Content uploaded by Frank Doolaard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Frank Doolaard on Jun 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
Available online 13 May 2021
0022-1031/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Go on without me: When underperforming group members prefer to leave
their group
☆
Frank T. Doolaard
a
,
*
, Marret K. Noordewier
a
, Gert-Jan Lelieveld
a
, Ilja van Beest
b
,
Eric van Dijk
a
a
Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, the Netherlands
b
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, the Netherlands
ARTICLE INFO
Editor: Ernestine Gordijn
Keywords:
Social exclusion
Ostracism
Performance
Burden
ABSTRACT
While a considerable body of literature has shown that leaving one’s group is a negative experience that people
tend to avoid, the current research focuses on the idea that on some occasions, leaving one’s group can come with
positive consequences. Across four experimental studies, we demonstrate that people’s reactions to staying in
versus leaving their group are modulated by their performance. Studies 1 and 2 showed that performing
considerably below (vs. at the same level as) one’s group members, can be an aversive experience that people
prefer to avoid, even when this means being excluded by their fellow group members. Exclusion harmed low-
performers’ and equal-performers’ feelings and need fullment equally, but low-performers still considered
exclusion relatively relieving and preferable. They also experienced inclusion in the group as less positive than
equal-performers. Studies 3 and 4 showed that low-performing participants were also relatively likely to leave
the group when they had the chance. Although this resulted in participants’ separation from the group, this had
positive effects for them, as it restored their fundamental needs and improved their feelings, relative to when
they were still part of the group.
A large body of social, developmental, and cognitive psychological
research has documented the detrimental experience and consequences
of exclusion (e.g., Killen, Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Syrjamaki & Hietanen,
2019; Wesselmann & Williams, 2017). In the current research we
complement this view by proposing that for people who perform well
below their fellow group members, exclusion or leaving the group does
not only negatively affect their feelings and need fullment – it addi-
tionally gives rise to feelings of relief, because it sets them free from the
negative experience of underperforming in the group. Compared to
group members who perform at the same level as their group, we pro-
pose that underperformers may benet less from inclusion, and instead
prefer exclusion. They may even be relatively likely to remove them-
selves from the group when they have the chance, which may come with
improved need fullment and feelings, making it benecial to end up
apart from the group.
1. Performance and reactions to being excluded and leaving
one’s group
In social psychological research, the need to belong is considered one
of the most important human needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995): the
need for people to seek interactions with others, form groups, and feel
included. This need to be with others is so strong, that when people are
socially excluded (i.e., neglected, rejected, or removed from a group in
any situation, Wesselmann & Williams, 2017; Williams, 2009) they feel
sad and angry (Williams & Nida, 2011), and their fundamental needs of
belonging, control, self-esteem, and a meaningful existence are threat-
ened (Williams, 2007). An evolutionarily ingrained aversion to end up
apart from the group, is considered to be at the base of human’s
instinctive negative reaction to exclusion (Kerr & Levine, 2008; Spoor &
Williams, 2007; Williams, 2009), which is neurologically similar to the
experience of serious physical pain (Eisenberger, 2012; MacDonald &
Leary, 2005). In this view, people are so averse to exclusion, that they
should feel excluded regardless of the context (Carter-Sowell et al.,
☆
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Ernestine Gordijn.
* Corresponding author at: Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: f.t.doolaard@fsw.leidenuniv.nl (F.T. Doolaard).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104158
Received 15 June 2020; Received in revised form 21 April 2021; Accepted 23 April 2021
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
2
2010; Van Beest, Williams, & Van Dijk, 2011) – i.e., even when inclusion
has negative elements (e.g., when it concerns inclusion in a despised
group, Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007) or when exclusion has positive
elements (e.g., when it pays, Van Beest & Williams, 2006). While in-
clusion is thus considered a very positive experience, exclusion is
characterized as a “social death penalty” (Wesselmann & Williams,
2017) that people are motivated to avoid at all times (Ouwerkerk, Kerr,
Gallucci, & Van Lange, 2005).
Recently, research has begun to nuance this view a bit, by demon-
strating that how negatively people experience exclusion can depend on
the context. For instance, it was found that exclusion was less harmful
when people considered it justied or fair that they were excluded
(Tuscherer et al., 2016), but also when people anticipated exclusion to
occur (Gerber & Wheeler, 2014), or when they considered it normative
(e.g., not being spoken to in a library, Rudert & Greifeneder, 2016).
Recent experiments thus show that the pain of exclusion can in fact be
attenuated by situational factors (Hartgerink, Van Beest, Wicherts, &
Williams, 2015). Similarly, recent research suggests that inclusion is not
always equally desirable. For example, it has been demonstrated that
people are less keen on becoming part of a group when their need to
belong is already satised through other social interactions (Sacco &
Bernstein, 2015). When they are included against their will, people can
even respond aggressively to inclusion (Greenaway, Jetten, Ellemers, &
Van Bunderen, 2015). So, a more nuanced view would regard exclusion
as negative and inclusion as positive, but emphasize that the exact ex-
periences depend on the situation.
We expand on this perspective by investigating a specic situation in
which some people may not only experience inclusion as less positive,
but where – despite its negative effects on people’s feelings and need
fullment – they may also experience ending up apart from their group
as a relief: i.e., for people who underperform in the group. Moreover, we
test if leaving the group may even improve underperformers’ feelings
and need fullment, relative to when they were still part of the group. In
our studies we distinguish between two types of settings: A setting in
which group members are socially excluded by their fellow group
members, and a setting in which people voluntarily leave their group.
Group members often differ in how well they perform: For example,
in demanding tasks at work or school, or in sports teams – there are
always some group members that perform worse than others. The cur-
rent research focuses specically on how underperformance that
directly impairs the group outcome (i.e., in a conjunctive task; Steiner,
1927), affects individuals in newly formed task groups, where perfor-
mance is the main goal. Such groups that are formed for a specic task,
are used for theory-building throughout the social exclusion literature
(see Williams & Nida, 2011), and are not uncommon in real life (e.g., a
student group formed to work on a joint project, a team put together for
a pub quiz, a group of colleagues joining to work on a grant application).
The theoretic contributions of this article thus foremost concern such
task groups. A variety of research lends credence to the possibility that
underperforming in such situations can indeed be a very negative
experience. For example, research demonstrates that group members
who perform poorly or slowly in a group task can be seen as burdensome
by others (Wesselmann, Wirth, Pryor, Reeder, & Williams, 2013, 2015;
Wirth, Bernstein, & Leroy, 2015) – and feeling that one is a burden to
others in completing a task is a very distressing experience (Leroy, Lu,
Zvolensky, Ramirez, & Fagundes, LeRoy, Lu, Zvolensky, Ramirez, &
Fagundes, 2018). To underperform in a group could also make people
feel guilty to their group (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994) – a
very distressing feeling that people rather avoid (Cosmides & Tooby,
2013; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2018; Wiltermuth & Cohen, 2014).
Because underperforming in a group is such a negative experience,
we propose that individuals who perform worse than their group
members may experience inclusion as less positive than individuals who
perform at the same level as their group. While the signal that their
group includes them may be positive for underperformers, inclusion also
has the aversive consequence that the experience of being the
underperformer in the group endures. This distressing experience may
not only impact how good they feel while being part of the group, but
may affect their four fundamental needs as well: Although the group
chose to retain them, being the person who drags the group down can
make it hard to truly feel equally accepted and like one belongs in the
group. As long as underperformers are part of the group, they may also
experience a reduced sense of control, as they experience an inability to
exert inuence on their performance, and obtain the required score.
Moreover, inclusion confronts low-performers with the fact that they
performing worse than their peers, which may reect negatively on their
self-esteem. Knowing that they are unable to contribute in this group
with performance as a main goal, could furthermore leave low-
performers feel without a purpose. So, while inclusion generally im-
proves people’s feelings and fulls their fundamental needs, these pos-
itive effects may be attenuated for low-performers. Specically, we
predict that compared to group members who perform in line with the
group, low-performing group members experience lower need full-
ment and less positive feelings after inclusion.
Regarding the negative effects of leaving one’s group – whether
voluntarily or involuntarily – differences between members who
perform below vs. at the same level as their group may be less apparent:
Both may experience threatened needs and negative feelings after
leaving. However, we additionally address possible differences in posi-
tive evaluations. Specically, low-performers may experience the posi-
tive emotion of relief after leaving, because it ends their negative
experience of being burdensome in the group. We predict that low-
performing group members consider leaving their group to be more
relieving than group members who perform in line with the group, and
also prefer it more as an outcome. Finally, the current research also tests
if this preference for exclusion translates to behavior. We investigate
whether low-performing (vs. equal-performing) group members are
more likely to leave the group when they have the chance, and whether
ending up apart from the group in this way may even come with
improved need fullment and feelings, compared to when they were
part of the group.
