See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222362751

Personality and behavioral antecedents of homesickness

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · February 1994

DOI: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90161-9

CITATIONS READS

43 354

3 authors, including:

Elisabeth Eurelings-Bontekoe Ad Vingerhoets

Leiden University Tilburg University
55 PUBLICATIONS   1,549 CITATIONS    484 PUBLICATIONS   12,141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of crying (tears) View project

Textbook of Perinatal Medicine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ad Vingerhoets on 07 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Person. hdiuid. Dt$fI Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 229-235, 1994
Pergamon Copyright 0 1994ElsevierScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0191-8869/94$6.00+ 0.00

PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIORAL ANTECEDENTS OF

HOMESICKNESS

ELISABETH H. M. EURELINGS-BONTEKOE, I* AD VINGERHOETS’ and TON FONTIJN’

‘Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden and *Faculty of Social
Sciences, Division Health and Environment, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

(Received 31 March 1993)

Summary-This study concentrates on personality characteristics and behavioral features of military

conscripts suffering from homesickness. A comparison is made with healthy controls and with conscripts
suffering from psychiatric symptoms of a different nature. Although the two pathological groups share
several characteristics in comparison to the healthy group (elevated scores on Shyness, Psychopathology,
Inadequacy, Social Inadequacy, and Hostility), homesick subjects also display certain specific features
not--or far less-observed among the psychiatric control individuals (in particular, higher scores on
Somatizing and Rigidity and lower scores on Extraversion, Negativism, Dominate, and Self-esteem). In
addition, typical of homesick conscripts is the strong emotional tie to their parents and the strong need
for social support. Moreover, they had experienced homesickness in their childhood. Given the
retrospective nature of the present study, the need of prospective studies is stressed.

INTRODUCTION

Homesickness can be best described as a depression-like reaction to leaving a familiar environment,

characterized by ruminative thoughts about home and the desire to go back to the familiar
environment (Baier & Welch, 1992; Fisher, 1989; Dijkstra & Hendrix, 1983; Solleveld, 1989). The
intensity of the experience of homesickness may vary widely, dependent on the number of
symptoms like apathy, loss of appetite, feelings of insecurity and fatigue, lack of interest in the
environment, withdrawal, sleeping disorders and suicidal ideation (Baier & Welch, 1992; Fisher,
1989; Dijkstra & Hendrix, 1983). One may expect a substantial overlap with major depressive
disorder, according to criteria of DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987).
Although no exact data are available, homesickness is a psychological state often experienced
in children and adults. Fisher (1989) presents data indicating that, dependent on the seriousness
of the symptoms and whether or not the question is prompted, incidence figures vary from 16 to
76%. Serious forms of homesickness are estimated to occur in 10 to 15% of the population. Thijs
(cited in Vingerhoets, Van Heck, Gruijters, Thijs & Voolstra, in press) found that in a sample of
206 adults, only 7% indicated that they had never experienced homesickness.
Homesickness has been studied in students and boarding school children (Fisher, 1989; Fisher
& Hood, 1987; Fisher, Murray & Frazer, 1985), student nurses (Porrit & Taylor, 1981),
institutionalized people (Taylor, 1986), migrant populations and refugees (Hertz, 1988; Larbig,
Xenakis & Oniski, 1981).
In particular, Fisher’s (1989) observations have increased our insights into this phenomenon. Her
model emphasizing both the characteristics of the new environment and person characteristics is
of great help in designing studies on this issue. It predicts that the intensity of the homesickness
experienced is a function of both personality and behavioral features of the individual and
characteristics of the new environment.
Until now, little is known about personality and behavioral antecedents of people at a high risk
for developing homesickness. Although there appear to be large individual differences in the
vulnerability to this specific mental state, no studies have statistically dealt with this issue. Fisher
(1989) reports a low, but significant negative correlation between extraversion and homesickness

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.

229
230 ELISABETH
H. M. EURELINGS-BONTEKOE
et al.

