effects of social belonging on homesickness: an application of the belongingness hypothesis

Upload: lourdes-garcia-curiel

Post on 04-Jun-2018

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    1/16

    http://psp.sagepub.com/Bulletin

    Personality and Social Psychology

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

    DOI: 10.1177/0146167208329695

    2009 35: 516 originally published online 3 February 2009Pers Soc Psychol BullSusan E. Watt and Alison J. Badger

    Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    Published by:

    http://www.sagepublications.com

    On behalf of:

    Society for Personality and Social Psychology

    can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology BulletinAdditional services and information for

    http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

    http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

    http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.refs.htmlCitations:

    What is This?

    - Feb 3, 2009OnlineFirst Version of Record

    - Mar 5, 2009Version of Record>>

    by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Maria de Lourdes Garca Curiel on October 30, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

    http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.spsp.org/http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.refs.htmlhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/0146167208329695.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/0146167208329695.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/02/03/0146167208329695.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.full.pdfhttp://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.spsp.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://psp.sagepub.com/content/35/4/516http://psp.sagepub.com/
  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    2/16

    516516

    Effects of Social Belonging onHomesickness: An Application of

    the Belongingness Hypothesis

    Susan E. WattAlison J. Badger

    University of New England

    as distress caused by actual or anticipated separationfrom familiar or loved people or places (Thurber,1999). Homesick people are prone to crying and can beapathetic and listless; severe homesickness can provokethoughts of suicide. Often there are somatic responsessuch as stomachache, loss of appetite, sleep distur-bance, and headaches. There is also evidence that home-sickness disrupts concentration (Burt, 1993) and producesabsentmindedness (Fisher & Hood, 1987, 1988). It hasoften been described as a form of grieving (e.g., Archer,Ireland, Amos, Broad, & Currid, 1998; Fisher & Hood,1987, 1988; Stroebe et al., 2002), and some authorshave further characterized it as a reactive depression toleaving home (Baier & Welch, 1992; Eurelings-Bontekoe,Vingerhoets, & Fontijn, 1994; Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets,& Van Heck, 1997a) or as similar to adjustment disor-

    der with depressed mood (Van Tilburg, 2005). Mostimportantly, homesickness is accompanied by acutelonging and intrusive thoughts about home and attach-ment objects. It is this cognitive component that distin-guishes it from other disorders (Thurber, 1999).

    In Homers account of The Odyssey, a story thatoriginates in oral tradition from around 1200 BC, thegreat hero Ulysses spent 10 years returning from Troy tohis home in Ithaka. He was crippled by homesickness,and when captured by the beautiful nymph Calypsospent 7 years looking out upon the barren ocean withtears in his eyes, groaning and breaking his heart for

    Authors Note:We gratefully acknowledge the University of New England,Faculty of Arts Internal Research Grant No. 21214 for funding Study 1and Sara Delonghi for her research assistance in that study. We also wish

    to acknowledge the constructive comments made by two anonymous

    reviewers. Correspondence may be sent to Sue Watt, School of Behavioural,Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW,

    2351, Australia; e-mail: [email protected].

    PSPB, Vol. 35 No. 4, April 2009 516-530

    DOI: 10.1177/0146167208329695 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

    Belongingness theory proposes that humans possess aninnate drive for a minimum number of lasting interper-sonal relationships. On geographic relocation, peopleleave their existing social networks. This greatly threat-ens belongingness needs, and the authors propose this isone cause of homesickness. Two studies investigatedwhether homesickness arises in the need to belong. Study1 used a correlational design to test the relationshipbetween need to belong and homesickness while control-ling for other variables. A significant positive relationshipwas found. Study 2 then used an experimental design totest for a causal effect of need to belong on homesickness,and a significant effect was found. An additional findingshowed that individuals who felt accepted in the com-munity were less homesick. This was independent ofnumber of friends and demonstrates an important link

    between community attitudes and adjustment.Implications for belongingness theory are discussed.

    Keywords: need to belong; homesickness; immigration;acceptance; rejection; belongingness

    In a popular song by Bart Millard (2004), grief at aloved one's death is expressed as homesickness. Millardis not the first to perceive a link between homesicknessand grief. Indeed, homesickness has been described as amini-grief that people experience when separatedfrom those they love (Stroebe, van Vliet, Hewstone, &

    Willis, 2002). In this article, we extend the idea ofhomesickness as a mini-grief to ask whether homesick-ness is a consequence of a need for lasting bonds withother people. We investigate whether it arises in threatto belongingness and use it as a testing ground for somecentral tenets of belongingness theory.

    Homesickness is a common response to moving awayfrom home, whether for school, college, work, anddomestic or international immigration. It can be defined

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    3/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 517

    sorrow . . . his eyes ever filled with tears, and dying ofsheer home-sickness (translation by Samuel Butler,1900, http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.5.v.html).Several millennia later, Thijs (as cited in Van Tilburg etal., 1997b) found that only 7.3% of adults said they hadnever experienced homesickness, and Fisher (1989)

    found it was sufficient to interfere with daily activities in10% to 15% of homesickness sufferers. Homesicknessaffects men and women, adults and children alike, andhas been found to exist even 58 years after moving fromthe home of origin (Van Tilburg, 2005). Homesicknessis also found when people move into more favorablesituations. Fried (as cited in Fisher, 1989) found slumdwellers in Chicago who were forced to move into bet-ter houses reacted with intense grief for home. Thelower the income, the stronger their reaction.

    Homesickness is an underresearched phenomenon. Ithas received remarkably little attention in the literature,and with some notable exceptions even less attention has

    been paid to its theoretical underpinnings. However, itpotentially afflicts anyone who moves location, eithertemporarily or permanently, and for whatever reason.

    Fisher (1989) proposed a composite model wherehomesickness results from the combined effects of sepa-ration from the familiar environment and entry into thenew environment. Archer et al. (1998) subsequentlyproposed that homesickness is a form of separationreaction to people and places. Their empirical researchused items derived from reactions described in studiesof grief and revealed two clear factors: disliking the newplace and attachment to home.

