- Email: [email protected]
Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction David Mellor a,*, Mark Stokes a, Lucy Firth b, Yoko Hayashi a, Robert Cummins a b
a School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville 8000, Australia
Received 2 December 2007; received in revised form 18 March 2008; accepted 27 March 2008 Available online 9 May 2008
Abstract Loneliness and the need to belong are two subjective states that, on the basis of prior research and theory, would appear to be related both to one another and to wellbeing. This study explored these relationships with a sample of 436 volunteer participants drawn from the Australian Unity Wellbeing database. Participants completed a survey that included a measure of satisfaction with personal relationships embedded in the Personal Wellbeing Index, the UCLA Loneliness scale, a measure of life satisfaction, and the Need to Belong Scale. While loneliness was weakly related to need to belong, it was strongly associated with the discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships, which we used to measure unmet need for belonging. People living alone reported a lower need to belong and less satisfaction with personal relationships than those living with others. However, the discrepancy scores, life satisfaction scores and loneliness scores did not differ between these groups. Loneliness mediated the relationship between unmet need for belonging and wellbeing (life satisfaction). These findings support Baumeister and Leary’s ‘‘belongingness hypothesis” and clarify the relationship between these variables. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Loneliness; Need to belong; Personal relationships; Life satisfaction
1. Introduction As social beings, most humans live in a matrix of relationships that, to a large extent, define their identity (I am a daughter, wife, mother, student, etc.), and our personality (I am extraverted, friendly, and kind). Moreover, the importance of such connections transcend cultural differences (for reviews, see Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Kitayama & Markus, 1994; Silvera & Seger, 2004). Given such dependency on relationships with others, it is not surprising that factors such as belongingness and loneliness are important predictors of psychological health (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999; Townsend & McWhirter, 2005). In this
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9244 3742; fax: +61 3 9244 6858. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Mellor).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020
paper, we investigate the relationship between these two factors and life satisfaction. 1.1. Belongingness In their defining article on the importance of belongingness to wellbeing, Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed the ‘‘belongingness hypothesis”, which suggested that ‘‘human beings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Failure to have belongingness needs met may lead to feelings of social isolation, alienation, and loneliness. Thus, a sense of belongingness is not only a precursor to social connectedness but also a buffer against loneliness. In their detailed analysis of the relevant research, these authors argued that the need for belongingness is more than the need for social contact. It is the need for positive,
214
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
and pleasant social contacts within the context of desired relationships with people other than strangers. That is, the need for belongingness is satisfied by an interpersonal bond marked by ‘‘stability, affective concern, and continuation into the foreseeable future” (p. 500). It is this relational context of interactions with other people that is essential for satisfying the need to belong. They also propose that, through satiation, people who are well-enmeshed in social relationships should have less need to seek and form additional bonds than people who are socially deprived. As their need for belonging has been met, and is no longer such a significant drive, they do not express or display the need for belonging as strongly as those for whom this need has not been met. Importantly, however, individuals differ in the strength of their need to belong. As Kelly (2001) points out, some people with lower need to belong may be satisfied by few contacts, while others with greater need to belong may need many such contacts. It is the lack of satisfaction with personal relationships relative to their need to belong that puts the individual at risk of loneliness. 1.2. Loneliness Loneliness is characterised by unpleasant feelings that arise when an individual perceives a discrepancy between their desired and existing social relationships (Perlman, 2004). It is therefore a subjective experience, is distinct from the objective condition of aloneness (Rokach, 2004), and cannot be simply predicted by objective indicators (de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004; Perlman, 2004). An individual may have a small social network and yet experience no loneliness. Conversely, an individual may have a large social network yet still feel lonely. This discrepancy may be subjective in relation to the level of felt intimacy, and/or objective, in relation to the number of social contacts (de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004). Thus, the common consensus is that the subjective and objective indicators should be separately measured (Andersson, 1998; de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004; McWhirter, 1990; Perlman, 2004; Rokach, 2004). While the strongest predictors of loneliness are subjective, certain objective indicators, such as living alone, are also strong predictors of loneliness (Andersson, 1998). In individualistic Western countries the prevalence of loneliness is relatively high, with (Andersson (1998) estimating that about one in four people report regularly experiencing loneliness. Researchers have found loneliness to be implicated in negative aspects of mental health. For example, it has been found related to depression (Eisses et al., 2004; Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003), and suicidal ideation (Kidd, 2004; Stravynski & Boyer, 2001). Likewise, loneliness has been found to be negatively related to life satisfaction (Goodwin, Cook, & Yung, 2001; Schumaker, Shea, Monfries, & Groth-Marnat, 1993) and subjective wellbeing (Bramston, Pretty, & Chipuer, 2002; Chipuer, Bramston, & Pretty, 2003). Thus, lit-
erature suggests that higher levels of loneliness are linked to higher levels of psychological distress and lower levels of psychological wellness. 1.3. Loneliness and need for belonging Loneliness and belongingness share the subjective perception of connectedness to others. Thus, a considerable body of literature has considered aspects of belonging and loneliness together. For example, Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, and Early (1996) found both to be related to social and psychological functioning while Tomaka, Thompson, and Palacios (2006) found both to be associated with health outcomes. However, these studies and the many others that have considered constructs related to belongingness have failed to measure the need for belongingness. This represents an important omission since it may be the unmet need for belongingness that is a risk factor for loneliness, and that loneliness may then be the risk factor for reduced wellbeing. If this were to be the case, then the relationship between need for belongingness and wellbeing should be mediated, or at least moderated by loneliness. Thus, the major aims of the present study are firstly to explore whether the most important relationship between loneliness, belonging and life satisfaction is the degree to which the need for belongingness is satisfied. That is, rather than need to belong being the primary variable, as assumed by previous authors, it is the unsatisfied need for belongingness that is associated with loneliness. We therefore expect that the relationship between need for belongingness and loneliness will be weak, and that an examination of the relationship between loneliness and the degree to which need for belongingness is unmet will be more informative. In order to investigate the relationship between unmet need for belongingness and loneliness, we propose to calculate a difference score between self-reported need to belong and self-reported reported satisfaction with personal relationships. This estimate of unmet need for belongingness will allow us to more directly test the ‘belongingness hypothesis’. Our second aim is to explore whether people who live alone differ from people who live with others in regard to the variables under investigation. Single person households now comprises from one third to one half of the total households in most Western cities (Fleming, 2007). Fleming, using figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reports that in Australia there are now more lone-person households (1,962,100) than there are households made up of couples living with children (1,798,400). This social phenomenon is an important part of our social fabric. While this lone-person demographic would appear to be at most obvious risk of social isolation and alienation, we do not know whether they chose to live alone because they have a low need for belonging, whether they are satisfied with their personal relationships, or whether they are lonely.
