Fig 1.
Representation of the three phases of the study.
After a brief training phase, participants participated in the actual Cyberball being either included or excluded at the game (a); to make it more credible, participants were told that two other players were playing online.. In the test phase, participants completed the PNQ or PNQ-C (b) and right after played the gaze cueing task being asked to press a key on the keyboard when the target (i.e., colored dot) was presented (i.e., “k” when it appeared on the right and “d” when it appeared on the left side of the face).
Fig 2.
After 1000/1500ms of fixation cross the face appears and stays with the eyes towards the child for 900ms, subsequently the face gazes right or left and after a SOA of 200/300/400ms, the target appears either in a valid (1) or invalid (2) position compared to the cue.
Fig 3.
Results regarding 6-year-old children’s accuracy in responding to the target.
(*p < .05).
Fig 4.
Results regarding 10-year-old children’s accuracy in responding to the target.
Considering SOA, validity and condition as independent variables and accuracy as dependent variable (*p < .05). The graphs depict a comparison between valid and invalid trials in the (a) inclusion condition and (b) ostracism condition.
Fig 5.
Results regarding adult and children participants’ RTs both in the inclusion and ostracism condition.
Considering validity and condition as independent variables and RTs as dependent variable (*p < .05).