ArticlePDF Available

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


Abstract and Figures

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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness,
and life satisfaction
David Mellor
, Mark Stokes
, Lucy Firth
, Yoko Hayashi
, Robert Cummins
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
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 hypothesisand 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.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9244 3742; fax: +61 3 9244 6858.
E-mail address: (D. Mellor).
Available online at
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
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
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
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
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
Satisfaction with
personal relationships
Need to Belong 1
Satisfaction with
Loneliness 0.28
Difference score 0.66
p< 0.001.
Sobel’s Z=--5.01, p<0.001
Goodman’s Z=--5.02, p<001
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
= 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
= 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
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 hypothesisto 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.
The research reported in this paper was supported by a
Linkage Grant from the Australian Research Council and
the industry partner Australian Unity.
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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
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
... The interrelationships between social belonging and loneliness have been carved out by various scholars (Lim et al. 2021;Koehn et al. 2022), most prominently in the work of Baumeister and Leary (1995). Previous empirical evidence shows a negative association between the degree of needs of belonging being met and loneliness (Mellor et al. 2008). Hence, more frequent social contact with people from the majority population may be protective against loneliness, not only by reducing the gap between desired and actual social contacts but also by reducing 'the discrepancy between the need to belong and the degree to which this need is satisfied' (Mellor et al. 2008, p. 217). ...
Although older refugees can be seen as particularly vulnerable to social isolation and loneliness, they are often overlooked by ageing and migration scholars. This article addresses this research gap by identifying and examining potential drivers of loneliness among older refugees. The study analysed data from the first two waves of the IAB-BAMF-SOEP Survey of Refugees, focusing on 958 individuals aged 45 and older who arrived in Germany between 2013 and 2016. Nearly half of the participants reported symptoms of loneliness. The major contributing factors included poor health, financial strain, lack of family ties in Germany, limited contact with Germans, insecure residence status, and perceived hostility towards them. The study highlights the need for a range of interventions at multiple levels targeting not only the older refugees themselves but also institutional arrangements and the people of the host country.
... When the literature regarding this matter is assessed, it is observed that an employee's loneliness in their workplace is associated with different aspects, such as the organizational climate (Wright, 2005), their intention to leave (Chen et al., 2016;Erdirençelebi et al., 2020), personality traits (Levin and Stokes, 1986;Cheng and Furnham, 2002;Wiseman et al., 2006;Tezer and Arkar, 2013), organizational silence (Guo, 2020;Erdirençelebi et al., 2020), communication competence (Reinking and Bell, 1991), emotional exhaustion (Anand and Mishra, 2019), organizational trust level (Giderler et al., 2017;Özmen, 2020), job stress level (Fernet et al., 2016), interpersonal trust levels (Rotenberg, 1994), social support (Ginter et al., 1994;Van Baarsen, 2002;Bowling et al., 2004;Ponizovsky and Ritsner, 2004;Lunsky, 2004;Duru, 2008;Çetin and Alacalar, 2016), creativity level (Gafoor, 2020), alienation to work (Şantaş et al., 2016), social isolation levels (Steinberg et al., 1999), organizational commitment level (Mellor et al., 2008;Yılmaz, 2008;Çivitçi and Çivitçi, 2009;Yılmaz and Altınok, 2009;Ayazlar and Güzel, 2014), organizational support level (Çetin and Alacalar, 2016; Dönmez and Topaloğlu, 2020), job satisfaction level (Chan and Qiu., 2011;Dönmez and Topaloğlu, 2020) and their amount of organizational cynicism (Hoşgör and Cin, 2020). ...
Full-text available
The goals of this study are to examine employees' perceived levels of organizational identification (OI) in terms of their sense of workplace loneliness (WL), to determine whether there is a significant relationship between these concepts and, if any WL exists for an employee, to reveal its role in a workplace on the employees' OI. A significant and negative relationship was found between WL and OI; a significant and negative relationship was found between the independent sub-variable, emotional deprivation, and OI. Also, a significant and positive relationship was found between social friendships and OI. It was found that a 1 unit increase in the emotional deprivation sub-dimension caused an increase of 0.111 units on OI, and a 1 unit increase in the social friendship sub-dimension caused an increase of 0.836 units on one's OI.
