Belongingness

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness

Belongingness is the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group.

Whether it is family, friends, co-workers, a religion, or something else, people tend to
have an 'inherent' desire to belong and be an important part of something greater than
themselves. This implies a relationship that is greater than simple acquaintance or
familiarity. The need to belong is the need to give and receive attention to and from
others.

Belonging is a strong and inevitable feeling that exists in human nature. To belong or not
to belong can occur due to choices of one's self, or the choices of others. Not everyone
has the same life and interests, hence not everyone belongs to the same thing or person.
Without belonging, one cannot identify themselves as clearly, thus having difficulties
communicating with and relating to their surroundings.

Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary argue that belongingness is such a fundamental human
motivation that we feel severe consequences of not belonging. If it wasn’t so
fundamental, then lack of belonging wouldn’t have such dire consequences on us. This
desire is so universal that the need to belong is found across all cultures and different
types of people.

Psychological needs
Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong was a major source of human
motivation. He thought that it was one of 5 human needs in his hierarchy of needs, along
with physiological needs, safety, self-esteem, and self-actualization. These needs are
arranged on a hierarchy and must be satisfied in order. After physiological and safety
needs are met an individual can then work on meeting the need to belong and be loved.
According to Maslow, if the first two needs are not met, then an individual cannot
completely love someone else.

Other theories have also focused on the need to belong as a fundamental psychological
motivation. According to Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary, all human beings need a
certain minimum quantity of regular, satisfying social interactions. Inability to meet this
need results in loneliness, mental distress, and a strong desire to form new
relationships.[1] Several psychologists have proposed that there are individual differences
in people's motivation to belong. People with a strong motivation to belong are less
satisfied with their relationships and tend to be relatively lonely. As consumers, they tend
to seek the opinions of others about products and services and also attempt to influence
others' opinions.

According to Baumeister and Leary, much of what human beings do is done in the
service of belongingness. They argue that many of the human needs that have been
documented, such as the needs for power, intimacy, approval, achievement and

1/18
affiliation, are all driven by the need to belong. Human culture is compelled and
conditioned by pressure to belong. The need to belong and form attachments is universal
among humans. This counters the Freudian argument that sexuality and aggression are
the major driving psychological forces. Those who believe that the need to belong is the
major psychological drive also believe that humans are naturally driven toward
establishing and sustaining relationships and belongingness. For example, interactions
with strangers are possible first steps toward non-hostile and more long-term interactions
with strangers that can satisfy the need for attachments. Certain people who are socially
deprived can exhibit physical, behavioral, and psychological problems, such as stress or
instability. These people are also more likely to show an increase in aiming to form new
attachments.

Attachments
In all cultures, attachments form universally. Social bonds are easily formed, without the
need for favorable settings. The need to belong is a goal-directed activity that people try
to satisfy with a certain minimum number of social contacts. The quality of interactions is
more important than the quantity of interactions. People who form social attachments
beyond that minimal amount experience less satisfaction from extra relationships, as well
as more stress from terminating those extra relationships. People also effectively replace
lost relationship partners by substituting them with new relationships or social
environments. For example, individuals with strong family ties could compensate for
loneliness at work.

Relationships missing regular contact but characterized by strong feelings of

commitment and intimacy also fail to satisfy the need. Just knowing that a bond exists
may be emotionally comforting, yet it would not provide a feeling of full belongingness if
there is a lack of interaction between the persons. The belongingness hypothesis
proposes two main features. First, people need constant, positive, personal interactions
with other people. Second, people need to know that the bond is stable, there is mutual
concern, and that this attachment will continue. So, the need to belong is not just a need
for intimate attachments or a need for connections, but that the perception of the bond is
as important as the bond itself. Individuals need to know that other people care about
their well-being and love them.

Baumeister and Leary argue that much of the research on group bonds can be
interpreted through the lens of belongingness. They argue that plenty of evidence
suggests that social bonds are formed easily. In the classic Robber's Cave study,
stranger boys were randomly grouped into two different groups and almost immediately,
group identification and strong loyalty developed to their specific group. Initially, the two
groups were asked to compete with one another, and hostility between the groups
ensued. However, when the two groups were combined to form one big group and were
given the opportunity to bond by working together to accomplish superordinate goals,
behaviors and emotions accommodated quickly to that new group. In an attempt to
understand causes of in-group favoritism, researchers formed a group so minimal and
insignificant that one would expect that no favoritism would be found, yet in-group
2/18
favoritism appeared immediately. Researchers agree that banding together against a
threat (the out-group) and sharing rewards are primary reasons groups form and bond so
easily. Mere proximity is another powerful factor in relationship formation. Just like
babies form attachments with their caregivers, people develop attachments just because
they live near one another. This suggests that proximity sometimes overcomes the
tendencies to bond with others who are similar to us. Positive social bonds form just as
easily under fearful circumstances, such as military veterans who have undergone heavy
battle together. This can be explained by either misattribution (interpreting feelings of
anxious arousal as feelings of attraction for another person) or reinforcement theory (the
presence of another person reduces distress and elicits positive responses). Baumeister
and Leary argue that the reinforcement theory explanation provides evidence for the
importance of belonging needs because these learned associations create a tendency to
seek out the company of others in times of threat. The formation of social attachments
with former rivals is a great indicator of the need to belong. Belonging motivations are so
strong that they are able to overcome competitive feelings towards opponents.[1]

