j.chb.2017.10.012

Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Recovering from social exclusion: The interplay of subtle Facebook
reminders and collectivistic orientation
Judith Knausenberger*, Gerald Echterhoff
Department of Psychology, University of Münster, Fliednerstr. 21, 48149, Münster, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 28 October 2016
Received in revised form
29 June 2017
Accepted 10 October 2017
Available online 12 October 2017
The sense of being connected with others through Social Networking Sites (SNS) can counteract feelings
of loneliness. We examined whether subtle reminders of Facebook, the largest SNS, mitigate people's
responses to ostracism (i.e., being ignored and excluded), taking into account individual differences in
collectivistic orientation. We examined two typical responses to ostracism: interest in social contact
(Study 1) and the need to belong (Study 2). After being included or ostracized in Cyberball, a Facebook
(vs. Word) icon was displayed on the margin of a computer screen while participants focused on a
primary task. We found three-way interactions between icon presentation, ostracism, and participants'
horizontal collectivism. In the Facebook-icon (vs. Word-icon) condition, ostracized (vs. included) participants with higher (vs. lower) collectivistic orientation exhibited less compensatory interest in social
contact (Study 1) and a greater recovery of their need to belong (Study 2). A meta-analytical synthesis of
the effect sizes from the two studies suggests a significant, medium-sized effect of the moderation by
collectivistic orientation. The findings suggest that thoughts about being connected through SNS can
help people cope with threats to belonging, especially those who cherish relationships with equal others.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Facebook
Social networking sites
Ostracism
Belonging
Collectivism
1. Introduction
More than a billion people use Facebook daily, making it the
world's largest social networking site (Facebook, 2016). A common
reason to use Facebook is to connect with friends (Bonds-Raacke &
Raacke, 2010), and people can compensate feelings of loneliness by
actively using Facebook (Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch, 2011). We
reasoned that Facebook may help people cope with adverse social
experiences that threaten their sense of belonging (Chiou, Lee, &
Liao, 2015; Knausenberger, Hellmann, & Echterhoff, 2015). More
precisely, we hypothesized that reminding people of Facebook can
attenuate typical responses to ostracism, that is, interest in social
contact and the threat of the fundamental psychological need to
belong (Williams & Nida, 2011; Williams, 2009).
Ostracism (i.e., being ignored and excluded) is a common
adverse experience, which imperils fundamental needs (Williams,
2009). According to Williams' temporal need-threat model, ostracism thus threatens the need for self-esteem, meaningful existence,
control, and the need to belong. Responses to ostracism can occur at
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: judith.knausenberger@uni-muenster.de (J. Knausenberger).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.012
0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
either of three stages: an immediate, reflexive stage; a delayed,
reflective stage; and a resignation stage, which encompasses responses to long-term, repeated ostracism. Here we focus on the
reflexive and the reflective stage. Right after being ostracized, that
is, in the reflexive stage, victims experience an immediate painful
reaction. With the passage of time, that is, in the reflective stage,
victims can muster resources for coping with the exclusion experience, such as thoughts of existing friendships (McConnell, Brown,
Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011). To the extent that victims of
exclusion invoke such resources, the negative effects of ostracism
are attenuated. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis suggests that
attenuating factors, such as reminders of existing friendships, affect
fundamental needs to a greater extent at the reflective (vs. reflexive) stage (Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015).
During the reflective stage, targets of ostracism can replenish
their threatened needs mainly by exhibiting aggression (Leary,
Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006; Warburton, Williams, & Cairns,
2006) or reaffiliative behavior (Derfler-Rozin, Pillutla, & Thau,
2010; Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007; Warburton
et al., 2006). Aggression can restore the feeling of power and control, whereas reaffiliation can primarily restore the need to belong
(Williams & Nida, 2011). Compensatory reaffiliation becomes less
necessary when ostracized people recall existing social
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
connections. Common social connections are those with a closerelationship partner, family members, or friends (Kaplan et al.,
1988). Indeed, it has been found that rejected participants experienced a reduced threat to need fulfillment when they wrote about
their best friend (McConnell et al., 2011).
Nowadays, social connectedness can be experienced via Facebook (Grieve, Indian, Witteveen, Tolan, & Marrington, 2013), and
the Facebook icon has come to represent social networks of friends.
The icon is ubiquitous in today's digitalized world, for instance in
commercial ads, in contact information of professionals and companies, and on tablet and phone screens. Initial evidence suggests
that the impact of ostracism can be alleviated by the incidental or
subtle activation of thoughts about Facebook. Chiou et al. (2015)
found that participants who were primed with the briefly flashed
words “Facebook” and “Googleþ” (vs. control words) reported
lower social distress after ostracism. Furthermore, a study by
Knausenberger et al. (2015) suggests that subtle reminders of
Facebook may temper ostracized participants' compensatory interest in social contact restoration.
However, these studies provide limited evidence because they
did not assess a crucial process, that is, restoration of threatened
needs.1 Ostracism threatens the need to belong (Williams, 2009),
and a high need to belong increases affiliative behavior (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995). We argue that the presentation of a Facebook icon
should fulfill the need to belong, which leads to a reduced interest
in social contact. In our research, we assessed the need to belong to
examine whether Facebook reminders can help victims of ostracism restore this need.
