Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence

Being liked or not being liked: A study on social-media exclusion in

T
a preadolescent population
Susanna Timeoa,∗, Paolo Rivab, Maria Paola Paladinoa
a
University of Trento, Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Corso Bettini 84, 38068, Rovereto, TN, Italy
b
University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Psychology, Italy

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Introduction: Social-media can contribute to building up adolescents' relationships, but they
Social-media might also bring negative exclusionary experiences. Being excluded is a subtle yet hurtful form of
Social exclusion relational aggression, which affects people's psychological wellbeing, especially during devel-
Adolescents opmental stages. In this study, we (1) analyzed the effects of social-media exclusion adapting the
Ostracism
Ostracism Online paradigm to a cohort of Italian preadolescents (Mage = 11.47, 53% girls) and
Social bonds
(2) tested the efficacy of two potential recovery strategies (i.e., social bonds vs. social surrogate).
Method: Inclusionary status was manipulated through the number of “likes” participants received
on a fictitious online social network. In the exclusion condition, participants received fewer likes
than everyone else. In the inclusion condition, participants received a similar number of likes of
other users. Then, all participants were asked to think of a significant positive relationship with a
family member (social bonds), a celebrity (social surrogate), their present moment thoughts
(control).
Results: Preadolescents who received fewer likes than others reported higher levels of need threat
(i.e., belong, self-esteem, meaningful existence, but not control) and negative emotions.
Moreover, the social-bonds strategy generally brought a faster psychological recovery from so-
cial-media exclusion than the control condition. The efficacy of social-surrogates strategy was
greater for boys than for girls, probably due to different choices in their favorite celebrities.
Conclusion: These findings show how offline life offers compensatory opportunities for adoles-
cents’ online life. When the lack of “Likes” signal exclusion on social-media, thinking of an ex-
isting social relationship help adolescents to cope with this negative experience.

Human relationships, especially with peers, are fundamental parts of adolescents' life and wellbeing. Friends provide social
support and give a sense of belongingness and protection in a phase where identity is still developing (Del Valle, Bravo, & López,
2010). However, peer relationships can be troubled. They can flourish and dissipate quickly, in a whirl of confederation and hostility.
Negative dynamics can arise, with detrimental consequences for adolescents’ wellbeing (Rigby, 2003); exclusion is one of these. In
the present work, we build on research on social exclusion (Riva, 2016) to examine - for the first time experimentally - the effects of
ostracism in online interactions among adolescents and the efficacy of coping strategies to restore their threatened needs. In a recent
review, Timeo, Riva, & Paladino, (in press) have outlined the potential effectiveness of some psychological and behavioral coping
strategies against the detrimental effects of exclusion in the developmental age. Among others, and based on previous research on
adults (see Riva, 2016), making new social connections or cultivating old bonds was identified as one of the strategies to deal with

∗
Corresponding author. Present address: University of Padova, Italy.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Timeo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.02.010
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 9 February 2020; Accepted 16 February 2020
Available online 06 March 2020
0140-1971/ © 2020 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

exclusion and mitigate the hurt feelings derived from it. In the present study, we tested this strategy by asking preadolescents to recall
a significant social relationship with a close other (social bond) – or with their favorite celebrity (social surrogate) in an experi-
mentally created social media exclusion context.

1. Social exclusion and its consequences

Social exclusion has been broadly defined as the experience of being kept apart from others physically (e.g., social isolation) or
emotionally (e.g., being ignored; Riva & Eck, 2016). In this view, social rejection—being explicitly told one is not wanted—and
ostracism— being ignored—represent the two core experiences of social exclusion. Exclusion hurts, and the unpleasantness it causes
has been associated with that of physical pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004). Being excluded threats an individual's psychological
needs such as belonging, self-esteem, sense of control, and meaningful existence and elicits negative emotions (including sadness and
anger; Williams, 2009). Most importantly, following ostracism, children and adolescents seem to suffer greater threat compared to
their adult counterparts (Abrams, Weick, Thomas, Colbe, & Franklin, 2011; Sebastian, Viding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010).
Adolescents appear to be particularly sensitive to the evaluation of their peers with significant consequences on their self-identity
construction (Harter, 1999). As a consequence, being exposed to prolonged exclusion during childhood or adolescence has been
linked to internalizing problems like depression and anxiety (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003), conduct problems and diminished capacity to
self-regulate (Barkley, Salvy, & Roemmich, 2012; Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Ladd, 2006; Salvy et al., 2011),
lower cognitive performance (Tobia, Riva, & Caprin, 2017) and poorer academic achievement (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Hawes
et al., 2012). Exclusion can also trigger aggressive behavior (Reijntjes et al., 2010; Reijntjes, Stegge, Terwogt, Kamphuis, & Telch,
2006) and, when prolonged over time, lead some individuals to desperate acts (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003).

