Not all exclusions are created equal: effects of physical and social components of exclusion on well-being, prosocial, and antisocial behavioral intentions

Figures & data

Table 1. Contrast codes for testing hypothesis 1 to 3 in Study 1.

Contrasts		Experimental conditions
		Physical inclusion			Physical exclusion
		Social exclusion	Social neutral	Social inclusion	Social exclusion	Social neutral	Social inclusion
Hypothesis 1: Interaction effect of social and physical inclusionary status
C1	Social exclusion vs. No social exclusion	−2	1	1	−2	1	1
C2	Social neutral vs. Social inclusion	0	−1	1	0	−1	1
C3	Physical exclusion vs. Physical inclusion	1	1	1	−1	−1	−1
C4	Interaction C1 X C3	−2	1	1	2	−1	−1
C5	Interaction C2 X C3	0	−1	1	0	1	−1
Hypothesis 2: Mere social exclusion (physical inclusion/social exclusion) vs. Mere physical exclusion
C1	Mere social exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with neutral contact	−1	0	0	0	1	0
C2	Mere social exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion	−1	0	0	0	0	1
Hypothesis 3: Combined exclusion (physical exclusion/social exclusion) vs. mere physical exclusion
C1	Combined exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with neutral contact	0	0	0	−1	1	0
C2	Combined exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion	0	0	0	−1	0	1

Note: No social exclusion = Neutral social contact and social inclusion combined.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of dependent variables in study 1.

Variables	Experimental conditions
	Physical inclusion			Physical exclusion
	Social exclusion(n = 69)	Social neutral (n = 55)	Social inclusion (n = 58)	Social exclusion (n = 62)		Social neutral (n = 66)	Social inclusion (n = 67)
Mood	−0.25 (1.30)	2.00 (1.05)	2.10 (0.98)	−0.03 (1.46)		0.98 (1.27)	1.23 (1.23)
Need-threat	4.91 (1.39)	2.60 (1.16)	2.12 (1.00)	4.33 (1.53)		3.62 (1.30)	3.16 (1.36)
Loneliness	4.08 (1.36)	2.92 (1.09)	2.60 (0.95)	4.13 (1.37)		3.71 (1.21)	3.52 (1.29)
Prosocial intentions	4.34 (1.59)	5.04 (1.28)	5.34 (1.15)	4.33 (1.55)		4.34 (1.34)	4.83 (1.25)
Antisocial intentions	2.78 (1.76)	1.30 (0.67)	1.51 (0.78)	2.68 (1.60)		2.11 (1.18)	1.82 (1.20)

Note: For need-threat, loneliness, pro-, and antisocial intentions, higher values correspond to higher levels of the respective variable. Mood was calculated by subtracting aggregated negative from aggregated positive affect items, with higher positive values reflecting more positive and higher negative values reflecting more negative mood. Range of possible numeric values for dependent variables from minimum to maximum: Mood = −4 to + 4; Need-threat, loneliness, prosocial and antisocial intentions = 1 to 7.

Table 3. Set of planned contrast for probing the interaction effect of social and physical inclusionary status on well-being in study 1.

Contrast		Variable	β	t(371)	p	95% CI
Social status
C1	Social exclusion vs. No social exclusion (neutral/inclusion)
		Mood	.54	12.88	<.001	[0.46, 0.69]
		Need-threat	−.52	−12.28	<.001	[−0.70, −0.46]
		Loneliness	−.33	−6.89	<.001	[−0.42, −0.20]
C2	Social neutral vs. Social inclusion
		Mood	.05	1.11	.266	[−0.07, 0.24]
		Need-threat	−.12	−2.80	.016	[−0.44, −0.03]
		Loneliness	−.08	−1.63	.208	[−0.31, 0.05]
Physical status
C3	Physical exclusion vs. Physical inclusion
		Mood	.18	4.37	<.001	[0.14, 0.42]
		Need-threat	−.15	−3.65	<.001	[−0.38, −0.11]
		Loneliness	−.22	−4.62	<.001	[−0.45, −0.14]
Social status X Physical status
C4	Social exclusion vs. No social exclusion (C1) XPhysical status (C3)
		Mood	.18	4.34	<.001	[0.08, 0.31]
		Need-threat	−.24	−5.69	<.001	[−0.39, −0.14]
		Loneliness	−.14	−2.99	.012	[−0.24, −0.02]
C5	Social neutral vs. Social inclusion (C2) XPhysical status (C3)
		Mood	−.02	−0.46	>.999	[−0.23, 0.15]
		Need-threat	−.003	−0.07	>.999	[−0.17, 0.16]
		Loneliness	−.02	−0.39	>.999	[−0.21, 0.15]

