1

Is social exclusion worse for women?

Dóra Lillik

Empirisch-Experimentelles Praktikum, Winter Semester 22/23

03.21.2023
2

Table of Contents

Introduction

Cyberball Paradigm 3
Differences between genders 3
Hypothesis 5

Method

Participants 5
Task and Design 5
EEG Recording 6

Results
NTQ Data 7
EEG Data 7

Discussion 8

References 9

Tables 11
3

Abstract

The article discusses the P300 component of the event-related potential (ERP) and its
association with attention, working memory, and decision-making. The authors hypothesize
that the experience of social exclusion would lead to stronger P3 amplitudes in females
compared to males, and that females would have a stronger need for belonging than males. A
sample of 49 healthy participants were recruited and conducted an EEG study using Cyberball
game to induce social exclusion. The results showed a significant difference in P3 amplitudes
between the control and experimental group, but no significant difference between males and
females. The need-threat questionnaire also did not reveal any significant differences between
genders.

Ostracism belongs to one of those experiences that probably no one wish to live
through; it is the social phenomenon of being excluded from a group. The experience of
exclusion has an overall negative affect on people.

Cyberball Paradigm

To operationalise and measure ostracism, Williams et al. (2000) introduced a

computer-based program, called Cyberball, that restores the experience of the event. The
participant of the study takes part in a ball-tossing game, where the two other players are
believed to be real co-players, although they are computer-generated characters. Throughout
the game, the amount of tosses the participants get is manipulated. From the first round, the
amount of tosses is decreased from 33% to 17% (from every third to every third toss). The
results speak for themselves: according to self-reports self-esteem, control, and meaningful
existence were significantly lower for the ones in the ostracism condition then for the ones
who had been included. According to the meta-analysis of Hartgerink (2015) Cyberball is the
best way to measure the experience of social exclusion, as the composition of the sample by
age, gender or country of origin, does not influence the effect size. The findings of the
Cyberball Paradigm is explained by the need-threat model (Williams, 2009). Ostracism
threats four fundamental needs: the need to belong, the need to maintain a reasonably high
selfesteem, the need to perceive control over one’s social environment and the need to feel
recognized for existing and being worthy of attention. The reduction of the satisfaction of the
4

four needs can be measured in laboratory condition. The impact of social threats on these
needs is typically measured on an established self-report scale, the Need–Threat
Questionnaire (Williams, 2009). The Need-Threat questionnaire is a self-report measure that
assesses the extent to which an individual perceives a situation as threatening and in need of
control. The questionnaire consists questions regards both personal needs (e.g., "How much
do you need to feel in control of the situation?") and situational threats (e.g., "How much do
you feel threatened by the situation?").

Differences between genders

The findings have shown so far that the reported negative affect has no difference
between the individuals when it comes to extraversion, social anxiety, secure attachment,
self-esteem, loneliness, individualism, or agreeableness (Williams, 2007). However, there are
some studies that suggest that there are some underlying differences in the reaction between
females and males, when they are exposed to social exclusion. Females tend to be more
receptive to the overall comprehension of the social cues (McClure et al. 2004). In the study
17 adults (8 woman) and 17 adolescents (8 girls) participated, where 32 adult faces were
shown them s (8 happy, 8 angry, 8 fearful, 8 neutral). In four blocks they had to rate the
hostility of the faces on a 1-5 scale, while they were scanned by MRI. They specially
observed the OFC, amygdala, and ACC, as these structures have already been identified to
take significant part to the attentive processing of faces that convey threat and other emotional
cues. Findings have shown that the activation of the OFC and amygdala was greater for adult
women than adult men, when angry faces (unambigous threat) followed neutral faces. In the
angry vs. fearful (ambigous threat) faces condition, the activation of the right OFC and left
amygdala was greater than men, as was the relative activation of right amygdala to angry
faces. Some studies suggest that while the right amygdala is responsible for early detection of
emotional cues, left amygdala executes more sustained evaluation of these clues (Wright,
2001).

In two studies, they observed the experience of social exclusion and the change of
hormonal level in saliva by gender, both with the help of the Cyberball Paradigm. In the first
study conducted by Weik et al. (2010), 32 female and 33 male students played Cyberball with
three other participants, grouped into one of the three conditions: social exclusion (they did
not receive the ball after three catches), technical default(the game went in the same pattern as
the social exclusion condition, but at the end of the game the participants received a message
that it happened because of a network problem) and social inclusion (the paricipant received
5

25% of the balls). After the Cyberball game, the participants had to hold a speech in front of a
TV camera that Every 15 minutes during the experiment, cortisol was sampled through saliva
from the participants, in order to observe the activation of HPA-axis that is the result of
psychosocial stress. Women, who where pre-exposed to social exclusion have shown a
blunted cortisol stress response to public speaking, while the cortisol level of socially
excluded men was between the technical default and social inclusion results. In the other
study, the amount of sex hormones, progesterone and testosterone were examined in the saliva
(Seidel et al., 2013). A testosterone decreasment was expected in the social exclusion
condition, as it is related to a loss in social status, while an increasment of progesterone. They
found that both genders testosterone levels decreased after social exclusion, but it only
increased after inclusion in males. In females progesterone increased after both manipulations,
but the increase was significantly stronger after exclusion.

