The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion

Abstract

This chapter reviews research on the consequences of being excluded from desired social relationships or groups, as well as the social psychological processes through which this occurs. Exclusion challenges people's fundamental need to belong to a social unit. It causes a number of dysfunctional reactions including lowered self-esteem, greater anger, inability to reason well, depression and anxiety, and self-defeating perceptions and behaviours. Being excluded also evokes antisocial and aggressive responses, most likely because of the threat it poses to people's need for control. Other responses are more passive and include withdrawal or self-harm, whereas more constructive responses include trying harder to engage with the majority or conforming more strongly to relevant norms. Social categories and groups can serve both as the target of and a haven from social exclusion. Under certain conditions, people may develop a strong political commitment to a devalued or excluded in-group. Additionally, groups may use exclusion as a means of controlling both the behaviour of individual members and the subjective validity of the group's values or norms. When these values are threatened, it is more likely that groups will display intolerance and attempt to increase their internal cohesiveness. Strategies that promote intergroup contact on the one hand, and a shared sense of identity on the other, might go some way towards promoting inclusionary responses by both the excluders and excluded, respectively.

Full text

CHAPTER 3
The Social Psychology
of Exclusion
Paul Hutchison
London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
Dominic Abrams
University of Kent, United Kingdom
and
Julie Christian
University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
This chapter reviews research on the consequences of being excluded from desired social
relationships or groups, as well as the social psychological processes through which this
occurs. Exclusion challenges people’s fundamental need to belong to a social unit. It causes
a number of dysfunctional reactions including lowered self-esteem, greater anger, inability
to reason well, depression and anxiety, and self-defeating perceptions and behaviours.
Being excluded also evokes antisocial and aggressive responses, most likely because of
the threat it poses to people’s need for control. Other responses are more passive and
include withdrawal or self-harm, whereas more constructive responses include trying
harder to engage with the majority or conforming more strongly to relevant norms. Social
categories and groups can serve both as the target of and a haven from social exclusion.
Under certain conditions, people may develop a strong political commitment to a devalued
or excluded in-group. Additionally, groups may use exclusion as a means of controlling
both the behaviour of individual members and the subjective validity of the group’s values
or norms. When these values are threatened, it is more likely that groups will display
intolerance and attempt to increase their internal cohesiveness. Strategies that promote
intergroup contact on the one hand, and a shared sense of identity on the other, might go
some way towards promoting inclusionary responses by both the excluders and excluded,
respectively.
Multidisciplinary Handbook of Social Exclusion Research. Edited by D. Abrams, J. Christian and D. Gordon.
© 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

30 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION
Social exclusion is a complex concept that encompasses a variety of interconnected pro-
cesses and problems. It has far-reaching consequences for individuals and groups and has
been linked to a host of negative outcomes, including poor health and well-being, aca-
demic underachievement, antisocial and criminal behaviour, and reduced access to
housing, employment and social justice (see Abrams, Hogg & Marques, 2005). Recent
years have witnessed a dramatic increase in social psychological research on both the
causes and consequences of social exclusion. Researchers have often attempted to delin-
eate meaningful distinctions between various different types of exclusion experiences (e.g.
Leary, 2005), but it remains unclear whether these result in different types of outcomes
for the individuals and groups involved. In this chapter we use the term social exclusion
to refer to the consequences of being excluded, rejected, or marginalized from desired
relationships or groups as well as the social psychological processes through which this
occurs. The chapter is organized into four sections. The fi rst section reviews research on
the psychological and behavioural correlates and consequences of social exclusion for
targeted individuals and groups. The second section reviews research on how people react
to and cope with group-based exclusion and discrimination. The third section focuses on
the intra- and intergroup dynamics that predict when groups will choose to include or
exclude others. The fi nal section focuses on some ongoing lines of research that might
usefully inform policy development.
CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION FOR
TARGETED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS
Most people, at some point in their lives, have had the experience of feeling excluded or
being rejected by signifi cant others. Almost without exception, the consequences of social
exclusion for targeted individuals and groups are negative. This may be related to a basic
human need to belong. It has been suggested that after basic survival needs such as the
need for nourishment and the need for shelter, the need to belong is one of the strongest
human motivations (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; see also Brewer, 1991). Similarly, devel-
opmental theorists have argued that people have a basic need to form attachments with
others in order to feel secure (Bowlby, 1973). These needs may have an evolutionary basis
in that people who formed and maintained strong bonds with others may have been better
equipped to survive and reproduce than those living alone (Leary, 2001). Perhaps as a
consequence, people will devote often considerable time and energy to forming and main-
taining social attachments and are negatively affected when they are absent or break down
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 1990; Williams, 2001).
Psychological and Emotional Responses to Social Exclusion
Many studies have examined people’s reactions to social exclusion on various self-report
measures of psychological adjustment, well-being and affect. Several studies have shown
that people who are excluded from desired relationships or groups feel a range of negative

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 31
emotions, including sadness, disappointment, jealousy, anger and shame (e.g. Baumeister
& Tice, 1990; Leary, 1990; Marcus & Askari, 1999; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000).
Being excluded also makes people more anxious (Barden et al., 1985; Baumeister & Tice,
1990; Hoyle & Crawford, 1994) and reduces their life satisfaction, sense of meaningful
existence and hope (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Smith & Williams, 2004; Social
Exclusion Unit, 2001; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000; Zadro, Williams & Richardson,
2004). These effects emerge regardless of the source of exclusion. For example, Gonsalko-
rale and Williams (2007) found that people who were rejected by despised out-group
members found this equally aversive as people who were rejected by an in-group or a rival
out-group. Moreover, when people are excluded from a group, they lose all the psychologi-
cal and material benefi ts associated with membership—e.g. social networks, social and
informational support, access to resources, and so on. It is therefore not surprising that
people often feel a reduction in self-effi cacy following social exclusion (McLaughlin-
Volpe et al., 2005). Reduced self-effi cacy can in turn undermine perceptions of control,
which itself has been shown to correlate with a range of negative emotions, including
anxiety, frustration and anger (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978; Deci & Ryan,
1991; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; McLaughlin-Volpe et al., 2005; Skinner, 1992).
Other research suggests that people’s sense of belonging may be reduced following
social exclusion (Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007; Smith & Williams, 2004; Williams,
Cheung & Choi, 2000; Zadro, Williams & Richardson, 2004). People with a lowered
sense of belonging are also more likely to experience a range of ill effects, including
depression (e.g. Cuijpers & van Lammeren, 1999; Hagerty et al., 1996; Hoyle & Crawford,
1994; McLaren et al., 2001), negative affect (e.g. Barden et al., 1985; Baumeister & Tice,
1990; Black & Hutchison, 2007), and low self-esteem and psychological well-being (e.g.
Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Black & Hutchison, 2007; Coyne & Downey, 1991; Ganster
& Victor, 1988). Similarly, individuals who report more cultural estrangement or who
perceive themselves as misfi ts (Cozzarelli & Karafa, 1998) score higher on self-report
measures of depression and anxiety (Bernard, Gebauer & Maio, 2006). Additionally, a
considerable amount of research has reported reductions in self-esteem following social
exclusion or rejection experiences (Leary, 1990; Leary et al., 1995; Sommer et al., 2001;
Spanier & Casto, 1979; Williams, Cheung & Choi, 2000; Zadro, Williams & Richardson,
2004).
The feeling of being excluded is also akin to physical pain (MacDonald & Leary, 2005).
Williams and Fitness (2004, cited in Williams, 2007) found that when people were asked
to recall physically or socially painful events, currently experienced pain was greater for
recalled social pain experiences, especially those that involved rejection or ostracism.
Moreover, Eisenberger, Lieberman and Williams (2003) used functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (f MRI) to examine the neural correlates of social exclusion and found that
the same region of the brain that is activated during the experience of physical pain is
also activated during social exclusion.
When feelings of exclusion persist over extended periods of time, chronic expectations
of exclusion may result (Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). People who develop such expecta-
tions are more likely to feel depressed, have low self-esteem and experience more negative
affect than those who expect to be accepted (Ayduk, Downey & Kim, 2001; Downey &
Feldman, 1996; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002). Such individuals may lack the confi dence
and motivation to seek out new social relationships and may attribute their marginal status
to their own perceived defi ciencies (Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Major & Steele,

32 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
1998; Hortulanus, Machielse & Meeuwesen, 2006). Consequently, exclusion becomes a
self-perpetuating process.
Social Exclusion and Health
Increasingly, researchers have been giving attention to the effects of social exclusion on
the physical health and well-being of members of socially excluded or marginalized
groups. The majority of this work has focused on health disparities across racial and
ethnic groups. Such disparities have been repeatedly documented in both the United
Kingdom (e.g. Bhopal, 2007; Erens, Primatesta & Prior, 2001; Harding & Maxwell, 1997;
Marmot et al., 1984; Nazroo, 2003; Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technology,
2007; Rudat, 1994; Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) and the United States (e.g. Geronimus
et al., 1996; Heckler, 1985; McCord & Freeman, 1990; MMWR, 2005; Williams, 1995;
Williams & Jackson, 2005). In the United Kingdom, ethnic minorities report some of the
poorest levels of health. Surveys continually show that Black and ethnic minority groups
as a whole are more likely to report ill-health, and that ill-health in members of such
groups starts at a younger age than in White British people. For example, Black and ethnic
minority groups tend to have higher rates of cardiovascular disease than White British
people and are more likely to die of a stroke. Such groups also face signifi cantly higher
levels of stress and mental health problems (Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technol-
ogy, 2007; Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). Likewise, in the United States, compared to all
other major racial groups, Black Americans have the highest rates of morbidity and mor-
tality for almost all diseases. Black Americans also have higher infant mortality rates,
higher disability rates and shorter life expectancies (Allison, 1998; Feagin & McKinney,
2003; Geronimus et al., 1996; Kochanek et al., 2004; Levine et al., 2001; Major &
O’Brien, 2005; MMWR, 2005; Smith et al., 1998; Williams, 1995; Williams & Jackson,
2005).
Health disparities that affect ethnic and racial groups no doubt arise from many differ-
ent factors, such as cultural differences in lifestyle, material wealth, educational attain-
ment, job security, housing conditions and access to healthcare services (Mays, Cochran
& Barnes, 2007; Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technology, 2007; Williams,
Spencer & Jackson, 1999). Controversially, some researchers have argued that these dis-
parities may be biologically determined (Rushton, 1995). However, there is growing con-
sensus that it is scientifi cally untenable to view racial categories as representing biological
distinctiveness (e.g. Braun, 2002; Cooper & David, 1986; Gould, 1977; Lewontin, 1972;
Williams, 1997). More compelling accounts suggest that such disparities are shaped by
social and economic inequalities that are refl ected in discrepancies in access to health-
related services and resources (e.g. Marmot, 2005; Percival, Chapter 9; Williams &
Jackson, 2005). Indeed, many of the groups identifi ed as having the poorest health in most
countries are also those that experience signifi cantly poorer access to employment, educa-
tion and healthcare services (Boardman, 2004; Link & Phelan, 2001; Roberts, 1997,
1999). Such groups are also more likely to have lower incomes and live in high-crime
areas in unpopular and overcrowded housing (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). However,
social and economic inequalities alone cannot explain all of the reported health disparities
across racial and ethnic groups: even when socio-economic variables are controlled for,
signifi cant disparities remain (e.g. Franks et al., 2006).