2. Social-media exclusion

Contexts in which kids and adolescents report experiences of exclusion are school, sports team, religious groups (Ladd &
Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2016), and, more recently, online interactions (Allen, Ryan, Gray, McInerney, & Waters, 2014). This is not
surprising given the role that the Internet, and particularly social media, plays in our social interactions. Social media have changed
the time and space in which people connect with each other, increasing the potential number of contacts, but not necessarily their
quality (for a recent review see, Allen et al., 2014). For instance, Ahn and Shin (2013) found that social media use is linked to
connectedness, but only face-to-face interactions go hand in hand with a reduced feeling of social isolation. In addition, because the
online world creates the conditions - anonymity and physical distance - for moral disengagement, negative behaviors are frequent
(e.g., cyberbullies or haters, Pornari & Wood, 2010; online relational aggressions, Zweig, Lachman, Yahner, & Dank, 2014; Morelli,
Bianchi, Chirumbolo, & Baiocco, 2018). Considering that in the European Union 93% of 9–16 year-old users go online at least weekly
(60% almost daily) and 59% have a social media profile (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Ólafsson, 2011), the risk to come across
negative experiences online is particularly high.
Social exclusion can manifest in the social media context in a variety of ways, with people being left out from instant-messaging
groups, not being included in online conversations, or receiving no or few requests of contacts. A prototypical experience of social
media exclusion is feeling ignored when few, or no one, react to one's own profile or contents posted with comments or with a “Like”
(Reich, Schneider, & Heling, 2018; Wolf et al., 2015). Considering the relevance of social media among adolescents and that ado-
lescents seem to be more vulnerable to the effects of ostracism (Abrams et al., 2011; Pharo, Gross, Richardson, & Hayne, 2011),
studies investigating cyberostracism in this population are especially needed.
Most relevant to the potential adverse outcomes of social media exclusion (e.g., receiving fewer likes), is how adolescents respond
to it. They can cope with being excluded in functional or dysfunctional ways. The latter is likely to promote a vicious cycle of
exclusion and maladaptive responses (e.g., becoming passive or aggressive; Riva, 2016). Therefore, there is a need to explore psy-
chological strategies to functionally cope with everyday instances of social media exclusion. To date, few studies tested the efficacy of
coping strategies to deal with exclusion in adults and even fewer did so with adolescents (Timeo et al., in press), to the best of our
knowledge, none in the context of social media ostracism.

3. The present research

The present research aims at extending current work at least in three respects. First, we considered the phenomena of social media
exclusion in a preadolescent population. Groups and more generally social interactions with peers play a fundamental role in ado-
lescents' social and emotional development (Brown & Larson, 2009; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). In contemporary in-
dustrialized societies, a significant part of social interactions occurs in the virtual world. Therefore, there is a need to investigate
adolescents' reactions to peers’ exclusion in the context of social media. Accordingly, in the present research, we relied on the
Ostracism Online paradigm (Wolf et al., 2015) - that simulates the environment of a social network platform, where the inclusionary
status is conveyed through the number of Likes received by the profiles. This paradigm has been successfully used with adults,
showing that receiving few (vs. average) “like” can thwart fundamental needs. Thus, the first goal of the present research is to test, for
the first time, the effects of the Ostracism Online paradigm with young participants (11–14 years). As anticipated this is especially
relevant as the social network environment is becoming a pervasive reality for young populations, but also as it may bring convergent
evidence of the effects of exclusion amongst different experimental procedures (e.g., Cyberball; Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000).
Secondly, we tested and compared the effectiveness of two psychological strategies (i.e., social bonds and social surrogates) to

174
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

cope with social exclusion. The recall of a close relationship (social bond; e.g., McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011) is
a strategy that has been tested on adults, showing promising results. Reminders of social relationships as photographs of friends
(Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005), Facebook icons (Knausenberger, Hellmann, & Echterhoff, 2015), or memories about family
members or friends (McConnell et al., 2011; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001) buffer against the adverse effects of ex-
clusion. Another potential strategy to cope with social exclusion involves recalling of an imagined relationship (social surrogate)
people may have with a celebrity (e.g., a favorite actor or singer). Previous studies involving adults have shown some positive effects
of social surrogates, expressed as parasocial interactions (Knowles, 2013), nature (Poon, Teng, Wong, & Chen, 2016) and spiritual
connectedness (Hales, Wesselmann &Williams, 2016). These strategies were already tested - at the same time - in a previous study
with the adult population focusing on the downstream behavioral, interpersonal consequences of exclusion, that is aggressive be-
havior (Twenge, Baumeister, et al., 2007, Study 3). It was found that social bonds reduced aggressive tendency in socially excluded
participants, and that social surrogates produced a similar, although weaker, effect likely because the relationship was only imagined
(Twenge, Baumeister, et al., 2007, Study 3). In this respect, we aimed at extending the findings from the adult population, as we
cannot directly assume that an effective strategy with adults (i.e., recalling a family member as a social bond) would be suitable also
for preadolescents. Moreover, celebrities and models are especially important during adolescence (Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Ben-
Horin, 1996), this opens up to the possibility that - differently from adults - social surrogates are as useful as social bonds to overcome
adversities in this population.
Finally, although previous studies (Twenge et al., 2001; 2007) have brought evidence of the efficacy of these strategies on the
behavioral outcome (i.e., aggression), they did not test their effects on the affective and psychological responses. In this perspective,
we aim at expanding previous findings obtained in adults to new outcome variables. We measured the psychological reaction of
participants (needs threat and emotions) according to the different stages of the Need-threat model (Williams, 2009). This model
predicts that reactions to exclusion unfold during time. In the first phase, the person feels the painful, yet functionally adaptive, effect
of exclusion (reflexive stage). In the second phase, the individual can start to elaborate and cope with the exclusionary experience
(reflective stage). In line with William's model (2009), we hypothesized our strategies to be effective only in this second phase. In our
research, we measured needs satisfaction and negative emotions in relation to an exclusionary event (reflexive stage) and subsequently
again after the induction of a psychological strategy (reflective stage). To assess the efficacy of each strategy, we focused on recovery,
that is, the improvement of the threatened needs and negative emotions in the reflective compared to the reflexive stage. Nonetheless,
we explored the possible effects of social-media exclusion and coping strategies on behavioral intentions, focusing on two primary
constructs. The first construct regards the desire to affiliate with a bully classmate. Indeed, excluded participants might accept less
selectively their friendships, as they want to replenish their need to belong, thus affiliating with antisocial profiles (Hales &Williams,
2018). The second construct regards prosocial and antisocial behavioral intentions, as past research suggested that ostracism can
increase both prosocial (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007) and antisocial behaviors (Twenge, Baumeister, et al., 2007).