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
215
an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly Agree” (0) to ‘‘Strongly Disagree” (10). Three items are reverse scored, before a total score is derived by adding the responses. Higher scores indicate a greater need to belong. Leary et al. (2006) have reported that the Need to Belong scale correlates with, but is distinct from, other variables that involve a desire for social contact, such as extraversion, sociability, and need for affiliation. Pickett, Gardner, and Knowles (2004) used the Need to Belong scale in a study of sensitivity to social cues, and reported that it demonstrated adequate reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha being 0.83. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78. Loneliness was measured using the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3) (Russell, 1996) which assesses subjective feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Russell (1996) reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 for this 20-item scale across student, nurse, teacher and elderly samples. An item example is ‘‘How often do you feel close to people?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Never” (0) to ‘‘Always” (10). In this sample Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95. Satisfaction with personal relationships was measured through one of the items in the Personal Wellbeing Index (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). The item asks ‘How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Completely dissatisfied” (0) to ‘‘Completely satisfied” (10). Life satisfaction was measured using the single item ‘‘How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Completely dissatisfied” (0) to ‘‘Completely satisfied” (10). This single item has been commonly used in surveys since being devised by Andrews and Withey (1976). It has the desirable characteristic of being both highly personal and abstract, which is the essence of the subjective wellbeing construct (Cummins, Eckersley, Pallant, Van Vugt, & Misajon, 2003) and closely related to Core Affect (Davern, Cummins, & Stokes, 2007).
Our final aim is to investigate the relationship between unmet need for belongingness, loneliness and life satisfaction. In order to do this, we will conduct mediation and moderation analyses. These will determine whether the effect of unmet need for belongingness on life satisfaction is mediated by loneliness. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants were a sample of Australian adults drawn from the Australian Unity Wellbeing project. Originally, a cross-sectional sample was selected on a national geographical distributional basis. All in the current survey were members of that cross-sectional sample who had volunteered for further contact and were enrolled in our longitudinal study. Of the 896 questionnaires mailed out to these volunteers, 487 completed questionnaires were returned (54.4% response rate). Of these, 51 surveys had missing data on at least one of the three variables under investigation, so these cases were deleted. This left a sample of 436 participants, of whom 244 were females and 192 males. Their ages ranged from 20 to 86 years, with a mean age of 59.07 years (SD = 14.00). Seventy nine participants reported that they lived alone. Table 1 describes the sample by age, gender and living arrangement. 2.2. Measures The following measures were contained in a 97-item questionnaire that constituted the Australian Unity Longitudinal Wellbeing follow-up survey conducted in March during 2007. Need to Belong was assessed using the Need to Belong Scale developed by Schreindorfer and Leary (1996) and modified by Kelly (1999, cited by Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2006). The modified version consists of 10 items that assess the degree to which respondents desire to be accepted by other people, seek opportunities to belong to social groups, and react negatively when they were shunned, rejected, or ostracized. Item examples include ‘‘If other people don’t seem to accept me, I don’t let it bother me”, and ‘‘I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need”. Participants responded on
3. Results Data were analysed with SPSS for Windows statistical package (SPSS Inc., 2003 – SPSS for Windows: Release 12.01, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.). Preliminary assumption testing was conducted prior to all analyses being
Table 1 Age, gender and living arrangements of participants (N = 436) Gender
Living arrangements
Age group 36–45
46–55
56–65
66–75
>76
Male
Living alone Living with others Total
0 2 2
0 2 2
8 11 19
1 30 31
7 45 52
7 47 54
5 27 32
28 164 192
Female
Living alone Living with others Total
0 4 4
0 16 16
3 37 40
4 43 47
17 52 69
16 31 47
11 10 21
51 193 244
18–25
Total 26–35
216
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
conducted. Both Need to Belong and Loneliness demonstrated skewness and kurtosis within the acceptable ranges described by Neter, Kutner, Nachtscheim, and Wasserman (1996), but satisfaction with relationships was slightly skewed ( 1.284). However, the data were analysed in their original form since the sample size was large enough to reduce the impact of any skewness/kurtosis (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001). After the initial screening that deleted those participants who supplied incomplete data on one of the three dependent variables (see Participants, above), 436 cases were retained for further analyses. A difference score between Need to Belong and Satisfaction with Personal Relationships was calculated for each participant. We used this score to estimate unmet need for belongingness. The means and standard deviations for these variables are shown in Table 2 for the entire sample, and also for the two groups, those living alone and those living with others. Independent samples t-tests indicated people living alone scored lower on Need to Belong (t(433) = 2.68, p < 0.01), and Satisfaction with Relationships (t(434) = 4.13, p < 0.001). The groups did not differ in Loneliness, Life Satisfaction or discrepancy scores. The life satisfaction mean scores of 75.9 points (live alone) and 76.5 points (live with others) lie just within the normal range for the Australian population (75.8–79.2 points: Cummins et al., 2007). Table 3 shows the relationships between variables. As can be seen, Need to Belong and Loneliness are significantly but weakly positively correlated suggesting that those with a higher need to belong tend to be more lonely, as might be expected. Satisfaction with Personal Relationships is significantly negatively correlated with both need to belong and loneliness. The difference score between Need to Belong and Satisfaction with Personal Relationships is strongly related to loneliness.
