Abstract
Three studies were conducted to examine the relationship between distinct forms of in-group favouritism and belonging. Studies 1 and 2 investigated the extent to which in-group favouring evaluations led to increased levels of belonging. Study 3 examined the extent to which the (a) difference in the amount of white noise allocation to in-group and out-group members led to increased levels of belonging and (b) threats to belonging (manipulated via Cyberball feedback) impacted on subsequent white noise allocations. Study 1 revealed that Christians that evaluated fellow Christians (i.e., in-group members ) more positively than they did Atheists (i.e., out-group members) reported elevated belonging levels. Study 2 showed that New Zealanders who evaluated fellow New Zealanders (i.e., in-group members) more positively than they did Americans (i.e., out-group members), demonstrated increased belonging levels. The findings of study 3 revealed that New Zealanders who were ostracised and who, therefore, reported decreased belonging levels, allocated increased levels of white noise to Americans (i.e., out-group members) following which they reported an increase in belonging levels. Partial correlation, across studies, revealed that the relationship between in-group favouritism and belonging levels was not a function of group esteem, personal self-esteem, or group identity (studies 1, 2 and 3) or motives like control and meaning (study 2). Taken together, these finding suggested that particular forms of in-group favouritism can result in higher levels of belonging and that threats to belonging can promote the display of negative forms of in-group favouritism.