The Effects of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Information

The Effects of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Information | 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 The Effects of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Information Li'an Wang, Tiantian Zhang, Xiaoli Yang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Psychological Research → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Social exclusion has been found to impair inhibitory control and working memory, but its effect on directed forgetting remains largely unexplored. Using the item-method directed forgetting paradigm, the present study employed both verbal and pictorial materials to investigate how social exclusion affects the directed forgetting of social and non-social information. In Study 1, 54 participants ( M age = 23.87 years, SD = 2.80) were randomly assigned to either the exclusion group (n = 26) or the inclusion group (n = 28). In Study 2, 56 participants ( M age = 19.63 years, SD = 2.67) were recruited, including 27 in the exclusion group and 29 in the inclusion group. Results showed that the directed forgetting effect was significantly reduced in the exclusion group compared to the inclusion group. Furthermore, the impairing effect of social exclusion was more pronounced for social information than for non-social information. The detrimental effect was also greater for pictorial materials than for verbal ones. These findings suggest that social exclusion disrupts the directed forgetting process, and that social information presented as images exhibits a significant mnemonic advantage. This highlights the importance of the social context in the directed forgetting process and provides multidimensional evidence for a deeper understanding of the consequences of social exclusion. Social Exclusion Directed Forgetting Social Information Non-Social Information Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 1 Introduction Social exclusion refers to the process by which individuals are rejected or ostracized by a social group or others during social interactions (Du & Xia, 2008 ). Individuals who experience social exclusion often exhibit intense negative emotions (Williams & Nida, 2011 ) and are more susceptible to emotional disorders (Liu et al., 2020 ). A substantial body of research indicates that social exclusion affects not only individual's emotional state but also their cognitive functions. Specifically, social exclusion suppresses brain regions associated with cognitive control (e.g., the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) (Xu et al., 2020 ), impairs cognitive functioning (Otten & Jonas, 2013 ), and leads to declines in executive function, attention, and memory processing (Baumeister et al., 2005 ; Fuhrmann et al., 2019 ; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010 ). Regarding memory specifically, previous studies have identified two perspectives on how social exclusion influences memory. The first perspective suggests a generalized impairment effect, wherein social exclusion leads to broad memory deficits. Empirical evidence indicates that exclusion experiences may inhibit memory-related brain regions (e.g., the hippocampus), thereby disrupting both encoding and retrieval processes and weakening individuals' overall memory capabilities (Fuhrmann et al., 2019 ). Excluded individuals often exhibit significant deficits in both working memory and episodic memory (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010 ; Fuhrmann et al., 2019 ). The alternative perspective is the selective enhancement view, which posits that social exclusion prompts individuals to develop adaptive memory strategies that facilitate better recall of information associated with social threats (Kawamoto et al., 2014 ). This process is though to enhances individual's memory capacity for social information, particularly working memory for social stimuli related to the need for belong (Du et al., 2023 ). In light of these findings, further research is needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relationship between social exclusion and memory. In terms of the relationship between social exclusion and memory processing, previous studies have mostly explored how social exclusion depletes cognitive resources and affects memory storage performance from the perspective of "active remembering" (Baumeister et al., 2005 , 2018 ), but have neglected the aspect of "active forgetting" (Baumeister et al., 2018 ). Notably, an efficient memory system relies not only on precise information storage but also on effective forgetting mechanisms to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. Directed forgetting, also known as intentional forgetting, refers to a phenomenon in which a "forget" instruction given during the learning phase results in impaired memory retrieval; it is a conscious and proactive process of forgetting (Moen et al., 2019 ). In the directed forgetting paradigm, participants are instructed during the learning phase to actively remember items designated as "To Be Remembered" (TBR) and to forget items designated as "To Be Forgotten" (TBF). When the recall of TBF items is significantly lower than that of TBR items, a directed forgetting effect is said to occur. Selective encoding theory and inhibitory control theory provide explanations for the processing mechanisms of directed forgetting (MacLeod & Colin, 1989; Geiselman & Bagheri, 1985 ), and the effects of individual factors and types of memory material on directed forgetting have also been explored. Research has shown that an individual's subjective emotional state can influence directed forgetting (Bäuml & Kuhbandner, 2009 ): under negative emotional states, participants tend to remember negative information, whereas under positive emotional states, they are more likely to remember positive information (Bai et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, different types of memory materials (e.g., words vs. images) yield divergent effects. Compared to word-based materials, individuals find it more challenging to forget pictorial information, resulting in weaker directed forgetting effects for images (Guo et al., 2021 ; Hauswald et al., 2011 ). As noted above, current research on factors influencing directed forgetting has primarily focused on individual differences and types of memory materials, while largely neglecting the role of social contextual factors. According to self-regulation theory, social exclusion, as a negative experience, triggers individuals' negative emotional responses. To cope with these emotions, individuals often need to mobilize cognitive resources to suppress them (Baumeister et al., 2002 ). However, this inhibitory process depletes already limited cognitive resources, leading to impaired performance on cognitively demanding tasks (Jamieson, 2010). From the perspective of inhibitory control theory, directed forgetting is fundamentally an active inhibitory process and depends directly on an individual’s inhibitory control capacity (Geiselman et al., 1985). In directed forgetting tasks, individuals must actively suppress irrelevant information and selectively forget it—a process that requires greater cognitive resources than intentional remembering (Scully, 2020 ). Therefore, we propose that individuals experiencing social exclusion expend substantial cognitive resources to regulate negative emotions, resulting in insufficient capacity to effectively suppress irrelevant or secondary information, thereby compromising their ability to engage in directed forgetting. Additionally, studies suggest that social exclusion may prompt individuals to develop adaptive memory strategies (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009 ; Kawamoto et al., 2014 ). According to social monitoring system theory, individuals become more sensitive to social information related to belonging needs after experiencing exclusion. This heightened sensitivity activates the social monitoring system, directing individuals' attention toward socially relevant cues (Gardner et al., 2005 ; Williams, 2009 ). Empirical evidence confirms that excluded individuals maintain heightened sensitivity to social information and exhibit enhanced focus on such stimuli (Schindler & Trede, 2021 ). Individuals who experience ostracism tend to exhibit increased cognitive orientation toward social information. In subsequent recall tests, the ostracized group was able to recall more content related to social information (DeWall et al., 2009 ). Since directed forgetting requires individuals to selectively ignore or inhibit irrelevant information, the heightened attention to social information induced by social exclusion may interfere with this process. Specifically, in the context of social exclusion, individuals may struggle to effectively suppress or forget social information that is thematically related to their exclusion experience. This study aims to examine the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting of social and non-social information. Social exclusion was manipulated using the Cyberball paradigm, and directed forgetting was assessed using the item-method paradigm. Verbal and pictorial materials were used to examine effects across different stimulus types. Given that excluded individuals experience cognitive resource depletion (Fuhrmann et al., 2019 ), reduced inhibitory control (Lurquin et al., 2014 ), and impaired self-regulation (DeWall et al., 2008 ), we propose that excluded individuals may struggle to effectively suppress irrelevant information during directed forgetting task. Based on this reasoning, we propose Hypothesis 1: Social exclusion will impair the directed forgetting effect across both types of materials. Specifically, in the exclusion condition, recognition accuracy for To-Be-Forgotten (TBF) items will not significantly differ from that for To-Be-Remembered (TBR) items, whereas in the inclusion condition, TBR items will be recognized significantly more accurately than TBF items. Moreover, previous research suggests that, under conditions of exclusion, individuals are more likely to attend to and remember social information than non-social information. This enhanced sensitivity to social information cues may further impair the ability to intentionally forget such information. Therefore, we propose Hypothesis 2: Across both types of material, social exclusion will more strongly impair directed forgetting of social information compared to non-social information. Finally, drawing on prior studies indicating that the type of stimulus materials can influence the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect (Hall et al., 2021 ; Çapan & Ikier, 2021 ), the current study includes both verbal and pictorial representations of social and non-social information. Given that pictorial stimuli tend to be more vivid, and concrete, and require more elaborate processing, they may be more resistant to directed forgetting. Accordingly, we propose Hypothesis 3: Compared to verbal materials, pictorial materials will elicit a weaker weaker directed forgetting effect. 2 Study 1: The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Verbal Materials 2.1 Participants Using G*Power 3.1,a power analysis was conducted to estimate the required sample size. With an effect size of f = 0.25, a two-tailed significance level of α = 0.01, and a desired statistical power of 1-β = 0.95, the minimum required sample size was determined to be 48 participants. A total of 60 undergraduate students were recruited. All participants were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, reported no physical or mental health conditions, were proficient in computer use, and had no prior experience with similar experiments. Participants received compensation upon completion. Six datasets were excluded due to procedural noncompliance, resulting in 54 valid datasets ( M = 23.87, SD = 2.80; 40 females, 14 males). Participants were randomly assigned to either the inclusion group ( n = 28) or exclusion group ( n = 26). 2.2 Materials 2.2.1 Emotional State and Basic Needs Scales The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), revised by Huang et al. ( 2003 ) based on Watson et al. ( 1988 ), was used to measure affect. This scale includes two subscales (positive and negative affect) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Almost none, 5 = Extremely intense). Higher scores indicate stronger negative affect. The Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.83. The Basic Needs Scale developed by Williams ( 2009 ) was employed to assess four dimensions of basic needs: belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control. Each dimension contains five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), with higher total scores reflecting lower perceived threat to basic needs. The Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.97. 2.2.2 Cyberball The Cyberball paradigm (Williams et al., 2006) was used to manipulate social inclusion or exclusion. Participants were randomly assigned to either the exclusion or inclusion group and completed the task on a computer. Before the task, participants were told the game was designed to train mental imagery and involved online interaction with two other players allegedly from the same campus. Participants were instructed to mentally simulate real-life interaction scenarios, including environmental details and the appearance of the other players. In reality, the other players were computer-controlled. The game involved 30 ball tosses. In the exclusion condition, participants received the ball only twice at the beginning and were ignored for the remaining 28 tosses. In the inclusion condition, participants received the ball approximately one-third of the time (10 tosses). Each toss sequence lasted approximately 2–3 minutes. To verify the effectiveness of the manipulation, a Perceived Exclusion/Inclusion Questionnaire (Wesselmann et al., 2009 ) was administered. It included two items (e.g., “I felt accepted by others during the game”; “I felt excluded by others during the game”) rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Very much). The average of the two items was calculated for manipulation check purposes. The Cronbach’s α for this measure was 0.89. 2.2.3 Verbal Stimuli: Social and non-social Words Social and non-social words were selected from the from the Modern Chinese Frequency Dictionary , specifically from the list of the top 8,000 most frequent words. Words with strong emotional connotations were excluded. A group of 45 graduate students majoring in psychology rated the remaining words on three dimensions: social relevance (1 = Not at all social, 7 = Highly social), arousal (1 = Very calm, 7 = Very excited or tense), and familiarity (1 = Very unfamiliar, 7 = Very familiar) using a 7-point Likert scale. Based on these ratings, 80 words were selected (see Table 1 ). Of these, 20 social words and 20 non-social words were randomly selected for the learning phase, while the remaining 40 words were used as "new" items in the recognition phase. Table 1 Descriptive statistics of word stimuli ( M ± SD ). Stimulus Type Social Relevance Arousal Familiarity Non-social Words 2.39 ± 0.51 3.80 ± 0.41 4.85 ± 0.28 Social Words 5.66 ± 0.38 3.91 ± 0.21 4.92 ± 0.25 2.2.4 Directed Forgetting Task The present study employed an item-method directed forgetting (DF) paradigm (Gallant et al., 2017 ), programmed using E-Prime 3.0 software. All stimuli were presented randomly in the center of a computer screen. The experiment consisted of three phases: learn, distraction, and recognition. Learn Phase: Each trial began with a fixation cross displayed for 500 ms, followed by a word presented for 2,000 ms. A total of 40 words were shown, each only once. Immediately after each word, a memory instruction appeared for 1,500 ms: a string of "√√√" indicated that the participant should remember the preceding word (to-be-remembered, TBR), whereas "×××" indicated that the participant should forget the preceding word (to-be-forgotten, TBF). Distraction Phase Following the study phase, participants completed a simple mental arithmetic task for approximately 3 minutes to reduce short-term memory retention. Recognition Phase The test phase began with a 500 ms fixation cross, after which 80 words (40 old and 40 new) were presented in a randomized order, each for 2,000 ms. Participants were instructed to press the "J" key if they had seen the word during the study phase (regardless of the memory instruction), and the "F" key if the word was new. The key assignment was counterbalanced across participants. The directed forgetting effect was calculated as the difference in recognition accuracy between TBR and TBF items. 