Table 3 Correlations between need to belong, loneliness, and satisfaction with personal relationships (n = 436) Need to belong Need to Belong Satisfaction with Personal Relationships Loneliness Difference score *
Satisfaction with personal relationships
1 0.17*
1
0.28* 0.66*
0.61* 0.86*
Loneliness
1 0.62*
p < 0.001.
As the variables are continuous, the use of a technique like ANOVA is inappropriate (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Variables were centred prior to multiplication (Cohen et al., 2003). A hierarchical regression was undertaken, entering the main effects first (Loneliness, Discrepancy scores). As in ANOVA, the contributions of main effects are assessed first to remove their contribution. Thereafter, the interaction term is assessed to check if it adds anything beyond the main effects themselves. If the interaction adds little, then there is no reason to increase the complexity of the statistical model. The interaction of loneliness and unmet Need to belong was entered at the second step. No significant moderation was detected (see Sobel’s Z=--5.01, p<0.001 Goodman’s Z=--5.02, p<001
Loneliness 0.415 (0.026) β=0.615
-0.211 (0.040) β=-0.242
Unmet belongingness need
-0.278 (0.027) β=-0.473
Life satisfaction
3.1. Mediation and moderation analyses An analysis was undertaken to assess whether loneliness mediated the relationship between unmet Need to Belonging and Life Satisfaction. As evident in Fig. 1, partial mediation was evident (Z = 5.01, p < 0.001). A moderation analysis was undertaken to assess whether unmet Need to Belong and Loneliness interact.
Unmet belongingness need
-0.366 (0.022) β=--622
Life satisfaction
Fig. 1. Mediation model of unmet need for belonging through loneliness to life satisfaction.
Table 2 Descriptives by living arrangements Living Arrangement
Living alone
Living with others
Total
N
79
357
436
M Life Satisfaction Need to Belong* Loneliness Satisfaction with Personal Relationships** Needs to Belong–Satisfaction * **
Significantly different, p < 0.01. Significantly different, p < 0.001.
7.59 4.47 3.52 6.68 2.22
SD 1.91 1.62 2.08 2.61 3.12
M 7.65 4.95 3.13 7.75 2.80
SD 1.57 1.42 1.83 1.95 2.69
MD 7.64 4.86 3.20 7.56 2.70
SD 1.64 1.47 1.88 2.12 2.78
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
217
Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis of the moderation of Loneliness and unmet Need to Belong (Discrepancy scores) upon Life Satisfaction Step
B
SE
Constant Discrepancy Loneliness
1 1 1
7.57 0.28 0.21
1.93 0.027 0.040
Constant Discrepancy Loneliness Loneliness BY Discrepancy
2 2 2 2
7.59 0.279 0.21 0.01
0.20 0.03 0.043 0.01
Table 4). The variables Loneliness and unmet Need to Belong alone accounted for 42% of the variance in Life Satisfaction (R2 = 0.420), while the addition of the centred interaction added only another 0.1% of explained variance. When assessed by itself, establishing the maximum possible interaction of these two variables, it was found that the interaction of Loneliness and unmet Need to Belonging accounted for 7.1% of variance (R2 = 0.071), which while significant (F(1, 434) = 34.314, p < 0.001), was a moderate result compared to the effect of Loneliness and Discrepancy scores individually. We probed the simple slopes of the interaction term by adding or subtracting 1SD to each centred main effect term successively before multiplying against the second centred main effect term (Cohen et al., 2003). The interaction remained robust in these analyses. 4. Discussion This study investigated the relationships between loneliness, need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships. We also investigated whether living arrangement, alone or with others, was associated with these variables. We found that people who report a higher need to belong also report higher levels of loneliness. However, although the association was weak (r = 0.28), it contrasts with Leary et al.’s (2006) finding of no correlation in two university samples (N = 205, r = 0.02, and N = 325, r = 0.03). Similarly, the association between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships was significant but weak (r = 0.17), suggesting a weak negative relationship between them. This is consistent with Kelly’s (2001) supposition that individuals vary in their need to belong, and that lower needs are not necessarily more easily satisfied. Somewhat more expected was the finding that satisfaction with personal relationships was moderately negatively correlated (r = 0.61) with loneliness.Thus, the less satisfied one is with their personal relationships, independent of need to belong, the more lonely one will feel. Of greater interest is the behavior of the discrepancy score between need to belong and relationship satisfaction. Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that individuals ‘‘have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Thus, a failure to have belonging-
t
b
p
0.47 0.24
39.20 10.20 5.23
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.47 0.24 0.03
38.78 9.78 5.11 0.63
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.529
Adj R2
p
0.420
<0.001
0.419
0.529
ness needs met may lead to feelings of social isolation, alienation, and loneliness. Because of this, a discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships should be associated with loneliness. Indeed, we found the level of association to be r = 0.62, thereby confirming the hypothesis that people who are lonely have unmet need to belong. The important implication of this finding is that it is not simply a matter of ‘‘one size fits all” – the psychological situation cannot be simply described by the use of these variables as discrete entities. Rather, the discrepancy between the need to belong and the degree to which this need is satisfied is the crucial variable. People with many friends and acquaintances may still be lonely, while people with few friends and acquaintances may not be lonely. This was reflected in our investigation of those living alone and those living with others. While we do not know the reasons why some of our participants were living alone and whether it was by choice, they reported a lower need to belong and a lower level of satisfaction with personal relationships than those living with others. It may be that their dissatisfaction with personal relationships had led them to live alone, or perhaps living alone was a consequence of their lower need to belong, and in