    Stroebe et al. (2002) took this further by conceptualiz-

    ing these two basic factors within a framework of grief andbereavement. Based on the dual process model of copingwith bereavement (Stroebe & Schut, 1987), they proposedthat homesickness results from the combined effects of loss(loss-orientation) and adjustment to the new situation(restoration-orientation). Just as grieving people must copewith the loss experience and changes to their circum-stances, Stroebe et al. proposed homesick people mustcope with the loss (even if temporary) of their family andfriends, as well as their changed circumstances.

    Vingerhoets (2005) wrote about cat-type anddog-type homesickness. Just as dogs attach morestrongly to people than places, one part of homesick-ness is missing people; and just as cats strongly attachto places and the physical environment, another part ofhomesickness is missing the physical place. In thisresearch, we turn our attention to homesickness thatarises in connection to people. We focus on this becausethe belongingness hypothesis is relevant to this aspect ofhomesickness. In the following section, we extend theidea of homesickness as a mini-grief. We propose thatan important element of homesickness is the loss of

    social connections through physical separation fromfamily and friends. This provokes distress, as well as thechallenge of fulfilling social connection needs in the newlocation. We will now elaborate on how the belonging-ness hypothesis is relevant to homesickness.

    The Need to Belong

    Humans are profoundly social creatures, endowedwith an array of attributes that enhance our ability tolive in groups. This may be a truism but results in a greatcomplexity of effects. A vast body of empirical researchin psychology has examined attributes of human social-ity, and results from studies as diverse as Ainsworths(1978) strange situation to Billig and Tajfels (1973)minimal group paradigm consistently show that peopleseek social inclusion and avoid exclusion. This has lednumerous theorists to argue for a fundamental impor-tance to humans of affiliation, love and belonging, and

    attachment (e.g., Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Erikson, 1963;Freud, 1930/1946; Maslow, 1968; Rosenberg, 1979).

    Baumeister and Leary (1995) conducted an extensivereview of the empirical literature of social and personal-ity psychology from which they proposed humans pos-sess as a fundamental motivation a need to belong.They describe this need as an innate (evolved) drive fora minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and signifi-cant interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary,1995, p. 497). Satisfaction of the drive requires frequentpositive interactions in the context of an enduring affec-tive bond between people.

    In support of an evolved need to belong, there is evi-

    dence that humans possess mechanisms that allowquick detection of danger of social rejection, allowingrestorative measures to be taken. FMRI research hasshown that social pain (elicited by ostracism) results insimilar brain activity to that produced by physical pain(Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). On thebasis of this and other studies of social exclusion,MacDonald and Leary (2005) proposed exclusion elicitspain because inclusion is important to human survival.

    Just as pain from physical stimuli teaches us to avoiddanger, social pain assists us to behave in ways to avoidexclusion. Rejection hurts, so we learn to say and dothings to win the allegiance, love, and respect of others,ensuring social acceptance and survival.

    The belongingness hypothesis predicts that becauseour need to belong is so important, people will resistthe dissolution of social bonds at least as strenuouslyas they work to create them. People throughout theworld show tears and grief on separation from thosethey love and resist the dissolution of social bonds inthe broader social network as well as within intimaterelationships. People show distress and resistance to

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    4/16

    518 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    breaking bonds even within transient, time-limitedgroups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is important tothe current research that Baumeister and Leary (1995)used the grief reaction as evidence to support thebelongingness hypothesis, stating,

    Some conceptualizations of grief portray it not as a reac-tion to the loss of the person but as a reaction to the lossof a linkage with another person. . . . As Lofland (1982)pointed out, when people die, relationships end. (p. 507)

    In line with this prediction, we suggest that homesicknessis partly composed of distress at the dissolution (even iftemporary) of social bonds. The need to belong wouldcause us to protect and value our social bonds, andphysically removing oneself from these bonds on geo-graphic relocation can be expected to provoke distress.This forms the basis of Hypothesis 1, described later.

    Of course, people show every intention not to aban-

    don their social bonds. One way to reduce distress onrelocation is to maintain old relationships by phoningand writing home and visiting as frequently as possible.It is an intriguing possibility that belongingness needscould be met by frequent contact home. Indeed, VanTilburg et al. (1999) noted, the focus of chronic home-sick persons remains directed on the old environment,preventing the development of a genuine interest intothe new environment and sustaining homesickness (p.537). With modern communication technologies, it isnow possible to contact home many times each day atvery little cost. This could permit people to physicallymove away from home and yet maintain daily contact

    with the social network back home, possibly meetingtheir belongingness needs through this daily contact.

    Another prediction of the belongingness hypothesisis that one social bond can substitute for another. Aslong as the need to belong is satiated, it should not mat-ter who produces the satiation. In support of the substi-tution hypothesis, Baumeister and Leary (1995) citedfindings that women are more likely to seek extramaritalrelationships when their marriage does not satisfy inti-macy needs, people are more likely to leave one intimaterelationship if another is likely to develop, and femaleprisoners commonly form substitute families. If home-

    sickness arises in the need to belong, and if one socialconnection can substitute for another, we expect thathomesickness will decline as new social connections areformed in the new location. This forms the basis ofHypothesis 2, described later.

    Baumeister and Leary (1995) drew an interesting fur-ther implication from the substitution hypothesis. Theysuggested that efforts to sustain friendships across longdistances should be inversely proportional to opportuni-ties to develop new friendships. That is, people who

    perceive many opportunities to develop new friendshipswill be less motivated to maintain friendships in the pre-vious location. This implies that people monitor theenvironment for itspotentialto fulfill the need to belong.In line with Baumeister and Leary, we expect there willbe increased focus on contacts in the previous location

    when this potential is low. We expect there will also beincreased distress (homesickness) as there is less opportu-nity to satisfy belongingness needs. In the current research,we operationalized friendship potential in the new loca-tion as perceived social acceptance. The relation betweensocial acceptance and homesickness forms the basis ofHypothesis 3, described later.

