They’re Comparing Me to Her: Social Comparison Perceptions Reduce Belonging and STEM Engagement Among Women With Token Status

Abstract

Belonging and academic engagement are important predictors of women’s retention in STEM. To better understand the processes influencing these outcomes, we investigate how numerical underrepresentation (i.e., token status) triggers social comparison perceptions—concerns that others are comparing oneself to another person—that can undermine women’s STEM outcomes. Across four experiments, female college students recruited via subject pool (Study 1a) and MTurk (Studies 1b–3) read a hypothetical scenario in which another female (Studies 1a–3) or male (Study 2) student performed well or poorly in an engineering course. Findings showed that having token (vs. non-token) status in the course increased social comparison perceptions (i.e., perceptions about being compared to an ingroup peer), which subsequently reduced course belonging (Studies 1a and 1b). Study 2 found that (a) token status increased social comparison perceptions in response to the ingroup (vs. outgroup) peer and (b) social comparison perceptions decreased belonging through stereotype threat concerns, particularly when the peer performed poorly. Study 3 directly manipulated social comparison perceptions to further establish their causal role on negative outcomes and demonstrated that these perceived direct comparisons predicted additional consequences signaling STEM disengagement. Collectively, findings identify a novel process that can diminish belonging and academic engagement for women in STEM. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843211005447

Keywords

belonging identity threat social comparison perceptions social identity stereotype threat concerns tokenism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronson

Lustina

M. J.

Good

Keough

Steele

C. M.

Brown

(1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1371

Asgari

Dasgupta

Stout

J. G.

(2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women’s leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211431968

Avery

D. R.

Hernandez

Hebl

M. R.

(2004). Who’s watching the race? Racial salience in recruitment advertising. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02541.x

Basford

T. E.

Offermann

L. R.

Behrend

T. S.

(2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420

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

Ben-Zeev

Fein

Inzlicht

(2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.007

Bernhardt

P. C.

Dabbs

J. M.

Jr Fielden

J. A.

Lutter

C. D.

(1998). Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing among fans at sporting events. Physiology & Behavior, 65(1), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(98)00147-4

Betz

D. E.

Sekaquaptewa

(2012). My fair physicist? Feminine math and science role models demotivate young girls. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612440735

Brewer

M. B.

Weber

J. G.

(1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.268

10.

Bullock

J. G.

Green

D. P.

S. E.

(2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933

11.

Canning

E. A.

Muenks

Green

D. J.

Murphy

M. C.

(2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734

12.

Cohen

G. L.

Garcia

(2005). “I am us”: Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 566–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.566

13.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

14.

Cohen

L. L.

Swim

J. K.

(1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 876–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295219001

15.

Craig

K. M.

Feasel

K. E.

(1998). Do solo arrangements lead to attributions of tokenism? Perceptions of selection criteria and task assignments to race and gender solos. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(19), 1810–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01347.x

16.

Crosby

J. R.

King

Savitsky

(2014). The minority spotlight effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 743–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614527625

17.

Dasgupta

(2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313

18.

Dasgupta

Scircle

M. M.

Hunsinger

(2015). Female peers in small work groups enhance women’s motivation, verbal participation, and career aspirations in engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(16), 4988–4993. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422822112

19.

Dasgupta

Stout

J. G.

(2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471

20.

Dennehy

T. C.

Dasgupta

(2017). Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(23), 5964–5969. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613117114

21.

Derks

Ellemers

Van Laar

De Groot

(2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the queen bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280

22.

Derks

Van Laar

Ellemers

(2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007

23.

Drury

B. J.

Siy

J. O.

Cheryan

(2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935

24.

Dweck

C. S.

Walton

G. M.

Cohen

G. L.

(2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/resource/academic-tenacity-mindsets-and-skills-that-promote-long-term-learning/

25.

Eidelman

Silvia

P. J.

Biernat

(2006). Responding to deviance: Target exclusion and differential devaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288720

26.

Ellis

Fosdick

B. K.

Rasmussen

(2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447

27.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

28.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

29.