2.3 Procedure Participants first completed the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). They then engaged in the Cyberball paradigm to simulate social exclusion or inclusion under the guise of "mental visualization training." After the game, participants immediately completed the manipulation check questionnaire, PANAS, and Basic Needs Scale. Finally, they performed the directed forgetting task. 2.4 Study Design and Analysis The study employed a 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) × 2 (word type: non-social vs. Social information) × 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) mixed factorial design. Group was a between-subjects factor, while word type and memory instruction were within-subjects factors. The dependent variables were recognition accuracy and the directed forgetting effect. The experiment was programmed and data were collected using E-Prime 3.0. Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 28.0. 2.5 Results 2.5.1 Manipulation Checks and Emotion Assessment Participants in the exclusion group reported significantly higher perceived rejection ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.66) than those in the inclusion group ( M = 1.75, SD = 0.77), t (52) = -12.96, p < 0.001. The exclusion group also reported significantly lower basic needs satisfaction ( M = 44.50, SD = 14.41) compared to the inclusion group ( M = 80.32, SD = 13.60), t (52) = 9.40, p < 0.001. Negative affect scores were higher in the exclusion group ( M = 61.00, SD = 8.64) than in the inclusion group ( M = 41.07, SD = 12.76), t (52) = -6.67, p < 0.001. These results indicate that the Cyberball manipulation effectively induced a sense of social exclusion. 2.5.2 Directed Forgetting Effect Sizes for Verbal Material An independent samples t -test revealed that the exclusion group ( M = 0.06, SD = 0.14) exhibited a significantly smaller directed forgetting effect than the inclusion group ( M = 0.18, SD = 0.22), t (52) = 2.53, p = 0.015. 2.5.3 Recognition Accuracy for Verbal Information Recognition accuracy across conditions is presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Recognition accuracy ( M ± SD ) for verbal information under different conditions in the inclusion and exclusion groups. Group Non-social Words Social Words Forget Remember Forget Remember Inclusion(28) 0.48 ± 0.27 0.73 ± 0.19 0.61 ± 0.23 0.73 ± 0.20 Exclusion(26) 0.55 ± 0.18 0.69 ± 0.25 0.79 ± 0.15 0.78 ± 0.15 A 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) × 2 (word type: non-social vs. social) × 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Results revealed significant main effects for word type, F (1, 52) = 27.10, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.343, with social information words recognized more accurately than non-social words; and for memory instruction, F (1, 52) = 23.58, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.312, with “remember” items recognized more accurately than “forget” items ( M TBR = 0.73, M TBF = 0.61). Significant two-way interactions were found between word type and group, F (1, 52) = 4.63, p = 0.036, ηp² = 0.082; memory instruction and group, F (1, 52) = 6.23, p = 0.016, ηp² = 0.107; and word type and memory instruction, F (1, 52) = 12.86, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.198. No significant main effect of group or other interaction terms were found ( F (1, 52) = 0.03, p = 0.858, ηp² = 0.001). Simple effects analysis for the memory instruction × group interaction (see Fig. 2 ) revealed that the inclusion group showed a significantly higher recognition rate for “remember” than for “forget” items, F (1, 52) = 28.06, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.351. Although the exclusion group also showed a numerically higher recognition rate for “remember” items, the difference was not significant, F (1, 52) = 2.69, p = 0.107, ηp² = 0.049. For “remember” items, recognition accuracy did not differ between groups, F (1, 52) = 0.00, p = 0.990, ηp² = 0.000; however, for “forget” items, the exclusion group ( M = 0.67) demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy than the inclusion group ( M = 0.55), F (1, 52) = 6.19, p = 0.016, ηp² = 0.106. Further simple effects analyses, as shown in Fig. 3 , indicated that in the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for to-be-remembered (TBR) items was significantly higher than that for to-be-forgotten (TBF) items for both non-social and social words ( ps < 0.01), suggesting a robust directed forgetting effect. In the exclusion group, a significant directed forgetting effect was observed only for non-social words, with TBR items recognized more accurately than TBF items, F (1, 52) = 6.94, p = 0.011, ηp² = 0.118. For social words, recognition accuracy for TBR items was slightly lower than for TBF items, but this difference was not significant, F (1, 52) = 0.14, p = 0.709, ηp² = 0.003. Furthermore, when examining TBF items, participants in the exclusion group demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy for social words ( M = 0.79) compared to those in the inclusion group ( M = 0.61), F (1, 52) = 11.03, p = 0.002, ηp² = 0.175. 2.6 Discussion Study 1 investigated the impact of social exclusion on directed forgetting of verbal materials containing social versus non-social information. The results showed that in the exclusion group, recognition accuracy did not significantly differ between TBR and TBF items, and the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect was significantly lower than that in the inclusion group. These findings support Hypothesis 1, indicating that social exclusion impairs individuals' directed forgetting ability. Further analysis revealed that participants in the inclusion group exhibited significant directed forgetting for both social and non-social words. In contrast, participants in the exclusion group demonstrated a significant directed forgetting effect only for non-social words, but not for social words. Moreover, under the forget instruction, recognition accuracy for social words was significantly higher in the exclusion group than in the inclusion group. These results support Hypothesis 2, suggesting that social exclusion more strongly disrupts directed forgetting of socially relevant information. This finding aligns with an evolutionary psychology perspective, which posits that social information is prioritized during encoding due to its adaptive significance (Gardner et al., 2000 ). Additionally, heightened vigilance and increased need for social affiliation resulting from social exclusion may enhance individuals’ sensitivity to social cues and undermine efforts to intentionally forget them. In summary, Study 1 demonstrated that social exclusion interferes with the directed forgetting of verbal materials containing social information. Study 2 aims to further examine whether this effect extends to pictorial materials that convey both social and non-social content. 3 Study 2: The Effect of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and Non-social Pictorial Information 3.1 Participants A priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 indicated that a minimum of 48 participants was required to detect a medium effect size ( f = 0.25) with α = 0.01 (two-tailed) and power (1-β) = 0.95. Sixty undergraduate students from a university in northwestern China were recruited for the study. All participants were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no known neurological or psychiatric conditions, were proficient in computer use, and had no prior experience with similar experiments. After completing the experiment, participants received monetary compensation. Data from four participants were excluded due to response times exceeding 2.5 standard deviations from the mean or failure to follow task instructions, resulting in a final sample of 56 participants (age range: 18–29 years; M = 23.29, SD = 2.67). The final sample included 21 females and 35 males, with 29 in the inclusion group and 27 in the exclusion group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of gender or age. 3.2 Materials 3.2.1 Emotion and Basic Needs Scales Identical to those used in Study 1. 3.2.2 Cyberball Same as in Study 1. 3.2.3 Pictorial Materials: Social and Non-social Images Social images were selected from the Asian Adult Social Inclusion and Exclusion Picture System (Zheng et al., 2021 ), from which 40 images depicting social interactions were used. non-social images were obtained from online image databases using the non-social words from Study 1 as search keywords. A separate group of 41 graduate students majoring in psychology rated the valence and arousal levels of the images using a 7-point scale. Based on these ratings, 80 images were selected for use in the experiment. The social and non-social images differed significantly in valence ( M non−social = 2.39, SD = 0.51; M social = 5.14, SD = 0.30; t = -29.09, p < .001). Both categories were rated as moderately arousing ( M non−social = 4.48, SD = 0.52; M social = 4.28, SD = 0.14; t = 2.32, p = .02). Twenty images from each category were randomly selected for the learning phase, while the remaining 40 images served as “new” items in the recognition phase. 3.2.4 Directed Forgetting Task The procedure was identical to that in Study 1, except that verbal materials were replaced with pictorial materials. The flow of the learning and recognition phases is illustrated in Fig. 4 . 3.3 Procedure Same as in Study 1. 3.4 Study Design and Analysis A 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) × 2 (image type: non-social vs. social) × 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) mixed factorial design was employed. Group was a between-subjects variable, while memory instruction and image type were within-subjects variables. The dependent variables were recognition accuracy and the directed forgetting effect. Data were analyzed using the same procedures as in Study 1. 3.5 Results 3.5.1 Manipulation Checks and Emotion Assessment Participants in the exclusion group reported significantly higher scores on the manipulation check scale ( M = 3.52, SD = 0.94) than those in the inclusion group ( M = 2.02, SD = 0.66), t (52) = -6.97, p < 0.001. Similarly, participants in the exclusion group reported significantly lower scores on the basic needs scale ( M = 56.52, SD = 17.02) compared to the inclusion group ( M = 80.93, SD = 10.20), t (52) = 6.45, p < 0.001. While the exclusion group showed higher negative affect scores ( M = 51.74, SD = 10.96) than the inclusion group ( M = 48.17, SD = 8.64). These results confirm the effectiveness of the Cyberball manipulation in inducing social exclusion. 3.5.2 Directed Forgetting Effects for Pictorial Information An independent-samples t -test revealed that the exclusion group ( M = -0.01, SD = 0.12) exhibited a significantly smaller directed forgetting effect than the inclusion group ( M = 0.13, SD = 0.14), t (54) = 3.92, p < 0.001. 3.5.3 Recognition Accuracy for Pictorial Information The mean recognition accuracy ( M ± SD ) for each condition across the inclusion and exclusion groups is presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Recognition Accuracy (M ± SD) for Pictorial Information Under Different Conditions in the Inclusion and Exclusion Groups. Group Non-social pictures Social Pictures Forget Remember Forget Remember Inclusion(29) 0.58 ± 0.24 0.72 ± 0.22 0.71 ± 0.22 0.82 ± 0.17 Exclusion(27) 0.65 ± 0.19 0.70 ± 0.19 0.86 ± 0.15 0.79 ± 0.14 A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effects of picture type, F (1,54) = 32.35, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.375, with social pictures being recognized more accurately than non-social pictures ( M social = 0.80, M non−social = 0.66). A significant main effect of memory instruction was also found, F (1, 54) = 12.23, p < .001, ηp² = 0.185, with TBR items recognized more accurately than TBF items ( M TBR = 0.76, M TBF = 0.70). Importantly, there was a significant interaction between memory instruction and group, F (1, 54) = 15.44, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.222, as was as a significant interaction between picture type and memory instruction, F (1, 54) = 5.20, p = 0.027, ηp² = 0.088. The main effect of group and other interactions were not significant. Simple effects analysis of the memory instruction × group interaction (Fig. 5 ) revealed that the inclusion group showed significantly higher accuracy for TBR than TBF items, F (1,54) = 28.59, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.346, while the exclusion group showed no significant difference ( M TBR = 0.76; M TBF = 0.75), F (1,54) = 0.09, p = 0.766, ηp² = 0.002. For TBR items, there was no significant difference in recognition accuracy between the inclusion and exclusion groups, F (1,54) = 0.40, p = 0.528, ηp² = 0.007. However, for TBF items, the exclusion group had a significantly higher recognition accuracy ( M = 0.75) compared to the inclusion group ( M = 0.64), F (1,54) = 5.76, p = 0.020, ηp² = 0.096. The results of the simple effects analysis are shown in Fig. 6 . In the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly higher than for TBF items for both non-social and social information images, indicating a robust directed forgetting effect across both types of materials. In contrast, in the exclusion group: For non-social images, although TBR items were recognized more accurately than TBF items, the difference was not statistically, F (1,54) = 1.766, p = 0.189, ηp² = 0.032. For social images, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly lower than for TBF items, F (1,54) = 4.56, p = 0.037, ηp² = 0.078. These findings suggest that participants in the exclusion group did not exhibit a directed forgetting effect for either type of material. Notably, the impairment was more pronounced social information. Furthermore, under the TBF instruction, recognition accuracy for social information images was significantly higher in the exclusion group ( M = 0.86) than in the inclusion group ( M = 0.71), F (1,54) = 8.94, p = 0.004, ηp² = 0.142, providing further evidence that social exclusion disrupts the directed forgetting mechanism, particularly for socially salient information. 3.5.4 Comparison of Directed Forgetting Effects Between Pictorial and Verbal Materials An independent-samples t-test revealed that the directed forgetting effect was marginally smaller for pictorial materials ( M = 0.06, SD = 0.14) than for verbal materials ( M = 0.13, SD = 0.19), t (108) = 1.91, p = .059. 