    In summary, we suggest the belongingness hypoth-esis can help us understand the grief and distress thatmanifests as homesickness. People who move awayfrom home create physical separation from their mostintimate relationships and broader social network. Atthe point of arrival in the new location, migrants and

    sojourners can no longer enjoy the physical presence ofthe old network and may experience uncertainty aboutbeing able to construct a new network. While theymay be able to maintain relations with a few membersof the old network via phone calls and other commu-nications, evidence shows that these links decline overtime (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Just as threat toother fundamental drives such as the need for food,drink, shelter, or safety produces stress, threat tobelongingness posed by geographic relocation will alsobe a stressor. We therefore expect homesickness is inpart a direct response to threat to belongingness andwill lessen as belongingness needs are satisfied in the

    new location. This expectation forms the primaryhypothesis of our research.

    The preceding analysis leads to three hypotheses thatwere tested in the current research:

    Hypothesis 1: Homesickness will be greater among indi-viduals experiencing higher need to belong. Previousresearch indicates that homesickness is partly composedof distress at the separation (even if temporary) fromsocial bonds. The need to belong would cause us to pro-tect and value our social bonds, and physically removingoneself from these bonds on geographic relocation canbe expected to provoke distress. Those who experience

    stronger need to belong should also experience moredistress (homesickness) on relocation.Hypothesis 2: Homesickness will be less among those who

    form more close friendships in the new location, and therelationship will be mediated by need to belong. Thesubstitution hypothesis indicates that one social bondcan substitute for another in satisfying the need tobelong. As more friendships form, the need to belongwill be satisfied and homesickness reduced.

    Hypothesis 3: People who feel accepted in the new locationwill experience less homesickness and will make less

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    5/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 519

    effort to sustain relationships in the old location. In linewith Baumeister and Leary (1995), we suggested thatthe opportunity to form new friendships is an importantfactor because there will be more opportunity to satisfythe need to belong in the new location. Social acceptanceindicates more possibility to form friendships, so thosewho perceive more acceptance should experience less

    threat to need to belong. Consistent with the rationalethat homesickness is a response to threat to belonging-ness, individuals who feel socially accepted should there-fore experience less homesickness. We also explore therelation between feeling accepted in the new locationand maintaining contacts in the old location. Consistentwith Baumeister and Leary, we propose that people whofeel accepted in the new location will make less effort tosustain relations with the old location because there is astrong probability their need to belong will be met in thenew location.

    The two studies presented in the following investi-gated these hypotheses. The first used a correlational

    design to examine the predicted relations while control-ling the effects of length of residence in Australia. Thesecond used an experimental design to test for a causalrelation between need to belong and homesickness andto replicate effects found in the correlational study. Byapplying belongingness theory to homesickness, theresearch offers a new perspective on homesickness andits reduction. In relation to belongingness theory, thisresearch tested whether the need to belong construct canbe used a priori to predict homesickness. This is impor-tant because it tests predictions made specifically frombelongingness theory, and support for those hypothesesshould offer support for the theory itself. We then

    applied a central component of belongingness theory,the substitution hypothesis, to homesickness. Again,support for this hypothesis in relation to homesicknesswould offer support for the substitution hypothesis inbelongingness theory more generally.

    STUDY 1

    Method

    Participants

    In Study 1, 161 international university studentsstudying at five Australian universities (69 male and92 female) participated. The students came from 42different countries, and age ranged from 18 to 45 years(M =24.54, SD =5.85). The majority of participantswere single (84.5%). Length of residence in Australiawas between 1 month and 10 years (M =19.62, SD =19.16). All participants were assumed to be competentin the English language as they must pass English lan-guage tests before enrolling at university in Australia.

    Measures

    Homesickness. The Utrecht Homesickness Scale(Stroebe et al., 2002) was developed for a cross-culturalcomparison of homesickness in university students intwo different countries (the Netherlands and the UnitedKingdom). As such, it was the most appropriate measure

    of homesickness available for our sample, which includedstudents from many different countries. The scale includes20 items such as Missing your parents, Feelinglonely, Longing for acquaintances, Finding it diffi-cult adjusting to a new situation, and Having thoughtsthat an old situation was better than here and now.Participants are asked to indicate to what extent youhave experienced each of the following in the past 4weeks, rating each item on a scale where 1 =not, 2 =weak, 3 =moderate, 4 =strong, and 5 =very strong.

    Stroebe et al. (2002) reported strong interitem reliabil-ity of =.94. Principal component analysis of data col-lected in the Netherlands revealed five factors. The firstfactor, Missing Family, explained 62% of the variance inresponding, with the remaining factors, respectively,accounting for 15% (Loneliness), 9% (Missing Friends),8% (Adjustment Difficulties), and 6% (RuminationsAbout Home). The Utrecht Homesickness Scale showedvery strong relationships with a self-report measure thatdirectly asked students how often they had experiencedhomesickness in the past 4 weeks. Discriminant analysisrevealed 83% of the single-item homesickness scoreswere correctly classified by the five factors, and the over-all scale score correlated r = .71 with the single-itemmeasure of homesickness. Very similar results were

    obtained in a British sample.In the current study, we shortened the scale to 15items by dropping the item with the lowest factor load-ingfrom each factor. Acceptable reliabilities were stillobtained, with an overall Cronbachs of .95. Eachsubscale also showed acceptable reliability (MissingFamily = .91, Loneliness =.87, Missing Friends = .76, Adjustment Difficulties = .89, RuminationsAbout Home =.79).

    Need to belong. Need to belong was operationalizedas an individual differences measure of chronic need tobelong, developed by Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, andSchreindorfer (as cited in Leary, Cottrell, & Phillips,2001). Participants rate 10 questions such as I try hardnot to do things that will make other people avoid orreject me and It bothers me a great deal when I am notincluded in other peoples plans on a 5-point scale (weused 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 =neutral, 4 =agree, and 5 =strongly agreefor consistency with otherscales in the questionnaire). Previous research suggeststhe scale has good construct validity. Need to belong

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    6/16

    520 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    scores have been found to correlate with acceptance-responsive self-esteem (Leary et al., 2001), sensitivity tofacial expression and vocal tone (Pickett, Gardner, &Knowles, 2004), and frustration during group behavior(De Cremer & Leonardelli, 2003); they have also beenfound to moderate a relationship between group size

    and contributions to the group so that need to belongwas positively associated with cooperation, but only formembers of large groups (De Cremer & Leonardelli,2003). Interitem reliability was acceptable in our sample(Cronbachs = .80). Other researchers have reportedsimilar interitem reliabilities of .82 (De Cremer &Leonardelli, 2003) and .83 (Pickett et al., 2004).

