Thinking you're different matters more for belonging than being different.

Abstract

Belonging to a community is essential for wellbeing, but potentially unattainable for those dissimilar from a group. In the present work, we ask whether belongingness is better predicted by acting and thinking like peers or believing you act and think like peers. Students (N = 1181) reported their belonging and how much they, their friends, and an "average student" endorsed local behavioral norms and general values. We calculated difference scores for behaviors and values capturing perceived similarity to the average, actual similarity to the average, and accuracy around the norm. Key results indicate that perceived behavioral similarity to the average, when controlling for other differences, predicts belonging and most robustly mediates between identity and belonging. Using social network analysis, we find behavioral differences from friends are meaningfully linked to network density and racial homophily. Efficient interventions for enhanced belonging could highlight similarities between students and their peers.