Social Inclusion Leads Individuals to Devalue Groups of Perceived Inferior Quality Donald F. Sacco The University of Southern Mississippi Michael J. Bernstein Penn State Abington Much is known about how social exclusion influences affiliation interest; however, little research has explored how social inclusion affects individuals’ affiliative tendencies, such as their evaluation of their existing group memberships and interest in additional affiliative opportunities. We hypothesized that, because so- cially included individuals’ self-esteem and belongingness needs have been sati- ated, these individuals might display a reduced tendency to derive self-esteem benefits from negative (but not positive) groups to which they belong as well as reduced interest in joining lower status groups compared to individuals in a social exclusion or control condition. In 2 studies, individuals completed a writing task to activate feelings of inclusion, exclusion, or a control state. Study 1 participants then indicated their collective self-esteem associated with a positive and negative group to which they were a member. Social inclusion participants reported reduced collective self-esteem, specifically public collective self-esteem, from negative group memberships, compared to control and social exclusion participants (all participants reported deriving similar levels of collective self-esteem from positive group memberships). Study 2 participants were asked to indicate their interest in joining sororities/fraternities that varied in prestige and ease of entry. Compared to social exclusion and control participants, social inclusion participants showed reduced interest in joining a relatively low prestige fraternity/sorority that was easier to obtain membership into. Collectively, these 2 studies indicate that social inclusion leads individuals to set a higher criterion for personal group membership. Keywords: social inclusion, groups, identity, self-esteem Humans are intensely social animals that crave affiliation. Evidence for the pervasiveness of this belongingness need is supported by research indi- cating that social exclusion is an aversive experi- ence (e.g., leads to low self-esteem; Leary, 1990) that often prompts efforts to regain social affilia- tion following an episode of social exclusion (e.g., Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). 1 Indeed, research demonstrates numerous reaffili- ative tendencies associated with the experience of social exclusion, such as increased behavioral mimicry (a behavior shown to increase liking; Lakin, Chartrand, & Arkin, 2008), more prosocial behavior (allowing the excluded individual to ap- pear as an attractive potential interaction partner; Maner et al., 2007), and more effort on a collec- tive task (Williams & Sommer, 1997). Thus, so- 1 Although some researchers have distinguished among exclusion, rejection, and ostracism (e.g., Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009), it is often the case that researchers use these terms interchangeably. Given that these three phenomena share a core feature (thwarting of belongingness), this may be a reasonable position to take. More specifically, rejection, ostracism, and exclusion pro- duce the responses they do because they undermine social connections. In both of our studies, participants recalled or imagined a time in which they were “excluded.” As such, we use the term “exclusion” throughout because it is the most accurate description of our manipulation. This article was published Online First September 21, 2015. Donald F. Sacco, Department of Psychology, The Uni- versity of Southern Mississippi; Michael J. Bernstein, Psy- chological and Social Sciences Program, Penn State Abing- ton. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Donald F. Sacco, Department of Psychology, The University of Southern Mississippi, Owings-McQuagge Hall, 118 College Drive #5025, Hattiesburg, MS 39406. E-mail: donald.sacco@usm.edu Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice © 2015 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 19, No. 4, 211–224 1089-2699/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000035 211