Unmet Expectations: Social Inclusion and the Interaction Between Social Anxiety and Ambiguous or Positive Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The current study examines the effects of preferential inclusion on fulfilling fundamental needs after having received ambiguous or positive social feedback and investigates how social insecurity moderates this effect. Method. 438 participants (58.7% women, mean age 39) either received positive or ambiguous social feedback, then participated either in a social participation (Cyberball/control task) or a preferential social inclusion (Überball/experimental manipulation) task, then finally reported the fulfillment of their fundamental needs. Participants also completed a measure of social insecurity and other personality measures. Results. The two main results emerging from the current study are: (a) Überball—the preferential social inclusion condition—leads to higher fulfillment of fundamental needs than Cyberball; and (b) socially anxious individuals (those high in fear of negative evaluation) significantly benefit from preferential social inclusion (Überball) when receiving positive feedback but not when receiving ambiguous feedback. Conclusion. Overall, this research shows that Überball leads to higher fulfillment of fundamental needs than a social participation task like Cyberball Inclusion. This study is a valid and valuable condition to study the protective effects of social inclusion. It also suggests that socially insecure individuals benefit most from being preferentially socially included after receiving positive social feedback than simply being included.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".