Gender Difference of Social Communication Intention in the Context of Social Exclusion

Gender Difference of Social Communication Intention in the Context of Social Exclusion | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Gender Difference of Social Communication Intention in the Context of Social Exclusion Huiyi Tang, Min Bai, Dengmei Hu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objective This study employs experimental methods to investigate the boundary conditions of the influence of social exclusion on social communication willingness. Methods Adopting the 2 (exclusion condition: exclusion group、inclusion group) × 2(gender: males、females) × 2 (social interaction object: exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed experimental design. Exclusion condition and gender were the between-subjects variables, social interaction object was the within-subjects variable, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale. Results (1) There was a significant interaction between exclusion condition and social interaction object, the simple effects analysis showed that: in the exclusion condition, individuals were significantly more social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator than for exclusion perpetrator; in the inclusion condition, individuals did not differ in their social communication willingness for exclusion perpetrator and non-exclusion perpetrator. (2) In terms of social communication intention to exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group, whether female or male. However, in terms of social communication intention to non-exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group among males, while there was no significant difference among females. Conclusion The effect of social exclusion on social communication intention is influenced by social interaction object and gender differences. social exclusion social communication intention gender Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Social exclusion is a phenomenon in which the excluded person is not accepted by family, friends, or society and thus cannot acquire the need to belong [ 1 – 3 ] . Social exclusion can have many negative effects on an individual's life. Eisenberger found that individuals who suffer from social exclusion feel negative emotions such as psychological irritability, feelings of hurt, and social pain [ 4 ] . McGraw went further and stated that social exclusion can lead to symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, which directly affect an individual's psychological well-being [ 5 ] . Even, social exclusion can affect individuals' quality of life issues such as eating and sleeping, and reduce their life satisfaction [ 6 – 9 ] . Social exclusion not only affects an individual's level of mental health, it also has a significant impact on an individual's interpersonal relationships [ 10 ] . Nowadays, school bullying and school shootings keep happening, and social exclusion is one of the major reasons for these incidents [ 11 ] . At the same time, social exclusion affects individuals' willingness to interact socially. The theory of "anti-prosocial behavior" points out that individuals who experience social exclusion have a reduced willingness to socially interact with others [ 12 , 13 ] . Also, the results of empirical studies support these views [ 1 ] . However, most of the previous studies have examined the social communication willingness of the excluded towards the exclusion perpetrator, and less often the social communication willingness of the excluded towards others (non-exclusion perpetrator). Based on this, one of the purposes of this study was to investigate whether there are differences in individuals' willingness to socialize toward exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator. The self-expansion model states that one of the core human motivations is self-expansion. People include others in the self-concept by establishing intimate relationships with them,thus including the resources originally belonging to others into their self-concept [ 14 , 15 ] . Lewandowski and Ackerman pointed out that the motivation for human social communication is that others can provide certain resources to meet the needs of self-expansion [ 16 ] . Jia and Shi pointed out that when others can not meet the needs of self-expansion, individuals will not close the psychological distance with them, and even gradually alienate them [ 17 ] . Aron et al. also found that lovers become progressively boring because the other person gives them less and less self-expansive satisfaction as time passes [ 18 ] . Therefore, when an individual suffers from social exclusion, the individual will be less willing to socialize with the exclusion perpetrator because the exclusion perpetrator is unable to satisfy the individual's self-expansion needs. However, "Emotional compensation theory" suggests that social exclusion threatens individual's sense of belonging and that individuals will re-establish social connections to satisfy their need for identification and attention [ 19 – 21 ] . Therefore, social exclusion can increases the individual's willingness to socialize with others [ 22 ] . The "demand-threat" model proposed by Williams also points out that when individual needs are threatened, individuals will satisfy their relevant needs through other means [ 23 ] . Reimann and Aron found that when individuals are unable to satisfy their self-expansion needs from someone, they seek out others to satisfy their self-expansion needs [ 24 ] . Therefore, after people suffer from social exclusion, they are unable to obtain the need for self-expansion from the exclusion perpetrator, and may increase the social interaction with others (non-exclusion perpetrator), so as to meet their needs for self-expansion. Based on this, we propose our first hypothesis: Hypothesis 1 After individuals suffer from social exclusion, individuals have lower social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator and higher social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator. The second purpose of this study was to investigate whether gender differences affect individuals' willingness to socialize after being socially excluded. After individuals suffer from social exclusion, they will think of ways to meet their self-expansion needs. Gordon and Luo point out that self-expanding satisfaction can be achieved through two paths, namely "relational expansion" and "personal expansion" [ 25 ] . The "relationship expansion" is achieved by developing good interpersonal relationships. The "Personal expansion" is achieved through the individual's own efforts to obtain new material resources. Markus and Kitayama proposed the "self-construction" theory, which divided two types of self, namely "independent self" and "relational self" [ 26 ] . Further research finds that women are more "relational self", and their means of self-expansion is mainly "relational expansion". However, men are more "independent self", and their means of self-expansion is mainly "self-expansion" [ 27 , 28 ] .The study of Wang and Tu also directly found that after individuals suffer from social exclusion, men pay more attention to themselves, while women pay more attention to others [ 29 ] . Therefore, when individuals suffer from social exclusion, men are more likely to realize their self-expansion needs by enhancing their self-competence and resources; while women are more likely to realize their self-expansion needs by establishing new relationships with others. Based on this, we propose our second hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 After the individual suffered social exclusion, males had lower social communication willingness to both exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator, but females had lower social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator and higher social communication willingness to non-perpetrator. The purpose of this study is to test the above two hypotheses by manipulating the exclusion of different genders through the " ball-tossing game" paradigm [ 30 , 31 ] , and then measuring their social communication willingness by using the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale. Pilot study The pilot study aims to validate the operational effectiveness of the social exclusion paradigm: the ball-tossing game. Its validity is tested using the Need-Threat Scale (NTS) [ 32 ] . Methods Participants A total of 60 undergraduate students, aged between 18 and 24, with either normal vision or corrected vision, participated in the experiment from September to October 2020. The sample comprised an equal number of males and females, with 30 males and 30 females. All participants gave their verbal consent to voluntarily participate in this experiment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University (Approval No.: 202092). Experimental Materials Ball-tossing Game Ball-tossing game is a virtual ball tossing game designed to manipulation social exclusion [ 30 , 31 ] (See Fig. 1 ). It has been extensively used in the ostracism literature and has two conditions to which participants are randomly assigned. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again. We used the web version of ball-tossing game and set the number of players to 3 and the total number of throws to 30. Need-Threat Scale (NTS) The Need to Belong Sub-scale of the Need-Threat Scale developed by wirth et al. was used to check whether social exclusion was manipulation successfully [ 32 ] . It consists of 5 items to be answered on a 5-point-Likert scale from “1 = not at all” to "5 = extremely"; e.g., " I felt like an outsider". The final score was the sum of all items, with higher scores representing a higher level of feelings of social exclusion. For the current sample, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.84. The construct validity of the sub-scale was measured by structural equation modeling with AMOS 23.0, the results show that: x 2 /df = 1.48, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.09. This result indicates that the scale has good reliability and validity. Experimental Design The experiment is a single-factor experimental design. Exclusion condition (exclusion group, inclusion group) was the between-subjects variables, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Need-Threat Scale. Experimental Procedure Step 1 manipulation of social exclusion As shown in Fig. 1 , the subjects entered the lab and were asked to turn off or silence their cell phones. Then the subject was told, "You will be playing an online ball throwing game with students from two other schools on your computer. Your identity is play2, and when the ball is in your hand, click the avatar of play1 or play3 to pass the ball to that player. The other two players can also choose anyone to pass the ball to. Once you understand the instructions, press the space bar to begin.". The total number of throws in both experimental conditions was 30. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again. Step 2 Measurement of Need-Threat Scale Immediately after playing, the subjects filled in the Need to Belong Sub-scale of the Need-Threat Scale. The subjects received a small gift when they finished the experiment. Results An independent samples t-test analysis revealed that the exclusion group had significantly higher levels of feelings of social exclusion ( M = 3.69, SD = 0.68) than the inclusion group ( M = 2.13, SD = 0.52), t = 9.94, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 2.61, 95% CI = [1.88, 3.26]. This result indicated that the " ball-tossing game" can effectively activate feeling of social exclusion. The formal experiment Methods Participants A total of 120 undergraduate students, aged between 18 and 24, with either normal vision or corrected vision, participated in the experiment from October to December 2020. The sample comprised an equal number of males and females, with 60 males and 60 females. All participants gave their verbal consent to voluntarily participate in this experiment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University (Approval No.: 202092). Experimental Materials Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale Zhong constructed the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale to measure the social communication willingness [ 33 ] . The scale was revised in this study. The revised scale contains 10 items. Participants respond to the items using a 5-point-Likert rating scale (ranging from 1 = very willing to 5 = very reluctant). We reversed the score so that the higher score represents better social communication willingness. The Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale has two factors: (1) social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator (e.g., ‘When you are in a bad mood, would you like to talk to your partner who just played the game with you?’), (2) social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator (e.g., ‘After entering the university, are you willing to actively socialize with other students to expand your network?’). For the current sample, the Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.84. The construct validity of the scale was measured by structural equation modeling with AMOS 23.0, the results show that: x 2 /df = 1.56, IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07. This result indicates that the scale has good reliability and validity. Ball-tossing Game The manipulation of the ball-tossing game is like pilot study. Experimental Design The design was a 2 (exclusion condition: exclusion group, inclusion group) × 2 ( gender: males, females) × 2 (social interaction object: exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed experimental. Exclusion condition and gender were the between-subjects variables, social interaction object was the within-subjects variable, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale. Experimental Procedure Step 1 manipulation of social exclusion The manipulation of social exclusion is like pilot study. The total number of throws in both experimental conditions was 30. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again. Step 2 Measurement of social communication willingness Immediately after playing, the subjects filled in the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale. The subjects received a small gift when they finished the experiment. Results Analysis of differences in social communication willingness of different exclusion conditions Table 1 Means and standard deviations of social communication willingness for different exclusion perpetrators exclusion conditions social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator ( M ± SD ) social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator ( M ± SD ) inclusion group 3.83 ± 0.49 3.82 ± 0.48 exclusion group 3.00 ± 0.72 3.43 ± 0.55 One subject chose 2 for all the questionnaires, and one subject had one question with two choices. After eliminating the two data, the remaining 118 data were included in the statistical analysis. A 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) × 2 (exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table 1 for statistical results). The exclusion condition main effect was significant, F (1, 116) = 54.35, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.32, 90% CI = [0.21, 0.42], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion, indicating that social exclusion reduces individuals' social communication willingness. The social interaction object main effect was significant, F (1,116) = 10.34, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.08, 90%CI = [0.02, 0.17], with individuals' social communication willingness towards non-exclusion perpetrator was significantly higher than that towards exclusion perpetrator. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the social interaction object was significant, F (1, 116) = 12.08, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.09, 90% CI = [0.03, 0.18]. A further simple effects analysis showed that in the exclusion condition, individuals were significantly more social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator than for exclusion perpetrator, F (1, 116) = 22.01, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.16, 90% CI = [0.07, 0.26]; in the inclusion condition, individuals did not differ in their social communication willingness for exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator, F (1, 116) = 0.03, p > 0.05, confirming hypothesis 1 . See Fig. 2 for the interaction diagram. Analysis of gender differences in the effects of social exclusion on social communication willingness Firstly, the gender differences of social exclusion on the social communication willingness of "exclusion perpetrator" are examined. Taking the scores of social communication willingness of "exclusion perpetrator" as the dependent variable, 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) ×2 (male, female) between-group design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table 2 for statistical results) .The exclusion condition main effect was significant, F (1, 114) = 55.80, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.33, 90% CI = [0.21, 0.43], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion. The gender main effect was significant, F (1, 114) = 7.68, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.06, 90% CI = [0.01, 0.15], with females being significantly higher social communication willingness than males. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the gender was not significant, F (1, 114) = 1.70, p > 0.05. This indicates that in terms of social communication intention to exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group, whether female or male. Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of social communication willingness of males and females exclusion conditions social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator male( M ± SD ) female( M ± SD ) male( M ± SD ) female( M ± SD ) inclusion group 3.75 ± 0.48 3.91 ± 0.50 3.80 ± 0.42 3.83 ± 0.54 exclusion group 2.79 ± 0.57 3.23 ± 0.80 3.20 ± 0.46 3.68 ± 0.53 Then, the gender differences of social exclusion on the social communication willingness of "non-exclusion perpetrator" are examined. Taking the scores of social communication willingness of "non-exclusion perpetrator" as the dependent variable, 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) ×2 (male, female) between-group design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table 2 for statistical results). The exclusion condition main effect was significant, F (1, 114)= 17.59, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.13, 90%CI = [0.05, 0.23], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion. The gender main effect was significant, F ༈1, 114༉= 8.09, p < 0.01, η 2 p = 0.07, 90%CI = [0.01, 0.15], with females being significantly higher social communication willingness than males. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the gender was significant, F ༈1, 114༉= 6.12, p < 0.05, η 2 p = 0.05, η 2 p = 0.07, 90%CI = [0.01, 0.13]. A further simple effects analysis showed that in the male condition, the exclusion group was significantly less social communication willingness with non-exclusion perpetrator than the inclusion group, F ༈1, 115༉=21.31, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.16, 90%CI = [0.07, 0.25]; in the female condition, there was no difference in social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator between the exclusion and inclusion groups, F ༈1, 115༉= 1.53, p > 0.05 (see Fig. 3 for the interaction diagram). The above results show that both male and female have a lower social communication willingness to the perpetrator of exclusion, while male have a lower social communication willingness to the non-perpetrators of exclusion and women have a higher social willingness to the non-perpetrators of exclusion. The above results confirmed hypothesis 2 . Discussion Individuals' social communication willingness for different exclusion perpetrators In recent years, social exclusion has been one of the topical issues of interest to researchers in psychology and sociology. However, with the in-depth study of the field of social exclusion, some contradictory results are gradually found. For example, Twenge et al. found that individuals with social exclusion had reduced levels of pro-social behavior and decreased willingness to cooperate with others [ 34 ] . However, Ouwerkerk et al. noted that individuals who suffer social exclusion have increased levels of pro-social behavior and will increase willingness to cooperate with others [ 35 ] . At the same times, the studies of social communication