In search of 'incels': Can social exclusion push sexist men towards misogynistic right-wing groups?

In search of ‘incels’: Can social exclusion push sexist men towards
misogynistic right-wing groups?
Zach Loughery1, Emma Renström2, Hanna Bäck1, & Holly Knapton1
1
    Lund University, 2University of Gothenburg

Abstract
The present study sought to investigate the potential predictors that might lead men to join
misogynistic, politically extreme right-wing groups. The aims of this research were inspired by
the ‘incels’ subculture found within the online manosphere, a group of men who claim to have
been sexually and romantically rejected by women. They present as highly sexist and often
strongly endorse far-right ideologies. Relating the incels struggle for acceptance and potential for
violence to the quest for significance (Kruglanski, Chen, Dechesne, Fishman, & Orehek, 2009),
this research aimed to examine the relationship between social exclusion, sexism, and the desire
to join a right-wing group. A sample of American men (N=298) participated in an online study.
Following a manipulation in which half of the participants were subject to exclusion, all
participants were presented with promotional material for a fake right-wing ‘pop culture media’
community, and measured on how interested they were in joining this group. The results suggest
that whilst social exclusion itself was not significant in predicting the participants joining
intentions, an interaction between exclusion and sexism was, with rejected participants who
already harbored sexist notions being more likely to want to join the fake group. This finding is
in line with past research arguing that excluded individuals are more likely to turn to radical
groups if they share some of that group’s attitudes to begin with (Bäck, Bäck, Altermark, &
Knapton, 2018). Limitations and implications for future research are discussed within.

Introduction

Somewhere on the internet, you’ve probably encountered an incel before, even if you didn’t
realize it. You’ll find them in YouTube comment sections, Reddit, or in sexist memes doing the
rounds on Facebook. The term incel, meaning ‘involuntarily celibate’, is not particularly new,
having first originated in 1993 when a Canadian student created a website to detail her
frustration over her lack of sexual relationships. Yet the adoption of the term as a moniker for

angry, isolated men is a much more recent development, and it is the troubling growth of this
subculture that has begun to face media scrutiny in the recent years. Alek Minassian, perpetrator
of the Toronto van attack that killed 10 people in 2018, openly identified himself as an incel.
Shortly before the attack began, Minassian made a Facebook post, in which he declared, “The
Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the
Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!” Elliot Rodger, the man referenced here, murdered six
people in the Isla Vista killings of 2014, and released a lengthy manifesto in which he blamed his
lack of sexual fulfilment for his crimes.

Incels are characterized by their loneliness, fueled by a belief that they will forever be unable to
obtain a sexual relationship. This loneliness often comes accompanied by misogyny,
misanthropy, narcissism, racism, and resentment. Their intragroup dynamics consist of processes
which reinforce their existing beliefs, akin to an echo chamber. It is not uncommon for those
who identify as incels to post pictures of themselves for other incels to rate, resulting in
overwhelmingly negative appraisals that further strengthen the individual’s sense of self-loathing
and pity (Ging, 2017).

The incels emergence in the public sphere is no coincidence. In the last several years, there has
been a major shift towards populism in the politics of the Western world. Typified by the results
of the 2016 US Election and the UK’s Brexit referendum of the same year, there has been a
marked development in political tribalism, fueled by the growth of energetic new movements
and groups that have taken advantage of the internet to proliferate their ideologies and grow their
numbers (Bryden & Silverman, 2019). Perhaps the most prominent of these new groups to
emerge is the ‘alt-right,’ and the numerous subcultures that have emerged from within its sphere.
The exponential growth of the alt-right accompanied the surge in popularity of present US
president Donald Trump, and their efforts to support the Republican candidate during the
election became the focus of worldwide media (Heikkila, 2017).

Whilst the growth of the alt-right doubtlessly assisted in Trump’s election victory, it is their
broader influence on society that is of particular interest. Loosely organized, the alt-right’s
ideology seems to be inherently flexible, uniting right-wing groups across a broad spectrum,
everything from card-carrying neo-Nazi’s to more typical American conservatives (Love, 2017).