4. Method

4.1. Participants

The research project - approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Trento – was presented to eight schools in an urban
area of north-east of Italy. Two public middle schools agreed to collaborate to the research. Participants were 167 preadolescents (78
males, Mage = 11.47 years, SD = 0.63; Age Range 10–14) recruited among their students. Their parents were adequately informed
about the methods and aims of this survey and gave consent to research participation.

4.2. Materials and procedure

4.2.1. Experimental task

The survey was built and distributed using the Qualtrics® online platform (2018).1 The experiment was presented as a study on
the formation of interpersonal relationships on the internet. Students were told they would have interacted with peers they did not
know on an online platform. Afterward, they would have answered some questions about their experience on the platform.
To manipulate the inclusionary status (exclusion vs. inclusion), we adapted the Ostracism Online paradigm to the preadolescent
population (Wolf et al., 2015). In this paradigm, participant are led to believe that they are interacting with other people on an online
platform similar to a social media. In our study, participants were asked to describe themself and to choose an avatar to create an
online profile. Afterward, their profile was uploaded and became visible on the online platform together with that (descrip-
tion + avatar) of eight ostensibly more profiles; these were allegedly created by peers with whom they was interacting online. In
actuality, these profiles were created by the researchers for the research purpose. In this phase, participants read other profiles and
were informed of the possibility to give “likes” to those they appreciated and that their own profile could receive “likes” by the others
as well. Specifically, each participant saw eight other profiles, so the maximum of “likes” s/he could receive was eight. We created

1
In a pre-experimental session (a week before the experiment), we assessed some individual and contextual variables, which are not be discussed
in the present paper. The scales used were the Social Subscale from the Italian adaptation of the Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale (TMA;
Bracken, 2003), the Bullying and Ostracism Screening Scale (BOSS; Saylor et al., 2012) and the child version of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation
Questionnaire (Garnefski, Rieffe, Jellesma, Terwogt, & Kraaij, 2007; CERQ-k).

175
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

Table 1
Means and standard deviations (in brackets) as a function of the of the Inclusionary-status manipulation.
Inclusion Exclusion

Manipulation check
Number of Likes 4.85 (1.14) 1.66 (1.23) p < .001
Excluded 1.05 (.22) 2.27 (1.86) p < .001
Ignored 1.08 (.27) 2.30 (1.88) p < .001
Popular 3.05 (2.01) 2.22 (1.54) p = .006
Needs (Reflexive stage)
Belong (α = .75) 1.43 (.53) 2.42 (1.45) p < .001
Self-esteem (α = .70) 3.48 (1.27) 4.26 (1.40) p = .002
Control (α = .68) 4.69 (1.28) 5.11 (1.36) p = . 089
M. existence (α = .81) 1.22 (.63) 2.06 (1.37) p = .002
Emotions (Reflexive stage)
Sadness 1.08 (.47) 1.65 (1.26) p = .005
Pain 1.00 (.00) 1.62 (1.35) p = .004
Anger 1.03 (.16) 1.41 (1.12) p = .031
Happiness 5.15 (1.78) 4.42 (1.88) p = .030
Anxiety 2.43 (1.78) 2.95 (1.84) p = . 11

two arrays of different profiles, and for each array, we created two versions counterbalanced for the order of appearance on the
screen. Profiles were matched to the age of the participants. Participants in the inclusion condition received approximately 5 “likes,”
a number that was in line with what was received from the other profiles, whereas participants in the exclusion condition were the
only person to receive one “like”.
Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to a coping strategy condition. Participants in the social bonds condition and in
the social surrogates condition were asked to recall their favorite family member and their favorite celebrity, respectively, and to and
write down why they appreciate this person. In the control condition, participants were asked to write down their present-moment
thoughts and feelings (see Hales et al., 2016). In each condition, they had to write at least 200 characters. Participants in the inclusion
condition only completed the control strategy, so that the combination of the inclusionary status and coping strategy manipulation
led to an independent variable with four levels (Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control, and Inclusion-Control).

