The power of human touch: Physical contact improves performance in basketball free throws.

How pervasive is the power of human touch? Physical touch by other humans shows social support and alleviates stress - stress that may otherwise interfere with performance in athletic tasks. We argue that physical touch improves performance in highly stressful situations: free throws in basketball. In two studies (Ntotal = 60 NCAAW games, ktotal = 835 free throw tandems), we assessed how often teammates touched the shooting player (e.g., a tap on the shoulder) in between shooting two free throws. We find that the extent of touch (i.e., being touched by 0, 1, 2, 3, or all 4 teammates) after the first free throw predicted success with the second free throw, but only when players missed the first free throw (integrated data analysis: main effect hand taps: b = 0.47, p = .021; main effect first free throw: b = 1.36, p = .019; interaction effect: b = -0.55, p = .024). We argue that this means that teammates' support expressed in physical touch helps particularly when stress levels are already high. Results are robust when controlling for players' skill level, home versus away games, point difference, and remaining playing time. More frequent touch was also tendentially associated with teams' season success (ACC-teams only, main effect of hand taps: b = -0.42, p = .062). Physical touch thus indeed boosts performance under stress, superseding a range of other factors, likely also in other team sports and interpersonal relationships.

When and why we ostracize others: Motivated social exclusion in group contexts.

Research on ostracism has mostly focused on ostracized targets' reactions to being excluded and ignored. In contrast, the ostracizing sources' perspective and reasons for why individuals decide to ostracize others are still a largely unexplored frontier for empirical research. We propose two fundamental motives situated in the target's behavior that drive motivated ostracism decisions for the benefit of one's group: A perceived norm violation of the target and perceived expendability of the target for achieving group goals. Two survey studies and five experiments (total N = 2,394, all preregistered) support our predictions: When asked to recall a recent ostracism decision and the motives for it, participants reported both perceived norm violations and/or expendability of the target as motives (Study 1). Switching to the target perspective, the frequency of experienced ostracism was associated with both self-perceived norm violations and expendability (Study 2). In five experiments (Studies 3-7), participants consistently choose to ostracize targets more often when they perceived them to be either norm-violating, or inept in a skill important for the group and thus expendable. Additionally, Studies 5-7 show that strategic considerations about the requirements of the situational context influence ostracism decisions: Participants were more likely to ostracize norm-violating targets in cooperative contexts, and more likely to ostracize inept targets in performance contexts. Results have strong theoretical implications for research on ostracism and group dynamics, as well as for interventions targeting ostracism behavior: Particularly, adjusting the requirements of the situational context might be a viable option to decrease ostracism and promote inclusion in groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).