# Facial Temperature Responses to Ostracism in Women: Exploring Nasal Thermal Signatures of Different Coping Behaviors

## TL;DR

This study explores how women's facial temperatures, especially in the nose, change when they feel excluded and how these changes relate to different coping behaviors.

## Contribution

The study reveals that nasal thermal patterns differ based on coping behaviors after ostracism, challenging assumptions about distress markers.

## Key findings

- Most participants (52%) chose to withdraw after ostracism, with fewer opting for antisocial (30%) or prosocial (18%) responses.
- Nasal temperature decreased more during inclusion than ostracism, suggesting stronger autonomic nervous system activation during inclusion.
- Only antisocial responders showed steeper nasal temperature decreases during ostracism compared to inclusion.

## Abstract

Ostracism (feeling ignored and excluded) triggers psychophysiological responses associated with distress. We investigated different coping responses after ostracism and explored whether these were preceded by unique facial thermal signatures, reflecting autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity. Using thermal infrared imaging, we recorded facial cutaneous temperature variations in female participants (N = 95) experiencing inclusion and ostracism using hypothetical Cyberball games. Coping after ostracism was assessed during a hypothetical Allocation Game, where participants could do nothing (withdrawal), reduce (antisocial), or increase (prosocial) the hypothetical earnings of their ostracizer. Contrary to expectations, most participants chose to withdraw (52%), with fewer opting for antisocial responses (30%) or prosocial responses (18%) after ostracism. Results from linear mixed‐effects modeling revealed that substantial temperature variability occurred only in the nose region of the face. Both ostracism and inclusion showed a decrease in nasal temperature relative to baseline, but the average drop was greater during inclusion, suggesting stronger ANS activation during inclusion rather than ostracism. Crucially, exploratory findings showed that only participants who responded antisocially after ostracism exhibited steeper decreases in nasal temperature during ostracism compared to inclusion. This pattern suggests greater physiological reactivity among antisocial responders, particularly in contrast to those who chose to withdraw. Future research should integrate thermal imaging with other physiological measures and strengthen ostracism manipulations to understand the relationship between thermal responses and different coping behaviors.

Our study challenges assumptions about ostracism's psychophysiological effects, finding no heightened autonomic activation in facial temperature during exclusion. However, distinct nasal thermal patterns emerged based on coping behaviors. These results urge caution in interpreting thermal imaging as a marker of distress and highlight its potential for differentiating post‐ostracism responses.