4.2.2. Dependent variables

Need threat and negative emotions. Participants were presented twice with an adapted version of the Need-Threat Scale (Williams
et al., 2000) and a measure of negative emotions.
For the reflexive stage (right after the Inclusionary-status manipulation), participants filled out items related to the threat of belong
(3 items, e.g., “I felt rejected”), self-esteem (3 items, e.g., “My self-esteem was high”, reverse coded), control (3 items, e.g., “I felt I had
control”), and meaningful existence (3 items, e.g., “I felt invisible”) referring to their experience on the social media platform.
Moreover, they rated their emotional reaction of sadness, anger, pain, anxiety, and happiness (reverse coded). Responses were
recorded on a 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely) Likert scale and were averaged to create overall indexes (see Table 1).
After the manipulation of the coping strategy, need threat and emotions were assessed again for the reflective stage (referring to
their feelings at the present moment, i.e., “I feel rejected,” “I feel angry”).
Choice of an ambiguous schoolmate. Participants were asked to what extent they would have accepted an invitation from a same
same-sex schoolmate who was described as popular, but bully (i.e., mocking other schoolmates) preadolescent. Response were
registered on a scale from 0 to 100.
Prosocial and antisocial intentions. Participants read a post allegedly from one of the people of the online platform, asking for
“likes” to win a photography competition. Participants could either help or hamper the person win by giving (prosocially) or re-
moving (antisocially) “likes” from the picture, respectively. The scale ranged from −10 to +10 “likes.”
Manipulation check. At the end of the survey, participants indicated how many “likes” they received during their interactions on
the online platform and whether other participants received the same number of “likes.” Participants also rated how much they felt
excluded, ignored and popular during the game (1 = “Not at all”; 7 = “Extremely”).
Before ending the experiment, all participants completed the social bonds strategy as a buffering task.

5. Data analyses overview

Data were analyses with the linear model (lm) function from the R Stats Package, running on the R environment (RStudio Version
1.1.383, 2009–2017). Two analytic strategies were followed. To examine the effects of online exclusion, the linear models included
the between-subjects factor Inclusionary-status, coded at two levels (inclusion vs. exclusion). To test the effects of the psychological
strategies (i.e., social bonds and social surrogate), the between-subjects factor Condition variable with four levels (Exclusion-bonds,
Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control, and Inclusion-Control) was considered in the linear model. Exploratory, the role of parti-
cipants sex was examined; if statistical significant, participants’Sex was included as factor in the analyses and results were reported.
One participant was excluded from the analyses because s/he reported having received a number of “Likes” that largely exceed the
maximum of possible Likes (100 vs. max 8).

176
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

6. Results

6.1. Manipulation checks

Means in function of the Inclusionary-status manipulation are shown in Table 1. Participants who received fewer likes were aware
of it, F(1, 161) = 208.29, p < .001, reported feeling more excluded, F(1, 163) = 17.21, p < .001, ignored, F(1, 163) = 16.99,
p < .001, and less popular, F(1, 163) = 7.62, p = .006, than their counterpart. Moreover, excluded participants were less likely to
say that the other participants on the online platform received their same number of “likes,” Nex = 77vs47; Nin = 4vs36,
χ2(1) = 30.79 p < .001. Further analyses contrasting all four experimental groups (Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Ex-
clusion-Control, and Inclusion-Control) showed no differences between the three exclusion conditions (all ps > .30). Therefore, the
paradigm successfully created a situation of social-media exclusion (vs. inclusion).

6.2. The psychological consequences of social media exclusion

6.2.1. Need threat and negative emotions (reflexive stage)

The effect of the Inclusionary-status factor was tested for each of the four needs (reflexive stage; see Table 1). Compared to included
participants, excluded participants reported higher levels of threat for belong, F(1, 164) = 17.66, p < .001, self-esteem, F(1,
164) = 9.80, p = .002, and meaningful existence, F(1, 164) = 14.19, p = .002, but not for control, F(1, 164) = 2.95, p = . 089.
Thus, control was not included in further analyses to test the effects of the coping strategies on the recovery from social exclusion.
Excluded participants reported higher levels of sadness, F(1, 164) = 7.96, p = .005, pain, F(1, 164) = 8.38, p = .004, anger, F(1,
164) = 4.75, p = .031, and lower levels of happiness, F(1, 164) = 4.80, p = .030, compared to included participants. No difference
emerged for anxiety, F(1, 164) = 2.54, p = . 11; thus anxiety was not included in further analyses.
Thus, social media exclusion threatened basic needs (except for control) and increased negative emotions (except for anxiety). In
the following section, we focus on the contribution of coping strategies to recover from these effects of being excluded.