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 33
Another social process that may account for health disparities across racial and ethnic
groups is pervasive discrimination. Some researchers have suggested that race-based
prejudice or discrimination, whether experienced or perceived, may be as important as
objective life circumstances in predicting health-related outcomes among socially excluded
and marginalized groups (Allison, 1998; Branscombe, Schmitt & Harvey, 1999; Clark,
2003; Clark, Anderson & Williams, 1999; Cochran & Mays, 1994; Cooper, 1993; Everson-
Rose & Lewis, 2005; Finch, Kolody & Vega, 2000; Harrell, Merritt & Kalu, 1998; Krieger
et al., 1993; Nazroo, 2003; Williams, Spencer & Jackson, 1999). Discrimination may be
viewed as a type of social exclusion to the extent that it confi rms to the targets that they
are not valued as potential in-group members (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998). Consistent
with this, emotional responses to discrimination have been shown to be similar to those
reported in studies on the effects of social exclusion or rejection (Armstead et al., 1989;
Branscombe, Schmitt & Harvey, 1999; Essed, 1991; Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 2001).
Moreover, experiences of racial discrimination have been shown to correlate with self-
reported poor health, depressive symptoms, diagnosed depression and lower levels of life
satisfaction among Black Americans (Jackson, Williams & Torres, 1995, cited in Wil-
liams, Spencer & Jackson, 1999) and with depressive symptoms in a sample of immigrant
youths in the USA (Rumbaut, 1994). Additionally, backlash aimed at Iraqi refugees has
been related to poor physical and mental health, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder
(Kira et al., 2006). There is also evidence of a dose–response relationship between peo-
ple’s experiences of racial discrimination and their psychological distress. Sander Thomp-
son (1996) found that psychological distress symptoms (e.g. nightmares, intrusive thoughts
and images) were more pronounced when the level of racism experienced was moderate
or severe than when it was mild.
Similar trends have emerged in research on perceptions of discrimination. People’s
perceptions of discrimination have been shown to correlate with increasing anger, anxiety,
hopelessness, worthlessness, resentment and fear (e.g. Armstead et al., 1989; Branscombe,
Schmitt & Harvey, 1999; Essed, 1991; Feagin, 1991; Swim et al., 2001). Moreover, per-
ceptions of racial discrimination were shown to correlate with resting blood pressure levels
among Black Americans (James et al., 1984; Krieger, 1990; Krieger & Sidney, 1996) and
were associated with increasing alcohol consumption (Taylor & Jackson, 1990) and
smoking (Landrine & Klonoff, 2000) among Black American adults.
It is not only among racial and ethnic groups that the negative effects of discrimination
on health and well-being have been observed. Schmitt et al. (2002) found that perceived
prejudice against women was inversely related to self-reported psychological well-being
(depression, anxiety, self-esteem and life satisfaction). Along similar lines, Greenhill and
Hutchison (2007) found that women who experienced gender-based discrimination at
work reported increased levels of work-related stress. Similarly, Adler et al. (2000) found
that subjective social status among a sample of women was related to psychological and
physiological health, even having controlled for objective indicators of social status (see
also Ostrove et al., 2000).
Behavioural Responses to Social Exclusion
The preceding evidence suggests that the effects of social exclusion on the health
and well-being of targeted individuals and groups are uniformly negative. In contrast,

34 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
behavioural responses are typically more varied. Some studies suggest that a link exists
between social exclusion and antisocial, aggressive, and self-defeating behaviours, whereas
other research has provided evidence of prosocial and conciliatory responses to exclusion
and rejection experiences.
Antisocial and aggressive responses to social exclusion
People who are socially excluded may seek revenge, criticize the group from which they
are excluded and potentially even harm it (Lewin, 1948; Schuetz, 1944; Twenge et al.,
2001). In a series of laboratory experiments, Twenge and colleagues found that, relative to
included individuals, those who were excluded were more aggressive towards other people
(Twenge et al., 2001), were less willing to assist or cooperate with others (Twenge et al.,
2007), and were more likely engage in risky, unhealthy and self-defeating behaviours
(Twenge, Catanese & Baumeister, 2002). Along similar lines, Dion and Earn (1975) found
that Jewish participants displayed signifi cantly higher levels of aggression in a manipulated
“discrimination” condition than did those in a “no discrimination” condition.
Similar trends appear in wider society. For example, children who are rejected by their
peers engage in less prosocial and more antisocial behaviours than those who are accepted
(Asher & Coie, 1990; Mize & Ladd, 1988). In addition, longitudinal research has shown
that early peer rejection reliably predicts aggressive adolescent behaviours (Dodge et al.,
2003). There is also evidence that perpetrators of antisocial and violent behaviour are
predominantly young males who do not have close relationships with their family or age-
mates (Garbarino, 1999; Social Exclusion Unit, 2001; Walsh, Beyer & Petee, 1987). Fur-
thermore, a study of diary recordings of individuals involved in school shootings in the
USA revealed that the majority of perpetrators had been somehow excluded or rejected
in the period leading up to the shooting (Leary et al., 2003). Similarly, a study of men
who killed their wives found that a husband’s rejection by his spouse was the most
common precipitant of the fatal incident (Barnard et al., 1982).
This tendency of excluded people to be aggressive may be a result of threats to their
basic needs for control (Williams, 2001). Several studies suggest that the more that exclu-
sion diminishes an individual’s sense of control, the more likely that person will respond
with aggression (Leary, Twenge & Quinlivan, 2006; Warburton, Williams & Cairns,
2006). This was illustrated in a laboratory experiment by Warburton, Williams and
Cairns, (2006), in which participants were either included or excluded in an initial group
task and then exposed to aversive stimuli, the onset of which they either could or could
not control. Initially excluded individuals without control were more aggressive than
others to strangers on a subsequent task, whereas excluded participants with control were
no more aggressive than those who were initially included. This suggests that acts of
aggression may provide a sense of control for those who feel a lack of control due to their
excluded or marginalized status.
Passive and self-defeating responses to social exclusion
Other people react more passively to social exclusion. Some people respond by distancing
themselves from the group from which they have been excluded. Others withdraw com-

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 35
pletely from situations and relationships where the potential for exclusion exists. For
example, children who feel excluded at school or who feel that they are treated differently
because they belong to a stigmatized group may drop out of school (Buhs, Ladd & Herald,
2006; Steele, 1997). Individuals with disabilities may avoid places where they feel that a
lack of appropriate facilities will prevent them from full participation (Morris, 2001).
Homosexuals may avoid institutions with a history of anti-gay prejudice such as the
church or the military (Wells-Petry, 1993). Women may avoid pursuing careers in
organizations where they feel they will be denied the privileges and opportunities afforded
to similarly qualifi ed men (Houston, Chapter 2). Although withdrawal of this type
can often provide a temporary reprieve from the immediately aversive consequences of
being rejected or ostracized, the longer term prospects for those involved are far from
positive. Several studies have found that people who respond passively to discrimination
are up to four times more likely to experience health problems than those who respond
actively (Krieger, 1990; Krieger & Sidney, 1996). Moreover, withdrawal can be especially
harmful if participation is important to long-term success, such as performance at school
or work (Buhs, Ladd & Herald, 2006). Another consequence is that other people may use
an individual’s withdrawal as a rationale for further exclusion (Major & Eccleston,
2005).
Social exclusion has also been found to correlate with instances of suicide and suicide
ideation. Durkheim (1951) argued that a lack of social integration was related to suicide
rates in different societies. Among the people Durkheim identifi ed as being most at risk
are those that are extremely individuated, have limited linkages to family and community,
are perceived as misfi ts, are alienated, and/or suffer from thwarted opportunities. Recent
research corroborates these fi ndings: a feeling of not belonging or of being disconnected
from others, a sense of isolation, alienation, abandonment, rejection and lack of support
networks have all been shown to correlate with suicide rates in different societies (e.g.
Baker, 1990; Bateman, 2001; Blum et al., 2000; Boardman et al., 1999; Gibbs, 1997;
Joiner, 2005; Lewinsohn, Rohde & Seeley, 1993; Shneidman, 1993; Towl, Snow &
McHugh, 2002). Similar trends emerge in research on self-harm (e.g. Crighton & Towl,
2002; Gratz, 2003). In contrast, strong family ties (Compton, Thompson & Kaslow, 2005),
religious affi liations (Dervic et al., 2004) and engagement in collective leisure activities
(Bailey & McLaren, 2005) are all associated with a sense of belonging or connectedness,
which can buffer negative thought processes and self-defeating behaviours.
Prosocial and conciliatory reactions to social exclusion
The preceding evidence suggests that a feeling of being excluded or of not belonging may
lead those involved to behave in ways that will increase their excluded status, whether
intentionally or not. In contrast, several studies have shown that people often try to change
or alleviate their exclusion by behaving in prosocial or conciliatory ways. This might
involve working harder for the group or conforming to the opinions of others. Along these
lines, Williams and Sommer (1997) found that individuals who had been excluded from
a task worked harder on a subsequent task in which the contributions of individual group
members were combined to form a group total than on a task in which individual contri-
butions were not combined. Additionally, Williams, Cheung and Choi (2000) found that
targets of exclusion were more likely than their included counterparts to conform to the

