EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND AEROBIC FITNESS ON
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION
By
Anthony G. Delli Paoli

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Kinesiology – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

PUBLIC ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND AEROBIC FITNESS ON
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION
By
Anthony G. Delli Paoli
Social exclusion is a term used to describe an array of interpersonal behaviors that signal
someone is unwelcomed, does not belong, or is devalued. Being left out or ignored can
emotionally wear a person down. Research shows that social exclusion does not feel good and
can impair cognitive performance. Yet, little is known on what people can do to help them cope
with being excluded. This dissertation examined physical activity and aerobic fitness as ways to
help people cope with social exclusion.
The purpose of the first study was to understand if walking could help reduce the effects
of social exclusion on the feelings and cognitive performance of participants. Female collegeaged participants either walked on a treadmill at a brisk pace or remained seated at a desk for 20
minutes. After walking or being seated, half of the participants were told that no other
participants in the study wanted to work with them. The other half were told to complete
additional tasks while waiting. Results showed that walking helped participants feel better and
dampened the association of social exclusion perceptions that hurt cognitive performance. These
findings suggest that preemptive walking may be an effective way to help people cope with
social exclusion.
The purpose of the second study was to understand if children respond differently to
social exclusion based on how aerobically fit they are. The feelings and cognitive performance of
9-to-12-year-old girls were measured after being included and after being excluded by a
computer game. At the end of the study they completed a fitness assessment on a treadmill.

Results showed girls with higher fitness reported feeling better and demonstrated better cognitive
performance than girls with lower fitness. These findings suggest that more aerobically fit girls
may be better able to cope with social exclusion than less aerobically fit girls.
Collectively, both studies show that physical activity and fitness help people cope with
negative social relationships. The results of this dissertation add to the range of positive physical
and mental health outcomes associated with physical activity behavior and fitness. This may be
especially important for children as physical activity participation can help improve a child’s
aerobic fitness. Being physically active at school in physical education or through sports can
benefit aerobic fitness as well as provide meaningful opportunities for positive social
relationships with peers. This dissertation offers useful ways for people to reduce the impact of
social exclusion and continued research on this topic remains important.

ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND AEROBIC FITNESS ON
RESPONSES TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION
By
Anthony G. Delli Paoli
Social exclusion is common in daily life and has adverse effects on healthy functioning.
Because of these adverse effects, there is value in exploring behaviors and attributes that may
assist in coping with exclusion. Current understanding of ways to reduce the impact of social
exclusion is limited. Exploratory efforts are needed to address the transient effects of social
exclusion as an attempt to improve daily functioning and reduce the progression of adverse
effects on healthy functioning. These transient effects are largely characterized by reductions in
pleasant affect and impairments to cognitive performance. Accordingly, this dissertation
examined two complementary aspects of health to address responses to social exclusion –
physical activity and aerobic fitness.
The purpose of the first study was to assess walking as a strategy to reduce the effects of
social exclusion on affect and working memory performance. Healthy female college students (N
= 96, Mage = 19.2 ± 0.8 years) were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions:
(a) sedentary plus neutral feedback, (b) sedentary plus exclusion feedback, (c) walking plus
neutral feedback, or (d) walking plus exclusion feedback. Results showed excluded participants
had a significant negative shift in affect following feedback, p < .05. Those who were sedentary
prior to exclusion had lower affect scores following exclusion than the walking plus exclusion
and the neutral feedback groups, p < .05. There were no direct effects of walking or social
exclusion on working memory. However, perceptions of being ignored predicted smaller
improvements in working memory performance for participants who were sedentary prior to

exclusion, p < .05. The findings suggest that walking prior to social exclusion may mitigate the
affective response to social exclusion as well as social perceptions that can undermine working
memory. More broadly, this work supports continued examination of physical activity as a
potential strategy for helping individuals cope with negative social experiences.
The purpose of the second study was to determine if aerobic fitness moderates affective
and cognitive responses to social exclusion. Healthy adolescent girls (N = 35, Mage = 10.4 ± 1.2
years) completed measures of affect and working memory performance in response to a series
computer games where they were socially included and excluded. Social exclusion significantly
decreased affect, p < .001; however, working memory performance increased from inclusion to
exclusion, p < .001. Moderation analyses revealed aerobic fitness was positively associated with
changes in affect and working memory, p’s < .05. Higher levels of aerobic fitness were
associated with smaller decreases in affect and larger increases in working memory performance
for the more challenging of two working memory tasks used in this study. These results suggest
that more aerobically fit girls may be better able to cope with social exclusion than less
aerobically fit girls. This research highlights a potentially important moderator for coping with
social exclusion and further research is warranted.
Collectively, both studies offer a novel and complementary approach towards addressing
the effects of social exclusion. Health behaviors such as physical activity are practical because
they are accessible to most people to incorporate into their daily lives with low burden and cost.
Both physical activity behavior and aerobic fitness are associated with a range of positive
physical and mental health outcomes, which makes them particularly attractive candidates for
reducing the effects of social exclusion.

Copyright by
ANTHONY G. DELLI PAOLI
2017

The dissertation is dedicated to my wife and best friend, Courtney. Your unconditional love,
patience, and support made this project possible.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank study participants for the contributions to this dissertation project.
The conversations after debriefing provided me with valuable insights and memories.
I would also like to thank my team of undergraduate research assistants for their
dedication and help with data collection. I will always remember the training involved to polish
their acting skills when telling participants no one wanted to work with them. I would also like to
thank my graduate student colleagues for their advice, continued support, and encouragement.
I would like to also express my deep appreciation for my committee members, Dr.
Deborah Feltz, Dr. Jason Moser, Dr. Matthew Pontifex, and Dr. Alan Smith. Your guidance and
instrumental contributions over the course of my graduate career allowed me to become a better
scholar and deeper thinker. I would like to specifically thank Dr. Matthew Pontifex for his
dedication and support as my co-advisor. His expertise allowed me to expand my research
skillset that I will use throughout my career. I would also like to thank my advisor and
dissertation chair, Dr. Alan Smith. His mentorship allowed me to grow into a professional I am
proud of. His efforts into my development were challenging, highly detailed, purposeful, robust,
timely, and genuine. These are qualities that helped me develop and shape my view of academic
excellence. I am forever grateful for the time I spent at Michigan State under his guidance.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents: Dominick & Christine, brothers: Dominick &
Christopher, grandparents: Carol, Christine, Dominick, & Anthony, in-laws: Marion & Robert,
Lenny & Jill, Jillian & Tony, and nieces and nephews. The support from my family means the
world to me.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
Conceptualizing Social Exclusion............................................................................................... 2
A Theoretical Framework of Social Exclusion ........................................................................... 5
Reflexive Stage ........................................................................................................................ 6
Reflective Stage ..................................................................................................................... 10
Developmental Aspects of Social Exclusion ............................................................................ 13
Effects of Physical Activity and Aerobic Fitness on Affect and Cognitive Control................. 15
Exploring Physical Activity and Fitness to Address Responses to Social Exclusion ............... 19
CHAPTER 2: STUDY ONE ...................................................................................................... 22
Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 24
Method ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 28
Measures ................................................................................................................................ 29
Experimental Conditions ....................................................................................................... 30
Design and Procedure ............................................................................................................ 32
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 34
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Randomization and Manipulation Checks ............................................................................. 37
Affective Valence .................................................................................................................. 38
Working Memory .................................................................................................................. 41
Associations of Affect and Exclusion Perceptions with Changes in Working Memory
Performance ........................................................................................................................... 42
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 44
Limitations and Future Research Directions ......................................................................... 47
Strengths and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 3: STUDY TWO ..................................................................................................... 52
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 52
Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 58
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 58
Design .................................................................................................................................... 59
Guardian Measures ................................................................................................................ 59
Child Measures ...................................................................................................................... 60

vii

Experimental Conditions ....................................................................................................... 64
Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 65
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 66
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Manipulation Checks ............................................................................................................. 68
Perceptions of Loneliness, Being Ignored and Excluded, and Social Competence .............. 68
Affective Responses .............................................................................................................. 69
Working Memory Performance ............................................................................................. 69
Aerobic Fitness and Responses to Social Exclusion ............................................................. 70
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 73
Limitations and Future Research Directions ......................................................................... 78
Strengths and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 83
Theoretical Contributions and Implications .............................................................................. 84
Limitations and Directions for Future Research ....................................................................... 92
Practical Implications ................................................................................................................ 95
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 97
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 99
APPENDIX A: Study One — Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter .......... 100
APPENDIX B: Study One — Empirical Valence Scale ......................................................... 102
APPENDIX C: Study One — Manipulation Check ............................................................... 104
APPENDIX D: Study Two — Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter ......... 106
APPENDIX E: Study Two — Guardian Measures................................................................. 108
APPENDIX F: Study Two — Child Measures ....................................................................... 113
APPENDIX G: Study Two — Manipulation Check ............................................................... 119
APPENDIX H: Study Two — Advertisement Flyer .............................................................. 121
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 123

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Manipulation Check Variables ............................. 37
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Affective Valence Scores in Follow-up Models .... 41
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Working Memory Performance ............................ 42
Table 4. Associations among Affect and Exclusion Perceptions with Changes in Working
Memory Performance ...................................................................................................... 43
Table 5. Demographic Characteristics ......................................................................................... 59
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Cyberball Manipulation Checks............................................. 68
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for Working Memory .................................................................... 70

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Procedural timeline....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 2. Affective valence by experimental condition over time. ............................................... 39
Figure 3. Procedural timeline. ..................................................................................................... 65
Figure 4. Affective responses and cognitive performance following inclusion then exclusion ... 69
Figure 5. Fitness with changes in affective valence and working memory. ................................ 71
Figure 6. Empirical valence scale. ............................................................................................ 103
Figure 7. Children’s feeling scale. ............................................................................................ 118
Figure 8. Study two advertisement flyer. ................................................................................... 122

x

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS

ADHD

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

BH-FDR

Benjamini and Hochberg false discovery rate

BMI

body mass index

BPM

beats per minute

CFS

Children's Feeling Scale

CLA

Children's Loneliness Scale

cm

Centimeters

EVS

Empirical Valence Scale

HR

Heart rate

ITI

Inter-trial interval

kg

Kilograms

M

Statistical mean

m

Meters

ml

Milliliters

ms

Milliseconds

OES-A

Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents

OMNI

Children's OMNI scale of perceived exertion

RER

Respiratory exchange ratio

SD

Standard deviation

SPPC

Self-Perception Profile for Children

VO2 max

Maximum volume of oxygen that a person can use

xi

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
“I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is
to end up with people who make you feel alone.” – Robin Williams
The importance of social relationships stems from the universal human need to form and
maintain stable, meaningful, and lasting relationships, known as the need to belong (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995). The need to belong has a strong evolutionary basis and exerts a considerable
impact on human functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The idea that people strive for social
connections has a longstanding history in the social sciences. Freud (1949) often wrote of the
need for interpersonal contact among familial sources and intimate partners. Maslow’s (1943)
hierarchy of needs placed love and belongingness in the middle of his conceptual needs pyramid.
The central theme of Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory is the need for attachment between a
mother and infant. Today, there is recognized agreement that people greatly desire acceptance
and social bonds with others, frequently devote attention to the status of their relationships, and
behave in ways to maintain and protect their relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary,
2001). However, social life is dynamic and adverse social exchanges are common.
Over the past few decades, research has flourished on the effects of adverse social events
and relationships, with a key example being social exclusion (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, &
Twenge, 2007; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Williams, 2007). Social exclusion is a process
where a person is put into a condition of being alone or is denied social contact (Blackhart,
Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009). Social exclusion is associated with a range of harmful
effects on psychological, physical, and interpersonal functioning (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco,
& Twenge, 2005; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Hawkley, Thisted, & Cacioppo, 2009; Twenge,
Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). Despite considerable understanding of these

1

effects, less is understood on how to temper the impact of social exclusion. Identifying what
behaviors and individual characteristics may be best suited to mitigate the effects of social
exclusion will benefit the knowledge base and enable the maintenance and promotion of healthy
functioning.
There are four goals of this introductory chapter. The first is to provide a conceptual
understanding of social exclusion. The second is to review the sequence of events following
social exclusion. The third is to communicate the need to understand the effects of social
exclusion during development. The final goal is to justify the need for studying factors that hold
potential to temper the effects of social exclusion.
Conceptualizing Social Exclusion
Social exclusion encompasses a broad spectrum of interpersonal behaviors. Research has
focused on specific manifestations or forms of social exclusion such as abandonment, loneliness,
neglect, ostracism, rejection and victimization (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, & Twenge, 2007;
Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Leary, 2001; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie,
& Belch, 2010; Williams, 2009). Researchers have predominantly used these terms
interchangeably and often juxtapose social exclusion (i.e., rejection) with inclusion (i.e.,
acceptance). This contrast makes understanding degrees of exclusion difficult. People may
exclude some individuals more so and in different ways than others, rather than simply including
or excluding them. Further, individuals may experience events of social exclusion differently,
leading to discrepancies in how social exclusion is perceived. A focus on the common features
among forms of social exclusion offers a solution that reduces complexity and enhances
conceptual understanding.

2

At the core of each exclusionary experience is a threat to the need to belong (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995). Objective accounts for this threat manifest in degrees of exclusion that can vary
from overt (i.e., maximal exclusion) to subtle (i.e., passive exclusion) (Leary, 2001; 1990).
Maximal exclusion is when others overtly reject, ostracize, abandon, or banish another person. A
school-aged child being told by a group of peers she can’t play with them is an example of
maximal exclusion. Other forms include socially excluding an individual but to a lesser extent
such that excluders do not go too far out of their way to do so (Leary, 2001). Active exclusion
represents others avoiding another person but tolerating the presence of the person if and when
necessary. Waiting to be selected on a team for a school-yard game, text messages going
unanswered in an ongoing conversation or not being invited to a friend’s party are familiar
examples of active exclusion. Passive exclusion represents ignoring the individual but not to the
extent of physically avoiding or rejecting. The most common example of passive exclusion is
when people ignore each other in public (e.g., bus stop, elevator, park bench). Ambivalence
represents others not caring whether a person is included or excluded (Leary, 1990).
These objective accounts of social exclusion are useful to understand degrees of social
exclusion beyond the dichotomy of inclusion and exclusion. Despite these objective
representations, people respond in a variety of ways to similar forms of social exclusion. Two
people can experience an identical exclusionary event but have remarkably different reactions.
For instance, some individuals may be quite distressed from being ignored by a co-worker,
whereas others may think nothing of it. These disparate outcomes reveal the subjective
importance of exclusionary events. That is, how people interpret and perceive interactions with
others is a salient aspect of social exclusion.

3

Although Baumeister and Leary (1995) contend that all people maintain a desire to be
socially included by others, people possess a set of standards for how they evaluate their
relationships with others. These evaluations can vary across individuals (e.g., dispositions,
beliefs) as well as within individuals depending on contextual factors (e.g., work, home, school)
and the relation of an excluder to the individual (e.g., coach, family member, peer, teacher,
stranger). The effects of social exclusion are largely a function of how individuals regard their
relationships with others as valuable and important (Leary, 2001; Smart Richman & Leary,
2009). Thus, social exclusion and its many forms can be operationalized into perceived relational
value. Perceived relational value is the degree to which individuals believe that others value
having relationships with them (Smart Richman & Leary, 2009).
Perceived relational value is a core component of all forms of social exclusion and
provides an overarching conceptual framework (Leary, 1991). The experience of social
exclusion has three characteristics: (a) the individual values the relationship with another
person/group, (b) the individual perceives that the other person/group should value their existing
relationship prior to social exclusion, and (c) experiencing or anticipating a potential event of
social exclusion is perceived to damage the existing relationship such that individual perceives
the other person/group values the relationship less or devalues the relationship. A decreased
perceived evaluation or a perceived devaluation may trigger social exclusion effects. Individuals
range in these perceptions and therefore can have varying responses to social exclusion.

4

A Theoretical Framework of Social Exclusion
There are a number of hypotheses that detail the effects of social exclusion and its many
forms. The primary goal of these hypotheses is to account for the array of behavioral, emotional,
and psychological effects documented through experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal
research. Currently, there is no overarching theory that accounts for the entire array of effects of
social exclusion. Early approaches to studying social exclusion relied on cross-sectional or
longitudinal research (e.g., Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984; Asher & Wheeler, 1985; Newcomb
et al., 1993). These approaches highlighted the range of maladaptive outcomes for individuals
who are frequently socially excluded but were unable to directly test the process of how social
exclusion may develop into maladaptive outcomes. Over the past two decades, a growing body
of laboratory research has focused on the direct effects of social exclusion. This research has
revealed the process of being excluded and how social exclusion immediately impacts the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people.
A theory that focuses on the immediate effects of social exclusion is Williams’s (2007;
2009) temporal need threat model. The theory is useful for understanding the effects of social
exclusion despite being primarily developed as a theory specific to ostracism. Ostracism is the
process of ignoring and socially excluding individuals or groups by other individuals or groups
(Williams, 2007). This model posits the effects of social exclusion follow a progressive
sequence. The first stage to occur is reflexive (i.e., immediate) and includes effects characterized
by a diminished sense of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence
psychological needs and reduced pleasant affect. The reflexive stage is then followed by a
reflective stage characterized by cognitive appraisals of the social situation to assess what
happened and how to respond accordingly. During the reflective stage excluded individuals

5

engage in self-regulation strategies to cope, reduce the effects of the reflexive stage, and manage
emotion (Williams, 2007; Williams & Nida, 2011). The need threat model acknowledges longterm effects of social exclusion when an individual’s ability to cope becomes less effective
because of chronic exposure to exclusion (i.e., solitary confinement, consistent neglect and
loneliness among peers). This long-term effect is labeled the resignation stage. This stage has
received little attention because of the logistical and ethical challenges with chronically
excluding individuals in an experimental setting. Therefore, the need threat model is commonly
used in research targeting the immediate effects of social exclusion.
Reflexive Stage
A hallmark effect of the reflexive stage is how people feel after being excluded. Multiple
theoretical perspectives inform how people experience, express, and respond to different
feelings. One perspective conceptualizes emotions as distinct states (Lazarus, 1982). All
affective states maintain some unique appraisals, expressions, and behaviors relative to others,
which make them distinct from each other (Izard, 1993). This approach may be useful if a
researcher is interested in, for example, the role of anger in the moments after social exclusion
and the effect of anger on aggression (e.g., Leary, Twenge, & Quinlivan, 2006). A second
perspective uses a constructionist approach to understand affect and emotion. Emotions are
complex mental states arising from primitive, conscious, irreducible raw feelings termed core
affect (Barret, 2011; Barrett, Mesquita, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007; Russel, 2003). Core affect is
unreflective in that it is not attributed to any object, belief, or perception. Core affect contains
valence and arousal dimensions with affective valence ranging along a continuum from pleasant
to unpleasant and arousal ranging along a continuum of high to low. Pleasant valence signals
helpful or rewarding events and unpleasant valence signals harmful or threatening events

6

(Panksepp, 1998; 2005). Emotions arise when core affect is attributed to a specific object or
event in time (Russel, 2003). Thus, emotions require some situational and relational content.
Given the evolutionary links between the functional role of affect and social relationships, the
typical affective response to social exclusion is characterized by unpleasant affect to signal
attention to a perceived environmental threat (see MacDonald & Leary, 2005).
Researchers originally hypothesized that social exclusion would be quite distressful and
upsetting because the need to belong is deep-rooted within the human psyche (Twenge,
Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). The contemporary
view is that people typically respond to social exclusion with “hurt feelings” (MacDonald &
Leary, 2005). However, current understanding of “hurt feelings” as an affective response is
debated among social exclusion researchers (Baumeister, DeWall, & Vohs, 2009; Blackhart et
al., 2009; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009). A collective body of evidence shows that social exclusion
can increase negative affect (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009), induce social pain (MacDonald & Leary,
2005), make people emotionally numb (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006), or simply wipe away all
pleasant feelings (Blackhart et al., 2009).
The variability among research findings may be due to differences among social
exclusion paradigms in laboratory research, affect measurement, and the study setting (Blackhart
et al., 2009). However, these mixed findings may also reflect differences in perceived relational
evaluation. Most laboratory research manipulates social exclusion with strangers. This may
result in subtle decreases in perceived relational evaluation because of a very brief or artificial
relationship. Being excluded by a familiar source should invoke stronger decreases in perceived
relational evaluation because of the inherit preexisting relationship. Indeed, the strongest effects
of social exclusion on affect are found when participants imagine rejection with a familiar person

7

(Allen, Horne, & Trinder, 1996; Craighead, Kimball, & Rehak, 1979; Goldfried & Sobocinski,
1975) or are in the physical presence of others (Blackhart et al., 2009). These effects are
significantly larger than being with unfamiliar others. This may be why romantic partners that
break up report a “broken heart” or why the loss of a family member or close friend is shown to
be the top source of stress in life (McAndrew, Akande, Turner, & Sharma, 2001).
The reflexive stage is also characterized by a diminished sense of four basic
psychological needs: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Williams,
2007). Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggest that feeling connected to others through social
interaction is a fundamental need for all humans. Belonging is conceptualized as the need to
form stabilized and strong interpersonal relationships that are positive, lasting, and significant
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The need to belong is thought to have developed from the social
and interdependent nature of human evolution whereby achieving a sense of belonging with
others is necessary for survival and healthy functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Smart
Richman & Leary, 2009). Social exclusion threatens the need to belong more clearly than other
negative social interactions. For instance, the silent treatment more clearly threatens the need to
belong than a verbal conflict (Williams & Zadro, 2005). The silent treatment offers no way to
effectively interact with others. Verbal conflicts involve an exchange or interaction with other
individuals. This interaction may not as clearly threaten the victim’s sense of belonging because
there is not separation from other individuals and the content of the argument may not
necessarily communicate relational devaluation (e.g., verbal argument over a mistake in sport).
One challenge with understanding the effects of social exclusion is that threats to the
need to belong are often confounded with the need for control. The need for control is how
individuals perceive control over their environment (Williams & Zadro, 2005). People who are

8

excluded may lose their sense of social self-efficacy because some exclusionary interactions
have no obvious way to repair the relationship or regain inclusion. As a result of a lack of
perceived control, victims may become easily frustrated or angry and this can lead to selfdestructive or aggressive behavior (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004; Leary et al., 2006; Twenge,
Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2002). Aggressive
responses are likely when social exclusion is perceived to be unfair (Smart Richman & Leary,
2011). However, not all forms of social exclusion involve a deprived sense of control. Often in
group conversations, some individuals are purposely ignored but can regain inclusion into the
conversation by contributing a relevant comment. Researchers should be mindful of the exact
paradigm they are using to manipulate social exclusion and how these events are perceived by
individuals.
A third psychological need that may be affected by social exclusion is the need for selfesteem – how people perceive their own goodness and worth (Williams & Zadro, 2005). The
sociometer hypothesis postulates self-esteem as a proxy for general perceptions of inclusion and
motivates behaviors to minimize the potential of exclusion (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs,
1995). High self-esteem indicates higher perceptions of inclusion whereas low self-esteem
indicates lower perceptions of inclusion. This hypothesis has received empirical support, with
diminished self-esteem following an event of social exclusion (Buckley et al., 2004). However,
this effect does not hold when findings are collectively analyzed using meta-analysis (Blackhart
et al., 2009). This is because self-esteem may reflect a general sense of inclusion from an
individual’s broader social network. A one-off event of social exclusion may not necessarily
impact an individual’s self-esteem because self-esteem reflects inclusion from a broader network
of relationships.