People form such close attachments with one another that they are hesitant in breaking
social bonds. Universally, people distress and protest ending social relationships across
all cultures and age spans.[2] Even temporary groups, such as training groups, struggle
with the idea that the group may eventually dissolve. The group may have fulfilled their
purpose, but the participants want to cling on to the relationships and social bonds that
have been formed with one another. The group members make promises individually and
collectively to stay in touch, plan for future reunions, and take other steps to ensure the
continuity of the attachment. For example, two people may not speak for an entire year,
but continue exchanging holiday cards. People do not want to risk damaging a
relationship or breaking an attachment, because it is distressing.[1]

People are so hesitant in breaking social bonds that in many cases, they are hesitant to
dissolve even bad relationships that could be potentially destructive. For example, many
women are unwilling to leave their abusive spouses or boyfriends with excuses ranging
from liking for the abuse to economic self-interests that are more important than physical
harm.[3] This unwillingness to leave an abusive partner, whether mentally or physically, is
just another indicator of the power of the need to belong and how reluctant individuals
are to break these bonds. Breaking off an attachment causes pain that is deeply rooted
in the need to belong.[1]

People experience a range of both positive and negative emotions; the strongest
emotions linked to attachment and belongingness. Empirical evidence suggests that
when individuals are accepted, welcomed, or included it leads those individuals to feel
positive emotions such as happiness, elation, calm, and satisfaction. However, when
individuals are rejected or excluded, they feel strong negative emotions such as anxiety,
jealousy, depression, and grief. In fact, the psychological pain caused by social rejection
is so intense that it involves the same brain regions involved in the experience of physical
pain.[4] Both positive and negative reactions in emotion are connected to status of
relationship. The existence of a social attachment changes the way one emotionally
responds to the actions of a relationship partner and the emotions have the potential to
[1] 3/18
intensify.[1]

Lack of constant, positive relationships has been linked to a large range of

consequences. People who lack belongingness are more prone to behavioral problems
such as criminality and suicide and suffer from increasing mental and physical illness.
Based on this evidence, multiple and diverse problems are caused by the lack of
belongingness and attachments. It therefore seems appropriate to regard belongingness
and attachments as a need rather than simply a want.[1]

Relationships that are centrally important in the way people think are interpersonal
relationships. The belongingness hypothesis suggests that people devote much of their
cognitive thought process to interpersonal relationships and attachments. For example,
researchers found that people store information in terms of their social bonds, such as
storing more information about a marriage partner as opposed to a work acquaintance.
People also sort out-group members on the basis of characteristics, traits, and duties,
whereas they sort in-group members on person categories. Cognitive processing
organizes information by the person they have a connection with as opposed to
strangers. Researchers had a group of people take turns reading out-loud and they found
that they had the greatest recall for the words they personally spoke, as well for words
spoken by dating partners or close friends. There is a cognitive merging of the self with
specific people that is followed by the need to belong. Flattering words that are said to a
spouse can enhance the self just as positively. People always believe that nothing bad
can happen to themselves, and extend that thought to their family and friends.[1]

There is an emotional implication to belongingness in which positive affect is linked to

increases in belongingness while negative affect is linked to decreases in belongingness.
Positive emotions are associated with forming social attachments, such as the
experience of falling in love, as long as the love is mutual. Unrequited love (love without
belongingness) usually leads to disappointment whereas belongingness in love leads to
joy. Occasions such as childbirth, new employment, and fraternity/sorority pledging are
all associated with the formation of new social attachments surrounded by positive
emotions. Forming bonds is cause for joy, especially when the bond is given a
permanent status, such as a wedding. Weddings signify permanent commitment and
complete the social bond by committing to the spouse’s need to belong. Positive
experiences shared emotions increases attraction with others. Close personal
attachments, a rich network of friends and high levels of intimacy motivation are all
correlated to happiness in life.[1]

The breaking of social bonds and threats to those bonds are primary sources of negative
affect. People feel anxious, depressed, guilty or lonely when they lose important
relationships. Social exclusion is the most common cause of anxiety. Anxiety is a natural
consequence of being separated from others. Examples include children suffering from
separation anxiety from being separated from their mothers. Adults act similarly when
their loved ones leave for a period of time. Memories of past rejection and imagining
social rejection all elicit negative emotions. Losses of attachments lead directly to
anxiety. If people are excluded from social groups, people get anxious, yet the anxiety is
4/18
removed when they experience social inclusion. Failing to feel accepted can lead to
social and general depression. Depression and anxiety are significantly correlated.
Social exclusion is also a major cause of jealousy, which is a common reaction when
one’s relationships are threatened. Jealousy is cross-culturally universal and in all
cultures, sexual jealousy is common. It was said earlier that belongingness needs can
only truly be met with social contact, but social contact by itself does not shield people
against loneliness. Loneliness matters more when there is a lack of intimacy as opposed
to lack of contact. Another negative affect is guilt, which is caused to make the other
person want to maintain the relationship more, such as paying more attention to that
person.[1]