Another purpose of our studies was to remedy the shortcomings
of previous research regarding control conditions. The study by
Chiou et al. (2015) lacked a standard control condition (i.e., inclusion), and the reminder manipulation by Knausenberger et al.
(2015) faced potential confounds (i.e., color effects). To examine
the Facebook-reminder hypothesis more rigorously, we included a
control condition for the icon presentation that eliminated these
possible confounds. In so doing, we could also check the robustness
of the initial findings by Knausenberger et al.
Furthermore, we wanted to examine the role of an individualdifference factor that is related to social connectedness with close
others, namely collectivism (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). Collectivism is
relevant to the present research because people scoring high (vs.
low) on collectivism are more likely to activate knowledge of social
relationships (Pfundmair, Aydin, Frey, & Echterhoff, 2014; Ren,
Wesselmann, & Williams, 2013). Consistent with this notion, a
recent study by Over and Uskul (2016) shows that children from an
interdependent (vs. independent) culture found it more likely that
an ostracized person would interact with a friend to cope with the
ostracism experience. We focused on the horizontal (vs. vertical)
type of collectivism. Whereas vertical collectivism reflects social
obligations from hierarchies and traditional roles, horizontal
collectivism encompasses interpersonal connectedness and cooperation among equals (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). Thus, the horizontal type of collectivism is more pertinent to the present
rationale. According to previous research (Pfundmair et al., 2014;
Ren et al., 2013), reminders of Facebook should more easily activate a sense of social connectedness in people with a greater (vs.
lower) collectivistic orientation. Put differently, a high (vs. low)
1
We note that Knowles et al. (2015, Study 3) examined need satisfaction as a
function of an adverse social experience (gaze aversion by an imagined interaction
partner) and exposure to photos of Facebook friends (vs. images of trees on Flickr).
However, the study authors did not assess the restoration of fundamental needs.
Also, the empirical evidence was inconclusive due to a small, non-significant effect,
and the manipulations are open to various alternative explanations (e.g., familiarity
of the stimuli or the presence of faces on the Facebook photos).
299
collectivistic orientation should allow ostracized people to profit to
a greater extent from Facebook reminders in coping with the
ostracism experience.
In this respect, we need to consider a potential caveat suggested
by cross-cultural research. It has been argued that people from a
collectivistic (vs. individualistic) culture perceive ostracism as less
threatening without the need for social reminders. Indeed, in the
absence of social reminders, participants from a collectivistic (vs.
individualistic) culture have been found to respond with less
negative emotions (Pfundmair, Graupmann, Frey, & Aydin, 2015b)
and less need threat (Pfundmair, Aydin, Du, Yeung, Frey, &
Graupmann, 2015a). Also, children from an interdependent (vs.
independent) culture experience less negative emotions after
ostracism (Over & Uskul, 2016). All of these findings were obtained
with cross-cultural comparisons.
However, there are reasons to suspect that individual differences in collectivism play a different role in a culturally homogeneous setting. Specifically, for people from a generally
individualistic culture a more (vs. less) collectivistic orientation per
se may not be sufficient to reduce the effects of ostracism. Thus, we
assume that within an individualistic culture, people with a relatively more collectivistic orientation still need to recruit additional
resources to cope with ostracism. Consistent with this view, a study
by Pfundmair et al. (2014), conducted with participants from Germany, found that a collectivistic orientation shielded against
negative ostracism effects only in conjunction with the administration of oxytocin, a neuropeptide that is known to mitigate social
distress. Germany is located at the individualistic end of a crosscultural comparison scale (Hofstede, 2001). Consistent with our
rationale, Pfundmair et al. found that responses to ostracism were
less negative in participants with a horizontal collectivistic (vs.
individualistic) orientation only under oxytocin (vs. placebo).
Similar to Pfundmair et al. (2014), we examined the influence of
individual differences in horizontal collectivism with participants
from the same, individualistic culture, that is, Germany. The above
considerations suggest that reminders of one's social connectedness facilitate the activation of resources for coping with ostracism
to a greater extent among participants with a higher (vs. lower)
collectivistic orientation. We thus predicted that the subtle presentation of the Facebook (vs. a control) icon is more likely to
mitigate responses to ostracism in participants with a greater (vs.
lower) collectivistic orientation. Two typical responses to ostracism
were assessed: seeking new contact (Study 1), and the recovery of
need fulfillment from the reflexive (immediate) stage to the
reflective (delayed) stage (Study 2).
2. Study 1
The purpose of Study 1was to examine whether Facebook reminders mitigate interest in social contact after ostracism (vs. inclusion), especially in participants with a higher (vs. lower)
collectivistic orientation. We extended the experiment by
Knausenberger et al. (2015) in two important ways. First, we
included an established individual-difference measure of
individualism-collectivism (INDCOL, Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, &
Gelfand, 1995). We expected that the mitigating effect of Facebook reminders would be stronger for participants with a higher
(vs. lower) collectivistic orientation. Second, we eliminated a
possible confound in the experiment by Knausenberger et al. In this
earlier study, the control icon (Flash Player) was red, and exposure
to the color red may impact motivation and cognition (Tanaka &
Tokuno, 2011). Hence, we used an icon of the same color (Microsoft Word) as the Facebook icon.