3.6 Discussion Experiment 2 investigated the effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting of socially relevant and non-social pictorial information. The results showed that in the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly higher than for TBF items across both image types, indicating a robust directed forgetting effect. In contrast, the exclusion group did not exhibit significantly higher recognition for TBR items; rather, a reversed pattern emerged in the social image condition-recognition accuracy for TBF items was significantly higher than for TBR items. This finding provides further support for Hypothesis 1, suggesting that social exclusion impairs individuals’ ability to suppress information designated for forgetting, thereby weakening the directed forgetting effect. Furthermore, under the forget instruction, the exclusion group exhibited significantly higher recognition accuracy for social images than the inclusion group, lending additional support to Hypothesis 2. This suggests that social exclusion may heighten individuals’ sensitivity to socially relevant information, making it more difficult to suppress or forget information that has been explicitly instructed to be ignored. In addition, the directed forgetting effect was smaller for image-based materials than for word-based materials, supporting Hypothesis 3. One possible explanation is that image processing typically engages more complex cognitive mechanisms than verbal processing (Yang et al., 2012 ), thereby increasing the demand on cognitive resources and amplifying the impairing effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting. Notably, a reversal of the directed forgetting effect was observed in the exclusion group under the social image condition, whereby recognition for TBR items was significantly lower than that for TBF items. This reversed pattern may reflect the emotionally arousing nature of social images, which could trigger ruminative processing in socially excluded individuals. As a result, the forget instruction may paradoxically enhance the retrieval of information intended to be ignored, leading to a cognitive conflict in which “what should be forgotten becomes unforgettable.” 4 Discussion 4.1 The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting Findings from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that even short-term, experimentally induced social exclusion can significantly impair individuals’ directed forgetting abilities. This effect may be attributed to the depletion of cognitive resources and reduced inhibitory control (Dong & Zong, 2023 ; Baumeister et al., 2002 ). According to the self-regulation theory (Baumeister et al., 2002 ), social exclusion evokes intense negative affect, prompting individuals to allocate substantial cognitive resources for emotional regulation. As a result, fewer cognitive resources are available for performing directed forgetting tasks, thereby weakening forgetting performance. Our findings further support the notion that cognitive resource depletion triggered by social exclusion has a generalized effect across different types of tasks (Lurquin et al., 2014 ). Moreover, based on the strength model of self-control (DeWall et al., 2008 ), social exclusion not only consumes cognitive resources but also directly impairs self-control capacity, making it more difficult to inhibit irrelevant information. In the present study, the exclusion group demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy for TBF items than the inclusion group for both textual and pictorial materials, suggesting that social exclusion may have interfered with an individual's inhibitory control over items designated for forgetting. This impairment likely hindered participants from engaging in effective proactive inhibition when confronted with irrelevant information, ultimately leading to a weakening of the directed forgetting effect. 4.2 The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social Versus Non-social Information It was found that the recognition accuracy for social information was significantly higher than that of non-social information across both textual and pictorial material, and that directed forgetting of social information was more severely impaired in the exclusion group. These results support the social monitoring system theory, which posits that the social monitoring system is an adaptive mechanism designed to fulfill the need to belong. Its core function is to direct an individual's attention to information that can help them cope successfully with social situations (Gardner et al., 2005 ). Under exclusion condition, unmet belonging needs may heighten individuals’ sensitivity to social cues, increasing their attentional focus on socially relevant information to better detect and respond to potential social threats (Kerr & Levine, 2008 ; Wesselmann et al., 2009 ). Moreover, according to the goal-driven resource allocation theory, individuals’ cognitive responses are shaped by their current motivational state and contextual demands. In social exclusion situations, the need to belong can become the most urgent goal for the individual to satisfy, so the individual will prioritize the allocation of cognitive resources to restore social bonding or seek acceptance, while goals that are not related to the need to belong may be temporarily suppressed or ignored (Sacco et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when individuals in the exclusion group are instructed to forget socially relevant information, they may lack the cognitive resources necessary for active suppression, resulting in impaired directed forgetting. This finding reveals the profound impact of social exclusion on individuals’ memory, particularly regarding the selective processing social information. Excluded individuals tend to prioritize socially relevant cues, which are more deeply processed and encoded. As a result, forgetting such information becomes more difficult in the face of negative social experiences, ultimately affecting their ability to adapt socially. 4.3 The Amplifying Effect of Pictorial Materials on the Impairment of Directed Forgetting Caused by Social Exclusion Findings from both Study 1 and Study 2 indicated that pictorial materials exacerbated the impairing effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting to a greater extent than verbal materials, and this effect was observed across a broader range of conditions. Specifically, under the non-social information condition, the directed forgetting effect completely disappeared in the exclusion group in Study 2, whereas it was partially preserved in Study 1. Under the social information condition, the impairment of directed forgetting was more pronounced in Study 2. Furthermore, the overall effect size of directed forgetting was smaller for pictorial materials than for verbal ones. This phenomenon may be attributed to the unique cognitive characteristics of image-based materials. Compared with words, pictures contain more vivid colors, contextual backgrounds, and spatial cues (Nelson et al., 1976 ), which often engage episodic memory processes. Individuals can more readily use these visual features for detailed encoding within a short timeframe, making pictorial information more memorable (Lloyd-Jones & Vernon, 2003 ). Moreover, whereas verbal materials primarily rely on semantic processing, pictorial materials involve both imaginal and semantic processing. This dual processing not only strengthens memory traces but also increases the difficulty of actively suppressing related information (Paivio, 1991 ; Yuan, 2024 ). Thus, compared to textual material, pictorial material encodes social information more deeply and has a stronger visual impact, making it more difficult for individuals to successfully suppress emotionally salient or socially meaningful information when attempting to forget. Taken together, these findings further demonstrate that social exclusion undermines individuals’ capacity for directed forgetting, particularly in the context of processing socially relevant pictorial stimuli. The current findings not only contribute to the growing body of literature on the cognitive consequences of social exclusion but also offer new theoretical insights into the mechanisms by which individuals encode and retain information following experiences of social rejection. 4.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research Despite its contributions, the current study has several limitations that offer valuable directions for future research. First, both experiments employed the Cyberball paradigm to induce social exclusion, which simulates a brief, controlled experience of exclusion in a laboratory setting. However, this may not fully capture the complexity of real-life social rejection experiences. Future studies could consider using naturalistic methods or longitudinal designs to further examine the ecological validity of these findings. Second, although the present research utilized behavioral paradigms to reveal the influence of social exclusion on directed forgetting, it did not directly examine the underlying neural mechanisms. Future investigations could incorporate neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) to explore the neurocognitive basis of how social exclusion impacts memory control processes, thereby providing more direct neurophysiological evidence. Third, while the verbal and pictorial materials used in the experiments effectively differentiated between social and non-social content, they may not fully reflect the complexity and richness of real-world social stimuli. Future studies could enhance ecological validity by employing more naturalistic and dynamic social cues, such as video clips or immersive virtual reality (VR) environments. Lastly, although this study focused on the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting across different material types, it did not examine the potential role of individual differences. Personality traits and other dispositional factors are known to influence both social interaction and cognitive processing. Future research could investigate how these individual differences moderate the relationship between social exclusion and memory control, offering a more nuanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms. 5 Conclusion This study examined the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting across two experiments. The main findings are as follows: First, social exclusion significantly impaired individuals’ directed forgetting ability. Second, compared to non-social information, the impairment of directed forgetting was more pronounced for social information in the exclusion condition. Third, compared to verbal materials, social exclusion exerted a greater detrimental effect on directed forgetting of pictorial materials. Declarations Acknowledgements This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China Regional Science Fund Project ( No. 32360211) and the Gansu Provincial Higher Education Institutions Postgraduate "Innovation Star" Project ( No. 2025CXZX-334). The authors also wish to thank for the assistance of schools and students who participated in this study. Ethical approval The present study was approved by School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee, Northwest Normal University. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Conflicts of Interest The authors report no conflict of interests. Authors’ contributions Li’an Wang: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Software; Visualisation; Writing-original draft; Writing-review & editing. Tiantian Zhang: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing-review & editing. Xiaoli Yang: Conceptualisation; Funding acquisition; Methodology;Resources; Supervision; Writing-review & editing. References Bai, X. J., Wang, Y. Y., & Yang, H. B. (2012). The influence of emotional congruency on intentional forgetting. Psychological Science , 35 (1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.005 Baumeister, R. F., De Wall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 (4), 589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589 Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Vohs, K. D. (2018). The strength model of self-regulation: Conclusions from the second decade of willpower research. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 13 (2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617716946 Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 (4), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817 Bäuml, K. H., & Kuhbandner, C. (2009). Positive moods can eliminate intentional forgetting. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 16 (1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.93 Çapan, D., & Ikier, S. (2021). Metamemory and memory discrepancies in directed forgetting of emotional information. Europe's Journal of Psychology , 17 (1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.2567 DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Satiated with belongingness? Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self-regulatory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 (6), 1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012632 DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 96 (4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014634 Dong, H., & Zong, X. (2023). Effects of social exclusion on inhibitory control and working memory—Focusing on hard-of-hearing college students. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology , 5 (2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.050214 Du, J. Z., & Xia, B. L. (2008). Social exclusion from the perspective of psychology. Advances in Psychological Science , 16 (6), 981–986. Du, X. L., Ding, C., Xu, M. S., Yuan, S. G., Zhang, L. J., & Chen, H. (2023). The effect of social exclusion on visual working memory capacity. Psychological Science , 46 (1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230102 Fuhrmann, D., Casey, C. S., Speekenbrink, M., & Blakemore, S. J. (2019). Social exclusion affects working memory performance in young adolescent girls. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience , 40 , 100718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100718 Gallant, S. N., Dyson, B. J., & Yang, L. (2017). Local context effects during emotional item directed forgetting in younger and older adults. Memory (Hove, England) , 25 (8), 1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1274036 Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 (4), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266007 Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (11), 1549–1560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277208 Geiselman, R. E., & Bagheri, B. (1985). Repetition effects in directed forgetting: Evidence for retrieval inhibition. Memory & Cognition , 13 (1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198444 Guo, R. Y., Mao, W. B., & Niu, Y. Y. (2021). The effects of perceptual and conceptual processing on the picture superiority effect in associative memory. Psychological Science , 44 (6), 1290–1296. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210602 Hall, K. J., Fawcett, E. J., Hourihan, K. L., & Fawcett, J. M. (2021). Emotional memories are (usually) harder to forget: A meta-analysis of the item-method directed forgetting literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 28 , 1313–1326. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01914-z Hauswald, A., Schulz, H., Iordanov, T., & Kissler, J. (2011). ERP dynamics underlying successful directed forgetting of neutral but not negative pictures. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 6 (4), 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq061 Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 40 (2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8 Huang, L., Yang, T. Z., & Ji, Z. M. (2003). A study on the applicability of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in Chinese populations. Chinese Mental Health Journal , 17 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2003.01.018 Jamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (5), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882 Kawamoto, T., Nittono, H., & Ura, M. (2014). Event-related potentials indicate low self-esteem individuals give enhanced attention to disgusted faces after being ostracized. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 2 (94), 251–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.958 Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice , 12 (1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39 Liu, C. Y., Yang, Y. Z., Zhang, X. M., Xu, X., Dou, Q. L., Zhang, W. W., & Cheng, A. S. (2020). The prevalence and influencing factors in anxiety in medical workers fighting COVID-19 in China: A cross-sectional survey. Epidemiology & Infection , 148 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001107 Lloyd-Jones, T. J., & Vernon, D. (2003). Semantic interference from visual object recognition on visual imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition , 29 (4), 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.563 Lurquin, J. H., McFadden, S. L., & Harbke, C. R. (2014). An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of social rejection on self-control. The Journal of Social Psychology , 154 (3), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.881768 MacLeod, C. M. (1989). Directed forgetting affects both direct and indirect tests of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition , 15 (1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.13 Moen, K. C., Pinto, J. D. G., Papesh, M. H., & Beck, M. R. (2019). Not all information in visual working memory is forgotten equally. Consciousness and Cognition , 74 , 102782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102782 Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 2 (5), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523 Otten, M., & Jonas, K. J. (2013). Out of the group, out of control? The brain responds to social exclusion with changes in cognitive control. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 8 (7), 789–794. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss071 Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie , 45 (3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295 Sacco, D. F., Young, S. G., & Hugenberg, K. (2014). Balancing competing motives: Adaptive trade-offs are necessary to satisfy disease avoidance and interpersonal affiliation goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 (12), 1611–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214552790 Schindler, S., & Trede, M. (2021). Does social exclusion improve detection of real and fake smiles? A replication study. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 626087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626087 Scully, I. D., & Hupbach, A. (2020). Directed forgetting affects how we remember and judge other people. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition , 9 (3), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.04.004 Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review , 116 (2), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 (6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). I feel your pain: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 (6), 1308–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003 Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 41 , 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1 Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods , 38 , 174–180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765 Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 41 , 275–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1 Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 20 (2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402480 Xu, M., Li, Z., Qi, S., Fan, L., & Yang, D. (2020). Social exclusion modulates dual mechanisms of cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. Human Brain Mapping , 41 (10), 2669–2685. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24970 Yang, W. J., Yang, J. H., Xiao, X., & Zhang, Q. L. (2012). Directed forgetting of negative emotional materials and its psychological mechanisms. Psychological Science , 35 (1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.011 Yuan, Q. X. (2024). The picture superiority effect. Advances in Psychology , 14 (12), 7. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.1412921 Zheng, Z., Li, S., Mo, L., Chen, W., & Zhang, D. (2021). ISIEA: An image database of social inclusion and exclusion in young Asian adults. Behavior Research Methods , 54 (5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01736-w Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 20 Aug, 2025 Read the published version in Psychological Research → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 06 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 21 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 14 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-6444621","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":445639922,"identity":"7d644444-0717-49c8-a942-baa3331b7be6","order_by":0,"name":"Li'an Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Li'an","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":445639923,"identity":"38868da5-339c-4cfe-a713-23827f966661","order_by":1,"name":"Tiantian Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tiantian","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":445639924,"identity":"8a397a7e-c694-4d4b-aada-db623b265ba6","order_by":2,"name":"Xiaoli Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiaoli","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-14 09:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02168-3","type":"published","date":"2025-08-20T16:29:46+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81375400,"identity":"603496fe-209a-4760-88c1-3705247aa07c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:25:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":123055,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProcedure for the learning and recognition phases in the directed forgetting task with verbal stimuli.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/889ebd70e1b4a66797d2c286.png"},{"id":81375401,"identity":"6086aee7-112a-4bc3-92b4-b41a40f23aaf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:25:01","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":92876,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecognition accuracy under different memory instructions in the inclusion and exclusion groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/ad279a986f643b372f210e9c.png"},{"id":81375751,"identity":"a28b3a57-5665-4ef8-bacd-7088da6443b2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":124467,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecognition accuracy for non-social and social information words under different memory instructions in the inclusion and exclusion groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/a686b2d810e2f0e4628d0f54.png"},{"id":81375754,"identity":"95211227-d04f-4154-83cc-500ad391cfec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":157428,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eProcedure for the learning and recognition phases in the directed forgetting task\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/9445737898300a5420fd934b.png"},{"id":81375405,"identity":"650849e1-86c5-4044-a11b-cbe89cf671f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:25:01","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19445,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecognition accuracy of images materials under different memory instructions in the inclusion and exclusion groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/e6fe9b8150391b373602097f.png"},{"id":81375750,"identity":"c3e90b9b-052b-4a4f-ac1d-edb05dce9c7f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-25 11:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":134867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecognition accuracy for non-social and social information images under different memory instructions in the inclusion and exclusion groups.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/6e564b8f52406fcb61512261.png"},{"id":89847418,"identity":"aa343130-76cb-46d0-a0fc-a6bbdf488f4b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-25 16:43:32","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1933301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6444621/v1/9e75d4fd-78c1-48a7-bb53-46cb5c74ea06.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Effects of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Information","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSocial exclusion refers to the process by which individuals are rejected or ostracized by a social group or others during social interactions (Du \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals who experience social exclusion often exhibit intense negative emotions (Williams \u0026amp; Nida, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and are more susceptible to emotional disorders (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A substantial body of research indicates that social exclusion affects not only individual's emotional state but also their cognitive functions. Specifically, social exclusion suppresses brain regions associated with cognitive control (e.g., the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) (Xu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), impairs cognitive functioning (Otten \u0026amp; Jonas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and leads to declines in executive function, attention, and memory processing (Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Fuhrmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Hawkley \u0026amp; Cacioppo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding memory specifically, previous studies have identified two perspectives on how social exclusion influences memory. The first perspective suggests a generalized impairment effect, wherein social exclusion leads to broad memory deficits. Empirical evidence indicates that exclusion experiences may inhibit memory-related brain regions (e.g., the hippocampus), thereby disrupting both encoding and retrieval processes and weakening individuals' overall memory capabilities (Fuhrmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Excluded individuals often exhibit significant deficits in both working memory and episodic memory (Hawkley \u0026amp; Cacioppo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Fuhrmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The alternative perspective is the selective enhancement view, which posits that social exclusion prompts individuals to develop adaptive memory strategies that facilitate better recall of information associated with social threats (Kawamoto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This process is though to enhances individual's memory capacity for social information, particularly working memory for social stimuli related to the need for belong (Du et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In light of these findings, further research is needed to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relationship between social exclusion and memory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of the relationship between social exclusion and memory processing, previous studies have mostly explored how social exclusion depletes cognitive resources and affects memory storage performance from the perspective of \"active remembering\" (Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), but have neglected the aspect of \"active forgetting\" (Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, an efficient memory system relies not only on precise information storage but also on effective forgetting mechanisms to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. Directed forgetting, also known as intentional forgetting, refers to a phenomenon in which a \"forget\" instruction given during the learning phase results in impaired memory retrieval; it is a conscious and proactive process of forgetting (Moen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In the directed forgetting paradigm, participants are instructed during the learning phase to actively remember items designated as \"To Be Remembered\" (TBR) and to forget items designated as \"To Be Forgotten\" (TBF). When the recall of TBF items is significantly lower than that of TBR items, a directed forgetting effect is said to occur. Selective encoding theory and inhibitory control theory provide explanations for the processing mechanisms of directed forgetting (MacLeod \u0026amp; Colin, 1989; Geiselman \u0026amp; Bagheri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e), and the effects of individual factors and types of memory material on directed forgetting have also been explored. Research has shown that an individual's subjective emotional state can influence directed forgetting (B\u0026auml;uml \u0026amp; Kuhbandner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e): under negative emotional states, participants tend to remember negative information, whereas under positive emotional states, they are more likely to remember positive information (Bai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, different types of memory materials (e.g., words vs. images) yield divergent effects. Compared to word-based materials, individuals find it more challenging to forget pictorial information, resulting in weaker directed forgetting effects for images (Guo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Hauswald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted above, current research on factors influencing directed forgetting has primarily focused on individual differences and types of memory materials, while largely neglecting the role of social contextual factors. According to self-regulation theory, social exclusion, as a negative experience, triggers individuals' negative emotional responses. To cope with these emotions, individuals often need to mobilize cognitive resources to suppress them (Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, this inhibitory process depletes already limited cognitive resources, leading to impaired performance on cognitively demanding tasks (Jamieson, 2010). From the perspective of inhibitory control theory, directed forgetting is fundamentally an active inhibitory process and depends directly on an individual\u0026rsquo;s inhibitory control capacity (Geiselman et al., 1985). In directed forgetting tasks, individuals must actively suppress irrelevant information and selectively forget it\u0026mdash;a process that requires greater cognitive resources than intentional remembering (Scully, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, we propose that individuals experiencing social exclusion expend substantial cognitive resources to regulate negative emotions, resulting in insufficient capacity to effectively suppress irrelevant or secondary information, thereby compromising their ability to engage in directed forgetting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, studies suggest that social exclusion may prompt individuals to develop adaptive memory strategies (Smart Richman \u0026amp; Leary, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kawamoto et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). According to social monitoring system theory, individuals become more sensitive to social information related to belonging needs after experiencing exclusion. This heightened sensitivity activates the social monitoring system, directing individuals' attention toward socially relevant cues (Gardner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Williams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical evidence confirms that excluded individuals maintain heightened sensitivity to social information and exhibit enhanced focus on such stimuli (Schindler \u0026amp; Trede, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals who experience ostracism tend to exhibit increased cognitive orientation toward social information. In subsequent recall tests, the ostracized group was able to recall more content related to social information (DeWall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Since directed forgetting requires individuals to selectively ignore or inhibit irrelevant information, the heightened attention to social information induced by social exclusion may interfere with this process. Specifically, in the context of social exclusion, individuals may struggle to effectively suppress or forget social information that is thematically related to their exclusion experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to examine the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting of social and non-social information. Social exclusion was manipulated using the Cyberball paradigm, and directed forgetting was assessed using the item-method paradigm. Verbal and pictorial materials were used to examine effects across different stimulus types. Given that excluded individuals experience cognitive resource depletion (Fuhrmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), reduced inhibitory control (Lurquin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and impaired self-regulation (DeWall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), we propose that excluded individuals may struggle to effectively suppress irrelevant information during directed forgetting task. Based on this reasoning, we propose Hypothesis 1: Social exclusion will impair the directed forgetting effect across both types of materials. Specifically, in the exclusion condition, recognition accuracy for To-Be-Forgotten (TBF) items will not significantly differ from that for To-Be-Remembered (TBR) items, whereas in the inclusion condition, TBR items will be recognized significantly more accurately than TBF items. Moreover, previous research suggests that, under conditions of exclusion, individuals are more likely to attend to and remember social information than non-social information. This enhanced sensitivity to social information cues may further impair the ability to intentionally forget such information. Therefore, we propose Hypothesis 2: Across both types of material, social exclusion will more strongly impair directed forgetting of social information compared to non-social information. Finally, drawing on prior studies indicating that the type of stimulus materials can influence the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect (Hall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026Ccedil;apan \u0026amp; Ikier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the current study includes both verbal and pictorial representations of social and non-social information. Given that pictorial stimuli tend to be more vivid, and concrete, and require more elaborate processing, they may be more resistant to directed forgetting. Accordingly, we propose Hypothesis 3: Compared to verbal materials, pictorial materials will elicit a weaker weaker directed forgetting effect.