Social Inclusion

Abstract

Social inclusion is a form of social behavior: the process by which individuals and groups are given the ability, opportunity, and standing to take part fully in social life, and the subjective sense of belonging that follows from it. Its psychological foundation is the need to belong — the claim that the drive to form and maintain lasting social bonds is a fundamental human motivation. When that need is met, inclusion supports cognition, health, and self-regulation; when it is thwarted by exclusion or ostracism, the costs are immediate and measurable, from impaired reasoning to a neural alarm response that overlaps with physical pain. This article covers what social inclusion is, the need-to-belong hypothesis, the temporal need-threat model of ostracism, an ecological model of inclusion, and the modern belonging-intervention and loneliness research, with three interactive demonstrations.

Keywords: social inclusion, belonging, ostracism, need to belong

Few social experiences are as sharply felt as being left out. A conversation that closes before a newcomer can join, a message that goes unanswered, a group that forms and leaves someone out — the smallest signs of exclusion register quickly and sting out of proportion to any material loss. Social inclusion is the name for the opposite condition and for the processes that produce it: being admitted to, valued in, and able to participate in the groups and institutions that make up a social world.

The study of social inclusion sits at the meeting point of two questions. One is normative and sociological — how societies widen or narrow the opportunity to participate, and who is shut out. The other is psychological — why belonging matters so much to the individual mind that its absence disrupts thought, mood, and health. Cognitive and social psychology answer the second question, and in doing so explain why the first is not merely a matter of fairness but of basic human functioning: the need to belong is wired deeply enough that exclusion operates like an injury, and inclusion like a resource the mind draws on to do its ordinary work.

What Social Inclusion Is

Social inclusion is, in the public-health framing adopted by Medical Subject Headings, the process of improving the basis on which individuals and groups take part in society — improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those who are disadvantaged or at risk of exclusion. That definition carries two parts worth separating. One is structural: inclusion as access to the resources, institutions, and relationships through which a person participates — schooling, work, community, civic life. The other is psychological: inclusion as the felt experience of belonging, of being accepted and valued by others whose regard one cares about.

The two are connected but not identical. A person may be structurally present in a setting — enrolled, employed, physically among others — and still feel excluded, unseen, or merely tolerated; and the subjective sense of exclusion is what the psychological literature shows to be consequential for cognition and health (Simplican et al., 2015). This article concentrates on the psychological side: what belonging does for the mind, what its absence costs, and how both are studied. The sociological literature on social inclusion as a feature of societies and policies is substantial in its own right and is reviewed elsewhere (Allman, 2013).

The organising idea is that inclusion answers a genuine need, not merely a preference. People do not simply enjoy company; they require a baseline of accepted, ongoing relationships in the way they require other necessities, and the mind is equipped with machinery that monitors inclusion, reacts sharply to signs of exclusion, and motivates behaviour to restore belonging when it is threatened. Everything that follows elaborates that claim.

The Need to Belong

The modern psychology of social inclusion rests on the need-to-belong hypothesis: the proposition that a need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships is a fundamental human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Baumeister and Leary set out the criteria such a need would have to meet — it should produce effects readily under most conditions, have affective consequences, direct cognitive processing, lead to ill effects when thwarted, and be found universally across cultures — and then marshalled a wide body of evidence showing that the desire for belonging meets all of them.

The hypothesis makes several specific claims. People need frequent positive interactions with a few others, and they need those interactions to take place within a framework of stable, continuing care — not a changing cast of strangers. The need is satisfiable: once a person has enough close bonds, the drive to form additional ones weakens, which is why belonging behaves like a need rather than an open-ended appetite. And the need is substitutable only in part — a new relationship can replace a lost one, but people resist losing existing bonds even when replacements are available, because it is the specific, ongoing relationships that the need is organised around.

Belonging also shapes thought directly. People devote disproportionate cognitive resources to their relationships, remember social information especially well, and interpret ambiguous events in terms of inclusion and exclusion. The infant evidence suggests the orientation is present early: children show social motivation and a sensitivity to belonging well before it could be taught, consistent with an evolved basis for the need (Over, 2016). The adult counterpart is that when belonging is uncertain, the mind prioritises social monitoring over almost everything else — a prioritisation that is adaptive when it restores inclusion and costly when it does not.