300
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and design
The study was based on a 2 (Cyberball experience: ostracism vs.
inclusion) x 2 (Icon presentation: Facebook vs. Word) betweenparticipants design with horizontal collectivism as a continuous
moderator variable. Participants were randomly assigned to the
conditions. The main dependent variable was interest in social
contact. We report all measures, manipulations, and excluded
participant data.
We calculated the sample size needed to detect an effect size of
f2 ¼ 0.075 for the interaction effect of ostracism and icon presentation in a multiple regression model (based on the effect size
found by Knausenberger et al., 2015). For a power of 0.80, a of 0.05
and a two-tailed test, the optimal sample size is N ¼ 107 (calculated
with G*Power 3.1; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). To allow
sample shrinkage of about 10%, we collected data from 119 students
of a German university. We advertised the study in the local Psychology Department and in an e-mail newsletter circulated to all
students. There were no a priori selection criteria for participants
apart from being a student. After data collection, 13 participants
who reported not using Facebook were excluded from the analyses,
resulting in a final sample size of N ¼ 106 (52 male, 54 female;
mean age ¼ 23.59, SD ¼ 2.98). Facebook use was not defined as a
prior selection criterion because we did not want to prime Facebook use for all participants. Instead, Facebook use was probed at
the end of the study. Participants received course credit or 6V for
participation.
2.1.2. Procedure and materials
The study was ostensibly about mental visualization. After
arriving at the lab, participants first played Cyberball, an online ball
tossing game (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000), described as an
alleged training for mental visualization. Cyberball is a wellestablished procedure for manipulating ostracism. A recent metaanalysis found that Cyberball has robust and large effects on standard outcome measures such as need threat (Hartgerink et al.,
2015). Participants played Cyberball with two ostensible other
participants. Unbeknownst to the participants, the ball tosses of the
two co-players followed a pre-programmed pattern: In the ostracism condition, participants received the ball only twice at the
beginning of the game, and then no more. In the inclusion condition, participants received the ball in one third of 30 tosses.
Afterwards, the icon manipulation was administered by presenting either a Facebook or Microsoft Word icon in the left corner
of the computer screen while participants completed rating items
from two scales. These two scales were the horizontal subscale of
the Individualism and Collectivism Scale (INDCOL; Singelis et al.,
1995) and the Gießen-Test II, which assesses four personality
traits including social openness and social approach orientation
(Beckmann, Br€
ahler, & Richter, 2012). For the sake of parsimony,
vertical INDCOL items were omitted. INDCOL is an established and
validated questionnaire for the assessment of individualism and
collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). A key advantage of the icon
presentation on the margin of the computer screen is its high
ecological validity: Nowadays, people often encounter Facebook
icons in similar ways, for instance, on the screens of user devices or
in commercials. Also, a similar type of icon manipulation has been
successfully employed in the earlier study by Knausenberger et al.
(2015).
Next, participants completed a filler task on visual perspective
taking to support the plausibility of the ostensible topic and to
create an interval between the icon manipulation and the measurement of the dependent measures. Next, participants rated their
mood on two items (“Are you in a good or a bad mood right now?”
and “How is your mood at the moment?”, on 7-point scales from
1 ¼ very bad to 7 ¼ very good).
We then measured the dependent variable, interest in social
contact. Interest in social contact was operationalized as in
Knausenberger et al. (2015): Participants were told they could
receive tickets for a guided city tour, alone or together with two
friends. They were asked to rate how much they would like to win
the tickets and how important it was to them (on scales from
1 ¼ “not at all” to 7 ¼ “very much”). Additionally, they rated their
interest in participating in a new social network at the university on
four rating items (from 1 ¼ “not at all” to 7 ¼ “very much”). The six
items from both scales were sufficiently intercorrelated (Cronbach's a ¼ 0.84) and thus averaged to form an integrated score of
interest in social contact.
We then administered the Reflective Needs Questionnaire
(Williams, 2009) to assess the need to belong and three other
fundamental needs (self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence). The Reflective Needs Questionnaire is established as a valid
measure (Hartgerink et al., 2015).
Finally, participants answered manipulation checks regarding
the effectiveness of the Cyberball game and icon recognition.
Cyberball effectiveness was examined with two questions („To
what extent were you excluded by the participants during the
game?” and „What percentage of the tosses, do you think, were
thrown to you?“). Icon recognition was measured by asking participants whether they noticed an icon and if so whether it was a
Facebook, Word, Flash Player or Microsoft Excel icon. After participants had reported if they were Facebook users, they indicated the
extent to which they used Facebook to affiliate with friends (relational Facebook use; four items; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.72). They also
rated the importance of Facebook to its users and to themselves
(importance of Facebook, three items; Cronbach's a ¼ 0.60) and the
extent to which the Facebook and Word icons represent socioemotional needs (Cronbach's a ¼ 0.82 and 0.84 for Facebook and
Word, respectively). In the end, participants were probed for suspicion, debriefed, and compensated for their participation (for details, see SOM).
