Decision-making is rarely context-free, and often both social information and non-social information are weighed into one's decisions. Incorporating information into a decision can be influenced by previous experiences. Ostracism has extensive effects, including taxing cognitive resources and increasing social monitoring. In decision-making situations, individuals are often faced with both objective and social information and must choose which information to include or filter out. How will ostracism affect the reliance on objective and social information during decision-making? Participants (N=245) in Experiment 1 were randomly assigned to be included or ostracized in a standardized, group task. They then performed a dynamic decision-making task that involved the presentation of either non-social (i.e. biased reward feedback) or social (i.e., poor advice from a previous participant) misleading information. In Experiment 2, participants (N=105) completed either the ostracism non-social condition or social misleading information condition with explicit instructions stating that the advice given was from an individual who did not partake in the group task. Ostracized individuals relied more on non-social misleading information and performed worse than included individuals. However, ostracized individuals discounted misleading social information and outperformed included individuals. Results of Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. Across two experiments, ostracized individuals were more critical of advice from others, both individuals who may have ostracized them and unrelated individuals. In other words, compared to included individuals, ostracized individuals underweighted advice from another individual, but overweighted non-social information during decision-making. We conclude that when deceptive objective information is present, ostracism results in disadvantageous decision-making.

中文翻译：

---

排斥减少在决策过程中对他人糟糕建议的依赖

决策很少与上下文无关，通常社会信息和非社会信息都会被纳入决策。将信息纳入决策可能会受到先前经验的影响。排斥具有广泛的影响，包括对认知资源征税和增加社会监督。在决策情况下，个人往往面临客观和社会信息，必须选择包含或过滤哪些信息。排斥将如何影响决策过程中对客观和社会信息的依赖？实验 1 中的参与者 (N=245) 被随机分配到标准化的小组任务中或被排除在外。然后，他们执行了一项动态决策任务，涉及非社会（即有偏见的奖励反馈）或社会（即，来自先前参与者的糟糕建议）误导性信息。在实验 2 中，参与者 (N=105) 完成了排斥非社会条件或社会误导信息条件，并明确说明所提供的建议来自未参与小组任务的个人。被排斥的个体更多地依赖于非社会误导性信息，并且表现比被排斥的个体更差。然而，被排斥的个体忽视了误导性的社会信息，并且表现优于被排斥的个体。实验 2 的结果重复了实验 1 的结果。在两次实验中，被排斥的个体对他人的建议更为挑剔，可能排斥他们的个体和无关的个体。换句话说，与纳入的个体相比，被排斥的个体在决策过程中低估了另一个人的建议，但高估了非社会信息。我们的结论是，当存在欺骗性的客观信息时，排斥会导致不利的决策。