Divorce and death are two negative events that spoil the need to belong. Divorce causes
distress, anger, loneliness, and depression in almost everyone. The death of oneself and
other people are the most traumatic and stressful events that people can experience.
Death can cause severe depression, which is not a reaction to the loss of the loved one,
but because there is a loss of the attachment with that other person. For example, a
death of a spouse in which there was marriage problems can still elicit in extreme
sadness at the loss of that attachment. Death is linked to anxiety and fear of loneliness.
The idea of being separated from friends and family, and not the fact that they would no
longer exist on this earth, is what brings about this anxiety.[1]

Evolutionary perspectives
One reason for the need to belong is based on the theory of evolution. In the past
belonging to a group was essential to survival: people hunted and cooked in groups.
Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each
other. Not only were they trying to ensure their own survival, but all members of their
tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important
role in the group. More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most
people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have
a desire to belong in groups.[5][1]

The need to belong is rooted in evolutionary history. Human beings are social animals.
Humans have matured over a long period of time in dyadic and group contexts. Humans
evolved in small groups that depended on close social connections to fulfill survival and
reproductive needs. [6] Unlike other species, humans receive most of what they need from
their social group rather than directly from his or her natural environment, suggesting that
the human strategy for survival depends on belonging.[7] This explains why a large body
of evidence suggests that people are happier and healthier when they experience social
belonging. In contrast, lacking belonging and being excluded is perceived as painful and
has a variety of negative effects including, shame, anger and depression.[8] Because
belongingness is a central component of human functioning, social exclusion has been
found to influence many behavioral, cognitive, and emotional outcomes. Given the
negative consequences of social exclusion and social rejection, people developed traits
that function to prevent rejection and encourage acceptance.[6]

5/18
Self-presentation
To be accepted within a group, individuals may convey or conceal certain parts of their
personalities. This is known as self-presentation.[5][9] Self-presentation, or impression
management, attempts to control images of the self in front of audiences. It is a
conscious and unconscious goal-directed action done to influence audiences to perceive
the actor as someone who belongs.[10] Certain aspects of one’s personality may not be
seen as desirable or essential to the group, so people try to convey what they interpret
as valuable to the group.[1] For example, in a business setting, people may not show their
humorous side but do try to show their professional side to impress others.

Group membership
Individuals join groups with which they have commonalities, whether it is sense of humor,
style in clothing, socioeconomic status, or career goals. In general, individuals seek out
those who are most similar to them.[11] People like to feel that they can relate to
someone and those who are similar to them give them that feeling. People also like
those that they think they can understand and who they think can understand them.[5]

Social connections
The desire to form and maintain social bonds is among the most powerful human
motives. If an individual’s sense of social connectedness is threatened, their ability to
self-regulate suffers. Social relationships are important for human functioning and well-
being therefore, research on how social relationships affect people’s personal interests
and motivated behavior has been a focus of numerous studies. Walton, Cohen, and
Spencer for example, believed that a mere sense of social connectedness (even with
people who were unfamiliar) can cause one to internalize the goals and motivations of
others. By doing so, this shapes people’s motivated behavior suggesting achievement
motivation and one’s self-identity are highly sensitive to minor cues of social connection.
Mere belonging is defined as an entryway to a social relationship, represented by a small
cue of social connection to an individual or group. Social belonging is a sense of
relatedness connected to a positive, lasting, and significant interpersonal relationship.
While mere belonging is a minimal or even chance social connection, social belonging
factors are characterized as social feedback, validation, and shared experiences. Sharing
common goals and interests with others strengthens positive social bonds and may
enhance feelings of self-worth.[12]

In another study, Walton and Cohen examined stigmatization and its link to belonging
uncertainty. Their belonging uncertainty idea suggests that in academic and professional
settings, members of socially stigmatized groups are more uncertain of the quality of
their social bonds. Therefore, they feel more sensitive to issues of social belonging. They
believe in domains of achievement, belonging uncertainty can have large effects on the
motivation of those challenging with a threatened social identity.[13]

Conformity
6/18
Group membership can involve conformity. Conformity is the act of changing one’s
actions, attitudes, and behaviors to match the norms of others. Norms are unsaid rules
that are shared by a group. The tendency to conform results from direct and indirect
social pressures occurring in whole societies and in small groups. There are two types of
conformity motivations known as informational social influence and normative social
influence. Information social influence is the desire to obtain and form accurate
information about reality. Information social influence occurs in certain situations, such as
in a crisis. This information can be sought out by other people in the group or experts. If
someone is in a situation where they do not know the right way to behave, they look at
the cues of others to correct their own behavior. These people conform because the
group interpretation is more accurate than your own. Normative social influence is the
desire to obtain social approval from others. Normative social influence occurs when one
conforms to be accepted by members of a group, since the need to belong is in our
human desire. When people do not conform, they are less liked by the group and may
even be considered deviant. Normative influence usually leads to public compliance,
which is fulfilling a request or doing something that one may not necessarily believe in,
but that the group believes in.[14]