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"2 Study 1: The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Verbal Materials","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing G*Power 3.1,a power analysis was conducted to estimate the required sample size. With an effect size of \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, a two-tailed significance level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, and a desired statistical power of 1-β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95, the minimum required sample size was determined to be 48 participants. A total of 60 undergraduate students were recruited. All participants were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, reported no physical or mental health conditions, were proficient in computer use, and had no prior experience with similar experiments. Participants received compensation upon completion. Six datasets were excluded due to procedural noncompliance, resulting in 54 valid datasets (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.87, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.80; 40 females, 14 males). Participants were randomly assigned to either the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28) or exclusion group (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.1 Emotional State and Basic Needs Scales\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), revised by Huang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) based on Watson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), was used to measure affect. This scale includes two subscales (positive and negative affect) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Almost none, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Extremely intense). Higher scores indicate stronger negative affect. The Cronbach's \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e for this scale was 0.83. The Basic Needs Scale developed by Williams (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) was employed to assess four dimensions of basic needs: belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control. Each dimension contains five items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Strongly agree), with higher total scores reflecting lower perceived threat to basic needs. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e for this scale was 0.97.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.2 Cyberball\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Cyberball paradigm (Williams et al., 2006) was used to manipulate social inclusion or exclusion. Participants were randomly assigned to either the exclusion or inclusion group and completed the task on a computer. Before the task, participants were told the game was designed to train mental imagery and involved online interaction with two other players allegedly from the same campus. Participants were instructed to mentally simulate real-life interaction scenarios, including environmental details and the appearance of the other players. In reality, the other players were computer-controlled. The game involved 30 ball tosses. In the exclusion condition, participants received the ball only twice at the beginning and were ignored for the remaining 28 tosses. In the inclusion condition, participants received the ball approximately one-third of the time (10 tosses). Each toss sequence lasted approximately 2\u0026ndash;3 minutes. To verify the effectiveness of the manipulation, a Perceived Exclusion/Inclusion Questionnaire (Wesselmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) was administered. It included two items (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I felt accepted by others during the game\u0026rdquo;; \u0026ldquo;I felt excluded by others during the game\u0026rdquo;) rated on a 5-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not at all, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very much). The average of the two items was calculated for manipulation check purposes. The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e for this measure was 0.89.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.3 Verbal Stimuli: Social and non-social Words\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial and non-social words were selected from the from the \u003cem\u003eModern Chinese Frequency Dictionary\u003c/em\u003e, specifically from the list of the top 8,000 most frequent words. Words with strong emotional connotations were excluded. A group of 45 graduate students majoring in psychology rated the remaining words on three dimensions: social relevance (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not at all social, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Highly social), arousal (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very calm, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very excited or tense), and familiarity (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very unfamiliar, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very familiar) using a 7-point Likert scale. Based on these ratings, 80 words were selected (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Of these, 20 social words and 20 non-social words were randomly selected for the learning phase, while the remaining 40 words were used as \"new\" items in the recognition phase.\u003c/p\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\u003eDescriptive statistics of word stimuli (\u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\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 \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStimulus Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Relevance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFamiliarity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-social Words\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.39\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.80\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.85\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Words\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.66\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.91\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.92\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2.4 Directed Forgetting Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study employed an item-method directed forgetting (DF) paradigm (Gallant et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), programmed using E-Prime 3.0 software. All stimuli were presented randomly in the center of a computer screen. The experiment consisted of three phases: learn, distraction, and recognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearn Phase: Each trial began with a fixation cross displayed for 500 ms, followed by a word presented for 2,000 ms. A total of 40 words were shown, each only once. Immediately after each word, a memory instruction appeared for 1,500 ms: a string of \"\u0026radic;\u0026radic;\u0026radic;\" indicated that the participant should remember the preceding word (to-be-remembered, TBR), whereas \"\u0026times;\u0026times;\u0026times;\" indicated that the participant should forget the preceding word (to-be-forgotten, TBF).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eDistraction Phase\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the study phase, participants completed a simple mental arithmetic task for approximately 3 minutes to reduce short-term memory retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRecognition Phase\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe test phase began with a 500 ms fixation cross, after which 80 words (40 old and 40 new) were presented in a randomized order, each for 2,000 ms. Participants were instructed to press the \"J\" key if they had seen the word during the study phase (regardless of the memory instruction), and the \"F\" key if the word was new. The key assignment was counterbalanced across participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe directed forgetting effect was calculated as the difference in recognition accuracy between TBR and TBF items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants first completed the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS). They then engaged in the Cyberball paradigm to simulate social exclusion or inclusion under the guise of \"mental visualization training.\" After the game, participants immediately completed the manipulation check questionnaire, PANAS, and Basic Needs Scale. Finally, they performed the directed forgetting task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Study Design and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed a 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) \u0026times; 2 (word type: non-social vs. Social information) \u0026times; 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) mixed factorial design. Group was a between-subjects factor, while word type and memory instruction were within-subjects factors. The dependent variables were recognition accuracy and the directed forgetting effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment was programmed and data were collected using E-Prime 3.0. Statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 28.0.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.1 Manipulation Checks and Emotion Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the exclusion group reported significantly higher perceived rejection (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.31, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.66) than those in the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.75, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52) = -12.96, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. The exclusion group also reported significantly lower basic needs satisfaction (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;44.50, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.41) compared to the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.32, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.60), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. Negative affect scores were higher in the exclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;61.00, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.64) than in the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41.07, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.76), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52) = -6.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. These results indicate that the Cyberball manipulation effectively induced a sense of social exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.2 Directed Forgetting Effect Sizes for Verbal Material\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn independent samples \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test revealed that the exclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14) exhibited a significantly smaller directed forgetting effect than the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.015.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5.3 Recognition Accuracy for Verbal Information\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition accuracy across conditions is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\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\u003eRecognition accuracy (\u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e) for verbal information under different conditions in the inclusion and exclusion groups.\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\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-social Words\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Words\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForget\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemember\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForget\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemember\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusion(28)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.48\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExclusion(26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.55\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\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\u003eA 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) \u0026times; 2 (word type: non-social vs. social) \u0026times; 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Results revealed significant main effects for word type, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;27.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.343, with social information words recognized more accurately than non-social words; and for memory instruction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.312, with \u0026ldquo;remember\u0026rdquo; items recognized more accurately than \u0026ldquo;forget\u0026rdquo; items (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eTBR\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.73, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eTBF\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.61). Significant two-way interactions were found between word type and group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.63, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.036, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.082; memory instruction and group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.016, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.107; and word type and memory instruction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.198. No significant main effect of group or other interaction terms were found (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.858, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimple effects analysis for the memory instruction \u0026times; group interaction (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that the inclusion group showed a significantly higher recognition rate for \u0026ldquo;remember\u0026rdquo; than for \u0026ldquo;forget\u0026rdquo; items, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.351. Although the exclusion group also showed a numerically higher recognition rate for \u0026ldquo;remember\u0026rdquo; items, the difference was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.107, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.049. For \u0026ldquo;remember\u0026rdquo; items, recognition accuracy did not differ between groups, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.00, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.990, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.000; however, for \u0026ldquo;forget\u0026rdquo; items, the exclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67) demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy than the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55), \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.016, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.106.