Forbes

C. E.

Schmader

Allen

J. J. B.

(2008). The role of devaluing and discounting in performance monitoring: A neurophysiological study of minorities under threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn012

30.

Fryberg

S. A.

Markus

H. R.

Oyserman

Stone

J. M.

(2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802375003

31.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

(1991). Downward comparison and coping with threat. In Suls

Wills

T. A.

(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 317–345). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

32.

Good

Rattan

Dweck

C. S.

(2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 700–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026659

33.

Hagedorn

L. S.

Chi

W. Y.

Cepeda

R. M.

McLain

(2007). An investigation of critical mass: The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9024-5

34.

Heilman

M. E.

Herlihy

J. M.

(1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(2), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90021-7

35.

Hernandez

P. R.

Schultz

P. W.

Estrada

Woodcock

Chance

R. C.

(2013). Sustaining optimal motivation: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden participation of underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029691

36.

Herrmann

S. D.

Adelman

R. M.

Bodford

J. E.

Graudejus

Okun

M. A.

Kwan

V. S. Y.

(2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757

37.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R

38.

Inzlicht

Ben-Zeev

(2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11(5), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00272

39.

Inzlicht

Good

(2006). How environments can threaten academic performance, self-knowledge, and sense of belonging. In Levin

van Laar

(Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 129–150). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

Johnson

I. R.

Pietri

E. S.

Fullilove

Mowrer

(2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and allyship among Black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319830926

41.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

42.

Kenny

D. A.

(2018, September 25). Mediation. http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm

43.

King

E. B.

Hebl

M. R.

George

J. M.

Matusik

S. F.

(2010). Understanding tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychological climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management, 36(2), 482–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328508

44.

Knowles

E. D.

Lowery

B. S.

Chow

R. M.

Unzueta

M. M.

(2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How White Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658

45.

LaCosse

Sekaquaptewa

Bennett

(2016). STEM stereotypic attribution bias among women in an unwelcoming science setting. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 378–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316630965

46.

Leaper

Starr

C. R.

(2019). Helping and hindering undergraduate women’s STEM motivation: Experiences with STEM encouragement, STEM-related gender bias, and sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318806302

47.

Lewis

Stout

J. G.

Finkelstein

Pollock

Miyake

Cohen

Ito

(2017). Fitting in to move forward. Belonging, gender, and persistence in the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pSTEM). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720186

48.

Lewis

N. A.

Jr Sekaquaptewa

(2016). Beyond test performance: A broader view of stereotype threat. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.002

49.

Lewis

N. A.

Jr Sekaquaptewa

Meadows

L. A.

(2019). Modeling gender counter-stereotypic group behavior: A brief video intervention reduces participation gender gaps on STEM teams. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 22(3), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09489-3

50.

Lord

C. G.

Saenz

D. S.

(1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.918

51.

Loyd

D. L.

White

J. B.

Kern

(2008). Duo status: Disentangling the complex interactions within a minority of two. In Phillips

K. W.

(Ed.), Diversity and groups (research on managing groups and teams, Vol. 11, pp.75–92). Emerald Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-0856(08)11004-0

52.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

(1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

53.

Master

Cheryan

Meltzoff

A. N.

(2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061

54.

Master

Meltzoff

(2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12(1), 152–198.

55.

Murphy

M. C.

Gopalan

Carter

E. R.

Emerson

K. T. U.

Bottoms

B. L.

Walton

G. M.

(2020). A customized belonging intervention improves retention of socially disadvantaged students at a broad-access university. Science Advances, 6(29), eaba4677. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba4677

56.

Murphy

M. C.

Steele

C. M.

Gross

J. J.

(2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x

57.

Murphy

M. C.

Taylor

V. J.

(2012). The role of situational cues in signaling and maintaining stereotype threat. In Inzlicht

Schmader

(Eds.), Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application (pp. 17–33). Oxford University Press.

58.

Nadal

K. L.

Haynes

(2012). The effects of sexism, gender microaggressions, and other forms of discrimination on women’s mental health and development. In Lundberg-Love

P. K.

Nadal

K. L.

Paludi

M. A.

(Eds.), Women and mental disorders (pp. 87–101). Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

59.