turn had led to lower satisfaction with personal relationships. However, importantly, living alone or with others was not associated with discrepancy scores, nor with loneliness, suggesting that people living with others have just as many unmet belonging needs, and are just as lonely as people living alone. Clearly, this needs further investigation with more specific categories of living arrangements, and more information as to why people live alone. Our findings regarding subjective wellbeing (as measured by satisfaction with life as a whole) and loneliness and unmet need for belonging suggest that loneliness mediates the relationship between unmet need for belonging and wellbeing, rather than moderates the relationship. Thus, while unmet need for belongingness exerts an influence on subjective wellbeing, this is partially through feelings of loneliness that arise as a result of the unmet need. Despite these findings, our study was limited by a single item measure of satisfaction with personal relationships, and the possibility of a biased sample of people who had initially agreed to participate in a telephone interview, agreed to participants in a future survey, and then did so. However, it is
218
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
not clear whether or not this self-selection process would have any influence on the variables assessed in the study. In summary, our study provides support for Baumeister and Leary’s ‘‘belongingness hypothesis” to the extent that the discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships is associated with loneliness. The relationship between unmet belongingness needs and wellbeing is mediated by loneliness. Future studies could investigate further how this discrepancy varies with other psychosocial variables and sociotropic traits. Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper was supported by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and the industry partner Australian Unity. References Andersson, L. (1998). Loneliness research and interventions: A review of the literature. Aging and Mental Health, 2, 264–274. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Chipuer, H. (2002). Unravelling subjective quality of life: An investigation of individual and community determinants. Social Indicator Research, 59, 261–274. Chipuer, H. M., Bramston, P., & Pretty, G. (2003). Determinants of subjective quality of life among rural adolescents: A developmental perspective. Social Indicator Research, 61, 79–95. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, L. S., & Aiken, S. G. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190. Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., Lai, L., Collard, J. (2007). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 18.0. The Wellbeing of Australians – Changing conditions to make life better. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 978-1-74156-101-2. Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429–449. de Jong Gierveld, J., & Havens, B. (2004). Cross-national comparisons of social isolation and loneliness: Introduction and overview. Canadian Journal on Aging, 23, 109–113. Eisses, A. M. H., Kluiter, H., Jongenelis, K., Pot, A. M., Beekman, A. T. F., & Ormel, J. (2004). Risk indicators of depression in residential homes. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 634–640. Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 1–22. Fleming, K. (2007). The power of one. The Bulletin, 10, 28–34. Goodwin, R., Cook, O., & Yung, Y. (2001). Loneliness and life satisfaction among three cultural groups. Personal Relationships, 8, 225–230.
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, X, 235–244. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 108, 766–794. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index, 5th ed. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Kelly, K. M. (2001). Individual differences in reactions to rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 291–315). New York: Oxford University Press. Kidd, S. A. (2004). ‘‘The walls are closing in, and we were trapped”: A qualitative analysis of street youth suicide. Youth and Society, 36, 30–55. Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Introduction to cultural psychology and emotion research. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2006). Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript, Wake Forest University. McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature, with implications for counselling and research. Journal of Counselling and Development, 68, 417–422. Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 546–555. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtscheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Perlman, D. (2004). European and Canadian studies of loneliness among seniors. Canadian Journal on Aging, 23, 181–188. Pickett, C., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong influences attention to subtle social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. Rokach, A. (2004). Loneliness then and now: Reflections on social and emotional alienation in everyday life. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 23, 24–40. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40. Schreindorfer, L., Leary, M. (1996). Seeking acceptance versus avoiding rejection: Differential effects on emotion and behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Norfolk, VA. Schumaker, J. F., Shea, J. D., Monfries, M. M., & Groth-Marnat, G. (1993). Loneliness and life satisfaction in Japan and Australia. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 65–71. Silvera, D. H., & Seger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good about ourselves: Unrealistic self-evaluations and their relation to self-esteem in the United States and Norway. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 571–585. Stravynski, A., & Boyer, R. (2001). Loneliness in relation to suicide ideation and parasuicide: A population-wide study. Suicide and LifeThreatening Behaviour, 31, 32–40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tomaka, J., Thompson, S., & Palacios, R. (2006). The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health, 18, 359–384. Townsend, K. C., & McWhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counselling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counselling and Development, 83, 191–201.
Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction David Mellor a,*, Mark Stokes a, Lucy Firth b, Yoko Hayashi a, Robert Cummins a b
a School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville 8000, Australia
Received 2 December 2007; received in revised form 18 March 2008; accepted 27 March 2008 Available online 9 May 2008
Abstract Loneliness and the need to belong are two subjective states that, on the basis of prior research and theory, would appear to be related both to one another and to wellbeing. This study explored these relationships with a sample of 436 volunteer participants drawn from the Australian Unity Wellbeing database. Participants completed a survey that included a measure of satisfaction with personal relationships embedded in the Personal Wellbeing Index, the UCLA Loneliness scale, a measure of life satisfaction, and the Need to Belong Scale. While loneliness was weakly related to need to belong, it was strongly associated with the discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships, which we used to measure unmet need for belonging. People living alone reported a lower need to belong and less satisfaction with personal relationships than those living with others. However, the discrepancy scores, life satisfaction scores and loneliness scores did not differ between these groups. Loneliness mediated the relationship between unmet need for belonging and wellbeing (life satisfaction). These findings support Baumeister and Leary’s ‘‘belongingness hypothesis” and clarify the relationship between these variables. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Loneliness; Need to belong; Personal relationships; Life satisfaction
1. Introduction As social beings, most humans live in a matrix of relationships that, to a large extent, define their identity (I am a daughter, wife, mother, student, etc.), and our personality (I am extraverted, friendly, and kind). Moreover, the importance of such connections transcend cultural differences (for reviews, see Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Kitayama & Markus, 1994; Silvera & Seger, 2004). Given such dependency on relationships with others, it is not surprising that factors such as belongingness and loneliness are important predictors of psychological health (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999; Townsend & McWhirter, 2005). In this
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9244 3742; fax: +61 3 9244 6858. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Mellor).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020
paper, we investigate the relationship between these two factors and life satisfaction. 1.1. Belongingness In their defining article on the importance of belongingness to wellbeing, Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed the ‘‘belongingness hypothesis”, which suggested that ‘‘human beings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Failure to have belongingness needs met may lead to feelings of social isolation, alienation, and loneliness. Thus, a sense of belongingness is not only a precursor to social connectedness but also a buffer against loneliness. In their detailed analysis of the relevant research, these authors argued that the need for belongingness is more than the need for social contact. It is the need for positive,
214
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
and pleasant social contacts within the context of desired relationships with people other than strangers. That is, the need for belongingness is satisfied by an interpersonal bond marked by ‘‘stability, affective concern, and continuation into the foreseeable future” (p. 500). It is this relational context of interactions with other people that is essential for satisfying the need to belong. They also propose that, through satiation, people who are well-enmeshed in social relationships should have less need to seek and form additional bonds than people who are socially deprived. As their need for belonging has been met, and is no longer such a significant drive, they do not express or display the need for belonging as strongly as those for whom this need has not been met. Importantly, however, individuals differ in the strength of their need to belong. As Kelly (2001) points out, some people with lower need to belong may be satisfied by few contacts, while others with greater need to belong may need many such contacts. It is the lack of satisfaction with personal relationships relative to their need to belong that puts the individual at risk of loneliness. 1.2. Loneliness Loneliness is characterised by unpleasant feelings that arise when an individual perceives a discrepancy between their desired and existing social relationships (Perlman, 2004). It is therefore a subjective experience, is distinct from the objective condition of aloneness (Rokach, 2004), and cannot be simply predicted by objective indicators (de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004; Perlman, 2004). An individual may have a small social network and yet experience no loneliness. Conversely, an individual may have a large social network yet still feel lonely. This discrepancy may be subjective in relation to the level of felt intimacy, and/or objective, in relation to the number of social contacts (de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004). Thus, the common consensus is that the subjective and objective indicators should be separately measured (Andersson, 1998; de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004; McWhirter, 1990; Perlman, 2004; Rokach, 2004). While the strongest predictors of loneliness are subjective, certain objective indicators, such as living alone, are also strong predictors of loneliness (Andersson, 1998). In individualistic Western countries the prevalence of loneliness is relatively high, with (Andersson (1998) estimating that about one in four people report regularly experiencing loneliness. Researchers have found loneliness to be implicated in negative aspects of mental health. For example, it has been found related to depression (Eisses et al., 2004; Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003), and suicidal ideation (Kidd, 2004; Stravynski & Boyer, 2001). Likewise, loneliness has been found to be negatively related to life satisfaction (Goodwin, Cook, & Yung, 2001; Schumaker, Shea, Monfries, & Groth-Marnat, 1993) and subjective wellbeing (Bramston, Pretty, & Chipuer, 2002; Chipuer, Bramston, & Pretty, 2003). Thus, lit-
erature suggests that higher levels of loneliness are linked to higher levels of psychological distress and lower levels of psychological wellness. 1.3. Loneliness and need for belonging Loneliness and belongingness share the subjective perception of connectedness to others. Thus, a considerable body of literature has considered aspects of belonging and loneliness together. For example, Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, and Early (1996) found both to be related to social and psychological functioning while Tomaka, Thompson, and Palacios (2006) found both to be associated with health outcomes. However, these studies and the many others that have considered constructs related to belongingness have failed to measure the need for belongingness. This represents an important omission since it may be the unmet need for belongingness that is a risk factor for loneliness, and that loneliness may then be the risk factor for reduced wellbeing. If this were to be the case, then the relationship between need for belongingness and wellbeing should be mediated, or at least moderated by loneliness. Thus, the major aims of the present study are firstly to explore whether the most important relationship between loneliness, belonging and life satisfaction is the degree to which the need for belongingness is satisfied. That is, rather than need to belong being the primary variable, as assumed by previous authors, it is the unsatisfied need for belongingness that is associated with loneliness. We therefore expect that the relationship between need for belongingness and loneliness will be weak, and that an examination of the relationship between loneliness and the degree to which need for belongingness is unmet will be more informative. In order to investigate the relationship between unmet need for belongingness and loneliness, we propose to calculate a difference score between self-reported need to belong and self-reported reported satisfaction with personal relationships. This estimate of unmet need for belongingness will allow us to more directly test the ‘belongingness hypothesis’. Our second aim is to explore whether people who live alone differ from people who live with others in regard to the variables under investigation. Single person households now comprises from one third to one half of the total households in most Western cities (Fleming, 2007). Fleming, using figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reports that in Australia there are now more lone-person households (1,962,100) than there are households made up of couples living with children (1,798,400). This social phenomenon is an important part of our social fabric. While this lone-person demographic would appear to be at most obvious risk of social isolation and alienation, we do not know whether they chose to live alone because they have a low need for belonging, whether they are satisfied with their personal relationships, or whether they are lonely.
