Effects of Social Belonging on
Homesickness: An Application of
the Belongingness Hypothesis
Susan E. Watt
Alison J. Badger
University of New England
Belongingness theory proposes that humans possess an
innate drive for a minimum number of lasting interper-
sonal relationships. On geographic relocation, people
leave their existing social networks. This greatly threat-
ens belongingness needs, and the authors propose this is
one cause of homesickness. Two studies investigated
whether homesickness arises in the need to belong. Study
1 used a correlational design to test the relationship
between need to belong and homesickness while control-
ling for other variables. A significant positive relationship
was found. Study 2 then used an experimental design to
test for a causal effect of need to belong on homesickness,
and a significant effect was found. An additional finding
showed that individuals who felt accepted in the com-
munity were less homesick. This was independent of
number of friends and demonstrates an important link
between community attitudes and adjustment.
Implications for belongingness theory are discussed.
Keywords:   need to belong; homesickness; immigration;
acceptance; rejection; belongingness
In a popular song by Bart Millard (2004), grief at a
loved one's death is expressed as homesickness. Millard
is not the first to perceive a link between homesickness
and grief. Indeed, homesickness has been described as a
“mini-grief” that people experience when separated
from those they love (Stroebe, van Vliet, Hewstone, &
Willis, 2002). In this article, we extend the idea of
homesickness as a mini-grief to ask whether homesick-
ness is a consequence of a need for lasting bonds with
other people. We investigate whether it arises in threat
to belongingness and use it as a testing ground for some
central tenets of belongingness theory.
Homesickness is a common response to moving away
from home, whether for school, college, work, and
domestic or international immigration. It can be defined
516
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
as distress caused by actual or anticipated separation
from familiar or loved people or places (Thurber,
1999). Homesick people are prone to crying and can be
apathetic and listless; severe homesickness can provoke
thoughts of suicide. Often there are somatic responses
such as stomachache, loss of appetite, sleep distur-
bance, and headaches. There is also evidence that home-
sickness disrupts concentration (Burt, 1993) and produces
absentmindedness (Fisher & Hood, 1987, 1988). It has
often been described as a form of grieving (e.g., Archer,
Ireland, Amos, Broad, & Currid, 1998; Fisher & Hood,
1987, 1988; Stroebe et al., 2002), and some authors
have further characterized it as a reactive depression to
leaving home (Baier & Welch, 1992; Eurelings-Bontekoe,
Vingerhoets, & Fontijn, 1994; Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets,
& Van Heck, 1997a) or as similar to adjustment disor-
der with depressed mood (Van Tilburg, 2005). Most
importantly, homesickness is accompanied by acute
longing and intrusive thoughts about home and attach-
ment objects. It is this cognitive component that distin-
guishes it from other disorders (Thurber, 1999).
In Homer’s account of “The Odyssey,” a story that
originates in oral tradition from around 1200 bc, the
great hero Ulysses spent 10 years returning from Troy to
his home in Ithaka. He was crippled by homesickness,
and when captured by the beautiful nymph Calypso
spent 7 years “looking out upon the barren ocean with
tears in his eyes, groaning and breaking his heart for
Authors’ Note: We gratefully acknowledge the University of New England,
Faculty of Arts Internal Research Grant No. 21214 for funding Study 1
and Sara Delonghi for her research assistance in that study. We also wish
to acknowledge the constructive comments made by two anonymous
reviewers. Correspondence may be sent to Sue Watt, School of Behavioural,
Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW,
2351, Australia; e-mail: sue.watt@une.edu.au.
PSPB, Vol. 35 No. 4, April 2009 516-530
DOI: 10.1177/0146167208329695
© 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   517
sorrow  . . .  his eyes ever filled with tears, and dying of
sheer home-sickness” (translation by Samuel Butler,
1900, http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.5.v.html).
Several millennia later, Thijs (as cited in Van Tilburg et
al., 1997b) found that only 7.3% of adults said they had
never experienced homesickness, and Fisher (1989)
found it was sufficient to interfere with daily activities in
10% to 15% of homesickness sufferers. Homesickness
affects men and women, adults and children alike, and
has been found to exist even 58 years after moving from
the home of origin (Van Tilburg, 2005). Homesickness
is also found when people move into more favorable
situations. Fried (as cited in Fisher, 1989) found slum
dwellers in Chicago who were forced to move into bet-
ter houses reacted with intense grief for home. The
lower the income, the stronger their reaction.
Homesickness is an underresearched phenomenon. It
has received remarkably little attention in the literature,
and with some notable exceptions even less attention has
been paid to its theoretical underpinnings. However, it
potentially afflicts anyone who moves location, either
temporarily or permanently, and for whatever reason.
Fisher (1989) proposed a composite model where
homesickness results from the combined effects of sepa-
ration from the familiar environment and entry into the
new environment. Archer et al. (1998) subsequently
proposed that homesickness is a form of separation
reaction to people and places. Their empirical research
used items derived from reactions described in studies
of grief and revealed two clear factors: disliking the new
place and attachment to home.
Stroebe et al. (2002) took this further by conceptualiz-
ing these two basic factors within a framework of grief and
bereavement. Based on the dual process model of coping
with bereavement (Stroebe & Schut, 1987), they proposed
that homesickness results from the combined effects of loss
(loss-orientation) and adjustment to the new situation
(restoration-orientation). Just as grieving people must cope
with the loss experience and changes to their circum-
stances, Stroebe et al. proposed homesick people must
cope with the loss (even if temporary) of their family and
friends, as well as their changed circumstances.
Vingerhoets (2005) wrote about “cat-type” and
“dog-type” homesickness. Just as dogs attach more
strongly to people than places, one part of homesick-
ness is missing people; and just as cats strongly attach
to places and the physical environment, another part of
homesickness is missing the physical place. In this
research, we turn our attention to homesickness that
arises in connection to people. We focus on this because
the belongingness hypothesis is relevant to this aspect of
homesickness. In the following section, we extend the
idea of homesickness as a mini-grief. We propose that
an important element of homesickness is the loss of
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
social connections through physical separation from
family and friends. This provokes distress, as well as the
challenge of fulfilling social connection needs in the new
location. We will now elaborate on how the belonging-
ness hypothesis is relevant to homesickness.
The Need to Belong
Humans are profoundly social creatures, endowed
with an array of attributes that enhance our ability to
live in groups. This may be a truism but results in a great
complexity of effects. A vast body of empirical research
in psychology has examined attributes of human social-
ity, and results from studies as diverse as Ainsworth’s
(1978) strange situation to Billig and Tajfel’s (1973)
minimal group paradigm consistently show that people
seek social inclusion and avoid exclusion. This has led
numerous theorists to argue for a fundamental impor-
tance to humans of affiliation, love and belonging, and
attachment (e.g., Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Erikson, 1963;
Freud, 1930/1946; Maslow, 1968; Rosenberg, 1979).
Baumeister and Leary (1995) conducted an extensive
review of the empirical literature of social and personal-
ity psychology from which they proposed humans pos-
sess as a fundamental motivation a need to belong.
They describe this need as an innate (evolved) drive for
“a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and signifi-
cant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary,
1995, p. 497). Satisfaction of the drive requires frequent
positive interactions in the context of an enduring affec-
tive bond between people.
In support of an evolved need to belong, there is evi-
dence that humans possess mechanisms that allow
quick detection of danger of social rejection, allowing
restorative measures to be taken. FMRI research has
shown that social pain (elicited by ostracism) results in
similar brain activity to that produced by physical pain
(Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). On the
basis of this and other studies of social exclusion,
MacDonald and Leary (2005) proposed exclusion elicits
pain because inclusion is important to human survival.
Just as pain from physical stimuli teaches us to avoid
danger, social pain assists us to behave in ways to avoid
exclusion. Rejection hurts, so we learn to say and do
things to win the allegiance, love, and respect of others,
ensuring social acceptance and survival.
The belongingness hypothesis predicts that because
our need to belong is so important, people will resist
the dissolution of social bonds at least as strenuously
as they work to create them. People throughout the
world show tears and grief on separation from those
they love and resist the dissolution of social bonds in
the broader social network as well as within intimate
relationships. People show distress and resistance to
518   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
breaking bonds even within transient, time-limited
groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is important to
the current research that Baumeister and Leary (1995)
used the grief reaction as evidence to support the
belongingness hypothesis, stating,
Some conceptualizations of grief portray it not as a reac-
tion to the loss of the person but as a reaction to the loss
of a linkage with another person.  . . .  As Lofland (1982)
pointed out, when people die, relationships end. (p. 507)
In line with this prediction, we suggest that homesickness
is partly composed of distress at the dissolution (even if
temporary) of social bonds. The need to belong would
cause us to protect and value our social bonds, and
physically removing oneself from these bonds on geo-
graphic relocation can be expected to provoke distress.