    Contact with home. Nine items measured the number(and duration) of personal phone calls, text messages,and e-mail messages between the students and theirfamilies and friends from the home of origin during thepast 4 weeks. As described in the Results and Discussion

    section, analysis focussed on just one of these items,number of phone calls made.

    Social network in Australia. Participants were askedhow many close friends they have in Australia. Theywere also asked whether they have immediate family inAustralia (and how many) and whether they have aboyfriend or girlfriend in Australia.

    Social activity. Participants were asked the numberof times during the past 4 weeks they had gone outsocially with Australians and with members of theirown national group or other nonnational Australians.The sum of these questions was computed to provide atotal number of outings.

    Acceptance by Australians. A measure of acceptancein the new location was adapted from Nesdale and Mak(2000). Participants rated I feel accepted by Australianson a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree. Nesdale and Mak included number ofclose friends in their measure of acceptance. However,we wished to analyze number of friends separately anddid not include it in the measure of acceptance. Asshown in Table 1, number of friends and perceived

    acceptance did not significantly correlate.

    Demographics. Demographic measures included gen-der, age, marital status, occupation, religion, country ofbirth, and level of education.

    Design

    Multiple regression was used to explore the aforemen-tioned hypotheses while controlling for gender, length of

    stay, and social activity. Gender and length of stay haveboth shown small but significant relations with home-sickness in earlier research (Archer et al., 1998; Hojat &Hermann, 1985; Stroebe et al., 2002; Tartakovsky, 2007)and could also be expected to relate to other variables inthe analysis. For example, length of stay should relate to

    number of close friends in the new location because par-ticipants are likely to develop more close friendships withpassing time. Social activity was controlled because itprovides pleasurable activity that could relieve somenegative feelings associated with homesickness and couldalso be expected to relate to number of close friends andneed to belong. In addition to the main hypotheses, weconducted exploratory analyses to test whether need tobelong might moderate the relations between the otherpredictors (acceptance by Australians and number ofclose friends in Australia) and the criterion.

    Procedure

    International student associations at five Australianuniversities distributed an e-mail requesting interna-tional students participation in a study of MigrantAdjustment. The request contained a link to the sur-vey, which students completed online. Response ratesare not computed as the number of students on eachmailing list was unknown to the researchers.

    Results and Discussion

    Homesickness

    Homesickness showed an average elevation of 2.43

    (SD=.92), which corresponds with weak to moder-ate on the 5-point scale. This is higher than the averagescores reported by Stroebe et al. (2002) for first-yearstudents in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.Of participants, 8 (5%) scored above 4, indicatingstrong to very strong homesickness; 39 (24.2%) scoredbetween 3 and 4, indicating moderate to strong home-sickness; 45 (40.4%) scored between 2 and 3, indicatingweak to moderate homesickness; and 39 (28.0%) scoredbelow 2, indicating no homesickness to weak homesick-ness. Scores on the missing family subscale were highest(M =2.87, SD=1.07), followed by missing friends (M

    =2.63, SD=1.05), loneliness (M= 2.35, SD =1.15),ruminations (M=2.15, SD=1.02), and adjustment dif-ficulties (M =2.15, SD=1.04).

    A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-ducted to examine predictors of homesickness. Gender(coded as 1 =male, 2 =female), length of residence inAustralia, social activity, social acceptance, and numberof close friends in Australia were entered on Step 1, andneed to belong and the interactions of social acceptanceand number of close friends in Australia with need to

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    7/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 521

    belong (computed from centered variables) were enteredon Step 2. Need to belong was entered on Step 2 withthe interaction terms in case it masked any other effects.This was not the case, so only the results at Step 2 of theanalysis are reported.

    Prior to analysis, length of residence in Australia,number of close friends in Australia, social activity inAustralia, and homesickness were submitted to log 10transformation to correct positive skew and the datawere screened for multivariate outliers atp

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    8/16

    522 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    amount of contact home in the 4-week period, with amedian of 4 phone calls made, 2 mobile phone text mes-sages sent, and 6 e-mail messages sent, some studentsshowed extremely high frequency of contact, with amaximum of 50 phone calls made, 1,000 mobile phonetext messages sent, and 130 e-mails sent. There was also

    a significant portion of students who did not make anyphone calls (15.6%), send any mobile phone text mes-sages (42.2%), or send any e-mails (11.1%). The largenumber of students who did not send mobile phone textmessages may indicate low use of mobile phone tech-nology. E-mail contact could also be problematic, as itis possible that some but not all people in the home oforigin have access to e-mail. We therefore decided to usenumber of phone calls made because we considered thisis likely the most reliable technology by which studentscould initiate contact with home.

    We then tested the second part of Hypothesis 3, thatpeople who feel accepted in the new location will make

    less effort to sustain relationships in the old location.A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-ducted to examine predictors of phone calls home(phone calls home was first submitted to log 10 trans-formation to correct positive skew). Gender, length ofresidence in Australia, social activity, social accept-ance, and number of close friends in Australia wereentered on Step 1, and need to belong and the interac-tions of social acceptance and number of close friendsin Australia with need to belong were entered on Step2. Homesickness and the interaction of homesicknessand need to belong were then entered on a third step,in case homesickness masked any other effects. This

    was not the case, so only the results at Step 3 of theanalysis are reported. All interactions were computedon centered variables.

    The regression model at Step 3 explained 16% of thevariance in phone calls made, with social activity andhomesickness the only significant predictors (see Table2). The strongest predictor was homesickness, whichexplained 8.4% of the variance in a positive direction.Social activity was the only other significant predictor,explaining 3.2% of the variance.

    It is possible that the positive relationship betweenhomesickness and phone calls home reflects a causaldirection where the act of speaking on the phoneincreases homesickness. If this is the case, phone callsmade and phone calls received should both positivelypredict homesickness. We tested this possibility byrepeating the earlier multiple regression on homesick-ness, including phone calls made and phone callsreceived (log transformed) as additional predictors.Results showed phone calls made significantly predictedhomesickness (sr = .22, p = .002), but phone callsreceived did not (sr =.006,p =.94).