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
215
an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Strongly Agree” (0) to ‘‘Strongly Disagree” (10). Three items are reverse scored, before a total score is derived by adding the responses. Higher scores indicate a greater need to belong. Leary et al. (2006) have reported that the Need to Belong scale correlates with, but is distinct from, other variables that involve a desire for social contact, such as extraversion, sociability, and need for affiliation. Pickett, Gardner, and Knowles (2004) used the Need to Belong scale in a study of sensitivity to social cues, and reported that it demonstrated adequate reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha being 0.83. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78. Loneliness was measured using the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3) (Russell, 1996) which assesses subjective feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Russell (1996) reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 for this 20-item scale across student, nurse, teacher and elderly samples. An item example is ‘‘How often do you feel close to people?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Never” (0) to ‘‘Always” (10). In this sample Cronbach’s alpha was 0.95. Satisfaction with personal relationships was measured through one of the items in the Personal Wellbeing Index (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). The item asks ‘How satisfied are you with your personal relationships? Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Completely dissatisfied” (0) to ‘‘Completely satisfied” (10). Life satisfaction was measured using the single item ‘‘How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?” Participants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Completely dissatisfied” (0) to ‘‘Completely satisfied” (10). This single item has been commonly used in surveys since being devised by Andrews and Withey (1976). It has the desirable characteristic of being both highly personal and abstract, which is the essence of the subjective wellbeing construct (Cummins, Eckersley, Pallant, Van Vugt, & Misajon, 2003) and closely related to Core Affect (Davern, Cummins, & Stokes, 2007).
Our final aim is to investigate the relationship between unmet need for belongingness, loneliness and life satisfaction. In order to do this, we will conduct mediation and moderation analyses. These will determine whether the effect of unmet need for belongingness on life satisfaction is mediated by loneliness. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants were a sample of Australian adults drawn from the Australian Unity Wellbeing project. Originally, a cross-sectional sample was selected on a national geographical distributional basis. All in the current survey were members of that cross-sectional sample who had volunteered for further contact and were enrolled in our longitudinal study. Of the 896 questionnaires mailed out to these volunteers, 487 completed questionnaires were returned (54.4% response rate). Of these, 51 surveys had missing data on at least one of the three variables under investigation, so these cases were deleted. This left a sample of 436 participants, of whom 244 were females and 192 males. Their ages ranged from 20 to 86 years, with a mean age of 59.07 years (SD = 14.00). Seventy nine participants reported that they lived alone. Table 1 describes the sample by age, gender and living arrangement. 2.2. Measures The following measures were contained in a 97-item questionnaire that constituted the Australian Unity Longitudinal Wellbeing follow-up survey conducted in March during 2007. Need to Belong was assessed using the Need to Belong Scale developed by Schreindorfer and Leary (1996) and modified by Kelly (1999, cited by Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2006). The modified version consists of 10 items that assess the degree to which respondents desire to be accepted by other people, seek opportunities to belong to social groups, and react negatively when they were shunned, rejected, or ostracized. Item examples include ‘‘If other people don’t seem to accept me, I don’t let it bother me”, and ‘‘I need to feel that there are people I can turn to in times of need”. Participants responded on
3. Results Data were analysed with SPSS for Windows statistical package (SPSS Inc., 2003 – SPSS for Windows: Release 12.01, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.). Preliminary assumption testing was conducted prior to all analyses being
Table 1 Age, gender and living arrangements of participants (N = 436) Gender
Living arrangements
Age group 36–45
46–55
56–65
66–75
>76
Male
Living alone Living with others Total
0 2 2
0 2 2
8 11 19
1 30 31
7 45 52
7 47 54
5 27 32
28 164 192
Female
Living alone Living with others Total
0 4 4
0 16 16
3 37 40
4 43 47
17 52 69
16 31 47
11 10 21
51 193 244
18–25
Total 26–35
216
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
conducted. Both Need to Belong and Loneliness demonstrated skewness and kurtosis within the acceptable ranges described by Neter, Kutner, Nachtscheim, and Wasserman (1996), but satisfaction with relationships was slightly skewed ( 1.284). However, the data were analysed in their original form since the sample size was large enough to reduce the impact of any skewness/kurtosis (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001). After the initial screening that deleted those participants who supplied incomplete data on one of the three dependent variables (see Participants, above), 436 cases were retained for further analyses. A difference score between Need to Belong and Satisfaction with Personal Relationships was calculated for each participant. We used this score to estimate unmet need for belongingness. The means and standard deviations for these variables are shown in Table 2 for the entire sample, and also for the two groups, those living alone and those living with others. Independent samples t-tests indicated people living alone scored lower on Need to Belong (t(433) = 2.68, p < 0.01), and Satisfaction with Relationships (t(434) = 4.13, p < 0.001). The groups did not differ in Loneliness, Life Satisfaction or discrepancy scores. The life satisfaction mean scores of 75.9 points (live alone) and 76.5 points (live with others) lie just within the normal range for the Australian population (75.8–79.2 points: Cummins et al., 2007). Table 3 shows the relationships between variables. As can be seen, Need to Belong and Loneliness are significantly but weakly positively correlated suggesting that those with a higher need to belong tend to be more lonely, as might be expected. Satisfaction with Personal Relationships is significantly negatively correlated with both need to belong and loneliness. The difference score between Need to Belong and Satisfaction with Personal Relationships is strongly related to loneliness.