36 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
unanimous but incorrect opinions of others. Other studies suggest that excluded individu-
als often behave in ways that will endear themselves to others. Perhaps as a consequence,
such people are more likely to be infl uenced by authoritative fi gures and extremist groups
(Williams, 2001).
Other research suggests that group members may respond to the threat of exclusion by
emphasizing their prototypicality—their representativeness and fi t to the group’s core
values and norms (Turner et al., 1987). Several studies have shown that prototypical in-
group members are generally more popular and have more infl uence in the group than
non-prototypical members (Hogg, 1992; Marques & Paez, 1994; Turner, 1991). Conse-
quently, individuals may feel threatened by events, interactions or outcomes that suggest
that they have a peripheral or marginal status within the group. Such people may respond
by emphasizing their credentials for inclusion. This might involve aligning themselves
closer to the group prototype, rejecting other people who are not a good match to the
prototype or discriminating against out-group members. For example, Pickett, Bonner and
Coleman (2002) found that honours students who were told that they were not typical of
honours students self-stereotyped in terms of honours students more than those who
believed that they were typical group members. Schmitt and Branscombe (2001) found
that males who were told that they were not typical of their gender group were more nega-
tive towards other atypical males than were those who believed that they were typical
males (see also Maass et al., 2003). Along similar lines, Jetten et al. (2003) found that
under threat of exclusion, highly identifi ed university students perceived greater homoge-
neity among fellow university students, which could be interpreted as an attempt to feel
more included (see also Pickett & Brewer, 2001).
Some evidence shows that individuals whose in-group inclusion is threatened derogate
out-groups more strongly. For example, Peres (1971) showed that low status Israeli Jews
displayed more intense hostility and prejudice towards Arabs than did their higher status
Jewish counterparts. Along similar lines, Noel, Wann and Branscombe (1995) manipu-
lated membership status in a desirable in-group using bogus feedback that placed partici-
pants either at the core or periphery of an attractive, socially skilled personality category.
Results indicated that peripheral group members were more likely than core members
to describe members of a different personality category more negatively and to endorse
coercive out-group strategies, but only when their responses were to be made public. Noel
et al. suggested that publicly derogating an out-group category may allow individuals
whose inclusion is threatened to demonstrate that they are “true” group members, thereby
increasing their prospects for inclusion. Together, these studies suggest that people whose
membership in a group is more tenuous will advertise their commitment to in-group norms
in an attempt to enhance their prospects for inclusion (see also Abrams, 1992; Abrams &
Emler, 1992; Breakwell, 1979; Gonsalkorale & Williams, 2007).
COPING WITH GROUP-BASED EXCLUSION
AND DISCRIMINATION
It is clear from the studies reviewed above that many instances of social exclusion are
based on the shared values, beliefs or motivations of one social group vis-à-vis another.
Certain people are systematically devalued and excluded from particular domains simply

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 37
because they are members of a specifi c social category or group. Increasingly, researchers
have examined the strategies that members of such groups use to cope with their devalued,
marginalized or excluded status.
Social Exclusion and Group Identifi cation
Even though membership in a devalued group can be psychologically and physically
harmful, as the preceding evidence suggests, members of such groups often respond by
emphasizing their loyalty and commitment to the group. This has been observed on a
range of measures, including political commitment, self-stereotyping, perceived in-group
homogeneity and group identifi cation. Abrams and Emler (1992) found that young people’s
political affi liations in Scotland were more likely to be nationalistic the more deprived
they believed Scotland to be. Foster and Matheson (1999) found that making women aware
of their stigmatized status led them to self-stereotype more in terms of their gender identity
(see also Abrams, Thomas & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Turner, 1987). Along similar lines,
Spears, Doosje and Ellemers (1997), across a range of social groups, found that highly
identifi ed members self-stereotyped more than low identifi ers following threats to their
group’s status or distinctiveness, whereas this difference was absent when there was no
threat to the in-group. More recently, Hutchison et al. (2006) found that highly committed
university students defi ned students at their own university as a whole in more normative
terms when its identity was threatened by its relatively low status than when there was no
threat to the value of their university’s identity.
Another way that members might display loyalty and commitment to the group is by
emphasizing in-group homogeneity or cohesion. Several studies have found a relationship
between threats to the in-group and perceived in-group homogeneity. Rothgerber (1997)
found that university students who believed that their group had been judged unfairly by
students from a rival university perceived more in-group homogeneity than did those who
believed that they had been judged fairly. Along similar lines, Lee and Ottati (1995) found
that Chinese students at an American university who were confronted with traits that were
stereotype consistent and threatening perceived more in-group homogeneity than those
confronted with non-stereotypic traits. In contrast, Chinese students confronted with traits
that were stereotype consistent but non-threatening perceived more in-group heterogeneity
than those who were confronted with non-stereotypic traits. Finally, Doosje, Ellemers and
Spears (1995) manipulated identity threat by informing psychology students that their
group was either more or less intelligent than a comparison out-group (business students)
and found that, relative to low identifi ers, highly identifi ed psychology students judged
their group to be more homogeneous when its status was threatened, whereas this differ-
ence was absent when there was no threat to the in-group.
It has been suggested that members of devalued or minority groups may feel threatened
in terms of their self-esteem (e.g. Simon & Brown, 1987). Perceiving the in-group as
homogeneous may allow individuals to feel included in a distinctive and entitative group
(Campbell, 1958). It may also help in the mobilization of group members and prepare the
way for collective action designed to resist and overcome the group’s exclusionary status
(Reicher, 1996; Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Stott, Hutchison & Drury, 2001; Tajfel &
Turner, 1986; Wright, 2001). A possible implication is that although such group-based

38 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
strategies may protect members from personal exclusion, the group as a whole may
become more excluded from wider society.
Other research has examined directly the relationship between threats to the in-group
and group identifi cation. Branscombe, Schmitt and Harvey (1999) found that self-reported
racial prejudice was associated with increasing minority group identifi cation in a sample
of African Americans (see also Gurin et al., 1969). Along similar lines, Greenhill and
Hutchison (2007) found that experiences of gender discrimination in the workplace were
associated with increasing gender group identifi cation among a sample of women (see
also Gurin & Townsend, 1986). Similar associations have been reported in studies con-
ducted with groups of lesbians (Crosby et al., 1989), Jews (Rollins, 1973), people with
body piercings (Jetten et al., 2001) and members of college subcultures (Cozzarelli &
Karafa, 1998). Together, these studies suggest that perceiving discrimination against an
important in-group may lead members to see themselves more in group-defi ning terms
and to feel greater attachment and commitment to the group (Branscombe, Schmitt &
Harvey, 1999).
Group Identifi cation and Psychological Well-being
A related line of research suggests that there may be a link between group identifi cation
and psychological well-being. Group identifi cation has been found to correlate positively
with various measures of psychological well-being and affect. This effect has been dem-
onstrated in studies conducted with various different groups, including African Americans
(e.g. Branscombe, Schmitt & Harvey, 1999; Rowley et al., 1998), deaf people (Bat-Chava,
1994; Jambor & Eliot, 2005), older adults (Garstka et al., 2004), women (e.g. Eccleston
& Major, 2004, cited in Major & O’Brien, 2005; Schmitt et al., 2002) and international
students (Black & Hutchison, 2007; Schmitt, Spears & Branscombe, 2003). It has been
suggested that identifi cation with a devalued group might go some way towards alleviating
some of the negative effects of discrimination or exclusion on psychological well-being
(e.g. Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Consistent with this, Branscombe, Schmitt and
Harvey (1999) found that perceived discrimination against African Americans was nega-
tively associated with various indicators of psychological well-being (personal self-esteem,
collective self-esteem and negative emotions) and positively associated with minority
group identifi cation. Moreover, minority group identifi cation was found to attenuate the
ill effects of recognizing the disadvantaged status of African Americans. Similar results
were reported by Schmitt et al. (2002), who found that the more women perceived dis-
crimination based on their gender group membership, the lower psychological well-being
they reported (personal self-esteem, depression, anxiety and general life satisfaction) and
the more strongly they identifi ed with other women. Moreover, as in the Branscombe,
Schmitt and Harvey (1999) study, gender identifi cation suppressed the negative effects of
perceived discrimination on well-being.
Although these studies suggest that group identifi cation may have an important role in
protecting individuals from the negative consequences of group-based exclusion or dis-
crimination, it is not entirely clear why increased identifi cation with a devalued group
should have such a positive buffering effect (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Indeed, it
may appear counter-intuitive that increasing identifi cation with a devalued group should
increase rather than decrease an individual’s self-esteem or well-being (cf. Abrams &

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 39
Hogg, 1988). One possibility is that affi liation with similarly devalued others provides an
opportunity to receive and benefi t from social support, which itself can buffer the ill
effects of perceived discrimination on well-being (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002). Con-
sistent with this, a number of studies have reported positive relationships between social
support, group identifi cation, and various indicators of psychological health and well-
being (e.g. Haslam et al., 2005). For example, Haslam et al. (2005) examined relationships
between these variables in groups exposed to extreme levels of stress and found that group
identifi cation was positively associated with perceived social support and life satisfaction,
and negatively related to stress. Moreover, perceived social support mediated the relation-
ship between group identifi cation and life satisfaction, and group identifi cation and stress.
In other words, the more people identifi ed with other people experiencing similar types
of stress, the more social support they perceived, and the greater was their well-being.
This suggests that group membership and social identifi cation may play an important role
in protecting individuals from adverse reactions to potentially harmful situations, includ-
ing experiences of discrimination, marginalization and exclusion (Schmitt & Branscombe,
2002).
GROUP PROCESSES, INTERGROUP RELATIONS
AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
It is clear from the preceding evidence that groups provide a collective sense of identity
for their members. They can also provide shelter, support, and a sense of belonging or
connectedness. This in turn can have positive effects on psychological health and well-
being, and buffer negative thought processes and self-defeating behaviours. However, it is
also clear that groups have the potential to cause considerable harm to their members:
members are often exiled to the margins of the group, excluded from the group altogether,
and in some situations treated worse than out-group members. An increasing amount of
research has examined the conditions under which this potential for harm may be
realized.
Group Processes and Social Exclusion
A common fi nding in small group research is that when a member of a group expresses
an opinion that deviates from the opinion of other members, those others will exert pres-
sure on the deviant to conform and will reject the deviant if he or she fails to conform.
Festinger (1950) argued that pressures towards uniformity within groups arise for at least
two reasons. One reason is that people need to validate their opinions by having others
agree with them. Another reason is that groups often require consensus to reach important
goals. When there is non-uniformity in the group, people will direct most of their com-
munications towards deviants in an attempt to persuade them to conform. Those who resist
this persuasive pressure will ultimately be rejected from the group. This often takes the
form of derogatory attitudes and judgments, and in some cases can result in outright
exclusion from the group (e.g. Cota et al., 1995; Festinger, Schachter & Back, 1950; Jones
& DeCharms, 1957; Schachter, 1951).

