diff_months: 20

BSc Psychology with Counselling and Research Methods Assessment

Download Solution Now
Added on: 2022-11-09 04:50:33
Order Code: 475062
Question Task Id: 0
  • Subject Code :

    PSYC1142

  • Country :

    United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION: literature review (1. describe some research about ostracism and how that affects emotion; 2.  need to describe some research the theoretical underpinning, rationale, aim, hypotheses 

Ostracism refers to the act of intentionally ignoring and excluding an individual(s) from social group or activity (Williams, 2000). Ostracism is a social phenomenon which can occur cross-culturally in humans, in a variety of different forms. Exclusion can be seen in families, friendship groups, love relationships, organizations, workplace, or the internet. This process can occur in the act of ignoring someone in order to pay attention to one’s phone, also known as phubbing (Hales, 2018). This topic of exploring the effects of ostracism, has received empirical interest, over the last fifteen years (Williams, 2009).

Zhong & Leonardelli (2008) found that people felt cold or preferred warm food when they experienced being socially excluded, regardless of whether such experience was induced through recalling past experience or participating in a virtual interaction. Ostracism is known to be a distressing experience that often leads to emotional pain and hurt feelings (Williams, 2009). This conclusion is supported by more recent research (Samma et al. 2020), who discuss how ostracism, par??cularly in a workplace

environment, can lead to job anxiety and a decrease in organiza??onal performance. Feelings of depression, anger, and helplessness can also be linked to episodes of ostracism (Williams,2007). From this it can be inferred that there are adverse e??ects which ostracism can have on psychological wellbeing.

      According to Williams (2007), most people have experienced social exclusion or rejection in the past. Baumeister & Tice (1990) found that the real threat of social exclusion can lead to anxiety. This is supported by a recent study (Samma et al. 2020), which argues that workplace exclusion can lead to job insecurity and poor organizational performance. Feelings of depression, anger, and helplessness can also be linked to episodes of ostracism (Williams, 2007). From this, it can be inferred that social exclusion can have a negative impact on psychological wellbeing. The comprehensive theoretical framework for constructing the research in this area is largely credited to Williams (2009) for constructing the Temporal Need-Threat model (TNT). This theory states that ostracism threatens the four basic needs for human social behaviour: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Williams & Nida, 2011). Ostracism has a negative psychological impact in the first stage of the TNT Model, the immediate (or reflexive stage). Subsequently, there is a coping (or reflective) stage where the ostracised individual redirects on their experience and its importance. If this shows enough cause for enough concern, they then attempt to fortify the threatened relational needs (Williams & Nida, 2011). In the final stage of the model, resignation (or long-term ostracism) occurs – persistent exposure to ostracism leads to a reduction on in motivational resources to fortify fundamental needs, prompting feelings of alienation and depression (Williams, 2009). This can be linked to the exclusion theory of Baumeister & Tice (1990), where anxiety derives from an innate human need to belong to social groups – one of the fundamental needs.

      Ostracism has been studied with a variety of methods. The diary method: participants recorded their experiences of exclusion and their subsequent emotions over a two-week period. Need satisfaction (self-esteem, belonging, control and meaningful existence) was low (Nezlek, Wesselmann, Wheeler & Williams, 2012). The cyber-ball method: participants included or excluded from online ball toss games. Those in the excluded condition had lower needs satisfaction scores of self-esteems, belonging, control and meaningful existence (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). For the autobiographical method: participants were asked to recall an experience of time of inclusion or exclusion. The excluded group reported feeling of physical coldness (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008).

      Research focused on the experiences of sources and targeted exclusion, by Poulsen & Kashy (2012) investigated whether the cause of ostracism is experiencing negative emotions associated with social exclusion. Their study results revealed that both targets and sources would be negatively affected by ostracism, with various types of emotional consequences and stronger impact on the target than the source. This shows that sources of ostracism also experience negative consequences [why is it important to know that sources of ostracism feel bad] which is linked to psychological human needs.????? In the discussion

      Based on the theoretical underpinnings of the TNT model, Hales et al. (2018) provided influential research on the topic of phubbing, by examining whether people feel ignored/shunned when their conversational partner used a mobile phone. Basic need satisfaction was shown to decrease significantly when participants remembered that their conversation partner looked at their phone during social interaction. They were compared with a control group whose conversation partner gave them their full attention. This shows that pubbing a friend during a conversation indicates lack of attentiveness which can lead to feelings of devaluation in the relationship.  The ostrasised individuals experienced unmet needs for inclusion.

      The aim of the current study is to adopt the same approach as Hales at al., (2018) by comparing different conditions, in order to see if results replicate and extend to when individuals are responsible for ‘phubbing’ their conversation. Our hypothesis is that there is effect on the type of conversation on the satisfaction score. 

The aim of the current study is to understand the differences between different levels of ostracism on conversation satisfaction. 

METHODS:

Sample: 

269 university students were recruited during a Psychological Research Methods seminar (42 male, 220 female; 4 non-binary, 3 prefer not to say, mean Age=24.59, SD=8.24). Participants were randomly assigned to a conversation type group. 

Design: 

This study was a between-participant experimental design. The independent variable (IV) was the type of conversation, and the dependent variable (DV) was satisfaction score. A one-way ANOVA was used to test our hypothesis that there is an effect on the type of conversation on the satisfaction score. 