According to Baumeister and Leary, group conformity can be seen as a way to improve
one's chances of being accepted by a social group; thus is serves belongingness
needs.[1] People often conform to gain the approval of others, build rewarding
relationships, and enhance their own self-esteem. Individuals are more likely to conform
to groups who describe out-group members with stereotype traits, even though don’t
publicly express their agreement. People desire to gain approval so they conform to
others. However, within informational social inclusion, those primed with motivation to
make accurate decisions or held accountable, would resist conformity. The beliefs held
by others and how we react to those beliefs is often reliant on our view of the amount of
agreement for those beliefs. Researchers are interested in exploring informational and
normative motivational influences to conform on majorities and minorities. Objective
consensus theory suggests that majority influence of a group is informational, while
conversion theory views it as normative. Normative influences may be the underlying
motivations behind certain types of conformity; however, researchers believe that after
time, informational influences such as confidence in the accuracy of one’s intergroup
norms is positively correlated with distinguished level of compromise.[14]

Outside the conscious mind, a type of conformity is behavioral mimicry, otherwise known
as the chameleon effect. Behavioral mimicry is when individuals mimic behaviors such as
facial expressions, postures, and mannerisms between other individuals. Researchers
found that individuals subconsciously conformed to the mannerisms of their partners and
friends and liked these partners more who mirrored them. This is important in regard to
rapport building and forming new social relationships-we mirror the behaviors we are
supposed to, to get to where we want to belong in the group. People are motivated to
conform to gain social approval and enhance and protect their own self-esteems.
However, people who wish to combat conformity and fight that need to belong with the
majority group can do so by focusing on their own self-worth or by straying from the
7/18
attitudes and norms of others. This can establish a sense of uniqueness within an
individual. Yet, most individuals keep positive assessments of themselves and still
conform to valued groups.[14]

Self-regulation
When our belongingness needs are not met, Wilkowski and colleagues (2009) suggest
that self-regulation is used to fulfill one’s need to belong.[15] Self-regulation is defined as
the process of regulating oneself, or changing one’s behavior, to manage short-term
desires according to the self-regulation theory. Self-regulation can occur in many
different ways. One of these ways uses other individual’s gaze(s) as a reference to
understand how attention should be divided. This effect is especially seen within
individuals that have low levels of self-esteem. Interpersonal acceptance is not met in
individuals with low self-esteem, which prompts them to self-regulate by looking to others
for guidance with regards to where to focus attention. Belongingness contributes to this
level of self-esteem. Baumeister, Dewall, Ciarocco, and Twenge (2005) found that when
people are socially excluded from a group, self-regulation is less likely to be than those
who have a heightened sense of belonging.[16] For example, participants were told that
the other people in the study did not want to work with them and as a consequence they
would have to complete a task on their own. Later, those participants were offered a
plate of cookies. The participants that were told that nobody in the group wanted to work
with them took more cookies than those who were not told this information, which
provides evidence that a lack of belongingness inhibits people’s ability to self-regulate.
Self-regulation includes impulse control and allows one to manage short-term impulses
and have a heightened sense of belongingness within an ingroup. An ingroup is a social
group in which a person psychologically defines themselves as being a member of that
specific group. By being a part of this group, one has a better ability to self-regulate.

Peer networks
As the span of relationships expands from childhood into adolescence, a sense of peer
group membership is likely to develop. Adolescent girls have been found to value group
membership more and are more identified with their peer groups than boys. Adolescent
girls tend to have a higher number of friends than boys. They expect and desire more
nurturing behavior from their friends. Girls experience more self-disclosure, more
empathy, and less overt hostility compared to boys. A study found that girls use
ruminative coping, which involves perseverating on the negative feelings and the
unpleasant situations associated with problems. Boys on the other hand, tend to be less
intimate and have more activity based friendships. Boys do not benefit as much as girls
from feelings of belonging that are a product of enduring and close friendships. They are
less vulnerable to the emotional distress that is likely to accompany high levels of co-
rumination and disclosure.[8]

Various peer groups approve of varying activities and when individuals engage in
approved activities, the peer group positively reinforces this behavior. For example,
allowing the individual to become part of the group or by paying more attention to the
8/18
individual is a positive reinforcement. This is a source of motivation for the individual to
repeat the activity or engage in other approved activities. Adolescents have also been
observed to choose friendships with individuals who engage in similar activities to those
that they are involved in. This provides the individual with more opportunities to engage
in the activity therefore the peer group may influence how often the individual engages in
the activity. To feel a sense of belonging and fit in, adolescents often conform to activities
of a particular group by participating in the same activities as members of the peer
group.[17]