40 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Perhaps the most well-known study in this domain is that of Schachter (1951), who
assigned students to discussion groups. One confederate in each group was instructed to
agree with the majority of the group (the mode). Another two confederates were told to
either consistently disagree with the group (the deviant) or to initially disagree and then
increasingly agree (the slider). Among other things, it was observed that throughout the
discussion, participants directed more communications towards the deviant than towards
other members. However, as it became evident that the deviant would not conform (unlike
the slider), communication decreased and eventually ceased altogether. Following the
discussion, group members assigned one another to various tasks for future discussions
and nominated one member who should be excluded from those discussions. Results
showed that the most unimportant and boring tasks were assigned to the deviant, who was
also excluded from future discussions more than other members.
Along similar lines, Jones and DeCharms (1957) assigned participants to groups in
which a “deviant” confederate was instructed to show a lack of interest in the task and its
attainment. Participants were either informed that they would be rewarded for their work
on the basis of their own performance or on the basis of the group’s collective perfor-
mance. The deviant group member was rejected more extremely in the collective reward
condition than in the individual reward condition. Similar results were reported in a study
by Berkowitz and Howard (1959), in which discussion groups were asked to appraise an
organizational confl ict. Again, participants were told that they would be rewarded either
for their own performance or the group’s performance. During the course of the discussion
the group learned that one member disagreed with the majority. Results showed that the
disagreeing member was rejected more strongly as a prospective co-worker in the group
reward condition than in the individual reward condition. Together, these studies clearly
show that groups will seek to exclude members who resist pressures towards uniformity
on relevant matters of opinion or who fail to contribute towards attainment of important
group goals (see also Levine, 1989; Marques et al., 2001).
Social Identity and Social Exclusion
Research informed by the social identity perspective (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987) has provided further insight into the role of group
membership and group identifi cation in the treatment of deviant, undesirable or non-
prototypical members. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people
attain an important part of their self-concept from their memberships in different social
categories or groups. When a group provides a psychologically meaningful basis for self-
defi nition, members are motivated to establish and maintain a positive distinction between
that group and other relevant out-groups. Through this process, the evaluative features of
the group are assimilated and contribute to the valance of collective self-esteem (Abrams
& Hogg, 1988; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1990). Excluding deviant or otherwise undesirable
members from the in-group thus serves the important function of maintaining a positive
and distinctive social identity (Abrams et al. 2004; Hutchison & Abrams, 2003; Marques
& Paez, 1994; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Yzerbyt et al., 2000).
Support for these ideas comes from numerous studies conducted with various social
categories and groups showing that desirable in-group members are judged more positively

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 41
than identical out-group members, whereas undesirable in-group members are judged
more negatively than identical out-group members—the black sheep effect (e.g. Marques
& Yzerbyt, 1988). It has been suggested that extreme reactions towards undesirable in-
group members may refl ect a motivation to exclude from the in-group those members who
negatively contribute to social identity (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003; Marques & Paez,
1994). Consistent with this, Eidelman, Silvia and Biernat (2006) found that Republicans
who supported the Iraq war (as did most Republicans at the time of the study) evaluated
an anti-war Republican more negatively than an anti-war Democrat (most democrats
opposed the war), but only when target evaluation was the participants’ fi rst response
option. Given an initial opportunity to redefi ne the groups’ boundaries so as to exclude
the targets from their respective groups, liking for anti-war Republicans increased whereas
liking for anti-war Democrats decreased. These fi ndings suggest that devaluation may
indeed be an attempt to exclude undesirable members from the in-group. This converges
with the above-described fi ndings reported by Schachter (1951), who observed that com-
munication directed towards deviant group members ceased once exclusion had
occurred.
Further support comes from a series of studies showing that groups are more likely to
reject undesirable members when their identity is threatened externally (Branscombe
et al., 1993; Hutchison & Abrams, 2007; Marques, Abrams & Serôdio, 2001). Hutchison
and Abrams (2007) manipulated identity threat among university students through false
feedback concerning how their university compared with a rival university and found that
highly identifi ed students derogated undesirable students from their own university more
extremely than similar students from the rival university, but only when they felt that their
own university’s identity was threatened. When there was no threat to their identity, in-
group members were evaluated no differently to their out-group counterparts. Similar
results were reported by Marques, Abrams, and Serôdio (2001) who, across a range of
different social groups, found that rejection of in-group deviants relative to similar out-
group members was reinforced when the status of the in-group was insecure rather than
secure. These studies suggest that groups may selectively exclude members as a means of
establishing or maintaining a positive and distinctive social identity.
Other research has assessed directly the relationship between group identifi cation,
judgements of individual group members and identity maintenance (Abrams, Rutland &
Cameron, 2003; Abrams et al., 2007; Hutchison & Abrams, 2003; Hutchison et al., 2007;
Marques et al., 1998). Hutchison et al. (2007) asked psychology students with varying
degrees of identifi cation with the group “psychologists” to rate psychologists as a whole
on various positive and negative stereotypical dimensions both before and after they read
about and evaluated a desirable (competent, ethical) or an undesirable (incompetent,
unethical) psychologist. Results confi rmed that the more the psychology students identifi ed
with psychologists as a group, the more harshly they evaluated the undesirable psycholo-
gist and the more positively they evaluated psychologists as a whole. A second experiment
focused on rival universities and required students to judge either their own university or
a rival university following an encounter with a deviant and clearly undesirable student
from one of the universities. Those who identifi ed more strongly with their university
judged their own university more positively after they viewed information about an
undesirable in-group member, but judged the rival university more negatively after they
viewed an undesirable student from that university. Together, these studies suggest that

42 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
reactions to undesirable ingroup and outgroup members may refl ect a strategy to protect
the ingroups identity (see also Yzerbyt et al., 2000).
Evidence that Inclusion of Deviants Can Benefi t the Group
The research reviewed above suggests that many groups view diversity as an unwanted
evil (see also Turner et al., 1987). Groups either try to persuade deviants to conform or,
should this fail, condemn and vilify them or exclude them from the group altogether.
While it may be easy to think of examples of people who are treated in this way, perhaps
justifi ably so, it is also clear that deviance can serve a number of important functions for
groups. Times, situations, and the needs of the group may change, and so norms and
conventions must change to be adaptive in new conditions. Without deviance, however,
social change would be diffi cult to envisage (Moscovici, 1976). According to Moscovici
(1976), the power of deviants in initiating social change lies in their ability to create con-
fl ict between themselves and the majority. Confronted with a different point of view, the
majority must make a decision either to stick to their existing position or accept the
minority’s alternative. Consistent with this reasoning, a considerable amount of research
suggests that a consistent counter-normative minority can produce lasting change in the
majority position (see Wood et al., 1994).
There is also evidence that dissent created by in-group members can be benefi cial for
the group (e.g. Nemeth, Rogers & Brown, 2001; Nemeth & Staw, 1989). Several studies
suggest that groups that encourage diversity of opinions function better than those that
seek to maintain consensus at all costs (e.g. Janis, 1982; Postmes, Spears & Cihangir,
2001; Stasser, Stewart & Wittenbaum, 1995). Additionally, internal criticism of a group’s
norms or values can help to invigorate the group and set in motion positive social change
(Hornsey & Imani, 2004).
Thus, although groups may seek to exchide deviant or non-prototypical group members,
as much of the preceding evidence suggests, their inclusion in the group can often lead
to enhanced group performance. However, for such members to be welcomed and accepted
rather than condemned or excluded from the group, the group may need to have diversity
as a central component of its identity. This is often the case, for example, in multicultural
or individualistic societies (Hutchison et al., 2006; Jetten, Postmes & McAuliffe, 2002).
While some groups may feel that it is their commonalities that make them a distinctive
and entitative group (Campbell, 1958), other groups may believe that it is the diversity
among its members that defi nes the in-group and distinguishes it from other groups (Jetten,
Postmes & McAuliffe, 2002; van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003). Consistent with this,
recent research suggests that reactions to non-prototypical or dissenting group members
may vary as a function of group composition perceptions.
Hutchison, Jetten and Gutierrez (2007) manipulated group composition perceptions
(homogenous in-group vs. heterogeneous in-group) among members of a university’s halls
of residence and asked participants to judge individual residents who either agreed with
the majority of residents or who disagreed. Dissenting residents were judged more harshly
in the homogeneous in-group condition than in the heterogeneous in-group condition. In
a second study, which focused on university students in general, relative to low identifi ers,
highly identifi ed students were more negative towards dissenting students in the homoge-
neous in-group condition, but were more positive towards dissenters in the heterogeneous