2. Study 1
As a rst test of these ideas, the inclusion and exclusion experiences
were assessed in a scenario-based experiment in which a group
responded to individuals’ performance, which was below vs. equal to
that of their group members (from now on referred to as “equal-per-
formers”, or “equal-performing group members”). We predicted that
low-performers (vs. equal-performers) would feel more distressed while
they were part of the group. Also, low-performers would experience
inclusion as less positive in terms of need fullment and feelings than
equal-performers. Finally, we predicted that low-performers would
consider exclusion to be more relieving and more preferable than equal-
performers.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and design
In the absence of prior data to inform us on power and sample size,
we aimed for 40 participants per cell, in correspondence with previous
research (Doolaard, Lelieveld, Noordewier, van Beest, & van Dijk,
2020). Data of 161 British participants were collected through the online
Prolic network (of which 109 female, 52 male, mean age 33.76, SD =
11.66). A sensitivity analysis (calculated in GPower 3.1; Faul, Erdfelder,
Buchner, & Lang, 2009) indicated that with
α
=.05, and a power of β =
.80, a sample size of N =161 provides sufcient power to detect main
and interaction effects of f =.22, or
η
p
2
=.05, in our 2 (social exclusion:
exclusion vs. inclusion) ×2 (performance: low vs. equal) between-
subjects design. In this and all following studies, we report the pre-
determined sample sizes, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations,
and all measures (see Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012). All
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
3
analyses were performed only after the data collection was nished.
2.1.2. Procedure and materials
After reading and signing the informed consent form, participants
were presented with the scenario (see Supplemental Material). Partici-
pants read they joined a soccer team for a local competition, put
together by a group of friends. In the low-performance condition par-
ticipants read they were very bad at soccer, while their team was
described as very experienced and competitive. At the training session
their team members were annoyed that the participant was part of the
team. In the equal-performance condition, participants read they were
good at soccer, which would be in line with the performance of the
experienced and competitive team. They read their team members were
glad the participant was part of the team.
The scenario continued by describing the events at the rst match
after the training session. In the exclusion condition participants were
part of the team, but did not receive the ball from their team members.
In the inclusion condition participants often received the ball. The in-
clusion and exclusion conditions were modeled to resemble ostracism (i.
e., being ignored and excluded, Wesselmann & Williams, 2017), as
manipulated with the “Cyberball” paradigm (Williams, Cheung, & Choi,
2000). In Cyberball, participants play a digital game of catch with two
others and either receive the ball often, or no longer receive the ball after
the rst two throws.
Then, participants’ feelings after inclusion or exclusion were
assessed on a 7-point scale (1 =Not at all, 7 =Completely). Participants
indicated how relieved they would feel (“I would feel relieved” and “I
would feel better off”,
α
=.90), and how positive/negative they would
feel (“I would feel...”, “sad”, “angry”, “hurt”, “happy”, “elated”,
“cheerful”, rst three items reverse coded,
α
=.97, Van Beest & Wil-
liams, 2006). Participants then indicated to what extent they would
regard exclusion as a preferable outcome (“I would prefer to be excluded
during the games”, 1 =Do not agree, 7 =Agree). On the same scale,
participants’ anticipated need fullment was assessed, by calculating
the average of answers to 20 questions (
α
=.98; adapted from Van Beest
& Williams, 2006), ve measuring belonging (e.g., “I would have felt as
one with the other players”), ve measuring control (e.g., “I would have
felt in control over the games”), ve measuring self-esteem (e.g.,
“Playing the games would have made me feel insecure”), and ve
measuring meaningful existence (e.g., “I would think that my partici-
pation in the games was useful”).
Then, participants were asked to report how distressed they would
have felt on the rst training. Note that participants thus had to consider
how they felt before they were included or excluded during the match.
Distress during this experience was measured with three questions (
α
=
.94): “I would feel distressed”, “I was burdensome to the other players”,
and “I would feel guilty towards the other players”, 1 =Do not agree, 7 =
Agree. Finally, participants indicated their age and gender and were
thanked, debriefed, and paid for participation. The procedures of this
and all following studies were approved by the ethics committee of the
Leiden University Institute of Psychology.
2.2. Results
For all variables reported below, cell means, standard deviations,
and the full ANOVA statistics including effect sizes and planned con-
trasts, are reported in Table 1.
2.2.1. Before inclusion or exclusion
After having read the scenario, participants were asked to think back
to how they would have felt during the training (i.e., when participants
had learned whether they underperformed or performed equal to the
group, and the group’s reaction, but had not yet been included or
excluded from the team). With a 2 (social exclusion) ×2 (performance)
ANOVA, we tested whether for low-performers the experience was more
negative than for equal-performers.
2.2.1.1. Distress. As predicted, the main effect of performance on
distress during the experience was signicant (p <.001). Low-
performing participants reported more distress (M =5.41, SD =1.67)
than equal-performing participants (M =1.95, SD =1.37). Unexpect-
edly, the Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction effect on distress
was also signicant (p =.039). This indicates that although participants
answered questions about their feelings before inclusion/exclusion, they
were inuenced by knowing whether they would end up included/
excluded. Low-performers in the exclusion condition felt more dis-
tressed than equal-performers, F(1, 157) =77.39, p <.001, d =1.81, but
this difference was even more pronounced after inclusion, F(1, 157) =
136.13, p <.001, d =2.84.
2.2.2. After inclusion or exclusion
2.2.2.1. Need fullment and feelings. We reasoned that after inclusion
(receiving the ball often) low-performing participants may experience
lower need fullment and positive emotions than equal-performing
participants. We also expected low-performers to feel more relieved
after exclusion (not receiving the ball) than equal-performers. A series of
2 (social exclusion) ×2 (performance) ANOVAs tested these hypotheses.
2.2.2.1.1. Need fullment. The social exclusion and performance
main effects and the Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction effect
were all signicant (all ps <0.001). As predicted, low-performers re-
ported lower need fullment after inclusion than equal-performers, F(1,
Table 1
Means and SDs of the dependent variables as a function of Social Exclusion (SE) ×performance (PF), including ANOVA results and planned contrasts (Study 1).
Inclusion Exclusion Statistics
Low performance Equal performance Low performance Equal performance F(1,157) p
η
p
2
Distress 5.66
a
(1.63) 1.70
b
(1.11) 5.17
a
(1.70) 2.20
b
(1.58) SE 0.00 .977 .00
PF 209.62 <.001 .57
SE ×PF 4.34 .039 .03
Need fullment 4.41
a
(1.20) 6.12
b
(0.58) 1.85
c
(0.78) 1.85
c
(0.77) SE 644.72 <.001 .80
PF 40.11 <.001 .20
SE ×PF 40.35 <.001 .20
Positive feelings 5.17
a
(1.36) 6.43
b
(0.65) 2.10
c
(1.01) 1.89
c
(0.78) SE 606.40 <.001 .79
PF 11.63 .001 .07
SE ×PF 22.76 <.001 .13
Relief 5.13
a
(1.17) 5.48
a
(1.17) 2.73
b
(1.84) 1.78
c
(1.02) SE 209.58 <.001 .57
PF 2.03 .157 .01
SE ×PF 9.35 .003 .06
Exclusion preference 3.13
a
(1.88) 1.33
b
(0.75) 3.33
a
(2.26) 2.17
c
(1.73) SE 3.55 .061 .02
PF 29.12 <.001 .16
SE ×PF 1.39 .241 .01
Note. Within rows, means with different superscripts differ signicantly (ps <.05 in planned contrasts analyses).
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
4
157) =79.87, p <.001, d = − 1.81. In the exclusion condition, low-
performers reported similar low levels of need fullment as equal-
performers, F(1, 157) =0.00, p =.989, d =0.00 (see Fig. 1a).
2.2.2.1.2. Positive feelings. The main and interaction effects were
signicant (all ps ≤.001). As predicted, simple contrasts indicated that
low-performers reported less positive feelings after inclusion than equal-
performers, F(1, 157) =33.22, p <.001, d = − 1.18. By contrast, low-
performers reported equally low levels of positive feelings after exclu-
sion as equal-performers, F(1, 157) =0.93, p =.336, d =0.23 (see
Fig. 1b).
2.2.2.1.3. Relief. The main effect of social exclusion on relief was
signicant (ps <.001), while the main performance effect was not (p =
.157). The Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction was signicant
(p =.003). As predicted, low-performers reported more relief by
exclusion than equal-performers, F(1, 157) =10.12, p =.002, d =0.64.
Inclusion led to equal relief for low-performing and equal-performing
participants, F(1, 157) =1.33, p =.251, d = − 0.29.
2.2.2.2. Exclusion preference. With a 2 (social exclusion) ×2 (perfor-
mance) ANOVA we tested if indeed exclusion would be more preferred
among low-performing vs. equal-performing participants. The main ef-
fect of social exclusion on exclusion preference was marginally signi-
cant (p =.061), while the main effect of performance was signicant (p
<.001), and the Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction was not (p
=.241). As predicted, low-performing participants reported a higher
preference for being excluded (M =3.23, SD =2.07) than equal-
performing participants (M =1.75, SD =1.39).
2.3. Discussion
Study 1 provided initial evidence that individual group members’
performance in a group could impact how they experience inclusion and
exclusion. First, participants indicated that being part of the group as a
low-performer would be a relatively distressing experience. For low-
performers, being included then would also result in lower levels of
positive feelings,
and lower need fullment than for equal-performers. Exclusion
would remain equally aversive in terms of feelings and need fullment,
as for equal-performers. However, compared to equal-performers, low-
performers would be more relieved after exclusion. Low-performers
even reported they would experience a relative preference for being
excluded. It thus appears that performance in the group could be an
important moderating factor. Low-performers not only indicated they
would feel inclusion to be less positive, but would also experience pos-
itive aspects of exclusion – as it became relatively relieving and
preferable.
Still, it must be noted that relief after exclusion would be less high
than relief after inclusion, and that the relative preference for exclusion
would not make exclusion less harmful. Low-performing group members
would feel equally negative (in terms of need fullment and feelings)
after exclusion as equal-performing group members, and for both groups
exclusion would be more negative than inclusion. That low performance
could make inclusion less positive and even points to positive elements
of exclusion then in no way refutes that generally feelings, need full-
ment, and relief are affected more negatively by exclusion than by
inclusion.
