Bullying vs. Ostracism: A social developmental neuroscience perspective on rejection.

The social and material costs of rejection are high for children, adolescents,
and adults. It has been linked to the infamous school shootings, absenteeism
and poor school performance. But what do we mean when we talk about rejection?
The goal of the current research program is to show that it is important to
distinguish between two types of rejection: rejection based on the presence of
negative attention (i.e., bullying) and rejection based on the absence of
attention (i.e., ostracism).
These different rejection types will be studied from a social developmental
neuroscience perspective. It has been consistently shown in the neuroscience
literature that there is an upsurge of emotional regions at the onset of
adolescence, whereas cognitive and mentalizing regions mature later during
adolescence and early adulthood. This suggests that whereas young adolescents
may experience rejection with negative affect, they may not yet realize the
harmful effects the act of rejection has on others. I further argue that this
mismatch between the experience and the act of rejection during early
adolescence is greater for ostracism than for bullying.

In three projects using behavioral and neuroimaging techniques, I will
investigate whether the experience of ostracism is more painful than the
experience of bullying (project 1), whether younger, compared to older,
children ostracize others more than bully others (project 2) and whether after
the act younger, compared to older, children empathize less with the victim
when they ostracize than when they bully others (project 3).
This innovative program will highlight the role of brain development in
negative peer relationships across adolescence. Moreover, the results will
contribute to the development of intervention programs aimed at preventing
rejection, by emphasizing the important distinction between the act and the
experience of different types of rejection (bullying vs. ostracism).

This study uses an experimental design. Participants will perform
computerized decision-making tasks and we will measure brain activation using
functional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) while they are performing the tasks.

We will not use medication, just MRI scans.
To study the effects of bullying and ostracism (on victims and actors)
and their underlying neural mechanisms, we will use the Cyberball paradigm
(Williams, Chung, & Chow, 2000; Williams & Jarvis, 2006). In Cyberball,
participants play a computer ballgame with two other participants, in which
they can throw a ball at each other. The paradigm enables you to receive or
give excessive negative attention (i.e., bullying) or no attention at all
(i.e., ostracism). The original version of Cyberball aimed to manipulate
ostracism. The game was programmed such that after a while, the other two
players would no longer throw the ball to the participant. Other research has
used the game to study bullying, by adding a negative value to receiving the
ball (Lelieveld et al., 2013; Van Beest et al., 2011; Van Beest, & Williams,
2006). With each received ball toss participants lost a certain amount of
money. Players can thus give negative attention to other players by throwing
the ball to them.
Cyberball is a well-validated paradigm that has been applied in
numerous studies to study different types of rejection in fields such as
social, clinical, developmental and biological psychology (Scheithauer,
Alsaker, Wölfer, & Ruggieri, 2013). This elegant paradigm allows researchers to
experimentally initiate ostracism and bullying, in adults and children (Zadro
et al., 2013). Moreover, because it is one of the few rejection paradigms that
is suitable for use in the MRI scanner, it has been used often to study the
neural correlates of rejection.

There are no known risks associated with participating in an fMRI study. This
is a noninvasive technique involving no catheterizations or introduction of
exogenous tracers. Numerous children and adults have undergone magnetic
resonance studies without apparent harmful consequences. Some people become
claustrophobic while inside the magnet and in these cases the study will be
terminated immediately at the subject's request. The only absolute
contraindications to MRI studies are the presence of intracranial or
intraocular metal, or a pacemaker. Relative contraindications include pregnancy
and claustrophobia. Subjects who may be pregnant, who may have metallic foreign
bodies in the eyes or head, or who have cardiac pacemakers will be excluded
because of potential contraindications of MRI in such subjects. Although there
is no direct benefit to the participants from this proposed research, there are
greater benefits to society from the potential knowledge gained from this
study. This knowledge about normal development is critical to aid in the
understanding of cases of abnormal development, as seen in children with
autism, schizophrenia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Tourette*s syndrome, or traumatic brain injury.