If belonging is a need, the mind should have some way of tracking how well it is being met. Sociometer theory proposes exactly such a gauge: self-esteem functions as an internal monitor of one's relational value — the degree to which one is being accepted rather than rejected — rising with signs of inclusion and falling with signs of exclusion (Leary et al., 1995). On this account self-esteem is not an end in itself but a readout of belonging, which is why cues of rejection register as drops in self-worth, and why self-esteem turns out to be one of the fundamental needs the ostracism response defends.

Ostracism and the Temporal Need-Threat Model

If belonging is a need, exclusion is its frustration, and the most carefully mapped form of exclusion is ostracism — being ignored and excluded by others. Kipling Williams built the experimental study of ostracism around a deliberately minimal paradigm, Cyberball, a simple online ball-tossing game in which the participant is gradually excluded by two other players who throw only to each other. The exclusion is trivial, anonymous, and often known to be computer-controlled, yet it reliably produces distress, lowered mood, and a drop in the sense of belonging (Williams, 2007).

Williams's temporal need-threat model organises the response into stages. The immediate, reflexive stage is a fast and largely indiscriminate pain-like reaction: ostracism threatens four fundamental needs at once — belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence — and does so even when the excluded person knows the exclusion is meaningless or arbitrary. Because the reaction is reflexive, it is remarkably hard to suppress with cognitive reappraisal; being told the other players are a computer program barely dampens it. A later reflective stage follows, in which the person appraises the episode and acts to repair the threatened needs — through heightened attention to social cues, conformity and ingratiation to regain acceptance, or, when regaining belonging seems hopeless, through withdrawal or aggression. Prolonged or chronic ostracism moves to a resignation stage marked by alienation, depression, helplessness, and unworthiness.

That the reaction is so hard to switch off points to its depth. Eisenberger and colleagues scanned people undergoing Cyberball exclusion and found that social rejection recruited the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and related regions that also respond to physical pain, and that the more distress people reported, the more strongly those regions responded (Eisenberger et al., 2003). The finding grounded the common metaphor of “hurt feelings” in a shared neural alarm system: the mechanisms that register bodily injury were apparently co-opted to register social injury, which is what one would expect if belonging were a true need rather than a luxury.

The cognitive costs of exclusion extend beyond mood. Twenge and colleagues showed that excluded people behave more aggressively, even toward bystanders unconnected to the rejection (Twenge et al., 2001), and Baumeister's group found that social exclusion impairs self-regulation and complex reasoning — excluded participants performed worse on effortful cognitive tasks and were less able to override impulses (Baumeister et al., 2005). Exclusion, in short, does not merely feel bad; it degrades the executive resources the mind needs to function.

An Ecological Model of Inclusion

The experimental work isolates the individual's reaction to inclusion and exclusion; a complementary tradition asks what inclusion consists of across the settings of a whole life. Simplican and colleagues proposed an ecological model that distinguishes two dimensions of social inclusion and insists that both must be present (Simplican et al., 2015). The first is interpersonal relationships — the network of close bonds, friendships, and family ties a person holds. The second is community participation — involvement in the activities, organisations, and public life of a community. Plotting the two as axes yields four quadrants: full inclusion (high on both), and three forms of shortfall — relationships without participation, participation without relationships, and exclusion on both.

The model's point is that neither dimension substitutes for the other. A person can be embedded in a community's activities yet lack any close relationship within it (present but not belonging), or hold warm relationships while cut off from community life (belonging but not participating). Genuine inclusion requires both the structural fact of participation and the relational fact of being known and valued — a distinction that maps directly onto the structural/psychological split introduced earlier, and that the second demonstration lets the reader explore. The related construct of belonging has itself been the subject of concerted conceptual work, which treats it as a basic psychological need with definable antecedents and consequences rather than a vague good (Mahar et al., 2013).

Table 1. Four frameworks for the psychology of social inclusion.

Demo 1 — Need-Threat Model (Cyberball)

In the Cyberball game a participant and two others toss a ball over 30 throws, so a fair share is 10. Set how many throws the participant receives and watch the inclusion ratio and the need-threat it produces on all four fundamental needs at once. The reflexive reaction is indiscriminate: being told the other players are a computer program changes nothing, because the ratio drives the reaction, not the interpretation.

The participant receives 2 of 10 fair-share throws, an inclusion ratio of 0.20, so each of the four needs is threatened by 0.80. This is the exclusion condition — a large, near-uniform threat. The framing is “real players”, yet the threat is unchanged: the reflexive stage does not consult the explanation.