willingness have also shown contradictory results. Twenge et al. found that social exclusion would reduce individuals' social communication willingness [ 1 ] ; while Maner et al. found that social exclusion would increase individuals' social communication willingness [ 22 ] . The results of this study show that one of the reasons for these contradictory results may be that previous researchers seldom clearly distinguish the objects of individual social interaction willingness. That is, individuals have a lower social interaction willingness to the exclusion perpetrator, but a higher social interaction willingness to the non-exclusion perpetrator. The hierarchy of needs theory states that people have a need for interaction [ 36 ] . The triple ego construction theory proposed by Brewer and Gardner also points out that the ego is composed of the individual self, the relational self and the collective self [ 37 ] . Therefore, good social interaction plays an important role in the survival and development of individuals [ 38 ] . The self-expansion theory also points out that the motivation of interpersonal communication is to meet the needs of self-expansion [ 14 ] . However, the perpetrator of social exclusion can not meet the individual's self-expansion needs, so the individual is not motivated to interact socially with exclusion perpetrator, and may even alienate exclusion perpetrator. Harasymchuk and Fehr point out that if a relationship fails to satisfy self-expansion, individuals will feel bored [ 39 ] . The results of this study are also consistent with this view that individuals who suffer from social exclusion have a lower social interaction willingness for the exclusion perpetrator. However, this study also found that after being excluded, individuals showed a higher social interaction willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator. Williams pointed out that when an individual's needs are threatened, the individual will try to find ways to meet their related needs in order to achieve a balance of needs [ 23 ] . Aron et al. also noted that when the other person fails to meet the self-expansion needs, the individual will leave the person and re-establish a new relationship to meet the self-expansion needs [ 40 – 41 ] . Wang and Tu point out that individuals who suffer from social exclusion are more willing to make new friends and re-establish a new relationship [ 29 ] . Miao et al. also pointed out that individuals will strengthen cooperation with others after suffering social exclusion, so as to meet their needs of belonging [ 42 ] . Therefore, after being excluded, the individual can not meet the needs of self-expansion from the exclusion perpetrator, but can only strengthen social interaction with others in order to meet the needs of self-expansion. Differences in social communication willingness by gender There are not only physical differences between men and women, but also differences in psychology and behavior. Witkin used the stick test to find that men were more likely to be field-independent personality, while women were more likely to be field-dependent personality [ 43 ] . Sidanius et al. found that women pay more attention to information that reflects social relations, while men pay more attention to information about power and hierarchy [ 44 ] . Rosenberg analyzed the gender differences in self-worth assessment and found that men valued their status and abilities more, while women valued their social relations more [ 45 ] . This study also found that after suffering social exclusion, women showed a stronger social interaction willingness than men. Williams divides human needs into two categories: efficacy needs and relational needs [ 19 ] . The efficacy needs mainly refers to the sense of control and meaning, which is embodied in the individual's active pursuit of self-efficacy, competitiveness and autonomy. The relational needs mainly refers to the sense of belonging and self-esteem, which is embodied in the individual's active pursuit of harmonious, intimate and stable social relations. When individuals suffer from social exclusion, both efficacy needs and relational needs are destroyed. According to the "demand-threat" model, individuals will find ways to make up for the destroyed needs. The male is more interested in efficacy needs, so he focuses more on himself and improves his own strength to regain the balance of needs, while the female is more interested in relational needs and wants to reestablish relationships to achieve the balance of needs [ 29 ] . Thus, when an individual suffers from social exclusion, both the individual's efficacy needs and relational needs are disrupted, so both males and females are less social interaction willingness for the exclusion perpetrator. This is consistent with Harasymchuk and Fehr's view that when others can not meet the individual's self-expansion needs, the individual will dislike him and stay away from him. But in the face of non-exclusion perpetrator, males and females showed different social interaction willingness [ 39 ] . Because males paid more attention to efficacy needs and were more willing to rely on their own efforts to meet their needs, so they also showed lower social interaction willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator. However, because females pay more attention to relational needs, they want to establish a new relationship to meet their own needs, so women show a higher social interaction willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator. Limitations and Future Directions First, this study only uses the "Ball-tossing game" paradigm to manipulate the sense of social exclusion. Future studies can use other social exclusion instruments to further investigate and increase the external validity of the study. Secondly, Lehman et al. also pointed out that Western culture tends to form field-independent personality, while Eastern culture tends to form field-dependent personality [ 46 ] . Therefore, whether there are cultural differences in the impact of social exclusion on individual social interaction willingness need further cross-cultural research. Finally, this study only explores the situation that individuals are excluded alone, but in the real society, there are often cases of common excluded. Miao et al. proposed "alliances among the weak", stating that individuals who have been excluded prefer to cooperate with those who have also been excluded [ 42 ] . Therefore, future research could further explore the situation of social interaction willingness between individuals who are common excluded. Conclusion This study used a "Ball-tossing game" experimental paradigm to explore the boundary conditions of the influence of social exclusion on social communication willingness.The results showed that individuals who suffered from social exclusion had a lower social communication willingness for the exclusion perpetrator, but showed a higher willingness to interact for others (such as non-exclusion perpetrator). At the same time, when faced with social exclusion, both male and female subjects showed lower social communication willingness for the exclusion perpetrator, but when faced with the non-exclusion perpetrator, male subjects still showed lower social communication willingness, while female subjects showed higher social communication willingness. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The authors confrm that all the methods comply with current guidelines and regulations that follow the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This research was funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Project of Guizhou Province(23GZQN41). Author Contribution HT conceptualized and designed the project. MB and DH acquired the data and performed statistical and data analysis. HT drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Acknowledgments We are grateful to all the participants for giving their time and participating willingly. Data Availability The datasets used and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2001;81:1058–69. Mwilambwe-Tshilobo L, Spreng RN. Social exclusion reliably engages the default network: A meta-analysis of Cyberball. NeuroImage. 2021;227:117666. Li J, Rose N. Urban social exclusion and mental health of China's rural-urban migrants–A review and call for research. Health Place. 2017;48:20–30. Eisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13:421–34. McGraw K. Gender differences among military combatants: does social support, ostracism, and pain perception influence psychological health? Mil Med. 2016;181:80–5. Paolini D, Alparone FR, Cardone D, van Beest I, Merla A. The face of ostracism: The impact of the social categorization on the thermal facial responses of the target and the observer. Acta Psychol. 2016;163:65–73. Meagher BR, Marsh KL. Seeking the safety of sociofugal space: Environmental design preferences following social ostracism. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;68:192–9. Arslan G. Mediating role of the self–esteem and resilience in the association between social exclusion and life satisfaction among adolescents. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;151:109514. Li S, Zhao F, Yu G. Social exclusion and depression among college students: A moderated mediation model of psychological capital and implicit theories. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:1144–51. Kawamoto T, Ura M, Nittono H. Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of social exclusion. Front NeuroSci. 2015;9:1–10. Leary MR, Kowalski RM, Smith L, Phillips S. Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior: Official J Int Soc Res Aggress. 2003;29:202–14. Derfler-Rozin R, Pillutla M, Thau S. Social reconnection revisited: The effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity, trust, and general risk-taking. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2010;112:140–50. Mead NL, Maner JK. On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2012;102:576–91. Aron A, Aron EN. Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp / Harper & Row; 1986. Lewandowski GW, Aron A. The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. In third annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.2002. Lewandowski GW, Ackerman RA. Something's missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. J Soc Psychol. 