9

The fourth need that may be affected by social exclusion is the need for meaningful
existence. This is how individuals need to be recognized for their existence to avoid
purposelessness (Solomon, Greenberh, & Pyszczynski, 1991; Williams, 2007). Some forms of
social exclusion where an individual is unable to respond to or reconcile social exclusion (e.g.,
deportation or solitary confinement) represent extreme cases of social punishment. In these
instances, social exclusion can be like one is invisible or does not exist. This may leave
individuals to question their purpose in a given context or, in the most extreme cases, life. Thus,
some forms of social exclusion may be a subtle reminder of “social death” and impact the need
for meaningful existence.
Reflective Stage
Threats to psychological needs are hypothesized to elicit specific coping strategies and
motivate behavior depending on which needs are specifically impacted following social
exclusion. This process represents the transition from the reflexive stage to the second stage of
the temporal need threat model. The reflective stage occurs when an individual appraises the
event. Coping with the affective impact and generating plans of action occur simultaneously
while making sense of what happened. The stage is dependent on an individual’s ability to selfregulate thoughts, emotion, and behavior. In the moments following an event of social exclusion,
effort is needed to assess, appraise, and attribute the meaning and importance of the event
(Williams, 2009). Excluded individuals are hypothesized to respond in a self-regulatory manner
to manage the effects of the reflexive stage.
Self-regulation is dependent on a higher order cognitive system known as cognitive
control (Gray, 2004; Hoffman, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012; Ochsner & Gross, 2005).
Cognitive control is an umbrella term that represents top-down information processing to guide

10

behavior to meet intentions or goals (Diamond, 2013; Miller & Cohen, 2001). During the
reflective stage an individual is tasked with appraising the event, regulating emotion, using
information from the environment to generate plans of action and potentially executing those
action plans – all of which place increased demands on cognitive control to manage the effects of
social exclusion.
An area of interest during the reflective stage is how excluded individuals process and
regulate the emotional effects of social exclusion (Riva, 2016). This is because cognitive control
processes are part of a complex network involved in emotional processing to direct attention and
resolve internal conflicts to support goal-related behavior (Possoa, 2017). Following social
exclusion, there are specific emotion regulation strategies that vary in the demands they place on
cognitive control (Riva, 2016). These demands vary in the amount of “pooled finite resources”
they require – with greater demands tied to less available resources for other tasks and fewer
demands tied to more available resources for other tasks. Specifically, rumination – repetitive
focus on negative events and their probable causes and consequences (Berman, et al., 2011), and
suppression – the conscious inhibition of emotional expressive behavior (Gross & Levenson,
1993) are understood to place stronger demands on cognitive control than more automated
emotion regulation strategies (Ochsner & Gross, 2005).
Increased demands on cognitive control may result in impairments to logical reasoning
and intelligent thought (Baumeister et al., 2002). These effects on cognitive control may be
responsible for failures in self-regulation such as behaving aggressively (Twenge et al., 2001),
being less prosocial (Twenge et al., 2007), and otherwise acting in self-defeating ways (Twenge
et al., 2002). Social exclusion is thought to be quickly perceived and valued as a threat because
social exclusion is deeply ingrained into the human psyche (MacDonald & Leary, 2005).

11

Cognitive resources are prioritized towards emotion processing and regulation systems (Chester
& DeWall, 2014; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Kawamoto, Nittono, & Ura, 2013;
Otten & Jonas, 2013; Themanson, Khatcherian, Ball, & Rosen, 2013). Neuroimaging evidence
suggests that cognitive control systems are activated to attend to and regulate the emotional
reactions to social exclusion. However, this rapid detection and regulation of social exclusion
comes at a cost. As attentional resources are classically viewed from a limited capacity
framework (Hockey, 1997), resources are prioritized towards social exclusion and away from
other salient tasks that require cognitive resources (e.g., behavior regulation, problem-solving).
Important concurrent tasks following social exclusion include appraising the
environment, generating plans of action and executing those plans into overt behavior. There are
less available cognitive control resources for these tasks because of the increased resource
demands on cognitive control for regulating the effects of social exclusion. Research on the
cognitive responses to social exclusion, specifically on cognitive control processes, is growing.
However, research findings are mixed where some research indicates social exclusion directly
impairs cognitive control processes (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2002; Buelow, Okdie, Brunell, &
Trost, 2015), and other findings show social exclusion is simply not powerful enough to produce
behavioral effects (e.g., Otten & Jonas, 2013; Themanson et al., 2013).
Despite these mixed findings, focusing on the effects of social exclusion on cognitive
control remains important. There is evidence that cognitive control performance is linked to
mental health, physical health, quality of life, school success, and job success (Diamond, 2013).
A longitudinal study that followed people from birth found lower childhood self-control
predicted depression, poorer physical health, less financial success, and higher rates of criminal
conviction by 32 years of age (Moffitt et al., 2011). Research also shows cognitive control

12

performance to be positively associated with academic achievement among children (Morrison,
Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010). Young children with higher performance on an array of measures
of cognitive control at age four were more proficient in math and reading when followed up three
years later (Bull, Espy, & Wiebe, 2008). Among 11- to 12-year-old children, working memory (a
component interrelated with cognitive control) was positively associated with English and
mathematics achievement, whereas inhibition (a component of cognitive control) was positively
associated with English, mathematics, and science achievement (St Clair-Thompson &
Gathercole, 2006). Given the importance of cognitive control performance to academic and
developmental outcomes, the effects of social exclusion warrant consideration from a
developmental perspective.
Developmental Aspects of Social Exclusion
Baumeister and Leary (1995) contend that social exclusion is adverse for all ages, yet,
late childhood to early adolescence is a developmental period characterized by a heightened
sensitivity to exclusion by peers (Bolling et al., 2011; Goodman, Stormshak, Dishion, 2001;
Sebastian, Biding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010). A peer is defined as a person who is equal to
another with respect to certain characteristics such as age, background, educational level, skills,
and social status (Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald, & Aherne, 2012; Smith, 2007). Social exclusion may be
seen as a natural feature of development because peers assume a heightened developmental role
in the lives of young people and present the potential to influence norms and behaviors (Killen,
Mulvey, & Hitti, 2013; Smith, 2003). Along with the increased importance of peers, this
developmental period is characterized by the development of self-regulation and cognitive skills
(Diamond, 2013; Welsh, 1991). Changes in social orientation may be concurrent with structural
and functional changes in brain areas that are associated with cognitive control (Blakemore,

13

2008; Fuhrmann, Knoll, & Blakemore, 2015; Nelson, Leibenluft, McClure, & Pine, 2005).
Studying the effects of social exclusion during this developmental period is important to
understand how the immediate effects of social exclusion may contribute to maladaptive
outcomes. Twenty-eight percent of young people report being excluded, rejected, or victimized
(Robers, Kemp & Truman, 2013). Those who report these adverse social experiences also report
psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., head/stomach ache & sleeping irregularity), have low selfesteem, display mental health problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts), and
perform poorly in school (Brunstein Klomeck, et al., 2007; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006).
The work that has investigated the effects of social exclusion in young people is generally
guided by the notion that they are less efficient than adults at regulating the effects of social
exclusion (Sebastian et al., 2010). Additionally, late childhood and early adolescence are unique
from other developmental periods because it is widely recognized as hallmark transition period
for young people where there is an increased investment in creating social relationships with
peers and an expansion of social networks outside of the family. The potential of social exclusion
contributing to ill-being is greatest among young people for these reasons. Research supports this
developmental perspective (Abrams, Weick, Thomas, Colbe, & Franklin, 2011). Social exclusion
has strong negative effects on pleasant affect and a sense of belonging among 10- to 14-year-olds
(Ruggieri, Bendzen, Gabriel, & Alsaker, 2013; Wölfer & Scheithaurer, 2014) with strongest
effects on younger samples than teenagers or adults (Sebastian et al., 2010). Cognitive science
research with children has shown social exclusion results in impairments to cognitive control
performance (Hawes et al., 2012). These decrements in performance may be due to the demands
of regulating the immediate effects of social exclusion. Following an event of social exclusion,
cognitive control systems are activated to cope and regulate affect, attention, appraisals, and

14

generate plans of action. Therefore, any additional tasks following social exclusion that require
the same cognitive control systems likely compete for available resources. Neuroscientific
evidence shows that brain networks associated with cognitive control processes are activated
during and following social exclusion (Bolling et al., 2011; Guyer, Choate, Pine, & Nelson,
2012; van Noordt, White, Wu, Mayes, & Crowley, 2015). These findings suggest that
adolescents begin to regulate the effects of social exclusion, but these systems may be less
efficient than those of their adult counterparts and may contribute to impairments in cognitive
control.
Effects of Physical Activity and Aerobic Fitness on Affect and Cognitive Control
Decreased pleasant affect is a hallmark effect of social exclusion. Behaviors that enhance
affective states may help mitigate subsequent negative effects of social exclusion. A large body
of research suggests short bouts of physical activity can enhance pleasant affect (Ekkekakis,
Hall, VanLanduyt, & Petruzzello, 2000; Ekkekakis & Petruzzello, 1999; Reed & Ones, 2006).
Physical activity is any movement produced by the skeletal muscles resulting in energy
expenditure (Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985). Most of this work has been conducted
with adults, but there is evidence to suggest young people experience similar affect enhancement
following a single bout of physical activity. Williamson, Dewy, and Steinberg (2001) found 15
minutes of aerobic physical activity results in increases in positive affect and decreases in
negative affect among nine- to 10-year-old children. Among 14- to 16-year-olds, a 30-minute
bout of aerobic physical activity resulted in increases in pleasant affect during and 10 minutes
after the cessation of physical activity (Schnieder, Graham, Grant, King, & Cooper, 2009).
These effects of short bouts of physical activity on affect are explained by the dual-mode
theory (Ekkekakis, 2005; 2009; Ekkekakis, Hall, Petruzzello, 2004). The dual-mode theory

15

suggests that affective responses to a single bout of physical activity are influenced by the
intensity of the physical activity as a function of an individual’s intensity tolerance (i.e.,
ventilatory threshold) as well as cognitive and somatic cues. At low intensities of physical
activity that require aerobic metabolism (e.g., light-to-brisk walking), affective responses are
typically pleasant and homogeneous across individuals. According to the dual-mode theory, the
physiological demands of low-intensity physical activity are evolutionarily adaptive (Ekkekakis
et al., 2004). Pleasure became associated with this adaptive intensity because of its evolutionary
function and importance (Ekkekakis, 2005).
Physical activity is also useful to impact cognitive control performance. Cognitive control
is involved in the regulation of effects of social exclusion and found to be impaired after being
excluded (Baumeister et al., 2002; Hawes et al., 2012). Accumulating evidence suggests that
short bouts of aerobic physical activity have a beneficial effect on cognitive control performance
(Chang et al., 2012; Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010; Roig, Nordbrandt, Geertsen, & Nielsen,
2013). This work is generally guided by the executive-control hypothesis (Colcombe & Kramer,
2003; Hall, Smith, & Keele, 2001). The executive-control hypothesis posits that physical activity
will have its greatest benefits on cognitive processes that require the most effort, especially
among people who are cognitively developing, delayed, declining, or impaired (Colcombe &
Kramer, 2003; Hall et al., 2001). In support of the executive-control hypothesis, meta-analytic
evidence suggests physical activity has the largest effects on tasks requiring effortful cognitive
processes such as those associated with cognitive control (Chang et al., 2012; Lambourne &
Tomporowski, 2010; Roig et al., 2013), with recent evidence directly supporting this hypothesis
among young people (Drollette et al., 2014).
There is evidence that children show a similar pattern of benefits to cognitive control as

16

adults (Best, 2010; Donnelly et al., 2016; Sibley & Etnier, 2003). Research shows that a 20minute bout of walking improves response accuracy and reading comprehension among
preadolescent children (Hillman et al., 2009). Pontifex and colleagues (2013) showed a 20minute bout of aerobic physical activity improved response accuracy and stimulus-related
processing relative to a sedentary control condition among 40 preadolescent children with and
without a formal diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Importantly, both
groups of children showed similar physical activity benefits to cognitive performance as well as
improvements on standardized tests of reading and arithmetic. Other research has shown that
short bouts of physical activity result in a maintenance effect of cognitive control performance
among preadolescent children such that physical activity buffers against performance decline
when remaining sedentary (Drollette, Shishido, Pontifex, & Hillman, 2012).
While the etiology of acute physical activity effects on cognitive control performance is
debated, a plausible explanation is offered by the cognitive-energetic model (Audriffen, 2009;
McMorris, 2008). The cognitive-energetic model proposes that physical activity arouses brain
areas associated with cognitive control performance following the cessation of activity
(Audriffen, 2009; McMorris, 2008). Single bouts of aerobic physical activity of light-tomoderate intensity are hypothesized to alter brain systems that change the allocation of cognitive
resources to meet task demands, thereby leading to improvements in cognitive performance
(Audriffen, 2009). Evidence from neuroimaging research suggests that improvements in
behavioral performance coincide with more efficient activation of the anterior cingulate cortex,
characterized by increased activation in the frontal lobes and beneficial effects when measured
with event-related potentials (Hillman et al., 2009, Kamajo, Nishihira, Higashiura, & Kuroiwa,
2007; Li et al., 2014). These modulations of brain activity are therefore thought to mediate

17

observed improvements in behavioral performance.
When physical activity is repeated over time, the effects of physical activity on cognitive
control follow a similar beneficial pattern as single bouts (Donnelly et al., 2014). The strongest
evidence comes from randomized control trial research. Kamijo and colleagues (2011) found that
the effects of a nine-month afterschool physical activity program improved a component of
cognitive control performance known as working memory for young children seven to nine years
old. Hillman and colleagues (2014) studied the effects of the same nine-month afterschool
physical activity program with another cohort of children and found small positive effects of
physical activity on two components of cognitive control (i.e., inhibition and cognitive
flexibility). An important aspect to chronic fitness activity interventions is that they have the
potential to improve an aspect of physical health known as aerobic fitness. Aerobic fitness is a
health-related component of physical fitness that relates to the ability of the circulatory and
respiratory systems to supply fuel during sustained physical activity and to eliminate fatigue
products after supplying fuel (Caspersen et al., 1985). Both studies showed improvements in
aerobic fitness for children receiving physical activity compared to wait-list controls. Focus on
the association between aerobic fitness and cognitive control performance is important because
of the beneficial role of circulatory and respiratory systems in brain function and health (Hillman
et al., 2008)
Findings show that higher aerobic fitness is associated with greater cognitive
performance, brain structure and function (Chaddock, Pontifex, Hillman, & Kramer, 2011;
Chaddock, Voss, & Kramer, 2012). A growing body of cross-sectional studies show higher
levels of aerobic fitness are associated with improved cognitive control performance among
children (Chaddock, Hillman, Buck, & Cohen, 2011; Chaddock et al., 2012; Drollette et al.,

18

2016; Kao, Westfall, Parks, Pontifex, & Hillman, 2016; Hillman, Castelli, & Buck, 2005;
Pontifex et al., 2011). Children with higher levels of aerobic fitness show larger volumes of brain
structures associated with cognitive control (Chaddock et al., 2010) and greater white matter
integrity than children with lower levels of aerobic fitness (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014).
These differences in brain structure volume were shown to mediate the association of aerobic
fitness with cognitive control performance, suggesting a potential mechanism to explain the
beneficial role of aerobic fitness on cognitive performance (Chaddock et al., 2010). Improving
aerobic fitness is especially important for children because it can also lead to global
enhancements in well-being and academic achievement (Chu, Chen, Pontifex, Sun, & Chang,
2016; Ortega, Ruiz, Castillo, Sjöström, 2008).
Exploring Physical Activity and Fitness to Address Responses to Social Exclusion
Physical activity is a unique behavioral strategy to address the effects of social exclusion.
First, there appears to be considerable overlap between the intensities of physical activity shown
to boost affect and cognitive performance such that low-to-moderate physical activity may be
able to address both affective and cognitive responses to social exclusion. Second, single bouts
of aerobic physical activity are flexible enough to be used both proactively and reactively – as
some forms of social exclusion may be predictable (i.e., sports team ‘cuts’ scheduled on a
particular date) whereas others may be spontaneous and unanticipated (i.e., being rejected on a
school playground). Third, physical activity behaviors of low-to-moderate intensity (e.g.,
walking, cycling) are practical and feasible because they are accessible to most people to
incorporate into their daily lives with low burden and cost.
Not all events of social exclusion are predictable which presents a challenge if single
bouts of physical activity are to be used preemptively or reactively. An individual may wish to

19

use physical activity as avoidant or distracting behavior following an event of social exclusion.
Research shows that engaging in a distracting task following social exclusion speeds up recovery
from social exclusion compared to ruminating about it (Wesselmann, Ren, Swim, & Williams,
2013). Using physical activity to avoid or distract from the effects of social exclusion may also
offer new social opportunities, especially when physical activity is group based (e.g., dance,
fitness classes, sport). However, social exclusion has been shown to promote lethargic behavior
(Twenge et al., 2003), predict reduced physical activity over time among adults (Hawkley et al.,
2009), and decrease the amount of physical activity and increase the amount of sedentary
behavior in young children (Barkley, Salvy, & Roemmich, 2012). Using physical activity as a
reactive strategy may detract from the overall quality of physical activity despite its utility to
boost pleasant affect, enhance cognitive performance, and speed up recovery.
Physical activity can be useful as a preemptive strategy to reduce affective and cognitive
consequences when social exclusion can be predicted (e.g., tryouts for sport teams or school
plays, employment opportunities, asking another person for a first date). Even when social
exclusion cannot be predicted, repeated single bouts of physical activity may be useful to protect
against subsequent social exclusion throughout the day. Study one draws from this perspective
that a single bout of walking may protect from the affective and cognitive effects of subsequent
unexpected social exclusion.
Beyond behavioral strategies such as single bouts of physical activity to address social
exclusion, there is value in exploring activity related attributes such as aerobic fitness. Aerobic
fitness is a powerful marker of health for young people (Ortega et al, 2008) and is tied to greater
psychological well-being and academic achievement (Chu et al., 2016). Individuals with higher
aerobic fitness may be able to better manage the affective and cognitive responses to social

20

exclusion. This may be especially important for young people to potentially counteract the
development of maladaptive outcomes when excluded. Study two draws from this perspective,
that aerobic fitness may be an important moderator that dampens the affective and cognitive
effects of social exclusion.
Through these two studies, this dissertation explores the role of health-related factors to
address the immediate effects of social exclusion. It utilizes an interdisciplinary approach
informed by social psychology, exercise psychology, cognitive and affective science, and human
development. The present dissertation is novel and exploratory, offering a foundation to direct
future research with practical ways to reduce the adverse effects of social exclusion.

21

CHAPTER 2: STUDY ONE
DOES WALKING MITIGATE AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE RESPONSES
TO SOCIAL EXCLUSION?
Preface
This manuscript was accepted for publication in the Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology in 2017. Complete citation: Delli Paoli, A. G., Smith, A. L., Pontifex, M. B. (2017).
Does walking mitigate affective and cognitive responses to social exclusion? Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2016-0202. Human Kinetics holds the copyright of the
manuscript and its contents. Under this copyright, the authors explicitly reserve the right to use
all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as dissertations, lectures, reviews, or
textbooks.
This study started as the practicum research project of the first author (Delli Paoli, A. G.),
under the direction of the coauthors (Smith, A. L. & Pontifex, M. B.). The project was presented
with a preliminary sample size of n = 60 in April 2015 at Michigan State University in East
Lansing, MI and with the full sample size of n = 96 in October 2015 at the Society for Social
Neuroscience in Chicago, IL. The first author coordinated the study, collected data and analyzed
results. All authors contributed to the conceptual design of the study and edits and revisions of
the manuscript.

22

Abstract
Social exclusion can produce harmful affective and cognitive responses that undermine
healthy functioning. Physical activity is known to have acute affective and cognitive effects that
are adaptive, and therefore may mitigate these responses. The purpose of this study was to assess
walking as a strategy to reduce the effects of social exclusion on affect and working memory
performance. Healthy female college students (N = 96, Mage = 19.2 ± 0.8 years) were randomly
assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (a) sedentary plus neutral feedback, (b)
sedentary plus exclusion feedback, (c) walking plus neutral feedback, or (d) walking plus
exclusion feedback. Pre and post activity and pre and post feedback measures of affect and
working memory performance were recorded. Excluded participants had a significant negative
shift in affect following feedback, p < .05. Those who were sedentary prior to exclusion had
lower affect scores following exclusion than the walking plus exclusion and the neutral feedback
groups, p < .05. There were no direct effects of walking or social exclusion on working memory.
However, perceptions of being ignored predicted smaller improvements in working memory
performance for participants who were sedentary prior to exclusion, p < .05. The findings
suggest that walking prior to social exclusion may mitigate the affective response to social
exclusion as well as social perceptions that can undermine working memory. More broadly, this
work supports continued examination of physical activity as a potential strategy for helping
individuals cope with negative social experiences.

23

Introduction
People have a fundamental need to form and maintain stable, meaningful, and lasting
relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Indeed, people strongly desire acceptance and social
bonds with others, frequently devote attention to the status of their relationships and behave in
ways to maintain and protect their relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Yet, social life is
dynamic and exclusion experiences are common. New college students often feel left out of
social opportunities, text messages go unanswered, students leave classmates out of group work,
and romantic partners break up. These and other experiences reflect social exclusion, a process
where a person is put into a condition of being alone or is denied social contact, thwarting that
person’s inherent need to belong (Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009).
Social exclusion is harmful to psychological, physical, and interpersonal functioning
(Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009; Hawkley,
Thisted, & Cacioppo, 2009; Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). Often
underpinning such negative outcomes are transient effects on self-regulation systems
(Baumeister et al., 2005; Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002). Social exclusion is hypothesized
to influence self-regulatory systems through affective and cognitive responses to social
exclusion. For instance, people who are excluded typically report “hurt feelings” (MacDonald &
Leary, 2005) and demonstrate impairments to cognitive functioning (Baumeister et al., 2002).
Using proactive strategies that target transient affective and cognitive responses may be an
important first step to reducing harmful outcomes. Currently, there exist few proactive strategies
that target these responses (Baumeister, Brewer, Tice, & Twenge, 2007).
One approach to using proactive strategies is to find ways to enhance affect and cognitive
performance prior to an event of social exclusion. Accumulating evidence shows that acute bouts

24

of aerobic physical activity enhance affect and cognitive performance, making physical activity a
potentially attractive proactive strategy (Chang, Labban, Gapin, & Etnier 2012; Reed & Ones,
2006). The present study specifically investigated the utility of walking, a widely accessible form
of physical activity, to mitigate both affective and cognitive responses to social exclusion.
Affect is a simple, nonreflective feeling that is consciously accessible (Barrett, Mesquita,
Ochsner, & Gross, 2007; Russell, 2003; Russell & Barrett, 1999). Affective states range along a
continuum from pleasant to unpleasant valence, with pleasant feelings tied to helpful or
rewarding events and unpleasant feelings tied to hurtful or threatening events (Panksepp, 1998;
2005). Research suggests that social exclusion generally leads to less pleasant and more
unpleasant affective states compared to neutral social interactions (Blackhart et al., 2009). The
immediate effect of social exclusion is characterized by a shift away from pleasant toward
unpleasant valence, with this shift not extending past a neutral state of affect. One rationale for
why social exclusion does not produce a shift beyond neutral affect is that individuals
immediately begin a process of coping after being excluded (Blackhart et al., 2009; Williams,
2009).
Coping with an affective state is a form of self-regulation that is cognitively demanding,
requiring an individual to continuously monitor and use corrective action to manage the affective
state (Gross, 2013). A higher order self-regulatory system known as cognitive control enables
this regulation (Gray, 2004; Ochsner & Gross, 2005), with working memory being a component
of this system that is particularly salient following social exclusion events. Working memory is
the process of manipulating information when it is no longer perceptually present (Baddeley,
1992; Diamond, 2013), which is critical for making sense of events that unfold over time and in
formulating plans of action. Ideally, plans of action that afford the best chances of regaining

25

acceptance should be helpful and prosocial. Unfortunately, this may be difficult after social
exclusion because helpful plans of action are effortful and require working memory to be
unabated. Following social exclusion, impairments to working memory may be responsible for
poor plans of action such as behaving aggressively (Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001),
being less prosocial (Twenge et al., 2007), and otherwise acting in self-defeating ways (Twenge,
Catanese, & Baumeister, 2002).
Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) conceptual model posits that working memory has a limited
capacity. Events that capture and direct attention require cognitive control systems (i.e., the
central executive) in working memory to either amplify or inhibit perception, attention, and plans
of action for these specific events (Baddeley, 2013). In the moments following social exclusion,
working memory capacity is taxed from the self-regulation resource demands of managing
affect, attention, perceptions, and potential plans of action. Thus, these increased demands draw
from a finite pool of self-regulatory resources. This impairs cognitive control performance
(Baumeister et al., 2002), with recent work showing working memory-specific decrements
(Buelow, Okdie, Brunell, & Trost, 2015).
Strategies to mitigate the impact of social exclusion may serve to reduce demands on
self-regulatory resources. Given that social exclusion experiences are common in daily life, such
strategies should be applicable to a wide range of people to incorporate into their daily lives with
little burden. Accumulating evidence shows that short bouts of aerobic physical activity increase
pleasant affect and enhance cognitive performance (Chang et al., 2012; Lambourne &
Tomporowski, 2010; Reed & Ones, 2006), making physical activity a potentially attractive
strategy for addressing the affective and cognitive responses to social exclusion.