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 43
in-group condition. Along similar lines, Hornsey et al. (2006) manipulated group norms
of “individualism” or “collectivism” and asked participants to evaluate a group member
who expressed an attitude either dissenting from or concordant with the in-group position.
Group members with concordant attitudes were evaluated more positively than those with
dissenting attitudes in the collectivist norm condition. However, for high identifi ers, the
preference for concordant over dissenting members was attenuated when group norms
prescribed individualism. Together, these studies suggest that exclusion is not just driven
by groups’ desire for uniformity, but by their desire to ensure that its central values (even
diversity values) are upheld (see also Abrams et al., 2005).
Group Norms and Social Exclusion
Abrams, Marques and colleagues (Abrams, 2000; Abrams et al., 2004, 2005; Marques
et al., 2001) proposed a model of subjective group dynamics to account for the processes
through which groups selectively and strategically include or exclude members. The model
follows the social identity theory-derived prediction that people generally strive to main-
tain a positive and distinctive social identity via favourable intergroup comparisons (Hogg
& Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It also proposes that people are motivated to
ensure that the sense of superiority that ensues from favourable intergroup comparisons
is justifi ed or valid—that it refl ects an objective reality and not personal biases. This sense
of validity is strengthened if in-group members are seen as sharing a common set of norms
or values (Abrams, 1990, 1992; Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Marques & Paez, 1994). To this
extent, groups will welcome evidence that bolsters in-group norms and will resist evidence
that undermines their norms. Thus, in an intergroup context in which dissenters imply
support for an opposing group’s norms, normative in-group members should be preferred
over deviant in-group members, whereas dissenting members of an out-group should be
preferred over normative out-group members. Marques et al. (1998) demonstrated this
effect in a series of minimal group studies in which dissenting members endorsed posi-
tions in line with an out-group’s norms. Abrams et al. (2000, 2002) found similar effects
in studies with naturalistic groups, including teenagers, university students and bank
employees.
The above studies suggest that reactions to deviant or dissenting group members may
not always be based on the extremity of deviance or the actual behaviour of those
members: groups may tolerate many kinds of diversity and idiosyncrasies among their
members as long as these do not challenge norms that are “prescriptive”—those that are
central to the group’s identity. Further support for this idea comes from research on reac-
tions to “pro-norm” deviance (Abrams et al., 2000, 2002). Abrams et al. (2000) defi ned
pro-norm deviance as behaviour that diverges from a group’s normative position but in a
direction that is nevertheless consistent with the prevailing ethos of the group—i.e. as a
form of extremism (see also Ewald & Jiobu, 1985; Hughes & Coakley, 1991). Several
studies suggest that groups are particularly sensitive to the direction in which members
deviate. Abrams et al. (2000, 2002) found, across a range of social categories and groups,
that pro-norm deviants were consistently treated more favourably than anti-norm deviants,
and often as favourably as normative group members. This suggests that not all forms of
deviance invite exclusion, but exclusionary reactions are predictable on the basis of the
extent to which deviance threatens the group’s core norms or values.

44 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
APPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
TO PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION
While a considerable amount of research has focused on the psychological and behavioural
consequences of being excluded from desired social groups and the dynamics surrounding
social exclusion, relatively few attempts have been made to systematically apply insights
from such research to the reduction of social exclusion or the promotion of inclusion. The
fi nal section of this chapter reviews fi ndings from some ongoing lines of research that
might usefully inform policy development.
Intergroup Contact Research
The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Williams, 1947) proposes that bringing together
members from opposing groups can reduce prejudice and improve intergroup relations.
Allport (1954) suggested that positive effects of contact were more likely if various pre-
requisite conditions were in place: equal status between the groups, cooperative intergroup
interaction, opportunities for personal acquaintance between group members, and sup-
portive norms legitimized through institutional support. Several other conditions were
later added, including voluntary participation and intimate contact (e.g. Amir, 1976;
Stephan, 1987; see Brown & Hewstone, 2005). However, in a meta-analysis, Pettigrew
and Tropp (2006) found that it is not always necessary for all of these conditions be present
for more positive intergroup relations to develop. Contact alone can often produce improved
attitudes that generalize beyond the interacting individuals to the entire out-group.
Tests of the contact hypothesis have traditionally been conducted with the aim of
improving attitudes towards racial and ethnic minority groups (e.g. Brown & Hewstone,
2005; Eller & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Riordan & Ruggiero,
1980). Increasingly, however, researchers have reported positive effects of contact on
attitudes towards a range of socially excluded or marginalized groups, including homo-
sexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), the elderly (Abrams, Eller & Bryant, 2006; Caspi,
1984), the mentally ill (Desforges et al., 1991; Link & Cullen, 1986), people with dis-
abilities (Makas, 1993; Yuker, 1988), people with AIDS (Werth & Lord, 1992) and home-
less people (Lee, Farrell & Link, 2004).
Various extensions of the basic contact hypothesis have also been proposed. The
extended contact hypothesis (Wright et al., 1997) proposes that knowledge that an in-
group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive
intergroup attitudes. In a series of studies, Wright et al. (1997) showed that respondents
who perceived an in-group member to have a friend in a particular out-group or who
observed an apparent cross-group friendship expressed less prejudice towards the out-
group. Other research suggests that mere exposure to members of a stigmatized out-group
can have benefi cial effects on intergroup attitudes. For example, Lee, Farrell and Link
(2004) examined attitudes towards homelessness as a function of various types of expo-
sure: third-party information, observation in public places, interaction with homeless
people, and having been or knowing someone who is or has been homeless. Results showed
that all forms of exposure resulted in more positive attitudes towards homeless people.
There is also evidence that simply asking people to imagine intergroup contact can

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 45
improve their attitudes towards out-groups (Turner, Crisp & Lambert, 2007). When groups
have a history of segregation or mutual distrust and when potential encounters might evoke
anxiety, it is unlikely that people from opposing groups will view one another positively.
Yet it is precisely these types of situation where interventions to prevent exclusion are
needed the most. Extended contact and imagined contact effects therefore have promising
implications for positive and lasting social change, in part because they can circumvent
the barriers that can occur in many direct contact situations.
Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact promotes more positive
intergroup attitudes and relations, but there is nevertheless plenty of opportunity for
contact to backfi re. It is therefore important to attend carefully to the circumstances and
nature of contact experiences. For example, research consistently shows that the relation-
ships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority groups
than among members of majority groups (see Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005). These differences
suggest that the same contact situation may be perceived quite differently by different
groups and individuals. Thus, while encouraging interactions across group boundaries can
under certain conditions improve intergroup relationships and attitudes, researchers may
need to invest more effort in establishing additional types of contact experience that may
augment or even exceed these benefi ts.
Factors that Predict Uptake of Services Aimed at Increasing Inclusion
A second line of research has examined factors that predict individuals’ participation in
services and programmes aimed at reducing social exclusion. Christian and colleagues
(Christian & Abrams, 2003, 2004; Christian, Armitage & Abrams, 2004) conducted a
series of fi eld studies to examine issues related to homelessness and service user behaviour.
Homeless people are not necessarily a homogeneous social group. Each homeless person
may consider their situation to be unique and, initially at least, may feel that they have
little or nothing in common with other homeless people other than a lack of a home
(Christian & Abrams, 2004). Nevertheless, service providers often treat homeless people
as a uniform category and they are often depicted as similar in terms of socio-economic
status and other socio-demographic variables. Christian and colleague’s work shows that
such variables play little role in whether homeless people engage in behaviour that reduces
their social exclusion.
Across seven studies (some comparative and others longitudinal), results consistently
showed that social psychological variables (e.g. attitudes towards services and service
uptake, intentions to participate in welfare programmes, and perceived self-control)
accounted for more of the variance in behaviours likely to lead to greater inclusion than did
socio-economic and demographic variables. Another potentially important fi nding from
this research is that different psychological variables predicted service uptake over time
(Christian, Armitage & Abrams, 2004). Specifi cally, homeless people’s initial service
participation was predictable from their own personal attitudes, perceptions and norms.
One year later, however, these variables no longer predicted service use. Instead, service
use was reliably predicted by identifi cation with the specifi c service and with service case
workers and other users of the service. This suggests that while individuals’ initial evalua-
tion of a service may be infl uential in helping introducing those people to procedures

