Social Cognition
Ball-Toss Game
Also called: ball-tossing game, ball-toss paradigm, online ostracism game
Study responses to being included or left out: participants toss a ball with programmed players who share the throws or stop throwing to them, scored by the share of throws they estimate they got.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 358
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 33
What it measures
Studies responses to being included or left out: the participant tosses a ball with two programmed players, who share the throws or stop throwing to the participant, then estimates the share of throws they got.
Constructs
- Social exclusion
- Ostracism
- Belonging
- Responses to rejection
Research uses
- Social exclusion and ostracism research
- Rejection sensitivity studies in clinical groups
- Within-study comparison of inclusion and exclusion
How the paradigm works
The Ball-Toss Game studies how people respond to being included or left out. The participant and two other players toss a ball on screen. Whoever has the ball throws it to another player, and the participant throws by clicking or tapping a player. The other players are computer programs that follow set rules, and by default the instructions say so. In Zadro, Williams and Richardson (2004), being left out by players known to be computer programs still lowered belonging, control, self-esteem and meaningful existence.
More about the paradigm
The task follows Williams and Jarvis (2006): 30 throws in the whole game, and each programmed throw takes 2 to 5 s from catch to catch. Under inclusion the programmed players throw to every other player in turn, in a random order, so the participant gets about a third of the throws. Under exclusion the participant catches the ball once from each programmed player at the start, then the others throw only to each other. One practice throw comes first. After the game the participant estimates the percent of all throws that went to them and rates how included they felt, from 1 to 5. Researchers can choose inclusion, exclusion or a random condition for each session, set 10 to 100 throws, add a third programmed player, change the player labels, and use a neutral wording for the players followed by a closing explanation.
Scores
- Estimated Share of Throws%
- The participant's estimate of the percent of all throws that went to them, from 0 to 100.
- Lower after exclusion; compare with the actual share
- Actual Share of Throws%
- Percent of the game's throws the participant caught.
- Informational
- Inclusion Ratingscore
- How included the participant felt during the game, from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely).
- Higher means feeling more included
- Throws Receivedcount
- Throws the participant caught.
- Informational
- Throws Madecount
- Throws the participant made.
- Informational
- Throws to the Left Playercount
- The participant's throws to the player on the left.
- Informational
- Throws to the Top Playercount
- The participant's throws to the player at the top, who plays only when there are three other players.
- Informational
- Throws to the Right Playercount
- The participant's throws to the player on the right.
- Informational
- Median Throw Timems
- Median time from catching the ball to throwing it, over throws made at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Exclusion Condition0/1
- 1 when the session played exclusion and 0 when it played inclusion.
- Informational
Use and evidence
358 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 15% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 70 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 97 |
| 2024 | 65 |
| 2023 | 84 |
| 2022 | 40 |
| 2021 | 72 |
| 2020 | 48 |
| 2019 | 62 |
| 2018 | 67 |
| 2017 | 69 |
| 2016 | 66 |
| 2015 | 48 |
| 2014 | 45 |
| 2013 | 48 |
| 2012 | 26 |
| 2011 | 27 |
| 2010 | 22 |
| 2009 | 12 |
| 2008 | 6 |
| 2007 | 3 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 2
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 37
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 33
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Players
- The participant and two computer programs that follow set rules (standard), or three. The standard instructions say so; a neutral wording names the players only and ends the task with a closing explanation.
- Field
- Drawn figures in a triangle, or in a diamond with three other players, with the participant at the bottom. The other players are labeled Player A, Player B (standard), by number, or not at all.
- Throws
- 30 in the whole game (standard; 10 to 100), the participant's included. The participant throws by clicking or tapping a player.
- Pace
- A programmed player holds the ball for 1,200 to 4,200 ms, drawn from the session's seed, and the ball flies for 800 ms, so each programmed throw takes 2 to 5 s.
- Condition
- Inclusion (standard): each programmed player throws to every other player in turn, in a random order. Exclusion: the participant catches the ball once from each programmed player at the start, then never again. Or a random condition for each session, drawn from its seed and saved.
- Practice
- One throw with feedback before the game.
- Questions
- After the game: the percent of all throws the participant thinks went to them, from 0 to 100, then how included they felt, from 1 to 5.
In Williams and Jarvis (2006) participants believe the other players are people playing online. Here the other players are computer programs and the instructions say so by default. In Zadro, Williams and Richardson (2004), exclusion by players known to be computer programs still lowered belonging and the other needs measured.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's throws, every player's included, and the two answers after the game. No throw or answer is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and throwing to one player every time is accepted. Throw speed is not checked.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Whom a participant throws to is a preference, and an excluded participant makes only a few throws, so repeated targets are not checked. The ball takes 800 ms to arrive, so a participant can click a player as it lands; a fast throw shows readiness rather than disengagement, and two answers are too few for the untimed rule.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Condition | Inclusion (standard) | Inclusion (standard), Exclusion, Random for each session |
| Throws | 30 | 10 to 100 |
| Other players | Two (standard) | Two (standard), Three |
| Player labels | Letters: Player A, Player B (standard) | Letters: Player A, Player B (standard), Numbers: Player 1, Player 2, No labels |
| Player wording | Computer programs (standard) | Computer programs (standard), Neutral, with a closing explanation |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Ball-Toss Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Williams KD, Cheung CKT, Choi W, 2000; Williams KD, Jarvis B, 2006), with the standard settings (condition: Inclusion; throws: 30; other players: Two; player labels: Letters: Player A, Player B; player wording: Computer programs). The main score was estimated share of throws (the participant's estimate of the percent of all throws that went to them, from 0 to 100).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 748-762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748
- Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192765The game's schedules, timing and player options.
- Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006Players known to be computer programs.
- Hartgerink, C. H. J., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0127002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127002Usual settings and the size of the effect.
Source papers
- Williams and Jarvis (2006): the ball-toss game, its schedules and its timing. Hartgerink, van Beest, Wicherts and Williams (2015): the effect of exclusion across 120 studies.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Ball-Toss Game take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Estimated Share of Throws, Actual Share of Throws, Inclusion Rating, Throws Received, Throws Made, Throws to the Left Player, Throws to the Top Player, Throws to the Right Player, Median Throw Time and Exclusion Condition. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Ball-Toss Game used in research?
358 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 15% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 70 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Ball-Toss Game have?
In the published research, 2 papers report its test-retest reliability and 33 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Condition (Inclusion (standard), Exclusion, Random for each session), throws (10 to 100), other players (Two (standard), Three), player labels (Letters: Player A, Player B (standard), Numbers: Player 1, Player 2, No labels) and player wording (Computer programs (standard), Neutral, with a closing explanation). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests