In-Group Ostracism Increases High-Fidelity Imitation in Early Childhood
Abstract
The Cyberball paradigm was used to examine the hypothesis that children use high-fidelity imitation as a reinclusion behavior in response to being ostracized by in-group members. Children ( N = 176; 5- to 6-year-olds) were either included or excluded by in- or out-group members and then shown a video of an in-group or an out-group member enacting a social convention. Participants who were excluded by their in-group engaged in higher-fidelity imitation than those who were included by their in-group. Children who were included by an out-group and those who were excluded by an out-group showed no difference in imitative fidelity. Children ostracized by in-group members also displayed increased anxiety relative to children ostracized by out-group members. The data are consistent with the proposal that high-fidelity imitation functions as reinclusion behavior in the context of in-group ostracism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Watson-Jones, Whitehouse, and Legare (2015) found that children who are ostracized, compared with those who are socially included, are more likely to imitate the ritual-like actions of other ingroup members.
“In one study offering supportive evidence, Watson-Jones, Whitehouse, and Legare (2015) found that children who are ostracized, compared with those who are socially included, are more likely to imitate the ritual-like actions of other ingroup members.”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Watson-Jones, Whitehouse, and Legare, 2015
Children ostracized by their ingroup are more likely to engage in ritualistic imitation strategies than children not ostracized or ostracized by the outgroup.
“For instance, children who are ostracized by their ingroup (compared with those who are not ostracized, or are ostracized by the outgroup) are more likely to engage in ritualistic imitation strategies (Watson-Jones et al., 2015).”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Watson-Jones et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Watson-Jones, R. E., Whitehouse, H., & Legare, C. H.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin
- University of Oxford (GB)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-11-16
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-42
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2208612806
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 26.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I005455/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Keywords
- social exclusion, early childhood, Cyberball paradigm, social conventions, social anxiety, in-group favoritism
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Social Isolation, Video Recording, Social Discrimination
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