6.3. Testing the effects of psychological strategies on recovery from exclusion

6.3.1. Need-threat recovery

An overall Need threat-score was computed by averaging the ratings of all need-threat items (except control, as it was not affected
by the manipulation of social exclusion) for the reflexive (α = 0.86) and for the reflective stage (α = 0.85). To test the role of the
strategies, the Condition factor (Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control, and Inclusion-Control) was considered in
the analysis. An Effect of Condition emerged for the overall Need-score at the Reflexive stage, F(3, 162) = 6.96, p < .001. Participants
reported lower needs-threat in the Inclusion condition, than in the Exclusion conditions, all ts(gdl) > 3.14, all ps < . 001. However,
the three exclusion conditions (i.e., Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control) did not differ among themselves at the
reflexive stage (all p > .38, see Table 2). Thus, an index of Recovery was then obtained by subtracting the score at the reflective stage
from the one at the reflexive stage. A positive score indicated a greater recovery.
This Recovery index was analyzed in a model including Condition (Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control, and
Inclusion-Control), participants Sex (Male-Female), and the interaction term. An effect of Condition emerged, F(3, 158) = 7.78,
p < .001 (see Fig. 1). No recovery/change occurred in the Inclusion-Control condition, t(157) = 0.17, p = .86 (contrast to zero), as
needs were not threaten. Compared to the Inclusion-Control condition, participants in Exclusion-Control condition showed some
recovery, t(158) = 2.17, p = .032. However, participants in the Exclusion-bonds condition showed a greater recovery when com-
pared to participants both in the Inclusion-Control, t(158) = 4.65, p < .001, and in Exclusion-Control condition t(158) = 2.38,
p = .018. Reminding of a social surrogate had somehow an effect, as participants in this condition reported a greater recovery of their
needs compared to the Inclusion-Control, t(158) = 3.57, p < .001; no other comparison was significant.
These effects were qualified by the Conditions, Sex interaction, F(3, 158) = 2.94, p = .035 (see Fig. 2). Contrast revealed that the
surrogate strategy was most beneficial for boys than for girls, t(158) = −2.60, p = .010. Moreover boys using this strategy showed a
greater recovery than those in the Inclusion-Control, t(158) = −3.92, p < .001, and the Exclusion-Control condition, t

Table 2
Means and standard deviations (in brackets) as a function of the Conditions.
Inclusion Exclusion Exclusion Exclusion
Control Social Bonds Social Surrogates

Need threat reflexive 2.04 (0.55)a 2.79 (1.24)b 2.99 (1.26)b 2.95 (1.05)b
Need threat reflective 2.03 (0.7)a 2.33 (1.13)a 2.12 (0.82)a 2.26 (0.95)a
Need recovery 0.01 (0.59)a 0.47 (0.93)b 0.87 (0.92)c 0.69 (0.94)cb
Need recovery (Male) −0.04 (0.66)a 0.27 (0.81)ab 0.76 (0.75)bc 1.03 (1.04)c
Need recovery (Female) 0.06 (0.52)a 0.58 (0.99)bc 0.99 (1.08)c 0.34 (0.75)ab
Choice of schoolmate 31.52 (29.55) 29.27 (31.38) 29.39 (31.15) 25.46 (27.98)
Prosocial/antisocial 5.85 (5.02) 5.39 (5.43) 6.65 (4.25) 5.76 (4.26)

Note. Means in the same row with a different subscript are significantly different p < .05.

177
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

Need recovery
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 Inclusion-Control Exclusion-control Exclusion-bonds Exclusion-surrogates
-0.4

Fig. 1. Mean levels of need recovery, calculated as the subtraction of need threat at the reflective stage from the need threat at the reflective stage,
for the four treatment conditions.

1.5

1
Need recovery

0.5
Male
Female
0
Inclusion-Control Exclusion-control Exclusion-bonds Exclusion-surrogates

-0.5

-1

Fig. 2. Mean levels of need recovery depending on the treatment condition and the gender of the participant.

(158) = −2.63, p = .009, but similar to the Exclusion-bonds condition, t(158) = −1.04, p = .30. Instead, for girls, Exclusion-bonds
condition produced a significantly better recovery than the Inclusion-Control, t(158) = −3.59, p < .001, and the Exclusion-
surrogates condition, t(158) −2.44, p = .016, even though there was no difference with the Exclusion-Control conditions, t(158)
−1.64, p = .102.
Following up on this finding, at an exploratory level, we looked at the choices of the social surrogate (i.e., the preferred famous
person) made by boys and girls. We found that all boys in the social surrogate condition (N = 21) chose a social surrogate of the same
sex, whereas girls were equally divided into choosing same-sex (N = 8) or other-sex surrogates (N = 9).