Demo 2 — Ecological Model of Inclusion

Simplican and colleagues treat social inclusion as the joint product of two dimensions — interpersonal relationships and community participation — that must both be present. Move the point: being high on one axis cannot make up for a shortfall on the other, so genuine inclusion sits only in the upper-right quadrant.

Relationships 7/10 and participation 3/10 place the person in Relationships without participation. The inclusion index is the smaller of the two normalised dimensions, 0.30 — raising the stronger axis cannot lift it, because neither dimension substitutes for the other.

Demo 3 — Belonging Intervention

A one-time social-belonging intervention reframes a setback as a normal, temporary part of belonging rather than a sign one does not belong. It adds no relationships; it changes appraisal. Set the size of an early setback and compare the recovery of the sense of belonging with and without the intervention over six semesters.

After a setback that drops belonging to 0.30, the intervention reaches 0.79 by semester 6 — a fast recovery, because the adversity is read as temporary. The faint dashed line shows the other condition for comparison.

Worked Example

The reflexive stage of the need-threat model can be made quantitative with the Cyberball paradigm, which the first demonstration computes directly. In a standard three-player game the participant and two others toss a ball; over a run of throws, a fair share for each player is one-third of the tosses. Suppose the game runs for 30 throws, so an equal share would send the ball to the participant on about 10 of them. Define the participant's inclusion ratio as the number of throws received relative to that fair share:

IR = (throws received) / (fair share), capped at 1

and the need-threat on each of the four needs as the shortfall from full inclusion:

T = 1 − IR

In the inclusion condition the participant receives a fair share, r = 10 of the roughly 30 throws. The inclusion ratio is 10 / 10 = 1.0, so the need-threat is 1 − 1.0 = 0 — belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence are all left intact, and mood is unaffected.

Now run the exclusion condition. After a few opening throws the two confederates throw only to each other, so the participant receives just r = 2 throws out of the 30. The inclusion ratio is 2 / 10 = 0.2, and the need-threat is 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 — a large, near-maximal threat applied to all four needs simultaneously. Crucially, the model holds that this reflexive threat is the same whether the participant is told the other players are real or a computer program: the ratio drives the reaction, not the interpretation. That is why even transparently meaningless exclusion produces the effect, and why the threat in the demonstration does not change when the “told it’s a computer” toggle is set. (The inclusion ratio and the four need-threat values are recomputed in the demo's own code, so the control and this worked example always agree.)

Discussion

Social inclusion matters to cognitive psychology because belonging is not a soft background variable but a determinant of how well the mind works. The need-to-belong hypothesis reframes sociality as a basic motivation on a par with other needs, and the ostracism literature shows the cost of frustrating it in hard cognitive currency: impaired self-regulation, degraded reasoning, and a pain-like alarm response that resists conscious override. Inclusion, correspondingly, is a resource — when the need is met, the executive and emotional capacity otherwise spent monitoring for exclusion is freed for other work.

The topic connects to several others on this site. The drive for belonging is one engine of social conformity, since conforming is one of the clearest ways to regain acceptance after exclusion; it shapes social cognition, biasing attention and memory toward social information when belonging is uncertain; and it underlies social identification, the process by which group membership becomes part of the self. Exclusion on the basis of group membership is also the behavioural edge of prejudice, which links the individual psychology of belonging to intergroup processes.

Two cautions keep the topic honest. First, the structural and psychological senses of inclusion must not be conflated: policies can increase participation without producing belonging, and belonging can exist without full participation, so measuring one is not measuring the other (Simplican et al., 2015). Second, the reflexive uniformity of the ostracism response — its indifference to whether exclusion is meaningful — is a feature of the immediate reaction only; what people do about exclusion, and whether they recover, depends heavily on appraisal, resources, and the availability of other bonds.

Current Directions

The most consequential recent development treats loneliness and social isolation as risks to physical health, not merely to happiness. A meta-analytic review found that weak social relationships predict mortality at a magnitude comparable to established risk factors such as smoking and obesity, moving belonging from the margins of health research toward its centre (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Subsequent work has set out the mechanisms — behavioural, psychological, and physiological — through which social relationships get under the skin to affect health and longevity, and has argued for treating social connection as a public-health priority (Holt-Lunstad, 2018). The perceived-isolation side of this literature shows that it is the subjective experience of loneliness, more than the objective size of a social network, that impairs cognition and health (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009), and recent reviews have mapped the correlates and risk factors of loneliness in contemporary life and the interventions that might address it (Lim et al., 2020).

