Need for Belonging, Relationship Satisfaction, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction

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.

Full text

Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness,
and life satisfaction
David Mellor
a,*
, Mark Stokes
a
, Lucy Firth
b
, Yoko Hayashi
a
, Robert Cummins
a
a
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia
b
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 sat-
isfaction 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.
Ó2008 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 rela-
tionships that, to a large extent, define their identity (I
am a daughter, wife, mother, student, etc.), and our per-
sonality (I am extraverted, friendly, and kind). Moreover,
the importance of such connections transcend cultural dif-
ferences (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 belonging-
ness and loneliness are important predictors of psycholog-
ical health (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ernst &
Cacioppo, 1999; Townsend & McWhirter, 2005). In this
paper, we investigate the relationship between these two
factors and life satisfaction.
1.1. Belongingness
In their defining article on the importance of belonging-
ness to wellbeing, Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed
the ‘‘belongingness hypothesis”, which suggested that
‘‘human beings have a pervasive drive to form and main-
tain 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 connected-
ness 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,
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9244 3742; fax: +61 3 9244 6858.
E-mail address: mellor@deakin.edu.au (D. Mellor).
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
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 continu-
ation into the foreseeable future”(p. 500). It is this rela-
tional 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 oth-
ers with greater need to belong may need many such con-
tacts. 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 experi-
ence 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 con-
tacts (de Jong Gierveld & Havens, 2004). Thus, the com-
mon 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) esti-
mating that about one in four people report regularly expe-
riencing loneliness. Researchers have found loneliness to be
implicated in negative aspects of mental health. For exam-
ple, 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, & Chi-
puer, 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 per-
ception 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 oth-
ers that have considered constructs related to belonging-
ness 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 lone-
liness, and that loneliness may then be the risk factor for
reduced wellbeing. If this were to be the case, then the rela-
tionship between need for belongingness and wellbe-
ing 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 belong-
ingness 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 calcu-
late a difference score between self-reported need to belong
and self-reported reported satisfaction with personal rela-
tionships. 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). Flem-
ing, 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.
214 D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218

Our final aim is to investigate the relationship between
unmet need for belongingness, loneliness and life satisfac-
tion. 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. Orig-
inally, 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 vol-
unteered for further contact and were enrolled in our lon-
gitudinal 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 Longi-
tudinal 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
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 demon-
strated 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?”Partic-
ipants responded on an 11-point scale ranging from ‘‘Com-
pletely 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, Cum-
mins, & Stokes, 2007).
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 Total
18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 66–75 >76
Male Living alone 0 08177528
Living with others 2 2 11 30 45 47 27 164
Total 2 2 19 31 52 54 32 192
Female Living alone 0 0 3 4 17 16 11 51
Living with others 4 16 37 43 52 31 10 193
Total 4 16 40 47 69 47 21 244
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218 215

conducted. Both Need to Belong and Loneliness demon-
strated 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 Satisfac-
tion 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 sam-
ple, and also for the two groups, those living alone and
those living with others. Independent samples t-tests indi-
cated people living alone scored lower on Need to Belong
(t(433) = 2.68, p< 0.01), and Satisfaction with Relation-
ships (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 signifi-
cantly 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 Relation-
ships 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.
3.1. Mediation and moderation analyses
An analysis was undertaken to assess whether loneliness
mediated the relationship between unmet Need to Belong-
ing and Life Satisfaction. As evident in Fig. 1, partial medi-
ation was evident (Z=5.01, p< 0.001).
A moderation analysis was undertaken to assess
whether unmet Need to Belong and Loneliness interact.
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 under-
taken, entering the main effects first (Loneliness, Discrep-
ancy 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
Table 2
Descriptives by living arrangements
Living Arrangement Living alone Living with others Total
N79 357 436
MSD MSD MD SD
Life Satisfaction 7.59 1.91 7.65 1.57 7.64 1.64
Need to Belong
*
4.47 1.62 4.95 1.42 4.86 1.47
Loneliness 3.52 2.08 3.13 1.83 3.20 1.88
Satisfaction with Personal Relationships
**
6.68 2.61 7.75 1.95 7.56 2.12
Needs to Belong–Satisfaction 2.22 3.12 2.80 2.69 2.70 2.78
*
Significantly different, p< 0.01.
**
Significantly different, p< 0.001.
Table 3
Correlations between need to belong, loneliness, and satisfaction with
personal relationships (n= 436)
Need to
belong
Satisfaction with
personal relationships
Loneliness
Need to Belong 1
Satisfaction with
Personal
Relationships
0.17
*
1
Loneliness 0.28
*
0.61
*
1
Difference score 0.66
*
0.86
*
0.62
*
*
p< 0.001.
Life
satisfaction
Unmet
belongingness
need
Loneliness
-0.278
(0.027)
β=-0.473
0.415
(0.026)
β=0.615
-0.211
(0.040)
β=-0.242
Sobel’s Z=--5.01, p<0.001
Goodman’s Z=--5.02, p<001
Unmet
belongingness
need
Life
satisfaction
-0.366
(0.022)
β=--622
Fig. 1. Mediation model of unmet need for belonging through loneliness
to life satisfaction.
216 D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218

Table 4). The variables Loneliness and unmet Need to
Belong alone accounted for 42% of the variance in Life Sat-
isfaction (R
2
= 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 (R
2
= 0.071), which while
significant (F
(1, 434)
= 34.314, p< 0.001), was a moderate
result compared to the effect of Loneliness and Discrep-
ancy 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 loneli-
ness, need to belong and satisfaction with personal relation-
ships. 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). Sim-
ilarly, the association between need to belong and satisfac-
tion with personal relationships was significant but weak
(r=0.17), suggesting a weak negative relationship
between them. This is consistent with Kelly’s (2001) suppo-
sition 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 satisfac-
tion with personal relationships was moderately negatively
correlated (r=0.61) with loneliness.Thus, the less satis-
fied 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-
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 rela-
tionships should be associated with loneliness. Indeed, we
found the level of association to be r= 0.62, thereby con-
firming 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 sit-
uation cannot be simply described by the use of these vari-
ables as discrete entities. Rather, the discrepancy between
the need to belong and the degree to which this need is sat-
isfied 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 per-
sonal 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 arrange-
ments, and more information as to why people live alone.
Our findings regarding subjective wellbeing (as mea-
sured by satisfaction with life as a whole) and loneliness
and unmet need for belonging suggest that loneliness medi-
ates 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 ini-
tially agreed to participate in a telephone interview, agreed to
participants in a future survey, and then did so. However, it is
Table 4
Hierarchical regression analysis of the moderation of Loneliness and unmet Need to Belong (Discrepancy scores) upon Life Satisfaction
Step BSE btpAdj R
2
p
Constant 1 7.57 1.93 39.20 0.000
Discrepancy 1 0.28 0.027 0.47 10.20 0.000
Loneliness 1 0.21 0.040 0.24 5.23 0.000
0.420 <0.001
Constant 2 7.59 0.20 38.78 0.000
Discrepancy 2 0.279 0.03 0.47 9.78 0.000
Loneliness 2 0.21 0.043 0.24 5.11 0.000
Loneliness BY Discrepancy 2 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.63 0.529
0.419 0.529
D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218 217

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 deter-
minants. 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: Develop-
mental, 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 Life-
Threatening 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.
218 D. Mellor et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 213–218