2006;146:389–403. Jia FX, Shi W. A review of self-expansion model. Adv Psychol Sci. 2012;20:137–48. Aron A, Aron EN, Norman C. Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS, editors. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Oxford, Britain: Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 2003. pp. 478–97. Williams KD, Ostracism. Ann Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425–52. Williams KD, Nida SA, Ostracism. Consequences and coping. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:71–5. Echterhoff G, Higgins ET, Levine JM. Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4:496–521. Maner JK, DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Schaller M. Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the porcupine problem. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2007;92:42–5. Williams KD. Social ostracism. Aversive interpersonal behaviors. Boston, MA: Springer; 1997. pp. 133–70. Reimann M, Aron A. Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of brands in self. In: MacInnis DJ, Park CW, Priester JR, editors. Handbook of brand relationships. New York, America: Society for Consumer Psychology; 2009. pp. 65–81. Gordon CL, Luo S. The Personal Expansion Questionnaire: Measuring one’s tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Pers Indiv Differ. 2011;51:89–94. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224–53. Cross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychol Bull. 1997;122:5–37. Imamoğlu EO, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z. Actual, ideal, and expected relatedness with parents across and within cultures. Eur J Social Psychol. 2006;36:721–45. Wang ZW, Tu P. Interaction Effect of Social Exclusion and Gender on Self-focus. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2014;46:1782–92. Williams KD, Cheung CK, Choi W, Cyberostracism. Effects of being ignored over the internet. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2000;79:748–62. Williams KD, Jarvis B, Cyberball. A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38:174–80. Wirth JH, Lynam DR, Williams KD. When social pain is not automatic: Personality disorder traits buffer ostracism’s immediate negative impact. J Res Pers. 2010;44:397–401. Zhong J. An experimental study of individual interpersonal tendencies in social exclusion contexts. (Master Dissertation).Shaanxi Normal University. 2012. Twenge JM, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NJ, Bartels JM. Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2007;92:56–66. Ouwerkerk JW, Kerr NL, Gallucci M, Van Lange PA. M. Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism and cooperation in social dilemmas. In: Williams KD, Forgas JP, von Hippel W, editors. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Psychology; 2005. pp. 321–32. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50:370–96. Brewer MB, Gardner W. Who is this We? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1996;71:83–93. Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NJ, Twenge JM. Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2005;88:589–604. ,Harasymchuk C, Fehr B. A script analysis of relational boredom: Causes, feelings, and coping strategies. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2010;29:988–1019. Aron A, Aron EN. Self and self-expansion in relationships. Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach. 1996, 325–344. Lai XL, Liu XL, Li L. Self-expansion in close relationships. Adv Psychol Sci. 2018;26:2170–9. Miao XY, Sun X, Kuang Y, Wang ZJ. Co-experiencing the same negative emotional events promotes cooperation. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2021;53:81–94. Witkin HA. Origins of cognitive style. Cognition: Theory, research, promise. 1964, 172–205. Sidanius J, Pratto F, Bobo L. Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? J Personal Soc Psychol. 1994;67:998–1011. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1989. Lehman DR, Chiu CY, Schaller M. Psychology and culture. Ann Rev Psychol. 2004;55:689–714. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 05 May, 2025 Editor invited by journal 10 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 08 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 04 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6379308","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":453332250,"identity":"5baec831-e0d6-47a9-b90d-3219b435ad52","order_by":0,"name":"Huiyi Tang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"School of Educational Science, Guizhou Education University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Huiyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Tang","suffix":""},{"id":453332251,"identity":"7f915a16-fbf3-456e-b2e4-6bb7d93b107e","order_by":1,"name":"Min Bai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guiyang Economic and Technical School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Min","middleName":"","lastName":"Bai","suffix":""},{"id":453332252,"identity":"3b3b60fb-0cc7-4562-8ffb-21dd9b238ac8","order_by":2,"name":"Dengmei Hu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"School of Educational Science, Guizhou Education University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dengmei","middleName":"","lastName":"Hu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-05 01:53:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82255607,"identity":"009ccfeb-efe0-4e3e-855a-053d906675e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:05:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45816,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScreenshot of a ball-tossing game game interface\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6379308/v1/e5edcfea8780e774e05648c3.png"},{"id":82256597,"identity":"e8bfc3f9-9aed-4d43-924d-997eefbe4039","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:13:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":193401,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6379308/v1/cdb90fcaf8b4d5de54e4e3fb.jpeg"},{"id":82255609,"identity":"845c310e-4e0a-48d4-af45-4b3ea48dd8ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:05:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":164415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6379308/v1/c57b8bcba7ed93bf69d29dd1.jpeg"},{"id":82256984,"identity":"95dc8f80-bbec-463b-95dc-5a40de280d62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-08 11:21:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1461276,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6379308/v1/518f6fda-fc53-407c-9051-41f2c0f145df.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Gender Difference of Social Communication Intention in the Context of Social Exclusion","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial exclusion is a phenomenon in which the excluded person is not accepted by family, friends, or society and thus cannot acquire the need to belong\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Social exclusion can have many negative effects on an individual's life. Eisenberger found that individuals who suffer from social exclusion feel negative emotions such as psychological irritability, feelings of hurt, and social pain\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. McGraw went further and stated that social exclusion can lead to symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness, which directly affect an individual's psychological well-being\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Even, social exclusion can affect individuals' quality of life issues such as eating and sleeping, and reduce their life satisfaction \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7 CR8\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial exclusion not only affects an individual's level of mental health, it also has a significant impact on an individual's interpersonal relationships\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Nowadays, school bullying and school shootings keep happening, and social exclusion is one of the major reasons for these incidents\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. At the same time, social exclusion affects individuals' willingness to interact socially. The theory of \"anti-prosocial behavior\" points out that individuals who experience social exclusion have a reduced willingness to socially interact with others \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Also, the results of empirical studies support these views\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, most of the previous studies have examined the social communication willingness of the excluded towards the exclusion perpetrator, and less often the social communication willingness of the excluded towards others (non-exclusion perpetrator). Based on this, one of the purposes of this study was to investigate whether there are differences in individuals' willingness to socialize toward exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe self-expansion model states that one of the core human motivations is self-expansion. People include others in the self-concept by establishing intimate relationships with them,thus including the resources originally belonging to others into their self-concept\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Lewandowski and Ackerman pointed out that the motivation for human social communication is that others can provide certain resources to meet the needs of self-expansion\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Jia and Shi pointed out that when others can not meet the needs of self-expansion, individuals will not close the psychological distance with them, and even gradually alienate them\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Aron et al. also found that lovers become progressively boring because the other person gives them less and less self-expansive satisfaction as time passes\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, when an individual suffers from social exclusion, the individual will be less willing to socialize with the exclusion perpetrator because the exclusion perpetrator is unable to satisfy the individual's self-expansion needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, \"Emotional compensation theory\" suggests that social exclusion threatens individual's sense of belonging and that