Based on the existing research, being excluded from information (i.e., being out of the loop) produces similar consequences as being ignored or excluded from activities. Consequently, one might wonder whether it is necessary to measure or study different types of exclusion in the workplace context, rather than just assessing a single type of exclusion. The current research investigated the associations between two types of workplace exclusion (i.e., being ostracized and being left out of the loop) and various workplace outcomes, with the purpose of determining whether these different types of exclusion predict unique or redundant variance in these workplace outcomes. In Study 1, we obtained better model fit when we assigned items measuring out-of-the-loop experiences at work to a different factor than items assessing experiences with ostracism at work. In Study 2, we observed that measuring employees' experiences with being out of the loop predicted unique variance in workplace outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction), above and beyond experiences with ostracism at work. Relative weight analyses suggested that both ostracism and out-of-the-loop experiences were equally important predictors of these outcomes. Together, these studies indicate that being ostracized and being left out of the loop may be distinct exclusion experiences and better predictions about workplace outcomes can be made by assessing both types of exclusion. On a practical level, measuring different types of exclusion may prove useful, because organizations may need to implement different interventions for addressing distinct types of exclusion.

We explored conditions under which being in the loop may be an undesirable experience. We tested whether information valence moderates the effects of being in versus out of the loop in four studies. In a pilot study, participants imagined positive and negative events and indicated the degree to which they would like to know this information. In Study 1, participants imagined being in or out of the loop on positive or negative information and indicated how they would feel. In Study 2, participants relived an actual experience when they were in or out of the loop on positive or negative information. In Study 3, participants were in or out of the loop on positive or negative information needed for an upcoming task. These studies provide evidence that being in the loop on negative information can be an unenjoyable experience, threatening fundamental needs and increasing negative affect.

Despite the pain ostracism (being excluded and ignored) causes, researchers have minimally investigated factors related to reducing its occurrence. We investigated the association between higher trait mindfulness (the tendency to be attentive to the present moment) and lower engagement in ostracism. In Study 1, employed adults scoring higher on trait mindfulness reported ostracizing coworkers less. In Study 2, participants possessing higher levels of trait mindfulness demonstrated greater inclusion of a fellow group member being ostracized by others in the group. Results suggested that attention, rather than empathy, was the psychological process responsible for greater inclusion of an ostracized group member by mindful individuals. Study 3 supported this conclusion because participants responded similarly to those high in trait mindfulness when they were instructed to pay attention and ensure all players were included equally. Overall, we found that people with higher levels of trait mindfulness are more attentive to targets of ostracism.

Several high-profile cases involving wrongful convictions have featured factually incorrect confessions (i.e., confessions that contradicted case facts). The current research investigated the effects of factually incorrect confessions on juror judgments. In Experiment 1, participants read a trial transcript, containing either no confession, a factually correct confession, or a factually incorrect confession after a 1-hour or 10-hour interrogation. Afterwards, participants judged the coerciveness of the confession, guilt of the suspect and named accomplice, and strength of the prosecution's case. Experiment 2 used confessions with different factual errors and different interrogation lengths. Participants made the same legal judgments. In both experiments, participants rated a factually incorrect confession as more coerced than a factually correct confession. Participants fully discounted factually incorrect confessions when evaluating a defendant's guilt. However, compared to conditions with no confession, participants perceived a named accomplice as guiltier and the prosecution's case as stronger when the defendant provided a factually incorrect confession.

Ostracism is a ubiquitous phenomenon, occurring across a broad range of social contexts and detrimentally impacting personal outcomes. Through enhanced present-moment attention and awareness, mindfulness-based interventions may help prevent this harmful behavior. The current research examined the role of state mindfulness in reducing the propensity to commit ostracism. This relationship was investigated in two studies: a field-based quasi-experiment (Study 1, n=51) and a laboratory-based experiment (Study 2, n=100). Both studies supported the utility of brief mindfulness-based interventions in reducing the propensity to ostracize others. The current studies support the relevance of mindfulness in addressing the substantial problem of ostracism. Among other benefits, fostering mindfulness in a variety of contexts may help reduce personal and social costs associated with this type of incivility. This research represents the first known attempt to utilize a personal resource (mindfulness) to decrease the degree to which individuals ostracize others.

Research has investigated how jurors perceive lone eyewitness testimony. However, little research exists on jurors' perceptions of cases involving multiple witnesses. Two experiments examined how contrast effects influence judgments in cases with two witnesses. After reading testimony from an inconsistent or consistent witness, participants rated the credibility and accuracy of a target second witness who displayed either consistency or inconsistency. Both experiments showed that the first witness's consistency affected perceptions of a target second witness. When the target witness testified after another witness exhibiting the same level of consistency, participants perceived an inconsistent target witness as less coherent, credible, and accurate than a consistent target witness. However, when the target witness followed a witness demonstrating a different level of consistency, participants differentiated even more between a consistent and inconsistent target witness. These contrast effects also influenced perceptions of the defendant's culpability.

A common finding in the brainstorming literature is that nominal groups outperform interacting groups (Mullen et al., 1991). Traditionally, this performance gap has been explained by cognitive and motivational failures stemming from group dynamics. The current research investigated a different mechanism for the shortcomings of interacting groups, namely the role of members' performance expectations for groups. Two studies showed that, when presented with an idea generation scenario, participants expected groups to generate fewer ideas per member as the number of people working together increased. A third study demonstrated that these performance expectations predicted idea output by actual groups. Together, these studies suggest that interacting groups may underperform, because people do not expect groups to generate ideas in proportion to the number of people in them.