... Moreover, a sense of belonging in a social group may assist individuals in providing stability and establishing a shared social identity, allowing them to achieve greater collective goals that give life a new meaning. (Baumeister, 2001;Mellor et al., 2008;Tajfel, 1972). Goodenow (1993) defined belongingness in the educational setting as the level to which pupils feel individually accepted, respected, included, and supported. ...
This study investigates the association between Ethical Leadership (EL), psychological safety (PS), and Voice Behavior (VB). Belongingness was the key mediator between these relationships. Data was collected through a survey of 374 employees working in banks and credit unions, and analysis was done through SPSS. Results showed that EL was positively associated with PS and VB and that the perception of belongingness mediated the relationship between EL and psychological safety. These results suggest that EL can help create a psychologically safe environment by encouraging employees to feel a sense of belonging. Implications for organizational psychology and management are discussed.
... According to Clair et al. 23 , p 2), the perception of loneliness is a personal measure of social isolation, which could be understood as "the inadequate quantity and/or quality of interactions with other people, including those interactions that occur at the individual, group or community level". According to Mellor et al. 24 , loneliness is positively related to depression, suicidal ideation, and is implicated in different negative aspects of mental health. Loneliness and this social isolation due to confinement reduce satisfaction with life and well-being, while increasing psychological distress in different contexts during COVID 19 pandemic 23,24-30 . ...
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic has put more than just our physical health at risk. Due to containment measures, people have become increasingly isolated and have drastically reduced their daily social interactions. Many studies have already shown the negative effects of these measures, including fatalism. However, research linking fatalism during COVID-19 to well-being indicators is still limited. The goal of this study is to examine the relationship between COVID-19-related fatalism and well-being indicators, as well as the role of loneliness in moderating this relationship. Data was collected from 1,036 adults in Peru through an online survey that included the Quality-of-Life Index, the Fatalism Facing COVID-19 Scale, the Loneliness Scale, and the Mood Assessment Scale. Three models were tested using linear regression and ordinary least squares with bias-corrected bootstrapping. The results indicate that fatalism has a negative impact on quality of life and a positive effect on negative affect, and loneliness moderates both relationships, supporting the conclusion that fatalism exacerbates the effect of well-being indicators and negative affect.
Background: Research on the dimensions of emerging adulthood has disproportionately focused on students from four-year universities. Methods: Using data from the EAMMi2 project ( Grahe et al ., 2018 ), we assess whether the dimensions of emerging adulthood (as the age of possibilities, instability, identity explorations, and feeling in-between) vary between four-year university and community college students. We also explore how emerging adults compare on the need to belong and subjective well-being. Results: Four-year university students (N = 1,221) identified more strongly with the negativity/instability and feeling in-between dimensions of emerging adulthood than community college students (N = 300). Community college students, however, were higher on identity exploration, with no differences between the groups in identification with the experimentation/possibilities dimension of emerging adulthood. Four-year students reported higher well-being and higher belonging needs compared to their counterparts at community colleges. Regardless of school type, experimentation/possibilities and feeling in-between predicted higher well-being whereas negativity/instability predicted lower well-being and higher belonging needs. Conclusion: These findings highlight nuance in the experiences of emerging adulthood, as evidenced by both some shared experiences and group-level differences.
