T social rejection and also overreact to social rejection (Qualter et al., 2013). Also, among individuals with high distress, social rejection is associated with hypervigilance to socially threatening stimuli and with difficulty disengaging from the threatening stimuli (Qualter et al., 2013). In children with high distress in our study, we propose that hypervigilance to social rejection by stranger presents as the heightened neural response to these events. Relatedly, the presence of psychopathology is associated with attachment insecurity in middle childhood, with insecurity extending to social relationships (Cassidy et al., 2013). For example, socially withdrawn and anxious children avoid conflict even with their known peers and have difficulties in friendships (Garmezy and Rutter, 1988). On the other end of the continuum, participants with low psychological distress, and possibly greater attachment security, may place more emphasis on friends. Even in our unselected sample, the more `well adjusted’ children (lower psychological distress), showed stronger neural responding (P2) for rejection events by best friends, suggesting greater attention engagement in their best friend’s behaviors.S. Baddam et al.|We examined the actor by partner psychological distress within dyads, finding that dyadic psychological distress was associated with slow wave neural response. In terms of this psychological distress-slow wave finding, it is useful to consider dyadic effects (plots in Figure 6A and B) against main effects (scatter plots in Figure 5c and d). Children with `higher distress’ friends appear to be driving the main effects. That is, the regression lines for high partner distress and slow wave ERPs (black lines, Figure 6A and B) resemble the scatter plots of these data (Figure 5C and D), whereas children whose friends have lower psychological distress (grey lines, Figure 6A and B) show a PG-1016548 price pattern opposite to the main effect in the case of `Friend’ and show a weak to no relationship in the case of `stranger’. High psychological distress (high actor and partner psychological distress) in the dyad was associated with a relatively more negative slow wave for exclusion by friend (Figure 6A) and a relatively more positive slow wave when excluded by stranger (Figure 6B). Two conclusions can be drawn from the dyad-level effect (combined distress levels in the dyad). First, the dyadic distress levels within a child friendship matters in Cyberball. Best friends who are members of high psychological distress dyads show greater differential responsivity to exclusion across friends and strangers. Second, and building on our previous work finding that greater negative frontal slow waves in Cyberball are associated with more experienced distress generally (Crowley et al., 2009a,b, 2010; Sreekrishnan et al., 2014), our data indicate that high psychological distress dyads show greater negative frontal slow waves for rejection by a friend and reduced negative frontal slow waves for exclusion by a stranger. Data suggest that when both members of a dyad bring high levels of psychological distress to the interaction, they are more ��-Amatoxin site responsive to rejection by a friend with a pattern of frontal negative slow wave consistent with greater distress. This is the first study to examine the ERP based neural correlates of social rejection in best friend dyads using Cyberball. The results highlight the unique neural response to social rejection upon exclusion by a best frien.T social rejection and also overreact to social rejection (Qualter et al., 2013). Also, among individuals with high distress, social rejection is associated with hypervigilance to socially threatening stimuli and with difficulty disengaging from the threatening stimuli (Qualter et al., 2013). In children with high distress in our study, we propose that hypervigilance to social rejection by stranger presents as the heightened neural response to these events. Relatedly, the presence of psychopathology is associated with attachment insecurity in middle childhood, with insecurity extending to social relationships (Cassidy et al., 2013). For example, socially withdrawn and anxious children avoid conflict even with their known peers and have difficulties in friendships (Garmezy and Rutter, 1988). On the other end of the continuum, participants with low psychological distress, and possibly greater attachment security, may place more emphasis on friends. Even in our unselected sample, the more `well adjusted’ children (lower psychological distress), showed stronger neural responding (P2) for rejection events by best friends, suggesting greater attention engagement in their best friend’s behaviors.S. Baddam et al.|We examined the actor by partner psychological distress within dyads, finding that dyadic psychological distress was associated with slow wave neural response. In terms of this psychological distress-slow wave finding, it is useful to consider dyadic effects (plots in Figure 6A and B) against main effects (scatter plots in Figure 5c and d). Children with `higher distress’ friends appear to be driving the main effects. That is, the regression lines for high partner distress and slow wave ERPs (black lines, Figure 6A and B) resemble the scatter plots of these data (Figure 5C and D), whereas children whose friends have lower psychological distress (grey lines, Figure 6A and B) show a pattern opposite to the main effect in the case of `Friend’ and show a weak to no relationship in the case of `stranger’. High psychological distress (high actor and partner psychological distress) in the dyad was associated with a relatively more negative slow wave for exclusion by friend (Figure 6A) and a relatively more positive slow wave when excluded by stranger (Figure 6B). Two conclusions can be drawn from the dyad-level effect (combined distress levels in the dyad). First, the dyadic distress levels within a child friendship matters in Cyberball. Best friends who are members of high psychological distress dyads show greater differential responsivity to exclusion across friends and strangers. Second, and building on our previous work finding that greater negative frontal slow waves in Cyberball are associated with more experienced distress generally (Crowley et al., 2009a,b, 2010; Sreekrishnan et al., 2014), our data indicate that high psychological distress dyads show greater negative frontal slow waves for rejection by a friend and reduced negative frontal slow waves for exclusion by a stranger. Data suggest that when both members of a dyad bring high levels of psychological distress to the interaction, they are more responsive to rejection by a friend with a pattern of frontal negative slow wave consistent with greater distress. This is the first study to examine the ERP based neural correlates of social rejection in best friend dyads using Cyberball. The results highlight the unique neural response to social rejection upon exclusion by a best frien.