Knowledge specialization, such as that present in cross-functional teams, produces both positive and negative outcomes. Our research investigated how unique expertise can lead to feelings of ostracism in the form of being out of the loop. Compared to group members with shared expertise, members with unique expertise felt out of the loop and experienced decreased fulfillment of fundamental needs, particularly when their expertise was to be given less weight in the group's decision. Possessing unique expertise did not inhibit leadership emergence, even when that expertise should not have been used in the decision-making process. So, although knowledge specialization can have positive consequences for teams and task performance, it also has some negative psychological consequences that need to be understood. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose. Confidence inflation in eyewitnesses obscures a useful cue to identification accuracy and affects evaluations of eyewitnesses (e.g., Bradfield & McQuiston, 2004; Jones, Williams, & Brewer, 2008). We examine whether sensitivity to confidence inflation evidence is enhanced by seeing a videotape of the identification procedure. Methods. Participants (N= 131) watched a videotaped trial in which the witness's original confidence statement was presented as part of a previously recorded videotaped identification procedure or read by the witness at trial. In addition, the witness's identification confidence was either consistently high or low at the time of the identification and high at the trial (i.e., it was inflated). Results. Significant interactions demonstrated that confidence inflation evidence factored into judgments of the eyewitness and defendant guilt more strongly in the videotape condition compared with the read condition. Conclusions. The present results support recommendations to collect immediate confidence reports and videotape identification procedures. Using videotape evidence may help innocent defendants convince jurors that the eyewitness's identification is not accurate.

In an interview study of members of an online community, one of the most daunting tasks is finding people who are willing to talk to you – and doing so ethically. Since 1997, I have taught a Georgia Tech class called "Design of Online Communities," in which students are assigned to interview at least three members of an online group and also engage in participant observation. The class began at the graduate level, and now is offered to undergraduates as well. Teams of three students study the same site and write up a detailed account of its design. The goal of the assignment is, first, to help students understand how designed features of an online site impact user behavior. Second, the project introduces them to interviewing and participant observation as research methods for understanding online behavior. As you might imagine, interesting things happen when I unleash 40 new student researchers each year.

Being out of the loop, or uninformed of information mutually known by others, is a common occurrence with potentially negative consequences. We manipulated whether participants experienced being in or out of the loop during a group problem-solving task. Compared to participants who were in the loop and able to contribute to the task, participants who experienced being out of the loop reported thwarted fundamental needs, decreased mood, reduced competence, and less liking of group members. Additionally, out-of-the-loop group members participated less. Mediation analyses showed that perceived participation accounted for the aforementioned deleterious effects for all dependent measures. Analyses of interaction content demonstrated that out-of-the-loop participants had relatively more positive experiences to the extent that they asked for suggestions and gave opinions and did not need to ask others for information or their opinions. Our results have implications for a variety of group settings and draw attention to even seemingly innocuous forms of everyday ostracism.

Studies show the importance of information sharing in decision making. However, information sharing also affects intrapersonal perceptions and group dynamics. Three experiments demonstrated that out-of-the-loop individuals experienced thwarted needs (e.g., belonging) and decreased trust and liking of group members. Experiment 1 showed these deleterious effects only occurred when information exclusion appeared intentional. Experiment 2 established that constructive motives could mitigate negative effects of intentional information exclusion. Experiment 3 showed that unintentional information exclusion deflated participants only when perceived as preventable. These experiments also provided evidence for a mediating process. Information exclusion, particularly when ill intentioned or preventable, signals poor group standing, leading to deleterious psychological effects.

Studies show the importance of information sharing in decision making. However, information sharing also affects intrapersonal perceptions and group dynamics. Three experiments demonstrated that out-of-the-loop individuals experienced thwarted needs (e.g., belonging) and decreased trust and liking of group members. Experiment 1 showed these deleterious effects only occurred when information exclusion appeared intentional. Experiment 2 established that constructive motives could mitigate negative effects of intentional information exclusion. Experiment 3 showed that unintentional information exclusion deflated participants only when perceived as preventable. These experiments also provided evidence for a mediating process. Information exclusion, particularly when ill intentioned or preventable, signals poor group standing, leading to deleterious psychological effects.

'Out-of-the-loop' experiences, or situations where people perceive being uninformed of information mutually known by others, pervade people's lives. Two experiments examined the psychological impact of this form of partial ostracism. In Experiment 1, compared to in-the-loop participants, out-of-the-loop participants experienced a variety of deleterious effects (e. g. depleted fundamental needs), even without significant costs for being uninformed. In Experiment 2, out-of-the-loop participants were led to believe that their lack of information resulted from their group members' decisions or chance. Unlike those who experience complete ostracism, participants typically reported negative psychological consequences only when group members were responsible for the exclusion decision. Information exclusion also affected factors related to group dynamics (e. g. liking and trust of group members), which may ultimately harm group functioning. Taken together, these studies demonstrate the social and psychological importance of being in the information loop in group settings.

Research has consistently demonstrated that individuals tend to outperform groups on idea-generation tasks (e.g., Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991). However, mood states have the capacity to alter the coordination and motivation of group members, leading to performance gains or performance losses. In this experiment, individuals and 3-person groups generated slogans for a fictitious company after experiencing a positive or negative mood induction. Contrary to previous research, negative mood groups in our study actually generated slogans that were more creative than those produced by negative mood individuals. No differences emerged for positive individuals and groups. In the negative conditions, the effect of level of analysis (individual vs. group) on creativity was mediated by persistence on the slogan-generation task. Results are presented in the context of feelings-as-information (N. Schwarz & G. L. Clore, 1988).