Under the alt-right’s umbrella, extremists can find shelter and even admiration. It is here where
the incels have carved out their own little niche.

Whilst they appear to share many traits with the more conventional alt-right, the incels
glorification of extreme acts of spree violence and intense misogyny make them one of the most
radical, and perhaps the most dangerous, of communities housed under the alt-right umbrella.
The pathways that might lead to an individual identifying with such an extreme group have yet to
be explored in the radicalization literature. As attempting to directly access such a fringe group
would create a number of practical and ethical issues for empirical study, any such exploration
must instead take a broader approach by examining the processes at work that might nudge a
vulnerable individual in the direction of groups such as these.

The present study aimed to take such an approach. Whilst there is a great deal of potential
underlying issues to unpack from the incel conundrum, the most obvious characteristics appear
to be feelings of exclusion, particularly by the opposite sex, and misogynistic attitudes. Sexism
has been previously identified as highly prevalent amongst the alt-right, particularly hostile
sexism, which was found to predict voting outcomes in favor of Donald Trump in the 2016 US
Election (Ratliff, Redford, Conway, & Smith, 2019). Sexist attitudes amongst Trump supporters
have been observed to have increased after the election, suggesting that Trump’s election success
has reinforced existing attitudes or emboldened their expression (Georgeac, Rattan, & Effron,
2019).

The other piece of the puzzle, social exclusion, has been examined at length in past research as a
potential factor in drawing isolated individuals towards radical groups. It has been suggested that
ostracized individuals are more likely to engage with extreme groups, expressing openness to
recruitment (Hales & Williams, 2018), and a willingness to take part in protest actions (Bäck,
Bäck, & Knapton, 2015; Knapton, Bäck, & Bäck, 2015). Excluded individuals are more likely to
view themselves with self-loathing or pity, a characteristic that appears to be common in incel
discourse. The most violent manifestation of this self-loathing could be a desire to ‘be someone,’
to make the world understand their plight. The quest for significance model (Kruglanski, Chen,
Dechesne, Fishman, & Orehek, 2009; Kruglanski et al., 2013) is built entirely on this motivation,
and past research supports the significance motive as influencing an excluded individual’s efforts
to adapt their attitudes to fit in with radical groups (Bäck, Bäck, Altermark, & Knapton, 2018).

As the quest for significance describes an attempt to resolve the crisis between an individual’s
belief in their own worth, and the lack of acknowledgement from the external world of this
worthiness (Jasko, LaFree & Kruglanski, 2017), the ‘dark trait’ of narcissism (Paulhus &
Williams, 2002) appears to have a great deal of relevance as a potential control. Incels seem
drawn almost exclusively to right-wing ideologies and commonly express authoritarian beliefs,
suggesting that right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981) should also be factored in as a
control.

In this research, we sought to test the influence of sexism and exclusion on an individual’s
willingness to join a right-wing misogynistic group. It was predicted that exclusion and sexism
would act as independent predictors of the participant’s intentions to join an extreme group, and
that an interaction between exclusion and sexism would also significantly predict intentions to
join, with excluded participants high in sexism being more likely to want to do so.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and ninety-eight men (Mean age = 34) were recruited from the online participant
pool provided by Prolific Academic. The sample was limited to users currently living in the
United States at the time of the study, and was further restricted to participants aged eighteen
years or older.

Design & Procedure

The study utilized a between-subjects design in its approach to examining the effects of sexism
and exclusion on the participant’s willingness to join a right-wing, sexist group. The primary
independent variables measured were social exclusion, manipulated via experimental condition
(excluded/included) and sexism. In addition, right wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer,
1981) and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) were measured as controls given an expected
association with the participants openness to joining such a group. The dependent variable was a
measurement of the participant’s desire to join the group.