Importance: A paucity of studies have focused on pain experiences among people with autism spectrum disorder, particularly those addressing social pain in daily life contexts or learning from the perspective of autistic people. Objective: To explore the social pain experience of autistic people. Design: A descriptive qualitative design followed by deductive thematic analysis. Interviews were semistructured to capture the social pain experience, coping strategies, and implications for the participation of autistic people. Setting: Online interviews using Zoom videoconferencing software. Participants: Fifteen autistic people were recruited for the study using purposeful and criterion sampling. Results: Four primary themes emerged from the data analysis: (1) a definition of social pain and the distinction between social pain and other types of pain; (2) the sources-internal, external, and combined-of social pain; (3) the loneliness outcome, which echoes the gap between the desire for and lack of social contacts; and (4) coping strategies pertaining to the continuum between inward and outward coping strategies to deal with social pain. Conclusion and relevance: The study indicates the existence of a discrepancy between autistic people's need for social interactions and the social pain they experience. It calls for intervention programs for autistic people to improve their coping strategies and promote their self-acceptance and better inclusion in the community. What This Article Adds: Promoting social functioning is a prime role of occupational therapists, and this article adds a novel theoretical model that contributes to that role. The model represents the social pain experiences of autistic people and their strategies to overcome this phenomenon. Firsthand accounts of autistic people regarding social pain enable a better understanding of their desire to be involved in the social context. This study suggests directions for further intervention programs to assist autistic people in fulfilling their wish for social relationships and enabling their enhanced integration into society. Positionality Statement: We recognize that use of person-first versus identity-first language is a source of debate and controversy. We have chosen to use identity-first language for two reasons. First, studies indicate person with autism is the term least preferred by autistic people (Botha et al., 2021). Second, autistic is the term used by the majority of our participants during interviews.
Full-text available
The present study explores characteristics of the top 100 most-cited articles on loneliness. A systematic search was carried out using the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collection to collect studies on loneliness from inception to June 1, 2022. The initial search resulted in 6,250 search results, which included articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, editorials, and letters. Two authors independently screened the literature and extracted the data. The study supervisor removed any discrepancies. Top 100 papers (articles and reviews) on loneliness published in English were extracted. Data analysis and visualization were performed on Excel, Web of Science (WoS) Data Analyzer, and VOSviewer 1.6.16. The total number of citations of the 100 top-cited articles was 42,044, ranging from 203 to 2,201 per article. All of the studies were published from 1989 to 2021, and the years with the highest number of top-cited articles published were 2003 and 2008. Most publications were from the following journals: Computers in Human Behavior, Developmental Psychology, Psychological Science, Psychology, and Aging (n=4 each). The most cited article was titled “UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure” by Russell, DW, in the Journal of Personality Assessment. The most productive institute was the University of Chicago. The two most productive authors were Cacioppo, JT, and Hawkley, LC. Of the 100 top-cited publications, 87 were original articles and 13 were reviews. The top three WoS categories were psychology multidisciplinary, gerontology, and psychiatry. In total, 37 author keywords were elicited and further clubbed into eight distinct clusters. The study provides new insight into loneliness research, which may help doctors, researchers, and stakeholders achieve a more comprehensive understanding of trends and influential contributions to the field and highlight under-researched areas, which could be the basis for future investigation.
Despite emerging research on compassionate love's positive influence on later-life psychological well-being, investigations on the mediating processes accountable for such effects are scarce. Using data from a nationwide web-based survey (N = 1,861), we performed a mediation analysis to assess the role of loneliness in explaining the impact of compassionate love on psychological well-being. Even after controlling for emotional support, our model estimates suggest that older adults who felt loved had significantly lower levels of loneliness (β = -0.84, p < 0.001), significantly fewer depressive symptoms (β = -0.86, p < 0.001), and lower anxiety (β = -0.25, p > 0.05). Loneliness completely mediated the effect of compassionate love on anxiety (β = -0.82, p < 0.001) and significantly mediated compassionate love's influence on depressive symptoms (β = -1.18, p < 0.001). Our findings underscore the need for interventions that increase compassionate love to reduce loneliness and improve psychological well-being in later life. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(4), 12-20.].
Purpose The study aims to highlight and understand, and bring the human agency into the debate on the theory of normative control. While, the previous literature has highlighted the problem of the missing subject. However, the actual human agency in terms of agential properties has not been seriously addressed. This study is an attempt to overcome this problem of the missing subject. Design/methodology/approach A two-phase design inspired by retroductive inference was adopted for this study. In the first phase, abduction was used to explore the literature on normative control to highlight the forces of attraction, which may pull the employees to participate willingly within normative control systems. In the second phase, following retroductive inference, agential explanations of the forces of attraction identified in the first phase were explored by venturing into other related fields, e.g. psychology and sociology. Findings The study highlights four strategies used by organizations using normative control, i.e. comfort zoning, relational bonding, moral trapping and elitist appeal. These strategies rely on attractive forces. These forces of attraction pull employees to participate in the normative control system. The attractive element in the identified strategies is due to the fact that these strategies target specific agential properties, i.e. the need for comfort, sense of belonging, moral agency and pride. Overall, the findings suggest that individuals drive their concerns from culture but in relation to their capacity as needy beings for being enculturated. Practical implications Theoretically, this study adds conceptual strength to the explanations of normative control. It is suggested that neglect of human agency renders explanations conceptually weak. The study fills this gap in the research. Practically, this study would be beneficial for better design and implementation of normative control. Several studies have pointed out that normative control does not yield the intended results. Out of many reasons, a lack of understanding of human agency is a major cause of unsuccessful attempts to normatively control employees. This study provides some basis to understand the human subject for better design of soft systems of control. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research study that explores agential properties with reference to normative control systems. This study is important for researchers and practitioners.