Newman and colleagues found three different aspects of adolescents’ perceptions of

group membership: peer group affiliation, the importance of peer group membership and
a sense of peer group belonging to behavior problems in adolescence. To capture an
adolescent’s self-perception of group affiliation one may ask an adolescent to identify
themselves as a member of a group or discuss whether they belong in a group. An
affective aspect of group belongingness includes feelings of being proud of one’s group
and being a valued group member. The affective nature of a sense of group belonging
has been found to be the most internally consistent. It is important to find out how
important it is for an adolescent to be a member of a group because not all adolescents
are equally concerned about being part of a group. Those who strongly desire to be in a
peer group and do not experience a sense of group belonging are expected to have the
greatest social distress and are likely to report the most behavior problems.[8]

Schooling
A sense of belonging to a social peer group can enhance students academic
achievement.[18] Group membership in early adolescence is associated with greater
interest in and more enjoyment of school,[19] while those who are not part of such social
groups tend to be less engaged with school.[20] Among middle school and high school
students, multiple studies have found a link between a more positive sense of belonging
and better academic motivation, lower rates of school dropout, better social-emotional
functioning, and higher grade point average. At a college level, a better sense of
belonging has been linked to perceived professor caring and greater involvement in
campus organizations. In a study exploring associations between a sense of school
belonging and academic and psychological adjustment, Pittman and Richmond found
that college students who reported a greater sense of belonging at a college level, were
doing better academically and felt more competent scholastically but also had a higher
self-worth and lower levels of externalizing problems. However, students who were
having problems with their relationships with friends, were found to experience more
internalizing behaviors and feel less connected to the college.[21]

Schools are important developmental contexts for children and adolescents, and
influence their socio-emotional and academic development. One approach used to study
naturally occurring peer groups is the social cognitive mapping (SCM). The SCM strategy
asks students in a peer system, for example in a classroom, to identify which class
members they have observed “hanging out” together. Therefore, determining patterns of
observed social affiliations.[22] Interactions and associations within peer networks
9/18
theorize experience validation, acceptance, and affirmation of early adolescents in
schools. The sense of connection within a classroom has been defined as having a sense
of classroom belonging. Meaning, students feel they are being valued accepted, included
and encouraged by others in the classroom setting. They perceive themselves to be an
important part of the setting and activity of the class.[22]

Workplace
The need to belong is especially evident in the workplace. Employees want to fit in at
work as much as students want to fit in at school. They seek the approval and
acceptance of leaders, bosses, and other employees. Charismatic leaders are especially
known to show off organizational citizenship behaviors such as helping and compliance if
they feel a sense of belongingness with their work group. Researchers found that
charisma and belongingness increased cooperative behavior among employees.
Charismatic leaders influence followers by bringing awareness to the collective unit and
strengthening the feeling of belonging, and that enhances employees’ compliance.
Organizational citizenship behaviors are employee activities that benefit the collective
group without the individual gaining any direct benefit. Helping is a huge component of
organizational citizenship behaviors because helping involves voluntarily assisting others
with problems that are work-related and preventing other issues from arising. Task
performance is enhanced and supported when the acts of helping in a work environment
are established and evident. Charismatic leaders set a striking example for the way to
organization should behave by reinforcing certain rules and values for the organization.
These self-confident leaders inspire their followers to exceed expectations for the
collective group instead of their own self-interest. This in turn gives employees an identity
with which to belong.[23]

A sense of belongingness increases a person’s willingness to assist others in the group

by the group rules. Belongingness and group membership encourages social groups with
motivation to comply, cooperate, and help. Cohesive work groups show more
consideration, report positive relationships within the group and elicits more
organizational citizenship behaviors. Also, an already cohesive and collective group
makes people more inclined to comply with the rules of the workplace. Some people help
each other in return for a future expected favor; however, most workings help because it
is the “right” thing to do or because they like their leaders so much and wish to express
this likeness. People are more receptive to a leader who provides a clear sense of
direction and inspiration with the promise of a better future. Workers who feel more
isolated in the workplace feel the need to belong even more than those who are not
isolated because they are missing that collective feeling of unity. A workplace functions
better as a collective whole.[23]

Acceptance/rejection
The need to belong is among the most fundamental of all personality processes. Given
the negative consequences of social rejection, people developed traits that function to
encourage acceptance and to prevent rejection. But if the need to belong evolved to
10/18
provide people with a means of meeting their basic needs for survival and reproduction
based on evolutionary experiences, thwarting the need to belong should affect a variety
of outcomes. Because it strikes at the core of human functioning, people respond very
strongly to social exclusion.[6]

Both interpersonal rejection and acceptance are psychologically powerful events. Feeling
disliked, excluded, unappreciated, or devalued can stir up negative emotions in an
individual. Some of these negative emotions include a lower self-esteem, aggressive
actions and antisocial behavior. However, believing you are liked, included, appreciated,
or valued elicits feelings of higher self-esteem and confidence boosts. A different number
of events can lead individuals to feel accepted versus rejected. We can simply see the
power of interpersonal acceptance and rejection when accepted vs. ostracized by a
group, adored vs. abandoned by a romantic partner, or elected vs. defeated in an
election.[24]