(r = - 0.19) and between hysteria and homesickness (r = - 0.3 1). In a longitudinal study by Fisher
and Hood (1987), raised scores on the subscales depression and obsessionality, prior to leaving
home, were obtained.
In the present study, the focus is on the personality correlates and relevant childhood aspects
of military conscripts with serious homesickness complaints (group HS). In the Dutch army,
homesickness is the main reason for seeking professional help (Dijkstra & Hendrix, 1982).
Personality scale scores of this group are compared with healthy controls (HC) and with patients
suffering from serious psychopathology (PP) of a different nature. In this way we tried to obtain
insight into the specific features of homesick people, while, at the same time, minimizing the risk
of measuring characteristics shared by psychiatric patients in general.
Based on the scarce empirical data and Fisher’s theoretical elaborations, we postulate that
depressed and neurotic people are more vulnerable to homesickness. The same holds for rigid
people, who are strongly attached to a very regular life. In addition, it can be hypothesized that
avoidant and socially inadequate people experience more difficulties during the process of
adaptation to new environments. In contrast, extraverts and people with a high interest in new
experiences generally will not suffer from feelings of homesickness,

METHODS

Subjects
Three groups of Ss participated in the present study:

(1) a group of conscripts suffering from homesickness (HS);

(2) a group of conscripts suffering from psychopathology of a different nature (PP);
(3) healthy controls (HC, also conscripts).

The first two groups were selected at the Department of Individual Psychological Assistance
(Bureau Individuele Hulp) where soldiers with psychological dysfunctions are referred to. The
healthy controls were recruited from the Departments of Allocation (Indelingsraden) where all
18-year-old males are examined with respect to suitability for military service. This examination
includes the completion of several questionnaires and a physical check-up. Only those found fit
for army service were included in the HC group.
All soldiers consulting the Department of Individual Psychological Assistance during a period
of 3 weeks participated in the study. After the standard screening, the Ss were requested to fill out
three additional questionnaires. Approximately 5% of the respondents preferred not to participate
in the study.
Data collection at the Departments of Allocation covered a period of 2 days. Questionnaires were
equally divided among 5 departments. Since feasibility aspects prevented us from having all the
conscripts complete all the questionnaires, they were requested to fill out 2 of the 6 questionnaires.
This implied that, for each questionnaire, a different control group was used. Table 1 represents
the total number of completed questionnaires per questionnaire and per group.
Since, as has been pointed out by Fisher (1989, p. 28), “there are no clinical experts who could
provide diagnostic criteria”, we developed a questionnaire to identify the presence of homesickness
among help seeking soldiers. This questionnaire consisted of 9 yes-no items, covering the following
characteristics of homesickness: (1) an intense desire to go home (1 item); (2) depressed mood and
loss of interest (2 items); and (3) physical symptoms like loss of appetite, weight-loss, sleeping
disorders, problems with concentration, etc. (6 items). A respondent (from the help seeking
conscripts) was considered to be suffering from homesickness if (a) the first question, (b) at least
1 of the 2 questions from the second category, and (c) at least 3 out of the remaining 6 items were
endorsed.
On the basis of the scores on this questionnaire, the group with psychiatric problems (N = 242)
was split up into the HS group (N = 131, mean age = 20.4) and the PP group (N = 111, mean age
20.6). The HC group thus consisted of conscripts whose psychological and physical condition was
considered appropriate for army service (total N = 496, mean age = 18.0).
 Personality and homesickness 231

Measurements
The following questionnaires were employed:

(1) The Dutch Personality Inventory (DPI; Luteijn, Starren & Van Dijk, 1985) containing the
following subscales: (1) Neuroticism, (2) Social Inadequacy, (3) Rigidity, (4) Hostility, (5)
Self-sufficiency, (6) Dominance, and (7) Self-esteem.
(2) The Dutch Shortened Version of the MMPI (MMPI-S; Luteijn & Kok, 1985) containing the
subscales: (1) Negativism, (2) Somatization, (3) Shyness, (4) Psychopathology, and (5)
Extraversion.
(3) Social skills and social anxiety were assessed by means of the Inventory for Interpersonal
Behavior (IIB; Van Dam-Baggen & Kraaimaat, 1987). This scale contains the following
subscales: (1) Criticising, (2) Asking attention for one’s opinion, (3) Taking the initiative in
social contacts, and (4) Self-confidence. Both frequency and tension are recorded.
(4) Coping was assessed using the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC, Aldwin, Folkman, Schaefer,
Coyne & Lazarus, 1980; Van Heck & Vingerhoets, 1989; Vingerhoets & Van Heck, 1990).
In the WCC seven ways of coping are distinguished: (1) Planful and rational behavior, (2)
Self blame, (3) Distancing, (4) Daydreaming, (5) Seeking social support/Expression of
feelings, (6) Positive thinking, and (7) Wishful thinking.
(5) Social Support was assessed using an adapted version of the Questionnaire Organizational
Stress, (QOS; Reiche & Dijkhuizen, 1980). This adapted questionnaire assesses social support
from military superiors, civilian superiors, other soldiers, civilian colleagues, partner (if
appropriate), friends and family.
(6) An additional questionnaire was presented to collect biographical information measuring,
among others, aspects of childhood and family life, educational level, experiences with
holidays. Finally, information concerning homesickness experiences earlier in life was
gathered.