Full-text available
Objectives: Due to the rapid growth of the elderly population, it is very important to pay attention to their mental health indicators including feeling of loneliness, social functions and depression. This study aims to determine the mediating role of depression in the relationship between feeling of loneliness and social functioning in the elderly. Methods & Materials: In this correlational cross-sectional study, 318 older adults covered by the comprehensive health centers in Bushehr, south of Iran in 2018 were selected using a simple random sampling method. To collect data, Russell’s UCLA loneliness scale (version 3), and Goldberg’s general health questionnaire (Depression and social dysfunction subscales) were used. We applied the partial least squares-structural equation modeling to analyze the data in PLS Graph version 3.00 software. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: The mean age of the participants was 66.74±5.87 years; 55.3% were male and the rest were female. The results showed that feeling of loneliness directly (β=0.199, P
Full-text available
The “better-than-average” effect, the tendency for people to view themselves as above average on positive characteristics but belowaverage on negative characteristics, is an important manifestation of the motive for self-enhancement. The present research examined whether the better-than-average effect occurred in Norway, a country with strong norms for modesty, and whether the same association between unrealistically positive self-appraisals and self-esteem would be observed in Norway and the United States. Seventy-six American and 102 Norwegian participants were asked to rate the favorability and self-descriptiveness of 42 personality traits, and these ratings were used to generate a self-enhancement index. Norwegians showed significantly less self-enhancement bias than did Americans, and Norwegians showed no association between self-esteem and self-enhancement bias.
Full-text available
Semistructured interviews focusing on suicide were conducted with 80 street youth in agencies and on the streets of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Participants described their understandings of the phenomenon of suicide among street youth and the meanings suicide held for them. Qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed themes of worthlessness, loneliness, hopelessness, and most centrally the feeling of being “trapped” as forming the construct of suicide held by the participants. These idioms of distress were situated within the context of a street life that included social stigma and drug abuse.
Full-text available
The paper describes and reviews concepts and studies in the area of social relations and health, with special emphasis on loneliness. Related concepts such as social networks and social support are also considered. The fundamental distinction between the objective manifestation of being alone and the subjective manifestation of experiencing loneliness is emphasized. The second part of the paper consists of a description of various network interventions followed by an overview and discussion of loneliness interventions.
Demonstrated here are the distinctive personality traits that matter in the discussion of rejection responses. On one hand, such reactions can be classified as emotionally rooted, cognition grounded, and behaviorally linked; while on the other, feedbacks can be based upon the level of self-confidence, conceit, anxiety, depression, attachment style, perceived social support, and sexual orientation. The extent of sensitivity to rejection is accounted for by the quality of personal relationships, which eventually establish the physical and the psychological well being of an individual. Although people are expected to experience negative emotions when faced with denunciation, refusal, or elimination (due to several factors), they react differently. Integrated and socially involved people are more likely to constructively surpass misfortunes, sudden unemployment, the unexpected death of loved ones, and other possible shocks. Similarly, people who lack healthy and affirmative social ties are more inclined to take maladaptive actions when they encounter difficult situations.
In this article, the authors review the current conceptual and empirical literature from a variety of disciplines dealing with the construct of connectedness. A working definition of connectedness is provided along with a discussion of its multidimensional nature and major characteristics. Its relationship with a variety of other variables is also presented. Particular attention is given to gender and cultural considerations in the experience and operationalization of connectedness. Recommendations for counseling, assessment, and research related to connectedness are provided.