Upon self-selecting to participate in the study via Prolific Academic, participants were redirected
to an initial questionnaire hosted through Qualtrics, in which they were measured on

demographic information and presented a battery of scales intended to create a baseline reading
for sexism, RWA, and the dark traits. Following the completion of this questionnaire, they were
redirected to an additional website, on which an artificial social media environment was hosted
(Wolf et al., 2015). On this website, participants were tasked with giving themselves a username,
selecting an avatar from a list of pre-selected silhouettes, and writing a brief profile about
themselves and their interests. They were informed that they would be sharing their profile with
other participants in the study, and would have the opportunity to ‘like’ profiles that they found
interesting, just as they too could receive ‘likes’ in return. Participants were led to believe that
the other profiles they were reading were real, but in actuality, they were pre-written by the
researchers.

The participants were randomly sorted between the inclusion and exclusion conditions prior to
their redirection to the social media environment. Those who were excluded received only a
single like during the three minute ‘sharing’ session that took place after they had constructed
their profiles, whilst those who were included received seven. When the allotted three minutes
were up, the participants were then redirected back to Qualtrics to continue with the survey
segment of the study.

Upon completion of this manipulation check, participants were informed that, based on the
answers they had provided thus far, they had been selected to receive information concerning a
‘third-party website’ interested in obtaining their opinions. All participants received this message
regardless of any of their previous answers. They were then redirected once more to a survey
supposedly provided by this third-party website, a group identifying themselves as the “Men of
America”. Describing themselves as a ‘brand new media website with a focus on pop culture and
society’, the group’s description was written to be colorful and blatant with regards to their
political stance, taking a ‘men first’ stance and decrying political correctness and ‘leftist crazies.’
Although presented as a real group, they were in fact entirely fictional, devised for the purposes
of the study.

The Men of America component of the study presented participants briefly with some relevant
questions specific to the group’s content, such as gauging the participants interests in different
forms of media (e.g Movies, Comic Books, Video Games), or asking them how much they
agreed or disagreed with statements made concerning trends they might have noticed in media,

such as “Beloved franchises like Star Wars are being ruined because the filmmakers are trying to
send political messages.” Following their propaganda package and the questions that followed,
participants were measured on how interested they would be on joining the group. The procedure
followed those outlined by Bäck and colleagues (2018).

Once the group survey had been completed, participants were redirected to a final debrief
section. Further manipulation checks were used to ensure that the experimental social media
environment worked correctly, such as asking the participants if they were able to read the
profiles of other participants, or see their avatars. They were also asked directly whether they
thought they were ignored, excluded, or if they thought the other ‘participants’ had liked the
profile they had written. Participants were offered a chance to provide initial feedback prior to
the debrief. Afterwards, they were fully informed of the deception involved throughout the study,
and given a second chance to give feedback in light of this new information.

Materials

Social exclusion was measured using a condition-based experimental approach, conducted
through the use of an artificial social media environment, Ostracism Online (Wolf et al., 2015).
This environment was hosted on a website managed by the researchers. Participants were
randomly split between the inclusion and exclusion condition. Dummy coding was then used
during the analysis to represent this variable (1 = Exclusion, 0 = Inclusion).

Sexism was measured using the eight-item Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter,
1995; α = .89). Presented alongside the items measuring RWA, the participants were asked to
indicate how much they agreed on several statements concerning a variety of societal issues.
These items were measured on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 =
“Strongly agree”, and example items include “Discrimination against women is no longer a
problem in the United States”, or “Women often miss out on good jobs due to sexual
discrimination.”

An eighteen-item measurement (α = .91) of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) accompanied the
sexism scale described previously, with the same instructions. These items were adapted from
the original right-wing authoritarianism scale devised by Altemeyer (1981), and measured on a
seven-point scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” Sample items include

“Our prisons are a shocking disgrace. Criminals are unfortunate people who deserve much better
care, instead of so much punishment”, or “The “old-fashioned ways” and “old-fashioned values”
still show the best way to live.”

Narcissism was measured using the narcissism inventory on the Short Dark Triad scale (SD3;
Jones & Paulhus, 2014). The trait was measured using nine items (α = .80), and participants were
simply instructed to indicate how much they agree with the statements presented, using a five-
point scale ranging from “Disagree strongly” to “Agree strongly.” Example items include “I
know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so” or “I have been compared to
famous people.”

The participant’s desire to join the group was measured using a single item, “How interested
would you be in joining Men of America?”, with responses made on a five-point scale, ranging
from “Not interested” to “Very interested.”

Results
Descriptive statistics for all of the continuous variables used in the study are presented in Table
1. In order to assess whether or not participants had been appropriately affected by the exclusion
manipulation, a t-test was performed using the condition (exclusion/inclusion) as the grouping
variable, and two manipulation check items, “I was ignored” and “I was excluded.” The results
support the effectiveness of the manipulation, with excluded participants expressing significantly
higher feelings of being ignored (M = 3.06, SD = 1.35, t(225) = 12.27, p =

of which are found in Table 2. Social exclusion is represented in the model by the condition
variable, which is dummy coded for the analysis (1 = Exclusion, 0 = Inclusion). Narcissism and
RWA are added as controls, with two-way interactions between the condition, sexism, and RWA
added in the second stage of the model.

The final model accounted for 26% of the variance in the dependent variable. Exclusion was
non-significant in both stages of the model, whilst sexism is significant in the first stage but
becomes non-significant once the interactions are accounted for. Narcissism and RWA both
emerge as positive significant predictors of the participant’s intentions to join the Men of
America, regardless of the interactions. We also find a significant effect for the interaction
between exclusion and sexism, presented in Figure 1, which suggests that sexist participants
were more likely to want to join the group if they had been rejected during the experimental
manipulation. The interaction between exclusion and RWA is non-significant.

Figure 1. Effect of sexism moderated by exclusion on group joining intentions

Table 2. Hierarchical regression model to predict participant’s desire to join Men of
America group

    Step and Predictor Variable          B      SE B    β        p             R2 Adj.
    Step 1. Controls and Main Effects                                          .25*
    Condition                           -.08    .13    -.03     .51
    Sexism                              .19**   .05    .20**    .00
    Narcissism                          .34**   .08    .19**    .00
    RWA                                 .36**   .07    .20**    .00
    Step 2. Interactions                                                       .26*
    Condition                           -.14    .47    -.05     .75
    Sexism                              .07     .07    .07      .34
    Narcissism                          .35**   .08    .20**    .00
    RWA                                 .48**   .10    .40**    .00
    Condition x Sexism                  .26*    .11    .41*     .02
    Condition x RWA                     -.26    .14    -.38     .07
*
p < .05, **p < .01.

Discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate the potential influence of sexism and social exclusion
on men’s desire to join right-wing, misogynistic groups, inspired by the rhetoric commonly
employed by ‘incels.’ The results suggest that these factors in and of themselves do not seem to
significantly influence this desire, but that an interaction between them does. Men who already
harbored sexist ideas were significantly more likely to wish to join the ‘Men of America’ group
once they had been subject to exclusion. This follows the argument made by past research that
rejection alone is not sufficient to drive a ‘normal’ person towards an extreme group, but that
instead they must have some existing attitudes that direct them towards a group where these
attitudes could be not only accepted, but reinforced (Bäck, Bäck, Altermark, & Knapton, 2018).

These results reflect the complexity of the underlying processes that lay behind the new wave of
right-wing radicalization. An individual’s recruitment into an extreme right-wing group is likely
to involve some element of self-radicalization, which may come down to seeking out websites,
social media groups, and other sources of information that either confirm the individual’s
worldview, or pushes them further down the rabbit hole towards yet more hateful beliefs
(Johnson, 2018). In this study, participants were presented with one such source of information, a
highly misogynistic source, but only those who were already sexist were drawn towards it.