6.3.2. Emotional recovery

The average of the ratings of the emotions (except anxiety, as it was not affected by the manipulation) at the reflexive (α = 0.75)
and the reflective stage (α = 0.65) was obtained. Then the Recovery index for emotions was calculated. No significant effect emerged
for the treatment Condition, F(3, 161) = 1.3, p = .28. All the three exclusion conditions showed some recovery, as the index was
always superior and greater than zero, but they did not differ among themselves (all ps > .4).

6.4. Choice of an ambiguous schoolmate and prosocial/antisocial intentions

Overall, participants tended not to accept the invitation by a bully classmate and acted prosocially (see Table 2). This tendencies
did not vary across Conditions (Exclusion-bonds, Exclusion-surrogates, Exclusion-Control, and Inclusion-Control), F(3, 162) = 0.29,
p = .84, and F(3, 162) = 0.54, p = .65, for the choice of schoolmate and prosociale/antisocial intentions respectively.

7. Discussion

The present findings extended current knowledge in several respects. First, we tested for the first time the effects of the Ostracism

178
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

Online paradigm (Wolf et al., 2015) on preadolescents. This paradigm has been previously used only with adults and university
students (Fossati, Somma, & Borroni, 2017; Schneider et al., 2017). Our results are coherent with previous studies (Schneider et al.,
2017; Wolf et al., 2015): receiving fewer “Likes” than others poses a threat to all fundamental needs except control. The need for
control seems not to be affected by this paradigm, differently from other experimentally created experiences of exclusion (e.g.,
Cyberball; Williams et al., 2000). Here, in this virtual environment, excluded participants are still able to act (e.g., they can keep
adding “likes” on other profiles, while, in the Cyberball task they cannot throw the ball when they do not receive it).
Nevertheless, our results show how little signs of acceptance and appreciation, as the “Likes” on a social media page, can be
effective cues in conveying a sense of belonging or exclusion in the developmental phases. Preadolescents potentially can go through
similar experiences many times; it becomes therefore essential to equip them with coping strategies in order to better handle possible
psychologically-threatening situations they may encounter in the virtual context.
No effect of exclusion on behavioral intentions (i.e., the choice of the ambiguous schoolmate and the prosocial/aggressive task)
was found. This null finding could be attributed to some specificity of the study design, as the poor validity of the measures (e.g., an
excessively extreme profile of a bully for middle school students to express the desire to affiliate with). Alternative, these null effects
might be attributable to participants having fully recovered from the exclusion situation when responding to these measures at the
end of the survey (see Williams, 2009). Another explanation might refer to the notion that aggressive behavior may be linked with the
victim's decreased need for control (see also Gerber & Wheeler, 2009), which was not threatened by our paradigm. Note however that
this is the first study to investigate the behavioral consequences of the Ostracism online paradigm in a sample of preadolescents.
Future studies are needed to investigate the consequences of the online exclusion on the behavioural reactions and the possible
moderation of control on the aggressive intentions, to disentangle these alternative explanations.
The other main contribution of the present study concerns the efficacy of the psychological strategies - recalling a close re-
lationship vs. a social surrogate - to recovery from the negative effects of social exclusion. Both strategies were minimal (i.e., writing
for a few minutes about a person of one's own family), as they were designed as a fast remedy to contrast daily episodes of exclusion.
The results seem promising. Whereas some recovery occurred spontaneously (see the Exclusion-control condition), recalling of a close
relation had a greater effect on the threatened needs. This findings add to previous studies showing that thinking of social bonds
diminishes aggressive behavior (Twenge, Baumeister, et al., 2007) and preserves mental health in excluded adults (Aydin et al.,
2012). Our results have a twofold implication. They suggest that preadolescents are able to implement this strategy and that re-
minders of social bonds (specifically family as prompted in the experiment) influence how they react to negative experience on social
media. We can speculate that this strategy works as it does not require high-order cognitive abilities, that may be still lacking at this
developmental age, but relies on an affective process. By thinking of a close social connection, the need to belong is fulfilled, leading
to a recovery. Another possibility is that, by thinking of a pre-existing social bond, the victim relativizes the ostracism experience and
put it into a broader perspective. The single episode may be more easily disregarded as just a negative moment amongst other positive
relationships. Future studies should better account the mechanism through which this strategy works.
Recalling a favorite famous person (social surrogate) showed results in between the Exclusion-control and the Exclusion-bonds
condition. Also, the social surrogate strategy seemed to help the need-satisfaction recovery of boys significantly more than for girls.
One explanation for this difference involves the type of celebrity participants chose. Boys selected only same-sex characters (e.g.,
famous actors, YouTubers or sports players), instead girls equally selected same-sex and other-sex characters. We speculate that the
choice of a same-sex character might be guided by some resemblance or modeling mechanisms (i.e., “I like this character because is
similar to me” or “I like this character because I would like to become like him/her”). Instead, the other-sex choice might have
involved some attraction mechanism (i.e., “I would like him to be my boyfriend”), increasing, in turn, feelings of exclusion, as the
relationship is unreachable. However, these considerations should be taken with caution because of the limited number of female and
male participants in each condition. Finally, our findings suggest new insights into the influence of celebrities, and the virtual
relationships they create, on adolescent's wellbeing. Research (Giles & Maltby, 2004; Greene & Adams-Price, 1990) has pointed to the
role of these parasocial connections, referring to them as a secondary attachment, which provides a pseudo-friends group during a
period of adolescents' progressive emancipation from parental support. The present research suggests that, they may also represent a
resource (at least for male) adolescents to bounce back the exclusion threats.
Some limitations concern the external validity of the study, as this was carried out using a controlled experimental procedure, so
that the exclusion situations were simulated in a safe and confined environment, to preserve the psychological wellbeing of parti-
cipants. The manipulation was minimal (being based on a difference of a few likes), with just one clue of exclusion, happening in a
context of privacy, with unknown people that were not salient for participants. Also, the recovery strategy was designed to be
minimal, with just a few instructions and minutes to be implemented. In a real-life environment, however, such factors could differ,
for instance, social exclusion could be publicly acted, carried out by significant others (e.g., classmates), and prolonged over time
(Riva, Montali, Wirth, Curioni, &Williams, 2017).

