![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This research investigates how people with different self-construals benefit from social gadgets to cope with ostracism. The Pilot Study showed that an independent self-construal was associated with reports of less loneliness when using social surrogates. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that without access to a gadget, participants with independent self-construal showed more negative affect in response to ostracism compared to inclusion whereas participants with interdependent self-construal did not. When given access to gadgets like a social toy or a social robot, this difference diminished; participants with independent self-construal did not differ in their negative affect between ostracism and inclusion. These results suggest that social gadgets can serve as strategy for coping with ostracism, in particular, among people with an independent self-construal.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 There is some debate on whether individualism and collectivism represent two independent dimensions or rather opposite ends of a single dimension (e.g., Kagitcibasi, Citation1987; Oyserman, Citation1993; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, Citation1988). In this regard, Triandis (e.g., Triandis, Citation1989; Triandis et al., Citation1988) argues that both interpretations may be accurate, depending on the scope of the research. That is, a unidimensional structure would be more appropriate if a study integrates a broad range of values, whereas a multidimensional structure may be more fitting for a study with a more restricted focus. Given the broader scope of the present research, we decided to treat individualism and collectivism as unidimensional construct by computing a difference score based on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, respectively (see Holland, Roeder, van Baaren, Brandt, & Hannover, Citation2004; Jonas et al., Citation2009; Pöhlmann, Carranza, Hannover, & Iyengar, Citation2007). This approach was also used in previous research investigating ostracism and self-construal (Pfundmair et al., Citation2015).
2 Breaking down this non-significant interaction revealed that highly interdependent participants did not differ between ostracism and inclusion when not supported by “Pleo,” b = 0.06, SE = .53, t(60) = 0.12, p = .907, but indicated more anger when supported by “Pleo,” b = − 0.95 SE = .51, t(60) = − 1.86, p = .067.