
Jiang, M., Gao, D. G., Huang, R., DeWall,
C. N. & Zhou, X. Y. (2014). The devil wears
Prada: Advertisements of luxury brands
evoke feelings of social exclusion. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (4), 245
254. doi: 10.1111/Ajsp.12069.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (4), 138
147.
Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of
emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20
(3), 165182.
Macdonald, G. & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why
does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131 (2), 202223. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202.
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A. & Tata, P. (1986).
Attentional bias in emotional disorders.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95 (1),
1520.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F.
& Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection?
Resolving the porcupine problem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University

208

92 (1), 4255. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1

.42.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures
and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspect Psychol Sci, 5 (4), 420430. doi:
10.1177/1745691610375557.
Ohman, A. & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears,
phobias, and preparedness: Toward an
evolved module of fear and fear learning.
Psychological Review, 108 (3), 483522.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier,
M. (2002). Rethinking individualism
and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical
assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1), 372. doi: 10.1037//
0033-2909.128.1.3.
Pickett, C. L. & Gardner, W. L. (2005). The
social monitoring system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues as an adaptive response
to social exclusion. In K. D. Williams, J. P.
Forgas & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Sydney Symposium of
Social Psychology series (pp. 213226).
New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press.
xxii.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L. & Knowles, M.
(2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong
and enhanced sensitivity to social cues.
Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30 (9), 10951107. doi: 10.1177/
0146167203262085.
Posner, M. I. & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components
of visual orienting. Attention and Performance, 10, 531556.
Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S. &
Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return:
Neural basis and function. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 2 (3), 211228.
Poulsen, J. R. & Kashy, D. A. (2011). Two
sides of the ostracism coin: How sources and

Mengsi Xu et al.

targets of social exclusion perceive themselves and one another. Group Processes &
Intergroup, 15 (4), 457470. doi: 10.1177/
1368430211430517.
Theeuwes, J. & Van der Stigchel, S. (2006).
Faces capture attention: Evidence from
inhibition of return. Visual Cognition,
13 (6), 657665. doi: 10.1080/13506280
500410949.
Tottenham, N., Tanaka, J. W., Leon, A. C.,
McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Hare, T. A., et al.
(2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research
participants. Psychiatry Research, 168 (3),
242249. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.05
.006.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R. & Baumeister,
R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the
deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and
self-awareness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85 (3), 409423. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409.
van Beest, I. & Williams, K. D. (2006). When
inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 91 (5), 918928. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.918.
Van Beest, I., Williams, K. D. & Van Dijk, E.
(2011). Cyberbomb: Effects of being ostracized from a death game. Group Process
Interg, 14 (4), 581596. doi: 10.1177/
1368430210389084.
Vogt, J., De Houwer, J., Moors, A.,
Van Damme, S. & Crombez, G. (2010). The
automatic orienting of attention to goalrelevant stimuli. Acta Psychologica
(Amst), 134 (1), 6169. doi: 10.1016/
j.actpsy.2009.12.006.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect:

The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1063
1070.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal
need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275314.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. & Choi,
W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of
being ignored over the Internet. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5),
748.
Williams, K. D. & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball:
A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior
Research Methods, 38 (1), 174180. doi:
10.3758/Bf03192765.
Yanagisawa, K., Nishimura, T., Furutani, K. &
Ura, M. (2013). The effects of general trust
on building new relationships after social
exclusion: An examination of the Settoku
Nattoku Game. Asian J Soc Psychol, 16 (2),
133141. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12021.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D. & Richardson, R.
(2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by
a computer is sufficient to lower selfreported levels of belonging, control, selfesteem, and meaningful existence. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (4),
560567. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006.
Zhou, X. Y., Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F.
(2009). The symbolic power of money:
Reminders of money alter social distress and
physical pain. Psychol Sci, 20 (6), 700706.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02353.x.
Zhou, X. Y., Zheng, L. W., Zhou, L. X. & Guo,
N. (2009). The act of rejecting reduces the
desire to reconnect: Evidence for a cognitive
dissonance account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (1), 4450. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.011.

2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, Asian Association of Social Psychology and Beijing Normal University