2.2. Results and discussion
2.2.1. Manipulation checks
Participants in the ostracism condition felt significantly more
excluded (M ¼ 4.10, SD ¼ 0.60) than did participants in the inclusion condition (M ¼ 2.28, SD ¼ 1.07), F(1,102) ¼ 113.62, p < 0.001,
h2p ¼ 0.53. Ostracized participants felt that they received a smaller
percentage of tosses (M ¼ 11.85, SD ¼ 12.79) than did included
participants (M ¼ 32.35, SD ¼ 12.03), F(1,102) ¼ 71.91, p < 0.001,
h2p ¼ 0.41. The main effects of icon presentation and the interactions
were non-significant, Fs < 1, ps > 0.352. Participants indicated that
the Facebook (M ¼ 2.78, SD ¼ 1.25) icon represented socioemotional needs to a greater extent than Word (M ¼ 1.28,
SD ¼ 0.58), t(105) ¼ 11.533, p < 0.001, d ¼ 1.52.
All four reflective needs were more threatened after ostracism
than inclusion, Fs (1,102) > 8.54, ps < 0.005 (see Table 1). Other
Table 1
Means (with standard deviations) for reflective need fulfillment as a function of
ostracism experience.
Need
Need
Need
Need
to belong
for control
for self-esteem
for meaningful existence
Ostracism
Inclusion
2.28
1.72
3.43
3.71
4.12
2.95
3.81
4.24
(0.77)
(0.42)
(0.71)
(0.90)
(0.84)
(0.89)
(0.64)
(0.57)
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
main effects of icon presentation and interaction effects were not
significant, Fs < 3.00, ps > 0.086.
2.2.2. Interest in social contact
The data depicted in Fig. 1 suggest that compensatory interest in
social contact after ostracism (vs. inclusion) was reduced by the
Facebook-icon presentation primarily in participants high on horizontal collectivism. For a statistical test of this effect, we conducted
a General Linear Model (GLM) analysis (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012)
to predict interest in social contact as a function of Cyberball
experience, icon presentation, horizontal collectivism, and the
respective interaction effects of the three variables. The analysis
revealed a significant three-way interaction between Cyberball
experience, icon presentation, and horizontal collectivism,
b ¼ 1.17, t(98) ¼ 2.30, p ¼ 0.024, f2 ¼ 0.048, 95% CI [-2.18; 0.16]
(Fig. 1). A significant Cyberball Experience x Icon Presentation
interaction emerged for participants high in horizontal collectivism
(M þ 1 SD), b ¼ 1.72, t(98) ¼ 2.73, p ¼ 0.008, f2 ¼ 0.069, 95% CI
[-2.98; 0.46]. In contrast, no such interaction was found for participants low (M e 1 SD) in horizontal collectivism, b ¼ 0.35,
t(98) ¼ 0.55, p ¼ 0.581, f2 ¼ 0.003, 95% CI [-0.92; 1.62]. There was no
moderating effect of horizontal individualism, t(98) ¼ 0.14,
p ¼ 0.886 (see SOM for an ANOVA without the moderator
variables).
2.2.3. Additional analyses
Forty-one percent of participants correctly recognized the presented icon. For interest in social contact, the four-way interaction
of correct icon identification, icon presentation, Cyberball experience, and horizontal collectivism was non-significant, t(90) ¼ 0.71,
p ¼ 0.477. Thus, there was no evidence that correct icon identification moderated the main finding reported above. Also, correct
icon identification had no main effect or other interaction effects on
interest in social contact, ts < 1.48, ps > 0.144. None of the four
scales from the Gießen-Test II (including social openness and social
approach orientation) had significant main or interaction effects on
301
interest in social contact, ts < 1.43, ps > 0.158. There was no significant main or interaction effect of participants' mood, ts < 1.85,
ps > 0.067, relational Facebook use, ts < 1.62, ps > 0.109, or Facebook
importance, ts < 1.17, ps > 0.245.
We also examined whether the moderation by horizontal
collectivism might be driven by differences in Facebook importance
and Facebook use between high and low collectivists. However,
horizontal collectivism was not significantly correlated with Facebook importance, r(104) ¼ -0.15, p ¼ 0.119, and relational Facebook
use, r(104) ¼ -0.11, p ¼ 0.248.
2.2.4. Discussion
In sum, we found a mitigating effect of Facebook reminders on
ostracismeinduced interest in social contact in participants with a
higher (vs. lower) collectivistic orientation. This finding replicates
the main result from Knausenberger et al. (2015) with an improved
procedure, which eliminated a possible confound with item color.
The observed effects did not depend on whether participants
recognized the icon presented on the margin of the computer
screen. Additional analyses revealed no evidence that the effect of
horizontal collectivism could be driven by social openness, social
approach orientation, the subjective importance of Facebook, or the
use of Facebook for affiliating with friends. However, to close an
important lacuna in the literature, it is imperative to demonstrate
effects on another outcome variable, that is, the restoration of the
belongingness needs after ostracism.
3. Study 2
We designed Study 2 to examine effects of subtle Facebook reminders on the restoration of the need to belong, a basic response
to ostracism. Investigating this outcome remedies a major shortcoming in previous research. According to extant research (e.g.,
Sheldon et al., 2011), Facebook use can increase the sense of social
connection. Thus, social networking sites are a means for fulfilling
the need to belong (Gangadharbatla, 2008).