    Hypothesis 3 predicted that people who felt lessaccepted in the new location would experience moredistress (homesickness) and would make more effort tosustain relationships in the old location. The previouslyreported results showed that those who felt less acceptedexperienced more homesickness, and those who experi-

    enced more homesickness also made more phone calls,but there was no direct relationship between acceptanceand number of phone calls made. We tested whethersuch a relationship might be moderated by need tobelong, but this was not the case.

    STUDY 2

    Study 1 provided a preliminary test of our hypothe-ses, however the correlational nature of the design doesnot allow causal inferences to be drawn. The primarypurpose of Study 2 was to extend Study 1 by using anexperimental design to investigate whether need tobelong exerts a causal effect on homesickness.

    The study also provided an opportunity to replicateelements of Study 1. As well as manipulating need tobelong in people who had recently relocated, we meas-ured the number of close friendships in the new locationand included this as a predictor of homesickness. Thisfurnished a second test of Hypothesis 2. We also testedwhether the relationship found in Study 1 betweenacceptance in the new location and homesickness wasreplicated in Study 2 and whether people who feelaccepted in the new location will make less effort to sus-tain relationships in the old location (Hypothesis 3).

    Experimental Design

    New intake students at the University of New England(UNE) participated in this experiment. The university islocated in Armidale, New South Wales (Australia).Armidale is in a rural location, and most students mustleave home to attend the university. Consistent withStroebe et al. (2002), this study was conducted 6 weeksinto the semester, at a time when students would be pastthe initial novelty of being at university and most proneto homesickness. A simple experimental design was usedin which participants were randomly allocated to an

    experimental group where need to belong was primed orto a control group where need to belong was not primed.The need to belong manipulation consisted of completinga publication survey in which students evaluated anumber of potential publications. In the experimentalcondition, some titles evoked the need to belong and inthe control condition they did not (a pilot study testedthe efficacy of the manipulation). Participants completedthe homesickness measure and other scales immediatelyafter the need to belong manipulation.

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    9/16

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    10/16

    524 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    were distributed the control condition questionnaire orthe experimental questionnaire at random, and responserates were almost identical across the two conditions. Aresponse rate of 24% was obtained. This is a typicalresponse rate among student samples in Australia anddid not arouse our concern.

    Results and Discussion

    Homesickness

    Homesickness in the control condition showed anaverage elevation of 2.12 (SD=.77), which most closelycorresponds with weak on the 5-point scale. This is alittle lower than the average elevation of 2.43 (SD=.92)among international students that we obtained in Study1. It is comparable with the results obtained by Stroebeet al. (2002) of 2.26 (SD=.73) for their U.K. sample and1.93 (SD= .71) for their Dutch sample. Homesicknesswas significantly higher in the experimental condition,t(142) = 4.62, p

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    11/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 525

    acceptance in the new location, social activity, andnumber of friends in the new location. Step 2 thenentered homesickness and the interaction of homesick-ness and acceptance. Phone calls home was first submit-ted to log 10 transformation to correct positive skew. Asin Study 1, homesickness was entered on a second stepin case it masked any other effects. This was not thecase, so only the results at Step 2 of the analysis arereported.

    The regression model explained 35.9% of the vari-ance in phone calls home. The significant predictorswere social activity and homesickness (see Table 4).Homesickness was the strongest predictor, explaining16.4% of the variance. The more homesick, the morephone calls home. Social activity was the only othersignificant predictor of phone calls home, explaining5.8% of the variance in a positive direction. Gender,acceptance at UNE, and number of friends in the newlocation did not predict phone calls home, and none of

    the interaction terms showed a significant effect.As a final check, we repeated the test conducted inStudy 1 to examine the relationship between phonecalls made and received as predictors of homesickness.The results were almost identical to those of Study 1.Phone calls made significantly predicted homesickness(sr = .20, p =.003), but phone calls received did not(sr =.05,p =.41). This result again suggests the act ofspeaking on the phone does not relate to increased ordecreased homesickness.

    GENERAL DISCUSSION

    The purpose of this research was to investigatewhether homesickness arises in belongingness needs.The results indicate a causal role of need to belong inhomesickness. Study 1 found that need to belong cor-related with homesickness, and Study 2 found thatpriming need to belong influenced feelings of homesick-ness. These results were obtained in quite different sam-ples. The first included participants of many differentages, from 42 different countries, who had been in

    Australia for varying lengths of time, and were confront-ing cultural differences of more or less extremity. Thesecond sample was comparatively homogenous.Participants were young Australians 6 weeks into theiruniversity experience. They were not confronting issuesof adjustment to a new culture or discrimination withinthe new community, and yet the same effects of need tobelong were present. The combination of correlationaland experimental results across these two samples addsto our confidence that need to belong has a causal role inhomesickness.

    This finding offers a valuable new perspective onhomesickness. Previous theoretical work has describedhomesickness in frameworks of grief and loss andattachment. These both relate to belongingness needs;grief arises in the loss of important social connections,

    TABLE 3: Summary Statistics and Correlations Between Variables in Study 2

    Correlations

    Median M SD 1 2 3 4 5

    Gender (1), coded 1 = male, 2 = female 1

    Acceptance at University of New England (2) 4.00 4.15 0.78 .05 1

    Social activity (3) 8.00 9.60 7.08 .06 .15*** 1Number of friends in new location (4) 4.00 4.60 4.00 .10 .15 .28*** 1

    Homesickness (5) 2.40 2.42 0.83 .19* .37*** .14 .05 1

    Phone calls made (6) 6.50 12.80 18.20 .25** .07 .13 .18* .42***

    *p.05. **p.01. ***p.001.