RESULTS

Chi square-tests and one-way analyses of variance were used to investigate the differences among
the three groups. First, comparisons were made with respect to earlier experiences with homesick-
ness and leaving home, social activities and social contacts (Table 2).
The HS group reported significantly that they had spent fewer vacations without parents or
alone. Moreover they reported significantly less going out and dating in comparison to the other
groups. The HS and PP groups did not differ in these respects. In addition, there are variables on
which the three groups differ significantly from each other. This implies that these variables are
not only characteristic of the HS group but also, though to a significantly lesser degree, of the group
with other psychiatric problems. These variables are: happy to be able to go back home after a
stay elsewhere; no strong wish to prolong holidays; frequent thoughts about home and frequent
phonecalls to the parents when away; a dislike of excursions; early experiences with homesickness;
an absence of the wish to work abroad; frequently staying home and the wish to stay home; and
finally, visiting friends is evaluated as less pleasant.
Some’variables appear to be equally characteristic of both problematic groups, which do not
differ significantly from each other on these variables, but differ significantly from normal controls.
So these variables can be considered as characteristic of psychiatric disturbances in general and
lacking any specificity. In this category we find a dislike of going out/dating, a dislike of sport,

Table I. Total number of completed auestionnaires. txr test and per group
Questionnaire HS-group PP-group HC-group Total N
MMPI-S 131 III I28 370
DPI I31 III 107 349
IIB (Tension) I31 III 98 340
IIB (Frequency) I31 II0 98 339
WCC 122 98 85 305
SSQ 100 93 I15 308
Biographical quest. I31 III 496 738
232 ELISABETH et al.
H. M. EURELINGS-BONTEKOE

Table 2. Comparison between the three groups with respect to earlier experiences with homesickness, leaving home, social
activities, and social contacts (percentages)
Group differences
Question Answer Group HS Group PP Group HC l-2 l-3 2-3
Holidays without parents Yes 49.6 80.0 76.8 l l
Holidays alone Yes 10.7 26.1 23.1 * l

The wish to prolong holidays Yes 9.3 39.4 61.2 l l *

Happy to go home Yes 60.5 49.5 36.3 * * l
Excursions Unpleasant 69.9 33.4 4.6 * l l
Thinking of home Often 93.0 56.7 8.3 l l l
Calling home Often 87.0 48.6 6.9 * l *
Homesickness before age of 8 Yes 61.4 43.6 32.5 * * l
Homesickness after age of 8 Yes 72.3 33.3 II.2 * * l

Wish to work abroad Yes 10.7 33.6 47.6 ’ *

Going out/dating Seldom/never 23.1 13.5 II.4 l * *
Going out/dating Pleasant 50.4 62.2 78.5 * *
sport Seldom/never 35.9 36.0 17.6 * l
Sport Pleasant 54.2 56.8 74.3 * *
Visiting friends Seldom/never 15.3 10.0 4.5 * *
Visiting friends Pleasant 52.7 71.2 83.1 * l *
Staying home Seldom/never 5.3 15.3 20.1 l l *
Staying home Pleasant 78.6 56.8 38.3 * * *
Club membership Yes 35.9 38.7 57.7 l l
Having fun with friends Often 34.6 45.9 74.0 * l
Partner Yes 58.0 46.4 lb.0 * *
Difficulties with making friends Yes 39.5 31.5 2.8 * *

lP < 0.05. For all variables, the overall P-values are significant at P < 0.01 or better.