8. Conclusion

Overall, this research speaks of the effects of exclusion on social-media in preadolescents. In effect, the virtual world and, most
importantly, social networks, are becoming more and more pervasive in preadolescents’ life and their construction of social re-
lationships (Common Sense Media, 2009). Accordingly, social media have become new environments where children and adolescents
may encounter exclusion, amongst others, like school, sport and activity groups. Our research has shown - for the first time in a
controlled setting – that receiving few “Likes” elicits the feeling of being ignored and excluded and threatens fundamental needs and
emotional well-being. However, thinking of a close one helps to restore the needs.

179
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

Besides engaging in social activity to prevent exclusion from happening (Unit & Britain, 2001), it is crucial also to equip children
and adolescents with coping skills. In perspective, considering that during adolescence, abilities to self-regulate after exclusion are
still emerging (Vijayakumar et al., 2017), it is particularly important to identify strategies that can be used by these populations to
cope with exclusion. In this sense, our findings add a piece into this quest by testing a psychological strategy to help preadolescents
overcome the adverse effects of exclusion on social media.

Author notes

This work was supported by a Grant from the CARITRO Foundation (2583/16).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.02.010.

References

Abrams, D., Weick, M., Thomas, D., Colbe, H., & Franklin, K. M. (2011). On‐line ostracism affects children differently from adolescents and adults. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151010X494089.
Ahn, D., & Shin, D. H. (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective
well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2453–2462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.022.
Allen, K. A., Ryan, T., Gray, D. L., McInerney, D. M., & Waters, L. (2014). Social-media use and social connectedness in adolescents: The positives and the potential
pitfalls. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 31(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2014.2.
Aydin, N., Krueger, J. I., Fischer, J., Hahn, D., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2012). “Man's best friend:” How the presence of a dog reduces mental distress after
social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 446–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.011.
Barkley, J. E., Salvy, S. J., & Roemmich, J. N. (2012). The effect of simulated ostracism on physical activity behavior in children. Pediatrics, 119(3), e659–666. https://
doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0496.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4),
589–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589.
Bracken, B. A. (2003). TMA. Test di valutazione multidimensionale dell'autostima. Trento: Edizioni Erickson.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in adolescents. In (3rd ed.). R. M. L. Steinberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Contextual influences
on adolescent development: Vol. 2, (pp. 74–103). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children's
classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.1.
Common Sense Media (2009). Is technology networking changing childhood? A national poll. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Available at: www.
commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/CSM_teen_social_media_080609_FINAL.pdf, Accessed date: 16 July 2010.
Del Valle, J. F., Bravo, A., & López, M. (2010). Parents and peers as providers of support in adolescents' social network: A developmental perspective. Journal of
Community Psychology, 38(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20348.
Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7),
294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.010.
Fossati, A., Somma, A., & Borroni, S. (2017). The multidimensionality of pathological narcissism from the perspective of social ostracism: A study in a sample of Italian
university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.009.
Gardner, W L, Pickett, C L, & Knowles, M L (2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and surrogates in the service of belonging needs. In K D
Williams, J P Forgas, & W von Hippel (Eds.). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227–241). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203942888.
Garnefski, N., Rieffe, C., Jellesma, F., Terwogt, M. M., & Kraaij, V. (2007). Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and emotional problems in 9–11-year-old children.
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-006-0562-3.
Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis–stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74(1),
257–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00534.
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x.
Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality
and Individual Differences, 36(4), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00154-5.
Greene, A. L., & Adams-Price, C. (1990). Adolescents' secondary attachments to celebrity figures. Sex Roles, 23(7–8), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289224.
Hales, A. H., Wesselmann, E. D., & Williams, K. D. (2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 64, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.002.
Hales, A. H., & Williams, K. D. (2018). Marginalized individuals and extremism: The role of ostracism in openness to extreme groups. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1),
75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12257.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Hawes, D. J., Zadro, L., Fink, E., Richardson, R., O'Moore, K., Griffiths, B., & Williams, K. D. (2012). The effects of peer ostracism on children's cognitive processes.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.638815.
Knausenberger, J, Hellmann, J H, & Echterhoff, G (2015). When virtual contact is all you need: Subtle reminders of Facebook preempt social‐contact restoration after
exclusion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2035.
Knowles, M. L. (2013). Belonging regulation through the use of (para)social surrogates. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of social exclusion (pp. 275–285).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ladd, G W (2006). Peer rejection, aggressive or withdrawn behavior, and psychological maladjustment from ages 5 to 12: An examination of four predictive models.
Child development, 77(4), 822–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00905.x.
Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2016). Research in educational psychology: Social exclusion in school. In P. Riva, & J. Eck (Eds.). Social exclusion (pp. 109–132).
AG Switzerland Springer International Publishing.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal
of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10061.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children: Full findings and policy
implications from the EU kids online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the" porcupine problem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.412.