However, in all examples, people’s feelings begin from perceived relational evaluation.
Perceived relational evaluation is the degree to which you perceive others value having a
relationship with you. You feel more accepted if another person or group regards your
relationship with them as real and as important to them as it is to you. If they consider the
relationship unimportant, you feel rejected and respond negatively.[24]

In a series of experiments, Buckley, Winkel, and Leary found that the effects of rejection
are more potent than the effects of acceptance because negative feelings can cause
more feelings of hurt and pain, which in turn can lead to aggression and negative
behaviors. They also found people's reactions to extreme and moderate rejection were
similar, suggesting that once one has been rejected by an individual or group, the
severity of the rejection is less important[24]

Procedural justice
Procedural justice, in terms of belongingness, according to van Prooijen and colleagues
(2004), is the process by which people judge their level of belongingness in terms of their
ability to contribute to a group.[25] Members of a highly inclusive group show a higher
level of procedural justice, meaning that individuals that experience high levels of
inclusion respond in a more extreme manner to decisions allocated by members of their
ingroup than those that are handed down from members of an outgroup. In other words,
a person is more likely to believe and support fairness decisions made by members of an
ingroup in which they feel like they are a part of, compared to an ingroup in which they do
not feel as strongly connected. De Cremer and Blader (2006) found that when people feel
a heightened sense of belongingness, they process information about procedural justice
in a more careful and systematic way.[26] This means that when people feel like they
belong, they are more likely to examine procedural justice issues in a more thorough
manner than if they do not feel like they belong.

Fairness
Fairness principles are applied when belongingness needs are met. Van Prooojen and
11/18
colleagues (2004) found that fairness maintains an individual’s sense of inclusion in
social groups.[25] Fairness can be used as an inclusion maintenance tool. Relationships
are highly valued within groups, so members of those groups seek out fairness cues so
they can understand these relationships. De Cremer and colleagues (2013) suggest that
individuals with a high need to belong care more about procedural fairness information
and therefore pay closer attention to incoming information. Furthermore, Cornelis, Van
Hiel, De Cremer and Mayer (2013) propose that leaders of a group are likely to be more
fair when they are aware that the followers of the group have a high need to belong
versus a low need to belong.[27] This means that a leader who is aware that people in
their group are motivated to adhere to group values is more fair. Leaders are also more
fair in congruence with the amount of empathy they feel for followers. Empathetic leaders
are more likely to pay attention to differences among followers, and to consider a
follower’s belongingness needs when making decisions. In addition, Cornelis, Van Hiel, &
De Cremer (2012) discovered that leaders are more fair in granting their followers voice
when the leader is aware that the follower has a high need to belong.[28] This occurs
because of the attraction a leader feels to the follower and to the group. Leaders that are
attracted to their followers and to the group are motivated by the follower’s need to
belong to allow them a greater voice in the group.

Culture
In all cultures, the need to belong is prevalent. Although there are individual differences
in the intensity and strength of how people express and satisfy the need, it is almost
impossible for culture to eradicate the need to belong.[1] Collectivist countries are also
more likely to conform and comply with the majority group than members in individualistic
societies. Conformity is so important in collectivist societies that nonconformity can
represent deviance in East Asian cultures, yet represent uniqueness in Western
cultures.[14] Even early civilizations considered both exile and death as equal
punishments. Individuals in other countries strive to belong so much that being exiled or
shunned from their society is the biggest dishonor.[6]

Stigmas can create a global uncertainty about the quality of an individual’s social bonds
in academically and professional areas. Walton and Cohen conducted two experiments
that tested how belonging uncertainty undermines the achievement and motivation of
people whose racial group is negatively characterized in academic settings. The first
experiment had students believe that they might have a few friends in a field of study.
White students were unaffected by this however, black students who were stigmatized
academically displayed a drop in potential and sense of belonging. This response of
minority students happens because they are aware that they are underrepresented and
stigmatized therefore they perceive their worlds differently. Their second experiment was
set up as an intervention that was designed to de-racialize the meaning of hardship in
college by focusing hardships and doubts as a commonality among 1st year students
rather than due to race. What their findings suggest is that majority students may benefit
from an assumed sense of social belonging.[13]

12/18
Behavior/social problems
Belongingness, also referred to as connectedness, has been established as a strong
risk/protective factor for depressive symptoms. There is growing evidence that the
interpersonal factor of belongingness is strongly associated with depressive symptoms.
The impression of low relational value is consciously experienced as reduced self-
esteem. Reduced self-esteem is a fundamental element of depressive symptoms.
According to these views, belongingness perceptions have a direct effect upon
depressive symptoms due to innate neurological mechanisms. A number of studies have
confirmed a strong link between belongingness and depressive symptoms using the
Sense of Belonging Instrument-Psychological measurement. This measurement scale
contains 14 items that invoke the social world—for example, “I don’t feel there is any
place I really fit in this world.” The SOBI-P is intended to measure a general sense of
belonging.[29]

