![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
Humans have an overwhelming desire to belong to social groups and if rejected, may act ingratiatory, and conform more easily, to a new accepting group (Williams, 2007) to establish themselves as a valued group member. We investigated whether following rejection, individuals were more willing to participate in and condone varying political actions against an excluding and opposing organization on behalf of a new organization. Results showed that rejected participants were more inclined to be politically active toward the outgroup, and this effect was magnified in those high in rejection sensitivity. Effects were mediated by thwarted inclusionary needs, suggesting that actions directed toward an outgroup may be driven by pro-social belongingness needs rather than outgroup aggression.
Notes
1. The inclusionary needs consist of the items “I did not feel accepted by the group” and “I felt left out when I heard the group's statement” (Need for Belonging); “I felt that the group did not consider me as a valuable and pleasant person” and “I felt I did not quite fit into the group” (Need for Self-Esteem), while the power-provocation needs consist of the items: “I felt frustrated when I heard the group's statement” and “I felt I had control of the situation” (Need for Control); “I felt that what I did [e.g., write about myself] had some impact on the group's decisions,” “I felt as if I was not there for the group” and “I felt as if my life was meaningless” (Need for a Meaningful Existence).
2. This is referred to as an ultra-Heywood case.
3. We also ran all analyses with both the separate indices for willingness (action/peaceful action/extreme action items), and recommendation (demonstrate/sabotage/vandalize) as well as, for an index of the two peaceful recommended action items, separately.
4. There was a significant difference between the rejected and non-rejected participants on the inclusionary needs, t(36) = − 3.96, p < .001, d = 1.29, such that rejected participants reported higher levels of distress (M = 4.41, SD = 1.03, and M = 2.47, SD = 1.86, for the rejected and non-rejected participants, respectively). This difference was not significant for the power-provocation needs, t(36) = 0.10, p = .92, d = 1.08.
5.t-Tests were significant, or close to significant for the recommendation index, t(36) = − 2.57, p = .14, d = 0.84, the peaceful recommendation index, t(36) = − 1.70, p = .098, d = 0.75, and for the willingness index, t(36) = − 1.89, p = .066, d = 0.62, such that rejected individuals were more willing to recommend actions (M = 2.53, SD = 1.16), peaceful actions (M = 6.44, SD = 0.76), and participate in actions (M = 3.11, SD = 1.34) than non-rejected participants (M's = 1.72, 5.89, and 2.33, SD's = 0.73, 1.20, and 1.17, respectively).
6. The analysis for the recommended action index showed similar results (a1: B = 1.93, p < .001, a2: B = − 0.04, p = .92, b1: B = 0.17, p = .13, b2: B = 0.19, p = .22, c: B = 0.81, p = .01, c′: B = 0.48, p = .196), as did the analysis for the recommended peaceful actions (a1: B = 1.93, p < .001, a2: B = − 0.04, p = .92, b1: B = 0.28, p = .02, b2: B = − 0.21, p = .20, c: B = 0.55, p = .09, c′: B = 0.01, p = .98), and that for the willingness index (a1: B = 1.93, p < .001, a2: B = − 0.04, p = .92, b1: B = 0.22, p = .15, b2: B = 0.15, p = .45, c: B = 0.77, p = .066, c′: B = 0.36, p = .47), although somewhat less strong results, the pattern is the same across all dependent variables.
7. The interaction was significant for the recommendation index, B = 0.26, SE = .09, p = .004, for the willingness index, B = 0.41, SE = .11, p < .001, and for the recommended peaceful actions, B = 0.33, SE = .08, p < .001.