26

Extant work shows that short (10 to 40 minutes) bouts of light to brisk walking are
associated with shifts from baseline affective states toward pleasant affect (Ekkekakis, Hall,
VanLanduyt, & Petruzzello, 2000; Ekkekakis & Petruzzello, 1999; Reed & Ones, 2006).
Immediately after a short bout of walking, individuals report feeling more pleasant and
energized, while recovery from walking has a calming and relaxing effect (Ekkekakis &
Petruzzello, 1999). Research also suggests that single bouts of walking and cycling of similar
intensity are associated with positive effects on working memory performance (Pontifex,
Hillman, Fernhall, Thompson, & Valentini, 2009; Martins, Kavussanu, Willoughby, & Ring,
2013; Weng, Pierce, Darling, & Voss, 2015). Meta-analytic evidence shows short bouts of
aerobic exercise to have significant positive effects on short-term memory, a subprocess of
working memory (Roig, Nordbrandt, Geertsen, & Nielsen, 2013). Moreover, one study exploring
both affective and cognitive responses to a short bout of cycling found increases in pleasant
affect and working memory performance (Hogan, Mata, & Carstensen, 2013). Altogether,
findings indicate that short bouts of aerobic physical activity may positively impact both affect
and working memory performance.
In light of these findings, walking might be useful in addressing the effects of social
exclusion. By enhancing affect and working memory prior to an event of social exclusion, an
acute bout of walking may mitigate the demands for self-regulatory resources by limiting effort
expenditure for managing the effects of social exclusion. Accordingly, the purpose of this study
was to assess the effect of 20 minutes of walking prior to social exclusion on affect and working
memory performance. We hypothesized that social exclusion would decrease plesant affect and
working memory performance. We also hypothesized that walking prior to social exclusion
would mitigate the effects of social exclusion on affect and working memory, resulting in a more

27

pleasant affective state and higher working memory performance than social exclusion without
walking.
Method
Participants
Ninety-six female college-aged adults (24 per condition, Mage = 19.2 ± 0.8 years) from
Michigan State University completed the study (see Appendix A). The sample was delimited to
female participants to hold the sex composition of the experimental sessions constant, a strategy
that is in line with previous social exclusion research (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller,
2007). During recruitment, prospective participants were informed that they would be involved
in a study investigating the link between exercise and aspects of team building. Employing a
cover story is in line with previous work (Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997;
Maner et al., 2007) and is necessary to ensure that natural responses to social exclusion are
observed. There were 127 enrollees, however, those reporting contraindications to physical
activity or a history of depression, neurological health issues, brain trauma, or concussion with
loss of consciousness were excluded from participation in the study (n = 31). Most participants
identified as not Hispanic (94.8%), White (85.4%), and right handed (91.7%) with normal
(52.1%) or corrected-to-normal vision (47.9%). A portion (26%) of participants reported
knowing another participant during the same visit (i.e., out of the four participants per data
collection visit). Participants who identified knowing another participant reported their
relationship as 12.5% infrequently/acquaintances, 8.3% frequently/regular acquaintances, and
4.2% very frequent/close friends. One participant did not disclose the type of relationship. The
distribution of familiar or unfamiliar participants was not significantly different among

28

experimental conditions, X2 (3) = 1.89, p = .60, and the distribution of the nature of the reported
relationship did not differ among experimental conditions, X2 (9) = 7.11, p = .63.
Measures
Affective Valence. In line with previous investigations of affective responses to social
stimuli (Armstrong, McClenahan, Kittle, & Olatunji, 2014), we utilized the Empirical Valence
Scale (EVS; Lishner, Cooter, & Zald, 2008) to measure affective valence (see Appendix B). The
EVS is a one-item 200 mm bipolar scale that assesses affective valence. Participants were asked
to place a mark along a continuous visual analog scale corresponding to how they currently felt,
ranging from “most unpleasant imaginable” to “most pleasant imaginable.” EVS scores range
from -100 to 100, corresponding to mm away from the center neutral point. Negative scores
indicate unpleasant valence and positive scores indicate pleasant valence. The EVS contains the
following descriptors in both valence directions from the neutral 0-point: barely (7 mm), slightly
(12 mm), mildly (24 mm), moderately (38 mm), strongly (70 mm), extremely (85 mm), and most
imaginable (100 mm). Two independent raters using a metric ruler scored responses in
millimeters. When two raters were discrepant (e.g., differing by 1 mm), a third independent rater
was used to determine the appropriate score between the two raters. Initial interrater agreement
between two independent raters was 91.4%.
Working Memory. In line with previous investigations of working memory, we utilized a
serial n-back task (Drollette et al., 2016). The n-back task asks participants to identify if the
current stimulus matches or does not match a stimulus presented n trials previously (Carlson et
al., 1998; Kirchner, 1958). Trials contained one of six 3.4 x 3.4 cm uniquely colored shape
stimuli (i.e., green circle, red crescent, blue cross, purple star, orange square, yellow triangle).
Shapes were presented on a 15.4-inch laptop screen (Dell Vostro 3500) against a black

29

background for 250 ms with a 2500 ms intertrial interval. Participants completed a 1-back block
followed by a 2-back block containing a random order of 24 matching and 47 nonmatching trials
per block. Matching trials in the 1-back block were trials containing a shape that matched the
shape immediately preceding it. Matching trials in the 2-back block were trials containing a
shape that matched the shape two trials preceding it. Participants responded on a two-button
response pad (X-keys XK-24 keypad) with a left button press if the current shape did not match
or a right button press if the shape did match the shape presented n-trials previously. The 2-back
block places greater demands on working memory than the 1-back block. Analyses were
conducted using d’ (D prime) as a measure of memory sensitivity. This performance measure
was calculated by taking the difference between the standardized hit rate (the number of
matching trials correctly identified relative to the total number of matching trials) and the
standardized false alarm rate (the number of nonmatching trials incorrectly identified as
matching relative to the total number of nonmatching trials); z[hit rate] – z[false alarm rate].
Prior to standardization, a constant of 0.5 was added to the number of hits and false alarms and a
constant of 1.0 added to the total number of matching and nonmatching trials (e.g., hit rate =
[hits + 0.5]/[total matching trials + 1] ) to remove the potential for undefined values (Verde,
MacMillan, & Rotello, 2006). Larger d’ values indicate a greater ability to discriminate between
matching and nonmatching stimuli, suggestive of better working memory performance.
Experimental Conditions
Activity. Participants assigned to the sedentary activity were asked to sit quietly at a table
for 20 minutes. Participants assigned to the walking activity completed a five-minute warm up
on a motor-driven treadmill and were asked to continue walking at or above 60% of their agepredicted heart rate max (220 – age) on a 1.0% incline for an additional 15 minutes. This

30

intensity is of light to moderate physical activity (i.e., a brisk walk) and is in line with exercise
research showing positive effects on affect and cognition (Chang et al., 2012; Ekkekakis &
Petruzzello, 1999; Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010; Roig et al., 2013). All participants
watched a neutral educational video clip (Cooter, Holt, & Lachmann, 2011) on a 15.4 inch laptop
(Dell Vostro 3500) at eye level during the assigned activity to remove the potential for
psychosocial confounds between sedentary and walking activities (Pontifex, Parks, Henning, &
Kamijo, 2015). Heart rate was recorded at two-minute intervals throughout each activity as a
manipulation check.
Feedback. For the social exclusion manipulation, four participants engaged in a group
meeting adapted from the get-acquainted paradigm (Nezlek et al., 1997). First, participants with
nametags met together in a room to get to know one another by taking turns orally answering a
list of basic questions presented on a sheet of paper (e.g., name, hometown, academic major).
After the meeting, research assistants separated participants into private rooms. For each
respective participant, a research assistant instructed her to choose two other participants from
the group that she would most like to work with for a subsequent partner task. The research
assistant briefly left the room and the participant wrote the names on a worksheet. The research
assistant then returned to retrieve the names and then again left the room under the guise of
comparing responses of the other participants and determining partner groups. Upon returning to
the room, the research assistant gave false feedback to the participant about the partner task.
Participants receiving neutral feedback were told, “We won’t be doing the partner task for a
while. In the meantime, I’m going to have you complete some additional tests and
questionnaires.” Participants receiving social exclusion feedback were told, “I hate to tell you
this, but no one chose you as someone they wanted to work with. So because of that you will have

31

to independently complete additional tests and questionnaires.” This manipulation took
approximately 15 minutes from the start of the group meeting to the end of feedback. As in
previous investigations assessing the effectiveness of social exclusion manipulations (Zadro,
Williams, & Richardson, 2004), a two-item questionnaire (Williams, 2009) was administered at
the end of the study as a manipulation check for experimental feedback (see Appendix C). This
questionnaire assesses perceptions of social exclusion. That is, participants reported the degree
they perceived being ignored and excluded, respectively, on a scale of one, not at all, to five,
extremely.

Figure 1. Procedural timeline. T = time point corresponding to affect assessment. Labels above
rectangles indicate specific events. HR measured immediately prior to T1, at two-minute intervals
across the activity portion of the study, and prior to completing each block of the n-back task. Scale of
events and spacing of time points are roughly consistent with time of an overall session.

Design and Procedure
A mixed design was utilized with one between-subjects independent variable (i.e.,
Experimental Condition: sedentary plus neutral feedback, sedentary plus exclusion feedback,
walking plus neutral feedback & walking plus exclusion feedback) and one repeated-measures
independent variable (i.e., Time). This design allowed for the analysis of changes in affect and
working memory performance over the course of the study as well as condition comparisons.
Although a within-subject design for condition comparisons possesses certain advantages,
between-subjects designs are preferred in social exclusion research because repeated exposures

32

to social exclusion conditions in a lab setting can reveal the purpose of the study and undermine
natural responses to social exclusion.
After providing informed consent, participants completed demographics, healthscreening, and physical activity readiness questionnaires online. Qualifying participants received
an email to confirm their visit for data collection. Under the cover of an exercise and team
building study, four participants were concurrently scheduled with participants randomly
distributed to the four experimental conditions. All data were collected with four participants per
experimental session. If fewer than four participants arrived for a scheduled data collection visit
(due to individual participant cancellations or no shows, n = 6 scheduled data collection
sessions), all participants were rescheduled for a later visit. A team of research assistants greeted
participants upon arrival and individually escorted each participant to a randomly assigned
private room. Upon entering the room, participants were fitted with a Polar® heart rate (HR)
monitor (model H7, PolarElectro, Finland) and baseline HR was recorded after being seated for
two minutes. HR was also measured at two-minute intervals across the activity portion of the
study as well as prior to completing each block of the n-back task (to ensure within 10% of
baseline HR value). After baseline HR was recorded, the first of eight EVS reports was
completed (time point 1). Remaining EVS reports were provided at key study benchmarks: after
practice n-back tasks (time point 2), after the pretest 1-back task (time point 3), after the pretest
2-back task (time point 4), halfway through the activity portion of the study (time point 5), after
the activity portion (time point 6), after the posttest 1-back task (time point 7), and after the
posttest 2-back task (time point 8). After the first EVS, participants completed one block each of
the 1-back and 2-back versions of the n-back task for practice. This was repeated two additional
times, once prior to the activity portion (pretest) and again following the activity portion and

33

feedback (posttest). Each block of the n-back task took approximately five minutes to complete
with instruction and breaks in between blocks. Figure 1 displays the procedural timeline for an
experimental session.
Following the walking or sedentary activity, participants were escorted to a separate
room for the group meeting. After the group meeting, research assistants individually escorted
participants back to their original private rooms, left the room for 60 seconds after asking
participants to select partners on the worksheet, returned to gather the worksheet and left the
room again for 60 seconds, and then returned to the room to deliver false feedback. After
participants received false feedback about the partner task, participants immediately completed
post assessment n-back tasks and the final EVS measures (once after 1-back block, once after 2back block).
Following administration of the final EVS, each participant independently completed the
social exclusion manipulation check, was verbally debriefed, and provided the opportunity to ask
any questions, respectively. After verbal debriefing, participants signed an additional debriefing
and consent to use data form. The full experimental session lasted approximately 90 minutes.
Statistical Analysis
Data were screened in line with best practice using IBM SPSS v22.0 (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2013). As a check for random assignment, we analyzed differences among experimental
conditions on affect at time point 1 and performance on the pretest 1-back and 2-back working
memory tasks with three separate one-way ANOVA models. As a manipulation check for the
activity portion of the study, we analyzed differences among experimental conditions on mean
HR with a one-way ANOVA. As a manipulation check for the feedback portion of the study, we
analyzed differences among experimental conditions on perceptions of being ignored and

34

excluded, respectively, with one-way ANOVA models. Feedback manipulation checks were
further analyzed to assess any influence of familiarity among participants within an experimental
session. All significant effects were followed up with post hoc pairwise comparisons.
To measure differences in affect among experimental conditions across the experiment,
we conducted a 4x8 mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Experimental Condition
(sedentary neutral, sedentary exclusion, walking neutral, & walking exclusion) as the betweensubject factor and Time (time points 1 through 8) as the within-subject factor. Because our a
priori interests were in differences across activity and feedback portions of the experiment, we
focused subsequent analyses on affective measures during those portions (time points 5 through
8). First, we computed a composite measure by averaging initial, practice, and pretest affect
scores (time points 1, 2, 3, and 4) to reduce the influence of multicollinearity among these
baseline measures of affect. We included the composite measure in subsequent follow-up models
as a covariate. This was to control for any potential influence of initial affect or testing reactivity
(Holdwick & Wingenfield, 1999) prior to the activity manipulation. Thus, the following models
control for these baseline measures of affect to provide a clearer observation of the experimental
manipulation effects. The primary follow-up model was a 4x4 mixed analysis of covariance
(mixed ANCOVA) with Experimental Condition (sedentary neutral, sedentary exclusion,
walking neutral, & walking exclusion) as the between-subject factor and Time as the withinsubject factor (time points 5, 6, 7, & 8) after controlling for baseline affect.
Secondary follow-up models dissected the Experimental Condition by Time interaction
from the primary follow-up model with a series of ANCOVA models. To assess pairwise withinsubject effects (i.e., shifts in affect), we conducted three 4x2 mixed ANCOVA models with
Experimental Condition (sedentary neutral, sedentary exclusion, walking neutral, & walking

35

exclusion) as the between-subject factor and Time (time points 5 vs. 6, 6 vs. 7, 7 vs. 8) as the
within-subject factor after controlling for baseline affect. To assess differences among
experimental conditions for each time point, we conducted four one-way ANCOVAs with
Experimental Condition (sedentary neutral, sedentary exclusion, walking neutral, & walking
exclusion) as the between-subject factor after controlling for baseline affect. All models used a
family-wise alpha level of .05, Greenhouse-Geisser correction for nonsphericity, and partial η2 as
a measure of effect size that is useful for research using covariates as control variables (Cohen,
1973; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
We used two mixed 4x2 ANOVA models to examine performance in 1-back and 2-back
working memory tasks, respectively, with Experimental Condition (sedentary neutral, sedentary
exclusion, walking neutral, & walking exclusion) as the between-subject factor and Time (pre vs.
post) as the within-subject factor. Lastly, we explored associations among affect, perceptions of
being ignored and excluded, and pre-to-post changes in working memory performance with
bivariate correlations.
Given the number of hypothesis-driven and exploratory analyses, we utilized the
Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) false discovery rate control method to adjust for type I error and
identify potential false positive results (see Glickman, Rao, & Schultz, 2014). There were 98
total probability tests conducted for the study. We used a false discovery rate of 0.05 (i.e.,
acknowledging 5 in 100 significant findings may be potential false positives). Findings that did
not pass the Benjamini and Hochberg false discovery rate control method (BH-FDR) are noted in
the results.

36

Results
Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations for Manipulation Check Variables
Sedentary
Sedentary
Walking
Neutral
Exclusion
Neutral
Variable
Heart Rate (BPM)
Ignored
Excluded

M (SD)
73.7 (15.0)a
1.0 (0.2)a
1.1 (0.3)a

M (SD)
71.9 (11.6)a
2.2 (1.1)b
2.7 (1.2)b

M (SD)
126.5 (5.4)b
1.0 (0.2)a
1.0 (0.2)a

Walking
Exclusion
M (SD)
127.0 (4.7)b
2.5 (1.5)b
2.5 (1.4)b

Note. Different superscripts across row indicate significant pairwise difference at p < .001.

Randomization and Manipulation Checks
Affect upon entering the study, F(3, 92) = 0.7, p = .53, partial η2 = 0.02, working
memory performance on the pretest 1-back task, F(3, 92) = 0.9, p = .43, partial η2 = 0.03, and
working memory performance on the pretest 2-back task, F(3, 92) = 1.4, p = .25, partial η2 =
0.04, were not significantly different among experimental conditions, suggesting successful
random assignment.
Mean HR during the activity portion was significantly different among experimental
conditions, F(3, 92) = 226.9, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.88. Participants recorded a mean HR of
126.5 ± 5.4 BPM (63% HRmax) in the walking neutral, 127.0 ± 4.7 BPM (63% HRmax) in the
walking exclusion, 73.7 ± 15.0 BPM (37% HRmax) in the sedentary neutral, and 71.9 ± 11.6 BPM
(36% HRmax) in the sedentary exclusion conditions. Participants in both walking conditions
walked at the prescribed intensity and participants in both sedentary conditions remained within
10% of baseline HR. Post hoc tests (see Table 1) revealed that participants in both walking
conditions recorded higher mean HR than participants in both sedentary conditions.
Perceptions of being ignored were significantly different among experimental conditions,
F(3, 92) = 15.7, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.34. Post hoc tests revealed that participants in both
exclusion conditions reported higher perceptions of being ignored than participants in both

37

neutral conditions. Perceptions of being excluded were significantly different among
experimental conditions, F(3, 92) = 21.9, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.42. Post hoc tests revealed
participants in both exclusion conditions reported higher perceptions of being excluded than
participants in both neutral conditions. There was no evidence that knowing another participant
had a main effect on reports of being ignored, F(1, 95) = 0.04, p = .83, or moderated the effect of
experimental condition on reports of being ignored, F(3, 88) = 0.03, p = .99. There was also no
evidence that knowing another participant had a main effect on reports of being excluded, F(1,
95) = 1.1, p = .26, or moderated the effect of experimental condition on reports of being
excluded, F(3, 88) = 0.4, p = .70.
Affective Valence
The omnibus test revealed a significant main effect of Time, F(7, 86) = 13.3, p < .001,
partial η2 = 0.13, and a significant Experimental Condition by Time interaction, F(21, 264) = 3.6,
p < .001, partial η2 = 0.11 (see Figure 2). The primary follow-up model revealed a significant
Experimental Condition by Time interaction, F(9, 273) = 3.2, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.09. Thus,
reports of affective valence were significantly different over activity and feedback portions of the
study among experimental conditions after controlling for baseline affect. Secondary follow-up
models focusing on time point shifts revealed a significant Experimental Condition by Time
interaction for the shift in affect from before to after the feedback (i.e., from time point 6 to 7)
after controlling for baseline affect, F(3, 91) = 4.1, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.12. Post hoc pairwise
comparisons (see Table 2) revealed a significant shift in affect for participants in the sedentary
exclusion condition and in the walking exclusion condition, p < .05. Participants in the sedentary
exclusion condition reported a large shift, d = -.80, from an affective state corresponding to
between slightly and mildly pleasant toward neutral affect. Participants in the walking exclusion

38

condition reported a moderate shift, d = -.62, from an affective state corresponding to just above
mildly to above slightly pleasant. However, the walking exclusion condition finding should be
interpreted with caution because it did not pass the BH-FDR.
Secondary follow-up models (controlling for baseline affect) focusing on specific time

Figure 2. Affective valence by experimental condition over time. Positive values for affective valence
reflect pleasant valence, negative values reflect unpleasant valence, and neutral is zero. Neutral and
social exclusion feedback occurred between time points six and seven. Spacing of time points is
roughly consistent with timing of an overall session.

points after feedback revealed differences in affective valence among experimental conditions at
both time points seven, F(3, 91) = 11.7, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.28, and eight, F(3, 91) = 6.2, p <
.001, partial η2 = 0.17. Post hoc pairwise comparisons for time point seven revealed participants
in the sedentary exclusion condition reported the lowest affect (just above neutral), followed by

39

the walking exclusion condition (between slightly and mildly pleasant), and lastly both the
sedentary neutral and walking neutral conditions (between mildly and moderately pleasant).
Findings at time point seven should be interpreted with caution because comparisons of the
walking exclusion condition with the sedentary exclusion condition and sedentary neutral
condition, respectively, did not pass the BH-FDR. For time point eight, participants in the
sedentary exclusion condition reported lower affect (at barely pleasant) than all other
experimental conditions (around mildly pleasant). However, the comparison of the sedentary
exclusion condition with the walking exclusion condition did not pass the BH-FDR and should
be interpreted with caution.

40

Table 2.
Means and Standard Deviations for Affective Valence Scores in Follow-up Models
Sedentary
Sedentary
Walking
Walking
Model
Neutral
Exclusion
Neutral
Exclusion
Time Point(s)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

F

p

η2

-1.6 (10.6)
0.6 (19.5)
-3.3 (23.7)

4.0 (16.4)
-9.1 (20.9)*
2.8 (12.5)

2.24
4.14**
1.26

.089
.009
.292

.07
.12
.04

33.9 (24.9)
32.3 (30.6)
32.9 (24.2)c
29.7 (29.0)b

21.6 (33.1)
25.6 (31.9)
16.5 (31.0)b
19.3 (31.0)b

1.65
1.77
11.67***
6.23***

.183
.158
.000
.000

.05
.06
.28
.17

Shifts in Affect Across Adjacent Time Points
Time 5-6
Time 6-7
Time 7-8

-3.1 (10.9)
8.2 (25.1)
-2.5 (9.7)

-6.3 (16.9)
-13.3 (23.6)*
3.5 (8.8)

Between Conditions at Individual Time Points
Time 5
Time 6
Time 7
Time 8

19.0 (28.1)
15.9 (30.5)
24.1 (21.6)c
21.5 (22.8)b

23.0 (27.9)
16.8 (32.1)
3.5 (28.4)a
7.0 (30.2)a

Note. * = p < .05. ** = p < .01. *** = p < .001. partial η2= variance accounted for in follow-up models.
For shifts models, positive values reflect movement toward more pleasant valence and negative values
reflect movement toward more unpleasant valence. For individual time point models, different
superscripts across a row indicate significant between-condition pairwise differences at p < .05. Time
point five was during, and time point six followed, the sedentary or walking activity. Neutral and social
exclusion feedback occurred between time points six and seven.

