Ostracism triggers negative emotions such as sadness, anger, and hurt feelings. Do targets of ostracism truthfully share their emotions with the sources of ostracism? Drawing on past research on... Show moreOstracism triggers negative emotions such as sadness, anger, and hurt feelings. Do targets of ostracism truthfully share their emotions with the sources of ostracism? Drawing on past research on social-functional accounts of emotions and interpersonal emotion regulation, we investigated the possibility that targets may misrepresent their emotions (i.e., gaming emotions). We conducted three experiments (N = 1058; two pre-registered) using an online ball-tossing game, in which participants were randomly assigned to be included or ostracized. Consistent with the literature, we found that ostracized individuals were more hurt, sad, and angry than included individuals. However, we found little and inconsistent evidence that ostracized (vs included) individuals misrepresented their emotional reactions to the sources. Further, Bayesian analyses offered more support against misrepresentation of emotions. These findings suggest that targets of ostracism truthfully communicated their social pain to the sources. Show less
Hall, J.M.; Park, H.R.P.; Krebs, R.M.; Schomaker, J. 2023
Earlier findings suggest that positions of power decrease self-other integration and increase psychological distance to others. Until now, however, evidence for this relation rests exclusively on... Show moreEarlier findings suggest that positions of power decrease self-other integration and increase psychological distance to others. Until now, however, evidence for this relation rests exclusively on subjective measures. The current research instead employed a vertical joint Simon task to measure self-other integration. This task assesses the extent to which people represent their own actions in reference to their co-actor's, also referred to as the joint Simon effect. Building on cultural associations between power and vertical elevation, we manipulated whether participants were in an elevated (high-power) or lower (low-power) seating position. Experiments 1a and 1b reanalyzed existing datasets and found that elevated (vs. lower) seating position decreased the joint Simon effect, consistent with predictions. Experiment 2 provides a high-powered replication of this finding. Yet, further analyses revealed that feelings of power – measured as a manipulation check and indeed demonstrating that the manipulation was successful – did not mediate or moderate the effect of seating position on the joint Simon effect. Therefore, it is possible that the effect of seating elevation was driven through other aspects of that manipulation than feelings of power. We discuss these and suggest ways to test these alternative explanations. Show less
Hamami, Y.: Van der Kuil, M.N.A.: Mumma, J.: Van der Ham, I.J.M. 2020
This study investigated the potential of dynamic testing of geometric analogical reasoning in differentiating between the potential for learning of gifted and average-ability children (aged 9-10... Show moreThis study investigated the potential of dynamic testing of geometric analogical reasoning in differentiating between the potential for learning of gifted and average-ability children (aged 9-10 years old). In doing so, it was analysed whether planning, a higher-order executive function, was related to outcomes of the dynamic test, and to instructional needs during training. Employing a pretest-training-post-test control group design, participants were split into four subgroups: gifted dynamic testing (n = 24), gifted control (n = 26), average-ability dynamic testing (n = 48) and average-ability control (n = 50). The results revealed that children who were dynamically tested progressed more in accuracy from pre-test to post-test than their peers who received practice opportunities only. Gifted children outperformed their average-ability peers in accuracy, but showed similar levels of improvement after training or practice only. Moreover, gifted children showed they needed fewer prompts during training than their average-ability peers. Planning was found to be related only to pre-test accuracy, and the number of prompts needed at the first training session, but not to post-test accuracy or the number of prompts needed at the second training session. In the discussion, educational implications of the findings were discussed. Show less