This forms the basis of Hypothesis 1, described later.
Of course, people show every intention not to aban-
don their social bonds. One way to reduce distress on
relocation is to maintain old relationships by phoning
and writing home and visiting as frequently as possible.
It is an intriguing possibility that belongingness needs
could be met by frequent contact home. Indeed, Van
Tilburg et al. (1999) noted, “the focus of chronic home-
sick persons remains directed on the old environment,
preventing the development of a genuine interest into
the new environment and sustaining homesickness” (p.
537). With modern communication technologies, it is
now possible to contact home many times each day at
very little cost. This could permit people to physically
move away from home and yet maintain daily contact
with the social network back home, possibly meeting
their belongingness needs through this daily contact.
Another prediction of the belongingness hypothesis
is that one social bond can substitute for another. As
long as the need to belong is satiated, it should not mat-
ter who produces the satiation. In support of the substi-
tution hypothesis, Baumeister and Leary (1995) cited
findings that women are more likely to seek extramarital
relationships when their marriage does not satisfy inti-
macy needs, people are more likely to leave one intimate
relationship if another is likely to develop, and female
prisoners commonly form substitute families. If home-
sickness arises in the need to belong, and if one social
connection can substitute for another, we expect that
homesickness will decline as new social connections are
formed in the new location. This forms the basis of
Hypothesis 2, described later.
Baumeister and Leary (1995) drew an interesting fur-
ther implication from the substitution hypothesis. They
suggested that efforts to sustain friendships across long
distances should be inversely proportional to opportuni-
ties to develop new friendships. That is, people who
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
perceive many opportunities to develop new friendships
will be less motivated to maintain friendships in the pre-
vious location. This implies that people monitor the
environment for its potential to fulfill the need to belong.
In line with Baumeister and Leary, we expect there will
be increased focus on contacts in the previous location
when this potential is low. We expect there will also be
increased distress (homesickness) as there is less opportu-
nity to satisfy belongingness needs. In the current research,
we operationalized friendship potential in the new loca-
tion as perceived social acceptance. The relation between
social acceptance and homesickness forms the basis of
Hypothesis 3, described later.
In summary, we suggest the belongingness hypoth-
esis can help us understand the grief and distress that
manifests as homesickness. People who move away
from home create physical separation from their most
intimate relationships and broader social network. At
the point of arrival in the new location, migrants and
sojourners can no longer enjoy the physical presence of
the old network and may experience uncertainty about
being able to construct a new network. While they
may be able to maintain relations with a few members
of the old network via phone calls and other commu-
nications, evidence shows that these links decline over
time (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Just as threat to
other fundamental drives such as the need for food,
drink, shelter, or safety produces stress, threat to
belongingness posed by geographic relocation will also
be a stressor. We therefore expect homesickness is in
part a direct response to threat to belongingness and
will lessen as belongingness needs are satisfied in the
new location. This expectation forms the primary
hypothesis of our research.
The preceding analysis leads to three hypotheses that
were tested in the current research:
Hypothesis 1: Homesickness will be greater among indi-
viduals experiencing higher need to belong. Previous
research indicates that homesickness is partly composed
of distress at the separation (even if temporary) from
social bonds. The need to belong would cause us to pro-
tect and value our social bonds, and physically removing
oneself from these bonds on geographic relocation can
be expected to provoke distress. Those who experience
stronger need to belong should also experience more
distress (homesickness) on relocation.
Hypothesis 2: Homesickness will be less among those who
form more close friendships in the new location, and the
relationship will be mediated by need to belong. The
substitution hypothesis indicates that one social bond
can substitute for another in satisfying the need to
belong. As more friendships form, the need to belong
will be satisfied and homesickness reduced.
Hypothesis 3: People who feel accepted in the new location
will experience less homesickness and will make less
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   519
effort to sustain relationships in the old location. In line
with Baumeister and Leary (1995), we suggested that
the opportunity to form new friendships is an important
factor because there will be more opportunity to satisfy
the need to belong in the new location. Social acceptance
indicates more possibility to form friendships, so those
who perceive more acceptance should experience less
threat to need to belong. Consistent with the rationale
that homesickness is a response to threat to belonging-
ness, individuals who feel socially accepted should there-
fore experience less homesickness. We also explore the
relation between feeling accepted in the new location
and maintaining contacts in the old location. Consistent
with Baumeister and Leary, we propose that people who
feel accepted in the new location will make less effort to
sustain relations with the old location because there is a
strong probability their need to belong will be met in the
new location.