Working Memory
For the 1-back task, there was no evidence of a main effect of Time, F(1, 92) = 0.2, p =
0.62, partial η2 = .00, Condition, F(3, 92) = 1.6, p = 0.20, partial η2 = 0.05, nor a Condition by
Time interaction, F(3, 92) = 0.66, p = 0.57, partial η2 = 0.02. For the 2-back task, there was no
evidence of a main effect of Condition, F(3, 92) = 1.2, p = 0.30, partial η2 = 0.04, nor a
Condition by Time interaction, F(3, 92) = 0.8, p = 0.49, partial η2 = 0.03. However, a main effect
of Time, F(1, 92) = 21.9, p < .001, partial η2 = 0.19, indicated that all participants improved their
working memory performance for the 2-back task regardless of experimental condition. Table 3
displays the mean performance for n-back tasks across the experiment.

41

Table 3.
Means and Standard Deviations for Working Memory Performance
Sedentary
Sedentary
Walking
Walking
Neutral
Exclusion
Neutral
Exclusion
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Task
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
1-back
3.2 (1.0) 3.2 (0.9) 3.2 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5)
3.1 (0.6) 3.3 (0.7) 2.9 (1.0) 2.8 (0.8)
2-back
2.2 (0.8) 2.8 (1.0) 2.3 (0.6) 2.6 (0.9)
2.3 (0.6) 2.5 (0.9) 2.0 (0.7) 2.3 (0.9)
Note. Units are d’ values. Higher values indicate greater working memory performance.

Associations of Affect and Exclusion Perceptions with Changes in Working Memory
Performance
There was no evidence that the affective shift from time six to seven or affective states at
time points seven or eight correlated to pre-to-post changes in 1-back and 2-back working
memory performance in any experimental condition (see Table 4). In addition, there was no
evidence of perceptions of being excluded being associated with pre-to-post changes in working
memory performance. However, higher perceptions of being ignored were associated with
smaller pre-to-post changes in 2-back working memory performance for participants in the
sedentary exclusion condition, r = -.50, p < .05, bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI [-.73, -.13].
Thus, perceptions of being ignored account for 25% of the variance in pre-to-post changes in 2back working memory performance.

42

Table 4.
Associations among Affect and Exclusion Perceptions with Changes in Working Memory Performance
Affective
Task
Shift
Affect T7
Affect T8
Ignored
Excluded
-.34
-.31
-.27
.20
-.02
Δ 1-back
.21
-.02
.06
.03
.25
Δ 2-back
-.37
-.06
-.06
-.15
-.02
Sedentary Exclusion
Δ 1-back
.05
.20
.24
-.50*
-.14
Δ 2-back
.27
-.19
-.08
-.01
-.01
Walking Neutral
Δ 1-back
.20
-.07
.14
-.15
-.15
Δ 2-back
.02
.05
.11
-.22
-.03
Walking Exclusion
Δ 1-back
.02
.14
.18
-.17
-.06
Δ 2-back
Note. * p < .05. Affective shift = difference in affective valence between time six and time seven. Affect
T7 = affective valence at time seven. Affect T8 = affective valence at time eight. Δ = changes in task
performance (post – pre).
Condition
Sedentary Neutral

43

Discussion
The goal of the present study was to assess the effect of engaging in a short (20 minute)
bout of walking prior to social exclusion on affect and working memory performance. Extant
work shows social exclusion to stimulate maladaptive affective and cognitive responses, whereas
short bouts of physical activity afford affective and cognitive benefits (Baumeister et al., 2002;
Chang et al., 2012; Reed & Ones, 2006; Roig et al., 2013). We found that social exclusion results
in a shift away from pleasant affect and walking appears to mitigate this affective response.
Social exclusion did not directly influence working memory performance; however, perceptions
of being ignored were associated with smaller improvements in working memory performance
for those in the sedentary social exclusion condition.
We hypothesized that social exclusion would decrease pleasant affect and working
memory performance. Participants in the exclusion conditions reported a noteworthy shift from
pleasant toward neutral affect, aligning with extant meta-analytic findings (Blackhart et al.,
2009). The majority of previous research has used single time point assessments of affect
following social exclusion (Baumeister et al., 2002; Baumeister et al., 2005), whereas the present
investigation captured affective shifts using repeated measures. By examining shifts within
individuals, a rich understanding of affective responses to social exclusion was attained. For
example, affect reported by participants in the sedentary exclusion condition declined following
feedback and remained lower through time point eight. When comparing across conditions,
affect following feedback was the lowest among those in the sedentary exclusion condition.
These findings suggest that social exclusion has a substantive negative impact on pleasant affect
and that affect may remain lower for several minutes following an event of social exclusion.

44

Although this investigation provided support for the affective portion of the first
hypothesis, the direct effect of social exclusion on working memory was not supported. Social
exclusion is hypothesized to place greater resource demands on higher order cognitive systems
that manage affect and cognition, resulting in impairments to working memory performance
(Baumeister et al., 2002; Buelow et al., 2015). The use of a high-functioning college-aged
sample may explain this finding. These participants may possess a variety of automated selfregulation strategies based on experiencing social exclusion over their school-aged years.
Automated self-regulation strategies may reduce resource demands following exclusion (DeWall
et al., 2011; Ochsner, & Gross, 2005), potentially explaining why working memory performance
was not directly impacted by social exclusion in the present study.
Despite this outcome, the results show that social perceptions may be tied to working
memory performance, introducing an additional conceptual pathway for social exclusion effects
on working memory. Reports of being ignored were negatively associated with changes in
working memory performance for participants in the sedentary exclusion condition. Thus,
impairments to working memory may vary to the degree an individual perceives being ignored.
Increases in perceptions of social exclusion may stimulate intrusive thoughts, which could
increase resource demands from the same finite pool of resources as working memory. Related
research utilizing stereotype threat manipulations demonstrates intrusive thoughts and
rumination to be associated with poorer working memory performance (Beilock, Rydell, &
McConnell, 2007). Thus, a pathway to explore regarding cognitive effects is how social
exclusion stimulates exclusion-related perceptions that may produce intrusive thoughts.
It is important to situate this finding relative to the magnitude of the reported social
perceptions. Reports of being ignored and excluded did not cross the midpoint of the scale for

45

participants who received exclusion feedback. The getting to know you paradigm used in the
present study likely constitutes a mild form of social exclusion. This noted, these levels of being
ignored and excluded may also reflect underreporting of social exclusion perceptions.
Underreporting could be a defensive psychological strategy to blunt the averseness of social
exclusion and to preserve self-worth (Twenge, Catenese, & Baumeister, 2003; Twenge et al.,
2007). Indeed, previous research suggests that excluded participants tend to avoid self-awareness
and report a neutral affective state (Twenge et al., 2003). Impaired working memory
performance may require a degree of social exclusion that overpowers this defensive strategy.
Results also demonstrated no evidence of associations between affective states or shifts
being related to working memory performance. This finding aligns with previous reports of no
association between affective responses and behavioral outcomes of social exclusion (Twenge et
al., 2001; 2003). The absent associations suggest that affective responses are an independent
effect of social exclusion. The shift toward neutral affect may be an automatic and natural
response to social exclusion, thereby placing little demand on self-regulation systems. The
present results instead suggest that social exclusion perceptions may place resource demands on
self-regulatory systems.
We also hypothesized that walking would mitigate the effects of social exclusion on
affect and working memory, resulting in a more pleasant affective state and higher working
memory performance than social exclusion without walking. Participants who walked prior to
exclusion reported more pleasant affect following exclusion feedback than those who did not
walk. Thus, a short bout of walking prior tosocial exclusion may have utility in reducing
affective responses to social exclusion. Increases in calmness and relaxation have been observed
during the period following physical activity, which might explain a potential mitigating role of

46

walking prior tosocial exclusion (Ekkekakis et al., 2000). Furthermore, walking prior to
exclusion feedback may have dampened the association between perceptions of being ignored
and working memory performance. Based on the BH-FDR results it is important to view the key
study findings as tentative and preliminary. This caution acknowledged, there appears to be
value in further exploring the potential for walking and other forms of physical activity in
addressing social exclusion. Replication of findings will be necessary, and this exploration will
be enhanced by directly addressing limitations of the present work.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Though the present investigation shows that walking may help mitigate the effects of
social exclusion, there are limitations that must be considered. For example, in the interest of not
revealing the purpose of the study, we did not administer an assessment of affect directly upon
providing the exclusion feedback. Rather, we administered our most proximal affect assessment
following a block of the working memory task. When using deception in experimental research,
researchers must decide on the appropriate time points to capture affective states without
sacrificing the integrity of experimental manipulations. In light of these concerns, one solution
for future research is to use implicit measures of affect (DeWall et al., 2011). These may be
particularly useful to avoid revealing the purpose of the study to participants.
Also, as noted above, the use of a high-functioning college-aged sample likely produces a
conservative estimate of effects. College-aged students may have already developed efficient
coping strategies that buffer the impact of social exclusion. Future research may benefit from
using a developing sample, such as adolescents, where social relationships with peers are of
particular salience and self-regulation skills are developing.

47

An additional consideration in future work is that responses to exclusion may not be
uniform, even if humans generally maintain a desire to feel included and share social bonds with
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Though we employed random assignment in the present
study such that individual differences would be represented similarly across the conditions, there
is value in attempting to directly assess individual difference variables that may moderate effects.
Individual differences in affect regulation strategies (Gross & John, 2003), attachment styles
(DeWall et al., 2012), loneliness (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009), need to belong (Beekman, Stock,
& Marcus, 2016), and rejection sensitivity (Berenson et al., 2009) are examples that warrant
exploration in future research.
Another consideration pertinent to all laboratory social exclusion research is if
documented effects are the result of threats to the need to belong or a deprived sense of control.
The social exclusion feedback in the current study is more controlling in tone than the neutral
feedback and may have manipulated a participant’s locus of control more so than the need to
belong. Social exclusion comes in many forms and some involve feeling a loss of control (e.g.,
ostracism). Though certainly challenging because they are easily confounded, future research
may benefit if the effects of social exclusion as a result of threats to the need to belong can be
distinguished from those stemming from a deprived sense of control.
The present investigation did not replicate previous findings showing effects of single
bouts of aerobic physical activity on working memory (Martins et al., 2013; Pontifex et al., 2009;
Weng et al., 2015). This may be due to the amount of time that passed following the cessation of
walking and the posttest assessment of working memory. Positive effects on working memory
have been observed up to 30 minutes following the cessation of exercise and our posttest
assessments were within this time-window (Pontifex et al., 2009). However, this time window is

48

not absolute due to the heterogeneity of research designs, exercise intensities, timing of
administration, and type of cognitive assessment that make up the current literature base.
Additional evidence is needed to understand if the effects of walking specific to working
memory diminish as time passes.
As is common in budding research areas when there is interest in exploring an array of
possible effects, a large number (n = 98) of probability tests were conducted in this study.
Accordingly, results must be cautiously interpreted because of the potential for type I errors. In
light of the large number of tests, we used the Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) false discovery
rate control method to control for type-I error and identify potential false positive results. We
found four potential false positive results out of 33 (12.1%) probability tests that satisfied the
uncorrected criterion (i.e., p < .05). The findings will be important to attempt to replicate before
drawing firm conclusions.
Lastly, the present work examined preemptive walking. When the potential for social
exclusion is predictable, as with auditions for school plays, rushing a fraternity or sorority, or
band or sport tryouts, walking may be particularly useful before an individual is potentially
excluded. However, social exclusion events are not necessarily predictable. Examining the
potential for physical activity to mitigate negative responses following a social exclusion event is
also important. Physical activity could be useful as both a preemptive strategy and a reactive
strategy for coping with social exclusion. In moving forward with this work, it will be critical to
consider issues of timing and dose of physical activity, contextual factors, and other possible
moderators of any effects.

49

Strengths and Conclusion
There are several notable strengths of the present study. Importantly, we demonstrated
significant effects of social exclusion on affect even though we used a high-functioning collegeage sample and a mild form of social exclusion. Moreover, we used a true control condition (i.e.,
neutral feedback), which is uncommon in social exclusion research. Social exclusion is typically
juxtaposed with social inclusion (i.e., acceptance) in this research area. Comparing social
exclusion with inclusion likely magnifies condition differences. The use of a repeated measures
design is another unique study strength, enabling assessment of shifts in affect and changes in
working memory. Manipulating social exclusion in a controlled laboratory setting captures the
direct effects of social relationships and addresses some of the weaknesses of correlational
designs more typically used in social relationships research. Finally, we investigated walking, a
behavior with potential to address the effects of social exclusion. The practicality and feasibility
of a walking intervention to assist in coping with social exclusion warrants continued
consideration. Walking is a common form of physical activity that most individuals can
incorporate into their daily lives with little burden. Considered together, we believe these study
strengths have enabled us to provide a novel contribution to the respective exercise psychology
and social relationships literatures.
In conclusion, this study suggests that walking prior to social exclusion may mitigate the
affective response to social exclusion as well as social perceptions with potential to undermine
working memory. More broadly, this work supports continued examination of physical activity
as a strategy for helping individuals cope with negative social experiences. Walking is a common
form of active transport, especially on college campuses. Short bouts of walking throughout the
day may mitigate subsequent affective consequences of social exclusion. However, the findings

50

reported here are preliminary and tentative, requiring replication and attention to study
limitations. Important future avenues of research include exploring samples beyond university
students, assessment issues, consideration of individual differences, and other matters
surrounding how and when physical activity may mitigate maladaptive effects of social
exclusion.

51

CHAPTER 3: STUDY TWO
DOES AEROBIC FITNESS MODERATE THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION ON
AFFECT AND WORKING MEMORY AMONG FEMALE ADOLESCENTS?
Introduction
Late childhood and early adolescence are characterized by an increased interest in peers
(Smith, 2003). Adolescents during this period begin to expand their social relationships outside
of the family and making new friends increases in importance. However, not all children are
successful in their pursuit of forging positive relationships with peers. A natural feature of this
developmental period is adverse peer interactions such as social exclusion. Social exclusion is
the process where a person is put into a condition of being alone or is denied social contact
(Blackhart, Nelson, Knowles, & Baumeister, 2009). Social exclusion is associated with ill-being
and poorer academic outcomes (Barkley, Salvy, & Roemmich, 2012; Brunstein Klomeck, et al.,
2007; Buhs, Ladd & Herald, 2006; Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2014; Newcomb, Burkowski &
Pattee, 1993). These outcomes may result from repeatedly being excluded such that transient
responses to social exclusion progressively impair healthy functioning. Factors that dampen the
transient responses to social exclusion may aid in reducing impairments to healthy functioning.
This study investigated whether aerobic fitness – an individual’s ability of the circulatory and
respiratory systems to supply fuel during sustained physical activity and to eliminate fatigue
products after supplying fuel (Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985) – mitigates the transient
responses to social exclusion.
The maladaptive outcomes of social exclusion have been extensively studied in
developmental, educational, and relationship science (e.g., Buhs et al., 2006; Newcomb et al.,
1993). This body of research often views outcomes through a variety of social and psychological
processes. Maladaptive outcomes may arise through restricted access to instrumental activities in

52

important developmental contexts, a lack of meaningful peer relationships, and indications that
the individual is not valued by others. These processes may coincide with reduced efforts to
establish new relationships with peers, withdrawal from group activities in contexts where
exclusion is likely to occur, or aggressive behavior (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2001;
Newcomb et al., 1993). Adolescents who are frequently socially excluded find themselves on a
figurative “social perimeter” away from beneficial social experiences and deprived of the
activities that serve to enhance their emotional, cognitive, and social functioning (Bowker,
Adams, Fredstrom, & Gilman, 2014; Caccioppo & Caccioppo, 2014; Newcomb et al., 1993).
There is evidence that social exclusion may directly impact an adolescents’ emotional,
cognitive, and social functioning. The temporal need threat model describes the transient
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses following an event of social exclusion (Saylor et
al., 2013; Williams, 2007; 2009). This model is a useful framework to understand the transient
effects of many forms of social exclusion (e.g., neglect, ostracism, rejection) because all forms of
social exclusion threaten an individual’s need to belong at their most basic level (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995; Leary, 2001). The temporal need threat model postulates the transient effects of
social exclusion occur in a progressive sequence of stages.
The first stage is labeled the reflexive stage whereby social exclusion is detected quickly
as a threat to the need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, 2009). These immediate
effects are characterized by a reduction in pleasant affect (Blackhart et al., 2009) and a
diminished sense of the needs for belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence
(Williams, 2009). Much of research has focused on adults; however, research documenting these
effects in young children and adolescents indicates that they are more strongly affected by social
exclusion than adults. For instance, Sebastian and colleagues (2010) found that compared to

53

young adults, adolescents between the ages of 11 and 13 showed the lowest level of pleasant
affect after playing a computer game where they were socially excluded. One explanation for
this finding is that adolescents may be more sensitive to the effects of social exclusion than
adults because of their developing self-regulatory skills in combination with their heightened
desire to establish relationships with peers (Diamond, 2013; Furhmann, Knoll, & Blakemore,
2015; Sebastian et al., 2010; Welsh, 1991).
Regulating the affective and psychological consequences of social exclusion occurs
during the reflective stage. This stage is characterized by cognitive appraisals of the event,
coping with affective and psychological consequences, making sense of what happened, and
generating plans of action for how to respond. In the moments following an event of social
exclusion, individuals must put forth effort to understand what happened and how to adaptively
respond (Williams, 2009). Adaptive behaviors are characterized by prosocial behaviors that offer
the best chances at regaining inclusion. Such prosocial behaviors may include becoming more
agreeable, cooperative, or supportive. Unfortunately, not all people respond in an adaptive way.
Children may respond to social exclusion with antisocial behavior such as withdrawing or
behaving aggressively (Wölfer & Scheithaurer, 2013). Variety in responses to social exclusion
may reflect an individual’s ability to self-regulate emotions, thoughts, and behavior
Self-regulation is dependent on a higher-order cognitive system known as cognitive
control (Gray, 2004; Hoffman, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012). Cognitive control is an umbrella
term that represents top-down information processing to guide behavior to meet intentions or
goals (Diamond, 2013). Working memory is a component of cognitive control that is salient
following social exclusion. Working memory is the ability to hold information in memory and
make use of that information when it is no longer perceptually present (Baddeley, 1992;

54

Diamond, 2013). Working memory has been shown to play a crucial role in forging positive
social relationships with peers from an early age (de Wilde, Koot, & van Lier, 2016) and is
widely recognized as a predictor of scholastic performance and achievement (Bull, Espy, &
Wiebe, 2008; Raghubar, Barnes, & Hecht, 2010; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006). Social
exclusion has been shown to impair working memory performance among adults (Baumeister,
Twenge, & Nuss, 2002; Buelow, Okdie, Brunell, & Trost, 2015) and eight- to 12-year-old
children (Hawes et al., 2012).
Impairments to working memory performance can be understood from a limited capacity
framework (Baumeister et al., 2002; Hockey, 1997). In the moments following social exclusion,
increased demands for cognitive resources are required to manage and regulate the effects of
social exclusion. These resources are understood to be prioritized towards managing the
emotional and psychological effects of social exclusion and away from other important cognitive
tasks in a given context (e.g., deciding on how to respond, where attention should be directed).
Indeed, neuroscientific evidence shows that brain networks associated with cognitive control and
working memory processes are activated during and following social exclusion (Bolling et al.,
2011; Guyer, Choate, Pine, & Nelson, 2012; van Noordt, White, Wu, Mayes, & Crowley, 2015).
Impaired working memory performance may be explained by a competition for cognitive
resources. Regulating the effects of social exclusion requires cognitive resources and therefore
leaves fewer than required available cognitive resources to complete additional tasks. With a
limited availability of cognitive resources, an adolescents’ ability to perform other tasks that
utilize working memory processes (e.g., attending to a teacher’s instructions, enacting prosocial
behavior) is diminished.

55

This limited capacity framework may be able to explain why some individuals respond to
social exclusion in ways that are unhelpful. Reducing resource competition following social
exclusion may enable working memory performance to remain intact and promote more adaptive
responses. Research has documented that some college-aged adults respond in prosocial ways by
either increasing cooperation, affiliating with others, or remembering greater amounts of social
information (Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000; Maner, DeWall, Baumeister & Schaller, 2007;
Williams & Sommer, 1997). These findings may be explained by a reduced competition for
cognitive resources, thereby enabling individuals to utilize working memory in pursuit of
adaptive responses. Importantly, a recent meta-analysis found that responses to social exclusion
are sensitive to moderation (Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts, & Williams, 2015), suggesting
potential value in exploring individual characteristics that may reduce resource competition
following social exclusion. Investigating what characteristics enable preservation of working
memory performance in the moments after exclusion may aid in highlighting the role of resource
competition on cognitive performance.
Accumulating evidence shows higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with
improved cognitive control performance among young people (Chaddock, Hillman, Buck, &
Cohen, 2011; Chaddock, Pontifex, Hillman, & Kramer, 2011; Chaddock, Voss, & Kramer, 2012;
Drollete et al., 2016; Hillman, Castelli, & Buck, 2005; Kao, Westfall, Parks, Pontifex, &
Hillman, in press; Pontifex et al., 2011; 2014). Specifically, Kao and colleagues (in press)
showed a positive association between aerobic fitness and working memory performance among
nine- to 11-year-olds. The fitness with cognitive performance association was shown to be
mediated by the larger volumes of brain structures associated with cognitive control (Chaddock
et al., 2010) and greater white matter integrity (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014). These findings

56

suggest youth with higher aerobic fitness may be able to more efficiently regulate the affective
and psychological effects of social exclusion, thereby limiting effort expenditure, and leaving
working memory performance unabated. Having working memory performance intact following
an event of social exclusion may facilitate more adaptive responses to exclusion and potentially
protect youth from maladaptive developmental outcomes.
The purpose of this study was to determine if aerobic fitness moderates affective and
cognitive responses to social exclusion among children. Social exclusion is hypothesized to
lower affect and working memory performance compared to social inclusion. The magnitudes of
social exclusion effects are hypothesized to be dampened for participants with higher aerobic
fitness compared to participants with lower fitness.

57

Methods
Participants
Participants were eligible for the study if female, between the ages nine to 12 years, able
to perform physical activities based on the Child Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire
(CPAR-Q; Thomas, Reading, & Shepard, 1992), and possessing normal or corrected-to-normal
vision. These inclusion criteria were chosen to remove sex as a between subject factor, to delimit
the age range to late childhood, and for safety in completing the fitness assessment.
Thirty-seven participants and accompanying guardians completed the study; however,
two participants were not included in the final analyses because they did not achieve any of the
criteria for a successful aerobic fitness assessment. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 35
female participants (see Table 5). The final sample was 22.9% non-white and 8.9%
Hispanic/Latina, 5.7% left-handed, and 34.3% requiring corrected vision. One child participant
was reported to be on free or reduced lunch, 91.4% of participants’ mothers had completed a
bachelor’s degree or higher and 71.4% of participants’ fathers had completed a bachelor’s degree
or higher, and 97.1% of participants lived with both parents. Most (85%) participants were
currently participating in sport with an average of 5.4 ± 3.4 hours spent in sport per week. A
sensitivity analysis conducted using G*Power v3.1.9.2 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009;
Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) revealed that the final sample size enabled detection of
an effect size as small as Cohen’s d = .31 at 80% power. This falls below previously published
effect sizes that are large (d > .89) for the effect of social exclusion on affect and working
memory performance with similar late childhood and adolescent samples (Hawes et al., 2012;
Ruggieri et al., 2013; Sebastian et al., 2010; van Noordt, 2015).

