Cited by 212Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionBullying, Victimization, and AggressionImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Ostracism online: A social media ostracism paradigm

Open access
Wolf, Wouter, Levordashka, Ana, Ruff, Johanna R., Kraaijeveld, Steven, Lueckmann, Jan-Matthis, Williams, Kipling D.·2015·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

We describe Ostracism Online, a novel, social media-based ostracism paradigm designed to (1) keep social interaction experimentally controlled, (2) provide researchers with the flexibility to manipulate the properties of the social situation to fit their research purposes, (3) be suitable for online data collection, (4) be convenient for studying subsequent within-group behavior, and (5) be ecologically valid. After collecting data online, we compared the Ostracism Online paradigm with the Cyberball paradigm (Williams & Jarvis Behavior Research Methods, 38, 174-180, 2006) on need-threat and mood questionnaire scores (van Beest & Williams Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, 918-928, 2006). We also examined whether ostracized targets of either paradigm would be more likely to conform to their group members than if they had been included. Using a Bayesian analysis of variance to examine the individual effects of the different paradigms and to compare these effects across paradigms, we found analogous effects on need-threat and mood. Perhaps because we examined conformity to the ostracizers (rather than neutral sources), neither paradigm showed effects of ostracism on conformity. We conclude that Ostracism Online is a cost-effective, easy to use, and ecologically valid research tool for studying the psychological and behavioral effects of ostracism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-014-0475-x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolf, W., Levordashka, A., Ruff, J. R., Kraaijeveld, S., Lueckmann, J.-M., & Williams, K. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wolf, Wouter
  • Levordashka, Ana
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2014-05-31
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
361-373
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W1988525883
Cited by
212
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
8.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
ostracism, social media, Cyberball paradigm, need threat, mood, conformity, online data collection, ecological validity, social exclusion
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Psychology, Social, Surveys and Questionnaires, Psychological Distance, Behavioral Research, Social Media, Crowdsourcing

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.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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