The interpersonal consequences of community gatekeeping.

Abstract

Humans define themselves through memberships in groups organized around common values. But how are group boundaries and membership criteria determined? Specifically, how do individuals evaluate those who exclude (vs. include) outsiders from group membership (i.e., gatekeeping), and what explains variation in these evaluations? Six preregistered primary studies (and seven preregistered supporting studies) from laboratory and online samples (N = 7,549) demonstrate that individuals who exclude (vs. include) potential members are perceived as less likable but more committed to the values that define the group. These effects depend on candidate fit: Relative to inclusion, exclusion reduces liking less and increases perceived commitment more, as candidates' values become increasingly misaligned with those of the group as a function of perceived threat to group distinctiveness. Moreover, as individuals hold group values increasingly sacred, when considering targets who are misaligned with group values, they evaluate exclusionary individuals as less unlikable and more committed. Further, as individuals hold group values increasingly sacred, they become more willing to vote for exclusionary individuals and make more consequential donations to organizations with exclusionary practices. Our findings unpack the interplay between individual-level and group-level dynamics that drives social perceptions and behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).