That low-performers would benet less from inclusion seems con-
trary to previous research that found no differences in inclusion and
exclusion experiences as a result of prior performance (Carter-Sowell
et al., 2010). However, in that research, participants’ performance was
manipulated in a different task than the task in which they were
included or excluded by their peers. Study 1 shows that when their
performance remains relevant for the group, inclusion is less positive for
low-performers than for equal-performers.
The current study had a few limitations. First of all, because we
wanted to maximize engagement in the minimalistic written scenario
set-up, we manipulated the feeling of underperformance in the group
not only by noting participants’ performance (low vs. equal to the team),
but also by describing how the group felt about the participant being
part of the team (annoyed vs. glad). How the group may feel about a
member’s underperformance is a crucial social aspect of the experience
of underperforming in a group, that we considered relevant to provide in
the hypothetical scenario. However, by explicitly mentioning the
group’s reaction, we cannot rule out that the differences between low-
and equal-performers relied on this described response (as opposed to,
or in addition to participants’ underperformance). In Study 2, we tested
whether the results replicate in a situation in which the group’s response
is not provided. In this experimental lab study, participants can make
their own spontaneous inference of how the group may feel about them,
given their performance. By testing whether the ndings replicate in a
lab study, we also overcome the limitation that the current scenario
study relied on people’s ability to report how they would feel in a hy-
pothetical situation.
Secondly, participants were asked to indicate the distress they would
have experienced before being included or excluded from the group.
However, these measures were assessed after participants had read
whether they would end up included or excluded. Their response pat-
terns indicated that participants’ knowledge of their inclusion or
exclusion affected how distressed they thought they would feel before
knowing this. To eliminate this inuence, in Study 2, distress was
measured before participants were included or excluded.
Third, in this study participants in the equal performance condition
read about their good performance in a group of “very experienced and
competitive” team members. Although this served as a control condition
in which participants’ performance was equal to that of the other group
members, stressing participants’ good performance may instead have
made them feel like they over-performed. In Studies 2 and 3, this am-
biguity was avoided by providing exact feedback on both participants’
and their team members’ performance, as a score on a scale from 0 to
100.
Furthermore, the soccer scenario used in Study 1 modeled ostracism:
Similar to the Cyberball paradigm (Williams et al., 2000), participants
were neglected by not receiving the ball while they were playing the
game. In this form of social exclusion, “ostracism”, people are ignored by
their peers – but exclusion can also occur through explicitly informing
someone that they are unwanted (typically termed “rejection”,
Freedman, Williams, & Beer, 2016; Wesselmann & Williams, 2017). As
an extension to Study 1, in Study 2 this latter form of social exclusion,
rejection, was manipulated, so that participants were explicitly removed
from the group and its activities by their peers. This also addresses a
possible ambiguity of Study 1. There, participants may have reported
their feelings and preferences about exclusion from the activity of
playing soccer, but did not regard this as exclusion from the group of
friends. In Study 2, this distinction between the group and the activity
was minimized. As is the standard in social exclusion paradigms, groups
were formed for an activity that participants performed together, which
makes exclusion from the activity equivalent to exclusion from the
group.
3. Study 2
Study 2 was an experimental lab study, in which participants’ per-
formance was manipulated to be either lower than, or equal to that of
their group members. As in Study 1, we predicted that participants who
performed lower than their group members would experience more
distress than participants who performed equal to their group members.
We also assessed the responses of low-performers and equal-performers
to being included or excluded. We predicted that low-performers would
experience lower need fullment and less positive feelings after inclu-
sion than equal-performers. Although we anticipated participants across
conditions to be impacted equally by exclusion in terms of feelings and
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
5
need fullment, we did predict that low-performing members would feel
relatively relieved after being excluded, and would prefer exclusion
more than equal-performing members.
In Study 1, we showed that underperforming (vs. equal-performing)
group members expected to feel distressed while being part of the group.
They expected to experience distress when their presence in the group
hindered optimal group performance, and exclusion became more
preferred and relieving. This suggests that low-performing group
members are particularly concerned with the group and its performance,
even when they are excluded from this group. To strengthen this claim,
we tested whether, after exclusion, low-performers would like the
excluding group more and care more about its performance than equal-
performers.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and design
All hypotheses, measures, and analyses for this study were prereg-
istered at the website of the Open Science Framework.
1
As preregistered,
we implemented a stopping rule, to cease data collection when
approximately 160 individuals had participated. Eventually, 162 par-
ticipants took part in this study at the Leiden University lab. Five par-
ticipants were excluded for having participated in research with a
similar manipulation before,
2
leaving 157 participants (127 of which
were female, 30 male, mean age 19.59, SD =2.25). A sensitivity analysis
indicated that with
α
=.05 and β =.80, a sample size of N =157 could
detect an effect size of f =.23, or
η
p
2
=.05, in the 2 (social exclusion:
inclusion vs. exclusion) ×2 (performance: low vs. equal) between-
subjects study.
3.1.2. Procedure and materials
In the lab, participants read and digitally signed the informed con-
sent form. They were assigned to a group of three for a task in which they
could earn money. Similar to other studies on exclusion, the responses of
the two other “group members” actually were preprogrammed. In the
task participants had to estimate as accurately and quickly as possible
which of two pictures contained the most dots (based on the dot-
estimation task, Gerard & Hoyt, 1974; used previously in a social
exclusion context in Doolaard et al., 2020). All members achieved a
score between zero and 100, allegedly based on their performance. As
performance on this task is hard to estimate, we could manipulate par-
ticipants’ scores without raising suspicion. Participants rst played a test
round, but were informed that in the second round each team with an
average team score of 70 or higher entered into a lottery. The three
winning teams would receive a prize of
€
50 for each member in the
team. After playing the test round, participants were told that all team
members would see each other’s individual scores, and the resulting
average team score. Participants in the low performance condition
learned that their team members achieved scores of 74 and 77, but that
their own score was so low (24) that it lowered the average team score
below 70 (to 58.3). They were reminded that in the second round this
would be too little for the group to get a shot at winning one of the cash
prizes.
In the equal performance (control) condition participants’ score of
76 was approximately equal to that of their team members – together
with their team members’ scores (74 and 77) they achieved a score of
75.7. In the second round this would be enough for their group to enter
the lottery. After receiving the scores for the test round, participants
indicated their distress over the experience on ve items (
α
=.94) on a
seven-point semantic differential scale (“In the group I feel...”: unpleas-
ant - pleasant”, “not at ease - at ease”, “uncomfortable - comfortable”,
adapted from Broekman, Koudenburg, Gordijn, Krans, & Postmes, 2019,
and “I feel guilty towards the other players”, and “I am a burden to the
other players”, 1 =Absolutely not, 7 =Absolutely).
Participants were told they would play the second round, in which an
average team score of 70 points or more would be enough for their team
to participate in the lottery. Before the second round commenced, par-
ticipants could indicate for each of their two team members whether
they wanted them in or out of the team. Crucially, in both conditions
they were told that if two members both indicated they wanted a third
member out of the team, this third member was excluded from the team.
After indicating their decision and waiting for a few seconds, partici-
pants in the exclusion condition were informed that the two other
players excluded them from the team, and would play the second round
without them. In the inclusion condition, participants were informed
that the constitution of the group remained the same, and that no one
was excluded.
Then, participants in both conditions indicated their feelings (“I
feel…”: “sad”, “angry”, “hurt”, “happy”, “elated”, “cheerful”,
α
=.90, 1
=Absolutely not, 7 =Absolutely, Van Beest & Williams, 2006), and need
fullment on 7-point semantic differential scales (belonging: “rejected -
accepted”, self-esteem: “devalued - valued”, control: “powerless - powerful”,
meaningful existence: “invisible - recognized”, averaged into one need
fullment score,
α
=.90, Rudert & Greifeneder, 2016). Participants’
evaluation of their team members was measured with two items (“I have
a positive impression of the other two players”, and reverse-coded: “I
have a negative impression of the other two players”,
α
=.92), as well as
their hope for the group’s success (“I hope the other two players achieve
a good score”). As a manipulation check we measured exclusion (“I have
been excluded by my group members”). Participants were reminded of
their group members’ decision to exclude/include them, and relief was
measured (“After this decision I felt relieved”) as well as their preference
to be excluded (“I wanted the other players to remove me from the
group”). All these questions were answered on a 7-point scale, where 1
=Absolutely not, and 7 =Absolutely. For participants in the exclusion
condition the experiment ended here.
Fig. 1. Need fullment and positive feelings as a function of Social Exclusion ×Performance (Study 1).
1
https://osf.io/5t6gu
2
Whether these participants were included or excluded from the analyses did
not change the statistical signicance/non-signicance of any of the results.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
6
Participants in the inclusion condition played the second round, and
achieved a score of 75.7. Subsequently, participants had the chance to
write about anything they noticed during the experiment
3
and indicated
whether or not they had participated before in a similar research.
Finally, all participants were debriefed, thanked, and paid for partici-
pation. Later, the lottery was held among all participants, and three
participants won
€
50.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Before inclusion or exclusion
An independent t-test assessed differences in experienced distress
between conditions, during the group task, before inclusion or
exclusion.
