Social pain by non-social agents: Exclusion hurts and provokes punishment even if the excluding source is a computer.

Prior research has shown that being excluded by computer-agents in experimental exclusion paradigms threatens individuals' basic needs to a similar extent as being excluded by humans. It is less clear, however, why this similarity between computer and human exclusion occurs, and whether it applies only to reactions immediately after the exclusion event (reflexive stage), or also to reactions that occur further downstream (e.g., reflective stage). Four studies (N = 1048) with three different exclusion paradigms provide several key insights: First, the similarity between computer and human exclusion is robust and pervasive, as Bayesian analyses provide consistent support that the source of exclusion (human vs. computer) does not affect reflexive need satisfaction. Second, this similarity also extends to reflective reactions and punishing behavior. Finally, the present studies extend our knowledge about the processes underlying this similarity by uncovering the role of anthropomorphism. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Who's to blame? Dissimilarity as a cue in moral judgments of observed ostracism episodes.

When observing an ostracism episode, observers may wish to know whether ostracism is justified or not. If ostracism appears unjustified, observers will likely blame the sources and sympathize with the target; if it appears justified, observers will likely blame and devalue the target. Here we introduce the "social dissimilarity rule," which holds that observers base their moral judgments on dissimilarities between the members of the observed group. In five studies, participants either recalled observed ostracism episodes or observed group interactions in which one group member was ostracized (e.g., in a chat or a group-working task). Results show that if similar persons exclude a dissimilar target (target is an "odd-one-out"), observers attribute ostracism to malicious motives of the ostracizers, such as ingroup favoritism, and devalue the ostracizers. However, if ostracism cannot be explained by social dissimilarity between the sources and the target, observers assume that the target is being punished for a norm deviation (punitive motive) and devalue the target. Use of the social dissimilarity rule was neither moderated by cognitive load (Study 3) nor by the perceived essentiality of the group distinction (Study 4). But if participants knew that the target previously deviated from a norm, knowledge about the situation had a stronger effect on moral judgments (Study 5) than social dissimilarity. These findings further our understanding of how observers make moral judgments about ostracism, which is important given that an observer's moral judgment can strongly impact bystander behavior and thus target recovery and well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record

Correction: Under threat by popular vote: German-speaking immigrants' affect and cognitions following the Swiss vote against mass immigration.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175896.].

Under threat by popular vote: German-speaking immigrants' affect and cognitions following the Swiss vote against mass immigration.

A popular initiative in support of regulating future immigration to Switzerland was accepted by the electorate in 2014. Assuming that the initiative acted as an exclusionary threat for current immigrants of Switzerland, we conducted an online survey among a sample of highly-skilled German-speaking immigrants ("expats"). Participants reported having experienced negative affect following the vote. Moreover, having a more left-wing orientation, living in a political constituency that had voted pro-regulation and having proportionally few Swiss friends positively predicted negative affect following the vote. Negative affect was associated with a reported negative change in one's attitudes towards Switzerland, increased considerations to leave the country, and impaired satisfaction with life. In sum, the results suggest that a powerful exclusionary threat such as a national vote may be experienced as distressful by highly-skilled immigrants currently living in the country.