individuals will re-establish social connections to satisfy their need for identification and attention\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR20\" citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, social exclusion can increases the individual's willingness to socialize with others\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The \"demand-threat\" model proposed by Williams also points out that when individual needs are threatened, individuals will satisfy their relevant needs through other means\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Reimann and Aron found that when individuals are unable to satisfy their self-expansion needs from someone, they seek out others to satisfy their self-expansion needs\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, after people suffer from social exclusion, they are unable to obtain the need for self-expansion from the exclusion perpetrator, and may increase the social interaction with others (non-exclusion perpetrator), so as to meet their needs for self-expansion. Based on this, we propose our first hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter individuals suffer from social exclusion, individuals have lower social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator and higher social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second purpose of this study was to investigate whether gender differences affect individuals' willingness to socialize after being socially excluded. After individuals suffer from social exclusion, they will think of ways to meet their self-expansion needs. Gordon and Luo point out that self-expanding satisfaction can be achieved through two paths, namely \"relational expansion\" and \"personal expansion\"\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The \"relationship expansion\" is achieved by developing good interpersonal relationships. The \"Personal expansion\" is achieved through the individual's own efforts to obtain new material resources. Markus and Kitayama proposed the \"self-construction\" theory, which divided two types of self, namely \"independent self\" and \"relational self\"\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Further research finds that women are more \"relational self\", and their means of self-expansion is mainly \"relational expansion\". However, men are more \"independent self\", and their means of self-expansion is mainly \"self-expansion\"\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.The study of Wang and Tu also directly found that after individuals suffer from social exclusion, men pay more attention to themselves, while women pay more attention to others\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, when individuals suffer from social exclusion, men are more likely to realize their self-expansion needs by enhancing their self-competence and resources; while women are more likely to realize their self-expansion needs by establishing new relationships with others. Based on this, we propose our second hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the individual suffered social exclusion, males had lower social communication willingness to both exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator, but females had lower social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator and higher social communication willingness to non-perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe purpose of this study is to test the above two hypotheses by manipulating the exclusion of different genders through the \" ball-tossing game\" paradigm\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, and then measuring their social communication willingness by using the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Pilot study","content":" \u003cp\u003eThe pilot study aims to validate the operational effectiveness of the social exclusion paradigm:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ethe ball-tossing game. Its validity is tested using the \u003cb\u003eNeed-Threat Scale (NTS)\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 60 undergraduate students, aged between 18 and 24, with either normal vision or corrected vision, participated in the experiment from September to October 2020. The sample comprised an equal number of males and females, with 30 males and 30 females. All participants gave their verbal consent to voluntarily participate in this experiment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University (Approval No.: 202092).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperimental Materials\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBall-tossing Game\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBall-tossing game is a virtual ball tossing game designed to manipulation social exclusion\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). It has been extensively used in the ostracism literature and has two conditions to which participants are randomly assigned. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again. We used the web version of ball-tossing game and set the number of players to 3 and the total number of throws to 30.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNeed-Threat Scale (NTS)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Need to Belong Sub-scale of the Need-Threat Scale developed by wirth et al. was used to check whether social exclusion was manipulation successfully\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. It consists of 5 items to be answered on a 5-point-Likert scale from \u0026ldquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all\u0026rdquo; to \"5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extremely\"; e.g., \" I felt like an outsider\". The final score was the sum of all items, with higher scores representing a higher level of feelings of social exclusion. For the current sample, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficient was 0.84. The construct validity of the sub-scale was measured by structural equation modeling with AMOS 23.0, the results show that: \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.48, \u003cem\u003eIFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09. This result indicates that the scale has good reliability and validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment is a single-factor experimental design. Exclusion condition (exclusion group, inclusion group) was the between-subjects variables, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Need-Threat Scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExperimental Procedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 1 manipulation of social exclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the subjects entered the lab and were asked to turn off or silence their cell phones. Then the subject was told, \"You will be playing an online ball throwing game with students from two other schools on your computer. Your identity is play2, and when the ball is in your hand, click the avatar of play1 or play3 to pass the ball to that player. The other two players can also choose anyone to pass the ball to. Once you understand the instructions, press the space bar to begin.\". The total number of throws in both experimental conditions was 30. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 2 Measurement of Need-Threat Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediately after playing, the subjects filled in the Need to Belong Sub-scale of the Need-Threat Scale. The subjects received a small gift when they finished the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn independent samples t-test analysis revealed that the exclusion group had significantly higher levels of feelings of social exclusion (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.69, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.68) than the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.52), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eCohen's d\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.61, \u003cem\u003e95% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [1.88, 3.26]. This result indicated that the \" ball-tossing game\" can effectively activate feeling of social exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"The formal experiment","content":" \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 120 undergraduate students, aged between 18 and 24, with either normal vision or corrected vision, participated in the experiment from October to December 2020. The sample comprised an equal number of males and females, with 60 males and 60 females. All participants gave their verbal consent to voluntarily participate in this experiment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University (Approval No.: 202092).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInterpersonal Communication Tendency Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eZhong constructed the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale to measure the social communication willingness\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The scale was revised in this study. The revised scale contains 10 items. Participants respond to the items using a 5-point-Likert rating scale (ranging from 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very willing to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very reluctant). We reversed the score so that the higher score represents better social communication willingness. The Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale has two factors: (1) social communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator (e.g., \u0026lsquo;When you are in a bad mood, would you like to talk to your partner who just played the game with you?\u0026rsquo;), (2) social communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator (e.g., \u0026lsquo;After entering the university, are you willing to actively socialize with other students to expand your network?