Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2017 Feb 21;153:359–368. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.050

Table 1.

Social exclusion studies meeting inclusionary criteria

Study N (M) Age Task Design N (foci) Developmental sub-analyses Design sub-analyses
Beeney et al., 2011 20 (10) 24.6 (5.8), 18 – 35 Others-Cyberball Block 9
Bolling et al., 2011a 21 (15) 12.90 (2.59), 7–18 Cyberball Block 10 Developmental Alternating
Bolling et al., 2011c 33 (11) 24.0 (3.81) Cyberball Block 12 Emerging adult Alternating
Bolling et al., 2012 20 (11) 24.99 (3.91) Cyberball Block 12 Emerging adult Alternating
Bolling et al., 2015a 15 (9) 11.88 (3.2), 7–18 Cyberball Block 12 Developmental Alternating
Bolling et al., 2015b 20 (10) 12.61(2.5), 7–17 Cyberball Block 12 Developmental Alternating
Bonenberger et al., 2015 31 (0) 22.2 (3.38) Cyberball Block 8 Emerging adult Traditional
DeWall et al., 2012 25 (9) Undergraduate Cyberball Block 15 Emerging adult Traditional
Domsalla et al., 2014 40 (0) 1: 28.7 (7.8)
2: 29.2 (7.5)
Cyberball Block 12 Emerging adult Alternating
Eisenberger et al., 2003 13 (4) Undergraduate Cyberball Block 4 Emerging adult Traditional
Falk et al., 2014 36 (36) 16.8 (0.47), 16–17 Cyberball Block 6 Developmental Traditional
Gonzalez et al., 2015 85 (40) 24.5 (1.35) Cyberball Block 6 Emerging adult Traditional
Gradin et al., 2012 16 (7) 40.87 (11.72) Cyberball Block 3 Alternating
Gunther Moor et al., 2010 57 (27) 1: 9.7 (0.9), 8–10
2: 13.3 (0.8), 12–14
3: 17.1 (0.6), 16–17
4: 21.7 (1.9), 19–25
Social Judgment Event 0
Gunther Moor et al., 2012 53 (22) 1: 11.8(0.87), 10–12
2: 15.74(0.74), 14–16
3: 20.38(0.8), 19–21
Cyberball Events 9 Traditional (events)
Guyer et al., 2012 36 (20) 13.54 (2.5), 9–18 Chatroom Event 0
Gyurak et al., 2012 33 (12) 20.61 (1.77) Viewing paintings Block 4
Karremans et al., 2011 15 (5) 22 (19–33) Cyberball Block 13 Emerging adult Traditional
Kawamoto et al., 2012 22 (3) 20.7 (1.7), 18–24 Cyberball Events 12 Emerging adult Alternating (events)
Lee et al., 2014 16 (9) 27.4 (6.9) Virtual handshake Event 3
Masten et al., 2009 23 (9) 13.0, 12.4–13.6 Cyberball Block 4 Developmental Traditional
Masten et al., 2011a 17 (15) 13.6 (2.5) Cyberball Block 19 Developmental Traditional
Masten et al., 2011d 18 (9) 21.4 (19–28) Cyberball Block 15 Emerging adult Traditional
Masten et al., 2011c 16 (7) 19.88, 18–24 Others-Cyberball Block 5
Masten et al., 2012 21 (7) 17.77 (0.43) Cyberball Block 25 Developmental
Meyer et al., 2013 16 (12) 21.69 (2.12) Others-Cyberball Block 7
Nishiyama et al., 2015 46 (17) 19.85 (no range) Cyberball Block 14 Emerging adult
Novembre et al., 2015 23 (0) 22.4 (2.0), 20–28 Cyberball Block 13 Emerging adult
Onoda et al., 2009 26 (11) 21.79 (1.3), 20–25 Cyberball Block 2 Emerging adult
Preller et al., 2016 21 (12) 26.48 (4.76) Cyberball Events 27 Emerging adult Traditional (events)
Puetz et al., 2014 51 (25) 1: 10.6 (1.75)
2: 10.38 (1.7)
Cyberball Block 2 Developmental Traditional
Premkumar et al., 2012 26 (5) 1: 30 (10.58)
2: 28.64 (6.07)
Viewing IAPS pictures Block 9
Sebastian et al., 2010a 19 (0) 14 – 28 Rejection Stroop Block 8
Sebastian et al., 2011 35 (0) 1: 15.44 (0.81, 14–17
2: 28.70 (3.91), 24–39
Cyberball Block 12 Alternating
Silk et al., 2014 48 (14) 15.48 (1.68), 11–17 Chatroom Event 0
Van Harmelen et al., 2014 46 (12) 1: 18.31 (1.23)
2: 18.85 (1.90)
Cyberball Events 8 Emerging adult Traditional (events)
Via et al., 2015 20 (0) 28.15 (8.62) Social Judgment Block 12
Will et al., 2015 28 (12) 20.7 (1.97) Cyberball Events 13 Emerging adult Traditional (events)
Will et al., 2016 44 (26) 14.0 (0.70) Cyberball Events 5 Developmental Traditional (events)
Wudarczyk et al., 2015 24 (14) 24.33 (2.91), 18–29 Cyberball Block 3 Emerging adult

Note: N (M) = total sample size (number of males). “Others-Cyberball” involved participants watching others/peers playing Cyberball. Design sub-analyses all represent block designs unless noted otherwise (i.e. as event-related).