Nadler

D. R.

Komarraju

(2016). Negating stereotype threat: Autonomy support and academic identification boost performance of African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 57(6), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2016.0039

60.

National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019 (Special Report NSF 19-304). Alexandria, VA. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd

61.

Nguyen

H. H.

Ryan

A. M.

(2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012702

62.

Pietri

E. S.

Hennes

E. P.

Dovidio

J. F.

Brescoll

V. L.

Bailey

A. H.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Handelsman

(2019). Addressing unintended consequences of gender diversity interventions on women’s sense of belonging in STEM. Sex Roles, 80(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0952-2

63.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Levine

J. M.

Abrams

(2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018187

64.

Pollak

K. I.

Niemann

Y. F.

(1998). Black and White tokens in academia: A difference of chronic versus acute distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(11), 954–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01662.x

65.

Purdie-Vaughns

Steele

C. M.

Davies

P. G.

Ditlmann

Crosby

J. R.

(2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615

66.

Rainey

Dancy

Mickelson

Stearns

Moller

(2018). Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6

67.

Ramsey

L. R.

Betz

D. E.

Sekaquaptewa

(2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6

68.

Saenz

D. S.

(1994). Token status and problem-solving deficits: Detrimental effects of distinctiveness and performance monitoring. Social Cognition, 12(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1994.12.1.61

69.

Schmader

Johns

Barquissau

(2004). The costs of accepting gender differences: The role of stereotype endorsement in women’s experience in the math domain. Sex Roles, 50(11–12), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029101.74557.a0

70.

Schmader

Johns

Forbes

(2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336

71.

Schuster

Martiny

S. E.

(2017). Not feeling good in STEM: Effects of stereotype activation and anticipated affect on women’s career aspirations. Sex Roles, 76(1–2), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3

72.

Sekaquaptewa

Thompson

(2002). The differential effects of solo status on members of high- and low-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202288013

73.

Sekaquaptewa

Thompson

(2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5

74.

Sekaquaptewa

Waldman

Thompson

(2007). Solo status and self-construal: Being distinctive influences racial self-construal and performance apprehension in African American women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(4), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.4.321

75.

Shaffer

E. S.

Marx

D. M.

Prislin

(2013). Mind the gap: Framing of women’s success and representation in STEM affects women’s math performance under threat. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0252-1

76.

Shapiro

J. R.

Williams

A. M.

(2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0

77.

Shih

Pittinsky

T. L.

Ambady

(1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111

78.

Shnabel

Purdie-Vaughns

Cook

J. E.

Garcia

Cohen

G. L.

(2013). Demystifying values-affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213480816

79.

Smith

J. L.

Lewis

K. L.

Hawthorne

Hodges

S. D.

(2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332

80.

Steele

C. M.

Aronson

(1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

81.

Steele

C. M.

Spencer

S. J.

Aronson

(2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0

82.

Stout

J. G.

Dasgupta

Hunsinger

McManus

M. A.

(2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385

83.

Strenta

A. C.

Elliott

Adair

Matier

Scott

(1994). Choosing and leaving science in highly selective institutions. Research in Higher Education, 35(5), 513–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497086

84.

Suls

Wheeler

(Eds.). (2013). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Springer Science & Business Media.

85.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

86.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). Social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

87.

Taylor

S. E.

Fiske

S. T.

Etcoff

N. L.

Ruderman

A. J.

(1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.778

88.

Thompson

Sekaquaptewa

(2002). When being different is detrimental: Solo status and the performance of women and racial minorities. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00037.x

89.

Tolbert

P. S.

Simons

Andrews

Rhee

(1995). The effects of gender composition in academic departments on faculty turnover. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 562–579. https://doi.org/10.2307/2524782

90.

Unzueta

M. M.

Lowery

B. S.

(2008). Defining racism safely: The role of self-image maintenance on White Americans’ conceptions of racism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.011

91.

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

92.

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

93.

Walton

G. M.

Cohen

G. L.

Cwir

Spencer

S. J.

(2012). Mere belonging: The power of social connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025731

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB