Ostracism—being ignored and excluded by others—is a ubiquitous experience with adverse effects on well-being. To prevent further exclusion and regain belonging, ostracized individuals are well advised to identify affiliation partners who are sincerely well-disposed. Humans’ ability to detect lies, however, is generally not very high. Yet, veracity judgments can become more accurate with decreasing reliance on common stereotypic beliefs about the nonverbal behavior of liars and truth-tellers. We hypothesize that ostracized (vs. included) individuals base their veracity judgments less on such stereotypical nonverbal cues if message content is affiliation-relevant. In line with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 shows that ostracized (vs. included) individuals are better at discriminating affiliation-relevant lies from truths. Experiments 2 and 3 further show that ostracized (vs. included) individuals base their veracity judgments less on stereotypical nonverbal cues if messages are of high (but not low) affiliation relevance.
AtkinsonJ. W.McClellandD. C. (1948). The projective expression of needs. II. The effect of different intensities of the hunger drive on thematic apperception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 643-658.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
3.
BernsteinM. J.YoungS. G.BrownC. M.SaccoD. F.ClaypoolH. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981-983.
4.
BondC. F.Jr.DePauloB. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.
5.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
ClaypoolH. M.BernsteinM. J. (2014). Social exclusion and stereotyping: Why and when exclusion fosters individuation of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 571-589.
7.
CurranP. J.HussongH. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81-100.
8.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979-995.
EckJ.SchoelC.GreifenederR. (2016). Coping with or buffering against the negative impact of social exclusion on basic needs: A review of strategies. In RivaP.EckJ. (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 227-249). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
11.
EckJ.SchoelC.GreifenederR. (2017). Belonging to a majority reduces the immediate need threat from ostracism in individuals with a high need to belong. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 273-288.
12.
EkmanP. (2001). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (Reissued). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
13.
EkmanP.O’SullivanM. (1991). Who can catch a liar?American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
15.
GardnerW. L.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486-496.
16.
Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 37, 60-74.
17.
GranhagP.-A.HartwigM. (2012). Detecting deception. In DaviesG. M.BeechA. R. (Eds.), Forensic psychology: Crime, justice, law, interventions (2nd ed., pp. 151-169). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
18.
HartgerinkC. H.van BeestI.WichertsJ. M.WilliamsK. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS ONE, 10, e0127002.
19.
HartwigM.BondC. F.Jr (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643-659.
20.
HartwigM.GranhagP.-A. (2015). Exploring the nature and origin of beliefs about deception: Implicit and explicit knowledge among lay people and presumed experts. In GranhagA. P.VrijA.VerschuereB. (Eds.), Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 125-154). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
21.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
22.
PickettC. L.GardnerW. L. (2005). The social monitoring system: Enhanced sensitivity to social cues and information as an adaptive response to social exclusion and belonging need. In WilliamsK. D.ForgasJ. P.von HippelW. (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 213-226). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
23.
PickettC. L.GardnerW. L.KnowlesM. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095-1107.
24.
ReinhardM.-A. (2010). Need for cognition and the process of lie detection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 961-971. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.002
25.
ReinhardM.-A.GreifenederR.ScharmachM. (2013). Unconscious processes improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 721-739.
26.
ReinhardM.-A.SchwarzN. (2012). The influence of affective states on the process of lie detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 377-389.
27.
ReinhardM.-A.SporerS. L. (2008). Verbal and nonverbal behaviour as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 477-488.
28.
ReinhardM.-A.SporerS. L.ScharmachM.MarksteinerT. (2011). Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 467-484. doi:10.1037/a0023726
29.
RivaP.EckJ. (Eds.). (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
30.
RudertS. C.GreifenederR. (2016). When it’s okay that I don’t play: Social norms and the situated construal of social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 955-969.
31.
SchoelC.EckJ.GreifenederR. (2014). A matter of vertical position: Consequences of ostracism differ for those above versus below its perpetrators. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 149-157.
32.
SmithS. M.PettyR. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 257-268.
33.
SomervilleL. H.HeathertonT. F.KelleyW. M. (2006). Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1007-1008.
34.
SporerS. L.SchwandtB. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.
35.
StanislawH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137-149.
36.
StiffJ. B.MillerG. R.SleightC.MongeauP.GarlickR.RoganR. (1989). Explanations for visual cue primacy in judgments of honesty and deceit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 555-564.
37.
VerhagenM.LodderG. M. A.BaumeisterR. F. (2018). Unmet belongingness needs but not high belongingness needs alone predict adverse well-being: A response surface modeling approach. Journal of Personality, 86, 498-507.
38.
VrijA. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
39.
WalasekL.JuanchichM.SirotaM. (2019). Adaptive cooperation in the face of social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 35-46.
40.
WesselmannE. D.GrzybowskiM. R.Steakley-FreemanD. M.DeSouzaE. R.NezlekJ. B.WilliamsK. D. (2016). Social exclusion in everyday life. In RivaP.EckJ. (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 3-23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
41.
WilliamsK. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275-314). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
42.
WilliamsK. D.CheungC. K. T.ChoiW. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
43.
WirthJ. H. (2016). Methods for investigating social exclusion. In RivaP.EckJ. (Eds.), Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact (pp. 27-47). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
44.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