Group membership has been found to have both negative and positive associations with
behavior problems. Gender differences have been consistently observed in terms of
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Girls reported more internalizing
behaviors such as depression, and boys reporting more externalizing problems.
However, by providing a sense of security and peer acceptance, group membership may
reduce the tendency to develop internalizing problems such as depression or anxiety. A
lack of group membership is associated with behavior problems and puts adolescents at
a greater risk for both externalizing and internalizing problems [8] However, the need to
belong may sometimes result in individuals conforming to delinquent peer groups and
engaging in morally questionable activities, such as lying or cheating.[1]

Depression
Humans have a profound need to connect with others and gain acceptance into social
groups. When relationships deteriorate or when social bonds are broken, people have
been found to suffer from depressive symptoms. [30] Having a greater sense of belonging
has been linked to lower levels of loneliness and depression.[31] Although feeling
disconnected from others and experiencing a lack of belonging may negatively affect any
individual, those who are depressed are more sensitive to these painful experiences.
Due to the importance of social experiences to people’s well-being, and to etiology and
maintenance of depression, it is vital to examine how depressed people’s well-being is
enhanced or eroded by positive and negative social interactions.

When people experience positive social interactions, they should feel a sense of
belonging. However, depressed people’s social information-processing biases make
them less likely to recognize cues of acceptance and belonging in social interactions. For
example, in a laboratory study using information-processing tasks assessing attention
and memory for sad, physically threatening, socially threatening, and positive stimuli,
clinically depressed people were found to show preferential attention to sad faces,
emotion words, and adjectives. Depressed people displayed biases for stimuli concerned
with sadness and loss.[32]
13/18
People who are depressed often fail to satisfy their need for belonging in relationships
and therefore, report fewer intimate relationships. Those who are depressed appear to
induce negative affect in other individuals, which consequently elicits rejection and the
loss of socially rewarding opportunities. Depressed people are less likely to feel a sense
of belonging and are more likely to pay attention to negative social interactions. Research
has found that depressive symptoms may sensitize people to everyday experiences of
both social rejection and social acceptance.[30]

Suicide
Numerous studies have indicated that low belonging, acquired ability to self-injure, and
burdensomeness are associated with suicidal behaviors. A recent theoretical
development: interpersonal theory of suicidal behavior, offers an explanation for the
association between parental displacement and suicidal behavior. Thomas Joiner, who
recently proposed an interpersonal theory of suicide, suggests that two elements must
be present for suicidal behavior to occur. The first element is the desire for suicide and
the second is the acquired capability for suicide. In turn, the desire for suicide, is broken
into two components: thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness. Together
these two components create a motivational force for suicidal behavior.[33] Specifically
speaking of adolescent suicidal behavior, the theory proposes that suicidal behavior is a
result of individuals having a desire for death and the acquired ability to self-inflict
injuries. Increased acquired ability refers to a lack of pain response during self-injury,
which has been found to be linked to the number of suicide attempts in a lifetime.[34]

Displacement from parents includes events such as abandonment of the adolescent,

divorce, or death of a parent. Parental relationships are a representation of belonging for
adolescents because parents may be particularly important for providing the stable and
caring relationships that are a fundamental component of belonging. Relationships
between parents and adolescents that are positive have been found to be a protective
factor that reduces the risk of suicidal behavior in adolescents. Connectedness with
parents such as closeness between parent and child and the perceived caring of
parents, has been associated with lower levels of past suicide attempts and ideation.
Another protective factor found against adolescent suicide attempts was higher levels of
parental involvement.[34]

According to Baumeister and Leary, belongingness theory proposes that the desire for
death is caused by failed interpersonal processes. Similar to Joiner, one is a thwarted
sense of belonging due to an unmet need to belong and the other process being a sense
that one is a burden on others. They argue that all individuals have a fundamental need
to belong. This need to belong is only met if an individual has frequent, positive
interactions with others and feels cared about by significant others.[1] The concept of low
belonging suggested by interpersonal theory of suicidal behavior is most relevant to
parental displacement and adolescent suicidal behavior because it is likely that parental
displacement would affect perceived belonging of adolescents. It was found that
adolescents who averaged at about the age of 16, who experienced both low levels of
belonging and displacement had the highest risk for suicide.[34] Parental displacement
14/18
would disrupt the parent-adolescent relationship and consequently would diminish both
the frequency and quality of interactions between the two, reducing the adolescent’s
sense of belonging.