The moderating effect of exclusion in this study is a finding that supports those made by similar
past research concerning ostracism, rejection, and openness to extreme groups (Hales &
Williams, 2018; Knapton, Bäck, & Bäck, 2015; Bäck, Bäck, & Knapton, 2015). As exclusion
seems to be the primary grievance expressed by the subject of the study’s interest, the ‘incels,’
this finding highlights the potential importance of ostracism in unravelling the major pathways to
far-right radicalization that vulnerable individuals may take.

Limitations

It is important to note that the present study cannot draw any concrete conclusions regarding the
incels subculture described throughout, simply because the participants were not drawn directly
from a population that identifies themselves as incels. As described in the introduction, accessing
such a group for empirical research presents numerous challenges, and there exists almost no
published literature to date that could set a precedent for study.

Concerning the mechanism of exclusion explored in the current study, it should also be
considered that incels seem to be primarily frustrated with their romantic rejection by women.
The manipulation used in this study did not deal with romantic rejection in any sense and instead
explored feelings of ostracism through a social media simulation, without any particular
intention to make the participants feel like they had been rejected by a prospective romantic
partner. Future manipulations could attempt to correct this limitation either through direct or
indirect means, although good ethical practice should be considered.

The inherent challenges and limitations offered by using an online participant pool should also
be noted. Whilst Prolific Academic has systems in place for validating their userbase and
blacklisting spurious responders, there is no way of guaranteeing that every data entry found in
the sample was made by a serious participant. Any survey-based method of sample collection is
prone to the risk of participants skimming through instructions, missing items, or providing false
data, but these risks are somewhat more pronounced in an online environment where monetary
incentives are provided for survey completion. In the present study, this limitation was addressed
through extensive cleaning of the data set to remove error-strewn entries.

Implications

As the present study only focused on two potential factors that might motivate an individual to
join an extreme group, it stands to reason that there could be many more. As the alt-right and its
subcultures, particularly incels, express many different beliefs and ideologies, it stands to reason
that there may be many more attitudinal factors in play than simply sexism. Racism, nationalism,
a belief in conspiracy theories, and more could all play a role. Demographic factors such as age
and race are also worth considering, as are socioeconomic factors and mental health.

To build on the present study’s results, future research should look to ostracism as a moderator
and continue to explore the factors it may interact with to motivate intentions to join or
participate in hate-filled groups. Novel methods of manipulation exclusion may prove especially
useful for experimental designs.

Conclusion

This research sought to conduct the first exploration of its kind into the elusive ‘incels,’ a fringe
group of alt-right men characterized by their loneliness and their loathing of women. We found
that whilst sexist attitudes and feelings of rejection alone don’t seem to be enough to drive an
individual towards a misogynistic group, the interaction between these two does. Although only
scratching the surface of the problem, the present study serves as a solid foundation upon which
future research could build.

References
Bäck, E. A., Bäck, H. & Knapton, H. (2015). Group Belongingness and Collective Action:
Effects of Need to Belong and Rejection Sensitivity on Willingness to Participate in Protest
Activities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(5), 537-544.

Bryden, J. & Silverman, E. (2019). Underlying socio-political processes behind the 2016 US
election. PLoS ONE, 14(4).

Georgeac, O. A. M., Rattan, A., & Effron, D. A. (2019). An Exploratory Investigation of
Americans' Expression of Gender Bias Before and After the 2016 Presidential Election. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 632–642.

Ging, D. (2017). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere.
Men and Masculinities.

Hales, A., & Williams, K. (2018). Marginalized Individuals and Extremism: The Role of
Ostracism in Openness to Extreme Groups. Journal Of Social Issues, 74(1), 75-92.

Heikkila, N. (2017). Online Antagonism of the Alt-Right in the 2016 Election. European Journal
of American Studies, 12(2).

Johnson, J. (2018). The Self-Radicalization of White Men: "Fake News" and the Affective
Networking of Paranoia. Communication, Culture, and Critique, 11(1), 100-115.

Jones, D., & Paulhus, D. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment, 21(1), 28-
41.