58

Table 5.
Demographic Characteristics
Variable
Age (years)
Grade
Birth Position
ADHD Symptom Count
Tanner Stage
BMI (kg/m2)
BMI Percentile (%)
V02 Max (ml/kg/min)
V02 Percentile (%)

Mean ± SD
10.4 ± 1.2
5.2 ± 1.0
1.8 ± 1.2
1.4 ± 2.7
1.8 ± 0.9
18.9 ± 3.8
55.2 ± 28.4
40.8 ± 7.0
39.7 ± 32.0

Range
9 – 12
3–7
1–7
0 – 14
1 – 3.5
14.5 – 29.6
1.6 – 99.2
20.9 – 53.5
3 – 93

Note: ADHD = attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; BMI = body mass index; V02 Max = maximal
oxygen consumption. BMI normative values provided by the Centers for Disease Control.

Design
A within-subject experimental design was used in the current study. This design allows
for the comparison of participant responses to two experimental conditions: social inclusion and
exclusion. Because manipulating social exclusion in laboratory settings involves deception, the
order in which participants progress through experimental conditions are fixed to capture natural
responses to social exclusion. In line with previous research that used social exclusion in withinsubject designs (Bolling et al., 2011; Sebastian et al., 2010), participants were socially included
by a computer game with virtual partners then played a second game where they were socially
excluded. The fixed order of manipulations avoids negative spill-over effects and is less
problematic than being excluded first then included (Sebastian et al., 2010). This design allowed
for the comparison of dependent measures in response to two levels of social relationships.
Guardian Measures
Demographics and Activities of Child Participant. Guardians completed measures of the
demographic characteristics, family environment, and activities of the child participant
(Appendix E). Additionally, guardians completed the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

59

Rating Scale IV (DuPaul, Power, McGoey, Ikeda & Anastopoulos, 1998) to assess the number of
ADHD symptoms and the Tanner Staging System (Tanner, 1962) to assess the child participant’s
pubertal status. As a reflection of socioeconomic status, items asked guardians to report: (a)
whether the child was on free or reduced lunch, (b) the educational status of adults in the home,
and (c) the number of adults in the home who worked full-time. These measures were used for
descriptive purposes.
Child Measures
Loneliness. The Children’s Loneliness Scale (CLA) is one of the most widely used
measures to assess perceptions of loneliness in children (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984; Asher
& Wheeler, 1985). The CLA consists of 16 primary items (e.g., “I feel alone”) assessing
loneliness perceptions and eight filler items (e.g., “I watch TV a lot”) for a total of 24 items. All
are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from one “not at all” to five “always”. Scores on
the primary 16 items are summed for a total score of perceived loneliness that can range from 16
to 80. Construct validity and internal consistency of the 16 primary items are well-supported in
the extant literature (Goossens & Beyers, 2016). The sum loneliness score and internal
consistency value are reported in the results.
Social Exclusion Experiences. The Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents (OES-A)
is an 11-item self-report measure that assesses perceptions of being ignored and excluded in
daily life (Gilman, Carter-Sowell, DeWall, Adams, & Carboni, 2013). Child participants were
asked to answer items with the following stem “In general others…” Items are rated on a one
“never” to five “always” likert-type scale. The ignored subscale (e.g., “…ignored me during
conversation”) contains five items and excluded subscale (e.g., “…invite me to go out to eat with
them”) contains six items. This measure possesses high internal consistency, α = 0.93 to 0.94,

60

construct, convergent, and discriminant validity among high school students (Gilman et al.,
2013) and has been used with children as young as 12 years old (Niu, Sun, Tian, Fan, & Zhou,
2016). The mean ignored and exclusion subscale scores and internal consistency values are
reported in the results.
Social Competence. The social competence subscale of the Self-Perception Profile for
Children (SPPC; Harter, 1985; 2012) was used to assess perceptions of social competence. This
measure utilizes a structured alternative format that is designed to counterbalance the tendency to
report socially desirable responses (Harter, 1985; 2012). Participants were first asked to decide
which of the two statements she was most like (e.g., “Some kids find it hard to make friends
BUT Other kids find it’s pretty easy to make friends”). Once a participant decided which kind of
kid she is most like, she then indicated if the description is “really true for me” or “sort of true
for me”. Items were scored from one to four with higher scores indicating greater perceived
competence. The social competence subscale scores have exhibited internal consistency
reliability values ranging from 0.75 to 0.84, and have been found to be valid for child
participants in grades three through five (Harter, 1985; 2012). The mean social competence
subscale score and internal consistency value are reported in the results.
Affective Valence. The children’s feeling scale (CFS; Hulley et al., 2008) is designed to
measure the affective states of children. The original CFS uses an 11-point bipolar rating scale
ranging from -5 “very bad” to +5 “very good” with a 0 “OK” midpoint and representative picture
faces. A modified CFS was used in the current study with a 9-point bipolar rating scale from -4
“bad” to +4 “good” with a 0 “OK” midpoint because extreme valence responses (i.e., “very bad”,
“very good”) are uncommon in social exclusion research. Modifications also included updating
the faces to emoji-based faces to make the scale more contemporary for the target sample than

61

the original CFS. Previous scale development was conducted and validity was supported by
Hulley and colleagues (2008) with a sample of 5- to 10-year-old children. The CFS was used
throughout the study to monitor child participants’ affective valence prior to and immediately
following the completion of each task. Measures prior to and immediately following tasks were
used as dependent measures of affect in the study. All child self-report instruments can be found
in Appendix F.
Working Memory. A modified serial n-back task was administered that involves two
consecutive blocks including 1-back and 2-back blocks (Pellegrina et al., 2015). Each block
required child participants to discriminate between 20 distinct consonant letter stimuli: B, C, D,
F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y, and Z. Letter stimuli were presented one by one in
the center of a computer screen. Participants completed a 1-back followed by a 2-back block
containing a random order of matching and non-matching trials per block. Matching trials in the
1-back block are trials containing a letter that matched the letter immediately preceding it.
Matching trials in the 2-back block are trials containing a letter that matched the letter two trials
immediately preceding it. The 2-back block is more challenging in that it places greater demands
on working memory than the 1-back block. Two sets of 40 (30 non-matching & 10 matching)
trials were completed for each n-back test block. Each block used five random letter stimuli out
of the 20 with a randomized order of trials within task blocks and equally probable presentation
of stimuli (eight trails for each letter). All stimuli were approximately 3.4 cm tall presented one
at a time on a black background on a computer screen for 500 ms with a fixed 3000 ms intertrial
interval. This task was successfully used with children aged seven to 13 years in a large
normative study (Pellegrina et al., 2015). Measures of matching trial accuracy (hit %),
nonmatching trial errors (false alarm %), mean reaction time (ms), and memory sensitivity (d’)

62

were used as dependent measures of working memory performance. The maximum d’ score for
this task is 3.8 using the Verde, MacMillan, and Rotello (2006) transformation.
Aerobic Fitness. Child participants completed a graded exercise test of maximal oxygen
consumption (VO2 max) - the physiological limit to the rate at which an individual can deliver
and consume oxygen. This graded exercise test is considered the criterion measure of
cardiorespiratory fitness (American College of Sports Medicine, 2010). Maximal oxygen
consumption was measured using a computerized indirect calorimetry system (ParvoMedics
True Max 2400, Sandy, UT). Averages for VO2 and respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were
assessed every 20 seconds. A modified Balke protocol (American College of Sports Medicine,
2010) was followed using a motor-driven treadmill at a constant speed unique to each participant
with increases in grade increments of 2.5% every two minutes until volitional exhaustion. A
Polar heart rate monitor (Polar WearLink H7; Polar Electro, Finland) measured heart rate
throughout the test. Ratings of perceived exertion were collected every two minutes using the
children’s OMNI scale (Utter, Robertson, Nieman, & Kang, 2002).
Attainment of VO2 max was qualified based upon maximal effort as evidenced by either:
(1) a peak heart rate > 185 bpm (American College of Sports Medicine, 2010) and a heart rate
plateau as observed by an increase of less than five bpm despite an increase in workload
(Freedson & Goodman, 1993), (2) RER greater than 1.0 (BarOr, 1983), (3) a score on the
children’s OMNI ratings of perceived exertion scale greater than seven (Utter et al., 2002),
and/or (4) a plateau in oxygen consumption corresponding to an increase of less than 2
ml/kg/min despite an increase in workload. Participants’ VO2 normative percentile (Shvartz &
Reibold, 1990) was used as a moderator in analyses because it accounts for female age
differences in VO2 max values.

63

Experimental Conditions
Cyberball 4.0 (Williams & Jarvis, 2006; Williams, Yeager, Cheng, & Choi, 2012) is an
open-source virtual ball-toss game that is used to invoke social exclusion via computer.
Cyberball involves three players, one of which is a participant and the other two are computer
controlled. For purposes of this study, child participants were told a cover story that they will be
playing a game of catch with two other children over the internet. The other two players were
actually computer controlled confederates. Cyberball has been used in previous research to
successfully elicit perceptions of social exclusion with children from seven to 12 years of age
(Bolling et al., 2011; Hawes, et al., 2012; Zadro et al., 2013). In line with the recommendations
of Zadro and colleagues, child participants were told to imagine they are actually tossing a ball
with other children in real life. This was followed by questions from the research assistant to the
child participant to aid in imagining playing a game of catch in real life (e.g., “Tell me where
you are playing?”, “What kind of kids are you playing with?”, “What color is the ball?”). The
number of ball passes and direction were fixed depending on whether the participant was
included or excluded. In the exclusion condition the participant received the ball only twice
within the first 10 throws out of 20 total throws (i.e. 10%). In the inclusion condition the
participant received seven throws (i.e. 33%) evenly spaced throughout the 20 total throws. Also,
as recommended by Zadro and colleagues, the two computer-controlled players were given sexmatched names. Names were chosen from publicly available data from the Social Security
Administration for the most commonly given female names in 2006 (around when the
participants were born) within the state where the study was conducted.
Manipulation Check. A three-item manipulation check derived from Zadro and
colleagues (2013) assessed the effectiveness of the Cyberball game (Appendix G). Participants

64

were asked to respond to items “I felt happy”, “I felt sad” and “I felt ignored” on a one “not at
all” to five “very much so” scale. Participants were asked to respond to these items about the
Cyberball game they just played. This measure has been successfully used with Cyberball
research involving children as young as eight years old (Hawes et al., 2012).

Figure 3. Procedural timeline. Labels above rectangles indicate specific events. Inclusion
manipulations indicated by light grey boxes. Exclusion manipulation is indicated by the dark
grey box. Arrows indicate measures of affective valence. Scale of events and spacing of time
points are roughly consistent with time of an overall session.
Procedure
After receiving approval from the human research protection program (see Appendix D),
child participants and guardians were recruited from the local community through email list
serves and an advertisement flyer (see Appendix H). Guardians provided information over the
phone to the study coordinator to screen child participants for eligibility and eligible participants
were scheduled to visit the lab. Upon visiting the lab, guardians were asked to provide informed
written consent and child participants were asked to provide written assent. After consent and
assent were obtained, guardians and child participants were separated into private rooms. Once
in a private room, guardians completed a questionnaire packet containing guardian measures. In
the other room, child participants completed several tasks: the questionnaire battery assessing
social relationships, a practice version of the working memory task, a Cyberball game where
they were socially included immediately followed by manipulation checks, a second working

65

memory task, a second Cyberball game where they were socially excluded immediately followed
by manipulation checks, and a third working memory task (see Figure 3). Following the third
working memory task, child participants played a third Cyberball game where they were socially
included (to mitigate potential extended negative feelings; Zadro et al., 2013). Measures of
affective valence were administered before and after each task (except manipulation checks).
Participants were offered a short break after each task. Following the third Cyberball task, child
participants completed an assessment of aerobic fitness in a separate private room in the same
building as the lab. Upon completion of the aerobic fitness assessment, child participants were
compensated with a small token (i.e., pencil, pen, eraser, stickers) and $15 gift card for
participating.
Upon completion of these procedures, guardians and child participants were collectively
verbally debriefed to offer full disclosure of the study purposes. After verbal debriefing, child
participants and accompanying guardians were provided the opportunity to engage the research
team in questioning. Finally, because the social exclusion component of the study was not
disclosed prior to participation, a debriefing and consent to use data form was completed by
guardians. No guardians or participants opted to withdraw their data from the study.
Statistical Analysis
Data were screened in line with traditional best practice (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Descriptive analyses were conducted for all variables of interest. The manipulation check items
in response to experimental conditions were evaluated with separate dependent t-tests with
Condition (inclusion vs exclusion) as the within-subject variable.
Affective valence and working memory performance (hit %, false alarm %, mean
reaction time, & d’) in response to experimental conditions were first evaluated with a series of

66

dependent t-tests to address the main effect of social exclusion. These analyses used Condition
(inclusion vs. exclusion) as the within-subject variable to assess changes in affective valence and
working memory performance for the 1-back and 2-back tasks, respectively. Effect sizes,
Cohen’s drm, adjusted for the correlation of paired data and 95% confidence intervals (see
Lakens, 2013; Nakagawa & Cuthill, 2007) are reported for all dependent t-tests (Cohen, 1973;
1988).
The role of aerobic fitness on affective valence and working memory performance in
response to experimental conditions was evaluated by separate repeated measure analysis of
covariance models (RM ANCOVA) with Condition (inclusion vs exclusion) as the withinsubject variable, Aerobic Fitness as the covariate, and the interaction of Condition X Aerobic
Fitness as the interaction term (Annaz, Karmiloff-Smith, Johnson, & Thomas, 2009; Delaney &
Maxwell, 1981). Working memory performance analyses used d’ as the dependent measure
because it accounts for overall task performance. The Condition X Aerobic Fitness interaction
tests if participants with different levels of aerobic fitness show different inclusion to exclusion
changes in dependent measures. A negative interaction term would indicate that more aerobically
fit participants decrease more than less aerobically fit participants whereas a positive interaction
term would indicate that more aerobically fit participants increase more than less aerobically fit
participants. Partial η2 was reported as an effect size in all RM ANCOVA models (Cohen, 1973;
1988). To interpret this correlation, change scores (exclusion – inclusion) were regressed on to
Aerobic Fitness, after controlling for Age, and then plotted.

67

Results
Manipulation Checks
After being excluded, participants reported feeling less happy, t(34) = -6.9, p < .001, drm
= -1.6, 95% CI[-2.2, -1.0], sadder, t(34) = 5.4, p < .001, drm = 1.3, 95% CI[0.7, 1.8], and more
ignored, t(34) = 13.8, p < .001, drm = 3.1, 95% CI[2.3, 4.0], compared to being included. After
being included again, participants reported feeling happier, t(34) = 7.1, p < .001, drm = 1.5, 95%
CI[0.9, 2.0], less sad, t(34) = -5.3, p < .001, drm = -1.1, 95% CI[-1.6, -0.6], and less ignored, t(34)
= -13.3, p < .001, drm = -2.9, 95% CI[-3.6, -2.1], compared to being excluded. There was no
evidence that responses to manipulation check items were related to aerobic fitness, r’s = -.15 to
.28, p’s > .11. Table 5 displays the manipulation check results.
Table 6.
Descriptive Statistics for Cyberball Manipulation Checks
Included
Excluded

Included

Variable
Happy
Sad
Ignored

M ± SD
4.6 ± 0.9a
1.1 ± 0.3a
1.3 ± 0.5a

M ± SD
4.5 ± 0.7a
1.0 ± 0.2a
1.1 ± 0.4a

M ± SD
3.1 ± 1.1b
2.1 ± 1.2b
3.9 ± 1.2b

Note: Different superscript letters across a row represent a significant pairwise difference at p < .001.

Perceptions of Loneliness, Being Ignored and Excluded, and Social Competence
Participants’ reports of loneliness, 24.2 ± 4.6, and general frequency of being ignored, 1.4
± 0.3, and excluded, 2.3 ± 0.5, in daily life were low whereas their perceptions of social
competence were high, 3.4 ± 0.4 with respect to the respective measures’ response scales.
Internal consistency values were acceptable only for loneliness, α = .73, and social competence
measures, α = .68, but not for reports of general frequency of being ignored, α = .48, or excluded,
α = .55. There was no evidence that self-perception measures were related to aerobic fitness r’s =
-.18 to .11, p’s > .31.

68

Figure 4. Affective responses and cognitive performance following inclusion then exclusion. Panel (A)
affective valence. Panel (B) memory sensitivity (d’) scores for the 1-back task. Panel (C) memory
sensitivity (d’) scores for the 2-back task. *** p < .001.

Affective Responses
Manipulations produced a small significant positive shift in affective valence from
before to after being included, t(34) = 2.3, p < .05, drm = 0.4, 95% CI[0.1, 0.8], and a large
significant negative shift in affective valence from before to after being excluded, t(34) = -3.6, p
< .001, drm = -0.8, 95% CI[-1.3, -0.3]. Participants reported similar affective valence prior to
each condition, t(34) = 0.3, p = .79, drm = 0, 95% CI[-0.2, 0.3]; however, large differences in
reports of affective valence were found after each condition, t(34) = -4.4, p < .001, drm = -1.0,
95% CI[-1.5, -0.5] (see Figure 4, Panel A). After being included participants reported a mean of
3.9 ± 0.4 on the CFS, corresponding to a feeling state of good. After being excluded participants
reported a mean of 2.3 ± 2.1, corresponding to a feeling state of just above fairly good.
Working Memory Performance
Contrary to hypotheses, markers of working memory performance showed improvement
from inclusion to exclusion (see Table 6). Performance on the 1-back task showed a lower false
alarm rate, t(34) = -2.9, p < .001, drm = -0.6, 95% CI[-1.0, -0.2], faster response time, t(34) = 2.5, p < .001, drm = -0.3, 95% CI[-0.5, -0.1], and higher d’ score, t(34) = 2.8, p < .001, drm = 0.5,
95% CI[0.1, 0.8] (see Figure 4, Panel B), after exclusion compared to after inclusion.

69

Performance on the 2-back task showed a higher hit rate, t(34) = 3.9, p < .001, drm = 0.6, 95%
CI[0.3, 0.9], and higher d’ score, t(34) = 4.0, p < .001, drm = 0.4, 95% CI[0.2, 0.6] (see Figure 4,
Panel C), after exclusion compared to after inclusion.
Table 7.
Descriptive Statistics for Working Memory
1-back
Inclusion
Exclusion

2-back
Inclusion

Exclusion

Variable
M ± SD
M ± SD
M ± SD
M ± SD
a
a
a
Hit %
86.9 ± 12.8
89.7 ± 12.5
66.3 ± 12.4
74.9 ± 15.4b
a
b
a
False Alarm %
7.0 ± 6.9
3.5 ± 3.7
16.0 ± 12.4
14.1 ± 10.6a
Response Time (ms)
812.8 ± 259.8a
745.6 ± 216.4b
965.7 ± 359.8a
953.6 ± 378.5a
d'
2.6 ± 0.7a
2.9 ± 0.7b
1.5 ± 0.7a
1.8 ± 0.8b
Note: Different superscript letters across a row represent a significant pairwise difference at p < .05
for the respective n-back task.

Aerobic Fitness and Responses to Social Exclusion
Aerobic fitness significantly moderated the effect of experimental condition on affective
valence, F(1, 33) = 6.4, p < .05, partial η2 = .16. This interaction revealed that there was a
significant positive relationship between aerobic fitness and changes in affective valence from
inclusion to exclusion, β = .40, bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI[.22, .58], p < .05, ΔR2 = .16
(see Figure 5, Panel A). The interaction revealed that more aerobically fit participants showed
higher change scores than less aerobically fit participants. Relative to the amount of change, less
aerobically fit participants showed greater decreases in pleasant affect than more aerobically fit
participants. Affect after inclusion was not significantly related to changes in affect from
inclusion to exclusion, r = -.10, bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI[-.44, .33]. Thus, level of
affect prior to exclusion does not appear to have impacted change in affect after being excluded.

70

Figure 5. Fitness with changes in affective valence and working memory. Positive values along the yaxis represent increases from inclusion to exclusion and negative values represent decreases from
inclusion to exclusion for dependent variables. Panel (A) shows changes in affective valence. Panel
(B) shows changes in 1-back task performance. Panel (C) shows changes in 2-back task performance.

There was no evidence that aerobic fitness significantly moderated the effect of
experimental condition on memory sensitivity from the 1-back task, F(1, 33) = 2.7, p = .11,
partial η2 = .08 (see Figure 5, Panel B). Performance on the 1-back task after inclusion was
significantly negatively related to changes in 1-back performance, r = -.58, p < .001,
bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI[-.77, -.31]. Thus, cognitive performance prior to exclusion
negatively impacted change in cognitive performance after being excluded for the 1-back task.
However, aerobic fitness significantly moderated the effect of experimental condition on
the more challenging 2-back task, F(1, 33) = 5.2, p < .05, partial η2 = .14. This interaction
revealed that there was a significant positive relationship between aerobic fitness and changes in
memory sensitivity from inclusion to exclusion, β = .37, bias-corrected 95% CI[.08, .61], p < .05,
ΔR2 = .14 (see Figure 5, Panel C). The interaction revealed that more aerobically fit participants
showed higher change scores than less aerobically fit participants. Relative to the amount of
change, more aerobically fit participants showed greater increases in working memory
performance than less aerobically fit participants. Performance on the 2-back after inclusion was
not significantly related to changes in 2-back performance from inclusion to exclusion, r = -.07,

71

bootstrapped bias-corrected 95% CI[-.36, .21]. Thus, cognitive performance prior to exclusion
does not appear to have impacted change in cognitive performance after being excluded.

