1. Is Social Exclusion a Moral Issue?
Introduction
Results – Study 1
Additional Results – Study 1
Is Social Exclusion a Moral Issue?
Moral Violation Perceptions in Response to Cyberball Rejection
Rebecca Friesdorf, Paul Conway, Yanine Hess & Tamar Valdman
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada, Florida State University, U.S.A, Purchase College, State University of New York, U.S.A
Introduction
Results
Results – Moral Orientations
We investigated individual differences in moralizing social exclusion in a game of Cyberball. Some people may view rejection as immoral; others less so. We examined which moral orientation best predicted the tendency to moralize social exclusion:
Affective orientation: Emotional reaction to harm tempered by thoughtful consideration of the overall situation
Deliberative orientation: Thoughtful focus on outcomes and future
Rule orientation: Heuristic application of moral rules (e.g., don’t harm)
Sentiment orientation: Unthoughtful, idiosyncratic responses
Hypotheses
Overall, people would perceive social
exclusion as a moral violation
Affective orientation: best predictor
of moralization of exclusion
Rejection sensitivity did not moderate key results in Study 1 or 2
No effects of the self vs. other manipulation in Study 2
The two datasets were combined, and the results were not moderated by study (1 vs. 2)
Therefore, results are presented for Study 1 and 2 combined (N = 645) †
Dependent Variable
Rejection M
No Rejection t p d
How much injustice occurred?
5.00
1.94
26.33
<.001
2.08
How immoral was the situation?
7.24
1.55
15.17
1.45
Was a moral rule violated?
4.05
1.69
18.39
1.20
Overall Immorality of the Situation
5.43
3.01
24.95
1.97 †
B = -0.43, t(634) = -2.54, p = .011 (R2 = 0.34)
Participants high in affective orientation indicated that more of a moral violation occurred against the rejectee than those low in affective orientation
Immorality of the Rejectors' Actions (11-point scale)
Dependent Variable
Rejection M
No Rejection F p η2
How immoral were Players 1 & 3?
6.87
4.56
16.16
<.001
.025
Was there a moral violation against Player 2?
4.16
1.82
34.39
.051 †
n.s.
Method
n.s.
Study 1
277 Americans via mturk.com (59% male, Mage = 33.58, SD = 10.92)
1) Moral Orientation Scale (Conway, Love, & Mottner, 2015)
Affective Orientation (α = .87): e.g., “When I think of people getting hurt it makes me upset.”
Deliberative Orientation (α = .76): e.g., “When faced with an ethical dilemma people should focus on results.”
Rule Orientation (α = .84): e.g., “Ethical decisions are best made by following a predefined set of rules.”
Sentiment Orientation (α = .91): e.g., “To do the right thing you must follow your heart.”
2) Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (A-RSQ; Berenson et al., 2009) (α = .77):
Extent to which a person anxiously expects, readily perceives and intensely reacts to rejection
3) Rejection Manipulation
Participants watched a game of Cyberball (Williams et al., 2012) where they were asked to form individual impressions of each player in the video:
No rejection condition: Player 1, 2, 3 receive the ball an equal number of times
Rejection condition: Player 2 receives the ball only once (is excluded by Player 1 and 3)
4) Dependent variables:
The immorality of the situation: how much injustice occurred, how moral – immoral the situation was (11-point scale), whether a moral rule was violated (3 items, α = .84; 7-point scales)
Morality of the players: how morally – immorally Players 1, 2, 3 acted (3 items; 7-point scales)
Extent to which a moral violation occurred: against Players 1, 2, 3 (3 items; 7-point scales)
Study 2
368 Americans via mturk.com (57% male, Mage = 34.52, SD = 10.32)
Procedure: same as Study 1, with one additional factor:
Self-Other Manipulation
Other condition (as in Study 1): Imagine the game happening live, including the thoughts and feelings the players would experience
Self condition: Imagine that you are “Player 2” in the game, including the thoughts and feelings you would experience
Analyses: The data was analyzed via multiple regression (the 4 moral orientations, condition, [0, 1], and their interaction terms as predictors + any control variables) and the moral orientations were graphed, and simple effects calculated, at 1 SD+/- the mean *
Results – Moral Orientations
B = -.49, t(634) = -3.05, p = (R2 = 0.36)
B = -.31, t(634) = -2.11, p = .036
Participants high (vs. low) in affective orientation rated the rejectors as less immoral in the no rejection condition
Participants high (vs. low ) in rule orientation rated the rejectors’ actions as marginally more immoral in the rejection condition *
Discussion
Participants clearly moralized social rejection in a game of Cyberball
Researchers should consider the moral dimensions of this paradigm
When participants watched a game where Player 2 was rejected (vs. included) by Players 1 and 3 they rated:
The situation as more unjust and immoral, with more rule violation
Players 1 & 3 as acting immoral, and Player 2 as being morally violated
The best individual difference predictor of moralizing social rejection was affective orientation (mature emotional reaction to harm), with some support from rule orientation (focus on moral rules)
Results suggest moralization of exclusion stems from concerned affect
n.s.
B = -0.38, t(635) = -3.46, p = .001 (R2 = 0.54)
Participants high in affective orientation rated the situation as more immoral in the rejection than in the no rejection condition; those low in affective orientation were insensitive to condition
This finding suggests that those with strong (as opposed to weak) emotional reactions to harm-doing are more likely to see ostracism as morally problematic
Rebecca Friesdorf