Neurophysiological and Psychological Consequences of Social Exclusion: The Effects of Cueing In-Group and Out-Group Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclusion by outgroups is often attributed to external factors such as prejudice. Recently, event-related potential studies have demonstrated that subtle cues influence expectations of exclusion, altering the P3b response to inclusion or exclusion. We investigated whether a visual difference between participants and interaction partners could activate expectations of exclusion, indexed by P3b activity, and whether this difference would influence psychological responses to inclusion and exclusion. Participants played a ball-tossing game with two computer-controlled coplayers who were believed to be real. One period involved fair play inclusion while the other involved partial exclusion. Avatars represented participants, with their color matching participant skin tone, and either matching or differing from the color of coplayer avatars. This created the impression that the participant was an ingroup or outgroup member. While ingroup members elicited enhanced P3b activation when receiving the ball during exclusion, outgroup members showed this pattern for both inclusion and exclusion, suggesting that they formed robust a-priori expectations of exclusion. Self-reports indicated that while these expectations were psychologically protective during exclusion, they were detrimental during inclusion. Ultimately, this study reveals that expectations of exclusion can be formed purely based on visual group differences, regardless of the actual minority or majority status of individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".