72

Discussion
The goal of the present study was to determine if aerobic fitness moderates affective and
working memory responses to social exclusion among adolescent girls. Research shows that
social exclusion can produce maladaptive effects on affect and working memory (Hawes et al.,
2012; Sebastian et al., 2010). Results provided supporting evidence that the effects of social
exclusion appear most pronounced for adolescents with lower levels of aerobic fitness, whereas
those with higher levels of aerobic fitness appear less affected by social exclusion. The collective
affective and working memory results suggest that higher aerobically fit girls may be better able
to regulate the demands of social exclusion than lower aerobically fit girls.
Manipulation check results showed social exclusion made participants feel less happy,
sadder, and more ignored compared to social inclusion. These findings are consistent with the
use of Cyberball with young people for producing mild social exclusion in a laboratory setting
(Zadro et al., 2013). Manipulation check items returned to post-inclusion levels following the
third game where participants were socially included supporting its use to mitigate any potential
extended negative feelings. Importantly, manipulation check results were not related to aerobic
fitness, suggesting participants perceived social exclusion similarly regardless of fitness level.
We hypothesized that social exclusion would decrease pleasant affect and working
memory performance. Participants reported a negative shift in pleasant affect from feeling good
to fairly good prior to and immediately after being socially excluded. The level of affective
valence was also significantly lower than after being socially included. These results support
previous meta-analytic findings that social exclusion can produce negative shifts in affect
(Blackhart et al., 2009). This negative shift also aligns with adult literature, suggesting that
laboratory manipulations of social exclusion reduce pleasant affect or good feelings, but are not

73

unpleasant or make participants feel bad overall (Blackhart et al., 2009; Delli Paoli, Smith, &
Pontifex, in press).
This noted, results from manipulation check items showed participants felt sadder when
being excluded compared to included. While participants did report feeling sadder, the mean
level of sadness did not cross the midpoint of the scale after exclusion. Additionally, the
distinction between measures of affective valence and the manipulation check items is important
considering participants felt sadder. Affective valence measures assessed current feelings
immediately after manipulations, whereas the “I felt sad” item assessed feelings during
manipulations via recall. Specific feelings during the manipulations are likely confined to during
the manipulation whereas the primary interest of the study was affective states following
exclusion experiences. In line with the temporal need threat model (Williams, 2007; 2009),
feelings immediately captured after social exclusion are a more appropriate measure of feelings
for on-going regulation of emotion and cognition.
Cognitive performance results were opposite of our hypotheses. Overall, performance on
both the 1-back and more challenging 2-back task was higher after exclusion compared to
inclusion. Given the repeated measures design, this finding likely represents a practice effect.
Performance gains may be a result of familiarity with and exposure to the working memory
tasks. These findings conflict with previous research that social exclusion impairs working
memory performance (Hawes et al., 2009). Social exclusion is hypothesized to place greater
demands on cognitive control systems that are responsible for regulating emotional and
psychological effects (Baumeister et al., 2002; Hawes et al., 2012). These greater demands are
understood to compete for cognitive resources, thus resulting in impairments in other cognitively
demanding tasks following exclusion (Pessoa, 2009; 2017). Despite the overall increase in

74

performance, the effects of experimental condition were moderated by aerobic fitness revealing
that participants change differently based on their level of aerobic fitness.
Aerobic fitness was positively associated with changes in 2-back working memory
performance. Importantly, changes in performance were not related to performance after
inclusion, suggesting that findings are likely not due to regression to the mean. The positive
association of fitness with changes in 2-back performance showed that those with higher levels
of fitness displayed larger improvements in performance whereas those with lower levels of
fitness showed smaller improvements in performance. Thus, one possibility for the tempered
improvements among lower fit girls is that social exclusion may have tempered a practice effect
on working memory performance. These tempered improvements in working memory
performance were also accompanied by larger decreases in pleasant affect. Changes in affective
valence were positively associated with aerobic fitness such that those with lower levels of
fitness showed the larger decreases in affective valence, whereas those with higher levels of
fitness showed smaller decreases in affective valence from inclusion to exclusion. Combined
these findings reveal that the feelings of higher aerobically fit girls are not as strongly impacted
by social exclusion and they are able to improve working memory performance to a greater
degree than those with lower aerobic fitness. Higher aerobically fit girls may experience fewer
demands on cognitive control systems to regulate the effects of social exclusion.
Deserving consideration is why aerobic fitness moderated changes in 2-back task
performance and not 1-back task performance. One rationale for this finding is that the effect of
aerobic fitness on 1-back task performance is small and given the sample size we were not
sufficiently powered to detect such a small effect. A second rationale for this finding is that all
participants showed similar performance improvements on the 1-back task regardless of aerobic

75

fitness because the task is not as cognitively demanding as the 2-back task. This is supported by
the high mean performance on the task as well as research with adults that shows social
exclusion impacts more challenging cognitive control tasks than less challenging ones
(Baumeister et al., 2002). Additionally, performance after inclusion and changes in performance
from inclusion to exclusion were negatively correlated. Given the high performance on this task,
this result may reflect a ceiling effect whereby lower performers after inclusion were able to
improve after exclusion whereas higher performers had little room to improve.
Situating the working memory findings in a laboratory context may aid in understanding
why performance increased contrary to our hypothesis that performance would decrease.
Although laboratory research provides a controlled setting to observe direct effects, manipulating
artificial and new relationships in a laboratory setting may not be an accurate reflection how
social exclusion operates outside of the lab. As mentioned and supported in previous research
with adults, effects may be stronger when being socially excluded by actual other human beings
who are physically present and valued by the targets of social exclusion (Blackhart et al., 2009).
There may be a certain threshold that leads to impairments in working memory performance that
may only occur when experiencing social exclusion from a familiar person. Laboratory
manipulations of social exclusion involve deception and may not reach this threshold because
ethical and practical concerns limit social exclusion manipulations to mild forms and the use of
artificial social relationships. These artificial relationships may not as strongly resonate with
participants as being excluded from an existing social relationship (i.e., best friend at school,
sport teammate). For example, social relationship difficulties with peers at school are likely more
disturbing to a child than social exclusion from a computerized ball-toss game.

76

A related consideration is there may have been a low demand for cognitive resources
because working memory tasks were completed after exclusion ended. This sequence of study
tasks provided the participant with no opportunity for reparative behavior with the other virtual
players. Any action planning for responsive behavior is unlikely without this opportunity.
Demands on cognitive resources may be higher in an ongoing social interaction where an
individual must put forth effort to plan behaviors and process ongoing social information to help
regain inclusion (Williams, 2009).
Despite no opportunity for reparative behavior, there remains the potential for a
heightened demand for cognitive resources after social exclusion ends. Demands for cognitive
resources may have increased following exclusion depending on how participants regulated their
feelings. Previous research suggests that suppression (Richards & Gross, 2000) and rumination
(Beilock, Rydell, & McConnel, 2007) place demands on cognitive resources and are linked with
weakened memory performance. However, reappraisal has been linked with improved recovery
times from social exclusion (Sethi, Moulds, & Richardson, 2013) and more adaptive
interpersonal functioning (Gross & John, 2003). Therefore, observed changes in cognitive
performance may be related to how participants regulated their feelings after exclusion.
Important to consider are the theoretical and developmental implications of the study.
Williams’s temporal need threat model (2007; 2009) indicates the effects of social exclusion
occur in a series of stages. The results of this study show that aerobic fitness moderates the
effects of social exclusion on the reflective stage (i.e., on-going regulation of affect and working
memory). Girls with higher aerobic fitness may be less negatively impacted because they are
able to more efficiently regulate effects of social exclusion. Therefore, aerobic fitness may have
the potential to protect against maladaptive outcomes throughout development. Developing a

77

child’s aerobic fitness may counteract reduced efforts to make new friends, withdrawal from
social activities, and behaving aggressively as well as make them less likely to be on a “social
perimeter” in important developmental settings (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowker et al., 2014;
Caccioppo & Caccioppo, 2014; Leary, 2001; Newcomb et al., 1993). Furthermore, aerobic
fitness was positively associated with greater improvements in working memory performance,
suggesting that improving a child’s aerobic fitness may benefit academic (Bull et al., 2008;
Raghubar, et al., 2010; St Clair-Thompson & Gathercole, 2006) and social functioning (de
Wilde, Koot, & van Lier, 2016).
The results of this study indicate that there is value in improving a child’s aerobic fitness.
Aerobic activities of moderate-to-vigorous intensity that are sustained like running, jogging, and
bicycling can improve aerobic fitness. These can be accomplished at school in physical
education or through participation in aerobic and endurance-based team sports. Sports such as
cross-country, soccer, or swimming among others can benefit aerobic fitness as well as provide
meaningful opportunities for positive social relationships with peers (Smith, 2003). Thus, sport
that is appropriately structured can offer health benefits while fulfilling the need to belong in
ways that contribute to well-being (Smith & Delli Paoli, in press; Verhagen, Lodder, &
Baumeister, in press). This noted, the interpretation and implications of results are tentative and
preliminary. Replication and extension of key study findings will be required by addressing
several avenues for future research.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
A key limitation of the present study is the absence of a control arm where participants
complete procedures without exclusion (i.e., consecutive inclusion conditions). Adding such an
arm in future research would help contextualize how social exclusion potentially impacts

78

working memory performance. For instance, a practice effect may be greater under consecutive
inclusion conditions than inclusion followed by exclusion conditions. This would indicate that
social exclusion tempers performance improvements that would otherwise be expected absent
the negative social experience. Alternatively, perhaps performance would be comparable to that
of relatively more aerobically fit participants. This would suggest that social exclusion effects are
not universal, but rather exclusive to those with relatively lower aerobic fitness. Yet another
alternative possibility is that a control arm shows a less robust practice effect. This would
suggest that social exclusion in some way marshals cognitive resources that benefit performance
on the more challenging cognitive task. Aerobic fitness possibly would dictate the degree to
which these resources are optimized. Altogether, contextualizing the findings with a control arm
would offer the opportunity to generate further ideas about how to proceed with next research
steps in this area of inquiry.
Future social exclusion and cognitive performance research may also benefit from
exploring how individuals regulate their feelings after being socially excluded. Changes in
cognitive performance may be influenced by the type of regulation participants used. This may
enhance understanding on the specific strategies children use to regulate the effects of social
exclusion. Future research should consider a combination of having participants respond to open
ended questions that assess different affect regulation strategies or manipulate regulation
strategies in experimental designs (e.g., Sethi et al., 2013).
Additionally, we delimited the sample to female participants to remove sex as an
additional between-subjects factor. Some research indicates that social exclusion is a more
salient experience for female than male recipients (Beneson, Markovitz, Hultgren, Nyugen,
Bullock, & Wrangham, 2013; Gunther Moor, Bos, Crone, & van der Molen, 2013). Future

79

research should consider potential sex effects on affect and working memory and the magnitude
of these effects for different levels of aerobic fitness. Another concern related to the sample is
that they reported high social competence as well as low loneliness in daily life. Highly socially
competent children may be more resilient to a one-off event of social exclusion because it is
inconsistent with their typical social interactions with peers. Future research should investigate if
children with different levels of social competence respond differently to social exclusion.
Another limitation is that we examined one aspect of physical fitness. Physical fitness is a
multidimensional construct comprising aerobic fitness, muscular endurance, muscular strength,
flexibility, and body composition (Ortega, Ruiz, Castillo, & Sjostrom, 2008). This is an
important consideration as research indicates that components of physical fitness other than
aerobic fitness are associated with cognitive performance (Chu, Chen, Pontifex, Sun, & Chang,
2016; Kao et al., in press) and psychosocial well-being (LaVigne, Hoza, Smith, Shoulberg, &
Bukowski, 2016). There is value in exploring other aspects of physical fitness beyond aerobic
fitness in future developmental social exclusion research.
Lastly, findings may be valuable for children when they experience relationship
difficulties because they may benefit from improving their physical fitness. However, the links
among physical fitness, social relationships, and healthy functioning are dynamic and
challenging to study. Children with poorer physical fitness may be more likely to face
relationships difficulties like social exclusion (Janssen, Craig, Boyce, & Pickett, 2004) and
relationships difficulties are a common reason why young people discontinue physical activity
participation (Balish, McLaren, Rainham, & Blanchard, 2014). A greater understanding of the
links among fitness, social relationships, and healthy functioning may benefit from future

80

research focused on how young people gain entry to participate in activities that improve their
fitness and continue participation.
Strengths and Conclusion
Within the context of the limitations described above there remain several notable
strengths of the present research. First, our results highlight that the effects of social exclusion
may be dampened by aerobic fitness. Research exploring factors that can mitigate the potential
negative effects of social exclusion are uncommon in the current literature base, especially for
children. Aerobic fitness is a malleable construct that can be improved with sustained aerobic
physical activity over time. Physical activity is also an accessible and low-cost way of improving
aerobic fitness that children can accomplish in the course of their daily lives at school and in
other activities. Second, we used a repeated measures design in this study to observe changes in
affect and cognitive performance. This allowed for a richer understanding of how children
change (i.e., shifts in affect, changes in cognition) rather than group differences that use a single
time point. Lastly, social exclusion was manipulated in a controlled laboratory setting that
allowed assessment of direct effects of social relationships, which offers an advantage over
cross-sectional or correlational research. Considered together, this study enhances understanding
of childhood social exclusion and provides a novel contribution to developmental psychology
and exercise psychology literatures.
This research extends understanding of how aerobic fitness may benefit well-being,
specifically showing that it holds potential to moderate the effects of social exclusion. Girls with
higher aerobic fitness may be able to cope better after social exclusion than those with lower
aerobic fitness. Importantly, aerobic fitness can be developed by participating in accessible
exercise and sport activities. Though the findings reported here are preliminary and require

81

replication, they suggest value in pursing future research that addresses performance changes
over consecutive inclusion tasks, affect regulation, exploring other components of physical
fitness, and other potential demographic and psychological moderators.

82

CHAPTER 4: GENERAL DISCUSSION
Social exclusion produces maladaptive functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Baumeister et al., 2007; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). Currently, there are few efficacious
strategies to reduce the impact of social exclusion. This dissertation focused on how the transient
effects of social exclusion might be mitigated with a short bout of physical activity in study one
and by the personal characteristic of aerobic fitness in study two. Results showed that responses
to exclusion may be mitigated through preservation of feeling states and self-regulation with
preemptive walking and that aerobic fitness may enable more efficient regulation of emotion and
cognition following exclusion.
One advantage of targeting the immediate effects of social exclusion is to understand inthe-moment responses that are important for daily functioning. How people feel and self-regulate
are essential for well-being (Baumeister, Schmeichel, & Vohs, 2007). Focusing on immediate
effects also offers a pathway to understand how transient responses may lead to chronic
maladaptive outcomes. People who are more frequently socially excluded display poorer
physical and mental health (Segrin & Passalacqua, 2010). This second advantage also has
developmental implications for children as repeated exposure to social exclusion may
compromise healthy psychosocial development (Brunstein Klomeck, et al., 2007; Robers, Kemp
& Truman, 2013).
In study one, female college students who completed a brief 20-minute walk felt more
pleasant after being socially excluded than students who were sedentary prior to being excluded.
Additionally, higher perceptions of being ignored related to smaller changes in working memory
performance only for participants who remained sedentary before being excluded. In study two,
girls with higher levels of aerobic fitness demonstrated smaller declines in pleasant feelings as

83

well as larger increases in working memory performance compared to those with lower aerobic
fitness. Collectively, the findings suggest that physical activity and aerobic fitness are promising
for reducing the immediate effects of social exclusion and warrant continued investigation in
future research.
Theoretical Contributions and Implications
Williams’s (2007; 2009) temporal need threat model posits the effects of social exclusion
follow a progressive sequence. The reflexive stage encompasses the immediate effects of social
exclusion and is affective in nature. According to the belonging hypothesis, social exclusion is an
aversive threat to well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Threats produce affective and
cognitive responses that have strong evolutionary ties (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; MacDonald &
Leary, 2005; Williams & Zadro, 2005). Hedonic affective responses are a core feature of threats
and function to indicate the relative importance of events (Russel, 2003; Russel & Barret, 1999).
This threat detection also activates the same neural circuitry in the brain for physical pain
responses, suggesting that the experience of social exclusion is unpleasant and similar to physical
pain (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003; Kross,
Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wagner, 2011).
Research suggests that social exclusion produces a shift away from current feelings
towards a neutral state of affect (Blackhart et al., 2009). In study one, female college students
reported a significant negative shift in pleasant affect from slightly-to-mildly pleasant towards
neutral affect. In study two, adolescent girls reported a significant negative shift in pleasant
affect from good to fairly-good towards neutral affect. The findings suggest social exclusion is
an aversive threat to well-being. There are several conceptual perspectives that explain affective
responses to social exclusion.

84

The numbing hypothesis posits the immediate affective response is an automatic
termination of all affective processing (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). This leads to impaired
behavior regulation because without affective processing individuals are unable to effectively
guide behavior. This hypothesis aligns with similar psychophysiological and somatic physical
pain responses that lead to analgesic responses. A second perspective is the cognitive
deconstruction hypothesis that posits social exclusion leads to a defensive psychological state
where individuals withdraw from present feelings to avoid self-awareness (Twenge, Catenese, &
Baumeister, 2003). By reporting reduced pleasant affect but not unpleasant affect, results may
indicate that participants reported significant decreases in pleasant affect but refrained from
reporting unpleasant affect as a defensive psychological strategy. A third conceptual perspective,
related to the cognitive deconstruction hypothesis, is that individuals engage in both controlled
and automatic affect regulation after being excluded.
This self-regulation occurs in the second stage of Williams’s temporal need threat model,
which is characterized by self-regulation strategies to cope, manage emotion, generate plans of
action, and potentially execute behavior (Williams, 2007; Williams & Nida, 2011). Research
suggests changes towards a neutral state of affect may result from affect suppression (Baumeister
et al., 2002). People may wish to mask any unpleasantness to avoid immediate distress or hide
feelings from others. Along with suppression, social exclusion leads to selective attention to
pleasant compared to unpleasant affective stimuli, indicating that individuals may implicitly seek
out positive stimuli as part of the coping process (DeWall et al., 2011). Controlled forms of
affect regulation can place increased resource demands on the cognitive control systems that are
responsible for self-regulation.

85

Neuroimaging evidence shows cognitive resources are prioritized towards affective
processing and regulation during and following social exclusion (Chester & DeWall, 2014;
Eisenberger et al., 2003; Kawamoto et al., 2013; Otten & Jonas, 2013; Themanson et al., 2013).
These cognitive control systems are hypothesized to be quickly activated to attend to and
regulate the affective responses to social exclusion. This rapid detection and regulation of social
exclusion comes at a cost whereby cognitive resources are prioritized towards social exclusion
and away from other salient tasks that require cognitive resources (e.g., behavior regulation,
problem-solving). This dissertation specifically focused on the effects of social exclusion on
working memory because working memory is important for daily functioning (Diamond, 2013)
and is linked with academic performance throughout development (Bull et al., 2008; St ClairThompson & Gathercole, 2006). Furthermore, previous research has found participants who
were social excluded showed lower working memory performance compared to those who were
socially included among young adults (Buelow et al., 2015) and children (Hawes et al., 2012).
Based on conceptual and empirical evidence, working memory is an ideal component of
cognitive control to target in social exclusion research.
Results from study one and two partially support the idea that social exclusion impairs
working memory. There was no direct evidence that social exclusion impaired cognitive control
performance among female college-students and children. Social exclusion did not lead to
performance decrements. However, this dissertation differs from the current literature base
because measures of working memory were recorded prior to and immediately after social
exclusion. A repeated-measures design allowed for analyzing individual change, which is
advantageous for capturing how social exclusion progressively impacts individuals from
reflexive to reflective stages of the temporal need threat model. Previous research has mostly

86

relied on between-subject group differences and post-hoc interpretations to explain the cognitive
effects social exclusion (i.e., Baumeister et al., 2002; Hawes et al., 2012).
Results from study one indicated that all participants either maintained or improved
working memory performance regardless of being socially excluded. The absence of negative
effects of social exclusion may be attributable to the use of a college-aged student sample.
College-aged students are regarded as high functioning and exposure to adverse social
relationships throughout their schooling years may be likely. Such experiences may have led to a
variety of efficiently functioning coping strategies in responding to social exclusion. These
attributes of a college-aged sample may have been able to explain why impairments to working
memory were not observed in study one. In study two, we applied a developmental lens by
focusing on children. Their developing self-regulation skills may not be as efficient as those of
college-aged students.
In study two, participants also improved their working memory performance following
social exclusion, replicating findings with female college-students from study one. Together
these findings suggest that laboratory manipulated social exclusion may not increase resource
competition to the extent where working memory performance is impaired. While these findings
do not necessarily contradict the conceptual argument that social exclusion can increase resource
competition leading to impairments in working memory performance, they do highlight the
challenges with manipulating social exclusion in a laboratory setting.
Manipulating artificial or new social relationships in a laboratory setting may not produce
effects strong enough to impair working memory performance, despite the advantages of a
controlled setting to observe direct or causal effects. Possibly the getting to know you and
Cyberball paradigms produce small effects on perceived relational value. A likely occurrence is

87

that participants may not hold the artificial relationships with laboratory perpetrators of exclusion
in high regard or perceive those relationships to be important. Perceived relational value is likely
to be higher with actual preexisting relationships (i.e., best friend, teacher, coach, parent) than
another person who participants were recently introduced to in a laboratory setting. If
participants are not fully invested in establishing a relationship with others prior to social
exclusion, then there is little room for participants to perceive those relationships to be devalued
(i.e., floor effect). As a result, being excluded would not drastically impact the working memory
performance of research participants because they did not perceive to be devalued from
relationships that they already regarded as not important or of low value. This may explain why
perceptions of being ignored and excluded did not cross the mid-point of the scale in study one.
Also, this may explain why participants were able to quickly regulate the effects of social
exclusion and improve their working memory performance relative to baseline performance.
Previous social exclusion research suggests that perceived relational value matters in a
laboratory setting (Buckley, Winkel, & Leary, 2004). Indeed, Leary (2001) has argued that
decreases in perceived relational value is the psychological mechanism responsible for social
exclusion effects. Social exclusion is hypothesized to produce effects when devaluation occurs –
perceiving a highly valued relationship to be devalued after social exclusion (Leary & Springer,
2001; Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998). There may be a certain threshold of
devaluation that social exclusion triggers impairments in working memory performance. This
threshold is likely to occur when there is a preexisting high relational value with the perpetrators
of social exclusion. Measures of social exclusion perceptions may provide an index of
devaluation. This might explain why higher perceptions of being ignored were related to smaller
changes in working memory performance in study one.

88

When participants place low relational value on laboratory relationships prior to social
exclusion, impairments to cognitive control may be observable through measures on a more
sensitive level of analysis. Previous neurophysiological research has observed impairments to
error monitoring performance (Themanson et al., 2014) and neural inhibition processes (Otten &
Jonas, 2013). Other research has focused on activation of neural structures that are associated
with cognitive control processes during social exclusion (e.g., Bolling et al., 2011; Sebastian et
al., 2011). Among adolescents, negative peer relationships such as social exclusion are shown to
activate affective and attentional networks in the brain that are involved in self-regulation
(Pfeifer & Blackmore, 2012). These findings contribute to understanding of how social exclusion
impacts neurophysiology.
Responses to physical activity can also be explained through physiological processes.
The dual-mode theory proposes affective responses to physical activity (e.g., light-to-brisk
walking) are typically pleasant and homogeneous across individuals at intensities that require
aerobic metabolism (Ekkekakis, 2005; 2009; Ekkekakis et al., 2004). Previous research shows
light aerobic physical activity to increase or maintain pleasant affect (Reed & Ones, 2009).
Findings from study one are consistent with the dual-mode theory and in line with previous
research. Thus, a short bout of walking prior to social exclusion may have utility in reducing the
affective impact of social exclusion.
The cognitive-energetic model posits that physical activity arouses brain areas associated
with cognitive control performance to meet task demands, thereby leading to improvements in
cognitive performance (Audriffen, 2009; McMorris, 2008). This arousal may be important to
assist affective and cognitive regulation during the reflective stage. Feelings of calmness and
relaxation have been observed during the period following physical activity (Ekkekakis et al.,

89

2000), which may help dampen the affective impact of social exclusion. With a dampened
affective response, individuals may be better able to regulate the effects of social exclusion. This
is partially supported through an inverse association between perceptions of being ignored and
working memory performance for participants that were sedentary prior to exclusion but not for
those who walked prior to exclusion. This interpretation is consistent with the cognitiveenergetic model (Audriffen, 2009; McMorris, 2008) such that walking may have enabled the
allocation of cognitive resources to meet the demands of the working memory task following
social exclusion, thereby leading to improvements in performance (Audriffen, 2009).
This dissertation also explored aerobic fitness. A growing body of research demonstrates
a positive link between aerobic fitness and cognitive performance (Chaddock et al., 2011; 2012).
Study two showed that participants with higher levels of aerobic fitness reported smaller
decreases in pleasant affect and larger increases in working memory performance from inclusion
to exclusion than participants with lower levels of fitness. The positive associations between
aerobic fitness and changes in affect and working memory performance are consistent with
existing literature (Drollette et al., 2016; Kao et al., in press; Hillman et al., 2005; Pontifex et al.,
2011). Results from the 2-back task in study two also support the execute-control hypothesis that
physical activity and fitness have their greatest benefits on cognitive processes that require the
most effort (Colcombe & Kramer, 2003; Hall et al., 2001). Higher aerobically fit girls may be
able to regulate the effects of social exclusion because of functional and structural differences
associated with aerobic fitness (Chaddock et al., 2010; Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014). Thus,
lower aerobically fit girls may not show improvements of a similar magnitude to working
memory performance because higher aerobic fitness may be tied to a more efficient selfregulation system.