Fig. 1. Interest in social contact as a function of icon presentation (Word vs. Facebook), Cyberball experience (ostracism vs. inclusion) and horizontal collectivism. Grey areas
represent 95% CIs, dark grey areas represent overlapping CIs.
302
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
To assess need recovery, we included measures at both the reflexive (immediate) stage and the reflective (delayed) stage. Study 1
did not include the reflexive-stage measure, and reflective needs
were measured only after the main dependent variable (interest in
social contact). Learning about a new opportunity for social contact
may fulfill the need to belong, which would prevent us from
detecting effects of icon presentation. Given the focus on need recovery, we thus omitted interest in social contact in Study 2. We
predicted that the presentation of the Facebook icon would facilitate recovery of the ostracism-induced need to belong, especially
among participants scoring high (vs. low) in horizontal
collectivism.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and design
The study was based on a 2 (Cyberball experience: ostracism vs.
inclusion) x 2 (Icon presentation: Facebook vs. Word) betweenparticipants design with horizontal collectivism as a continuous
moderator variable. Again, participants were randomly assigned to
the conditions. The main dependent variable was the restoration of
the need to belong. We report all measures, manipulations, and
excluded participant data.
Based on the same parameter values used for Study 1, the
optimal sample size was N ¼ 107 (calculated with G*Power 3.1, Faul
et al., 2009). Because more than 10% of participants in Study 1 did
not use Facebook, we allowed for sample shrinkage of up to 20%
and thus collected data from 128 students of a German university.
We advertised for the study as in Study 1 and again had no further
selection criteria apart from being a student. Eleven participants
did not use Facebook and were excluded from the analyses,
resulting in the final sample size of N ¼ 117 (33 male, 84 female;
mean age ¼ 23.22, SD ¼ 5.30). Participants received course credit or
6V for participation.
3.1.2. Procedure and materials
Procedure and Materials of Study 2 were similar to those of
Study 1 with the following exceptions: After the Cyberball game,
reflexive needs were measured using the Reflexive Needs Questionnaire by Williams (2009), a widely used and validated measure
for immediate responses to ostracism (see Hartgerink et al., 2015).
During the icon presentation, we administered the General Regulatory Focus Measure (GRFM; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002)
instead of the Gießen-Test II. After the filler task, we measured
reflective needs (again with the Reflective Needs Questionnaire,
Williams, 2009) instead of interest in social contact. To obtain a
score for need recovery, we subtracted the reflexive-need scores
from the reflective-need scores for each of the four fundamental
needs (i.e., need to belong, for self-esteem, for control, and for
meaningful existence). Larger positive differences between the
reflective and reflexive stage indicate greater need recovery from
the reflexive to the reflective stage. We could thus analyze the
experimental and moderator effects with a four-level dependent
variable measured at two time points (Judd, Kenny, & McClelland,
2001). To reduce participants' workload, we omitted Facebook
importance and mood, which had no moderating effects in Study 1.
3.2. Results and discussion
3.2.1. Manipulation checks
Participants in the ostracism condition felt significantly more
excluded (M ¼ 6.36, SD ¼ 0.69) than participants in the inclusion
condition, (M ¼ 3.33, SD ¼ 1.68), F(1,113) ¼ 165.37, p < 0.001,
h2p ¼ 0.59. Neither the main effect of icon presentation nor the
interaction reached significance. Also, ostracized (vs. included)
participants felt that they received a smaller percentage of tosses,
F(1,113) ¼ 286.59, p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.72. There was a main effect of
the icon presentation with participants in the Facebook (vs. Word)
condition reporting a higher percentage of received tosses,
F(1,113) ¼ 5.13, p ¼ 0.025, h2p ¼ 0.04. These main effects were
qualified by an interaction of Cyberball experience and icon presentation, F(1,113) ¼ 4.13, p ¼ 0.045, h2p ¼ 0.04, with included
participants reporting a higher number of received tosses after
seeing a Facebook icon (M ¼ 36.10, SD ¼ 11.70) than a Word icon
(M ¼ 29.90, SD ¼ 7.10), t(57) ¼ 46.16, p ¼ 0.018. Ostracized participants reported receiving a lower number of tosses both after
seeing a Facebook icon (M ¼ 8.83, SD ¼ 4.99) and a Word icon
(M ¼ 8.47, SD ¼ 5.58), t(58) ¼ 0.26, p ¼ 0.794.
3.2.2. Effects on fundamental needs
We conducted a GLM for repeated-measures data to predict
need recovery as a function of Cyberball experience, icon presentation, type of need (to belong, for self-esteem, for control, and for
meaningful existence), horizontal collectivism, and the interaction
effects of the four variables. Type of need was the repeatedmeasures factor. The GLM revealed a marginally significant fourway interaction between Cyberball experience, icon presentation,
type of need, and horizontal collectivism on need recovery
(reflective minus reflexive scores), F(3, 327) ¼ 2.58, p ¼ 0.054,
h2p ¼ 0.023. There were also significant main effects of Cyberball
experience and type of need on need recovery, F(1,109) ¼ 58.39,
p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.349, and F(3,327) ¼ 21.19, p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.163,
respectively. Additionally, there were significant interaction effects
of Cyberball experience and icon presentation, F(1,109) ¼ 3.97,
p ¼ 0.049, h2p ¼ 0.035, and Cyberball experience and type of need,
F(3,327) ¼ 8.34, p < 0.001, h2p ¼ 0.071.
