Over the past thirty-five years, research assessing the motivational basis of various forms of in-group favoritism has centered on the role of self-esteem. This research has revealed a series of conflicting and often contradictory findings (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Rubin and Hewstone, 1998). Some, noting that research in this area is often beset by conceptual and methodological shortcomings, have sought to overcome these problems (Hunter et al. 2011; Iacoviello, Berent, Frederic, & Pereira, 2017). Others claim that self-esteem has been over-implicated in intergroup relations and, have argued that other motives may more appropriately explain in-group favoritism (Hogg & Abrams, 1993; Hunter et al. 2017).

One motive that may be especially relevant in this regard is belonging. Belonging is generally held to be a core motive in social psychology (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, 2009). People seek to belong in the most minimal of circumstances and will often stay in relationships even when they might suffer for doing so. Further when achieved, belonging provides an array of psychological benefits (Cruwys, Haslam, Dingle, Haslam & Jetten, 2014; Scarf et al. 2016). When belonging is thwarted, through rejection or isolation, it is associated with a wide range of negative psychological, behavioral, and physical outcomes (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Williams, 2009).

Until recently, most of the research concerned with assessing the relationship between belonging (defined here as one’s subjective sense of acceptance by in-group members) and intergroup behavior has focused on the reactions of those whose sense of inclusion is threatened. Much of the evidence, from this corpus of work, suggests that when threatened with an exclusion, group members often respond with pronounced levels of in-group favoritism (Jetten, Branscombe & Spears, 2002; Noel, Branscombe & Wann, 1995; cf. Fahey, Hunter, Scarf & Ruffman, 2019; Hunter et al. 2017), ethnocentrism (Greitemeyer, 2012), out-group prejudice (Nesdale et al. 2010), intergroup hostility (Schaafsma, & Williams, 2012), category-based aggression (Gaertner, Iuzzini, & O’Mara, 2008) and a tendency to endorse extreme behavior that supports the in-group (Gómez, Morales, Hart, Vázquez, & Swann, 2011).

These findings are consistent with the premise that belonging is an important motive for intergroup behavior in so far as threats to group inclusion motivate the expression of in-group favoritism as a means by which people can re-establish belonging (Leonardelli, Pickitt & Brewer, 2010). The need to belong may be especially strong amongst those who are denied full acceptance into their respective in-groups. It is also possible, however, as Hunter et al (2017) note, that social category members may resort to in-group favoritism to enhance their sense of belonging.

This latter proposition may be derived from at least three theoretical frameworks. First, from the perspective of Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT, Brewer, 1991), there is a direct prediction that in-group favoritism may be motivated by the need for inclusion (Leonardelli et al. 2010, p. 97). Second, on the basis of the social identity perspective (an amalgamation of social identity and self-categorization theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al. 1987), Branscombe, and her colleagues have argued that the display of in-group favoritism may be used as means by which to manage social identity (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 1999). That is, in circumstances where it is normative or socially appropriate to display in-group favoritism, category members may display such behavior strategically in order they achieve in-group acceptance.

Third, from the perspective of the belonging hypothesis (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2010) and sociometer theory (Leary, 2005), it has been proposed that many of the social behaviors traditionally thought to be motivated by self-esteem are more readily explicable in terms of belonging. This point is specifically emphasized by Leary (2005) in his discussion of the research pertaining to in-group favoritism and self-esteem. Leary states that (a) inconsistent findings in this area emerge “because self-esteem is not the critical variable” that underlies in-group favoritism (Leary, 2005, p. 103), and (b) that we might progress our understanding in this area if we replace self-esteem with belonging.

The crucial factors, in this regard according to Leary, are relational value and belonging (Leary, 2005, 2010). To be included (and not rejected) people need to demonstrate that they are good and valuable group members (i.e., they have high relational value). Group serving acts such as displays of loyalty and support for the in-group’s goals and values function to achieve this. Indeed, Platow, O’Connell, Shave, and Hanning (1995) found that group members were perceived as more socially attractive when they showed in-group favoritism than intergroup fairness. Thus, in the context of intergroup relations, in-group favoritism can emerge as a means of facilitating acceptance and belonging.

In sum, on the basis of insights derived from a number of theoretical perspectives, there is reason to believe that in-group favoritism may function to enhance belonging. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that threatened belonging may promote enhanced in-group favoritism (Jetten et al. 2002; Noel et al. 1995). The aim of the current investigation is to examine both of these possibilities. Two hypotheses are subsequently tested. The first is that in-group favoritism will lead to relatively high levels of subjective belonging. The second, is that threats to belonging (manipulated via imagined rejection) will lead to relatively high levels of in-group favoritism.