Hypothesis

P300 or P3 is a positive component of the event-related potential (ERP) that is

commonly recorded in electroencephalography (EEG) studies (Polich, 2007) It typically
occurs around 300-500 ms after the presentation of a stimulus and is thought to reflect
processes related to attention, working memory, and decision-making. The P3 effects
observed in Cyberball studies after exclusion appear to be linked to changes in social
participation and personal control. Through a set of experiments, the change in P3 amplitude
was consistently linked with the processing of transitioning into exclusion in the Cyberball
game. (Weschke, 2015)

In line with the previous research, we suggest examining the differences of the experience of
the social exclusion between females and males. We expect a significantly stronger P3
amplitudes observed for female than male participants. We expect that the need for belonging
will be significantly stronger for female than male participants.

Method

Participants:

A sample of 49 healthy participants was recruited at the FU Berlin and included

students from different faculties. The participants were grouped into three conditions, but as
6

our hypothesis does not deal with the third condition, we do not discuss its details. In the first
condition (experimental), 25 participants have participated (13 females; 18–36 years; Mage =
24.36 years, SDage = 4.906 years; all right-handed except 4). In the second condition (control
group), 24 participants have participated (17 females; 18–39 years; Mage = 24.375 years,
SDage = 4.412 years; all right-handed except 3).

Task and Design

The participants first had to complete a survey on their imaginary ability. After being
prepared for the EEG testing they were lead into the testing room, where the Cyberball game
was ran. After the learning period, the participants were grouped into two conditons, both of
them had two blocks. The experimental group was defined by equivalent ball reception
probability for three players (33% each, i.e., the participant and two co-players received the
ball) in both blocks. The control group experienced exclusion in the first block (the participant
received only 17% of the balls). Following this, they were included in the second block (33%
reception). After the Cyberball game, both groups had to complete the Need-Threat
Questionnaire (Williams, 2009). At the end of the experiment, participants were informed
about the real purpose of the study and signed informed consent again.

EEG Recording

In our research we used EEG testing and Electroencephalogram (EEG) testing that is a
non-invasive diagnostic procedure that involves the recording of electrical activity in the
brain. As the first step, we prepared the participants by ensuring that any metallic objects were
removed from their hair or clothing. We also made sure that the scalp was clean, and the hair
was clean in order to maximize the amount of signal detected by the electrodes. Next, we
mearured the head and put the EasyCap on the participants head, then we placed the eight
active Ag/AgCl electrodes on the scalp according to the international 10/20 system, checked
each channel's impedance to ensure that the electrodes were properly placed. The used
electrodes were: AFz, Fz, F3, F4, Cz, Pz, P7, P8. EEG electrodes were kept below 10 kΩ ,
EOGs were kept under 20 kΩ per electrode, references were kept below 50 kΩ . We also
cleaned the scalp with alcohol and added conductive gel (Abralyt HiCL) to the places of the
electrodes. Following this, we set up the equipment and ran the software to start recording
EEG data. We monitored the data in real-time to make it sure that the signal quality was good.
After the EEG data was acquired, we performed data analysis by removing any artifacts,
filtering the data, and using techniques such as frequency analysis, time-frequency analysis,
7

and specific brain wave analysis to examine changes in brain activity through the time of the
research.

Results:

To test our hypothesis, we utilized the statistical program JASP.

NTQ Data

To compare the results of the female and male participants we conducted a 2x2
ANOVA with group and gender as the independent variables and NTQ score as the dependent
variable. The ANOVA did not reveal a significant difference between genders. There was no
significant main effect of groups (F(1)=3.929, p = 0.054.). There was no significant main
effect of the gender (F(1)=0.778, p=0.383).  There was no significant interaction between
groups and gender (F(1)=1.688, p=0.200). (Fig.1.)

However, we found a significant difference between the two groups in regards to the
variable need for belonging, where Group 1 (control group) is greater than Group 2, which
means that Group 2 felt more threatened than Group 1.