    TABLE 4: Predictors of Homesickness and Phone Calls Home in

    Study 2

    Homesickness Phone Callsat Step 3 Home at

    of the Step 2 of

    Analysisa the Analysisb

    sr sr

    Priming need .31*** .31***

    to belong

    Gender .17* .16* .15 .14Acceptance at .31*** .29*** .05 .04

    University

    of New EnglandSocial activity .09 .09 .25* .24*

    Number of friends in .04 .04 .18 .17

    new location

    Priming Need to .02 .02 Belong Acceptance

    Priming Need to .02 .01

    Belong Friends

    Homesickness .44*** .41***Homesickness .20 .17

    Acceptance at UNE

    a. R =.52, R2 =.27, adjusted R2=.23, F(7, 135) =6.99,p

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    12/16

    526 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    and attachment concerns security in ones bonds withother people. The belongingness hypothesis can there-fore be seen as a metatheory that encompasses thesemore specific effects of need to belong.

    Need to belong predicted all subscales of the UtrechtHomesickness Scale, both loss-oriented (missing family,

    missing friends, loneliness, ruminations about home)and restoration-oriented (adjustment difficulties). Inother words, it related to homesickness arising in sepa-ration from the old location as well as homesicknessarising in entry into the new location. This is consistentwith previous findings (Archer et al., 1998; Fisher,1989; Stroebe et al., 2002) and is also consistent withpredictions of the belongingness hypothesis; people areexpected to react with distress and protest at separa-tion from existing bonds and also to feel distressed ifbelongingness needs are not fulfilled in the new loca-tion or show little potential to be fulfilled.

    Although need to belong predicted homesickness, there

    was little evidence to support the substitution hypothesis.The belongingness hypothesis proposes that individualsneed a certain amount of relatedness and that social rela-tionships should to some extent be interchangeable(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If this is the case, peoplewho have formed close relationships in the new locationshould be less prone to distress (homesickness) on reloca-tion as their belongingness needs are being met.

    In Study 1, length of residence in Australia andnumber of close friends in Australia did not predicthow homesick participants felt. The same effect wasfound in Study 2; number of close friends in the newlocation did not predict homesickness. One would

    intuitively expect length of residence and number ofclose friends to predict reduced homesickness, but thedata from previous studies are mixed. For example,the longer one stays in a new location, the moreopportunity to establish meaningful new relationships.However, effects of length of stay have been very smallor nonsignificant in other studies. Stroebe et al. (2002)reported slight but significant effects of duration ofstay among new intake students (Dutch sample pathcoefficient = .10; U.K. sample path coefficient =.13), and Hojat and Hermann (1985) reported smallbut significant correlations between length of stay anda single-item measure of homesickness in Iranian andFilipino physicians in the United States, but unfortu-nately did not provide details of these results. In amore recent study, Tartakovsky (2007) reported inadolescents who migrated to Israel without their par-ents a very slight decline in homesickness after 2years (homesickness declined from average of 2.18 ona 5-point scale 6 months after immigration to 2.08 2years after immigration). However, all these effects aresmall and were not present in our data.

    Making friends also did not predict homesickness.Previous research has shown that people expect thatmaking new friends will predict positive adjustmentand reduce homesickness. Ryan and Twibell (2000)reported that a primary concern in international stu-dents is fitting in socially, and Archer et al. (1998) and

    Kane (as cited in Archer et al., 1998) found that dis-satisfaction with both friends and social life at univer-sity predicted homesickness. Paul and Briers (2001)study of friendsickness found that many studentsincluded only precollege friends in their social net-work at college, and Van Tilburg et al. (1999) con-cluded from open-ended responses that the majorityof students attributed recovery from homesickness tomaking friends in the new location. However, thisexpectation (that making friends is important to home-sickness) may not be correct. Van Tilburg et al. (1997a)found the majority (52%) of homesickness suffererswho were surveyed while experiencing homesickness

    (in contrast with retrospective studies) did not attributetheir homesickness to insufficient friends in the newlocation. The majority attributed it to missing persons(82.7%), missing the environment (81.4%), and miss-ing the atmosphere of the old environment (87.7%).

    A possible explanation lies in the finding that home-sick people are less socially skilled than nonhomesickpeople. Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. (1994) found thathomesick military conscripts were more likely than con-trols to seek social support as a coping strategy. However,these people were also less socially skilled and weretherefore unable to obtain the support they desired.Consistent with this, Van Tilburg et al. (1999) found

    that seeking social support does not predict adjust-ment and suggested that this may be due to poorersocial skills in homesick people. In this case, our dataindicate that even though homesick people reportsimilar numbers of friends to less homesick people,they may be less able to obtain social activity andsupport from those friends. This could lead to the dis-satisfaction with friends and social life that predictedcontinued homesickness in the studies by Archer et al.(1998) and Kane (as cited in Archer et al., 1998). Therelation between social activity and homesickness inStudy 1 may also reflect the operation of social skillas an underlying variable. Individuals with moresocial skill may be more likely to be included in socialoutings and also less likely to feel homesick because ofthe dynamic previously described. However, an alter-native explanation is that social activity may generatepositive affect, which counteracts feelings of home-sickness. Future research could further address therelation between social skills and homesickness andcould also benefit from investigating the effects ofsocial activity in reducing homesickness.

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    13/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 527

    Feeling accepted in the new location was an importantpredictor of homesickness in both our studies. This findinghas a number of implications that we explore in the fol-lowing. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested thatopportunities to develop new friendships on relocationwill be an important variable, and we extended this to sug-

    gest that people may monitor a new environment for thepotential to make new friends. In line with this, our resultsshowed that people who feel less accepted by those in thenew community feel more homesick. This was found forall subscales of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale in Study 1and all but missing family in Study 2. Thus, like need tobelong, acceptance is related to distress at leaving the oldlocation and at entering the new location.

    The relation between acceptance and homesicknessconnects homesickness with community attitudes. Thisis important because a great deal of research hasaddressed community attitudes toward immigration,but little research has investigated the impact of these

    attitudes on immigrants. One exception is a longitudi-nal study conducted by Tartakovsky (2007), whichfound that perceived discrimination in the host countrywas the strongest single predictor of acculturative stressand homesickness.

    Newcomers in communities that are rejecting of immi-gration, either domestic or international, can be expectedto perceive poor community acceptance. Our resultsshow that this is independent of having a network ofclose and supportive friends as well as entry referencegroup sizeeven newcomers who associate only with afew welcoming friends are more likely to feel homesickand unhappy if they live in a rejecting community. These

    results therefore add to the evidence that immigrationattitudes have very real effects on immigrants.