The two studies presented in the following investi-
gated these hypotheses. The first used a correlational
design to examine the predicted relations while control-
ling the effects of length of residence in Australia. The
second used an experimental design to test for a causal
relation between need to belong and homesickness and
to replicate effects found in the correlational study. By
applying belongingness theory to homesickness, the
research offers a new perspective on homesickness and
its reduction. In relation to belongingness theory, this
research tested whether the need to belong construct can
be used a priori to predict homesickness. This is impor-
tant because it tests predictions made specifically from
belongingness theory, and support for those hypotheses
should offer support for the theory itself. We then
applied a central component of belongingness theory,
the substitution hypothesis, to homesickness. Again,
support for this hypothesis in relation to homesickness
would offer support for the substitution hypothesis in
belongingness theory more generally.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants
In Study 1, 161 international university students
studying at five Australian universities (69 male and
92 female) participated. The students came from 42
different countries, and age ranged from 18 to 45 years
(M = 24.54, SD = 5.85). The majority of participants
were single (84.5%). Length of residence in Australia
was between 1 month and 10 years (M = 19.62, SD =
19.16). All participants were assumed to be competent
in the English language as they must pass English lan-
guage tests before enrolling at university in Australia.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Measures
Homesickness. The Utrecht Homesickness Scale
(Stroebe et al., 2002) was developed for a cross-cultural
comparison of homesickness in university students in
two different countries (the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom). As such, it was the most appropriate measure
of homesickness available for our sample, which included
students from many different countries. The scale includes
20 items such as “Missing your parents,” “Feeling
lonely,” “Longing for acquaintances,” “Finding it diffi-
cult adjusting to a new situation,” and “Having thoughts
that an old situation was better than here and now.”
Participants are asked to indicate “to what extent you
have experienced each of the following in the past 4
weeks,” rating each item on a scale where 1 = not, 2 =
weak, 3 = moderate, 4 = strong, and 5 = very strong.
Stroebe et al. (2002) reported strong interitem reliabil-
ity of α = .94. Principal component analysis of data col-
lected in the Netherlands revealed five factors. The first
factor, Missing Family, explained 62% of the variance in
responding, with the remaining factors, respectively,
accounting for 15% (Loneliness), 9% (Missing Friends),
8% (Adjustment Difficulties), and 6% (Ruminations
About Home). The Utrecht Homesickness Scale showed
very strong relationships with a self-report measure that
directly asked students how often they had experienced
homesickness in the past 4 weeks. Discriminant analysis
revealed 83% of the single-item homesickness scores
were correctly classified by the five factors, and the over-
all scale score correlated r = .71 with the single-item
measure of homesickness. Very similar results were
obtained in a British sample.
In the current study, we shortened the scale to 15
items by dropping the item with the lowest factor load-
ing from each factor. Acceptable reliabilities were still
obtained, with an overall Cronbach’s α of .95. Each
subscale also showed acceptable reliability (Missing
Family α = .91, Loneliness α = .87, Missing Friends α
= .76, Adjustment Difficulties α = .89, Ruminations
About Home α = .79).
Need to belong. Need to belong was operationalized
as an individual differences measure of chronic need to
belong, developed by Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, and
Schreindorfer (as cited in Leary, Cottrell, & Phillips,
2001). Participants rate 10 questions such as “I try hard
not to do things that will make other people avoid or
reject me” and “It bothers me a great deal when I am not
included in other people’s plans” on a 5-point scale (we
used 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 =
agree, and 5 = strongly agree for consistency with other
scales in the questionnaire). Previous research suggests
the scale has good construct validity. Need to belong
520   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
scores have been found to correlate with acceptance-
responsive self-esteem (Leary et al., 2001), sensitivity to
facial expression and vocal tone (Pickett, Gardner, &
Knowles, 2004), and frustration during group behavior
(De Cremer & Leonardelli, 2003); they have also been
found to moderate a relationship between group size
and contributions to the group so that need to belong
was positively associated with cooperation, but only for
members of large groups (De Cremer & Leonardelli,
2003). Interitem reliability was acceptable in our sample
(Cronbach’s α = .80). Other researchers have reported
similar interitem reliabilities of .82 (De Cremer &
Leonardelli, 2003) and .83 (Pickett et al., 2004).