less participating in sport, less visiting friends, less having fun with friends. Members of both
problematic groups more frequently have a partner than the controls do, but, at the same time,
report having difficulties making friends. Club membership is also reported less frequently than for
normal controls.
Finally, the three groups were compared with respect to personality (Table 3) interpersonal
behavior (Table 4) coping (Table 5) and social support (Table 6) by means of one way ANOVA’s.
The personality variable that emerged as specific to HS soldiers was rigidity. Characteristic of
both problematic groups, but nevertheless most specific to the HS group were a high level of
somatization, introversion, negativism and a low level of dominance and self-esteem. Equally
characteristic of both problematic groups are a high level of shyness, psychopathology, (social)
inadequacy, and hostility.
Except for only one interpersonal-behavior variable that appears to be characteristic of HS
soldiers (a low rate of seeking attention for one’s opinion), both problematic groups suffer to the
same degree from social anxiety and low assertiveness as compared to the HC group.
Expression of emotions and seeking social support is a preferred coping strategy for the HS
group. Characteristic of both problematic groups, but in particular of HS individuals, are the low
scores for distancing. Both problematic groups-as compared to HC-adopt a less planful and
rational style of behavior, blame themselves more often, daydream more frequently, make less use
of humor and positive thinking, and report more wishful thinking when faced with problems.

Table 3. Mean scores on the MMPI-S and the DPI subscales

Differences between groups
Grow HS Grow PP Group HC l-2 l-3 2-3
MMPI-S
Somatizing 20.4 17.5 4.8 * * *
Extraversion II.2 13.9 19.6 * * l
Negativism 21.4 24.0 15.7 t * *
Shyness 18.1 lb.2 9.1 * *
Psychopathology 5.6 6.5 2.7 * *
DPI
Rigidity 28.4 24.9 25.9 * *
Dominance 8.4 II.7 16.8 * l *
Self-esteem 18.5 20.5 29.4 * * l

Inadequacy 23.7 23.5 8.7 I *

Social inadequacy 18.0 16.2 7.1 I l

Hostility 20.0 21.7 17.1 l *

Self-sufficiency 14.1 14.2 14.1
*P < 0.05. For all variables, except Self-sufficiency, the overall P-values are significant at P -c 0.01
or better.
 Personality and homesickness 233

Table 4. Mean scores on the IIB subscales

Group differences
Group HS Group PP Group HC l-2 1-3 2-3
Interpersonal behavior (tension)
Total 87.9 86.1 65.6 l l

Seeking attention for one’s opinion 15.7 14.8 10.9 * l

Critisizing 19.5 20.0 14.7 * .

Expression of appreciation 8.3 8.0 6.7 l *
Taking the initiative in social
contacts 13.1 12.7 10.0 l l

Self-confidence 9.9 9.7 1.4 I .

Interpersonal behavior (frequency)
Total 91.2 101.0 111.2 . I
Seeking attention for one’s opinion 15.4 17.1 18.0 * l

Critisizing 17.4 18.2 19.5 I .

Expression of appreciation 14.4 13.9 15.6 . l

Taking the initiative in social

contacts 12.8 13.5 15.5 l l

Self-confidence 10.5 10.8 12.1 l l

lP < 0.05. For all variables, the overall P-values are significant at P < 0.01 or batter.