    Of interest, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,1986) emphasizes the importance of acceptance by theingroup, but our data suggest that it is acceptance bythe community at large (I feel accepted by Australiansor I feel accepted by people at UNE) that predictshomesickness; developing an ingroup (as indicated bynumber of friends) did not predict homesickness in ourstudies. Future research on this topic would benefitfrom examining how acceptance is judged. A relatedliterature has found many biases in the perception ofdiscrimination. For example, people commonly believethat discrimination affects members of their group butnot themselves (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995). We expectthat judging community acceptance will be an equallybiased process (Carvallo & Pelham, 2007).

    Contact With Home

    Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested that efforts tosustain friendships across long distances should be inversely

    proportional to opportunities to develop new friendships.From this, we developed the hypothesis that those who feelless accepted in the new location will make more callshome because the new location offers less friendshippotential. The two studies provided very similar results.That is, neither study found a relationship between per-

    ceived acceptance and phone calls home, but both foundpositive relations between social activity and phone callshome and between homesickness and phone calls home.This correlation does not tell us about causal direction, butthere is a further hint in the data. If the causal direction isone where the act of speaking on the phone increaseshomesickness, we would expect phone calls made andphone calls received both to relate to homesickness.However, both studies found no relation between phonecalls received and homesickness. This suggests that phonecalls do not perpetuate homesickness but are simply madein response to feeling homesick. However, given that talk-ing on the phone does not relate to reduced homesickness,

    it is unlikely that making calls home is effective in relievinghomesickness. They may simply act as a comfort whenhomesickness is strong.

    People who were more socially active also tended tomake more phone calls home. This was originallyincluded as a control variable because we thoughtengaging in pleasurable activities might generate posi-tive affect that would counteract homesickness. However,this cannot explain the relation between social activityand phone calls home; the result may simply reflect theoperation of an underlying variable related to sociabilityor social support seeking.

    Implications for the

    Belongingness Hypothesis

    Need to belong was used in this research to generatea theoretical framework to offer a new perspective onhomesickness. We have shown that homesicknesspartly arises in this fundamental motivation. However,these results also add to our understanding of the needto belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed thatpeople experience distress when their belongingnessneeds are threatened. The current research adds to theevidence for this basic component of belongingnesstheory by showing that need to belong predicts thedistress (homesickness) experienced on relocation. Ourtests of the substitution hypothesis further explored thebelongingness hypothesis, which proposes that themotivation to satiate the need to belong should bereduced when there are sufficient social bonds. Asdiscussed previously, both studies failed to providesupport for this.

    One possibility that we have already considered ishomesick people may have less social skill and are

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    14/16

    528 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    therefore less able to elicit from new friends the close-ness and support that they desire. We discuss hereanother possibility. Baumeister and Leary (1995)acknowledged that perhaps some kinds of relationshipscannot effectively be replaced with other kinds of rela-tionships, and perhaps people need at least one particu-

    larly strong close attachment. Their particular examplewas romantic relationships. However, Stroebe et al.(2002) found that the factor explaining by far themost variance (62%) in the Utrecht HomesicknessScale was Missing Family. Family bonds are particu-larly important relationships. They often are geneti-cally linked, are very long lasting, involve a deepcommitment to the others well-being, and are noteasily replaced. It is possible that the relation betweenhomesickness and need to belong in both our studiesarose mainly in separation from family and that mak-ing new friends could not replace those special bonds.We note that friends in the new location also did not

    predict less homesickness on the Missing Friends sub-scale of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale. Like familyrelations, perhaps long-established close friendshipscannot easily be replaced. Future research shouldaddress which bonds are most necessary to fulfill theneed to belong and which can be substituted for oneanother. This might vary with age. The sample ofinternational students in Study 1 was less homogenousthan the sample in Study 2, but both samples were ofrelatively young people for whom separation fromfamily may have been particularly painful.

    Summary and Directions forFuture Research

    This research provides evidence that homesicknessarises partly in the need to belong. Belongingness needsinfluenced the distress participants experienced on sepa-rating from the old location and on entering the newlocation, and this distress was greater when participantsperceived less acceptance in the new location. The rela-tionship between feeling accepted in the new locationand homesickness forms an important bridge betweenresearch into immigration attitudes and migrant adjust-ment. We are currently planning studies to explorewhether acceptance has a causal role in homesicknessand adjustment. Future research should also examinehow acceptance is perceived and whose acceptance ismost important

    As well as showing an effect of need to belong onhomesickness, this research provided information perti-nent to belongingness theory. The results did not sup-port the substitution hypothesis. Homesickness was notreduced when participants had more friends in the newlocation or when they had been there for longer.

    However, these findings are preliminary. The questionsregarding number of friends, for example, did not askhow close the friends were and how they comparedwith friends in the old location. Future research shouldfocus on which social connections are important inhomesickness. This would allow counselors to advise

    migrants and sojourners where they could focus theirefforts to relieve homesickness. Our results do suggestthat homesickness should be reduced when the need tobelong is satisfied in the new location. However, satisfy-ing the need to belong may rely more on making one ortwo very close connections rather than making a largenumber of new friends.

    In summary, this research provides testimony tobelongingness needs. Homesickness arises partly in theneed to belong and further relates to perceived accept-ance in the new location, indicating that happiness in anew location is partly determined by the potential to fitin socially. The research implies that experiencing dis-

    tress on leaving places where we already have a strongsense of belongingness is normal and the sense of lossdoes not dissipate easily. It is simply a product of ourconstruction as social beings.

    APPENDIX

    ITEMS IN THE PUBLICATION SURVEY

    CONTROL CONDITION

    Comparison of CompositionThis article discussesthe various eras of art history and offers a unique

    comparison of traditional and contemporary tech-niques.Photography for BeginnersThis article discusses the

    relationship between color and emotion.The NaturalThis article raises the nature/nurture

    debate in relation to musicians and people with uniquetalentsare they naturals, or is their ability the directresult of learning and practice?

    VitaminsThis article provides information on a widerange of vitamins and discusses the comparative valueof multivitamins.