\u0026rsquo;). For the current sample, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α coefficient was 0.84. The construct validity of the scale was measured by structural equation modeling with AMOS 23.0, the results show that: \u003cem\u003ex\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003e/df\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.56, \u003cem\u003eIFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96, \u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.94, \u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95, \u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07. This result indicates that the scale has good reliability and validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBall-tossing Game\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe manipulation of the ball-tossing game is like pilot study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe design was a 2 (exclusion condition: exclusion group, inclusion group) \u0026times; 2 ( gender: males, females) \u0026times; 2 (social interaction object: exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed experimental. Exclusion condition and gender were the between-subjects variables, social interaction object was the within-subjects variable, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 1 manipulation of social exclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe manipulation of social exclusion is like pilot study. The total number of throws in both experimental conditions was 30. In the inclusion condition participants receive the ball as equal as the other fictitious players, but in the exclusion condition participants receive the ball twice at the onset of the game and never again.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStep 2 Measurement of social communication willingness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediately after playing, the subjects filled in the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale. The subjects received a small gift when they finished the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResults\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of differences in social communication willingness of different exclusion conditions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans and standard deviations of social communication willingness for different exclusion perpetrators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexclusion conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einclusion group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.83\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexclusion group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne subject chose 2 for all the questionnaires, and one subject had one question with two choices. After eliminating the two data, the remaining 118 data were included in the statistical analysis. A 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) \u0026times; 2 (exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for statistical results). The exclusion condition main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54.35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32, \u003cem\u003e90% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.21, 0.42], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion, indicating that social exclusion reduces individuals' social communication willingness. The social interaction object main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, \u003cem\u003e90%CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.02, 0.17], with individuals' social communication willingness towards non-exclusion perpetrator was significantly higher than that towards exclusion perpetrator. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the social interaction object was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003e90% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.03, 0.18]. A further simple effects analysis showed that in the exclusion condition, individuals were significantly more social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator than for exclusion perpetrator, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;22.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16, \u003cem\u003e90% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.07, 0.26]; in the inclusion condition, individuals did not differ in their social communication willingness for exclusion perpetrator and non-perpetrator, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 116)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, confirming hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. See Fig.\u0026nbsp;2 for the interaction diagram.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of gender differences in the effects of social exclusion on social communication willingness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, the gender differences of social exclusion on the social communication willingness of \"exclusion perpetrator\" are examined. Taking the scores of social communication willingness of \"exclusion perpetrator\" as the dependent variable, 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) \u0026times;2 (male, female) between-group design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e for statistical results) .The exclusion condition main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 114)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;55.80, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, \u003cem\u003e90% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.21, 0.43], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion. The gender main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 114)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003e90% CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.01, 0.15], with females being significantly higher social communication willingness than males. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the gender was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 114)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.70, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05. This indicates that in terms of social communication intention to exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group, whether female or male.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean and standard deviation of social communication willingness of males and females\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexclusion conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial communication willingness to exclusion perpetrator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esocial communication willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emale(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efemale(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emale(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efemale(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003einclusion group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.91\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.83\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexclusion group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.68\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThen, the gender differences of social exclusion on the social communication willingness of \"non-exclusion perpetrator\" are examined. Taking the scores of social communication willingness of \"non-exclusion perpetrator\" as the dependent variable, 2 (exclusion group, inclusion group) \u0026times;2 (male, female) between-group design ANOVA was used and the results showed (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e for statistical results). The exclusion condition main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 114)= 17.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003e90%CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.05, 0.23], and individuals in the exclusion condition were less social communication willingness than inclusion. The gender main effect was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e༈1, 114༉= 8.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07, \u003cem\u003e90%CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.01, 0.15], with females being significantly higher social communication willingness than males. The interaction between the exclusion condition and the gender was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e༈1, 114༉= 6.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07, \u003cem\u003e90%CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.01, 0.13]. A further simple effects analysis showed that in the male condition, the exclusion group was significantly less social communication willingness with non-exclusion perpetrator than the inclusion group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e༈1, 115༉=21.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16, \u003cem\u003e90%CI\u003c/em\u003e = [0.07, 0.25]; in the female condition, there was no difference in social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator between the exclusion and inclusion groups, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e༈1, 115༉= 1.