3.2.1.1. Distress. As predicted, low-performers felt more distressed (M
=5.01, SD =1.12) than equal-performers (M =1.98, SD =0.85), t(155)
=19.49, p <.001, d =3.12.
4
3.2.2. After inclusion or exclusion
For all variables reported below, cell means and standard deviations,
as well as ANOVA results with effect sizes and planned contrasts, can be
found in Table 2.
3.2.2.1. Exclusion manipulation check. A 2 (social exclusion) ×2 (per-
formance) ANOVA was performed to check if exclusion was manipu-
lated successfully. The main effects of social exclusion, performance,
and the Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction were all signicant
(ps <.004). As predicted, exclusion led to higher reported feelings of
exclusion than inclusion, but the interaction effect showed that among
equal-performers the difference between exclusion and inclusion was
even more pronounced, F(1, 153) =215.92, p <.001, d =3.60, than
among low-performers, F(1, 153) =93.21, p <.001, d =1.98.
3.2.2.2. Need fullment and feelings. Two 2 (social exclusion) ×2
(performance) ANOVAs assessed whether inclusion was less positive for
low-performing participants than for equal-performing participants in
terms of need fullment and positive feelings. We also expected low-
performing group members to feel more relieved after exclusion than
equal-performing group members.
3.2.2.2.1. Need fullment. The main effect of social exclusion on
need fullment was signicant (p <.001), the main effect of perfor-
mance was not (p =.954). The predicted Social Exclusion ×Perfor-
mance interaction was only marginally signicant, (p =.074). Overall,
participants reported less need fullment after exclusion (M =2.95, SD
=0.91) than after inclusion (M =5.08, SD =1.13). Contrary to the
prediction, the marginal interaction effect shows that low-performers
did not report lower levels of need fullment after inclusion than
equal-performers, F(1, 153) =1.78, p =.184, d = − 0.27. Exclusion
yielded no difference either, F(1, 153) =1.47, p =.228, d =0.32. But,
more in line with the gist of our prediction, for low-performers the
difference between inclusion and exclusion, F(1, 153) =64.30, p <.001,
d =2.11, was smaller than for equal-performers, F(1, 153) =107.78, p
<.001, d =2.10 (see Fig. 2a).
3.2.2.2.2. Positive feelings. The main effect of social exclusion was
signicant (p <.001), and the performance effect was not signicant (p
=.187). As predicted, the signicant Social Exclusion ×Performance
interaction (p =.001) showed that after inclusion low-performers re-
ported lower levels of positive feelings than equal-performers, F(1, 153)
=11.70, p =.001, d = − 1.01. After exclusion, these differences were
absent, F(1, 153) =2.16, p =.144, d =0.28 (see Fig. 2b).
3.2.2.2.3. Relief. The main and interaction effects were signicant
(all ps <.001). As predicted, simple contrasts demonstrated that low-
performers felt more relief after exclusion than equal-performers, F(1,
153) =32.31, p <.001, d =1.26, while in the inclusion condition, this
difference was not signicant, F(1, 153) =1.29, p =.258, d = − 0.26.
3.2.2.3. Reecting on inclusion or exclusion. A series of 2 (social exclu-
sion) ×2 (performance) ANOVAs assessed whether low-performing
participants had wanted to be excluded more than equal-performing
participants. Finally, we predicted that excluded low-performers
would reect on the excluding group as less negative, and have higher
hopes for the group to achieve a high score than excluded equal-
performers.
3.2.2.3.1. Exclusion preference. The main social exclusion effect (p
=.298), and the Social Exclusion ×Performance interaction were not
signicant (p =.833), while the main effect of performance was (p <
.001). As predicted, low-performing participants wanted to a larger
extent that their teammates had excluded them (M =3.49, SD =1.86)
than equal-performing participants (M =1.55, SD =0.95).
3.2.2.3.2. Liking of group members. The main and interaction effects
were signicant (all ps <.001). In line with the prediction, simple
contrasts show that low-performers liked the group members that
excluded them more than equal-performers, F(1, 153) =44.89, p <.001,
d =1.26. In the inclusion condition there was no signicant difference, F
(1, 153) =0.04, p =.851, d = − 0.06.
3.2.2.3.3. Preferred outcome for group members. Analyses revealed a
similar pattern regarding participants’ hope for a good group outcome
for the excluding group. Main effects and the interaction effect were
signicant (all ps <.001). As predicted, low-performers hoped more that
the group that excluded them would receive a high outcome than equal-
performers did, F(1, 153) =41.78, p <.001, d =1.07. Again, in the
inclusion condition, this difference was not signicant, F(1, 153) =0.03,
p =.872, d = − 0.09.
3.3. Discussion
In line with results from Study 1, Study 2 showed clear differences in
how low-performers and equal-performers experienced inclusion and
exclusion. Low-performers initially felt more distressed while they were
part of the group, and they were also less positive after being included.
Although low-performers’ and equal-performers’ need fullment and
feelings were impacted similarly by exclusion, low-performers did
experience exclusion as more preferable, and even relieving. Perhaps,
these positive elements of being excluded also explain why low-
performers (vs. equal-performers) were less likely to consider their
experience of being removed from the group to be exclusion (in the
manipulation check). Together, Study 2 thus again demonstrated that
although low performance did not make the experience of exclusion any
less harmful in terms of feelings and need fullment, the experience of
exclusion did have positive elements for low-performers. Additionally,
excluded low-performers judged the group that just excluded them as
more positive, and more strongly hoped that the excluding group would
achieve a good outcome. This suggests that even after exclusion, concern
for the group’s performance remains high for low-performers.
Contrary to our predictions and the results of Study 1, inclusion did
not result in lower need fullment for low-performing than for equal-
performing group members. Possibly, that the group actively included
low-performers despite their underperformance, to an extent compen-
sated for the negative effects that underperforming in the group could
otherwise have had on their need fullment. Still, the data of Study 2 did
3
Four participants in Study 2, and ten participants in Study 3, doubted
whether their scores on the dot estimation task/their group members were real.
Excluding these participants from the analyses did not change the statistical
signicance/non-signicance of any of the results.
4
An exploratory 2 ×2 ANOVA veried that only the performance main effect
was signicant (F(1, 153) =379.11, p <.001,
η
p
2
=.71), the exclusion main
effect (F(1, 153) =0.39, p =.531,
η
p
2
=.00), and the Social Exclusion ×Per-
formance effect (F(1, 153) =1.06, p =.304,
η
p
2
=.01) were not.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
7
indicate that while need fullment was higher after inclusion than after
exclusion, this difference was marginally less pronounced for low-
performers than for equal-performers. This nding corresponds with
the rationale that inclusion becomes less benecial for low-performing
group members. We conclude that inclusion is less positive for low-
performing vs. equal-performing participants at least in terms of their
feelings, and perhaps also in terms of their need fullment.
4. Study 3
Studies 1 and 2 showed that while exclusion impacted their needs
and feelings, low-performers (vs. equal-performers) also experienced
exclusion as relieving, and indicated a relative preference for being
excluded. Importantly, this suggests that instead of understanding
exclusion only as an undesirable state of ending up apart from the group,
that people want to avoid at all times (Ouwerkerk et al., 2005; Wes-
selmann & Williams, 2017; Williams, 2009), people can prefer exclusion
to some extent – and this preference varies as a function of how people
perform in the group. This ts with the idea that negative social in-
teractions, including episodes of exclusion, may increase the desire for
individuals to be alone (Ren, Wesselmann, & Williams, 2016; Wessel-
mann, Williams, Ren, & Hales, 2014).
But does this mean that people may also voluntarily choose to leave
the group in which they underperform? Study 3 tested this possibility.
We predicted that the frequency with which people would leave
voluntarily, and thus end up apart from the group, would be higher
among low-performing participants than among equal-performing
participants.
Additionally, we expected that leaving the group could even improve
low-performers’ need fullment and feelings compared to when they
were still part of the group. Studies 1 and 2 indicated that relative to
being included, being excluded by their peers reduced low-performers’
feelings and need fullment. However, when compared to the “baseline
inclusion experience” of being part of the group, leaving the group could
possibly improve low-performers’ feelings and need fullment. We have
shown that this initial experience of being part of the group induced
feelings of distress among low-performers. Perhaps, they would also
experience less positive feelings and less need fullment while they were
part of the group as underperformers, which could be improved by
leaving the group. Leaving after all ends the negative experience of
underperforming in the group. Because low-performers experienced
exclusion as relatively relieving in Studies 1 and 2, we also predicted
that low-performers who would choose to remain in the group (and thus
would still experience considerable distress) would feel less relieved
than those who would choose to leave the group.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants and design
All hypotheses, measures, and analyses for this study were prereg-
istered at OSF.
5
As preregistered, we aimed to collect data of at least 120
Table 2
Means and SDs of dependent variables as a function of Social Exclusion (SE) ×Performance (PF), including ANOVA results and planned contrasts (Study 2).