A study conducted on suicide notes, examined the frequency in themes of thwarted

belongingness and perceived burdensomeness in samples of suicide notes. The study of
suicide notes has been a useful method for examining the motivations of suicides. It is
important to note that this research is limited due to the small proportion of completed
suicides that actually leave notes. This specific study explored the extent to which the
content in the suicide notes reflected thwarted belongingness and perceived
burdensomeness. They also examined the extent to which these two themes were found
in the same note. This study found that suicide notes did not significantly support the
hypothesis that perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness, combine with
acquired capability to cause suicidal behavior. There was no strong support for the
relevance of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness as motivations of
suicide. They did, however, find that the suicide notes of women more frequently
contained the theme of perceived burdensomeness and suicide notes of younger people
more frequently contained thwarted belongingness.[35]

References
1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995).
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.117.3.49
2. Jump up ^ Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
3. Jump up ^ Roy, M. (Ed.). (1977). Batter women. New York: Van Nostrand.
4. Jump up ^ MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion
hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin,
131, 202-223. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202
5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Fiske, S.T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to
social psychology. United States of America: Wiley.
6. ^ Jump up to: a b c d DeWall, C., Deckman, T., Pond, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011).
Belongingness as a Core Personality Trait: How Social Exclusion Influences Social
Functioning and Personality Expression. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 979-1012.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00695.x
7. Jump up ^ Stillman, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Uncertainty, belongingness,
and four needs for meaning. Psychological Inquiry, 20(4), 249-251.
doi:10.1080/10478400903333544
8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer
group membership and a sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent
behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241-263.
9. Jump up ^ Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept,
social Identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
15/18
10. Jump up ^ Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-
presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641-
669. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.641
11. Jump up ^ Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships.
In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology,
Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 193-281). New York, NY US: McGraw-Hill.
12. Jump up ^ Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. (2012). Mere
belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102(3), 513-532. doi:10.1037/a0025731
13. ^ Jump up to: a b Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging:
Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92(1), 82-96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
14. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social Influence:
Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
15. Jump up ^ Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Frieson, C. K. (2009). Gaze-
triggered orienting as a tool of the belongingness self-regulation system.
Psychological Science, 20(4), 495-501.
16. Jump up ^ Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M.
(2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(4), 589.
17. Jump up ^ Bauman, K. E., & Ennett, S. T. (1994). Peer influence on adolescent
drug use. American Psychologist, 94, 820-822.
18. Jump up ^ Anderman, L. H., & Freeman, T. (2004). Students' sense of belonging
in school. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement: Vol. 13. Motivating students, improving schools - The legacy of Carol
Midgley (pp. 27-63). Greenwich, CT: Elsevier
19. Jump up ^ Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance,
and group membership. Child Development, 68, 1198-1209
20. Jump up ^ Hymel, S., Comfort, C, Schonert-Reichl, K, & McDougald, P. (1996).
Academic failure and school dropout. In I. luvonen & K R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social
motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 313-345). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
21. Jump up ^ Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological
functioning in late adolescence: The importance of school belonging. Journal of
Experimental Education, 75(4), 270-290.
22. ^ Jump up to: a b Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). The dynamic reality of
adolescent peer networks and sense of belonging. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1),
48-72.
23. ^ Jump up to: a b Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The
interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1131-1139. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.4.1131
24. ^ Jump up to: a b c Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E. & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions

16/18
 to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14-28
25. ^ Jump up to: a b van Prooijen, J. W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. (2004).
Group belongingness and procedural justice: social inclusion and exclusion by
peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87(1), 66.
26. Jump up ^ De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about
procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending
to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 211-228.
27. Jump up ^ Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2013). When
leaders choose to be fair: Follower belongingness needs and leader empathy
influences leaders' adherence to procedural fairness rules. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 49(4), 605-613.
28. Jump up ^ Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., & De Cremer, D. (2012). The effect of
followers’ belongingness needs on leaders’ procedural fairness enactment:
Mediation through interpersonal and team attraction. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 11(1), 31-39.
29. Jump up ^ Cockshaw, W., & Shochet, I. (2010). The link between belongingness
and depressive symptoms: An exploration in the workplace interpersonal context.
Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 283-289. doi:10.1080/00050061003752418.
30. ^ Jump up to: a b Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Depression and everyday
social activity, belonging, and well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2),
289-300. doi:10.1037/a0015416
31. Jump up ^ Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and Psychological
Functioning in Late Adolescence: The Importance of School Belonging. Journal of
Experimental Education, 75(4), 270-290.
32. Jump up ^ Gotlib, I. H., Kasch, K. L., Traill, S., Joormann, J., Arnow, B. A., &
Johnson, S. L. (n.d). Coherence and Specificity of Information-Processing Biases
in Depression and Social Phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 386-
398. doi:10.1037/0021-843.113.3.386
33. Jump up ^ Joiner, T. E., Jr., Pettit, J. W., Walker, R. L., Voelz, Z. R., Cruz, J.,
Rudd, M. D., & Lester, D. ( 2002). Perceived burdensomeness and suicidality: Two
studies on the suicide notes of those attempting and those completing suicide.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 531– 545.
34. ^ Jump up to: a b c Timmons, K. A., Selby, E. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Joiner, T. E.
(2011). Parental Displacement and Adolescent Suicidality: Exploring the Role of
Failed Belonging. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(6), 807-
817. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.614584
35. Jump up ^ Gunn, J., Lester, D., Haines, J., & Williams, C. L. (2012). Thwarted
belongingness and perceived burdensomeness in suicide notes. Crisis: The
Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 33(3), 178-181.
doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000123

Further reading
17/18
Youkhana, Eva. "Belonging" (2016). University Bielefeld - Center for InterAmerican
Studies.

18/18