The HS group experiences more social support from partners, friends and families than from
military superiors and other soldiers. The PP group receives less social support from military
superiors than the HS group and less support from family and friends than the HS and HC groups.
Performing a series of univariate tests in order to examine the differences on a single variable
among three groups produces inflation of type I error. Therefore, a discriminant analysis was
performed in order to investigate which variables predict homesickness best. Since. discriminant
analysis requires that all respondents complete all questionnaires, the control group unfortunately
had to be excluded from this analysis.
In order to look at the specific predictive power of personality factors, the discriminant analysis
was carried out on all but the general questionnaire. Hence, the variables pointing to the presence
of homesickness were excluded. In this analysis, only those scale scores were used that differentiated
between the two groups on a univariate level. One significant discriminant function (P < 0.001)
could be calculated. The structure matrix of this discriminant function is represented in Table 7.
The best predictors of homesickness were the personality factors Rigidity, Dominance, and
Extraversion. HS soldiers are more rigid (mean subscale score 28.4), less dominant (mean subscale
score 8.5), and less extraverted (mean subscale score 11.2) than soldiers with other psychological
problems (mean subscale score 24.9, 11.7 and 19.6, respectively). The percentage of cases correctly
classified on the basis of this discriminant function was 68%.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to obtain more insight into personality variables and behavioral
antecedents of soldiers suffering from severe homesickness. Therefore, scores on personality
inventories and a general questionnaire were compared to scores of healthy Ss and of a group of
conscripts with different psychopathology. Univariate analyses showed many significant differences
between the different groups. The HS group shared some extreme personality scores with the PP
Ss and significant differences were also found. Both groups are characterized by introversion and
social isolation. Both groups display a high level of shyness, social inadequacy, hostility, social

Table 5. Mean scores on the WCC subscales

Differences between groups
Group HS Group PP Group HC l-2 l-3 2-3
Expression of feelings and
seeking social support 21.9 25.5 26.3 ’ *
Distancing 32.1 34.1 38.0 l l l

Planful and rational behavior 52.8 51.8 57.9 I l

Self-blame 31.7 32.4 26.5 . l

Daydreaming 21.5 28.8 23.4 . .

Positive thinking and humor 33.5 34.2 36.1 l .
Wishful thinking 45.0 45.1 42.0 l *

‘P < 0.05. For all variables, the overall P-values are significant at P -z 0.01 or better.
234 ELISABETHH. M. EURELINGS-BONTEKOEet al

Table 6. Mean scores on the SSQ subscales (higher scores indicate lower social support)
Overall Group differences
Group HS Group PP Group HC sign. level l-2 l-3 2-3
Support from military
superior 2.87’ 3.10’ 0.016’ ’ - -
Other soldiers 2.88’ 2.85’ 0.754’
Partners 1.35 1.51 1.38 0.191
Friends/family I .46 I .66 1.40 0.000 l
I
‘P < 0.05: El-test.

anxiety and low assertiveness. Both groups also tend to cope with problems in a rather inefficient
way: instead of handling problems actively they withdraw and seek solace in daydreaming, wishful
thinking and self blame.
Although low assertiveness, lack of social skills, and avoidant personality traits may lead to
difficulties in adapting to new environments, these factors are not a sufficient condition for the
development of homesickness in adulthood. HS conscripts appear-already from an early age
onwards-to have problems with separating from their parents, to have a strong emotional bond
with the parents and to have suffered from homesickness earlier in life. This “sticking” to the
parents and parental home is also referred by the avoidance of going out and dating (the other
problematic group dislikes dating as well, but does not seem to avoid it). In addition to a low level
of extraversion, dominance and self-esteem, HS conscripts can be qualified as more rigid, implying
they like to stick to old habits and are strongly attached to a regular life, thereby avoiding new
situations requiring adaptation. Finally, the HS group, lacking social skills, has a strong need for
social support. In sum, most typical of conscripts with homesickness is the combination of social
anxiety and low assertiveness with a strong emotional tie to the parents, a high level of rigidity,
a low level of dominance, extraversion and self-esteem and a strong need for social support.
However, before any definitive conclusion can be drawn, one should be aware of the
methodological flaws of the present study. First of all, there is the problem of the definition of the
HS group. Since there is no “golden standard” that can be used to validate and “calibrate” our
operationalization of homesickness, one should be aware that different operationalizations may
yield different results. Second, as in any retrospective study, statements about the nature of the
associations are not allowed. Although the use of the PP control group may minimize the risk of
measuring characteristics typical of general psychopathology, it remains unknown whether the
characteristics observed as typical of HS conscripts are the antecedents or the consequences of
suffering severely from homesickness. A third, but minor flaw is that the HC group had not yet
had any experience in the army and had not yet been confronted with the requirements of the new
situation. Some of these controls may eventually develop manifest symptoms of homesickness when
actually serving in the army.
In conclusion, this study has yielded some interesting findings concerning behavioral and
personality features that may predispose to serious homesickness complaints. For a definitive test,
a prospective design is needed. The situation in the Dutch army allows for such a prospective study.
The importance of the present study is that it has made data available that are useful to formulate