Inclusion Exclusion ANOVA Statistics
Low performance Equal performance Low performance Equal performance F(1,153) p
η
p
2
Exclusion manipulation check 1.20
a
(0.51) 1.03
a
(0.16) 4.00
b
(1.93) 5.38
c
(1.71) SE 297.61 <.001 .66
PF 8.48 .004 .05
SE ×PF 13.93 <.001 .08
Need fullment 4.93
a
(0.82) 5.24
a
(1.38) 3.09
b
(0.93) 2.80
b
(0.88) SE 169.70 <.001 .53
PF 0.003 .954 .00
SE ×PF 3.23 .074 .02
Positive feelings 5.37
a
(0.96) 6.15
b
(0.53) 4.10
c
(1.18) 3.76
c
(1.30) SE 125.23 <.001 .45
PF 1.76 .187 .01
SE ×PF 11.80 .001 .07
Relief 5.20
a
(1.69) 5.58
a
(1.13) 4.15
b
(1.90) 2.19
c
(1.13) SE 84.68 <.001 .36
PF 10.85 .001 .07
SE ×PF 23.75 <.001 .13
Exclusion preference 3.34
a
(1.91) 1.45
b
(0.88) 3.64
a
(1.83) 1.65
b
(1.03) SE 1.09 .298 .01
PF 66.41 <.001 .30
SE ×PF 0.04 .833 .00
Liking of group members 6.28
a
(0.97) 6.33
a
(0.55) 4.63
b
(1.28) 2.99
c
(1.31) SE 214.11 <.001 .58
PF 21.93 <.001 .13
SE ×PF 24.44 <.001 .14
Preferred outcome for group members 6.78
a
(0.57) 6.83
a
(0.50) 6.51
a
(0.85) 4.68
b
(2.26) SE 37.32 <.001 .20
PF 20.53 <.001 .12
SE ×PF 22.62 <.001 .13
Note. Within rows, means with different superscripts differ signicantly (ps <0.05 in planned contrasts analyses).
Fig. 2. Need fullment and positive feelings as a function of Social Exclusion ×Performance (Study 2).
5
https://osf.io/gecxz
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
8
participants, but continued data collection for the time assigned to us in
the lab. Eventually, data of 130 participants were collected at the Leiden
University lab. A total of 12 participants were excluded from the ana-
lyses for being exposed to a similar manipulation in prior research,
leaving 118 participants (97 of which were female, 21 male, mean age
19.67, SD =2.09). A sensitivity analysis indicated that with
α
=.05, β =
.80, and N =118, an effect size of φ =0.26 could be detected for the Chi-
square test measuring the frequency of leaving one’s group. The
experiment was set up as a 2 ×2 mixed subjects design with low per-
formance (n =60) vs. equal performance (n =58) as the between-
subjects measure, and time (before vs. after the choice to leave/stay)
as the within-subjects measure.
4.1.2. Procedure and materials
The procedure was largely similar to that of Study 2 and all variables
were measured with the same items as in Study 2. Participants earned
points in a dot estimation task, and were told that an average team score
above 70 points in the second round entitled their team to participate in
a lottery with three cash prizes of
€
50 for each team member. Partici-
pants received a low score (24), dropping the team average score below
70 (low performance condition) or a score of 76, approximately equal to
that of their team members, establishing a team score of over 70 (equal
performance control condition). After seeing their scores, participants
indicated how distressed (
α
=.94) they felt. They also indicated positive
feelings (
α
=.88) and need fullment (
α
=.88) for the rst time, and
were given the choice to be or not be part of the group for the second
round (“I do not want to be part of the group” vs. “I do want to be part of
the group”). As not to confound the choice to leave the group with the
advantage of being done early, participants were made to belief that if
they left the group, they would have to perform an alternative task in the
lab by themselves. Then, relief, and for the second time positive feelings
(
α
=.87), and need fullment (
α
=.90) were measured. Finally, par-
ticipants who chose to stay in the group played a second round of the dot
estimation task, while for those who left the group, the experiment
ended here. All participants indicated whether or not they had partici-
pated in an experiment with the same paradigm before, and had the
chance to report anything they wanted to share about the experiment.
Afterwards all participants were thanked, debriefed, and paid for
participation. The lottery was held among all participants, three of
which won
€
50.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Before leaving or staying in the group
4.2.1.1. Distress. As predicted, an independent t-test demonstrates that
low-performing participants felt more distressed (M =4.76, SD =1.14)
than equal-performing participants (M =2.18, SD =0.80), t(116) =
14.15, p <.001, d =2.61.
4.2.1.2. Leaving the group. As predicted, a Chi-square test indicated that
low-performers chose to leave the group more often (43% of the cases)
than equal-performers did (0% of the cases),
χ
2
(1, n =118) =32.24, p <
.001, φ =0.52.
4.2.2. Before vs. after leaving or staying in the group
Repeated Measures ANOVAs were performed to assess how partici-
pants’ feelings and need fullment changed from before the choice to
leave/stay in the group (i.e., when they started out as part of the group)
to after this choice (i.e., when they left or stayed in the group). First,
differences over time were compared between low-performing and
equal-performing group members, irrespective of their choice to leave/
stay in the group. The full statistics for these analyses can be found in
Table 3. Then, we tested the prediction that among low-performers who
chose to leave the group, this improved their feelings and need
fullment compared to before making this choice. The full statistics for
these analyses can be found in Table 4. None of the equal-performers
chose to leave the group, rendering a contrast between staying and
leaving on any variable impossible for this group. Finally, an indepen-
dent t-test was used to test the prediction that low-performers who left
the group felt more relieved than those who stayed.
4.2.2.1. Need fullment. The same pattern was found for need full-
ment over time, between low-performers and equal-performers. The
effects of time, performance, and the Time ×Performance interaction
effect were signicant (all ps ≤.006). Contrasts indicated that low-
performing group members felt higher need fullment after having
made the choice to leave/stay in the group than before, F(1, 116) =
18.90, p <.001, d = − 0.58. By contrast, equal- performing group
members felt equally high need fullment before and after having made
this choice, F(1, 116) =0.12, p =.734, d = − 0.04.
The results of the second Repeated Measures ANOVA, which focused
only on low-performers, demonstrated a signicant effect of time (p <
.001), while the main effect of choice outcome and the Time ×Choice
Outcome interaction were not signicant (all ps ≥.468). Need fullment
thus improved for participants who left, but also for those who stayed in
the group. Again, we had no predictions about the results of staying in
the group. But, as predicted, participants had higher need fullment
after choosing to leave the group than before having made this choice, F
(1, 58) =8.97, p =.004, d = − 0.58 (see Fig. 3a).
6
4.2.2.2. Positive feelings. The rst Repeated Measures ANOVA included
positive feelings over time (before vs. after making the choice to stay/
leave) as the within-subjects factor, and performance (low vs. equal) as
the between-subjects variable. The effect of time on positive feelings was
signicant, as were the main effect of performance and the Time ×
Performance interaction (all ps ≤.001). Contrasts indicated that low-
performing group members felt better after having made the choice to
leave/stay than before, F(1, 116) =25.29, p <.001, d = − 0.44. By
contrast, equal-performing group members felt equally well before and
after having made this choice, F(1, 116) =0.02, p =.898, d = − 0.01 (see
Fig. 3b).
The second Repeated Measures ANOVA focused only on low-
performers, and included positive feelings over time (before vs. after
the choice to stay/leave) as the within-subjects factor, and choice
outcome (leaving vs. staying in the group) as the between-subjects
variable. The main effect of time on positive feelings was signicant,
(p <.001). The main effect of choice outcome and the Time ×Choice
Outcome interaction were not signicant (ps ≥.353). Results indicate
that people’s positive feelings were higher after leaving and staying in
the group. There were no predictions about the results of staying in the
group, but the data tted the preregistered prediction that leaving the
group would increase low-performers’ positive feelings, F(1, 58) =8.68,
p =.005, d = − 0.46.
4.2.2.3. Relief. Among low-performing participants, an independent t-
test indicated that participants who chose to leave the group felt
marginally more relieved (M =4.62, SD =1.70) than participants who
6
Exploratory cross-study analyses show that for low-performers the experi-
ence of being excluded by others (Study 2) is not characterized by lower need
fullment (M =3.09, SD =0.93) or less positive feelings (M =4.10, SD =1.18)
than the experience of being part of the group as an underperformer (Study 3,
M =3.32, SD =0.86, t(97) = − 1.27, p =.209, d = − 0.26, and M =4.06, SD =
1.02, t(97) =0.18, p =.858, d =0.04, respectively). Moreover, results indicate
that for low-performers being excluded by others (Study 2) leads to lower need
fullment (M =3.09, SD =0.93) than choosing to leave the group (Study 3, M
=3.89, SD =1.07, t(63) = − 3.20, p =.002, d = − 0.80), but not to less positive
feelings (M =4.10, SD =1.18, after being excluded in Study 2, vs. M =4.40,
SD =1.03, after leaving in Study 3, t(63) = − 1.06, p =.295, d = − 0.27).
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
9
chose to stay in the group (M =3.85, SD =1.40), t(58) =1.91, p =.061,
d =0.49.
4.3. Discussion
Study 3 demonstrated that low-performers vs. equal-performers were
relatively likely to choose to leave the group. Compared to equal-
performing group members, low-performing group members felt dis-
tressed, and had less positive feelings and lower need fullment when
they were initially part of the group. Notably, there was a main effect of
the decision low-performing participants made, which indicated that
any decision (staying as well as leaving the group) improved their
feelings and need fullment. It is noteworthy that this main effect of
improved need fullment and feelings in part was driven by participants
who ended up apart from the group. Furthermore, our results indicated
that participants who chose to leave the group were marginally more
relieved than those who chose to remain in the group.