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther simple effects analyses, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, indicated that in the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for to-be-remembered (TBR) items was significantly higher than that for to-be-forgotten (TBF) items for both non-social and social words (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), suggesting a robust directed forgetting effect. In the exclusion group, a significant directed forgetting effect was observed only for non-social words, with TBR items recognized more accurately than TBF items, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.011, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.118. For social words, recognition accuracy for TBR items was slightly lower than for TBF items, but this difference was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.709, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.003. Furthermore, when examining TBF items, participants in the exclusion group demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy for social words (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.79) compared to those in the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61), \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.002, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.175.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Study 1 investigated the impact of social exclusion on directed forgetting of verbal materials containing social versus non-social information. The results showed that in the exclusion group, recognition accuracy did not significantly differ between TBR and TBF items, and the magnitude of the directed forgetting effect was significantly lower than that in the inclusion group. These findings support Hypothesis 1, indicating that social exclusion impairs individuals' directed forgetting ability. Further analysis revealed that participants in the inclusion group exhibited significant directed forgetting for both social and non-social words. In contrast, participants in the exclusion group demonstrated a significant directed forgetting effect only for non-social words, but not for social words. Moreover, under the forget instruction, recognition accuracy for social words was significantly higher in the exclusion group than in the inclusion group. These results support Hypothesis 2, suggesting that social exclusion more strongly disrupts directed forgetting of socially relevant information. This finding aligns with an evolutionary psychology perspective, which posits that social information is prioritized during encoding due to its adaptive significance (Gardner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, heightened vigilance and increased need for social affiliation resulting from social exclusion may enhance individuals\u0026rsquo; sensitivity to social cues and undermine efforts to intentionally forget them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In summary, Study 1 demonstrated that social exclusion interferes with the directed forgetting of verbal materials containing social information. Study 2 aims to further examine whether this effect extends to pictorial materials that convey both social and non-social content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"3 Study 2: The Effect of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and Non-social Pictorial Information","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 indicated that a minimum of 48 participants was required to detect a medium effect size (\u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25) with \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01 (two-tailed) and power (1-β)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95. Sixty undergraduate students from a university in northwestern China were recruited for the study. All participants were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no known neurological or psychiatric conditions, were proficient in computer use, and had no prior experience with similar experiments. After completing the experiment, participants received monetary compensation. Data from four participants were excluded due to response times exceeding 2.5 standard deviations from the mean or failure to follow task instructions, resulting in a final sample of 56 participants (age range: 18\u0026ndash;29 years; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.29, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.67). The final sample included 21 females and 35 males, with 29 in the inclusion group and 27 in the exclusion group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of gender or age.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1 Emotion and Basic Needs Scales\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentical to those used in Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2 Cyberball\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSame as in Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.3 Pictorial Materials: Social and Non-social Images\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial images were selected from the Asian Adult Social Inclusion and Exclusion Picture System (Zheng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), from which 40 images depicting social interactions were used. non-social images were obtained from online image databases using the non-social words from Study 1 as search keywords. A separate group of 41 graduate students majoring in psychology rated the valence and arousal levels of the images using a 7-point scale. Based on these ratings, 80 images were selected for use in the experiment. The social and non-social images differed significantly in valence (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003enon\u0026minus;social\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.39, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003esocial\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.14, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -29.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Both categories were rated as moderately arousing (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003enon\u0026minus;social\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.48, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.52; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003esocial\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.28, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02). Twenty images from each category were randomly selected for the learning phase, while the remaining 40 images served as \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; items in the recognition phase.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2.4 Directed Forgetting Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The procedure was identical to that in Study 1, except that verbal materials were replaced with pictorial materials. The flow of the learning and recognition phases is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSame as in Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Study Design and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA 2 (group: inclusion vs. exclusion) \u0026times; 2 (image type: non-social vs. social) \u0026times; 2 (memory instruction: remember vs. forget) mixed factorial design was employed. Group was a between-subjects variable, while memory instruction and image type were within-subjects variables. The dependent variables were recognition accuracy and the directed forgetting effect. Data were analyzed using the same procedures as in Study 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5.1 Manipulation Checks and Emotion Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the exclusion group reported significantly higher scores on the manipulation check scale (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.52, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.94) than those in the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.02, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.66), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52) = -6.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;0.001. Similarly, participants in the exclusion group reported significantly lower scores on the basic needs scale (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;56.52, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.02) compared to the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.93, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.20), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(52)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001. While the exclusion group showed higher negative affect scores (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51.74, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.96) than the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48.17, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.64). These results confirm the effectiveness of the Cyberball manipulation in inducing social exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5.2 Directed Forgetting Effects for Pictorial Information\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn independent-samples \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test revealed that the exclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -0.01, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12) exhibited a significantly smaller directed forgetting effect than the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.92, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5.3 Recognition Accuracy for Pictorial Information\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mean recognition accuracy (\u003cem\u003eM\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/em\u003e) for each condition across the inclusion and exclusion groups is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition Accuracy (M\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD) for Pictorial Information Under Different Conditions in the Inclusion and Exclusion Groups.\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\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNon-social pictures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Pictures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForget\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemember\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForget\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemember\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInclusion(29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.71\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExclusion(27)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\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\u003eA repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effects of picture type, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.35, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.375, with social pictures being recognized more accurately than non-social pictures (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003esocial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.80, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003enon\u0026minus;social\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.66). A significant main effect of memory instruction was also found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.185, with TBR items recognized more accurately than TBF items (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eTBR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.76, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eTBF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.70). Importantly, there was a significant interaction between memory instruction and group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.222, as was as a significant interaction between picture type and memory instruction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.027, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.088. The main effect of group and other interactions were not significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimple effects analysis of the memory instruction \u0026times; group interaction (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that the inclusion group showed significantly higher accuracy for TBR than TBF items, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.346, while the exclusion group showed no significant difference (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eTBR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.76; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eTBF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.75), \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.766, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.002. For TBR items, there was no significant difference in recognition accuracy between the inclusion and exclusion groups, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.528, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.007. However, for TBF items, the exclusion group had a significantly higher recognition accuracy (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75) compared to the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.64), \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.020, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.096.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results of the simple effects analysis are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. In the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly higher than for TBF items for both non-social and social information images, indicating a robust directed forgetting effect across both types of materials. In contrast, in the exclusion group: For non-social images, although TBR items were recognized more accurately than TBF items, the difference was not statistically, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.766, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.189, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.032. For social images, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly lower than for TBF items, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.56, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.037, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.078. These findings suggest that participants in the exclusion group did not exhibit a directed forgetting effect for either type of material. Notably, the impairment was more pronounced social information. Furthermore, under the TBF instruction, recognition accuracy for social information images was significantly higher in the exclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86) than in the inclusion group (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71), \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,54)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.94, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004, ηp\u0026sup2; = 0.142, providing further evidence that social exclusion disrupts the directed forgetting mechanism, particularly for socially salient information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5.4 Comparison of Directed Forgetting Effects Between Pictorial and Verbal Materials\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn independent-samples t-test revealed that the directed forgetting effect was marginally smaller for pictorial materials (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14) than for verbal materials (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.19), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(108)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.059.