Note. P-values and confidence intervals were adjusted with Bonferroni-Holm for the number of well-being variables per H₀ being tested (i.e., six comparisons for the effect of social inclusionary status, three comparisons for the effect of physical inclusionary status, and six comparisons for the interaction).

Figure 1. Effects of social and physical inclusionary status on self-reported levels of negative mood, need-threat, loneliness, prosocial and antisocial intentions in study 1.

Note: Displayed are estimated marginal means with 95% Confidence-Intervals.

Table 4. Interaction contrast for the strength of simple effects of physical exclusion (vs. physical inclusion) on antisocial tendencies across social inclusionary status conditions in study 1.

Contrasts		Experimental conditions
		Physical inclusion			Physical exclusion
		Social exclusion	Social neutral	Social inclusion	Social exclusion	Social neutral	Social inclusion
C1	Social neutral vs. Social exclusion	1	−1	0	−1	1	0
C2	Social inclusion vs. Social exclusion	1	0	−1	−1	0	1
C3	Social neutral vs. social inclusion	0	−1	1	0	1	−1

Table 5. Contrast codes for testing hypothesis 1 and 2 in study 2.

Contrasts		Experimental conditions
		Physical inclusion			Physical exclusion
		Hostile exclusion	No social contact	Social inclusion	Hostile exclusion	No social contact	Social inclusion
Hypothesis 1: Interaction effect of social and physical inclusionary status on well-being
C1	Social exclusion vs. Social inclusion	−1	−1	2	−1	−1	2
C2	Hostile exclusion vs. No social contact	−1	1	0	−1	1	0
C3	Physical exclusion vs. physical inclusion	1	1	1	−1	−1	−1
C4	Interaction C1 X C3	−1	−1	2	1	1	−2
C5	Interaction C2 X C3	−1	1	0	1	−1	0
Hypothesis 2: Social forms of exclusion (with or without physical contact) vs. Mere physical exclusion (physical exclusion/social inclusion)
C1	Hostile exclusion with physical exclusion vs. Mere physical exclusion	0	0	0	−1	0	1
C2	Hostile exclusion with physical inclusion vs. Mere physical exclusion	−1	0	0	0	0	1
C3	No social contact with physical exclusion vs. Mere physical exclusion	0	0	0	0	−1	1
C4	No social contact with physical inclusion vs. Mere physical exclusion	0	−1	0	0	0	1

Note: Social exclusion = Hostile social exclusion and no social contact combined.

Table 6. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) of dependent variables in study 2.

Variables	Experimental conditions
	Physical inclusion			Physical exclusion
	Hostile exclusion(n = 138)	No social contact (n = 139)	Social inclusion (n = 151)	Hostile Exclusion (n = 138)		No social contact (n = 157)	Social inclusion (n = 138)
Mood	−0.11 (1.52)	0.34 (1.32)	2.06 (1.29)	−0.01 (1.58)		0.30 (1.42)	1.31 (1.28)
Need-threat	4.72 (1.56)	4.33 (1.36)	2.13 (1.13)	4.52 (1.59)		4.20 (1.51)	3.01 (1.30)
Loneliness	4.10 (1.58)	3.91 (1.38)	2.49 (1.01)	4.06 (1.62)		4.14 (1.39)	3.29 (1.15)
Prosocial intentions	4.31 (1.77)	4.47 (1.56)	5.36 (1.30)	4.19 (1.88)		4.21 (1.55)	4.98 (1.39)
Antisocial intentions	2.67 (1.74)	2.32 (1.43)	1.82 (1.11)	2.81 (1.71)		2.17 (1.20)	2.00 (1.30)

Note: For need-threat, loneliness, pro-, and antisocial intentions, higher values correspond to higher levels of the respective variable. Mood was calculated by subtracting aggregated negative from aggregated positive affect items, with higher positive values reflecting more positive and higher negative values reflecting more negative mood. Range of possible numeric values for dependent variables from minimum to maximum: Mood = −4 to + 4; Need-threat, loneliness, prosocial and antisocial intentions = 1 to 7.

