In friendship pairs (dyads). The analysis consisted of 23 (pairs) ?2 (dyad members) ?2 conditions (excluder identity: exclusion by a ChaetocinMedChemExpress Chaetocin friend or a stranger). We conducted the model accounting for the within dyad and between dyad effects for each individual subject. We analyzed the data using a multilevel model accounting for excluder identity (friend or stranger) nested within each member as well as each member nested within the dyad (Kenny et al., 2006). First, we fit unconditional models for each outcome in order to calculate the intraclass correlation, or degree of variation due to within-dyad variation vs between-dyad variations in each outcome (Kenny, 1995). The dependent measures in this analysis were the ERP responses for rejection Oroxylin A cancer events delivered by a friend or by a stranger. We fit models for the P2 and the slow wave separately. We then evaluated the effects of preexisting psychological distress and post-exclusion ostracism distress first for a model including a P2 ERP response and then for a model including a slow wave ERP response.EEG recording and preprocessingStandard protocol was used to obtain a high density EEG with a 128 Ag/AgCl electrode system [Electrical Geodesics Incorporated (EGI) Netstation v.4.2 software]. High impedance amplifiers (sampled at 250 Hz: 0.1 Hz high pass, 100 Hz low pass) were utilized with a Cz reference for data acquisition. The baseline impedances of the electrodes were ensured to be <40k Ohms. Stimulus presentation was conducted using E-prime v.2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools, Inc.). Post-collection processing was conducted per standard procedures including offline low pass filtering at 30 Hz, segmentation between a 100 ms baseline and a 900 ms post-stimulus onset and re-referenced to an average reference. The artifact detection threshold was set at 200 lV and an eye movement blink threshold of 150 lV. Ocular Artifact Removal was conducted to remove the eye movements/blinks in all the participants (Gratton et al., 1983). We utilized the left-medial frontal regionS. Baddam et al.|AFriendStrangerTable 1. Means and s.d.'s of the major study variables separated by gender Female (Mean 6 s.d.) Male (Mean 6 s.d.) 10.66 6 1.28 8.27 6 7.83 87.72 6 12.27 0.058 6 0.96 62.56 6 14.22 t-test (t, P) 0.477, 0.636 ?.580, 0.125 0.944, 0.351 ?.382, 0.705 1.062, 0.5.Age Depressive symptoms Anxiety symptoms Psychological Distress Ostracism Score***P 0.001, two-tailed10.86 6 1.32 4.86 6 5.26 91.59 6 13.62 ?.048 6 0.75 67.75 6 14.-3.BFriendStrangerTable 2. Bivariate correlations between psychological variables and P2 and slow wave for exclusion by friend and stranger Psychological distress4.Ostracism score (r, P)(r, P) Exclusion by friend P2 Slow wave Exclusion by stranger P2 Slow wave?.366*, 0.02 ?.431**, 0.006 0.481**, 0.002 0.354*, 0.?.111, 0.517 ?.021, 0.901 ?.199, 0.245 ?.002, 0.-5.Fig. 2. Voltage maps of rejection-based ERPs during Cyberball with frontal left electrodes overlaid (round dots). (A) P2 response at 200 ms for rejection-based ERPs for friend (left) and stranger (right). (B) Slow wave response at 450?00 ms for rejection-based ERPs for friend (left) and stranger (right).friend's effects as partner effects and the interaction between the two as actor by partner interaction effects.ResultsWe calculated descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics of the sample. The means and standard deviations for age, ostracism distress and psychological distress by gender are displayed in Table 1. We.In friendship pairs (dyads). The analysis consisted of 23 (pairs) ?2 (dyad members) ?2 conditions (excluder identity: exclusion by a friend or a stranger). We conducted the model accounting for the within dyad and between dyad effects for each individual subject. We analyzed the data using a multilevel model accounting for excluder identity (friend or stranger) nested within each member as well as each member nested within the dyad (Kenny et al., 2006). First, we fit unconditional models for each outcome in order to calculate the intraclass correlation, or degree of variation due to within-dyad variation vs between-dyad variations in each outcome (Kenny, 1995). The dependent measures in this analysis were the ERP responses for rejection events delivered by a friend or by a stranger. We fit models for the P2 and the slow wave separately. We then evaluated the effects of preexisting psychological distress and post-exclusion ostracism distress first for a model including a P2 ERP response and then for a model including a slow wave ERP response.EEG recording and preprocessingStandard protocol was used to obtain a high density EEG with a 128 Ag/AgCl electrode system [Electrical Geodesics Incorporated (EGI) Netstation v.4.2 software]. High impedance amplifiers (sampled at 250 Hz: 0.1 Hz high pass, 100 Hz low pass) were utilized with a Cz reference for data acquisition. The baseline impedances of the electrodes were ensured to be <40k Ohms. Stimulus presentation was conducted using E-prime v.2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools, Inc.). Post-collection processing was conducted per standard procedures including offline low pass filtering at 30 Hz, segmentation between a 100 ms baseline and a 900 ms post-stimulus onset and re-referenced to an average reference. The artifact detection threshold was set at 200 lV and an eye movement blink threshold of 150 lV. Ocular Artifact Removal was conducted to remove the eye movements/blinks in all the participants (Gratton et al., 1983). We utilized the left-medial frontal regionS. Baddam et al.|AFriendStrangerTable 1. Means and s.d.'s of the major study variables separated by gender Female (Mean 6 s.d.) Male (Mean 6 s.d.) 10.66 6 1.28 8.27 6 7.83 87.72 6 12.27 0.058 6 0.96 62.56 6 14.22 t-test (t, P) 0.477, 0.636 ?.580, 0.125 0.944, 0.351 ?.382, 0.705 1.062, 0.5.Age Depressive symptoms Anxiety symptoms Psychological Distress Ostracism Score***P 0.001, two-tailed10.86 6 1.32 4.86 6 5.26 91.59 6 13.62 ?.048 6 0.75 67.75 6 14.-3.BFriendStrangerTable 2. Bivariate correlations between psychological variables and P2 and slow wave for exclusion by friend and stranger Psychological distress4.Ostracism score (r, P)(r, P) Exclusion by friend P2 Slow wave Exclusion by stranger P2 Slow wave?.366*, 0.02 ?.431**, 0.006 0.481**, 0.002 0.354*, 0.?.111, 0.517 ?.021, 0.901 ?.199, 0.245 ?.002, 0.-5.Fig. 2. Voltage maps of rejection-based ERPs during Cyberball with frontal left electrodes overlaid (round dots). (A) P2 response at 200 ms for rejection-based ERPs for friend (left) and stranger (right). (B) Slow wave response at 450?00 ms for rejection-based ERPs for friend (left) and stranger (right).friend's effects as partner effects and the interaction between the two as actor by partner interaction effects.ResultsWe calculated descriptive statistics and demographic characteristics of the sample. The means and standard deviations for age, ostracism distress and psychological distress by gender are displayed in Table 1. We.