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperiment 2 investigated the effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting of socially relevant and non-social pictorial information. The results showed that in the inclusion group, recognition accuracy for TBR items was significantly higher than for TBF items across both image types, indicating a robust directed forgetting effect. In contrast, the exclusion group did not exhibit significantly higher recognition for TBR items; rather, a reversed pattern emerged in the social image condition-recognition accuracy for TBF items was significantly higher than for TBR items. This finding provides further support for Hypothesis 1, suggesting that social exclusion impairs individuals\u0026rsquo; ability to suppress information designated for forgetting, thereby weakening the directed forgetting effect. Furthermore, under the forget instruction, the exclusion group exhibited significantly higher recognition accuracy for social images than the inclusion group, lending additional support to Hypothesis 2. This suggests that social exclusion may heighten individuals\u0026rsquo; sensitivity to socially relevant information, making it more difficult to suppress or forget information that has been explicitly instructed to be ignored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the directed forgetting effect was smaller for image-based materials than for word-based materials, supporting Hypothesis 3. One possible explanation is that image processing typically engages more complex cognitive mechanisms than verbal processing (Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), thereby increasing the demand on cognitive resources and amplifying the impairing effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, a reversal of the directed forgetting effect was observed in the exclusion group under the social image condition, whereby recognition for TBR items was significantly lower than that for TBF items. This reversed pattern may reflect the emotionally arousing nature of social images, which could trigger ruminative processing in socially excluded individuals. As a result, the forget instruction may paradoxically enhance the retrieval of information intended to be ignored, leading to a cognitive conflict in which \u0026ldquo;what should be forgotten becomes unforgettable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that even short-term, experimentally induced social exclusion can significantly impair individuals\u0026rsquo; directed forgetting abilities. This effect may be attributed to the depletion of cognitive resources and reduced inhibitory control (Dong \u0026amp; Zong, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). According to the self-regulation theory (Baumeister et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), social exclusion evokes intense negative affect, prompting individuals to allocate substantial cognitive resources for emotional regulation. As a result, fewer cognitive resources are available for performing directed forgetting tasks, thereby weakening forgetting performance. Our findings further support the notion that cognitive resource depletion triggered by social exclusion has a generalized effect across different types of tasks (Lurquin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, based on the strength model of self-control (DeWall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), social exclusion not only consumes cognitive resources but also directly impairs self-control capacity, making it more difficult to inhibit irrelevant information. In the present study, the exclusion group demonstrated significantly higher recognition accuracy for TBF items than the inclusion group for both textual and pictorial materials, suggesting that social exclusion may have interfered with an individual's inhibitory control over items designated for forgetting. This impairment likely hindered participants from engaging in effective proactive inhibition when confronted with irrelevant information, ultimately leading to a weakening of the directed forgetting effect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 The Impact of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social Versus Non-social Information\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was found that the recognition accuracy for social information was significantly higher than that of non-social information across both textual and pictorial material, and that directed forgetting of social information was more severely impaired in the exclusion group. These results support the social monitoring system theory, which posits that the social monitoring system is an adaptive mechanism designed to fulfill the need to belong. Its core function is to direct an individual's attention to information that can help them cope successfully with social situations (Gardner et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Under exclusion condition, unmet belonging needs may heighten individuals\u0026rsquo; sensitivity to social cues, increasing their attentional focus on socially relevant information to better detect and respond to potential social threats (Kerr \u0026amp; Levine, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Wesselmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, according to the goal-driven resource allocation theory, individuals\u0026rsquo; cognitive responses are shaped by their current motivational state and contextual demands. In social exclusion situations, the need to belong can become the most urgent goal for the individual to satisfy, so the individual will prioritize the allocation of cognitive resources to restore social bonding or seek acceptance, while goals that are not related to the need to belong may be temporarily suppressed or ignored (Sacco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, when individuals in the exclusion group are instructed to forget socially relevant information, they may lack the cognitive resources necessary for active suppression, resulting in impaired directed forgetting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis finding reveals the profound impact of social exclusion on individuals\u0026rsquo; memory, particularly regarding the selective processing social information. Excluded individuals tend to prioritize socially relevant cues, which are more deeply processed and encoded. As a result, forgetting such information becomes more difficult in the face of negative social experiences, ultimately affecting their ability to adapt socially.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4.3 The Amplifying Effect of Pictorial Materials on the Impairment of Directed Forgetting Caused by Social Exclusion\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings from both Study 1 and Study 2 indicated that pictorial materials exacerbated the impairing effect of social exclusion on directed forgetting to a greater extent than verbal materials, and this effect was observed across a broader range of conditions. Specifically, under the non-social information condition, the directed forgetting effect completely disappeared in the exclusion group in Study 2, whereas it was partially preserved in Study 1. Under the social information condition, the impairment of directed forgetting was more pronounced in Study 2. Furthermore, the overall effect size of directed forgetting was smaller for pictorial materials than for verbal ones. This phenomenon may be attributed to the unique cognitive characteristics of image-based materials. Compared with words, pictures contain more vivid colors, contextual backgrounds, and spatial cues (Nelson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e), which often engage episodic memory processes. Individuals can more readily use these visual features for detailed encoding within a short timeframe, making pictorial information more memorable (Lloyd-Jones \u0026amp; Vernon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, whereas verbal materials primarily rely on semantic processing, pictorial materials involve both imaginal and semantic processing. This dual processing not only strengthens memory traces but also increases the difficulty of actively suppressing related information (Paivio, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Yuan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, compared to textual material, pictorial material encodes social information more deeply and has a stronger visual impact, making it more difficult for individuals to successfully suppress emotionally salient or socially meaningful information when attempting to forget.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings further demonstrate that social exclusion undermines individuals\u0026rsquo; capacity for directed forgetting, particularly in the context of processing socially relevant pictorial stimuli. The current findings not only contribute to the growing body of literature on the cognitive consequences of social exclusion but also offer new theoretical insights into the mechanisms by which individuals encode and retain information following experiences of social rejection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, the current study has several limitations that offer valuable directions for future research. First, both experiments employed the Cyberball paradigm to induce social exclusion, which simulates a brief, controlled experience of exclusion in a laboratory setting. However, this may not fully capture the complexity of real-life social rejection experiences. Future studies could consider using naturalistic methods or longitudinal designs to further examine the ecological validity of these findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, although the present research utilized behavioral paradigms to reveal the influence of social exclusion on directed forgetting, it did not directly examine the underlying neural mechanisms. Future investigations could incorporate neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) to explore the neurocognitive basis of how social exclusion impacts memory control processes, thereby providing more direct neurophysiological evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, while the verbal and pictorial materials used in the experiments effectively differentiated between social and non-social content, they may not fully reflect the complexity and richness of real-world social stimuli. Future studies could enhance ecological validity by employing more naturalistic and dynamic social cues, such as video clips or immersive virtual reality (VR) environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, although this study focused on the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting across different material types, it did not examine the potential role of individual differences. Personality traits and other dispositional factors are known to influence both social interaction and cognitive processing. Future research could investigate how these individual differences moderate the relationship between social exclusion and memory control, offering a more nuanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the effects of social exclusion on directed forgetting across two experiments. The main findings are as follows: First, social exclusion significantly impaired individuals\u0026rsquo; directed forgetting ability. Second, compared to non-social information, the impairment of directed forgetting was more pronounced for social information in the exclusion condition. Third, compared to verbal materials, social exclusion exerted a greater detrimental effect on directed forgetting of pictorial materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China Regional Science Fund Project (\u003cem\u003eNo.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e32360211) and the Gansu Provincial Higher Education Institutions Postgraduate \"Innovation Star\" Project (\u003cem\u003eNo.\u003c/em\u003e 2025CXZX-334). The authors also wish to thank for the assistance of schools and students who participated in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study was approved by School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee, Northwest Normal University. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflicts of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report no conflict of interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLi’an Wang: Conceptualisation; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Software; Visualisation; Writing-original draft; Writing-review \u0026amp; editing. Tiantian Zhang: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing-review \u0026amp; editing. Xiaoli Yang: Conceptualisation; Funding acquisition; Methodology;Resources; Supervision; Writing-review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai, X. J., Wang, Y. Y., \u0026amp; Yang, H. B. (2012). The influence of emotional congruency on intentional forgetting. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister, R. F., De Wall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., \u0026amp; Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(4), 589. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., \u0026amp; Vohs, K. D. (2018). The strength model of self-regulation: Conclusions from the second decade of willpower research. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141\u0026ndash;145. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617716946\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1745691617716946\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., \u0026amp; Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e(4), 817\u0026ndash;827. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.817\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB\u0026auml;uml, K. H., \u0026amp; Kuhbandner, C. (2009). Positive moods can eliminate intentional forgetting. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93\u0026ndash;98. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.93\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/PBR.16.1.93\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;apan, D., \u0026amp; Ikier, S. (2021). Metamemory and memory discrepancies in directed forgetting of emotional information. \u003cem\u003eEurope's Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.2567\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5964/ejop.2567\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., \u0026amp; Vohs, K. D. (2008). Satiated with belongingness? Effects of acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self-regulatory performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1367. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0012632\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0012632\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., \u0026amp; Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal perception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e(4), 729\u0026ndash;741. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0014634\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0014634\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong, H., \u0026amp; Zong, X. (2023). Effects of social exclusion on inhibitory control and working memory\u0026mdash;Focusing on hard-of-hearing college students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Frontiers in Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 79\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.050214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.25236/IJFS.2023.050214\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDu, J. Z., \u0026amp; Xia, B. L. (2008). Social exclusion from the perspective of psychology. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(6), 981\u0026ndash;986.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDu, X. L., Ding, C., Xu, M. S., Yuan, S. G., Zhang, L. J., \u0026amp; Chen, H. (2023). The effect of social exclusion on visual working memory capacity. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 11\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230102\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230102\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuhrmann, D., Casey, C. S., Speekenbrink, M., \u0026amp; Blakemore, S. J. (2019). Social exclusion affects working memory performance in young adolescent girls. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Cognitive Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 100718. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100718\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100718\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGallant, S. N., Dyson, B. J., \u0026amp; Yang, L. (2017). Local context effects during emotional item directed forgetting in younger and older adults. \u003cem\u003eMemory (Hove, England)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1129\u0026ndash;1138. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1274036\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09658211.2016.1274036\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., \u0026amp; Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 486\u0026ndash;496. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0146167200266007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., \u0026amp; Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1549\u0026ndash;1560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277208\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0146167205277208\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeiselman, R. E., \u0026amp; Bagheri, B. (1985). Repetition effects in directed forgetting: Evidence for retrieval inhibition. \u003cem\u003eMemory \u0026amp; Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198444\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/BF03198444\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo, R. Y., Mao, W. B., \u0026amp; Niu, Y. Y. (2021). The effects of perceptual and conceptual processing on the picture superiority effect in associative memory. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1290\u0026ndash;1296. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210602\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210602\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHall, K. J., Fawcett, E. J., Hourihan, K. L., \u0026amp; Fawcett, J. M. (2021). Emotional memories are (usually) harder to forget: A meta-analysis of the item-method directed forgetting literature. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e, 1313\u0026ndash;1326. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01914-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/s13423-021-01914-z\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHauswald, A., Schulz, H., Iordanov, T., \u0026amp; Kissler, J. (2011). ERP dynamics underlying successful directed forgetting of neutral but not negative pictures. \u003cem\u003eSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 450\u0026ndash;459. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq061\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/scan/nsq061\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHawkley, L. C., \u0026amp; Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Behavioral Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 218\u0026ndash;227. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, L., Yang, T. Z., \u0026amp; Ji, Z. M. (2003). A study on the applicability of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) in Chinese populations. \u003cem\u003eChinese Mental Health Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2003.01.018\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3321/j.issn:1000-6729.2003.01.018\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJamieson, J. P., Harkins, S. G., \u0026amp; Williams, K. D. (2010). Need threat can motivate performance after ostracism. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(5), 690\u0026ndash;702. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209358882\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0146167209358882\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKawamoto, T., Nittono, H., \u0026amp; Ura, M. (2014). Event-related potentials indicate low self-esteem individuals give enhanced attention to disgusted faces after being ostracized. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(94), 251\u0026ndash;252. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.958\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.958\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerr, N. L., \u0026amp; Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. \u003cem\u003eGroup Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.39\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, C. Y., Yang, Y. Z., Zhang, X. M., Xu, X., Dou, Q. L., Zhang, W. W., \u0026amp; Cheng, A. S. (2020). The prevalence and influencing factors in anxiety in medical workers fighting COVID-19 in China: A cross-sectional survey. \u003cem\u003eEpidemiology \u0026amp; Infection\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e148\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268820001107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0950268820001107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLloyd-Jones, T. J., \u0026amp; Vernon, D. (2003). Semantic interference from visual object recognition on visual imagery. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 563\u0026ndash;580. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.563\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.563\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLurquin, J. H., McFadden, S. L., \u0026amp; Harbke, C. R. (2014). An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of social rejection on self-control. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e154\u003c/em\u003e(3), 186\u0026ndash;197. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.881768\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00224545.2014.881768\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacLeod, C. M. (1989). Directed forgetting affects both direct and indirect tests of memory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoen, K. C., Pinto, J. D. G., Papesh, M. H., \u0026amp; Beck, M. R. (2019). Not all information in visual working memory is forgotten equally. \u003cem\u003eConsciousness and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e, 102782. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102782\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.concog.2019.102782\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., \u0026amp; Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(5), 523\u0026ndash;528. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0278-7393.2.5.523\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtten, M., \u0026amp; Jonas, K. J. (2013). Out of the group, out of control? The brain responds to social exclusion with changes in cognitive control. \u003cem\u003eSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(7), 789\u0026ndash;794. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss071\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/scan/nss071\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 255\u0026ndash;287. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/h0084295\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSacco, D. F., Young, S. G., \u0026amp; Hugenberg, K. (2014). Balancing competing motives: Adaptive trade-offs are necessary to satisfy disease avoidance and interpersonal affiliation goals. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1611\u0026ndash;1623. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214552790\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0146167214552790\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchindler, S., \u0026amp; Trede, M. (2021). Does social exclusion improve detection of real and fake smiles? A replication study. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 626087. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626087\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626087\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScully, I. D., \u0026amp; Hupbach, A. (2020). Directed forgetting affects how we remember and judge other people. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 336\u0026ndash;344. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.04.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.04.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmart Richman, L., \u0026amp; Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e116\u003c/em\u003e(2), 365\u0026ndash;383. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0015250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatson, D., Clark, L. A., \u0026amp; Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1063\u0026ndash;1070. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., \u0026amp; Williams, K. D. (2009). I feel your pain: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1308\u0026ndash;1311. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 275\u0026ndash;314. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, K. D., \u0026amp; Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e, 174\u0026ndash;180. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/BF03192765\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 275\u0026ndash;314. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, K. D., \u0026amp; Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(2), 71\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402480\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0963721411402480\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, M., Li, Z., Qi, S., Fan, L., \u0026amp; Yang, D. (2020). Social exclusion modulates dual mechanisms of cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs. \u003cem\u003eHuman Brain Mapping\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2669\u0026ndash;2685. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hbm.24970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, W. J., Yang, J. H., Xiao, X., \u0026amp; Zhang, Q. L. (2012). Directed forgetting of negative emotional materials and its psychological mechanisms. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 50\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.01.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYuan, Q. X. (2024). The picture superiority effect. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(12), 7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.1412921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.12677/ap.2024.1412921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng, Z., Li, S., Mo, L., Chen, W., \u0026amp; Zhang, D. (2021). ISIEA: An image database of social inclusion and exclusion in young Asian adults. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01736-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3758/s13428-021-01736-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"psychological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"prpf","sideBox":"Learn more about [Psychological Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/426)","snPcode":"426","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/426/3","title":"Psychological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Social Exclusion, Directed Forgetting, Social Information, Non-Social Information","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSocial exclusion has been found to impair inhibitory control and working memory, but its effect on directed forgetting remains largely unexplored. Using the item-method directed forgetting paradigm, the present study employed both verbal and pictorial materials to investigate how social exclusion affects the directed forgetting of social and non-social information. In Study 1, 54 participants (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 23.87 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.80) were randomly assigned to either the exclusion group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26) or the inclusion group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28). In Study 2, 56 participants (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 19.63 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.67) were recruited, including 27 in the exclusion group and 29 in the inclusion group. Results showed that the directed forgetting effect was significantly reduced in the exclusion group compared to the inclusion group. Furthermore, the impairing effect of social exclusion was more pronounced for social information than for non-social information. The detrimental effect was also greater for pictorial materials than for verbal ones. These findings suggest that social exclusion disrupts the directed forgetting process, and that social information presented as images exhibits a significant mnemonic advantage. This highlights the importance of the social context in the directed forgetting process and provides multidimensional evidence for a deeper understanding of the consequences of social exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Effects of Social Exclusion on Directed Forgetting of Social and non-social Information","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-25 11:24:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6444621/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-06-06T13:47:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-06T09:45:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-26T02:17:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"205058148727779937012760376687856555829","date":"2025-05-05T09:17:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"225437447345027072684239539182186487152","date":"2025-05-04T20:32:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-24T14:10:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T07:12:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-22T02:45:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Psychological Research","date":"2025-04-14T09:30:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"psychological-research","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"prpf","sideBox":"Learn more about [Psychological Research](http://link.springer.com/journal/426)","snPcode":"426","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/426/3","title":"Psychological Research","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"19f35bb7-bb52-4ca1-aa7c-bc5302b83bea","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-25T16:38:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6444621","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02168-3","journal":{"identity":"psychological-research","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Psychological Research"},"publishedOn":"2025-08-20 16:29:46","publishedOnDateReadable":"August 20th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-25 11:24:56","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02168-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02168-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6444621","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6444621","identity":"rs-6444621","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}