A second active front is intervention. The groundwork was a demonstration that belonging uncertainty — doubt about whether one is socially accepted in a setting — is itself a drag on achievement for members of groups marked by exclusion cues, so that the same objective adversity weighs more heavily on those unsure of their belonging (Walton & Cohen, 2007). Building on this, Walton and Cohen showed that a brief, one-time social-belonging intervention — reframing worries about fitting in as normal and temporary rather than as evidence that one does not belong — produced durable gains in the academic achievement and health of students facing exclusion cues, with effects visible years later (Walton & Cohen, 2011). The intervention works precisely because it targets the appraisal stage of the need-threat process: it does not add relationships but changes how ambiguous social adversity is interpreted, so that a setback is read as a shared, passing phase rather than a verdict on belonging. The broader belonging literature has since been synthesised into integrative frameworks spanning its conceptual, measurement, and intervention strands, with particular attention to school belonging as a setting where inclusion can be deliberately fostered (Allen et al., 2021; Allen et al., 2018).

Common Misconceptions

Social inclusion is just the same as being physically present among others.

Presence and participation are not belonging. The ecological model distinguishes community participation from interpersonal relationships, and a person can be fully present in a setting yet feel excluded and unvalued; genuine inclusion requires both dimensions (Simplican et al., 2015).

The pain of being excluded is only a figure of speech.

Social rejection recruits the same neural regions that respond to physical pain, and the degree of self-reported distress tracks the strength of that response. The “hurt” of exclusion reflects a real, shared alarm system, not merely a metaphor (Eisenberger et al., 2003).

Knowing that exclusion is meaningless stops it from hurting.

The reflexive stage of the need-threat model is fast and indiscriminate: Cyberball produces distress even when participants are told the other players are a computer. Appraisal shapes later coping, but it barely dampens the immediate reaction (Williams, 2007).

Loneliness is a matter of how many people one knows.

It is the subjective sense of isolation, not the objective size of a social network, that carries the cognitive and health costs. A person with many contacts can be lonely, and the perceived quality of belonging is what predicts the outcomes (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009).

Key Researchers

Kelly-Ann Allen

(Monash University). Produced integrative frameworks and meta-analyses of belonging, especially school belonging, synthesising the conceptual, measurement, and intervention literatures on how inclusion is fostered across settings. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Roy F. Baumeister

(University of Queensland / Florida State University). Co-authored the need-to-belong hypothesis, arguing that the drive to form and maintain social bonds is a fundamental human motivation, and showed experimentally that social exclusion impairs self-regulation and complex reasoning. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia · Wikidata

John T. Cacioppo

(University of Chicago; 1951–2018). Founded social neuroscience and showed that perceived social isolation — loneliness — has pervasive effects on cognition, physiology, and health, independent of the objective size of a person's social network. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Naomi I. Eisenberger

(University of California, Los Angeles). Showed with fMRI that social exclusion recruits neural regions overlapping those for physical pain, grounding the idea that the need to belong is served by a shared alarm system for social and bodily injury. Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Mark R. Leary

(Duke University). Co-authored the need-to-belong hypothesis and developed sociometer theory, which construes self-esteem as an internal gauge of one's relational value and likelihood of social inclusion. Wikipedia

Gregory M. Walton

(Stanford University). Developed brief social-belonging interventions, demonstrating that reframing adversity as a normal and temporary part of belonging can durably improve the achievement and health of people facing exclusion cues. ORCID · Google Scholar

Kipling D. Williams

(Purdue University). Built the experimental study of ostracism, developing the Cyberball paradigm and the temporal need-threat model of how exclusion threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. ORCID · Google Scholar

Glossary

Belonging.

The subjective experience of being accepted, valued, and included by others whose regard one cares about; treated in current work as a basic psychological need.

Community participation.

Involvement in the activities, organisations, and public life of a community; one of the two dimensions of the ecological model of social inclusion.

Cyberball.

A minimal online ball-tossing paradigm in which a participant is gradually excluded by other players, used to study the immediate effects of ostracism.

Ecological model of inclusion.

Simplican and colleagues' account treating social inclusion as the joint product of interpersonal relationships and community participation, both of which are required.

Inclusion ratio.

In the worked example, the number of throws a Cyberball participant receives relative to a fair share; a scaled index of how included the participant is.

Interpersonal relationships.

The network of close bonds, friendships, and family ties a person holds; the relational dimension of the ecological model of inclusion.

Loneliness.

The distressing subjective sense that one's social relationships are deficient; its cognitive and health costs track perceived isolation rather than objective network size.