180
S. Timeo, et al. Journal of Adolescence 80 (2020) 173–181

McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin, C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024506.
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Chirumbolo, A., & Baiocco, R. (2018). The cyber dating violence inventory. Validation of a new scale for online perpetration and victimization
among dating partners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1305885.
Pharo, H., Gross, J., Richardson, R., & Hayne, H. (2011). Age-related changes in the effect of ostracism. Social Influence, 6(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15534510.2010.525852.
Poon, K. T., Teng, F., Wong, W. Y., & Chen, Z. (2016). When nature heals: Nature exposure moderates the relationship between ostracism and aggression. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 48, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.002.
Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome
expectancies. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 36(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20336.
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Ben-Horin, A. (1996). Adolescent idolization of pop singers: Causes, expressions, and reliance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
25(5), 631–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537358.
Reich, S., Schneider, F. M., & Heling, L. (2018). Zero Likes–Symbolic interactions and need satisfaction online. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 97–102. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.043.
Reijntjes, A., Stegge, H., Terwogt, M. M., Kamphuis, J. H., & Telch, M. J. (2006). Emotion regulation and its effects on mood improvement in response to an in vivo
peer rejection challenge. Emotion, 6(4), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.4.543.
Reijntjes, A., Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Boelen, P. A., de Castro, B. O., & Telch, M. J. (2010). The outcast-lash-out effect in youth: Alienation increases aggression
following peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1394–1398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610381509.
Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370304800904.
Riva, P. (2016). Emotion regulation following social exclusion: Psychological and behavioral strategies. In P. Riva, & J. Eck (Eds.). Social exclusion (pp. 109–132). AG
Switzerland Springer International Publishing.
Riva, P, & Eck, J (Eds.). (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and reducing its impact. New York, NY: Springer.
Riva, P., Montali, L., Wirth, J. H., Curioni, S., & Williams, K. D. (2017). Chronic social exclusion and evidence for the resignation stage: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(4), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516644348.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In W. Damon, Series, N. Eisenberg, & Vol (Eds.). The handbook of
child psychology (pp. 571–645). (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Salvy, S. J., Bowker, J. C., Nitecki, L. A., Kluczynski, M. A., Germeroth, L. J., & Roemmich, J. N. (2011). Impact of simulated ostracism on overweight and normal-
weight youths' motivation to eat and food intake. Appetite, 56(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.140.
Saylor, C. F., Nida, S. A., Williams, K. D., Taylor, L. A., Smyth, W., Twyman, K. A., & Spratt, E. G. (2012). Bullying and ostracism screening scales (BOSS): Development
and applications. Children's Health Care, 41(4), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/02739615.2012.720962.
Schneider, F. M., Zwillich, B., Bindl, M. J., Hopp, F. R., Reich, S., & Vorderer, P. (2017). Social-media ostracism: The effects of being excluded online. Computers in
Human Behavior, 73, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.052.
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K. D., & Blakemore, S. J. (2010). Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and
Cognition, 72(1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.008.
Timeo S, Riva P, Paladino MP. Dealing with social exclusion: An analysis of psychological strategies. In S., Rudert, G., Reiner, & K., Williams, (Eds.) Current directions
on ostracism, rejection and exclusion; (in press).
Tobia, V., Riva, P., & Caprin, C. (2017). Who are the children most vulnerable to social exclusion? The moderating role of self-esteem, popularity, and nonverbal
intelligence on cognitive performance following social exclusion. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-
0191-3.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058.
Unit, S. E., & Britain, G. (2001). Preventing social exclusion. London: Cabinet Office.
Vijayakumar, N., Cheng, T. W., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2017). Neural correlates of social exclusion across ages: A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional MRI studies.
NeuroImage, 153, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.050.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need‐threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)
00406-1.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5),
748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.748.
Wolf, W., Levordashka, A., Ruff, J. R., Kraaijeveld, S., Lueckmann, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). Ostracism online: A social-media ostracism paradigm. Behavior
Research Methods, 47(2), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0475-x.
Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1306–1321. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x.

181