Knapton, H., Bäck, H., & Bäck, E. A. (2015). The Social Activist: Conformity to the Ingroup
Following Rejection as a Predictor of Political Participation. Social Influence, 10(2), 97-108.

Love, N.S (2017). Back to the Future: Trendy Fascism, the Trump Effect, and the Alt-Right.
New Political Science, 39(2), 263-268.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.

Pollard, T. (2018). Alt-Right Transgressions in the Age of Trump. Perspectives on Global
Development and Technology, 17(1-2), 76-88.

Ratliff, K. A., Redford, L., Conway, J. & Smith, C. T. (2019). Engendering support:
Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US
presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(4), 578–593.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199-214.

Wolf, W., Levordashka, A., Ruff, J. R., Kraaijeveld, S., Lueckmann, J. M., & Williams, K. D.
(2015). Ostracism Online: A social media ostracism paradigm. Behavior Research Methods,
47(2), 361-373.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.

Bäck, E. A., Bäck, H. & Knapton, H. (2015). Group Belongingness and Collective Action:
Effects of Need to Belong and Rejection Sensitivity on Willingness to Participate in Protest
Activities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(5), 537-544.

Bäck, E. A., Bäck, H., Altermark, N., & Knapton, H. M. (2018). The quest for significance:
Attitude adaption to a radical group following social exclusion. International Journal of
Developmental Science, 12, 25-36.

Bryden, J. & Silverman, E. (2019). Underlying socio-political processes behind the 2016 US
election. PLoS ONE, 14(4).

Georgeac, O. A. M., Rattan, A., & Effron, D. A. (2019). An Exploratory Investigation of
Americans' Expression of Gender Bias Before and After the 2016 Presidential Election. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 632–642.

Ging, D. (2017). Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere.
Men and Masculinities.

Hales, A., & Williams, K. (2018). Marginalized Individuals and Extremism: The Role of
Ostracism in Openness to Extreme Groups. Journal Of Social Issues, 74(1), 75-92.

Heikkila, N. (2017). Online Antagonism of the Alt-Right in the 2016 Election. European Journal
of American Studies, 12(2).

Jasko, K. , LaFree, G. & Kruglanski, A. (2017), Quest for Significance and Violent Extremism:
The Case of Domestic Radicalization. Political Psychology, 38, 815-831.Altemeyer, B.
(1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.

Johnson, J. (2018). The Self-Radicalization of White Men: "Fake News" and the Affective
Networking of Paranoia. Communication, Culture, and Critique, 11(1), 100-115.

Jones, D., & Paulhus, D. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Assessment, 21(1), 28-
41.

Knapton, H., Bäck, H., & Bäck, E. A. (2015). The Social Activist: Conformity to the Ingroup
Following Rejection as a Predictor of Political Participation. Social Influence, 10(2), 97-108.

Kruglanski, A. W., Belanger, J. J., Gelfand, M., Gunaratna, R., Hettiarachchi, M., & Sharvit, K.
(2013). Terrorism - a (self) love story: Redirecting the significance quest can end violence.
American Psychologist, 68, 559-575.

Kruglanski, A. W., Chen, X., Dechesne, M., Fishman, S., & Orehek, E. (2009). Fully committed:
Suicide bombers' motivation and the quest for personal significance. Political Psychology, 30,
331-557.

Love, N.S (2017). Back to the Future: Trendy Fascism, the Trump Effect, and the Alt-Right.
New Political Science, 39(2), 263-268.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.

Pollard, T. (2018). Alt-Right Transgressions in the Age of Trump. Perspectives on Global
Development and Technology, 17(1-2), 76-88.

Ratliff, K. A., Redford, L., Conway, J. & Smith, C. T. (2019). Engendering support:
Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US
presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(4), 578–593.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199-214.

Wolf, W., Levordashka, A., Ruff, J. R., Kraaijeveld, S., Lueckmann, J. M., & Williams, K. D.
(2015). Ostracism Online: A social media ostracism paradigm. Behavior Research Methods,
47(2), 361-373.