Ann E. Schlosser, Professor of Marketing, University of Washington Edita S. Cao, Doctoral Student of Marketing, University of Washington Cyber Exclusion: When Social Media is Socially Excluding Background Social exclusion is the act of either passively ignoring or actively rejecting an individual or group (Williams 2007). Most prior work is on immediate responses to exclusion (Wesselmann et al. 2015). We look at reflective responses. Lower media richness in online (vs. offline ) contexts (Daft & Lengel 1986) leads to greater independence from the group (Schlosser 2009), and thus, lower beliefs about own emotional distress caused by exclusion. Believe others will be more distressed than self. Individuals appraise events differently when they are the actor versus the observer (self- vs. other-focused; Dunning & Hayes 1996). Background Social exclusion is the act of either passively ignoring or actively rejecting an individual or group (Williams 2007). Most prior work is on immediate responses to exclusion (Wesselmann et al. 2015). We look at reflective responses. Lower media richness in online (vs. offline ) contexts (Daft & Lengel 1986) leads to greater independence from the group (Schlosser 2009), and thus, lower beliefs about own emotional distress caused by exclusion. Believe others will be more distressed than self. Individuals appraise events differently when they are the actor versus the observer (self- vs. other-focused; Dunning & Hayes 1996). Study 1: Forecasting Others’ vs. One’s Own Distress From Online Exclusion H1: Individuals will estimate less distress from online exclusion for self than others. Study 1: Forecasting Others’ vs. One’s Own Distress From Online Exclusion H1: Individuals will estimate less distress from online exclusion for self than others. Discussion Individuals’ beliefs about the emotional distress caused by social exclusion is less for themselves than others, but only when exclusion occurs online. Focusing on one’s own (vs. others’) online exclusion reduces willingness to act prosocially. This effect is attenuated when the benefits of fortitude are challenged. Discussion Individuals’ beliefs about the emotional distress caused by social exclusion is less for themselves than others, but only when exclusion occurs online. Focusing on one’s own (vs. others’) online exclusion reduces willingness to act prosocially. This effect is attenuated when the benefits of fortitude are challenged. References Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554−571. Dunning, D/, & Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), Schlosser, A.E. (2009). The effect of computer-mediated communication on conformity vs. nonconformity: An impression management perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 40. Williams, K. D. (2007), “Ostracism,” Annual Review of Psychology, 58, References Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554−571. Dunning, D/, & Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence for egocentric comparison in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), Schlosser, A.E. (2009). The effect of computer-mediated communication on conformity vs. nonconformity: An impression management perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 40. Williams, K. D. (2007), “Ostracism,” Annual Review of Psychology, 58, Study 2: Medium Differences in Exclusion vs. Non-Exclusion Scenarios H2: Individuals will estimate the emotional distress caused by exclusion to be less for themselves than for others in online but not offline contexts. Sample: 299 undergraduate business students Design: 2 (prior personal exclusion: excluded or included) x 2 (perspective: self or other) x 2 (medium: online vs. offline) between-subjects Study 2: Medium Differences in Exclusion vs. Non-Exclusion Scenarios H2: Individuals will estimate the emotional distress caused by exclusion to be less for themselves than for others in online but not offline contexts. Sample: 299 undergraduate business students Design: 2 (prior personal exclusion: excluded or included) x 2 (perspective: self or other) x 2 (medium: online vs. offline) between-subjects Study 2: Negative Affect From Exclusion Study 1: Negative Affect Repeated Measures Study 3: Exclusion and Prosocial Behavioral Intentions H3: Individuals’ willingness to act prosocially will be lower after estimating their own than others’ affective reactions to online (but not offline) exclusion. Study 3: Exclusion and Prosocial Behavioral Intentions H3: Individuals’ willingness to act prosocially will be lower after estimating their own than others’ affective reactions to online (but not offline) exclusion. Study 3: Prosocial Behavioral Intentions Study 4: Exclusion and Challenging Fortitude Beliefs on Prosocial Behavior H4: Individuals’ willingness to act prosocially will be lower after estimating their own than others’ affective reactions to online exclusion, but only when fortitude beliefs are supported. Sample: 400 MTurk participants Design: 2 (perspective: self or other) x 3 (medium: online, offline or control) x 2 (fortitude beliefs: supported or challenged) x 2 (ad: bullying or pollution) between-subjects Study 4: Exclusion and Challenging Fortitude Beliefs on Prosocial Behavior H4: Individuals’ willingness to act prosocially will be lower after estimating their own than others’ affective reactions to online exclusion, but only when fortitude beliefs are supported. Sample: 400 MTurk participants Design: 2 (perspective: self or other) x 3 (medium: online, offline or control) x 2 (fortitude beliefs: supported or challenged) x 2 (ad: bullying or pollution) between-subjects Sample: 170 undergraduate business students Design: 2 (perspective: self or other) x 2 (medium: online or offline) x 2 (ad: cyberbullying or bullying in schools) between-subjects Measure: Prosocial behavior intentions (general helping, donation, volunteering, α=.822) Sample: 85 undergraduate business students Design: 2 (personal experience: excluded or included) x 2 (other- experience: excluded or included) x 2 (perspective, within-subject variable: self vs. other)