46 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
designed to increase their inclusionary status, social relationships and group identifi cations
formed around the service are more likely to infl uence sustained service use (Christian &
Abrams, 2004). In other words, those homeless people who over time become more psy-
chologically engaged with a service and its providers are more likely to continue to make
use of the service, and thus are more likely to fi nd a sustainable route out of social exclusion.
This suggests that psychological variables may help to offset some of the more structural
determinants of social exclusion to the extent that there is scope for change. This is not to
underestimate the debilitating consequences of poverty, disadvantage and group-based
discrimination, but it highlights that these are only a part of the picture. More signifi cantly,
we would emphasize that whereas changes in structural factors are probably diffi cult and
slow to achieve, relevant social psychological processes are likely to be more malleable and
dynamically responsive to interventions designed to promote greater inclusion.
CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, we have tried to convey the breadth and depth of social psychological
research on social exclusion. An important point is that, to some extent, exclusion is liable
to be a natural product of sustaining coherent social units. Thus, it is not always useful to
pathologize either the excluders or the excluded, but rather to focus on the social psycho-
logical processes at work. We believe that analysis of these processes is important to the
extent that it focuses on the actual experiences of exclusion for the individuals and groups
involved and, in turn, opens potential avenues for strategic intervention aimed at promot-
ing inclusion. This is not to say that exclusion can be dealt with only at a social psycho-
logical level, but on the other hand, the social science and social policy literature has
barely considered the actual mechanisms at work or how interventions at the levels of
individuals and groups might be implemented. Thus, we hope that the present contribution
fi lls a gap in the narrative and provides a useful resource for researchers and practitioners
seeking to understand and tackle problems associated with social exclusion.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. (1990). How do group members regulate their behaviour? An integration of social
identity and self-awareness theories. In D. Abrams & M.A. Hogg (eds), Social identity theory:
Constructive and Critical Advances (pp. 89–112). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Abrams, D. (1992). Processes of social identifi cation. In G. Breakwell (ed.), Social Psychology of
Identity and the Self-concept (pp. 57–99). San Diego: Academic Press.
Abrams, D., Eller, A. & Bryant, J. (2006). An age apart: the effects of intergenerational contact
and stereotype threat on performance and intergroup bias. Psychology and Aging, 21,
691–702.
Abrams, D. & Emler, N.P. (1992). Self-denial as a paradox of political and regional social identity:
fi ndings from the ESRC’s “16–19 Initiative”. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22,
279–295.
Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social
identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.
Abrams, D., Hogg, M.A. & Marques, J.M. (eds) (2005). The Social Psychology of Inclusion and
Exclusion. New York: Psychology Press.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 47
Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Bown, N.J. & Dougill, M. (2002). Anti-norm and pro-norm deviance
in the bank and on the campus: two experiments on subjective group dynamics. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 5, 163–182.
Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Bown, N.J. & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance
within in-groups and out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912.
Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Randsley de Moura, G., et al. (2004). The maintenance of entitativity:
a subjective group dynamics approach. In V.Y. Yzerbyt, C.M. Judd & O. Corneille (eds), The
Psychology of Group Perception: Contributions to the Study of Homogeneity, Entitativity, and
Essentialism (pp. 361–380). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., Hutchison, P. & Viki, G.T. (2005). When bad becomes good
(and vice versa): why social exclusion is not based on difference. In D. Abrams, M.A. Hogg
& J.M. Marques (eds), The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion (pp. 161–190).
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Abrams, D., Rutland, A. & Cameron, L. (2003). The development of subjective group dynamics:
children’s judgments of normative and deviant in-group and out-group individuals. Child Devel-
opment, 74, 1840–1856.
Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Cameron, L. & Ferrell, J. (2007). Older but wilier: in-group accountability
and the development of judgments of groups and their members. Developmental Psychology,
43, 134–148.
Abrams, D., Thomas J. & Hogg, M.A. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender
salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 87–92.
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: cri-
tique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
Adler, N.E., Epel, E.S., Castallazzo, G. & Ickovics, J.R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and
objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in
healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592.
Allison, K.W. (1998). Stress and oppressed category membership. In J.K. Swim & C. Stangor (eds),
Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective (pp. 145–170). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Allport, G. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P.A.
Katz (ed.), Towards the Elimination of Racism (pp. 245–308). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Press.
Armstead, C.A., Lawler, K.A., Gorden, G., et al. (1989). Relationship of racial stressors to blood
pressure responses and anger expression in black college students. Special issue: race, reactivity,
and blood pressure regulation. Health Psychology, 8, 541–556.
Asher, S.R. & Coie, J.D. (eds) (1990). Peer Rejection in Childhood. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Ayduk, O., Downey, G. & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensitivity and depression in women. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 868–877.
Bailey, M. & McLaren, S. (2005). Physical activity alone and with others as predictors of sense of
belonging and mental health in retirees. Aging & Mental Health, 9, 82–90.
Baker, F.M. (1990). Black youth suicide: literature review with a focus on prevention. Journal of
the National Medical Association, 82, 495–507.
Barden, R.C., Garber, J., Leiman, B., et al. (1985). Factors governing the effective remediation of
negative affect and its cognitive and behavioral consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1040–1053.
Barnard, G.W., Vera, H., Vera, M.I. & Newman, G. (1982). Till death do us part: a study of spouse
murder. Bulletin of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law, 10, 271–280.
Bat-Chava, Y. (1994). Group identifi cation and self-esteem of deaf adults. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 494–502.
Bateman, C. (2001).Young, black, female and miserable. South African Medical Journal, 91,
716–717.
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumeister, R.F. & Tice, D.M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 9, 165–195.

48 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Berkowitz, L. & Howard, R. (1959). Reaction to opinion deviates as affected by affi liation need
and group member interdependence. Sociometry, 22, 81–91.
Bernard, M.M., Gebauer, J.E. & Maio, G.R. (2006). Cultural estrangement: the role of personal
and societal value discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 78–92.
Bhopal, R.S. (2007). Ethnicity, Race, and Health in Multicultural Societies: Foundations for Better
Epidemiology, Public Health, and Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, E. & Hutchison, P. (2007). Third Culture Kids: Why Is Coming ‘Home’ for University So
Diffi cult. Unpublished dissertation. University of Leeds.
Blum, R.W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M.L., et al. (2000). The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and
family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal Public Health, 90,
1879–1884.
Boardman, A.P., Grimbaldeston, A.H., Handley, C., et al. (1999). The North Staffordshire Suicide
Study: a case-control study of suicide in one health district. Psychological Medicine, 29,
27–33.
Boardman, J.D. (2004). Stress and physical health: the role of neighborhoods as mediating and
moderating mechanisms. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 2473–2483.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic
Books.
Branscombe, N.R., Schmitt, M.T. & Harvey, R.D. (1999). Perceiving discrimination among African
Americans: implications for group identifi cation and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.
Branscombe, N. & Wann, D.L., Noel, J.G. & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity:
importance of threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,
381–388.
Braun, L. (2002). Race, ethnicity, and health: can genetics explain disparities? Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine, 45, 159–174.
Breakwell, G.M. (1979). Illegitimate group membership and inter-group differentiation. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 141–149.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
Brown, R.J. & Hewstone, M. (2005) An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.
Buhs, E., Ladd, G. & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: processes that mediate
the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13.
Campbell, D.T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of
persons as social entities. Behavioural Science, 3, 14–25.
Caspi, A. (1984). Contact hypothesis and inter-age attitudes: a fi eld study of cross-age contact.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 74–80.
Christian, J.N. & Abrams, D. (2003). The effects of social identifi cation, norms and attitudes on
use of outreach services by homeless people. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psy-
chology, 13, 138–157.
Christian, J.N. & Abrams, D. (2004). A tale of two cities: predicting homeless people’s uptake of
outreach programs in London and New York. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26,
169–182.
Christian, J., Armitage, C.J. & Abrams, D. (2004). Predicting uptake of housing services: the role
of self-categorization in the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology, 22, 206–217.
Clark, R. (2003). Self-reported racism and social support predict blood pressure reactivity in blacks.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 127–136.
Clark, R., Anderson, N.B. & Williams, D.R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans:
a biopsychological model. American Psychologist, 54, 805–816.
Cochran, S.D. & Mays, V.M. (1994). Depressive distress among homosexually active African
American men and women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 524–529.
Compton, M.T., Thompson, N.J. & Kaslow, N.J. (2005). Social environment factors associated with
suicide attempt among low-income African Americans: the protective role of family relation-
ships and social support. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 175–185.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 49
Cooper, R.S. (1993). Health and the social status of blacks in the United States. Annals of Epide-
miology, 3, 137–144.
Cooper, R.S. & David, R. (1986). The biological concept of race and its application to public health
and epidemiology. Journal of Health and Politics, Policy and Law, 11, 97–116.
Cota, A.A., Evans, C.R., Dion, K.L., et al. (1995). The structure of group cohesion. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 572–580.
Coyne, J.C. & Downey, G. (1991). Social factors and psychopathology: stress, social support, and
coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 401–425.
Cozzarelli, C. & Karafa, J.A. (1998). Cultural estrangement and terror management theory. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 253–267.
Crighton, D. & Towl, G. (2002). Intentional self-injury. In G. Towl, L. Snow & M. McHugh (eds),
Suicide in Prisons (pp. 48–56). Leicester: British Psychological Society.
Crocker, J. & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 26, 608–630.
Crocker, J., Major, B. & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (eds),
Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 504–553). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Crosby, F.J., Pufall, A., Snyder, R.C., et al. (1989). The denial of personal disadvantage among you,
me, and all the other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (eds), Gender and Thought
(pp. 79–99). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cuijpers, P. & van Lammeren, P. (1999). Depressive symptoms in chronically ill elderly people in
residential homes. Aging and Mental Health, 3, 221–226.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. In
R. Dienstbier (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University
of Nebraska Press.
Dervic, K., Oquendo, M.A., Grunebaum, M.F., et al. (2004). Religious affi liation and suicide
attempt. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 2303–2308.
Desforges, D.M., Lord, C.G., Ramsey, S.L., et al. (1991). Effects of structured cooperative contact
on changing negative attitudes toward stigmatized social groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 531–544.
Dion, K. & Earn, B.M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 32, 944–950.
Dodge, K.A., Lansford, J.E., Salzer Burks, V., et al. (2003). Peer rejection and social information-
processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child
Development, 74, 374–393.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N. & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function
of group status and identifi cation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–
436.
Downey, G. & Feldman, S.I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A Study in Sociology (translated by J.A. Spaulding & G. Simpson).
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Eidelman, S., Silvia, P.J. & Biernat, M. (2006). Responding to deviance: target exclusion and dif-
ferential devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1153–1164.
Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D. & Williams, K.D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study
of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292.
Eller, A. & Abrams, D. (2003). “Gringos” in Mexico: longitudinal effects of language school-
promoted contact on intergroup bias. Special issue on the contact hypothesis. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 6, 55–75.
Eller, A. & Abrams, D. (2004). Come together: longitudinal comparisons of Pettigrew’s
Reformulated Intergroup Contact Model and the Common In-group Identity Model in Anglo-
French and Mexican-American contexts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34,
229–256.
Erens, B., Primatesta, P. & Prior, G. (2001). Health Survey for England 1999: The Health of Ethnic
Minority Groups. London: The Stationery Offi ce.

