احساس کنترل در طول طرد اجتماعی تا حدودی شخصیت اختصاص داده یافته است
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|30823||2008||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4565 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 45, Issue 7, November 2008, Pages 684–688
It has been demonstrated that social exclusion, or ostracism, results in a decrease in four fundamental human needs: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. We replicated these results, and examined how empathizing and systemizing cognitive styles accounts for variation in the experience of social exclusion (self-reported distress and the four fundamental needs) during an internet ball toss game. Participants’ standardized combined score (D Score) from the Empathizing Quotient (EQ-S) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ-S) (Wakabayashi et al., 2006) was a significant predictor of the decrease in the fundamental need, control. In other words, empathizers reported feeling less in control compared to systemizers during the ball toss game regardless of exclusion or inclusion. These findings suggest that individuals who score high on empathizing struggle more with the lack of control when involved in an situation where they do not have influence over the social interaction in which they are taking part.
Social exclusion is the act of being excluded, rejected, or ostracized by others without explicit explanation or negative attention. Within the context of this paper, it can also be described as the reflexive experience of distress as result of an actual or perceived psychological or physical distance from others (Eisenberger et al., 2003 and Williams, 2007; see also Gruter & Masters, 1986 for a review). Social exclusion is known to generate strong feelings of rejection, social pain, and distress (Williams, 1997 and Williams, 2001). Additionally, social exclusion has the unique ability to threaten four fundamental human needs: belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), self-esteem (Baumeister, 1994), control (Seligman, 1975), and meaningful existence (for a review see Williams, 2001 and Williams, 2007). The importance of the aforementioned needs for motivation, self-efficacy, and even survival has been supported in the literature (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000; see Williams, 2001 for a review). Evidence has also shown that individuals seek to increase their sense of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. When these needs are lacking individuals experience pathological effects that are more significant than an impulsive distress response (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In one study (Eisenberger et al., 2003) participants observed a scenario that emulated exclusion as well as experiencing a real exclusion condition while they were in an fMRI scanner. While activation was the strongest during the exclusion round, results indicated that the same parts of the brain were activated during the observed round as were activated during the exclusion round. This suggests that, participants do not actually have to be purposefully excluded to be negatively affected by exclusion (Eisenberger and Lieberman, 2004, Eisenberger et al., 2003 and Williams, 1997). Zadro and Colleagues (2004); see also (Williams et al., 2000) randomly assigned participants to play a ball toss game, Cyberball, (Williams et al., 2000 and Williams et al., 2002) with a computer or with another human via an internet connection. They discovered that individuals reported a decrease in the four fundamental needs (i.e. belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence) after exclusion from the ball toss game independent of whether or not the individual believed that they were excluded by the computer or another human being. Social exclusion is likely to have been of great evolutionary significance both to the group and to excluded individuals. It may have been evolutionarily adaptive for a group to exclude certain individuals as a way to maintain group cohesiveness. Kurzban and Leary (2001) suggest that ostracism goes hand and hand with punishment, and has evolved as a mechanism to protect group members from individuals who violate social norms (e.g. incest) or group rules (Barner-Barry, 1986 and Gruter and Masters, 1986). For the individual, exclusion can have dire consequences (Gruter and Masters, 1986 and Kurzban and Leary, 2001). Excluded individuals can become cut off from resources and from protection by the group. The potential danger of social exclusion may have led to the development of a response system designed to prevent and counteract social exclusion. Those individuals who are more perceptive to ostracism may have an advantage in that they can act quickly to avoid exile from the group (Williams, 2007). Decreases in the four fundamental needs (Williams, 2001) as well as the onset of feelings of distress, humiliation, sadness, and anger are examples of the types of motivational and emotional mechanisms that might drive behavioral changes aimed at avoiding social exclusion or regaining inclusion in the group (Robertson et al., 2006 and Williams, 2007). When individuals are excluded or threatened with exclusion they experience distress, which has been called social pain (Eisenberger and Lieberman, 2004 and Eisenberger et al., 2003). However, despite the potentially hardwired nature of this response, there is no evidence as to whether this distress response varies as a function of individual differences in social cognition. Here, we investigate whether proclivity to empathize or systemize has any bearing on the perception and experience of social rejection.