5. Study 4
Study 3 showed that when participants chose to leave the group, this
improved their need fullment and feelings, relative to when they were
still part of the group. However, people who chose to remain part of the
group also felt better after making this choice. This leaves open the
possibility that being able to choose drove the positive effects of leaving
and staying in the group alike – for example because having agency over
such a decision could be empowering (see Chua & Iyengar, 2006). In
Study 4, we put this possibility to the test by making the outcome to
leave or stay in the group either a voluntary one, or a random one (i.e.,
by chance). The setup was that participants rst indicated whether they
would prefer to stay or leave. Then, participants either learned that the
outcome was made based on their preference, or by the computer. In the
latter condition the computer then “selected” the outcome that matched
the participants’ preference (i.e., if they had indicated a preference to
leave, they read that the computer determined they would leave; if they
had indicated a preference to stay the computer determined they would
stay).
First, we assessed experienced distress of underperforming, and
explored whether distress would be different for those expressing a
preference to leave their group than for those expressing a preference to
stay. Since this distress measure was taken before participants learned
that they could actually leave the group (by choice or by chance), we did
not expect an effect of the procedure. We mainly expected that the group
members preferring to leave would consider their underperformance as
more distressing than the members indicating a preference to stay.
Second, we tested our main hypothesis, that low-performing partici-
pants would experience improved feelings and need fullment after
leaving the group compared to before. We predicted that this would
occur regardless of whether participants would decide themselves about
leaving the group, or whether this decision was made for them.
Table 3
Positive feelings and Need fullment as a function of Time (T) ×performance (PF), including Repeated Measures ANOVA results and planned contrasts (Study 3).
Before After ANOVA Statistics
Low performance Equal performance Low performance Equal performance F(1,116) p
η
p
2
Positive feelings 4.06
a
(1.02) 5.64
b
(0.77) 4.51
c
(1.02) 5.65
b
(0.79) T 13.08 <.001 .10
PF 77.24 <.001 .40
T ×PF 11.80 .001 .09
Need fullment 3.32
a
(0.86) 4.84
b
(1.21) 3.86
c
(1.01) 4.89
b
(1.15) T 10.83 .001 .09
PF 52.93 <.001 .31
T ×PF 7.87 .006 .06
Note. Within rows, means with different superscripts differ signicantly (ps <.05 in planned contrasts analyses).
Table 4
Experiences of low-performing group members as a function of Time (T) ×Choice Outcome (CO), including Repeated Measures ANOVA results and planned contrasts
(Study 3).
Before After ANOVA Statistics
Staying in the group Leaving the group Staying in the group Leaving the group F(1,58) p
η
p
2
Positive feelings 4.18
a
(1.00) 3.92
a
(1.04) 4.59
b
(1.02) 4.40
b
(1.03) T 17.14 <.001 .23
CO 0.88 .353 .02
T ×CO 0.09 .768 .00
Need fullment 3.39
a
(0.92) 3.23
a
(0.78) 3.83
b
(0.98) 3.89
b
(1.07) T 14.29 <.001 .20
SE 0.07 .796 .00
T ×SE 0.53 .468 .01
Note. Within rows, means with different superscripts differ signicantly (ps <.05 in planned contrasts analyses).
Fig. 3. Need fullment and positive feelings as a function of Time ×Performance (Study 3).
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
10
Furthermore, we again tested whether for low-performers, leaving the
group would be more relieving than staying.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Participants and design
All hypotheses, measures, and analyses for this study were prereg-
istered at the OSF.
7
As preregistered, we aimed to collect data of 300
participants: If at least one in six participants chose the same preference
(to leave/stay in the group), this would sufce to detect interaction ef-
fects of
η
p
2
=0.05 (f =0.23) with a power of β =.80, at
α
=.05, (repeated
measures correlated at r >.10). In total, we gathered data of 299 par-
ticipants at the online Prolic network; 39 of which were removed from
the data set for not passing the attention checks. A sensitivity power
analyses suggested that with the remaining N =260 (185 female, 73
male, 2 “other”; mean age 33.51, SD =11.30), and measures over time
correlated at r ≥.53, this study could detect effects of
η
p
2
≥0.01 (f ≥.10),
with β =.80, at
α
=.05. The experiment was set up as a Three-way
Repeated Measures design, with decision (own choice vs. chance) and
outcome (leaving vs. staying in the group) as the between-subjects fac-
tors, and time (pre vs. post decision) as the within-subjects factor.
5.1.2. Procedure and materials
The study was set up similar to that of Study 3, with a few differ-
ences. First, the equal-performance condition was removed, so all par-
ticipants in this study underperformed at the dot-estimation task.
Second, to strengthen the manipulation of underperformance for this
online study, participants played two instead of one test-round of the
dot-estimation game, and received low scores after both rounds, while
their team members scored high. Also, the game explanation was
extended, and attention checks were added to lter out participants who
did not pay attention to the explanation of the dot-estimation game.
After receiving information about their poor performance, partici-
pants answered the same questions about distress (
α
=.91), need
fullment (
α
t1
=.79), and positive feelings (
α
t1
=.83), as in Study 3. The
third change compared to Study 3, was the decision factor that was
added to the design (the “own choice” vs. “chance” condition). Partici-
pants were rst asked to indicate their preference for leaving or staying
in the team for the nal round (“I would prefer (not) to be part of the
group that plays the nal round”). In the “own choice” decision condi-
tion, participants’ indicated preference determined whether they would
leave or stay in the group. In the “chance” condition, participants were
thanked for providing their preference, but told that regardless of this
preference, the computer would determine randomly whether they
would stay or leave the group. Unbeknownst to the participants, the
computer always determined the outcome that was in line with partic-
ipants’ indicated preference, in order to keep that aspect constant across
conditions. After answering the same question about relief as in Study 3,
and questions about need fullment (
α
t2
=.88) and positive feelings (
α
t2
=.88) for a second time. In addition, a manipulation check of the de-
cision condition was added. Participants read “I received information
that...” and indicated the correct response “the computer determined
whether I would remain part of the group or not”, or “I decided myself
whether I would remain part of the group or not”. Then, participants
were debriefed, thanked, and paid for their participation. The lottery
was held among all participants, three won £50.
5.2. Results
First, a preregistered exploratory analysis tested whether partici-
pants who preferred to leave the group had felt more distressed while
they were part of the group than participants who preferred to stay in
the group. Then, we tested the most important hypothesis, that
participants who left the group would feel better after leaving than
before. We expected this to occur, regardless of whether participants
made the choice to stay or leave themselves, or whether the computer
determined this by chance. We also tested if participants who left the
group felt more relieved than participants who stayed in the group.
5.2.1. Preference to leave or stay in the group
Before the main analyses, we rst checked the distribution of par-
ticipants who left vs. stayed in the group. A chi-square test indicated that
60% of the participants preferred to leave the group, and 40% preferred
to remain – there were no differences in these percentages between
participants who were assigned to either decision condition (own choice
vs. chance),
χ
2
=(1, N =260) =0.02, p =.900, φ = − 0.01.
5.2.1.1. Distress. An exploratory Two-way ANOVA was performed with
decision (own choice vs. chance) and outcome (leaving vs. staying in the
group) as factors, and participants’ distress while they were initially part
of the group as the dependent variable. This tested whether participants’
distress while they were part of the group, was related to their later
preference to leave or stay in the group (see Table 5). The signicant
main effect of Outcome supports our hypothesis that participants with a
preference to leave felt more distressed than participants with a pref-
erence to stay in their group.
Unrelated to our hypothesis, the signicant main effect of decision
showed that participants in the “chance” condition had felt more dis-
tressed while they were part of the group, than participants in the “own
choice” condition. The marginal Decision ×Outcome interaction (p =
.069), showed that this initial difference between the chance vs. own
choice condition was observed among those who preferred to remain in
the group, F(1, 256) =7.29, p =.007, d = − 0.09, but not among those
who preferred to leave, F(1, 256) =0.17, p =.678, d = − 0.57. Because
assignment to either decision condition happened randomly, and only
after participants had indicated how distressed they felt, we regard these
effects as a coincidental difference in prior distress between the decision
conditions.
8
5.2.1.2. Need fullment and positive feelings. Two Repeated Measures
ANOVAs were performed, with time (pre vs. post the decision to leave/
stay in the group) as the within-subjects factor, decision (own choice vs.
chance) and outcome (leaving vs. staying in the group) as the between-
subjects factors, one with need fullment and one with positive feelings
as the dependent variable. We tested the hypothesis that leaving the
group would improve participants’ need fullment and feelings over
time, regardless of whether they chose so themselves, or that a computer
determined this by chance. The statistics of all main and interaction
effects can be found in Table 6.
5.2.1.3. Need fullment. A signicant Time ×Outcome interaction
supported that, as predicted, people’s need fullment after leaving the
group was higher (M =2.82, SD =1.23) than before (M =2.57, SD =
0.94), F(1, 256) =8.04, p =.005, d =0.19. Additionally, participants
had higher need fullment after staying in the group (M =3.99, SD =
1.24), compared to before (M =2.96, SD =1.31), and this difference was
even greater than among those who left, F(1, 256) =84.61, p <.001, d
=0.81. The signicant Decision ×Outcome interaction demonstrated
that among people who left the group, their need fullment remained
unaffected of whether they decided to leave themselves, (M =2.65, SD
=1.96) or that a computer randomly determined this (M =2.73, SD =
2.03), F(1, 256) =0.23, p =.635, d = − 0.04. Among participants who
stayed in the group, whether this decision was made by them, or at
7
https://osf.io/vcs5x
8
To control for the inuence of the disbalance in distress between both de-
cision conditions, all following analyses were also performed with distress
included as a co-variate. These did not lead to different conclusions for any of
our hypotheses than the results reported in the manuscript.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
11
random, did affect their need fullment (M =3.68, SD =2.37 vs. M =
3.24 SD =2.51, respectively), F(1, 256) =4.96, p =.027, d =0.18 (see
Figs. 4a/b).