90

Another possible explanation for why aerobic fitness moderated responses to social
exclusion is that aerobic fitness is closely tied to an array of other adaptive psychological
constructs and healthy behaviors. Therefore, individuals with higher aerobic fitness may also
possess greater social and emotional functioning skills than those with lower aerobic fitness.
Previous research has demonstrated that aerobic fitness is a powerful marker of health for young
people (Ortega et al, 2008) and is tied to greater psychological well-being and academic
achievement (Chu et al., 2016; Kao et al., in press). As aerobic fitness can be developed through
increased participation in sustained aerobic physical activity, research has also demonstrated that
physical activity participation is associated with improved social outcomes. Continued
participation in physical activity can improve aerobic fitness as well as the development of
various social skills that may serve to reduce occurrences of social exclusion. Indeed,
participation in physical activity is positively associated with acceptance, popularity, social
status and competence (Chase & Dummer, 1992; Chase & Machida, 2011; Evans & Roberts
1987; Ullrich-French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012; Weiss & Duncan, 1992). Therefore,
individuals with higher levels of aerobic fitness may also possess greater social and
psychological skills to assist in coping with social exclusion.
This dissertation used an interdisciplinary approach tying together theory from social and
developmental psychology, exercise psychology, and affective and cognitive science. Findings
support the idea that social exclusion presents a threat to the need to belong and has a strong
impact on human functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Results also supported and extended
the temporal need threat model by identifying aerobic fitness as a moderator of the reflexive and
reflective effects of social exclusion. However, evidence for the impact of social exclusion on
cognitive functioning was only partially supported in both studies. Findings are also consistent

91

with theories of physical activity and fitness that people derived pleasure from physical activity
and effects are most pronounced for challenging cognitive functions. Therefore, this dissertation
has made meaningful theoretical contributions to their respective literatures.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
A limitation of this dissertation is that the artificial relationships manipulating in the lab
may not accurately reflect social relationships outside of the lab. Although Baumeister and Leary
(1995) contend that all people maintain a desire to be socially included by others, people possess
a set of standards for how they value their relationships with others. This limitation may be able
to explain improvements on working memory because participants may not have invested in
forming a relationship with the perpetrators of exclusion. Observing impairments to working
memory on the level of behavior is challenging for researchers because of ethical and practical
challenges to manipulating social relationships in the laboratory. Only mild social exclusion can
be explored in this context. Efforts to increase participants’ efforts to invest in the artificial or
new social relationships could strengthen effects. Some researchers have tried to incentivize
efforts to be accepted (i.e., Buckley et al., 2004) which may be useful for future researchers to
increase participant investment.
The getting to know you paradigm involves a group meeting that is designed to increase
participant investment into those relationships, and Cyberball involves an imagery script that
helps participants identify more strongly with the other virtual players. While these attempts
were inherent to each paradigm, future research would benefit from making lab paradigms as
meaningful as possible to participants. Researchers should be mindful that modifications to
exclusion paradigms may introduce other psychosocial confounds. For example, using pictures
in Cyberball may introduce cultural, racial, sex or other confounds. One noteworthy approach is

92

to give participants an actual or false opportunity to interact with the perpetrators of social
exclusion after then are excluded. This may a way to elicit action planning by participants for
subsequent interactions with the perpetrators of exclusion.
A limitation pertinent to most social exclusion research is if the documented effects are a
result of a threat to the need to belong, a deprived sense of control, or both. Social exclusion
comes in many forms that vary in their effects of an individual’s sense of control. Some forms
involve a total loss of control where efforts to regain a sense of control are difficult or impossible
(i.e., abandonment, ostracism), whereas other forms that impact an individual’s sense of control
can be easily rectified such as contributing a relevant comment despite being ignored in group
conversation. Distinguishing threats to the need to belong from a deprived sense of control are
difficult because they are easily confounded in many forms of social exclusion. Future research
may benefit from understanding to what degrees the need to belong and sense of control are
threatened. Doing so could have implications for interventions that help individuals cope with
issues related to belongingness or perceptions of control.
A third limitation of this dissertation is that measures of affect were limited to self-report.
Subjective reports may be influenced by both experimental manipulations and defensive
psychological strategies. Therefore, more comprehensive assessments of affective responses to
social exclusion are needed in future research. A more comprehensive assessment of
participants’ affective responses could include physiological, expressive, or indirect measures.
These measures may also be useful to directly assess ongoing self-regulation processes during
the reflective stage of the temporal need threat model (Williams, 2007; 2009). Physiological
measures of electromyographical (Kawamoto et al., 2013), electrodermal (Gross & Levenson,
1993), cardiovascular (Gunther Moor et al., 2013), or neurophysiological responses (Otten &

93

Jonas, 2013; Themanson et al., 2013) to stimuli are commonly used in affective science and can
be implemented in social exclusion research. Though some of these measures may be difficult to
implement while participants are physically active because increased movement. Additionally,
other researchers have used indirect self-report measures of affect to understand implicit
affective responses (DeWall et al., 2011). Future research may make best use of these tools as
research questions focused on understanding affective responses to social exclusion and physical
activity require and necessitate them.
This dissertation used a proactive approach to address the effects of social exclusion with
preemptive walking in study one. One challenge for implementing such a proactive approach is
that upcoming social exclusion must be predictable as with sport tryouts, auditions, or rushing a
sorority or fraternity. However, social exclusion commonly occurs suddenly and unexpectedly.
Future research may benefit from examining the effects of reactive walking, as research shows
that engaging in a distracting task following social exclusion speeds up recovery from social
exclusion (Wesselmann, et al., 2013). Despite the foreseeable benefits of walking after someone
is excluded, reactive walking may not be an adaptive strategy because social exclusion has been
shown to promote lethargic behavior (Twenge et al., 2003), predict reduced physical activity
over time among adults (Hawkley et al., 2009), and decrease the amount of physical activity and
increase the amount of sedentary behavior in young children (Barkley et al., 2012). Thus,
reactive walking may detract from the overall quality of physical activity. Future research could
benefit from examining the apparent cyclical benefits and detriments to reactive walking.
Another limitation is that study two did not manipulate aerobic fitness. Therefore, this
dissertation was unable to assess if improving an individual’s aerobic fitness to a level similar to
those participants with higher aerobic fitness would afford similar protections against social

94

exclusion. Stronger experimental evidence could be obtained if aerobic fitness was manipulated
through a structured physical activity program targeted at improving aerobic fitness. The role of
aerobic fitness on responses to social exclusion could be evaluated at baseline and after the
intervention to assess if improvements in aerobic fitness result in dampened responses to social
exclusion. However, there are challenges with repeated exposure to laboratory manipulated
social exclusion because paradigms involve deception and may produce expectancy effects. One
paradigm that may be of interest is a peer-rejection task (Gunther Moor et al., 2013). This task
involves participants making judgments of other similar aged peers’ photos and receiving bogus
feedback on whether peers accept or reject them. Unique to this task is that expectancy effects
can be manipulated, which may be useful for intervention with multiple exposures to social
exclusion.
A final limitation that warrants consideration for future research is that the exact factors
used (i.e., walking and aerobic fitness) are from a much broader spectrum of healthy behaviors
involving physical activity. For instance, physical activity can vary by type, intensity, and
duration. Future research may benefit from exploring different types, intensities, and durations of
physical activities that are practical and feasible for their target sample. Another related point is
that aerobic fitness is one component of physical fitness. Physical fitness is comprised of aerobic
fitness, muscular endurance, muscular strength, flexibility, and body composition (Ortega et al.,
2008). There is much to be gained by exploring other aspects of physical activity and fitness in
future social exclusion research.
Practical Implications
Activity based factors such as walking and aerobic fitness offer adaptive and healthy
strategies for individuals to mitigate the impact of social exclusion. Proactive strategies that

95

reduce the effects of social exclusion are valuable because social exclusion often occurs
unexpectedly and is difficult to predict. Specifically, walking is one of the most common and
accessible physical activities that people can incorporate into their daily lives with little burden
and cost. Physical activity is a unique strategy that differs from other psychological or behavioral
strategies to address social exclusion because it offers a range of physical and mental health
benefits beyond the primary goal of helping cope with social exclusion (Fox, 1999; Paluska &
Schwenk, 2000; Pendedo & Dahn, 2005). Another unique advantage to physical activity is that it
can be used proactively and reactively. Proactive physical activity may be most useful when
social exclusion can be predicted, as with scheduled cuts from a sports team, rushing a fraternity
or sorority, or auditions. Reactive physical activity may be most useful for unexpected social
exclusion. Using physical activity to avoid or distract from the effects of social exclusion may
also offer new social opportunities, especially when physical activity is group based (e.g., dance,
fitness classes, sport). However, future research will be needed to understand how social
exclusion impacts the quality of physical activity behavior following an event of social
exclusion.
When physical activities of moderate-to-vigorous intensity are sustained over time
through, for example, running, jogging, or bicycling, activity related attributes such as aerobic
fitness can be developed. Sport or physical education are contexts where moderate-to-vigorous
activity can be regularly achieved. Additionally, sport and physical education are social contexts.
There exists the potential for developing positive relationships with peers and competencies in
several domains of functioning (Smith, 2003). Therefore, participating in structured physical
activity may provide children a way to improve their aerobic fitness as well as competencies in
emotional, physical, and social domains. The links between competence and adaptive outcomes

96

throughout development are well-established (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Contexts where
individuals can develop their aerobic fitness and competencies may be especially important
because they have the potential to fulfill unmet belongingness needs and can provide meaningful,
satisfying social relationships that contribute to well-being when structured appropriately (Smith
& Delli Paoli, in press; Verhagen, et al., in press).
Research that provides solutions to help people contribute to translational science.
Physical activity and fitness are important to consider in developmental and performance
contexts such as sport, school, or work. Individuals may be more likely to make use of the
findings from this dissertation because behaviors and attributes of health are tangible and
relatable. This highlights the novel contribution of this dissertation: exploring factors to reduce
the effects of social exclusion.
Conclusion
Social exclusion is common in daily life and has adverse effects on healthy functioning.
Because of these adverse effects, there is value in exploring behaviors and attributes that may
assist in coping with exclusion. Current understanding of ways to reduce the impact of social
exclusion is limited. This dissertation examined two complementary aspects of health to address
the affective and cognitive responses to social exclusion – physical activity and aerobic fitness.
Findings from study one show that walking prior to social exclusion may mitigate the
affective response to social exclusion as well as social perceptions that can undermine working
memory. Furthermore, study two showed that higher levels of aerobic fitness may help girls cope
with being socially excluded.
Collectively, these dissertation studies offer a novel and complementary approach to
address the effects of social exclusion. Health behaviors such as physical activity are accessible

97

to a majority of people to incorporate into their daily lives with low burden and cost. Both
physical activity behavior and aerobic fitness are associated with a range of positive physical and
mental health outcomes. This dissertation used an interdisciplinary approach that provided a
holistic and comprehensive understanding of the links among activity, fitness, social
relationships, affect, and cognition. This approach is novel, offering a foundation for future
research and practical strategies to reduce the adverse effects of social exclusion.

98

APPENDICES

99

APPENDIX A

Study One — Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter

100

101

APPENDIX B

Study One — Empirical Valence Scale

102

Figure 6. Empirical valence scale.

103

APPENDIX C

Study One — Manipulation Check

104

The following questions will ask you about your feelings about the partner task.
For each question, please circle the number to the right that best represents the feelings you were
experiencing regarding the partner choices.

Not at all

Extremely

1. I was ignored

1

2

3

4

5

2. I was excluded

1

2

3

4

5

105

APPENDIX D

Study Two — Human Research Protection Program Approval Letter

106

107

APPENDIX E
Study Two — Guardian Measures

108

1. What is your relation to the child?
[ ] Mother [ ] Father
[ ] Guardian

[ ] Other ___________________

2. What is your child’s date of birth? (MM/DD/YYYY)

_______________

3. What is your child’s age in years?

_______________

4. What is your child’s sex?

[ ] Female

[ ] Male

5. What is your child’s ethnicity?
[ ] Hispanic/Latino(a)
[ ] Not Hispanic/Latino(a)
[ ] Prefer not to say
[ ] Do not know
6. What is your child’s race?
[ ] American Indian or Alaska Native
[ ] Asian
[ ] Black or African American
[ ] Native Hawiian or Other Pacific Islander
[ ] White
[ ] Mixed
[ ] Other
[ ] Prefer not to say
[ ] Do not know
7. What is the highest level of education obtained by your child’s?
Mother / Female Guardian
Father / Male Guardian
[ ] Did not complete high school
[ ] Did not complete high school
[ ] High school graduate
[ ] High school graduate
[ ] Some college
[ ] Some college
[ ] Associate’s degree
[ ] Associate’s degree
[ ] Bachelor’s Degree
[ ] Bachelor’s Degree
[ ] Advanced or Terminal Degree
[ ] Advanced or Terminal Degree
[ ] Prefer not to say
[ ] Prefer not to say
8. What is your approximate gross household income?
(Income includes wages and salaries, unemployment insurance, disability payments, child support payments
received, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely.)
[ ] Less than $10,000
[ ] $10,000 to $20,000
[ ] $20,000 to $30,000
[ ] $30,000 to $40,000
[ ] $40,000 to $50,000
[ ] $50,000 to $60,000
[ ] $60,000 to $70,000
[ ] $70,000 to $80,000
[ ] $80,000 to $90,000
[ ] $90,000 to $100,000
[ ] More than $100,000
[ ] Prefer not to say
9. What is your child’s dominant hand?

[ ] Right

109

[ ] Left

[ ] No preference

10. Does your child wear contacts or glasses

[ ] Yes [ ] No

11. How many siblings does your child have

_______________

12. What is your child’s birth position (ex. 1st = oldest)

_______________

13. Is your child on free or reduced lunch at school? [ ] Yes [ ] No
14. What grade is your child currently in?
[ ] 2nd

[ ] 3rd

[ ] 4th

[ ] 5th

[ ] 6th

[ ] 7th

[ ]8th

15. Please list the sport(s) your child currently participates in:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16. How often does your child participate in sports on a weekly basis?

_______________hr/wk

17. Please list the other activities your child currently participates in (ex. music, art, etc):
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
18. How often does your child participate in other activities on a weekly basis?

_______________hr/wk

19. On an average day during the WEEK, how much time does your child spend:
Watching television

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

On the computer

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

Playing videogames

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

Being physically active

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

20. On an average day during the WEEKEND, how much time does your child spend:
Watching television

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

On the computer

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

Playing videogames

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

Being physically active

__________ hours

or

[ ] Not applicable

21. How much sleep does/did your child get:
On an average week night

__________ hours

On an average weekend night

__________ hours

Last night

__________ hours

110

Circle the number that best describes your child’s home behavior over the past 6 weeks
Never or
rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very Often

1.

Fails to give close attention to details or
makes careless mistakes in schoolwork

0

1

2

3

2.

Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in
seat.

0

1

2

3

3.

Has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks
or play activities.

0

1

2

3

4.

Leaves seat in classroom or in other
situations in which remaining seated is
expected.
Does not seem to listen when spoken to
directly.

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

5.
6.

Runs about or climbs excessively in
situations in which it is inappropriate.

0

1

2

3

7.

Does not follow through on instructions
and fails to finish work

0

1

2

3

8.

Has difficulty playing or engaging in
leisure activities quietly.

0

1

2

3

9.

Has difficulty organizing tasks and
activities.

0

1

2

3

10.

Is “on the go” or acts as if “driven by a
motor.”

0

1

2

3

11.

Avoids tasks (e.g., schoolwork,
homework) that require sustained mental
effort.

0

1

2

3

12.

Talks excessively.

0

1

2

3

13.

Loses things necessary for tasks or
activities.

0

1

2

3

14.

Blurts out answers before questions have
been completed.

0

1

2

3

15.

Is easily distracted.

0

1

2

3

16.

Has difficulty awaiting turn.

0

1

2

3

17.

Is forgetful in daily activities.

0

1

2

3

18.

Interrupts or intrudes on others.

0

1

2

3

111

Tanner Staging Questionnaire
On each side of the line, please circle the number that best represents your child’s pubertal status.
1.
1.

The breasts are flat.

No hairs.

2.

2.

The breasts form small mounds.

Very little hair.

3.

3.

The breasts form larger mounds than in 2.
4.

Quite a lot of hair.
4.

The nipple and the surrounding part (the Areola)
make up a mound that sticks up above the breast.
5.

The hair has not spread over
the thighs.
5.

Only the nipple sticks out beyond the breast.

112

The hair has spread over the
thighs.

APPENDIX F

Study Two — Child Measures

113

Below are 24 statements. Please read each statement and indicate how true it is for you
using the following rating scale:
Always True
1

True most of the
time
2

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

3

4

5

Please circle your answer on the scale below each question.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

It's easy for me to make new friends at school.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I like to read.

I have nobody to talk to.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I'm good at working with other children.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I watch TV a lot.

It's hard for me to make friends.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I like school.

I have lots of friends.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I feel alone.

I can find a friend when I need one.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I play sports a lot.

114

12.

13.

14.

It's hard to get other kids to like me.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I like science.

I don't have anyone to play with.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

15.
like music.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

I get along with other kids.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I feel left out of things.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

There's nobody I can go to when I need help.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I like to paint and draw.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I don't get along with other children.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I'm lonely.

I am well-liked by the kids in my class.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

23. I like playing board games a lot.

24.

Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

I don't have any friends.
Always True

True most of the time

True sometimes

Hardly ever True

Not True at all

1

2

3

4

5

115

In general, others…
1….treat me as if I am invisible
Never
1

2

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

2….look through me as if I do not exist
Never
1

2

3….have ignored my greetings when we are walking by one another
Never
1

3

4

Always
5

2

3

4

Always
5

2

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

3

4

Always
5

2

4….ignore me during conversation
Never
1

5….ignored me
Never
1

6.…”hang out” with me at my home
Never
1

2

7….invite me to join their club, organization, or association
Never
1

2

8….include me in their plans for the holidays
Never
1

2

9….make an effort to get my attention
Never
1

2

10….invite me to go out to eat with them
Never
1

2

11….invite me to join them for weekend activities, hobbies, or events
Never
1

2

3

116

4

Always
5

Instructions:
The following statements deal with what kind of a person you are
Please read both statements in each row
Decide which of the two statements is most like you (left statement vs. right statement).
Once you pick a side, mark whether this is “REALLY TRUE FOR ME” OR “SORT OF TRUE FOR ME” by
marking the appropriate box with an X.
- Please choose only ONE answer.
- Remember: There are no right or wrong answers; simply choose the one that is best for you.
-

What I Am Like
Really
True
for me

Sort of
True
for me

Sort of
True
for me

Really
True
for me

Sample Sentence
a.

2

8

14

20

26

32

□□
□□
□□
□□
□□
□□
□□

Some kids would rather
play outdoors in their
spare time

BUT

Other kids would rather
watch T.V.

Some kids find it hard
to make friends

BUT

Other kids find it pretty
easy to make friends

Some kids know how to
make classmates like
them

BUT

Other kids don’t know
how to make classmates
like them

BUT

Other kids do have the
social skills to make
friends

Some kids understand
how to get peers to
accept them

BUT

Other kids don’t
understand how to get
peers to accept them

Some kids wish they
knew how to make more
friends

BUT

Other kids know how to
make as many friends as
they want

Some kids know how to
become popular

BUT

Other kids do not know
how to become popular

Some kids don’t have
the social skills to make
friends

117

□□
□□
□□
□□
□□
□□
□□

Figure 7. Children’s feeling scale.

118

APPENDIX G

Study Two — Manipulation Check

119

For each question, please circle the number to the right that best represents the
feelings you had during the ball toss game.
Not at all

Very much so

1. I felt happy

1

2

3

4

5

2. I felt sad

1

2

3

4

5

3. I felt ignored

1

2

3

4

5

120

APPENDIX H

Study Two — Advertisement Flyer

121

Figure 8. Study two advertisement flyer.

122

REFERENCES

123

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., Weick, M., Thomas, D., Colbe, H., & Franklin, K. M. (2011). On-line ostracism
affects children differently from adolescents and adults. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 29, 110-123.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. B., de la Horne, D. J., & Trinder, J. (1996). Sociotropy, autonomy, and dysphoric
emotional responses to specific classes of stress: A psychophysiological evaluation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 25-33.
American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (2010). ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing
and prescription (8th ed.). New York: Loppincott Williams & Wilkins.
Annaz, D., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Johnson, M. H., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2009). A cross-syndrome
study of the development of holistic face recognition in children with autism, Down
syndrome, and Williams syndrome. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 456486.
Armstrong, T., McClenahan, L., Kittle, J., & Olatunji, B. O. (2014). Don’t look now!
Oculomotor avoidance as a conditioned disgust response. Emotion, 14, 95-104.
Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P.D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development,
55, 1456-1464.
Asher, S. R. & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children's loneliness: a comparison of rejected and
neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500-505.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
Baddeley, A. (2013). Working memory and emotion: Ruminations on a theory of depression.
Review of General Psychology, 17, 20-27.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York:
Academic Press.
Balish, S. M., McLaren, C., Rainham, D., & Blanchard, C. (2014). Correlates of youth sport
attrition: A review and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 429-439.
Bar-Or, O. (1983). Pediatric sports medicine for the practitioner: From physiologic principles to
clinical applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

124

Barkley, J. E., Salvy, S., & Roemmich, J. N. (2012). The effect of simulated ostracism on
physical activity behavior in children. Pediatrics, 129, 659-656.
Barrett, L. F (2011). Constructing emotion. Psychological Topics, 3, 359-380.
Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373-403.
Baumeister, R. F., Brewer, L. E., Tice, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (2007). Thwarting the need to
belong: Understanding the interpersonal and inner effects of social exclusion. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 506-520.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, N. C., Ciarocco, J. N., & Twenge, J. N. (2005). Social exclusion
impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589-604.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Vohs, K. D. (2009). Social rejection, control, numbness and
emotion: How not to be fooled by Gerber and Wheeler (2009). Perspectives in
Psychological Science, 4, 489-493.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychology Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive
function: The self as a controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. J. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive
processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 817-827.
Beekman, J. B., Stock, M. L., & Marcus, T. (2016). Need to belong, not rejection sensitivity,
moderates cortisol response, self-reported stress, and negative affect following social
exclusion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 131-138.
Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. L., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working
memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
136, 256-276.
Beneson, J. F., Markovitz, H., Hultgren, B., Nyugen, T., Bullock, G., & Wrangham, R. (2013).
Social exclusion: More important to human females than males. PLOS One, 8, 1-6.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B,
57, 289-300.
Berenson, K. R., Gyurak, A., Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Garner, M. J., Mogg, K., … Pine, D. S.
(2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 1064-1072.

125

Berman, M. G., Peltier, S., Nee, D. E., Kross, E., Deldin, P. J., & Jonides, J. (2011). Depression,
rumination, and the default mode network. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
6, 548-555.
Best, J. R. (2010). Effects of physical activity on children’s executive function: contribution of
experimental research on aerobic exercise. Developmental Review, 30, 331-351.
Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits
emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A
meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 13, 269-309.
Blakemore, S. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 267–
277.
Bolling, D. Z., Pitskel, N. B., Deen, B., Crowley, M. J., Mayers, L. C., & Pelphrey, K. A. (2011).
Development of neural systems for processing social exclusion from childhood to
adolescence. Developmental Science, 14, 1431-1444.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.
Brunstein Klomek, A., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007).
Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40-49.
Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. W. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection:
Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 40, 14-28.
Buelow, M. T., Okdie, B. M., Brunell, A. B., & Trost, Z. (2015). Stuck in a moment and you
cannot get out of it: The lingering effects of ostracism on cognition and satisfaction of
basic needs. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 39-43.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes
that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom
engagement and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1-13.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008): Short-term memory, working memory, and
executive functioning in preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical
achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205-228.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 13, 447-454.
Carlson, S., Martinkauppi, S., Rämä, P., Salli, E., Korvenoja, A., & Aronen, H.J. (1998).
Distribution of cortical activation during visuospatial n-back tasks as revealed by
functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebral Cortex, 8, 743-752.