Measures: 

The Assessment of Need Satisfaction (Jamieson, Harkins & Williams, 2010). This presents as a 20-item questionnaire with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Scores are calculated by 5-point scales, with higher scores meaning high need satisfaction. Conversation type: Participants in the inclusion group imagined being included in a conversation with their friend. Participants in the exclusion group imagined being excluded in a conversation with their friend. Participants in the group doing the exclusion imagined being the source of exclusion in a conversation with a friend. 

Procedure:

 Data was submitted on a survey via Qualtrics platform during a seminar in which the students were attending. Informed consent was gained from participants at the beginning of the study. Participants were asked to recall a time where they were either included, excluded, or excluded a friend during a conversation. Participants then filled out this questionnaire. The procedure took participants approximately 10 minutes to complete. There was also a de-brief from which included thanks for participating.

 Ethics: 

The study was reviewed by the School of Human Sciences ethics panel. Participants were not given any incentives to take part in this study. Students had complete anonymity when answers to respect confidentiality, as well as the right to withdraw data. Protection from harm was considered, it was anticipated that neither psychological nor physical harm would be expected. Although, there was an option to receive online support from Togetherall if needed from the university. 

RESULTS 

We looked for outliers by looking at boxplots. Seven people in the Social Inclusion group and four people in the Target Ostracism group were not significant outliers and were kept in the analysis. Homogeneity of Variances was assessed by Levenes test, which was not significant, p= .76. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.

 

Table1

Column1

Column2

Column3

Group

N

Mean

SD

Social Inclusion

80

3.64

0.78

Target Ostracism

89

2.36

0.73

Source Ostracism

84

3.03

0.69

Total

 

 

4

 There was a significant difference between the type of conversation groups, F (2, 250) =64.37, p = 0.001; p < .05. This means the type of conversation had an effect on someone’s needs. Post-hock tests were carried out to look for differences between the groups. To correct for multiple comparisons the significance value was divided by 3 to give a new significance level of .017.

The difference between Social inclusion and Target ostracism was significant, t(167) =11.00, p < .001, d = 1.70. The difference between Social inclusion and Source ostracism was significant, t (162) = 5.32, p < .001, d =.83. The difference between groups Target ostracism and Source ostracism was significant, t (171) = -6.19, p < .001, d = .94. These results show that social inclusion group has the highest Need satisfaction score, and the Target ostracism has the lowest with all groups significantly different from each other.

 Results should be presented in the Results section, with the SPSS output placed in the Appendix. You can write your results in text only. There are no extra marks for use of a table/graph. All numbers should be rounded to two decimaL places except for p-values which are rounded to three decimal places.

Descriptive statistics (e.g., M, SD), assumption tests, ANOVA, multiple comparisons.

 DISCUSSION

This study had the aim to investigate the relationship between three types of conversation groups and need satisfaction score. Results revealed that there was a significant difference between the groups, which supported the hypothesis that there is effect on the type of conversation on the satisfaction score.

The difference between Social inclusion and Target ostracism was significant, The difference between Social inclusion and Source ostracism was significant, The difference between groups Target ostracism and Source ostracism was significant, These results show that Social inclusion group has the highest Need satisfaction score and the Target ostracism has the lowest with all groups significantly different from each other.

A one-way ANOVA was used to test our hypothesis that there is an effect on the type of conversation on the satisfaction score. There is a significant difference in need satisfaction score between the different conversation types.

 

The results showed there are significant differences between each of the groups. The Social inclusion group has significantly higher need satisfaction score than the Target and Source ostracism groups. Source ostracism group has higher need satisfaction from the Target ostracism group, and lower than the Social inclusion group. And the Target ostracism has the lower needs satisfaction score of all. 

The results showed [repeat if there was significant effect and that means], confirming/not confirming our hypothesis [repeat hypothesis] State previous that the results you got support/are similar to]

Limitations

-student sample [say why this is limitation with citation]

-use of self-report scale [say why this is a limitation] 

Implications of

 Which method was used in the current study?

Are there any potential advantages/disadvantages to this approach? (These could be considered when addressing study limitations in the Discussion section)

 

APPENDIX

Statistical output, questionnaire etc.: 2Appendixes: SPSS output and the questionnaire (only)

 You choose either planned comparisons or post-hoc multiple comparisons (hint: you need a very strong theory-driven rationale if you were going to use planned comparisons, otherwise you use post-hoc)

 Please note the questionnaire items were the same for all participants, it was only the recall instructions that differed.

You need to present a summary of the assumption tests in the Result section, and all SPSS output, including histograms, go in the Appendix.

  • Uploaded By : Katthy Wills
  • Posted on : November 09th, 2022
  • Downloads : 0
  • Views : 162

Download Solution Now

Can't find what you're looking for?

Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assistance

Choose a Plan

Premium

80 USD
  • All in Gold, plus:
  • 30-minute live one-to-one session with an expert
    • Understanding Marking Rubric
    • Understanding task requirements
    • Structuring & Formatting
    • Referencing & Citing
Most
Popular

Gold

30 50 USD
  • Get the Full Used Solution
    (Solution is already submitted and 100% plagiarised.
    Can only be used for reference purposes)
Save 33%

Silver

20 USD
  • Journals
  • Peer-Reviewed Articles
  • Books
  • Various other Data Sources – ProQuest, Informit, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, EBSCO, Exerpta Medica Database, and more