    Experimental MusicThis article discusses an aspect ofcontemporary music in which everyday sounds andnoises are used in the creation of unique composition.

    Glasses or Contact Lenses?This article offers a com-

    parison between glasses and contact lenses, includingthe advantages and disadvantages of each. It also offersadvice for choosing which is right for you.

    Study TechniquesThis article provides a comparisonof popular study techniques and helps you determinewhich method is right for you.

    What to WearThis article offers advice for choosingclothing to complement your body typeincluding sug-gestions for color, pattern, and design.

    (continued)

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    15/16

    Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS 529

    APPENDIX (CONTINUED)

    PreschoolingThis article discusses the ramifications ofearly learning on achievement in later life.

    EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION

    Where to Turn?This article highlights the importance ofhaving someone to turn to, for support or advice.

    Photography for BeginnersThis article discusses therelationship between color and emotion.

    I Need to BelongThis article talks about belongingnessahuman motivational tendency to form certain relation-ships or belong to various groups. It discusses positiveaspects, such as comfort and support, as well as the negativesassociated with a lack of belongingness, such as anxietyand loneliness.

    VitaminsThis article provides information on a widerange of vitamins and discusses the comparative valueof multivitamins.

    Person AloneThis article discusses loneliness and pos-sible coping mechanisms for loneliness.

    Glasses or Contact Lenses?This article offers a com-parison between glasses and contact lenses, includingthe advantages and disadvantages of each. It also offersadvice for choosing which is right for you.

    The Importance of AcceptanceThis article talks aboutthe psychological ramifications of feeling accepted byothers.

    What to WearThis article offers advice for choosingclothing to complement your body typeincluding sug-gestions for color, pattern, and design.

    Moving onThis article discusses the impact on peo-ples lives of friends moving away. It offers advice for

    coping with associated difficulties.

    REFERENCES

    Ainsworth, M. D. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychologicalstudy of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Archer, J., Ireland, J., Amos, S.-L., Broad, H., & Currid, L. (1998).Derivation of a homesickness scale. British Journal of Psychology,89, 205-221.

    Baier, M., & Welch, M. (1992). An analysis of the concept of home-sickness. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,6, 54-60.

    Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desirefor interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva-tion. Psychological Bulletin,117, 497-529.

    Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity inintergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology,3,27-52.

    Bowlby. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York:Basic Books.

    Bowlby. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation anxiety andanger. New York: Basic Books.

    Burt, C. D. B. (1993). Concentration and academic ability followingtransition to university: An investigation of the effects of home-sickness.Journal of Environmental Psychology,13, 333-342.

    Carvallo, M., & Pelham, B., W. (2007). When fiends become friends:The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group dis-crimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,94-98.

    De Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in socialdilemmas and the need to belong: The moderating effect of groupsize. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,7, 168-174.

    Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Doesrejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science,302,290-292.

    Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society(2nd ed.). New York:Norton.

    Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Vingerhoets, A., & Fontijn, T. (1994).Personality and behavioral antecedents of homesickness.Personality and Individual Differences,16, 229-235.

    Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition, and health. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to univer-sity: A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness and vulnerability to homesickness. British Journal ofPsychology,78, 425-441.

    Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1988). Vulnerability factors in the transition touniversity: Self-reported mobility history and sex differences as fac-tors in psychological disturbance. British Journal of Psychology,79, 309-320.

    Freud, S. (1946). Civilisation and its discontents(J. Riviere, Trans.).London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1930)

    Hojat, M., & Herman, M. W. (1985). Adjustment and psychosocialproblems of Iranian and Filipino physicians in the U.S. Journal ofClinical Psychology,41, 130-136.

    Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfoundingthe effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81, 898-909.

    MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusionhurt? The relationship between social and physical pain.Psychological Bulletin,131, 202-223.

    Maslow, A. (1968). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper& Row.

    Millard, B. (2004). Homesick. Lyrics. Perf. MercyMe. Undone.Inotof, 2004

    Nesdale, D., & Mak, A. S. (2000). Immigrant acculturation attitudesand host country identification. Journal of Community andApplied Social Psychology,10, 483-495.

    Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition to col-lege: Precollege predictors and college adjustment correlates.Journal of Counseling and Development,79, 77-89.

    Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2004). Getting acue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 1095-1107.

    Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimina-

    tion: How disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimina-tion that confronts them. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology,68, 826-838.

    Ryan, M. E., & Twibell, R. S. (2000). Concerns, values, stress, cop-ing, health and educational outcomes of college students whostudied abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,24, 409-435.

    Stroebe, M., & Schut, M. (1987). The dual process model of copingwith bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23,197-224.

    Stroebe, M., van Vliet, T., Hewstone, M., & Willis, H. (2002).Homesickness among students in two cultures: Antecedents and

    consequences. British Journal of Psychology,93, 147-168.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychologyof intergroup relations(pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.

    Tartakovsky, E. (2007). A longitudinal study of acculturative stressand homesickness: High-school adolescents immigrating fromRussia and Ukraine to Israel without parents. Social Psychiatryand Psychiatric Epidemiology,42, 485-494.

    Thurber, C. A. (1999). The phenomenology of homesickness in boys.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychiatry,27, 125-139.

    Van Tilburg, M. A. L. (2005). The psychological context of homesick-ness. In M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.),Psychological aspects of geographical moves: Homesickness and

  • 8/13/2019 Effects of Social Belonging on Homesickness: An Application of the Belongingness Hypothesis

    16/16

    530 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

    acculturation stress(2nd ed., pp. 37-49). Tilburg, the Netherlands:Tilburg University Press.

    Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.(1997a). Coping with homesickness: The construction of the adulthomesickness coping questionnaire. Personality and IndividualDifferences,22, 901-907.

    Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.(1997b). Homesickness: A review of the literature. PsychologicalMedicine,26, 899-912.

    Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.(1999). Determinants of homesickness chronicity: Coping

    and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,531-539.

    Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2005). The homesickness concept: Questionsand doubts. In M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.),Psychological aspects of geographical moves: Homesickness andacculturation stress (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Tilburg, the Netherlands:Tilburg University Press.

    Received October 8, 2007Revision accepted October 28, 2008