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 for the interaction diagram). The above results show that both male and female have a lower social communication willingness to the perpetrator of exclusion, while male have a lower social communication willingness to the non-perpetrators of exclusion and women have a higher social willingness to the non-perpetrators of exclusion. The above results confirmed hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndividuals' social communication willingness for different exclusion perpetrators\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, social exclusion has been one of the topical issues of interest to researchers in psychology and sociology. However, with the in-depth study of the field of social exclusion, some contradictory results are gradually found. For example, Twenge et al. found that individuals with social exclusion had reduced levels of pro-social behavior and decreased willingness to cooperate with others\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, Ouwerkerk et al. noted that individuals who suffer social exclusion have increased levels of pro-social behavior and will increase willingness to cooperate with others\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. At the same times, the studies of social communication willingness have also shown contradictory results. Twenge et al. found that social exclusion would reduce individuals' social communication willingness\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e; while Maner et al. found that social exclusion would increase individuals' social communication willingness\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The results of this study show that one of the reasons for these contradictory results may be that previous researchers seldom clearly distinguish the objects of individual social interaction willingness. That is, individuals have a lower social interaction willingness to the exclusion perpetrator, but a higher social interaction willingness to the non-exclusion perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hierarchy of needs theory states that people have a need for interaction\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The triple ego construction theory proposed by Brewer and Gardner also points out that the ego is composed of the individual self, the relational self and the collective self\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, good social interaction plays an important role in the survival and development of individuals\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The self-expansion theory also points out that the motivation of interpersonal communication is to meet the needs of self-expansion\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. However, the perpetrator of social exclusion can not meet the individual's self-expansion needs, so the individual is not motivated to interact socially with exclusion perpetrator, and may even alienate exclusion perpetrator. Harasymchuk and Fehr point out that if a relationship fails to satisfy self-expansion, individuals will feel bored\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The results of this study are also consistent with this view that individuals who suffer from social exclusion have a lower social interaction willingness for the exclusion perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, this study also found that after being excluded, individuals showed a higher social interaction willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator. Williams pointed out that when an individual's needs are threatened, the individual will try to find ways to meet their related needs in order to achieve a balance of needs\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Aron et al. also noted that when the other person fails to meet the self-expansion needs, the individual will leave the person and re-establish a new relationship to meet the self-expansion needs \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Wang and Tu point out that individuals who suffer from social exclusion are more willing to make new friends and re-establish a new relationship\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Miao et al. also pointed out that individuals will strengthen cooperation with others after suffering social exclusion, so as to meet their needs of belonging\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, after being excluded, the individual can not meet the needs of self-expansion from the exclusion perpetrator, but can only strengthen social interaction with others in order to meet the needs of self-expansion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDifferences in social communication willingness by gender\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are not only physical differences between men and women, but also differences in psychology and behavior. Witkin used the stick test to find that men were more likely to be field-independent personality, while women were more likely to be field-dependent personality\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Sidanius et al. found that women pay more attention to information that reflects social relations, while men pay more attention to information about power and hierarchy\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Rosenberg analyzed the gender differences in self-worth assessment and found that men valued their status and abilities more, while women valued their social relations more\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. This study also found that after suffering social exclusion, women showed a stronger social interaction willingness than men.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWilliams divides human needs into two categories: efficacy needs and relational needs\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The efficacy needs mainly refers to the sense of control and meaning, which is embodied in the individual's active pursuit of self-efficacy, competitiveness and autonomy. The relational needs mainly refers to the sense of belonging and self-esteem, which is embodied in the individual's active pursuit of harmonious, intimate and stable social relations. When individuals suffer from social exclusion, both efficacy needs and relational needs are destroyed. According to the \"demand-threat\" model, individuals will find ways to make up for the destroyed needs. The male is more interested in efficacy needs, so he focuses more on himself and improves his own strength to regain the balance of needs, while the female is more interested in relational needs and wants to reestablish relationships to achieve the balance of needs\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Thus, when an individual suffers from social exclusion, both the individual's efficacy needs and relational needs are disrupted, so both males and females are less social interaction willingness for the exclusion perpetrator. This is consistent with Harasymchuk and Fehr's view that when others can not meet the individual's self-expansion needs, the individual will dislike him and stay away from him. But in the face of non-exclusion perpetrator, males and females showed different social interaction willingness\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Because males paid more attention to efficacy needs and were more willing to rely on their own efforts to meet their needs, so they also showed lower social interaction willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator. However, because females pay more attention to relational needs, they want to establish a new relationship to meet their own needs, so women show a higher social interaction willingness to non-exclusion perpetrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, this study only uses the \"Ball-tossing game\" paradigm to manipulate the sense of social exclusion. Future studies can use other social exclusion instruments to further investigate and increase the external validity of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, Lehman et al. also pointed out that Western culture tends to form field-independent personality, while Eastern culture tends to form field-dependent personality\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, whether there are cultural differences in the impact of social exclusion on individual social interaction willingness need further cross-cultural research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, this study only explores the situation that individuals are excluded alone, but in the real society, there are often cases of common excluded. Miao et al. proposed \"alliances among the weak\", stating that individuals who have been excluded prefer to cooperate with those who have also been excluded\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, future research could further explore the situation of social interaction willingness between individuals who are common excluded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study used a \"Ball-tossing game\" experimental paradigm to explore the boundary conditions of the influence of social exclusion on social communication willingness.The results showed that individuals who suffered from social exclusion had a lower social communication willingness for the exclusion perpetrator, but showed a higher willingness to interact for others (such as non-exclusion perpetrator). At the same time, when faced with social exclusion, both male and female subjects showed lower social communication willingness for the exclusion perpetrator, but when faced with the non-exclusion perpetrator, male subjects still showed lower social communication willingness, while female subjects showed higher social communication willingness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e The authors confrm that all the methods comply with current guidelines and regulations that follow the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics Committee of the School of Education Science at Guizhou Education University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Project of Guizhou Province(23GZQN41).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHT conceptualized and designed the project. MB and DH acquired the data and performed statistical and data analysis. HT drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe are grateful to all the participants for giving their time and participating willingly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTwenge JM, Baumeister RF, Tice DM, Stucke TS. If you can't join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2001;81:1058\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMwilambwe-Tshilobo L, Spreng RN. Social exclusion reliably engages the default network: A meta-analysis of Cyberball. NeuroImage. 2021;227:117666.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi J, Rose N. Urban social exclusion and mental health of China's rural-urban migrants\u0026ndash;A review and call for research. Health Place. 2017;48:20\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEisenberger NI. The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neural underpinnings of physical and social pain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13:421\u0026ndash;34.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGraw K. Gender differences among military combatants: does social support, ostracism, and pain perception influence psychological health? Mil Med. 2016;181:80\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaolini D, Alparone FR, Cardone D, van Beest I, Merla A. The face of ostracism: The impact of the social categorization on the thermal facial responses of the target and the observer. Acta Psychol. 2016;163:65\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeagher BR, Marsh KL. Seeking the safety of sociofugal space: Environmental design preferences following social ostracism. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;68:192\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArslan G. Mediating role of the self\u0026ndash;esteem and resilience in the association between social exclusion and life satisfaction among adolescents. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;151:109514.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi S, Zhao F, Yu G. Social exclusion and depression among college students: A moderated mediation model of psychological capital and implicit theories. Curr Psychol. 2021;40:1144\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawamoto T, Ura M, Nittono H. Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes of social exclusion. Front NeuroSci. 2015;9:1\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeary MR, Kowalski RM, Smith L, Phillips S. Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior: Official J Int Soc Res Aggress. 2003;29:202\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDerfler-Rozin R, Pillutla M, Thau S. Social reconnection revisited: The effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity, trust, and general risk-taking. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2010;112:140\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMead NL, Maner JK. On keeping your enemies close: Powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2012;102:576\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAron A, Aron EN. Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp / Harper \u0026amp; Row; 1986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewandowski GW, Aron A. The self-expansion scale: Construction and validation. In third annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewandowski GW, Ackerman RA. Something's missing: Need fulfillment and self-expansion as predictors of susceptibility to infidelity. J Soc Psychol. 2006;146:389\u0026ndash;403.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJia FX, Shi W. A review of self-expansion model. Adv Psychol Sci. 2012;20:137\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAron A, Aron EN, Norman C. Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In: Fletcher GJO, Clark MS, editors. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. Oxford, Britain: Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 2003. pp. 478\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams KD, Ostracism. Ann Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams KD, Nida SA, Ostracism. Consequences and coping. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:71\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEchterhoff G, Higgins ET, Levine JM. Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4:496\u0026ndash;521.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManer JK, DeWall CN, Baumeister RF, Schaller M. Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the porcupine problem. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2007;92:42\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams KD. Social ostracism. Aversive interpersonal behaviors. Boston, MA: Springer; 1997. pp. 133\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReimann M, Aron A. Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of brands in self. In: MacInnis DJ, Park CW, Priester JR, editors. Handbook of brand relationships. New York, America: Society for Consumer Psychology; 2009. pp. 65\u0026ndash;81.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGordon CL, Luo S. The Personal Expansion Questionnaire: Measuring one\u0026rsquo;s tendency to expand through novelty and augmentation. Pers Indiv Differ. 2011;51:89\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224\u0026ndash;53.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCross SE, Madson L. Models of the self: self-construals and gender. Psychol Bull. 1997;122:5\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eImamoğlu EO, Karakitapoğlu-Ayg\u0026uuml;n Z. Actual, ideal, and expected relatedness with parents across and within cultures. Eur J Social Psychol. 2006;36:721\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang ZW, Tu P. Interaction Effect of Social Exclusion and Gender on Self-focus. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2014;46:1782\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams KD, Cheung CK, Choi W, Cyberostracism. Effects of being ignored over the internet. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2000;79:748\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams KD, Jarvis B, Cyberball. A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38:174\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWirth JH, Lynam DR, Williams KD. When social pain is not automatic: Personality disorder traits buffer ostracism\u0026rsquo;s immediate negative impact. J Res Pers. 2010;44:397\u0026ndash;401.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhong J. An experimental study of individual interpersonal tendencies in social exclusion contexts. (Master Dissertation).Shaanxi Normal University. 2012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTwenge JM, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NJ, Bartels JM. Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2007;92:56\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOuwerkerk JW, Kerr NL, Gallucci M, Van Lange PA. M. Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism and cooperation in social dilemmas. In: Williams KD, Forgas JP, von Hippel W, editors. The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Psychology; 2005. pp. 321\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50:370\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrewer MB, Gardner W. Who is this We? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1996;71:83\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister RF, DeWall CN, Ciarocco NJ, Twenge JM. Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2005;88:589\u0026ndash;604.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e,Harasymchuk C, Fehr B. A script analysis of relational boredom: Causes, feelings, and coping strategies. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2010;29:988\u0026ndash;1019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAron A, Aron EN. Self and self-expansion in relationships. Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach. 1996, 325\u0026ndash;344.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLai XL, Liu XL, Li L. Self-expansion in close relationships. Adv Psychol Sci. 2018;26:2170\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiao XY, Sun X, Kuang Y, Wang ZJ. Co-experiencing the same negative emotional events promotes cooperation. Acta Physiol Sinica. 2021;53:81\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitkin HA. Origins of cognitive style. Cognition: Theory, research, promise. 1964, 172\u0026ndash;205.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSidanius J, Pratto F, Bobo L. Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? J Personal Soc Psychol. 1994;67:998\u0026ndash;1011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1989.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLehman DR, Chiu CY, Schaller M. Psychology and culture. Ann Rev Psychol. 2004;55:689\u0026ndash;714.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"social exclusion, social communication intention, gender","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective\u003c/strong\u003e This study employs experimental methods to investigate the boundary conditions of the influence of social exclusion on social communication willingness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods \u003c/strong\u003eAdopting the 2 (exclusion condition: exclusion group、inclusion group) × 2(gender: males、females) × 2 (social interaction object: exclusion perpetrator, non-exclusion perpetrator) mixed experimental design. Exclusion condition and gender were the between-subjects variables, social interaction object was the within-subjects variable, and the dependent variable was the subject's score on the Interpersonal Communication Tendency Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults \u003c/strong\u003e(1) There was a significant interaction \u003ca href=\"https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/994556\" target=\"https://cc.glgoo.top/_blank\"\u003ebetween\u003c/a\u003e exclusion condition and social interaction object, the simple effects analysis showed that: in the exclusion condition, individuals were significantly more social communication willingness for non-exclusion perpetrator than for exclusion perpetrator; in the inclusion condition, individuals did not differ in their social communication willingness for exclusion perpetrator and non-exclusion perpetrator. (2) In terms of social communication intention to exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group, whether female or male. However, in terms of social communication intention to non-exclusion perpetrator, the exclusion group were significantly lower than the inclusion group among males, while there was no significant difference among females.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e The effect of social exclusion on social communication intention is influenced by social interaction object and gender differences.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Gender Difference of Social Communication Intention in the Context of Social Exclusion","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-08 11:04:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6379308/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-05T14:26:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-10T08:33:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-08T08:53:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-08T08:50:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-04-05T01:49:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"73e86028-c14a-4625-b003-98ad821a3a44","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-08T11:04:58+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-08 11:04:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6379308","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6379308","identity":"rs-6379308","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}