To decompose the four-way interaction, we conducted GLM
analyses for the four fundamental needs separately, thus predicting
need recovery for each type of need as a function of Cyberball
experience, icon presentation, horizontal collectivism, and the
interaction effects of the three variables. Regarding the recovery of
the need to belong, there was a significant three-way interaction
between Cyberball experience, icon presentation, and horizontal
collectivism, b ¼ 1.23, t(109) ¼ 2.07, p ¼ 0.041, f2 ¼ 0.023, 95% CI
[0.05; 2.40] (Fig. 2). This result is an extended replication of the
three-way interaction found in Study 1. For people low in horizontal collectivism (M e 1 SD), no interaction effect of Cyberball
experience and icon presentation emerged, b ¼ 0.12, t(109) ¼ 0.22,
p ¼ 0.825, f2 < 0.001, 95% CI [-0.96; 1.20]. There was however, a
significant interaction effect for people high in horizontal collectivism (M þ1 SD), b ¼ 1.81, t(109) ¼ 3.41, p < 0.001, f2 ¼ 0.066, 95% CI
[0.76; 2.87]. Thus, recovery from ostracism was spurred by the
Facebook-icon presentation in participants higher on horizontal
collectivism. This finding demonstrates for the first time an effect of
Facebook reminders on the restoration of threatened needs. There
were also significant main effects of the three predictors and Icon
Presentation x Cyberball Experience and Icon Presentation x Horizontal Collectivism interactions. These results and the results of an
ANOVA without moderator variables are described in more detail in
the SOM.
Regarding the recovery of the three other needs, there were no
effects of the icon or interaction effects of the icon (for details, see
SOM). There was no moderating effect of horizontal individualism
for any of the needs, ts < 0.74, ps > 0.463.
3.2.3. Additional analyses
Forty-four percent of participants correctly identified the icon.
There was no four-way interaction effect of correct icon identification, icon presentation, ostracism and horizontal collectivism on
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
303
Fig. 2. Restoration of the need to belong (reflective e reflexive scores) as a function of icon presentation (Word vs. Facebook), Cyberball experience (ostracism vs. inclusion) and
horizontal collectivism. Grey areas represent 95% CIs with dark grey areas representing overlapping CIs.
the restoration of the need to belong, t(101) ¼ 1.68, p ¼ 0.097 (for
details, see SOM). There was no moderating effect of relational
Facebook use or regulatory focus in the main analysis, ts < 1.70, ps >
0.094. Horizontal collectivism was unrelated to relational Facebook
use, r(115) ¼ -0.05, p ¼ 0.612, prevention focus, r(115) ¼ 0.03,
p ¼ 0.734, and promotion focus, r(115) ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.116.
3.2.4. Discussion
In sum, after ostracized participants had been presented with
the subtle Facebook (vs. Word) icons, their need to belong recovered more from the reflexive to the reflective stage, especially in
participants scoring high (vs. low) in horizontal collectivism. This
result supports the hypothesis that the presentation of the Facebook icon facilitates recovery of the ostracism-induced need to
belong in conjunction with participants' higher (vs. lower) collectivistic orientation. Again, the effects did not depend on whether
participants recognized the previously presented icon. Additional
analyses revealed no evidence that the effect of horizontal collectivism was driven by individual differences in regulatory focus or
relational-affiliative use of Facebook. These data are consistent with
the notion that differences in collectivistic orientation rather than
the alternative individual differences are critical for the observed
moderation effect.
4. Meta-analytical estimation of moderation effects by
relational Facebook use and horizontal collectivism
We note that the moderation of the Cyberball Experience x Icon
Presentation interaction by relational Facebook use found by
Knausenberger et al. (2015) was not replicated in either of the two
present studies. We thus estimated the average effect size across
these three studies (Knausenberger et al., 2015; Study 1 and Study
2) with a meta-analytical procedure. The meta-analytical synthesis
was conducted with the tool Meta-Essentials (Van Rhee,
Suurmond, & Hak, 2015) based on the effect sizes for the threeway interaction between Cyberball experience, icon presentation,
and relational Facebook use. For the data input, we used the standardized regression coefficients b and calculated the meta-analysis
for partial correlation coefficients as suggested by Van Rhee et al.
The analysis revealed an average effect size of r ¼ 0.10, p ¼ 0.168,
95% CI [-0.21; 0.40]. These findings suggest the existence of a small
to non-existing effect of the moderation by relational Facebook use.
We also conducted an analogous meta-analytical synthesis for
the moderation effect by horizontal collectivism observed in Study
1 and Study 2. The analysis revealed an integrated effect size of
r ¼ 0.21, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.14; 0.27]. This integration of effect sizes
across the two studies thus suggests a medium moderation effect
by horizontal collectivism.