EEG Data

To compare our EEG Data, we conducted a mixed-design Repeated Measures

ANOVA. Our research included a within-subjects factor Blocks (level: Block 1 and Block 2)
and the between-subjects factor of Group (control group and experimental group), and Gender
as a covariate in the analysis. There was a significant main effect of the Block (F(1)=10.023, p
= 0.003). There was a significant interaction between Blocks and groups (F(1)=8.826, p=0.05)
(Fig.5). There was no significant interaction between Block and gender (F(1)=0.125,
p=0.726). (Fig.3)

Using a Post Hoc test we observed that there is a significant difference between Blocks
Group 1 (control group) and Group 2 (experimental group) has a significant difference in
Block 1 and Block 2 (MD=1.443, p<.001). As the t-value is positive, Block 1 is higher than
Block two. (Fig.3). Using Post Hoc test, we also examined the interaction between Blocks and
Groups. We found that Group 2 (experiment group) has a significantly bigger P3 amplitude
then Group 1 (control group) in Block 1 (MD=t=-3994, p<.001). Group 2 in Block 1 had also
a significant difference from Group 1 in Block 2 (MD=2.751, t=4934, p<.001). And Group 2
8

in Block 1 had a significant difference from Block 2 condition (MD=2.375, t=5231, p<.001).
Fig.4)

Discussion

The research aimed to examine gender differences in the experience of social

exclusion and its effect on the P3 component of the event-related potential. 49 healthy
participants were recruited from the FU Berlin. The participants completed a survey on their
imaginary ability and then underwent EEG testing while playing the Cyberball game. The
participants were grouped into two conditions, the experimental group, and the control group,
based on the reception probability of the ball. The study utilized a mixed-design Repeated
Measures ANOVA to analyze the EEG data and a 2x2 ANOVA to compare the NTQ scores
between genders.

The results of the study showed no significant differences between genders in the experience
of social exclusion, as measured by the NTQ scores. However, there was a significant
difference between the two groups in the variable belonging, where the control group reported
a amaller need for belonging than the experimental group. In terms of the EEG data, there was
a significant main effect of the block, indicating that there was a change in the P3 component
of the ERP over time. There was also a significant interaction between blocks and groups,
indicating that the effect of social exclusion on the P3 component differed between the two
groups. Overall, the study found evidence for the effect of social exclusion on the P3
component of the ERP and its interaction with the group.

However, we would like to suggest a limitation of this study. The design of the study
was not actually made for the research question, as we used data from a research, where the
interaction of the social exclusion and loss of control is observed. We suggest follow-up
researches in the topic as the researches mentioned above have proved differences in gender
in the question of social exclusion. It is crucial to understand the underlying mechanism of
gender-specific differences, since as it can have long-term health risks.
 9

References:
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(5),
e0127002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002
McClure, E. B., Monk, C. S., Nelson, E. E., Zarahn, E., Leibenluft, E., Bilder, R. M.,
Charney, D. S., Ernst, M., & Pine, D. S. (2004). A developmental examination of gender
differences in brain engagement during evaluation of threat. Biological Psychiatry, 55(11),
1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.02.013
Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical
Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128–2148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019

Saito, M., Kondo, N., Kondo, K., Ojima, T., & Hirai, H. (2012). Gender differences on the
impacts of social exclusion on mortality among older Japanese: AGES cohort study. Social
Science & Medicine, 75(5), 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.006

Seidel, E. M., Silani, G., Metzler, H., Thaler, H., Lamm, C., Gur, R. C., Kryspin-Exner, I.,
Habel, U., & Derntl, B. (2013). The impact of social exclusion vs. Inclusion on subjective and
hormonal reactions in females and males. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(12), 2925–2932.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.07.021

Weik, U., Maroof, P., Zöller, C., & Deinzer, R. (2010). Pre-experience of social exclusion
suppresses cortisol response to psychosocial stress in women but not in men. Hormones and
Behavior, 58(5), 891–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.018
Weschke, S., & Niedeggen, M. (2015). ERP effects and perceived exclusion in the Cyberball
paradigm: Correlates of expectancy violation? Brain Research, 1624, 265–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.038
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(5), 748–762.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on
interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765
Williams, K. D. (2009). Chapter 6 Ostracism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
(Vol. 41, o. 275–314). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1
10

Wright, C. I., Fischer, H., Whalen, P. J., McInerney, S. C., Shin, L. M., & Rauch, S. L.
(2001). Differential prefrontal cortex and amygdala habituation to repeatedly presented
emotional stimuli: Neuroreport, 12(2), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-
200102120-00039

Tables
11

Figure 1. Need for belonging according to groups and gender. Group reflects control and
experimental group. Sex reflects females and males
12

Figure 2. Differences of the groups in the need for belonging. M_belong is the variable for
need for belonging.
13

Figure 3. Differences between Blocks. Block 1 is the first condition, where Group 1
experienced exclusion, - Block 2 is where both groups experienced inclusion.
14

Figure 4. Post Hoc Comparison on the interaction of the Blocks and Groups. 1 means
control group here, 2 is experimental group.
15

Figure 5. Interaction between Blocks and Groups.