126

Caspersen, C. J., Powell, K. E., & Christenson, G. M. (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and
physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health
Reports, 100, 126-130.
Chaddock, L., Erickson, K. I., Prakash, R. S., Voss, M. W., VanPatter, M., Pontifex, M. B., …
Kramer, A. F. (2012). A functional MRI investigation of the association between
childhood aerobic fitness and neurocognitive control. Biological Psychology, 89, 260268.
Chaddock, L., Erickson, K. I., Prakash, R. S., Kim, J. S., Voss, M. W., VanPatter, M., …
Kramer, A. F. (2010). A neuroimaging investigation of the association between aerobic
fitness, hippocampal volume and memory performance in preadolescent children. Brain
Research, 1358, 172-183.
Chaddock, L., Hillman, C. H., Buck, S. M., & Cohen, N. J. (2011). Aerobic fitness and executive
control of relational memory in preadolescent children. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 43, 344–349.
Chaddock, L., Pontifex, M. B., Hillman, C. H., & Kramer, A. F. (2011). A review of the relation
of aerobic fitness and physical activity to brain structure and function in children. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 975-985.
Chaddock, L., Voss, M. W., & Kramer, A. F. (2012). Physical activity and fitness effects on
cognition and brain health in children and older adults. Kinesiology Review, 1, 37-45.
Chaddock-Heyman, L., Erickson, K. I., Holtrop, J. L., Voss, M. W., Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L.
B., … Kramer, A. F. (2014). Aerobic fitness is associated with greater white matter
integrity in children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-7.
Chang, Y. K., Labban, J. D., Gapin, J. I., & Etnier, J. L. (2012). The effects of acute exercise on
cognitive performance. Brain Research, 1453, 87-101.
Chase, M. A., & Dummer, G. M. (1992). The role of sports as a social status determinant for
children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 418–424.
Chase, M. A., & Machida, M. (2011). The role of sport as a social status determinant for
children: Thirty years later. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 731-739.
Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2014). Prefrontal recruiting during social rejection predicts
greater subsequent self-regulatory imbalance and impairment: neural and longitudinal
evidence. NeeuroImage, 101, 485-493.
Chu, C., Chen, F., Pontifex, M. B., Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2016). Health-related physical fitness,
academic achievement, and neuroelectric measures in children and adolescents.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advanced online copy.
Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 107-112.

127

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.:
L. Erlbaum Associates.
Colcombe, S. & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A
meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14, 125-130.
Cooter, S., Holt, C., & Lachmann, M. (Producers). (2011). Wonders of the universe presented by
Brian Cox [DVD]. United States: BBC America.
Craighead, W. E., Kimball, W. H., & Rehak, P. J. (1979). Mood changes, physiological
responses, and self-statements during social rejection imagery. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 47, 385-396.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple
regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 917–926.
de Wilde, A., Koot, H. M., & van Lier, P. A. C. (2016). Developmental links between children’s
working memory and their social relations with teachers and peers in the early school
years. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 19-30.
Delaney, H. D. & Maxwell, S. E. (1981). On using analysis of covariance in repeated measures
designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 105-123
Delli Paoli, A. G., Smith, A. L., Pontifex, M. B. (in press). Does walking mitigate affective and
cognitive responses to social exclusion? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. doi:
10.1123/jsep.2016-0202.
DeWall, C. N. & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion
on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal
empathy. Attitudes and Social Cognition, 91, 1-15.
DeWall, C. N., Masten, C. L., Powell, C., Combs, D., Schurtz, D. R., & Eisenberger, N. I.
(2012). Do neural responses to rejection depend on attachment style? An fMRI study.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 184-192.
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Koole, S. L., Baumeister, R. F., Marquez, A., & Reid, M. W.
(2011). Automatic emotion regulation after social exclusion: Tuning to positivity.
Emotion, 11, 623-636.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
Donnelley, J. E., Hillman, C. H., Castelli, D., Etnier, J. L., Lee, S., Tomporowski, P., …SzaboReed, A. N. (2016). Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic
achievement in children: A systematic review. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
46, 1297-1222.

128

Drollette, E. S., Scudder, M. R., Raine, L. B., Moore, R. D., Pontifex, M. B., Erickson, K. I., &
Hillman, C. H. (2016). The sexual dimorphic association of cardiorespiratory fitness to
working memory in children. Developmental Science, 19, 90-108.
Drollete, E. S., Scudder, M. R., Raine, L. B., Moore, R. D., Saliba, B. J., Pontifex, M. B., &
Hillman, C. H. (2014). Acute exercise facilitates brain function and cognition in children
who need it most: An ERP study of individual differences in inhibitory control capacity.
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 53-64.
Drollette, E. S., Shishido, T., Pontifex, M. B., & Hillman, C. H. (2012). Maintenance of
cognitive control during and after walking in preadolescent children. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 44, 2017-2024.
DuPaul, G. J., Anastopoulos, A. D., Power, T. J., Reid, R., Ikeda, M. J., & McGoey, K. E.
(1998). Parent rating of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Factor
structure and normative data. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 83102.
Eisenberger, N. I. & Lieberman, M. D. (2004). Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm
system for physical and social pain. TRENDS in Cognitive Science, 8, 294-300.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI
study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292.
Ekkekakis, P. (2005). The study of affective responses to acute exercise: The dual-mode model.
In R. Stelter & K.K. Roessler (Eds.), New approaches to sport and exercise psychology
(pp. 119-146). Oxford, United Kingdom: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Ekkekakis, P. (2009). The Dual-Mode Theory of affective responses to exercise in
metatheoretical context: I. Initial impetus, basic postulates, and philosophical framework.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 73-94.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., VanLanduyt, L. M., & Petruzzelo, S. (2000). Walking in (affective)
circles: Can short walks enhance affect? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 245-275.
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzelo, S. (2004). Variation and homogeneity in affective
responses to physical activity of varying intensities: An alternative perspective on dose –
 response based on evolutionary considerations. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23, 477-500.
Ekkekakis, P., & Petruzzello, S. J. (1999). Acute aerobic exercise and affect: Current status,
problems, and prospects regarding dose-response. Sports Medicine, 28, 337-374.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer
influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What
have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychological Review, 32, 365383.

129

Evans, J., & Roberts, G. C. (1987). Physical competence and the development of children’s peer
relations. Quest, 39, 23–35.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 1149-1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fitzgerald, A., Fitzgerald, N., & Aherne, C. (2012). Do peers matter? A review of peer and or
friends’ influence on physical activity among American adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 35, 941-958.
Fox, K. R. (1999). The influence of physical activity on mental well-being. Public Health
Nutrition, 2, 411-418.
Freedson, P. S., & Goodman, T. L. (1993). Measurement of oxygen consumption. In T. W.
Rowland (Ed.), Pediatric laboratory exercise testing: Clinical guidelines (pp. 91–113).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Freud, S. (1949). An outline of psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.
Fuhrmann, D., Knoll, L. J., & Blakemore, S. (2015). Adolescence as a sensitive period of brain
development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 558-566.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory:
how the need to belong affects memory for social information. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496.
Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research
on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468-488.
Gilman, R., Carter-Sowell, A., DeWall, C. N. Adams, R. E., & Carboni, I. (2013). Validation of
the ostracism experience scale for adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 25, 319-330.
Glickman, M. E., Rao, S. R., & Schultz, M. R. (2014). False discovery rate control is a
recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 850-857.
Goodman, M. R., Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J. (2001). The significance of peer victimization
in development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 507-526.
Goossens, L. & Beyers, W. (2016). Comparing measures of childhood loneliness: Internal
consistency and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 31, 252-262.

130

Goldfried, M. R., & Sobocinski, D. (1975). Effect of irrational beliefs on emotional arousal.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 504-510.
Gray, J. R. (2004). Integration of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13, 46-48.
Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359365.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348-362.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1993). Suppression: Physiology, self-report, and expressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970-986.
Guyer, A. E., Choate, V. R., Pine, D. S., & Nelson, E. E. (2012). Neural circuitry underlying
affective response to peer feedback in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 7, 81-92.
Gunther Moor, B., Bos, M. G. N., Crone, E. A., & van der Molen, M. W. (2013). Peer rejection
cues induce cardiac slowing after transition into adolescence. Developmental Psychology,
50, 947-955.
Hall, C. D., Smith, A. L., & Keele, S. W. (2001). The impact of aerobic activity on cognitive
function in older adults: A new synthesis based on the concept of executive control.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 279-300.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. University of Denver.
Harter, S. (2012). Self-perception profile for children: Manual and questionnaires. University of
Denver.
Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects
of ostracism: A meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies. PLOS One, 10, 1-24.
Hawes, D. J., Zadro, L., Fink, E., Richardson, R., O'Moore, K., Griffiths, B., … Williams, K.D.
(2012). The effects of peer ostracism on children's cognitive processes. European Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 9, 599-613.
Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M., J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and
psychological maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.
Hawkley, L. C., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). Loneliness prediction reduced physical
activity: Cross-sectional & longitudinal analyses. Health Psychology, 28, 354-363.

131

Hillman, C.H., Castelli, D.M., & Buck, S.M. (2005). Aerobic fitness and neurocognitive function
in healthy preadolescent children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37, 1967–
1974
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise
effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58-65.
Hillman, C. H., Pontifex, M. B., Castelli, D. M., Khan, N. A., Raine, L. B., Scudder, M. R., …
Kamijo, K. (2014). Effects of the FITKids randomized controlled trial on executive
control and brain function. Pediatrics, 134, e1063-e1071.
Hillman, C. H., Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L. B., Castelli, D. M., Hall, E. E., & Kramer, A. F.
(2009). The effect of acute treadmill walking on cognitive control and academic
achievement in preadolescent children. Neuroscience, 3, 1044–1054.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under
stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology. 45,
73-93.
Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B.J., & Baddeley, A.D. (2012). Executive functions and selfregulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 174-180
Hogan, C. L., Mata, J., & Carstensen, L. L. (2013). Exercise holds immediate benefits for affect
and cognition in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 28, 587-594.
Holdwick, D. J., & Wingenfeld, S. A. (1999). The subjective experience of PASAT testing: Does
the PASAT induce negative mood? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 273-284.
Hulley, A., Bentley, N., Clough, C., Fishlock, A., Morrell, F., O’Brien, J., & Radmore, J. (2008).
Active and passive commuting to school: Influences on Affect in primary school
children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 525-534.
Izard, C.E. (1993). Organizational and motivational functions of discrete emotions. In M. Lewis
& J.M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 631–641). New York: Guilford.
Janssen, I., Craig, W. M., Boyce, W. F., & Pickett, W. (2004). Associations between overweight
and obesity and bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113, 1187-1193.
Kamijo, K., Nishihira, Y., Higashiura, T., & Kuroiwa, K. (2007). The interactive effect of
exercise intensity and task difficulty on human cognitive processing. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 65, 114-121.
Kamijo, K., Pontifex, M. B., O’Leary, K. C., Scudder, M. R., Wu, C., … Hillman, C. H. (2011).
The effects of an afterschool physical activity program on working memory in
preadolescent children. Developmental Science, 14, 1046 - 1058.

132

Kao, S., Westfall, D. R., Parks, A. C., Pontifex, M. B., & Hillman, C. H. (in press). Muscular and
aerobic fitness, working memory, and academic achievement in children. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise. Advanced online publication.
Kawamoto, T., Nittono, H., & Ura, M. (2013). Cognitive, affective, and motivational changes
during ostracism: An ERP, EMG, and EEG study using a computerized cyberball task.
Neuroscience Journal, 2013, 1-11.
Killen, M., Mulvey, K. L., & Hitti, A. (2013). Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental
intergroup perspective. Child Development, 84, 772-790.
Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 352-358.
Kross, E., Berman, M. G., Mischel, W., Smith, E. E., & Wagner, T. D. (2011). Social rejection
shares somatosensory representations with physical pain. PNAS: Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 6270-6275.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science : a
practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1-12.
Lambourne, K. & Tomporowski, P. (2010). The effect of exercise-induced arousal on cognitive
task performance: A meta-regression analysis. Brain Research, 1341, 12-24.
LaVigne, T., Hoza, B., Smith, A. L., Shoulberg, E. K., & Bukowski, W. (2016). Associations
between physical fitness and children’s psychological well-being. Journal of Clinical
Sport Psychology, 10, 32-47.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American
Psychologist, 47, 1019-1024.
Leary, M. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.),
Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness,
depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221-229.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of
anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111-112.
Leary, M. R., & Springer, C. A. (2001). Hurt feelings: The neglected emotion. In R. Kowalski
(Ed.), Aversive behaviors and interpersonal transgression (pp. 151–175). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

133

Leary, M. R., Springer, C. A., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes,
phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1225–1237.
Li, L., Men, W., Chang, Y., Fan, M., Ji, L., Wei, G. (2014). Acute aerobic exercise increases
cortical activity during working memory: A functional MRI study in female college
students. PLOS One, 9, e99222.
Lischner, D. A., Cooter, A. B., & Zald, D. H. (2008). Addressing measurement limitations in
affective rating scales: Development of an empirical valence scale. Cognition and
Emotion, 22, 180-192.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion
motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.” Interpersonal
Relations and Group Processes, 92, 42-55.
Martins, A. Q., Kavussanu, M., Willoughby, A., & Ring, C. (2013). Moderate intensity exercise
facilitates working memory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 323-328.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-96.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and
unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American
Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
Mattocks, C. Tilling, K., Ness, A., & Riddoch, C. (2008). Improvements in the measurement of
physical activity in childhood obesity research; Lessons from large studies of
accelerometers. Clinical Medicine: Pediatrics, 2, 27-36.
McAndrew, F. T., Akande, A., Turner, S., & Sharma, Y. (2001). A cross-cultural ranking of
stressful life events in Germany, India, South Africa, and the United States. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 717-727.
McClain, J. J., Welk, G. J., Ihmels, M., & Schaben, J. (2006). Comparison of two versions of the
PACER aerobic fitness test. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3(Suppl. 2), S47–S57.
Miller, E. K. & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual
Reviews in Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
Moffitt T. E., Arseneault L., Belsky D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harringon, H., …Caspi, A.
(2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America, 108,
2693-2698.

134

Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self-regulation and academic
achievement in the transition to school. In Posner & Calkins & Bell (Eds.), The
developing human brain: Development at the intersection of emotion and cognition.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Nakagawa, S., & Cuthill, I. C. (2007). Effect size, confidence interval and statistical
significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews, 82, 591-605.
Nelson, E. E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E. B., & Pine, D. S. (2005). The social re-orientation of
adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its relation to
psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 163–174.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A metaanalytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial , and average sociometric
status. Psychological Bullet, 113, 99-128.
Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997). Personality
moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection: Depression and trait self-esteem.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1235-1244.
Niu, G., Sun, X., Tian, Y., Fan., C., & Zhou, S. (2016). Resilience moderates the relationship
between ostracism and depression among Chinese adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 99, 77-80.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 9, 242-249.
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, 789-794.
Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., Castillo, M. J., & Sjöström, M. (2008). Physical fitness in childhood
and adolescence: A powerful marker of health. International Journal of Obesity, 32, 111.
Paluska, S. A., & Schwenk, T. L. (2000). Physical activity and mental health. Sports Medicine,
29, 167-180.
Panksepp, J. (1998). The periconscious substrates of consciousness: Affective states and the
evolutionary origins of the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 566-582.
Panksepp, J. (2005). On the embodied neural nature of core emotional affects. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 12, 158-184.
Pelegrina, S., Lechuga, M. T., Garcis-Madruga, J. A., Elosua, M. R., Macizo, P., Carreiras, M.,
… Bajo, M. T. (2015). Normative data on the n-back task for children and young
adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-11.

135

Pendedo, F. J., & Dahn, J. R. (2005). Exercise and well-being: A review of mental and physical
health benefits associated with physical activity. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18, 189193.
Pfeifer, J., & Blackmore, S. (2012). Adolescent social cognitive and affective neuroscience: Past,
present, and future. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 1-10.
Pontifex, M. B., Hillman, C. H., Fernhall, B., Thompson, K. M., & Valentini, T. A. (2009). The
effect of acute aerobic and resistance exercise on working memory. Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 41, 927-934.
Pontifex, M. B., Parks, A. C., Henning, D. A., & Kamijo, K. (2015). Single bouts of exercise
selectively sustain attentional processes. Psychophysiology, 52, 618-625.
Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L. B., Johnson, C. R., Chaddock, L., Voss, M. W., Cohen, N. J., …
Hillman, C. H. (2011). Cardiorespiratory fitness and the flexible modulation of cognitive
control in preadolescent children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1332-1345.
Pontifex, M. B., Saliba, B. J., Raine, L. B., Picchietti, D. L., & Hillman, C. H. (2013). Exercise
improves behavioral, neurocognitive, and scholastic performance in children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The Journal of Pediatrics, 162, 543-551.
Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 13, 160-166.
Possoa, L. (2017). Cognitive control and emotional processing. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley
Handbook of Cognitive Control (pp. 394-209). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A
review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and
Individual Differences, 20, 110-122.
Reed, J., & Ones, D. (2006). The effect of acute aerobic exercise on positive activated affect: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 477-514.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and
internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 34, 244-252.
Riva, P. (2016). Emotion regulation following social exclusion: Psychological and behavioral
strategies. In P. Riva & J. Eck (Eds.), Social Exclusion: Psychological Approaches to
Understanding and Reducing Its Impact (pp. 199-225). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing.
Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Truman, J. (2013). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012 (NCES
2013-036/NCJ 241446). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice.

136

Roig, M., Nordbrandt, S., Geertsen, S. S., & Nielson, J. B. (2013). The effects of cardiovascular
exercise on human memory: A review with meta-analysis. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1645-1666.
Rowland, T. (1998). The biological basis of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 30, 392–399.
Ruggieri, S., Bendixen, M., Gabriel, U., & Alsaker, F. (2013). Cyberball: The impact of
ostracism on the well-being of early adolescents. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 72, 103109.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological
Review, 110, 145-172.
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other
things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 805-819.
Saylor, C. F., Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A., McKenna, M. E., Twomey, K. E., Macias, M. M.
(2013). Ostracism in pediatric populations: Review of theory and research. Journal of
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34, 279-287.
Scneider, M., Graham, D., Grant, A., King, P., & Cooper, D. (2009). Regional brain activation
and affective response to physical activity among healthy adolescents. Biological
Psychology, 82, 246-252.
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K.D., & Blakemore, S.J. (2010) Social brain development
and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition, 72,
134–145.
Segrin, C., & Passalacqua, S. A. (2010). Functions of loneliness, social support, health
behaviors, and stress in association with poor health. Health Communication, 25, 312322.
Shvartz, E., & Reibold, R. C. (1990). Aerobic fitness norms for males and females aged 6 to 75
years: A review. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 61, 3–11.
Sibley, B. A., & Etnier, J. L. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in
children: A meta-analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243–256.
Smart Richman, L. & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization,
ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model.
Psychological Review, 16, 365-383.
Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: a road less travelled in
youth sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 4, 25–39.

137

Smith, A. L. (2007). Youth peer relationships in sport. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social
psychology in sport (pp. 41-54). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, A. L., & Delli Paoli, A. G. (in press). Fostering adaptive peer relationships in youth sport.
In C. Knight, C. Harwood, & D. Gould (Eds), Sport psychology for young athletes.
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of selfesteem and its role in social behavior. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (pp. 93–159). New York: Academic Press.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L. & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in
school: shifting, updating, inhibitory control, and working memory. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 745-759.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (Eds.). (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Themanson, J. R., Khatcherian, S. M., Ball, A. B., & Rosen, P. J. (2013). An event-related
examination of neural activity during social interactions. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 8, 727-733.
Thomas, S., Reading, J., & Shepard, R. J. (1992). Revision of the physical activity readiness
questionnaire (PAR-Q). Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 338-345.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, N. C., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social
exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 56-66.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them,
beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Social exclusion causes selfdefeating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 606-615. d
Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclusion and the
deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, lethargy, lack of emotion, and
self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409-423.
Trost, S. G., Loprinzi, P. D., Moore, R., Pfeiffer, K. A. (2011). Comparison of accelerometer cut
points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Methodological Advances, 43, 13601368.
Ullrich-French, S., McDonough, M. H., & Smith, A. L. (2012). Social connection and
psychological outcomes in physical activity-based youth development setting. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 431-441.

138

Utter, A. C., Robertson, R. J., Nieman, D. C., & Kang, J. (2002). Children’s OMNI scale of
perceived exertion: Walking/running evaluation. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 34, 139–144.
van Noordt, S. J. R., White, L. O., Wu, J., Mayes, L. C., & Crowley, M. J. (2015). Social
exclusion modulates event-related frontal theta and tracks ostracism distress in children.
NeuroImage, 118, 248-255.
Varni, J. W., Seid, M., & Rode, C. A. (1999). The PedsQLTM: Model for pediatric quality of life
inventory. Medical Care, 37, 126-139.
Verde, M. F., MacMillan, N. A., & Rotello, C. N. (2006). Measures of sensitivity based on a
single hit rate and false alarm rate: The accuracy, precision, and robustness of d’, Az, and
A’. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 643-654.
Verhagen, M., Lodder, M. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (in press). Unmet belongingness needs but not
high belongingness needs alone predict adverse well-being: A response surface modeling
approach. Journal of Personality.
Weiss, M. R., & Duncan, S. C. (1992). The relationship between physical competence and peer
acceptance in the context of children’s sports participation. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 14, 177-191.
Welk, G.J. (2002) Use of accelerometry-based activity accelerometers to assess physical activity.
In: G. J. Welk (Ed, p. 125-142.). Physical Activity Assessments for Health-Related
Research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of
executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 7, 131-149.
Weng, T. B., Pierce, G. L., Darling, W. G., & Voss, M. W. (2015). Differential effects of acute
exercise on distinct aspects of executive function. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 47, 1460-1469.
Wesselmann, E. D., Ren, D., Swim, E., & Williams, K. D. (2013). Rumination hinders recovery
from ostracism. International Journal of Developmental Science, 7, 33-39.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 275-314). Boston, MA: Academic
Press.
Williams, K. D. & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: a program for use in research on interpersonal
ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 174-180.

139

Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and coping. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 20, 71-75.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: does rejection
lead to loafing or compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–
706.
Williams, K. S., Yeager, D. S., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2012). Cyberball (version 4.0)
[Software]. Retrieved from https://cyberball.wikispaces.com
Williams, K. D., & Zadro, L. (2005). Ostracism: the indiscriminate early detection system. In K.
D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: ostracism, social
exclusion, rejection, and bullying. (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Williamson, D., Dewey, A., Steinberg, H. (2001). Mood change through physical exercise in
nine- to ten-year-old children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 311-316.
Wölfer, R., & Scheithauer, H. (2013). Ostracism in childhood and adolescence: Emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral effects of social exclusion. Social Influence, 8, 217-236.
Zadro, L. F., Hawes, D. J., Iannuzzelli, R. E., Godwin, A., MacNevin, G., Griffiths, B.,
Gonsalkorale, K. (2013). Ostracism and children: A guide to effectively using the
Cyberball paradigm with a child sample. International Journal of Developmental
Science, 7, 7-11.
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a
computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and
meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 560-567.

140