Contact with home. Nine items measured the number
(and duration) of personal phone calls, text messages,
and e-mail messages between the students and their
families and friends from the home of origin during the
past 4 weeks. As described in the Results and Discussion
section, analysis focussed on just one of these items,
number of phone calls made.
Social network in Australia. Participants were asked
how many close friends they have in Australia. They
were also asked whether they have immediate family in
Australia (and how many) and whether they have a
boyfriend or girlfriend in Australia.
Social activity. Participants were asked the number
of times during the past 4 weeks they had gone out
socially with Australians and with members of their
own national group or other nonnational Australians.
The sum of these questions was computed to provide a
total number of outings.
Acceptance by Australians. A measure of acceptance
in the new location was adapted from Nesdale and Mak
(2000). Participants rated “I feel accepted by Australians”
on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. Nesdale and Mak included number of
close friends in their measure of acceptance. However,
we wished to analyze number of friends separately and
did not include it in the measure of acceptance. As
shown in Table 1, number of friends and perceived
acceptance did not significantly correlate.
Demographics. Demographic measures included gen-
der, age, marital status, occupation, religion, country of
birth, and level of education.
Design
Multiple regression was used to explore the aforemen-
tioned hypotheses while controlling for gender, length of
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
stay, and social activity. Gender and length of stay have
both shown small but significant relations with home-
sickness in earlier research (Archer et al., 1998; Hojat &
Hermann, 1985; Stroebe et al., 2002; Tartakovsky, 2007)
and could also be expected to relate to other variables in
the analysis. For example, length of stay should relate to
number of close friends in the new location because par-
ticipants are likely to develop more close friendships with
passing time. Social activity was controlled because it
provides pleasurable activity that could relieve some
negative feelings associated with homesickness and could
also be expected to relate to number of close friends and
need to belong. In addition to the main hypotheses, we
conducted exploratory analyses to test whether need to
belong might moderate the relations between the other
predictors (acceptance by Australians and number of
close friends in Australia) and the criterion.
Procedure
International student associations at five Australian
universities distributed an e-mail requesting interna-
tional students’ participation in a study of “Migrant
Adjustment.” The request contained a link to the sur-
vey, which students completed online. Response rates
are not computed as the number of students on each
mailing list was unknown to the researchers.
Results and Discussion
Homesickness
Homesickness showed an average elevation of 2.43
(SD = .92), which corresponds with “weak” to “moder-
ate” on the 5-point scale. This is higher than the average
scores reported by Stroebe et al. (2002) for first-year
students in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Of participants, 8 (5%) scored above 4, indicating
strong to very strong homesickness; 39 (24.2%) scored
between 3 and 4, indicating moderate to strong home-
sickness; 45 (40.4%) scored between 2 and 3, indicating
weak to moderate homesickness; and 39 (28.0%) scored
below 2, indicating no homesickness to weak homesick-
ness. Scores on the missing family subscale were highest
(M = 2.87, SD = 1.07), followed by missing friends (M
= 2.63, SD = 1.05), loneliness (M = 2.35, SD =1.15),
ruminations (M = 2.15, SD = 1.02), and adjustment dif-
ficulties (M = 2.15, SD = 1.04).
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted to examine predictors of homesickness. Gender
(coded as 1 = male, 2 = female), length of residence in
Australia, social activity, social acceptance, and number
of close friends in Australia were entered on Step 1, and
need to belong and the interactions of social acceptance
and number of close friends in Australia with need to
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   521

TABLE 1:   Summary Statistics and Correlations Between Variables in Study 1

Correlations

Median M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

Length of residence in Australia (months) (2) 15.00 19.62 19.16 –.01 1
Acceptance by Australians (3) 4.00 3.50 1.05 .04 –.10 1
Need to belong (4) 3.20 3.26 0.62 .18* .02 –.17* 1
Social activity (5) 7.00 9.45 8.62 .15 –.08 .15 .06 1
Number of friends in Australia (6) 10.00 18.46 25.57 –.08 –.07 .07 –.12 .34*** 1
Homesickness (7) 2.27 2.43 0.92 .03 .03 –.36*** .43*** –.21** –.09 1
Phone calls made (8) 4.00 5.75 7.46 .13 –.12 –.07 .15 .15 .15 .27***

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

belong (computed from centered variables) were entered

on Step 2. Need to belong was entered on Step 2 with
the interaction terms in case it masked any other effects.