Table 7. Structure matrix of the canonical discriminant function representing the

correlation between uredictors and the discriminant function
Loadings of predictors on
Variable discriminant function
Rigidity -0.52
Dominance 0.51
Extraversion 0.48
Somatizing -0.41
Seeking social support -0.38
Seeking attention for own opinion 0.37
Social extraversion 0.37
Support from military sup. 0.34
Self-esteem 0.33
Distancing 0.31
Support from friends 0.28
Sam. Neuroticism -0.28
Negativism 0.24
All questions about homesickness (general questionnaire) are excluded
 Personality and homesickness 235

hypotheses and to direct the focus of future prospective studies. Meanwhile, it would be important
for clinicians to make an effort to give a clear definition of (pathological) homesickness, which may
guide the development of objective measuring tools. These are some necessary requirements in
order to obtain a better understanding of this fascinating psychological state.

Acknowledgements-The authors are grateful to the Department of Behavioral Sciences of the Royal Dutch Army, the
Departments of Individual Assistance (Bureaux Individuele Hulp), and the Departments of Allocation (Indelingsraden) for
their cooperation. We are also grateful to Dr Peter de Heus for his assistance in analyzing the data and to Mrs Annet van
der We1 for her help with the preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES

Aldwin, C., Folkman, S., Schaefer, C., Coyne, J. C. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Ways of Coping: A process measure. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (3rd E&-revised).
DSM-III-R. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baier, M. & Welch, M. (1992). An analysis of the concept of homesickness. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6, SW%.
Dijkstra, S. & Hendrix, M. J. J. L. (1983). Heimwee, een verkenning. De Psycholoog, ff?, 3-10.
Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition and health. Hove: Erlbaum.
Fisher, S. & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: a longitudinal study of vulnerability to psychological
disturbance and homesickness. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 425442.
Fisher, S., Murray, K. & Frazer, N. (1985). Homesickness and health in first year students. British Journal of Psychology,
79, 1-13.
Hertz, D. G. (1988). Identity-lost and found: Patterns of migration and psychological and psychosocial adjustment of
migrants. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 8 (Suppl. 344), 1599165.
Larbig, W., Xenakis, C. & Oniski M. S. (1981). Psychosomatische Symptomen und funktionelle Beschwerden bei
Arbeitnehmem im Ausland-Japaner und Griechen in Deutschland, Deutsche im Ausland. Zeifschrifi fur Psychosoma-
tische Medizin und Psychoanalyse, XX, 4963.
Luteijn, F. & Kok, A. R. (1985). Nederlandse verkorte LUMPI (NVh4). Handleiding. Lisse: Swets & Zeitling.
Luteijn, F., Starren, J. & Van Dijk, H. (1985). Handleiding Nederlandse Persoonlijkheidsvragenhjst. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Porrit, D. & Taylor, D. (1981). An exploration of homesickness among student nurses. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Psychiatry, 15, 57-62.
Reiche, H. & Van Dijkhuizen, N. (1980). Vragenlijst organisafiestress; testhandleiding uoor testafname. Nijmegen: Nijmegen
University, Internal report.
Solleveld, C. M. (1989). Heimwee: een benadering. Arnhem: Internal Report, Hogeschool Arnhem.
Taylor, R. E. (1986). Homesickness, melancholy, and blind rehabilitation. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80,
800-802.
Van Dam-Baggen, C. M. J. & Kraaimaat, F. W. (1987). Inventarisatielijst Omgaan met Anderen. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Van Heck, G. L. & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (1989). Copingstijlen en persoonskenmerken. Nederlands Tijdschrzfi voor de
Psychologie, 44, 73-87.
Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. Jr Van Heck, G. L. (1990). Gender, coping, and psychosomatic symptoms. Psychological Medicine,
20, 125-135.
Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., Van Heck, G. L., Gruijters, I., Thijs, H. & Voolstra, A. (in press). Heimwee: een literatuuroverzicht.
Gedrag en Gezonheid.

View publication stats