50 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism. Knobbier Park, CA: Sage.
Everson-Rose, S.A. & Lewis, T.T. (2005). Psychosocial factors and cardiovascular disease. Annual
Review of Public Health, 26, 469–500.
Ewald, K. & Jiobu, R.M. (1985). Explaining positive deviance: Becker’s model and the case of
runners and bodybuilders. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 144–156.
Feagin, J.R. (1991). The continuing signifi cance of race: antiblack discrimination in public places.
American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116.
Feagin, J.R. & McKinney, K.D. (2003). The Many Costs of White Racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefi eld.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S. & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York:
Harper and Row.
Finch, B.K., Kolody, B. & Vega, W.A. (2000). Perceived discrimination and depression
among Mexican-origin adults in California. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41,
295–313.
Foster, M.D. & Matheson, K. (1999). Perceiving and responding to the personal/group discrimina-
tion discrepancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1319–1329.
Franks, P., Muenning, P., Lubetkin, E. & Jia, H. (2006). The burden of disease associated with
being African-American in the United States and the contribution of socio-economic status.
Social Science and Medicine, 62, 2469–2478.
Ganster, D.C. & Victor, B. (1988). The impact of social support on mental and physical health.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 61, 17–36.
Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost Boys. Old Tappan, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Garstka, T.A., Schmitt, M.T., Branscombe, N.R. & Hummert, M.L. (2004). How young and older
adults differ in their responses to perceived age discrimination. Psychology and Aging, 19,
326–335.
Geronimus, A.T., Bound, J., Wadimann, T.A., et al. (1996). Excess mortality among blacks and
whites in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 35, 1552–1558.
Gibbs, J.T. (1997). African-American suicide: a cultural paradox. Suicide and Life Threatening
Behavior, 27, 68–79.
Gonsalkorale, K. & Williams, K.D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: ostracism even by a
despised out-group hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology. DOI:10.1002ejsp.392
Gould, S.J. (1977). Why we should not name human races. A biological view. In S.J. Gould (ed.),
Ever Since Darwin (pp. 231–236). New York: Norton.
Gratz, K.L. (2003). Risk factors for and functions of deliberate self-harm: an empirical and con-
ceptual review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 192–205.
Greenhill, M. & Hutchison, P. (2007). Coping with Gender-based Discrimination in the Work-
place: The Role of Gender Identifi cation and Social Support. Unpublished manuscript. Univer-
sity of Leeds.
Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R.C. & Beattie, M. (1969). Internal-external control and motivational
dynamic of Negro youth. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 29–53.
Gurin, P. & Townsend, A. (1986). Properties of gender identity and their implications for gender
consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 139–148.
Hagerty, B.M.K., Williams, R.A., Coyne, J.C. & Early, M.R. (1996). Sense of belonging and
indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10,
235–244.
Harding, S. & Maxwell, R. (1997). Differences in mortality of migrants. In F. Drever & M.
Whitehead (eds), Health Inequalities: Decennial Supplement No. 15. London: The Stationary
Offi ce.
Harrell, J.P., Merritt, M. & Kalu, J. (1998). Racism, stress, and disease. In R. Jones (ed.), African
American Mental Health: Theory, Research and Intervention (pp. 247–280). Hampton, VA:
Cobb & Henry.
Haslam, S.A., O’Brien, A., Jetten, J., et al. (2005). Taking the strain: social identity, social
support and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 355–
370.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 51
Heckler, M.M. (1985). U.S. Task Force on Black and Minority Health. Report of the secretary’s
task force on black and minority health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Herek, G.M. & Capitanio, J.P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: intergroup contact, concealable
stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Hewstone, M. & Brown, R.J. (1986). Contact and Confl ict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hogg, M.A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social
Identity. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M.A. & Abrams. D. (1988). Social Identifi cations: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Rela-
tions and Group Processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M.A. & Turner, J.C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience of social
categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325–340.
Hornsey, M.J. & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: an identity
perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
365–383.
Hornsey, M.J., Jetten, J., McAuliffe, B. & Hogg, M.A. (2006). The impact of individualist and
collectivist group norms on evaluations of dissenting group members. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42, 57–68.
Hortulanus, R., Machielse, A. & Meeuwesen, L. (2006). Social Isolation in Modern Society.
Oxford: Routledge.
Hoyle, R.H. & Crawford, A.M. (1994). Use of individual-level data to investigate group phenomena
issues and strategies. Small Group Research, 25, 464–485.
Hughes, R. & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: the implications of over-
conformity to the sport ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 307–325.
Hutchison, P. & Abrams, D. (2003). In-group identifi cation moderates stereotype change in reaction
to in-group deviance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 497–506.
Hutchison, P. & Abrams, D. (2007). Deviance and Sanctioning in Low and High Status Groups.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Leeds.
Hutchison, P., Abrams, D., Gutierrez, R. & Viki, G.T. (2007). Getting rid of the bad ones: the rela-
tionship between group identifi cation, deviant derogation, and identity maintenance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. DOI:1016/j.jesp.2007.09.001
Hutchison, P., Jetten, J., Christian, J. & Haycraft, E. (2006). Protecting threatened identity: sticking
with the group by emphasizing in-group heterogeneity. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 32, 1620–1633.
Hutchison, P., Jetten, J. & Gutierrez, R. (2007). Fitting in by being different: Reactions to deviance
in homogenous and heterogeneous groups. Manuscript submitted for publication. London Met-
ropolitan University.
Jambor, E. & Eliot, M. (2005). Self-esteem and coping strategies among deaf students. The Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 63–81.
James, S.A., LaCroix, A.Z., Kleinbaum, D.G. & Strogatz, D.S. (1984). John Henryism and blood
pressure differences among black men, II: the role of occupational stressors. Journal of Behav-
ioral Medicine, 7, 259–275.
Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (2nd edn).
Boston, MA: Houghton Miffl in.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N.R., Schmitt, M.T. & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: group iden-
tifi cation as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R. & McKimmie, B. (2003). Predicting the paths of peripher-
als: the interaction of identifi cation and future possibilities. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 130–140.
Jetten, J., Postmes, T. & McAuliffe, B.J. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: group norms of individual-
ism and collectivism, levels of identifi cation, and identity threat. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32, 189–207.

52 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Joiner, T. (2005). Why People Die by Suicide. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jones, E.E. & DeCharms, R. (1957). Changes in social perception as a function of the personal
relevance of behavior. Sociometry, 20, 175–185.
Kira, I.A., Lewandowski, L., Templin, T., et al. (2006). The mental health effects of retributive
justice: the case of Iraqi refugees. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 1, 154–169.
Kochanek, K.D., Murphy, S.L., Anderson, R.N. & Scott, C. (2004). Deaths: fi nal data for 2002.
National Vital Statistics Report, 53, 1–116.
Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimination: risk factors for high blood pressure? Social
Science and Medicine, 30, 1273–1281.
Krieger, N., Rowley, D.L., Herman, A.A., et al. (1993). Racism, sexism, and social class: implica-
tions for studies of health, disease, and well-being. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
96, 82–122.
Krieger, N. & Sidney, S. (1996). Racial discrimination and blood pressure: the CARDIA study
of young black and white women and men. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1370–
1378.
Landrine, H. & Klonoff, E.A. (2000). Racial discrimination and cigarette smoking among blacks:
fi ndings from two studies. Ethnicity and Disease, 10, 195–202.
Leary, M.R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression,
and low self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229.
Leary, M.R. (2001). Towards a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In M.R. Leary (ed.),
Interpersonal Rejection (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.
Leary, M.R. (2005). Varieties of interpersonal rejection. In K.D. Williams, J.P. Forgas & B. von
Hippel (eds), The Social Outcast: Ostracism, Social Exclusion, Rejection, and Bullying
(pp. 35–51). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M., Smith, L. & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence:
case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.
Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K. & Downs, D.L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal
monitor: the sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
518–530.
Leary, M.R., Twenge, J.M. & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of
anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 111–132.
Lee, B.A., Farrell, C.R. & Link, B.G. (2004). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: the case of public
exposure to homelessness. American Sociological Review, 69, 40–63.
Lee, Y.T. & Ottati, V. (1995). Perceived in-group homogeneity as a function of group membership
salience and stereotype threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 610–
619.
Levine, J.M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P.B. Paulus (ed.),
Psychology of Group Infl uence (2nd edn; pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Levine, R.S., Foster, J.E., Fullilove, R.E., et al. (2001). Black-White inequalities in mortality and
life expectancy, 1933–1999: implications for healthy people 2010. Public Health Reports, 116,
474–483.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Confl icts. New York: Harper.
Lewinsohn, P.M., Rohde, P. & Seeley, J.R. (1993). Psychosocial characteristics of adolescents with
a history of suicide attempt. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychia-
try, 32, 60–68.
Lewontin, R.C. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity. In T. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht &
W.C. St e er e (eds) , Evolutionary Biology (Vol. 6; pp. 381–386). New York: Appleton Century
Crofts.
Link, B.G. & Cullen, F.T. (1986). Contact with the mentally ill and perceptions of how dangerous
they are. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 289–303.
Link, B.G. & Phelan, J.C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27,
363–385.
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G. & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social
identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 85, 853–870.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 53
MacDonald, G. & Leary M.R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between
social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.
Major, B. & Eccleston, C.P. (2005). Stigma and social exclusion. In D. Abrams, M.A. Hogg & J.M.
Marques (eds), The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion (pp. 63–687). New York:
Psychology Press.
Major, B. & O’Brien, T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 393–421.
Makas, E. (1993). Getting in touch: the relationship between contact and attitudes toward people
with disabilities. In M. Nagler (ed.), Perspectives on Disability (pp. 121–136). Palo Alto, CA:
Health Market Research.
Marcus, D.K. & Askari, N.H. (1999). Dysphoria and interpersonal rejection. A social relations
analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 370–384.
Marmot, M.G. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 365, 1099–1104.
Marmot, M.G., Adelstein, A.M. & Bulusu, L. & OPCS. (1984). Immigrant Mortality in England
and Wales 1970–78: Causes of Death by Country of Birth. London: HMSO.
Marques, J.M., Abrams, D., Paez, D. & Hogg, M.A. (2001). Social categorization, social identifi ca-
tion, and rejection of deviant group members. In M.A. Hogg & S. Tindale (eds), Blackwell
Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (Vol. 3; pp. 400–424). Oxford: Blackwell.
Marques, J., Abrams, D., Paez, D. & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and
in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 976–988.
Marques, J., Abrams, D. & Serôdio, R.G. (2001). Being better by being right: subjective group
dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447.
Marques, J.M. & Paez, D. (1994). The “black sheep” effect: social categorization, rejection of in-
group deviates, and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5,
37–68.
Marques, J.M. & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: judgemental extremity towards in-
group members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology,
18, 287–292.
Mays, V.M., Cochran, S.D. & Barnes, N.W. (2007). Race, race-based discrimination, and health
outcomes among African Americans. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 201–225.
McCord, C. & Freeman, H.P. (1990). Excess mortality in Harlem. New England Journal of Medi-
cine, 322, 1606–1667.
McLaren, S., Jude, B., Hopes, L.M. & Sherritt, T.J. (2001). Sense of belonging, stress and depres-
sion in rural-urban communities. International Journal of Rural Psychology, 2, www.rural-
psych.com.
McLaughlin-Volpe, T., Aron, A., Wright, S.C. & Lewandowski, G.W., Jr (2005). Exclusion of the
self by close others and by groups: implications of the self-expansion model. In D. Abrams,
M.A. Hogg & J.M. Marques (eds), The Social Psychology of Inclusion and Exclusion
(pp. 113–134). New York: Psychology Press.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Purdie, V., Downey, G. & Davis, A. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejec-
tion: implications for African-American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 896–918.
Mize, J. & Ladd, G.W. (1988). Predicting preschoolers’ peer behavior and status from their inter-
personal strategies: a comparison of verbal and enactive responses to hypothetical social dilem-
mas. Developmental Psychology, 24, 782–788.
MMWR. (2005). Health disparities experienced by black or African Americans—United States.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54, 1–3.
Morris, J. (2001). Impairment and disability: constructing an ethics of care that promotes human
rights. Hypatia, 16, 1–16.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Infl uence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.
Nazroo, J.Y. (2003). The structuring of ethnic inequalities in health: economic position, racial dis-
crimination, and racism. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 277–284.
Nemeth, C., Rogers, J. & Brown, K. (2001). Devil’s advocate vs. authentic dissent: stimulating
quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–720.