Meaningful existence.

The sense that one's life is significant and recognised by others; one of the four fundamental needs threatened by ostracism in the need-threat model.

Need to belong.

The hypothesised fundamental motivation to form and maintain a minimum number of lasting, caring interpersonal relationships.

Ostracism.

Being ignored and excluded by others; the most carefully mapped form of social exclusion, studied experimentally with Cyberball.

Reflective stage.

The subsequent appraisal-driven phase in which the person acts to repair threatened needs, through social monitoring, conformity, withdrawal, or aggression.

Reflexive stage.

The immediate, fast, and indiscriminate pain-like reaction to ostracism, which threatens all four needs even when the exclusion is known to be meaningless.

Social exclusion.

The condition of being kept apart from or denied participation in a social group; the frustration of the need to belong.

Social inclusion.

The process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity with which people take part in society, together with the resulting sense of belonging.

Social-belonging intervention.

A brief intervention that reframes worries about fitting in as normal and temporary, durably improving the achievement and health of people facing exclusion cues.

Sociometer theory.

Leary's account of self-esteem as an internal monitor of relational value, rising with social inclusion and falling with signs of rejection or exclusion.

Temporal need-threat model.

Williams's staged account of ostracism: a reflexive threat to four needs, a reflective coping phase, and, if prolonged, a resignation phase.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social inclusion?

Social inclusion is the process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity with which individuals and groups take part in society, together with the subjective sense of belonging that results. It has a structural side (access to the relationships and institutions of social life) and a psychological side, the felt experience of being accepted and valued. It is a basic form of social behavior grounded in the human need to belong.

What is the need to belong?

The need to belong is the hypothesis that a drive to form and maintain strong, stable, caring relationships is a fundamental human motivation. People need frequent positive interactions with a few others within a framework of ongoing care, and falling short carries costs to mood, cognition, and health. The need is satisfiable and only partly substitutable, which is what makes it behave like a need rather than an open-ended want.

Why does being excluded hurt so much?

Social rejection activates neural regions, including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, that also respond to physical pain, and the more distress a person reports, the stronger that response. This shared alarm system is what one would expect if belonging were a true need: the mechanisms that register bodily injury appear to have been co-opted to register social injury.

What is ostracism and how is it studied?

Ostracism is being ignored and excluded. It is studied experimentally with Cyberball, a minimal online ball-tossing game in which the participant is gradually frozen out by other players. Even though the exclusion is trivial and anonymous, it reliably lowers mood and the sense of belonging, which makes it a controlled way to trigger the exclusion response.

What are the four needs threatened by ostracism?

In Williams's temporal need-threat model, ostracism threatens belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence simultaneously. The threat is reflexive, fast and hard to suppress, and is followed by a reflective coping stage in which the person tries to repair whichever needs can be restored, and, if exclusion persists, by a resignation stage.

Does knowing the exclusion is meaningless make it stop hurting?

Barely. The immediate, reflexive reaction to Cyberball exclusion occurs even when participants are told the other players are a computer program. Appraisal shapes what people do about exclusion afterwards, but it does little to dampen the initial threat, which is why even transparently meaningless exclusion produces the effect.

How is loneliness related to social inclusion?

Loneliness is the distressing sense that one's relationships are deficient, the subjective experience of exclusion. It is the perceived quality of belonging, not the objective number of contacts, that impairs cognition and health, and weak social relationships predict mortality at a magnitude comparable to major risk factors such as smoking.

Can social inclusion be improved deliberately?

Yes. Brief social-belonging interventions that reframe worries about fitting in as normal and temporary have produced durable gains in achievement and health for people facing exclusion cues. They work by changing how ambiguous social adversity is appraised rather than by adding relationships, and belonging can also be fostered structurally, for example through school-level programmes.

References

Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8

Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Allman, D. (2013). The sociology of social inclusion. SAGE Open, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012471957

Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.589

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

Holt-Lunstad, J. (2018). Why social relationships are important for physical health: A systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 437–458. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011902

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(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

Lim, M. H., Eres, R., & Vasan, S. (2020). Understanding loneliness in the twenty-first century: An update on correlates, risk factors, and potential solutions. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(7), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01889-7

Mahar, A. L., Cobigo, V., & Stuart, H. (2013). Conceptualizing belonging. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(12), 1026–1032. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.717584

Over, H. (2016). The origins of belonging: Social motivation in infants and young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150072. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0072

Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.008

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(6), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364

Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641