A sense of belonging in a particular context is cued not only by the people in the role but by the affordances of the role—that is, the opportunities for goal pursuit. We investigate this role-based belonging in four studies documenting that the perceived affordances of social roles inform sense of belonging and convey known benefits of belonging. Perceiving more communal opportunities in naturalistic science, technology, engineering, and mathematic (STEM) settings was associated with heightened belonging in those roles (Studies 1–2). Experimentally manipulating collaborative activities in a science lab increased anticipated belonging in the lab and fostered interest, particularly among women (Study 3). Finally, mentally simulating communal affordances in a role promoted recovery from belonging threat: Considering communal opportunities in STEM facilitated recovery of STEM-specific belonging after recalling exclusion in STEM (Study 4). Investigations of role-based belonging offer the potential for both theoretical and practical advances.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
2.
BelangerA. L.DiekmanA. B.SteinbergM. (2017). Leveraging communal experiences in the curriculum: Increasing positivity toward engineering by changing stereotypic expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12438
3.
BernsteinM. J.YoungS. G.BrownC. M.SaccoD. F.ClaypoolH. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19(10), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x
4.
BoucherK. L.FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.MurphyM. C. (2017). Can I work with and help others in this field? How communal goals influence interest and participation in STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00901
5.
BrinkmanB.DiekmanA. B. (2016, March2–5). Applying the communal goal congruity perspective to enhance diversity and inclusion in undergraduate computing degrees. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education (pp. 102–107). https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844562
6.
BrownE. R.SmithJ. L.ThomanD. B.AllenJ. M.MuragishiG. (2015). From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1116–1135.
7.
BrownE. R.ThomanD. B.SmithJ. L.DiekmanA. B. (2015). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(12), 662–673.
8.
ChenX.WekoT. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
9.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
10.
ClaypoolH. M.BernsteinM. J. (2014). Social exclusion and stereotyping: Why and when exclusion fosters individuation of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035621
11.
ColvinW.LydenS.León de la BarraB. (2013). Attracting girls to civil engineering through hands-on activities that reveal the communal goals and values of the profession. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 13(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000208
12.
DerrickJ. L.GabrielS.HugenbergK. (2009). Social surrogacy: How favored television programs provide the experience of belonging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.003
13.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
14.
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025199
15.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). Guilford.
16.
DiekmanA. B.SteinbergM.BrownE. R.BelangerA. L.ClarkE. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141
17.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2011). Social role theory. In LangeP. A. M. VanKruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). SAGE.
18.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857
21.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659
22.
HalesA. H.WesselmannE. D.WilliamsK. D. (2016). Prayer, self-affirmation, and distraction improve recovery from short-term ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.002
23.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
JacksonM. C.GalvezG.LandaI.BuonoraP.ThomanD. B.GibbsK. (2016). Science that matters: The importance of a cultural connection in underrepresented students’ science pursuit. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar42. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0067
26.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899–913.
LibenL. S.CoyleE. F. (2014). Developmental interventions to address the stem gender gap: Exploring intended and unintended consequences. In LibenL. S.BiglerR. S. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 77–115). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240714000111
29.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
30.
ManerJ. K.DeWallC. N.BaumeisterR. F.SchallerM. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55.
31.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557
32.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
33.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math not = me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59.
34.
PickettC. L.GardnerW. L.KnowlesM. (2004). Getting a Cue: The Need to Belong and Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095–1107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262085
35.
PohlmannK. (2001). Agency- and communion-orientation in life goals: Impacts on goal pursuit strategies and psychological well-being. In SchmuckP.SheldonK. M. (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 68–84). Hogrefe & Huber.
36.
RenD.WesselmannE.WilliamsK. D. (2016). Evidence for another response to ostracism: Solitude seeking. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615616169
37.
RidgewayC. L.BourgC. (2004). Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach. In EaglyA. H.BeallA. E.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 217–241). Guilford Press.
38.
SadlerP. M.SonnertG.HazariZ.TaiR. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21007
39.
SchmaderT.SedikidesC. (2018). State authenticity as fit to environment: The implications of social identity for fit, authenticity, and self-segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 228–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317734080
40.
Smart RichmanL.LearyM. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization, ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: A multimotive model. Psychological Review, 116(2), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250
41.
SmithJ. L.CechE.MetzA.HuntoonM.MoyerC. (2014). Giving back or giving up: Native American student experiences in science and engineering. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036945
42.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4-28.
43.
SteinbergM.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Considering “why” to engage in STEM activities elevates communal content of STEM affordances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.010
44.
TangH. H. Y.RichardsonR. (2013). Reversing the negative psychological sequelae of exclusion: Inclusion is ameliorative but not protective against the aversive consequences of exclusion. Emotion, 13(1), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029521
45.
ThomanD. B.MuragishiG. A.SmithJ. L. (2017). Research microcultures as socialization contexts for underrepresented science students. Psychological Science, 28, 760–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617694865
46.
TroisiJ. D.GabrielS. (2011). Chicken soup really is good for the soul: “Comfort food” fulfills the need to belong. Psychological Science, 22(6), 747–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611407931
47.
WaltonG. M.BradyS. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S.YeagerD. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 272–293). Guilford.
48.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
49.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L.CwirD.SpencerS. J. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532.
50.
WaltonG. M.LogelC.PeachJ. M.SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P. (2015). Two brief interventions to mitigate a “chilly climate” transform women’s experience, relationships, and achievement in engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 468–485.
51.
WeisgramE. S.BiglerR. S. (2006). The role of attitudes and intervention in high school girls’ interest in computer science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v12.i4.40
52.
WeisgramE. S.BiglerR. S.LibenL. S. (2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81, 778–796.
53.
WesselmannE. D.RenD.WilliamsK. D. (2015). Motivations for responses to ostracism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00040
WilliamsK. D. (2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 275–314.
56.
WirthJ. H.WilliamsK. D. (2009). “They don’t like our kind”: Consequences of being ostracized while possessing a group membership. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 111–127.
57.
ZadroL.WilliamsK. D.RichardsonR. (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.2003.11.006
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