Table 7. Set of planned contrast for probing the interaction effect of social and physical inclusionary status on well-being in study 2.

Contrast		Variable	β	t (855)	p	95% CI
Social status
C1	Social exclusion (hostile/no contact)vs. Social inclusion
		Mood	.46	15.30	<.001	[0.43, 0.61]
		Need-threat	−.52	−18.31	<.001	[−0.71, −0.53]
		Loneliness	−.37	−11.74	<.001	[−0.47, −0.31]
C2	Hostile social exclusion vs. No social contact
		Mood	.10	3.24	.004	[0.05, 0.33]
		Need-threat	−.09	−2.99	.006	[−0.31, 0.04]
		Loneliness	−.02	−0.50	.617	[−0.14, 0.08]
Physical status
C3	Physical exclusion vs. Physical inclusion
		Mood	.07	2.44	.030	[0.01, 0.23]
		Need-threat	−.05	−1.90	.058	[−0.19, 0.003]
		Loneliness	−.11	−3.50	.001	[−0.28, −0.05]
Physical status X Social status
C4	Social exclusion vs. social inclusion (C1) XPhysical status (C3)
		Mood	.11	3.84	.001	[0.04, 0.22]
		Need-threat	−.15	−5.09	<.001	[−0.26, −0.08]
		Loneliness	−.11	−3.57	.001	[−0.20, −0.04]
C5	Hostile social exclusion vs. No social contact (C2) XPhysical status (C3)
		Mood	.02	0.58	>.999	[−0.10, 0.17]
		Need-threat	−.01	−0.35	>.999	[−0.14, 0.10]
		Loneliness	−.04	−1.18	.719	[−0.21, 0.07]

Note. P-values and confidence intervals were adjusted with Bonferroni-Holm for the number of well-being variables per H₀ being tested (i.e., six comparisons for the effect of social inclusionary status, three comparisons for the effect of physical inclusionary status, and six comparisons for the interaction).

Figure 2. Effects of social and physical inclusionary status on self-reported levels of negative mood, need-threat, loneliness, prosocial and antisocial intentions in study 2.

Note. Displayed are estimated marginal means with 95% Confidence-Intervals.

Table 8. Effects of social exclusion (with or without physical contact) vs. mere physical exclusion on well-being in study 2.

	Contrast	F(1, 855)	p	ηp^2	95%CI
C1	Physical exclusion with hostile social exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion
	Mood	60.91	<.001	.067	[0.85, 1.79]
	Need-threat	78.34	<.001	.084	[−1.99, −1.02]
	Loneliness	21.78	<.001	.025	[−1.14, −0.40]
C2	Physical inclusion with hostile social exclusion vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion
	Mood	69.84	<.001	.076	[0.94, 1.89]
	Need-threat	101.15	<.001	.106	[−2.20, −1.22]
	Loneliness	24.31	<.001	.028	[−1.21, −0.42]
C3	Physical exclusion with no social contact vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion
	Mood	37.75	<.001	.042	[0.57, 1.44]
	Need-threat	52.39	<.001	.058	[−1.64–0.75]
	Loneliness	28.09	<.001	.032	[−1.25, −0.45]
C4	Physical inclusion with no social contact vs. Physical exclusion with social inclusion
	Mood	32.66	<.001	.037	[0.53, 1.40]
	Need-threat	60.05	<.001	.066	[−1.78, −0.85]
	Loneliness	14.22	<.001	.016	[−0.94, −0.30]

Note: Physical exclusion with social inclusion = Mere physical exclusion. P-values and confidence intervals were Bonferroni-Holm adjusted for 12 comparisons in total.

Data availability statement

Materials and data of both studies can be accessed openly at: https://osf.io/7gph9/?view_only=3eb45d46d0e9439f92d94da4e8037577