Table 3 Correlations between need to belong, loneliness, and satisfaction with personal relationships (n = 436) Need to belong Need to Belong Satisfaction with Personal Relationships Loneliness Difference score *
Satisfaction with personal relationships
1 0.17*
1
0.28* 0.66*
0.61* 0.86*
Loneliness
1 0.62*
p < 0.001.
As the variables are continuous, the use of a technique like ANOVA is inappropriate (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Variables were centred prior to multiplication (Cohen et al., 2003). A hierarchical regression was undertaken, entering the main effects first (Loneliness, Discrepancy scores). As in ANOVA, the contributions of main effects are assessed first to remove their contribution. Thereafter, the interaction term is assessed to check if it adds anything beyond the main effects themselves. If the interaction adds little, then there is no reason to increase the complexity of the statistical model. The interaction of loneliness and unmet Need to belong was entered at the second step. No significant moderation was detected (see Sobel’s Z=--5.01, p<0.001 Goodman’s Z=--5.02, p<001
Loneliness 0.415 (0.026) β=0.615
-0.211 (0.040) β=-0.242
Unmet belongingness need
-0.278 (0.027) β=-0.473
Life satisfaction
3.1. Mediation and moderation analyses An analysis was undertaken to assess whether loneliness mediated the relationship between unmet Need to Belonging and Life Satisfaction. As evident in Fig. 1, partial mediation was evident (Z = 5.01, p < 0.001). A moderation analysis was undertaken to assess whether unmet Need to Belong and Loneliness interact.
Unmet belongingness need
-0.366 (0.022) β=--622
Life satisfaction
Fig. 1. Mediation model of unmet need for belonging through loneliness to life satisfaction.
Table 2 Descriptives by living arrangements Living Arrangement
Living alone
Living with others
Total
N
79
357
436
M Life Satisfaction Need to Belong* Loneliness Satisfaction with Personal Relationships** Needs to Belong–Satisfaction * **
Significantly different, p < 0.01. Significantly different, p < 0.001.
7.59 4.47 3.52 6.68 2.22
SD 1.91 1.62 2.08 2.61 3.12
M 7.65 4.95 3.13 7.75 2.80
SD 1.57 1.42 1.83 1.95 2.69
MD 7.64 4.86 3.20 7.56 2.70
SD 1.64 1.47 1.88 2.12 2.78
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
217
Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis of the moderation of Loneliness and unmet Need to Belong (Discrepancy scores) upon Life Satisfaction Step
B
SE
Constant Discrepancy Loneliness
1 1 1
7.57 0.28 0.21
1.93 0.027 0.040
Constant Discrepancy Loneliness Loneliness BY Discrepancy
2 2 2 2
7.59 0.279 0.21 0.01
0.20 0.03 0.043 0.01
Table 4). The variables Loneliness and unmet Need to Belong alone accounted for 42% of the variance in Life Satisfaction (R2 = 0.420), while the addition of the centred interaction added only another 0.1% of explained variance. When assessed by itself, establishing the maximum possible interaction of these two variables, it was found that the interaction of Loneliness and unmet Need to Belonging accounted for 7.1% of variance (R2 = 0.071), which while significant (F(1, 434) = 34.314, p < 0.001), was a moderate result compared to the effect of Loneliness and Discrepancy scores individually. We probed the simple slopes of the interaction term by adding or subtracting 1SD to each centred main effect term successively before multiplying against the second centred main effect term (Cohen et al., 2003). The interaction remained robust in these analyses. 4. Discussion This study investigated the relationships between loneliness, need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships. We also investigated whether living arrangement, alone or with others, was associated with these variables. We found that people who report a higher need to belong also report higher levels of loneliness. However, although the association was weak (r = 0.28), it contrasts with Leary et al.’s (2006) finding of no correlation in two university samples (N = 205, r = 0.02, and N = 325, r = 0.03). Similarly, the association between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships was significant but weak (r = 0.17), suggesting a weak negative relationship between them. This is consistent with Kelly’s (2001) supposition that individuals vary in their need to belong, and that lower needs are not necessarily more easily satisfied. Somewhat more expected was the finding that satisfaction with personal relationships was moderately negatively correlated (r = 0.61) with loneliness.Thus, the less satisfied one is with their personal relationships, independent of need to belong, the more lonely one will feel. Of greater interest is the behavior of the discrepancy score between need to belong and relationship satisfaction. Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that individuals ‘‘have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). Thus, a failure to have belonging-
t
b
p
0.47 0.24
39.20 10.20 5.23
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.47 0.24 0.03
38.78 9.78 5.11 0.63
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.529
Adj R2
p
0.420
<0.001
0.419
0.529
ness needs met may lead to feelings of social isolation, alienation, and loneliness. Because of this, a discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships should be associated with loneliness. Indeed, we found the level of association to be r = 0.62, thereby confirming the hypothesis that people who are lonely have unmet need to belong. The important implication of this finding is that it is not simply a matter of ‘‘one size fits all” – the psychological situation cannot be simply described by the use of these variables as discrete entities. Rather, the discrepancy between the need to belong and the degree to which this need is satisfied is the crucial variable. People with many friends and acquaintances may still be lonely, while people with few friends and acquaintances may not be lonely. This was reflected in our investigation of those living alone and those living with others. While we do not know the reasons why some of our participants were living alone and whether it was by choice, they reported a lower need to belong and a lower level of satisfaction with personal relationships than those living with others. It may be that their dissatisfaction with personal relationships had led them to live alone, or perhaps living alone was a consequence of their lower need to belong, and in turn had led to lower satisfaction with personal relationships. However, importantly, living alone or with others was not