54 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Nemeth, C.J. & Staw, B.M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation within groups
and organizations. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.
22; pp. 175–210). New York: Academic Press.
Noel, J.G., Wann, D.L. & Branscombe, N.R. (1995). Peripheral in-group membership status and
public negativity towards out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
127–137.
Ostrove, M.J., Adler, N.E., Kupperman, M. & Washington, A.E. (2000). Objective and subjective
assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self-rated health in an ethnically
diverse sample of pregnant women. Health Psychology, 19, 613–618.
Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technology. (2007). Ethnicity and Health. Report by the
Parliamentary Offi ce of Science and Technology. Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/
documents/upload/postpn276.pdf.
Peres, Y. (1971). Ethnic relations in Israel. American Journal of Sociology, 76, 1021–1047.
Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Pickett, C.L., Bonner, B.L. & Coleman, J.M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: heightened
assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543–562.
Pickett, C.L. & Brewer, M.B. (2001). Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational deter-
minants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 37, 341–348.
Postmes, T., Spears, R. & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918–930.
Reicher, S.D. (1996). Social identity and social change: rethinking the context of social psychology.
In W.P. Robinson (ed.), Social Groups and Identities: Developing the Legacy of Henri Tajfel
(pp. 317–336). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Riordan, C. & Ruggiero, J. (1980). Producing equal-status interracial interaction: a replication.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 131–136.
Roberts, E.M. (1997). Neighborhood social environments and the distribution of low birthweight
in Chicago. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 597–603.
Roberts, E.M. (1999). Socioeconomic position and health: the independent contribution of com-
munity socioeconomic context. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 489–516.
Rollins, J.H. (1973). Reference identifi cation of youth of differing ethnicity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 26, 222–231.
Rothgerber, H. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions of in-group
and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1206–
1212.
Rowley, S.J., Sellers, R.M., Chavous, T.M. & Smith, M.A. (1998). The relationship between racial
identity and self-esteem in African-American college and high school students. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 74, 715–724.
Rudat, K. (1994). Black and Minority Ethnic Groups in England: Health and Lifestyles. London:
Health Education Authority.
Rumbaut, R.G. (1994). The crucible within: ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented assimilation
among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28, 748–794.
Rushton, J.P. (1995). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life-history Perspective. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Sander Thompson, V.L. (1996). Perceived experiences of racism as stressful life events. Community
Mental Health Journal, 32, 223–233.
Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 46, 190–207.
Schmitt, M.T. & Branscombe, N.T. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: threats to ones pro-
totypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 37, 510 –517.
Schmitt, M.T. & Branscombe, N.T. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimi-
nation in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology,
12, 167–200.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 55
Schmitt, M.T., Branscombe, N.R., Kobrynowicz, D. & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination
against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197–210.
Schmitt, M.T., Spears R. & Branscombe, N.R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out
of shared rejection: the case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology,
33, 1–12.
Schuetz, A. (1944). The stranger: an essay in social psychology. American Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 49, 499–507.
Shneidman, E. (ed.) (1993). A Conspectus of the Suicidal Scenario. New York: Guilford.
Simon, B. & Brown, R.J. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703–711.
Simon, B. & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: a social psychological analysis.
American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.
Skinner, E.A. (1992). Perceived control: motivation, coping, and development. In R. Schwarzer
(ed.), Self-effi cacy: Thought Control of Action (pp. 91–106). London: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation.
Smith, G.D., Neaton, J.D., Wentworth, D., et al. (1998). Mortality differences between black and
white men in the USA: contribution of income and other risk factors among men screened for
the MRFIT. The Lancet, 51, 934–939.
Smith, A. & Williams, K.D. (2004). R U there? Effects of ostracism by cell phone messages. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 291–301.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). Preventing Social Exclusion. Report by the Social Exclusion Unit.
Retrieved from www.cabinet-offi ce.gov.uk/seu/index.htm.
Sommer, K.L., Williams, K.D., Ciarocco, N.J. & Baumeister, R.F. (2001). When silence speaks
louder than words: explorations into the interpersonal and intrapsychic consequences of social
ostracism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 83, 606–615.
Spanier, G.B. & Casto, R.F. (1979). Adjustment to separation and divorce: an analysis of 50 case
studies. Journal of Divorce, 2, 241–253.
Spears, R., Doosje, B. & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status
and distinctiveness: the role of group identifi cation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
23, 538–553.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D. & Wittenbaum, G. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during
discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 31, 244–265.
Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: how stereotypes shape intellectual identity and perfor-
mance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Stephan, W.G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendricks (ed.), Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations (pp. 13–40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stott, C.J., Hutchison, P. & Drury, J. (2001). ‘Hooligans’ abroad? Inter-group dynamics, social
identity and participation in collective ‘disorder’ at the 1998 World Cup Finals. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 40, 359–384.
Swim, J.K., Hyers, L.L., Cohen, L.L. & Ferguson, M.J. (2001). Everyday sexism: evidence for its
incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 31–53.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup confl ict. In W.G. Austin &
S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey:
Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel
& W.G. Austin (eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Taylor, J. & Jackson, B. (1990). Factors affecting alcohol consumption in black women. Part II.
International Journal of Addiction, 25, 1415–1427.
Towl, G., Snow, L. & McHugh, M. (eds) (2002). Suicide in Prisons. Leicester: British Psychological
Society.
Tropp, L.R. & Pettigrew, T.F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and
prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–
957.

56 MULTIDISCIPLINARY HANDBOOK OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION RESEARCH
Turner, J.C. (1991). Social Infl uence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., et al. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-catego-
rization Theory. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.
Turner, M.E., Pratkanis, A.R., Probasco, P. & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effec-
tiveness: testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 781–796.
Turner, R.N., Crisp, R.J. & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve inter-
group attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427–441.
Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., et al. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56–66.
Twenge, J.M., Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M. & Stucke, T.S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them:
effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 1058–1069.
Twenge, J.M., Catanese, K.R. & Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Social exclusion causes self-defeating
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 606–615.
van Knippenberg, D. & Haslam, S.A. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend: exploring the subtle
interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In S.A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M.J.
Platow & N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at Work: Developing Theory for Organizational
Practice (pp. 61–80). New York: Psychology Press.
Walsh, A., Beyer, J.A. & Petee, T.A. (1987). Violent delinquency: an examination of psychopathic
typologies. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148, 385–392.
Warburton, W.A., Williams, K.D. & Cairns, K.D. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: the
moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
213–220.
Wells-Petry, M. (1993). Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve. Washington: Regnery
Gateway.
Werth, J.L. & Lord, C.G. (1992). Previous conceptions of the typical group member and the contact
hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 351–369.
Williams, D.R. (1995). African American mental health: persisting questions and paradoxical fi nd-
ings. African American Research Perspective, 2, 2–6.
Williams, D.R. (1997). Race and health: basic questions, emerging directions. Annals of Epidemiol-
ogy, 7, 322–333.
Williams, D.R. & Jackson, P.B. (2005). Social sources of racial disparities in health. Health Affairs,
24, 325–334.
Williams, D.R., Spencer, M.S. & Jackson, J.S. (1999). Race, stress, and physical health: the role of
group identity. In R.J. Contrada & R.D. Ashmore (eds), Self, Social Identity, and Physical
Health (pp. 71–100). New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, K.D. (2001). Ostracism: The Power of Silence. New York: Guilford.
Williams, K.D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K.T. & Choi, W. (2000). Cyber ostracism: effects of being ignored over
the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762.
Williams, K.D. & Sommer, K.L. (1997). Social ostracism by one’s coworkers: does rejection lead
to loafi ng or compensation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–706.
Williams, R.M. (1947). The Reduction of Intergroup Tension. New York: Social Science Research
Council.
Wood, W., Lundren, S., Ouellette, J.A., et al. (1994). Minority infl uence: a meta-analytic review of
social infl uence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.
Wright, S.C. (2001). Strategic collective action: social Psychology and social change. In R.J. Brown
& S.L. Gaertner (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes (pp.
409–431). Oxford: Blackwell.
Wright, S.C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T. & Ropp, S.A. (1997). The extended contact effect:
knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73, 73–90.
Yuker, H.E. (1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: some empirical
generalizations. In H.E. Yuker (ed.), Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities (pp. 262–278).
New York: Springer Publishing Company.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF EXCLUSION 57
Yzerbyt, V.Y., Castano, E., Leyens, J-P. & Paladino, M-P. (2000). The primacy of the in-group: the
interplay of entitativity and identifi cation. European Review of Social Psychology, 11,
257–296.
Zadro, L., Williams, K.D. & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer
lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 560–567.