Reducing aggressive responses to social exclusion using transcranial direct current stimulation
Open accessAbstract
A vast body of research showed that social exclusion can trigger aggression. However, the neural mechanisms involved in regulating aggressive responses to social exclusion are still largely unknown. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) modulates the excitability of a target region. Building on studies suggesting that activity in the right ventrolateral pre-frontal cortex (rVLPFC) might aid the regulation or inhibition of social exclusion-related distress, we hypothesized that non-invasive brain polarization through tDCS over the rVLPFC would reduce behavioral aggression following social exclusion. Participants were socially excluded or included while they received tDCS or sham stimulation to the rVLPFC. Next, they received an opportunity to aggress. Excluded participants demonstrated cognitive awareness of their inclusionary status, yet tDCS (but not sham stimulation) reduced their behavioral aggression. Excluded participants who received tDCS stimulation were no more aggressive than included participants. tDCS stimulation did not influence socially included participants' aggression. Our findings provide the first causal test for the role of rVLPFC in modulating aggressive responses to social exclusion. Our findings suggest that modulating activity in a brain area (i.e. the rVLPFC) implicated in self-control and emotion regulation can break the link between social exclusion and aggression.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anodal tDCS to the right VLPFC in a social ostracism paradigm reduces self-reported aggression.
“More recently, the same group showed that subjects receiving anodal tDCS to the right VLPFC in the same experimental paradigm reported lower levels of aggression17.”
From Ventrolateral but not Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex tDCS effectively impact emotion reappraisal – effects on Emotional Experience and Interbeat Interval (2018) · cites this paper as [17]
The Results (Exclusion manipulation check; page not provided) report that socially excluded participants receiving anodal rVLPFC stimulation were less aggressive than those receiving sham stimulation. But the Methods (page not provided) specify that aggression was measured by the amount of hot sauce participants allocated, not by self-report; the claim misstates the outcome measure. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 159
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attach- ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
- Bikson, M., Datta, A., Rahman, A., Scaturro, J. (2010). Electrode montages for tDCS and weak transcranial electrical stimulation: role of "return" electrode's position and size. Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 121, 1976.
- Buckley, K.E., Winkel, R.E., Leary, M.R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14-28.
- Cohen, J.R., Berkman, E.T., Lieberman, M.D. (2013). Intentional and incidental self-con- trol in ventrolateral PFC. In: Stuss, D.T., Knight, R.T., editors. Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, 2nd edn, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 417-40.
- Datta, A., Elwassif, M., Battaglia, F., Bikson, M. (2008). Transcranial current stimulation focality using disc and ring electrode configurations: FEM analysis. Journal of Neural Engineering, 5, 163.
- DeWall, C.N., Twenge, J.M., Gitter, S.A., Baumeister, R.F. (2009). It's the thought that counts: the role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45.
- Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., Peterson, C.K. (2010). The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emotion-related phenomena: a review and update. Biological Psychology, 84, 451-62.
- Kross, E., Egner, T., Ochsner, K., Hirsch, J., Downey, G. (2007). Neural dynamics of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 945-56.
- Leary, M.R., Twenge, J.M., Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-32.
- Riva, P., Wirth, J.H., Williams, K.D. (2011). The consequences of pain: the social and physical pain overlap on psychological responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 681-7.
- Spielberger, C.D., Sydeman, S.J. (1994). State-trait anxiety inventory and state-trait anger expression inventory. In: Maruish, M.E., editor. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 292-321.
- Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M., Stucke, T.S. (2001). If you can't join them, eat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-69.
- Utz, K.S., Dimova, V., Oppenla ¨nder, K., Kerkhoff, G. (2010). Electrified minds: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsych- ologya review of current data and future implications. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2789-10.
- Authors
- Riva, P., Romero Lauro, L. J., DeWall, C. N., Chester, D. S., & Bushman, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy, 2Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA, 3Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, OH, USA, and 4Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Venue
- Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-04-18
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 352-356
- ISSN
- 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-5024
- PMC
- PMC4350477
- OpenAlex
- W2140470805
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 12.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Keywords
- social exclusion, aggression, transcranial direct current stimulation, right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, neuromodulation, emotion regulation, self-control, social distress, non-invasive brain stimulation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aggression, Aging, Anger, Electrodes, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Rejection, Psychology, Sex Characteristics, Psychological Distance, Social Environment, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