associated with discrepancy scores, nor with loneliness, suggesting that people living with others have just as many unmet belonging needs, and are just as lonely as people living alone. Clearly, this needs further investigation with more specific categories of living arrangements, and more information as to why people live alone. Our findings regarding subjective wellbeing (as measured by satisfaction with life as a whole) and loneliness and unmet need for belonging suggest that loneliness mediates the relationship between unmet need for belonging and wellbeing, rather than moderates the relationship. Thus, while unmet need for belongingness exerts an influence on subjective wellbeing, this is partially through feelings of loneliness that arise as a result of the unmet need. Despite these findings, our study was limited by a single item measure of satisfaction with personal relationships, and the possibility of a biased sample of people who had initially agreed to participate in a telephone interview, agreed to participants in a future survey, and then did so. However, it is
218
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218
not clear whether or not this self-selection process would have any influence on the variables assessed in the study. In summary, our study provides support for Baumeister and Leary’s ‘‘belongingness hypothesis” to the extent that the discrepancy between need to belong and satisfaction with personal relationships is associated with loneliness. The relationship between unmet belongingness needs and wellbeing is mediated by loneliness. Future studies could investigate further how this discrepancy varies with other psychosocial variables and sociotropic traits. Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper was supported by a Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and the industry partner Australian Unity. References Andersson, L. (1998). Loneliness research and interventions: A review of the literature. Aging and Mental Health, 2, 264–274. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Bramston, P., Pretty, G., & Chipuer, H. (2002). Unravelling subjective quality of life: An investigation of individual and community determinants. Social Indicator Research, 59, 261–274. Chipuer, H. M., Bramston, P., & Pretty, G. (2003). Determinants of subjective quality of life among rural adolescents: A developmental perspective. Social Indicator Research, 61, 79–95. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, L. S., & Aiken, S. G. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190. Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Tomyn, A., Gibson, A., Lai, L., Collard, J. (2007). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 18.0. The Wellbeing of Australians – Changing conditions to make life better. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. ISBN 978-1-74156-101-2. Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 429–449. de Jong Gierveld, J., & Havens, B. (2004). Cross-national comparisons of social isolation and loneliness: Introduction and overview. Canadian Journal on Aging, 23, 109–113. Eisses, A. M. H., Kluiter, H., Jongenelis, K., Pot, A. M., Beekman, A. T. F., & Ormel, J. (2004). Risk indicators of depression in residential homes. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 634–640. Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 1–22. Fleming, K. (2007). The power of one. The Bulletin, 10, 28–34. Goodwin, R., Cook, O., & Yung, Y. (2001). Loneliness and life satisfaction among three cultural groups. Personal Relationships, 8, 225–230.
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, X, 235–244. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 108, 766–794. International Wellbeing Group (2006). Personal Wellbeing Index, 5th ed. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University. Kelly, K. M. (2001). Individual differences in reactions to rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 291–315). New York: Oxford University Press. Kidd, S. A. (2004). ‘‘The walls are closing in, and we were trapped”: A qualitative analysis of street youth suicide. Youth and Society, 36, 30–55. Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Introduction to cultural psychology and emotion research. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2006). Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript, Wake Forest University. McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature, with implications for counselling and research. Journal of Counselling and Development, 68, 417–422. Nangle, D. W., Erdley, C. A., Newman, J. E., Mason, C. A., & Carpenter, E. M. (2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 546–555. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtscheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Perlman, D. (2004). European and Canadian studies of loneliness among seniors. Canadian Journal on Aging, 23, 181–188. Pickett, C., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong influences attention to subtle social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. Rokach, A. (2004). Loneliness then and now: Reflections on social and emotional alienation in everyday life. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 23, 24–40. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40. Schreindorfer, L., Leary, M. (1996). Seeking acceptance versus avoiding rejection: Differential effects on emotion and behavior. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Norfolk, VA. Schumaker, J. F., Shea, J. D., Monfries, M. M., & Groth-Marnat, G. (1993). Loneliness and life satisfaction in Japan and Australia. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 65–71. Silvera, D. H., & Seger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good about ourselves: Unrealistic self-evaluations and their relation to self-esteem in the United States and Norway. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 571–585. Stravynski, A., & Boyer, R. (2001). Loneliness in relation to suicide ideation and parasuicide: A population-wide study. Suicide and LifeThreatening Behaviour, 31, 32–40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Tomaka, J., Thompson, S., & Palacios, R. (2006). The relation of social isolation, loneliness, and social support to disease outcomes among the elderly. Journal of Aging and Health, 18, 359–384. Townsend, K. C., & McWhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counselling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counselling and Development, 83, 191–201.