5.2.1.4. Positive feelings. The Time ×Outcome interaction was not
signicant. The Time ×Decision interaction demonstrated that when
participants decided for themselves, they felt better after leaving/stay-
ing in the group (M =3.77 SD =1.30) than before (M =3.17 SD =1.23),
F(1, 256) =35.35, p <.001, d =0.47. When the computer determined
whether they left or stayed in the team, the difference after (M =4.10
SD =1.44) vs. before (M =3.00 SD =1.13) was even more pronounced F
(1, 256) =96.77, p <.001, d =0.85. To be complete, we further describe
the marginally signicant Decision ×Outcome interaction, which
indicated that when participants left the group, they felt marginally
better when a computer randomly determined this (M =3.44, SD =
1.99), than if they decided this themselves (M =3.12, SD =1.99), F(1,
256) =3.85, p =.051, d =0.16. For participants who stayed in the
group, this difference was not close to signicance (M =3.80, SD =2.36
vs. M =3.93, SD =2.39, respectively), F(1, 256) =0.48, p =.488, d =
−0.05 (see Figs. 4c/d).
5.2.1.5. Relief. A Two-way ANOVA with decision and outcome as fac-
tors, was performed to test whether participants who left the group felt
more relieved than participants who stayed in the group (see Table 5).
The fully signicant main effect of outcome was in line with our hy-
pothesis, but we report the higher order Decision ×Outcome interaction
effect with p =.085. This effect suggests that participants felt more
relieved after leaving the group than after staying, F(1, 256) =13.81, p
<.001, d = − 0.51. However, this was not the case when they decided
this themselves F(1, 256) =1.95, p =.164, d = − 0.10. Our hypothesis
that participants would feel more relieved after leaving the group than
after staying, thus was only supported when participants did not make
the choice to leave or stay themselves.
Table 5
Relief and distress as a function of decision (D) ×outcome (O), including planned contrasts (Study 4).
Staying in the group Leaving the group ANOVA Statistics
Own choice Chance Own Choice Chance F(1,116) p
η
p
2
Distress 4.95
a
(0.86) 5.61
b
(1.40) 6.04
c
(1.07) 6.13
c
(0.92) D 25.39 <.001 .09
O 5.55 .019 .02
D ×O 3.35 .069 .01
Relief 4.00
a
(1.40) 4.14
a
(1.54) 4.38
a
(1.69) 5.21
b
(1.56) D 13.36 <.001 .05
O 5.99 .015 .02
D ×O 2.99 .085 .01
Note. Within rows, means with different superscripts differ signicantly (ps <.05 in planned contrasts analyses).
Table 6
Main and interaction effects of the three-way repeated measures ANOVA with
Time (T) as the within-subjects factor, and decision (D), and outcome (O) as
between-subjects factors.
Need fullment Positive feelings
F(1,256) p
η
p
2
F(1,256) p
η
p
2
T 79.57 <.001 .24 126.01 <.001 .33
D 2.03 .155 .01 0.09 .769 .00
O 35.69 <.001 .12 17.07 <.001 .06
T ×D 1.49 .224 .01 9.18 .003 .04
T ×O 28.46 <.001 .10 1.80 .181 .01
D ×O 4.11 .044 .02 2.87 .091 .01
T ×D ×O 1.36 .245 .01 1.78 .184 .01
Fig. 4. Need fullment and positive feelings as a function of Time ×Decision ×Outcome (Study 4).
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
12
5.3. Discussion
The data support our hypotheses. First, an exploratory analysis
indicated that people who preferred to leave the group had previously
felt more distressed about being part of the group, than people who
preferred to stay in the group. This suggests that participants’ choice to
leave the group was related to the higher distress they felt while they
underperformed in the group. Moreover, for people who preferred to
leave, leaving the group improved their need fullment and feelings,
and this occurred both when they chose to leave, and when this decision
was made for them. Although leaving the group clearly improved par-
ticipants’ need fullment and feelings compared to when they were part
of the group, a notable share of participants (40%) also preferred to stay
in the group. We did not specify hypotheses for this group, but the data
suggest that, in line with results from Study 3, staying in the group also
improved their feelings and need fullment. Overall, feelings and need
fullment were even higher among participants who stayed than among
participants who left the group. Our last hypothesis, that participants
would feel more relieved after leaving the group than after staying, was
supported in the case where the computer decided this for them, but not
when low-performers decided this themselves.
Study 4 thus rules out the possibility that people only feel better after
removing themselves from the group because being able to make this
choice empowered them. In fact, we showed that when people left the
group, they experienced equally improved need fullment when they
made this choice themselves, as when the computer did. Moreover, the
improvement in positive feelings and relief was even larger when the
computer removed them from the group, than when participants
decided this themselves.
6. General discussion
While theories on belonging and social exclusion generally highlight
the negative consequences of exclusion, the current research draws
attention to the fact that exclusion can nevertheless be a preferred
outcome for some group members, and that ending up apart from the
group can even be associated with positive consequences. For low-
performers, being part of the group is characterized by considerable
feelings of distress. Being included by their group members is also less
positive for them than for equal-performers. Although being excluded by
their peers does come with negative feelings and threatened need
fullment, low-performers also experienced exclusion as relatively
relieving and preferable. This article even demonstrated that while no
equal-performing group members chose to leave the group, a substantial
number of low-performers did choose to leave. Leaving the group
improved low-performers’ feelings and need fullment relative to when
they were initially part of the group, regardless of whether leaving the
group was their own choice or this outcome was determined randomly
by a computer.
The nding that in Studies 3 and 4, between 40% and 57% of the
underperforming group members preferred to remain part of the group,
and that this choice also improved their feelings and need fullment,
suggests that for underperformers, both leaving and staying in the group
may have benets – perhaps for different reasons, for different sub-
groups of people.
9
The ndings of Study 4 suggested that especially
participants who had felt more distressed while they were under-
performing in the group, were more likely to choose to leave the group
later on. Crucially, what these ndings show is that, for some people,
ending up apart from the group is preferable. When underperformers are
excluded by others, they do not only feel negative, but also relatively
relieved, and when underperformers have the chance, they choose to
leave the group, which restores their feelings and need fullment. Our
research shows that ending up apart from a group can also restore need
fullment and feelings. The context then may not only be able to
attenuate the negative impact of exclusion (Hartgerink et al., 2015), but
could also make the impact of ending up apart from the group decidedly
positive. This research thus shows how far the inuence of the context
can go in moderating this experience, and thereby stresses the impor-
tance of considering the context in which exclusion from a group occurs,
to understand how people respond to it (see Rudert & Greifeneder,
2016).
Attending to possible positive outcomes of exclusion is not to deny
that exclusion is generally hurtful, and typically more negative than
inclusion. In line with previous ndings (e.g., Williams, 2009), even
group members who felt negative for underperforming experienced less
relief, need fullment, and positive feelings after being excluded than
after being actively included by their peers (Studies 1 and 2). Never-
theless, the outcomes of these comparisons may in part also be driven by
the positive effects of being included by others (for a similar point, see
Dvir, Kelly, & Williams, 2019; Simard & Dandeneau, 2018). Instead of
comparing exclusion to actively being included by others, in Studies 3
and 4, ending up apart from the group was compared to the, arguably
more neutral, baseline state of being part of the group. Results showed
that ending up apart from the group by their own choice, or by chance,
improved low-performing group members’ state compared to their state
while they were part of the group.
It is important to note, however, that leaving the group by one’s own
choice or by chance, as in Studies 3 and 4, may also be different than
being removed from the group by one’s peers (as in Studies 1 and 2).
Voluntarily leaving the group may be less harmful than being excluded
by others. Exploratory cross-study analyses on the data of Studies 2 and
3 (see footnote 6) did suggest that when people were excluded by their
peers (Study 2), they reported lower need fullment than when they
voluntarily chose to leave the group (Study 3), but no differences in
positive feelings were found. Future research could look further into the
possible differences in impact between choosing to leave the group and
being excluded by one’s peers. Possibly, the choice to leave the group
could give people more control over the situation, and this sense of
control can serve as a buffer against possible negative effects of leaving
one’s group (see Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009).
Interestingly, if exclusion by others is indeed more hurtful than
choosing to leave the group, one of the motives that people may have to
remove themselves from the group, could be to avoid the impact of being
excluded by others. Furthermore, underperformers may choose to leave
to improve their chances of being re-included in the group in future
situations in which performance is less relevant: Groups may maintain a
more favorable image of underperformers who did vs. did not sacrice
their state of inclusion to protect group performance, and hence be more
likely to include them in the future. This may be especially relevant in
situations where people perform different types of activities with the
same group (and hence quitting the activity is not the same as quitting
the group). In that context, it is important to repeat that the current
research has looked specically at how people respond to ending up
apart from the group when they underperformed at a task that was focal
to the group. For other groups (e.g., a group of friends, as opposed to a
sports team) task-performance may be less important, and results may
differ. However, just as group members’ lack of skill can hold back a
task-focused group, members could feel that they are holding back a
social group from performing its core social activities for other reasons
(e.g., their lack of money, dietary restrictions, or some physical
disability). Future research can see if in such situations, being part of the
group also leads to lower need fullment and feelings, and whether
quitting the activity and/or the group may become preferable and
benecial.