5. General discussion
Our studies demonstrate for the first time the interplay between
reminders of social connectedness via online networks, on the one
hand, and individual differences in collectivistic orientation, on the
other hand, in responses to adverse social events, specifically,
ostracism. It is reassuring that the three-way interaction between
ostracism, icon presentation, and horizontal collectivism found in
Study 1 was conceptually replicated in Study 2. It has been known
that Facebook is associated with feelings of connectedness
(Sheldon et al., 2011). Our studies suggest that the feelings of
connectedness evoked by Facebook can, in turn, influence reactions
to adverse social experiences, particularly in conjunction with a
collectivistic orientation. These findings resonate well with the
notion that interdependent people have more accessible social
resources that they can muster in the face of adverse social events
(Pfundmair et al., 2014; Ren et al., 2013). When presented with a
Facebook icon, participants with collectivistic orientation can more
easily activate thoughts of their Facebook connections and thus can
cope better with ostracism.
In Study 1, we replicated the key finding by Knausenberger et al.
(2015), which showed that a subtle reminder of Facebook can
attenuate interest in social contact after ostracism. Interest in social
304
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
contact and reaffiliation is a common compensatory response to
ostracism (Williams, 2009). Importantly, we also obtained evidence
regarding the underlying motivational processes. In Study 2, Facebook reminders led to a greater recovery of the need to belong that
is threatened by the previous experience of ostracism. The recovery
of this fundamental need is an indispensable element in social
exclusion research; moreover, it represents an important missing
link between our novel manipulation of Facebook reminders and
reduced reaffiliation attempts (shown in Study 1 and
Knausenberger et al., 2015).
Although the majority of participants did not recognize the icon
in subsequent probing, the presentation of the Facebook icon
affected responses to ostracism. Also, there was no evidence that
the pattern of results differed between participants who recognized
(vs. did not recognize) the icon. This finding, which is consistent
with the findings by Knausenberger et al. (2015), supports the
notion that even a subtle and incidentally perceived Facebook
reminder can attenuate the negative impact of ostracism.
We assessed variations of collectivistic orientation within the
same culture. Arguably, differences in initial responses to ostracism
might be stronger in cross-cultural comparisons, that is, comparisons of participants from an individualistic vs. a collectivistic culture (Pfundmair, Aydin, et al., 2015a; Pfundmair, Graupmann et al.,
2015b). We suspect that in a cross-cultural comparison, collectivism could mitigate the effects of ostracism without the need for
additional reminders of social connectedness. Still, it is possible
that Facebook reminders provide additional support for recovery
from ostracism in a more collectivistic (vs. individualistic) culture.
It would be exciting to see the present studies replicated with
cross-cultural variations in collectivism.
There was no evidence that factors other than horizontal
collectivism drove the observed moderation effects. Participants
with collectivistic orientation may have reacted differently because
they use Facebook to a greater extent to affiliate or because Facebook is more important to them. However, subjective Facebook
importance and Facebook use were uncorrelated with collectivism
and did not interact with icon presentation. Also, there were no
interaction effects involving social openness, social approach
orientation, mood, and regulatory focus in the main analyses.
Knausenberger et al. (2015) found that Facebook reminders
diminished interest in social contact after ostracism especially in
those participants who used Facebook to a greater extent for relational purposes (i.e., maintaining and strengthening friendships).
This moderation by relational Facebook use was not replicated in
Study 1. Also, relational Facebook use did not moderate the restoration of the need to belong in Study 2. As described above, our
meta-analysis for the moderation by relational Facebook use across
the three studies suggested a small to non-existent effect size.
Future studies would help increase the reliability of this estimate.
Previous studies suggest that effects of Facebook use on wellbeing depend on the type of Facebook use: Passive Facebook use
entails lower wellbeing (Verduyn et al., 2015), and active posting on
Facebook decreases loneliness (grobe Deters & Mehl, 2013). Thus,
active (vs. passive) Facebook use may be more likely to shield
against threats to the need to belong. However, there were no
measures in our study that would distinguish between passive and
active Facebook use. Future research should employ such measures
to assess the role of Facebook use in a more differentiated manner.
The need-threat model encompasses four fundamental needs
threatened by ostracism (i.e., the need to belong, control, selfesteem, and meaningful existence; Williams, 2009), and ostracism effects are often found on a combination of these four needs
(e.g. Knowles, Haycock, & Shaikh, 2015; McConnell et al., 2011;
Zadro, Williams, & Richardson, 2004). In our studies, Facebook
reminders affected the recovery of the need to belong, but they did
not affect the recovery of the other needs. This distinctive effect
supports our hypothesis that Facebook serves as a source of
belongingness and can therefore specifically restore the threatened
need to belong.
5.1. Conclusion
Previous research examining the link between Facebook use and
feelings of belongingness has been mostly correlational (e.g. BondsRaacke & Raacke, 2010; Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009). In our
studies, the activation of thoughts about Facebook were experimentally manipulated via subtle reminders of Facebook. Thus, our
study provides more direct and more valid evidence on causal effects of Facebook on feelings of belonging. We could demonstrate
that Facebook reminders trigger an increase in feelings of belonging
and a reduction of a typical reaction to ostracism, that is, interest in
social contact.
