2018
DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12294
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decision‐makers are resilient in the face of social exclusion

Abstract: A growing body of evidence suggests that social exclusion impairs people's capacity for active deliberation and logical reasoning. Building on this finding and on the postulate from the dual-process theory that analytical thinking is essential in order to make good judgements and decisions, we hypothesized that social exclusion will alter judgement and choice behaviour. We tested this hypothesis in three experiments in which social exclusion was manipulated using the Cyberball paradigm, an online ball-tossing … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding, although notably diverged from the literature, is consistent with those of the original paper (Ren et al, 2016) and a recent failed replication of Maner et al (2007; Sunami et al, 2019b). One possible explanation for the mixed evidence is that ostracized participants may be motivated to establish new social connections, but may also feel reluctant to engage in cognitively demanding tasks (Baumeister et al, 2002 but see Juanchich et al, 2018) such as navigating a social interaction with novel partners. Another possible explanation is that participants’ interest in reconnecting with someone else, which was usually measured as the only option in past research (e.g., Maner et al, 2007), was measured alongside with other options in the current research and in Sunami et al (2019b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding, although notably diverged from the literature, is consistent with those of the original paper (Ren et al, 2016) and a recent failed replication of Maner et al (2007; Sunami et al, 2019b). One possible explanation for the mixed evidence is that ostracized participants may be motivated to establish new social connections, but may also feel reluctant to engage in cognitively demanding tasks (Baumeister et al, 2002 but see Juanchich et al, 2018) such as navigating a social interaction with novel partners. Another possible explanation is that participants’ interest in reconnecting with someone else, which was usually measured as the only option in past research (e.g., Maner et al, 2007), was measured alongside with other options in the current research and in Sunami et al (2019b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note that our recent results are inconsistent with the very notion that social exclusion leads to a detriment in "intelligent thought" in the context of judgment and decision-making tasks (cf. Juanchich et al, 2018). Excluded participants performed as well in the investment game as included participants, indicating that they were as capable as included participants of marshalling their cognitive resources to make their decisions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The participants' mood was measured with the short Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, 10 items; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1: Not at all to 5: Completely. Mood was computed by subtracting the average score for the five negative mood items from the average score for the five positive mood items (Juanchich, Walasek, & Sirota, 2018).…”
Section: Post Exclusion Survey and Checking Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…断和决策 (Juanchich et al, 2018)。多项研究发现社 会排斥可以影响风险决策, 导致被排斥的个体具 有更多的冒险行为 (Peake et al, 2013), 更高的风 险偏好 (徐四华, 王岑岑, 2019), 在风险决策任务 中表现出风险寻求 (Buelow & Wirth, 2017…”
Section: 们进行理性思考和逻辑推理 进而影响人们的判unclassified