Besides the performance element that was focal for the groups in our
studies, another important aspect of the groups that were researched in
9
An exploratory analysis (see Supplemental Material) on the distress item
that measured guilt, suggested that participants who left (vs. stayed in the
group) were participants with elevated levels of guilt while underperforming in
the group.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
13
this article, was that they were newly formed for the purpose of the task.
This resembles those real-life examples in which people meet with their
group for the rst time, and have a clear performance goal. Such groups
are the standard in experimental research on social exclusion (see e.g.,
Williams & Nida, 2011), and these groups are meaningful to people at
least to the extent that exclusion consistently impairs their feelings and
need fullment (Williams, 2007) – as was also the case in the current
studies. It is interesting to consider whether the effects of under-
performing that are documented in this study, would be similar for
people who have a longer history with their group, and consider the
group more important. On one hand, underperformers could be more
unwilling to leave such important groups, and prefer inclusion regard-
less of their performance. On the other hand, underperforming could be
experienced as more distressing, the more important people consider the
group that they are holding back, which could make the option to leave
more preferable and positive. Future research can establish exactly how
underperformers may experience inclusion and exclusion from groups
with which they share a longer history, that may be experienced as more
important.
We have demonstrated that underperforming in a group evokes
feelings of distress. That people experience distress helps to understand
why inclusion feels less good, and ending up apart from the group be-
comes preferable and even benecial. However, besides this personally
aversive experience, more social motives may also contribute to these
outcomes. That participants were concerned with the group’s outcome,
even after they were excluded (Study 2), indicates that minimizing their
impact on the group may have been an important motive for them. This
social motive may in part be driven by guilt, as the guilt that people
experience when their actions negatively impact others, has often been
described to serve as a drive for people to reduce or repair the harm they
have done to others (Baumeister et al., 1994; Cosmides & Tooby, 2013;
Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2018; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007).
Future studies could look into the effect of guilt on the evaluation of
ending up included or excluded from the group, and focus on dis-
tinguishing it from other possibly relevant emotions like shame, jeal-
ousy, and revenge.
It must be noted that besides the immediate distress and social mo-
tives, people may also be less positive about inclusion, and prefer
exclusion when they underperform, because they can expect to earn less
from being part of the group. Their low performance may not only
reduce the total group outcome – but also their own share. In line with
this, in Studies 2 through 4, low-performing participants had a lower
expected outcome than equal-performing participants, as their under-
performance lowered their group’s chances of winning a cash prize. Still,
low-performing participants preferred and chose to leave the group,
although this further reduced their own chance of winning a cash prize
to zero – indicating that participants did not only consider their personal
economic outcome. Presumably, both the experience of negative feel-
ings while part of the group, and social motives contributed to making it
more preferable for low-performing group members to end up apart
from the group, while their low expected outcome made the alternative
of staying in the group less attractive. When, by contrast, individual
outcomes of being part of a group become increasingly high, at some
point these outcomes may start to outweigh the downside of distress that
low-performers experience when they are part of a group.
In this research, we have shown that ending up apart from the group
can be a preferable outcome for underperforming group members. This
preference was demonstrated in a situation with a strong push-factor:
people felt distressed for underperforming in the group. This idea that
ending up apart from the group can be preferable, is a novel contribution
to the social exclusion literature, but corresponds with literature on the
positive effects of solitude. In that literature, freedom from social pres-
sure has also been identied as one of the push-factors that motivates
people to enjoy time alone (Long & Averill, 2003). This literature shows
that solitude can also be experienced as positive because it promotes
creativity, intimacy (i.e., an intimate connection to the self), and
spirituality (Burger, 1995; Long & Averill, 2003). Future research can
test if people may also seek to leave groups when they experience these
or similar pull-factors.
This research contributes to a growing literature that stresses the
importance of considering the context in which inclusion and exclusion
occur, to understand fully how people experience it. Specically, it
demonstrates that people’s performance in the group is an important
factor that inuences their experiences of inclusion and exclusion.
Compared to equal-performing group members, low-performing group
members feel distressed, inclusion becomes less positive, and exclusion,
although still harmful, becomes more preferred. Moreover, under-
performance can even motivate people to leave the group, and this can
restore their need fullment and positive feelings. We conclude that the
spectrum of experiences that people can have as a result of ending up
apart from the group, is broader than the negative experiences typically
considered in the literature.
Open practices
Preregistration for Study 2: https://osf.io/5t6gu
Preregistration for Study 3: https://osf.io/gecxz
Preregistration for Study 4: https://osf.io/vcs5x
Author note
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104158.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong – Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt – An interpersonal
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.115.2.243.
Broekman, A. V., Koudenburg, N., Gordijn, E. H., Krans, K. L. S., & Postmes, T. (2019).
The impact of art: Exploring the social-psychological pathways that connect
audiences to live performances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116,
942–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000159.
Burger, J. M. (1995). Individual differences in preferences for solitude. Journal of
Research in Personality, 29, 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005.
Carter-Sowell, A. R., Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Law, A. T., Chen, Z.,
Kosasih, M. W., … Williams, K. D. (2010). Strides for belonging trump strides for
superiority: Effects of being ostracized for being superior or inferior to the others.
The Journal of Individual Psychology, 66, 68–92.
Chua, R. Y. J., & Iyengar, S. S. (2006). Empowerment through choice? A critical analysis
of the effects of choice in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27,
41–79.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on
cognition and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 201–229. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131628.
Doolaard, F. T., Lelieveld, G. J., Noordewier, M. K., van Beest, I., & van Dijk, E. (2020).
Get out or stay out: How the social exclusion process affects actors, but not targets.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 88. Article 103946.
Dvir, M., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Is inclusion a valid control for ostracism?
Journal of Social Psychology, 159, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.2018.1460301.
Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: Examining the shared neural
underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 421–434.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3231.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Softening the blow of social
exclusion: The responsive theory of social exclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01570 (Article 1570).
Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude
toward ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836–842.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036204.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 95 (2021) 104158
14
Gerber, J. P., & Wheeler, L. (2014). Clarifying the relationship between ostracism and
relational devaluation. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 14–27. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00224545.2013.826619.
Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even
by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186.
Greenaway, K. H., Jetten, J., Ellemers, N., & Van Bunderen, L. (2015). The dark side of
inclusion: Undesired acceptance increases aggression. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 18, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214536063.
Hartgerink, C. H. J., Van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal
effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS One, 10. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002.
Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control:
Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8721.2009.01649.x.
Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and
beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 39–52. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39.
Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A
developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84, 772–790. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12012.
LeRoy, A. S., Lu, Q., Zvolensky, M. J., Ramirez, J., & Fagundes, C. P. (2018). Anxiety
sensitivity moderates the painful effects of feeling burdensome to others. Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy, 47, 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16506073.2017.1357749.
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benets of being alone.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5914.00204.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202.
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2018). Reconsidering the differences between shame and
guilt. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14, 710–733. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.
v14i3.1564.
Ouwerkerk, J. W., Kerr, N. L., Gallucci, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2005). Avoiding the
social death penalty: Ostracism and cooperation in social dilemmas. In K. Williams,
J. Forgas, & W. Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection,
and bullying (pp. 321–332). New York: Psychology Press. doi.org/10.4324/978020
3942888.
Ren, D., Wesselmann, E., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to
ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 204–212.
Rudert, S. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2016). When it’s okay that I don’t play: Social norms
and the situated construal of social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 42, 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649606.
Sacco, D. F., & Bernstein, M. J. (2015). Social inclusion leads individuals to devalue
groups of perceived inferior quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
19, 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn000003520.
Simard, V., & Dandeneau, S. (2018). Revisiting the Cyberball inclusion condition:
Fortifying fundamental needs by making participants the target of specic inclusion.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jesp.2017.08.002.
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue: The
Ofcial Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 4–7. https://
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588.
Spoor, J., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The evolution of an ostracism detection system. In
J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. Von Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind:
Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 279–292). Psychology Press.
Steiner, I. D. (1927). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Syrjamaki, A. H., & Hietanen, J. K. (2019). The effects of social exclusion on processing
of social information - A cognitive psychology perspective. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 58, 730–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12299.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.56.091103.070145.
Tuscherer, T., Sacco, D. F., Wirth, J. H., Claypool, H. M., Hugenberg, K., &
Wesselmann, E. D. (2016). Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived
fairness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 280–293. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ejsp.2152.
Van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays,
ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928.
https://doi.org/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 Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 581–596.
Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Social life and social death: Inclusion,
ostracism, and rejection in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20,
693–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217708861.
Wesselmann, E. D., Williams, K. D., Ren, D., & Hales, A. H. (2014). Ostracism and
solitude. In R. J. Coplan, & J. C. Bowker (Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological
perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 224–241)
(Wiley-Blackwell).
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013).
When do we ostracize? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 108–115.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612443386.
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The
role of burden and deviation in ostracizing others. Journal of Social Psychology, 155,
483–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1060935.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601
(08)00406-1.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being
ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748.
Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0963721411402480.
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Cohen, T. R. (2014). “I’d only let you down”: Guilt proneness and the
avoidance of harmful interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
107, 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037523.
Wirth, J. H., Bernstein, M. J., & Leroy, A. S. (2015). Atimia: A new paradigm for
investigating how individuals feel when ostracizing others. Journal of Social
Psychology, 155, 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1060934.
F.T. Doolaard et al.