Beyond this scientific merit, the findings also have interesting
practical implications. Icons of social networks such as Facebook
have become omnipresent in our everyday lives, for instance, on
the screens of tablet computers and smart phone screens. Our results suggest that this omnipresence might have both positive and
negative consequences. On the one hand, icons of social networks
might serve as an easily accessible resource to cope with ostracism
and dispense with harmful compensatory reactions to ostracism
such as aggression (Leary et al., 2006). On the other hand, the
findings from Study 1 suggest that subtle reminders of Facebook
could diminish attempts to affiliate with other people who would
otherwise be motivated to do so. Thus, Facebook reminders could
also contribute to social withdrawal and isolation.
However, the results from Study 2 also showed that Facebook
reminders led to a greater recovery of the need to belong. This
novel finding suggests that Facebook can actually help people cope
with the experiences of social exclusion and rejection. Thus, Facebook may afford new opportunities for increasing people's sense of
belonging when they need it. We are confident that a better understanding of such Facebook effects can further advance a critical
and scientifically informed use of social online networks.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with
respect to the authorship or the publication of this article. This
research was conducted without support from a grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
We thank Elina Kisselenko and Verena Rettig for their contribution to this research and Michaela Pfundmair for her valuable
comments on the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.012.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497e529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.
€hler, E., & Richter, H.-E. (2012). Gt-II Der Gießen-test II. Bern: Huber.
Beckmann, D., Bra
Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2010). MySpace and Facebook: Identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences Research, 8, 27e33. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056.
J. Knausenberger, G. Echterhoff / Computers in Human Behavior 78 (2018) 298e305
Chiou, W.-B., Lee, C.-C., & Liao, D.-C. (2015). Facebook effects on social distress:
Priming with online social networking thoughts can alter the perceived distress
due to social exclusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 230e236. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.064.
Derfler-Rozin, R., Pillutla, M., & Thau, S. (2010). Social reconnection revisited: The
effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity, trust, and general risk-taking.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 140e150. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.005.
große Deters, F., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Does posting Facebook status updates increase or decrease loneliness? An online social networking experiment. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 579e586. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550612469233.
Facebook. (2016). Statistics. Retrieved from: http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info
(Accessed on April 27 2016).
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, 1149e1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Thousand Oaks CA:
Sage.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong,
and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration's attitudes toward
social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 5e15. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722138.
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-toface or Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online? Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(3), 604e609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.017.
Hartgerink, C. H., 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.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing
mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods,
6(2), 115e134. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.6.2.115.
Kaplan, G. A., Salonen, J. T., Cohen, R. D., Brand, R. J., Syme, S. L., & Puska, P. (1988).
Social connections and mortality from all causes and from cardiovascular disease: Prospective evidence from eastern Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology, 128(2), 370e380.
Knausenberger, J., Hellmann, J. H., & Echterhoff, G. (2015). When virtual contact is
all you need: Subtle reminders of Facebook preempt social-contact restoration
after exclusion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 279e284. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2035.
Knowles, M. L., Haycock, N., & Shaikh, I. (2015). Does Facebook magnify or mitigate
threats to belonging? Social Psychology, 46, 313e324. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1864-9335/a000246.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a
determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10(2), 111e132.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative
role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854e864. https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.83.4.854.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social
exclusion motivate withdrawal or reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine
problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42e55. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42.
McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011).
Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239e1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0024506.
Over, H., & Uskul, A. K. (2016). Culture moderates children's responses to ostracism
situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 710e724. https://
doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000050.
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we
305
think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin,
134, 311e342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. N. (2009). Being immersed in social networking
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(6), 729e733. https://doi.org/10.1089/
cpb.2009.0003.
Pfundmair, M., Aydin, N., Frey, D., & Echterhoff, G. (2014). The interplay of oxytocin
and collectivistic orientation shields against negative effects of ostracism.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 246e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jesp.2014.07.016.
Pfundmair, M., Aydin, N., Du, H., Yeung, S., Frey, D., & Graupmann, V. (2015a).
Exclude me if you can e cultural effects on the outcomes of social exclusion.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 46, 579e596. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022115571203.
Pfundmair, M., Graupmann, V., Frey, D., & Aydin, N. (2015b). The different behavioral
intentions of collectivists and individualists in response to social exclusion.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 363e378. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167214566186.
Ren, D., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Interdependent self-construal
moderates coping with (but not the initial pain of) ostracism. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 16, 320e326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12037.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use
and relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection
rewards it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 766e775. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0022407.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement refinement. Cross-cultural Research, 29, 240e275. https://doi.org/
10.1177/106939719502900302.
Tanaka, A., & Tokuno, Y. (2011). The effect of the color red on avoidance motivation.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(2), 287e289. https://
doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.287.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118e128.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). A theory of individualism and collectivism.
Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 498e520. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781446249222.n51.
Van Rhee, H. J., Suurmond, R., & Hak, T. (2015). User manual for meta-essentials:
Workbooks for meta-analysis (version 1.0). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of Management. Retrieved from:www.erim.eur.nl/
research-support/meta-essentials.
Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., … Kross, E. (2015).
Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and
longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2),
480e488. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057.
Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to
aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental
Social
Psychology,
42(2),
213e220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jesp.2005.03.005.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 279e314). NY: Academic
Press. 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,
748e762. 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, 71e75. https://doi.org/10.1177/
09637214114024800963721411402480.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism
by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control,
self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40(4), 560e567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.007.