This was not the case, so only the results at Step 2 of the
analysis are reported.
Prior to analysis, length of residence in Australia,
number of close friends in Australia, social activity in
Australia, and homesickness were submitted to log 10
transformation to correct positive skew and the data
were screened for multivariate outliers at p < .001. The
means and standard deviations of variables in the mul-
tiple regression (prior to transformation) are presented
in Table 1. Correlations shown in the table used the log
transformed variables.
The regression model explained 25% of the variance
in homesickness. Need to belong was by far the strongest
predictor of homesickness, with higher need to belong
predicting more homesickness. This variable accounted
for a substantial 12.3% of the variance (see Table 2). The
other significant predictors of homesickness were accept-
ance and social outings. The more accepted participants
felt, the less homesick, and this variable accounted for
4.7% of the variance in homesickness. A negative rela-
tionship with social outings indicated that more social
activity predicted less homesickness, but this accounted
for just 2.9% of the variance in homesickness.
A multiple regression of the same design was then
conducted for each subscale of the Utrecht Homesickness
Scale (it was first necessary to log transform the Loneliness,
Adjustment Difficulties, and Ruminations subscales to
correct positive skew). Need to belong and acceptance by
Australians significantly predicted each subscale. In addi-
tion, social activity was a significant negative predictor of
loneliness (sr = –.23, p = .002) and of missing friends
(sr = –.18, p = .02).
These results supported Hypothesis 1, that home-
sickness is greater among individuals experiencing
higher need to belong, and the first part of Hypothesis
3, that people who feel accepted in the new location will
experience less homesickness. However, the results did
TABLE 2:  Predictors of Homesickness and Phone Calls Home
in Study 1
Phone
Calls
Homesickness Home at
at Step 2 Step 3
of the of the
Analysisa Analysisb
β sr b sr
Gender .02 .02 .06 .06
Length of residence –.03 –.03 –.07 –.07
   in Australia
Acceptance by –.23*** –.22*** .06 .05
   Australians
Need to belong .36*** .35*** –.02 –.02
Social activity –.18* –.17* .20* .18*
Number of friends –.03 –.03 .16 .14
   in Australia
Need to Belong –.09 –.08 .03 .03
   × Acceptance
Need to Belong –.09 –.08 .11 .10
   × Friends
Homesickness — — .34*** .29***
Need to Belong — — .10 .09
   × Homesickness
Homesickness — — –.09 –.08
   × Acceptance
a. R = .50, R2 = .25, adjusted R2 = .20, F(8, 130) = 5.40, p < .001.
b. R = .40, R2 = .16, adjusted R2 = .09, F(11, 122) = 2.13, p = .023.
*p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .001.
not support Hypothesis 2, which was derived from the
substitution hypothesis in belongingness theory, that
one set of social connections can replace another. That
is, homesickness was not predicted by number of close
friends in Australia. It was also not predicted by length
of residence in Australia.
Contact Initiated With Home
The variables relating to contact home were substan-
tially skewed. While most students initiated a moderate

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016

522   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
amount of contact home in the 4-week period, with a
median of 4 phone calls made, 2 mobile phone text mes-
sages sent, and 6 e-mail messages sent, some students
showed extremely high frequency of contact, with a
maximum of 50 phone calls made, 1,000 mobile phone
text messages sent, and 130 e-mails sent. There was also
a significant portion of students who did not make any
phone calls (15.6%), send any mobile phone text mes-
sages (42.2%), or send any e-mails (11.1%). The large
number of students who did not send mobile phone text
messages may indicate low use of mobile phone tech-
nology. E-mail contact could also be problematic, as it
is possible that some but not all people in the home of
origin have access to e-mail. We therefore decided to use
number of phone calls made because we considered this
is likely the most reliable technology by which students
could initiate contact with home.
We then tested the second part of Hypothesis 3, that
people who feel accepted in the new location will make
less effort to sustain relationships in the old location.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted to examine predictors of phone calls home
(phone calls home was first submitted to log 10 trans-
formation to correct positive skew). Gender, length of
residence in Australia, social activity, social accept-
ance, and number of close friends in Australia were
entered on Step 1, and need to belong and the interac-
tions of social acceptance and number of close friends
in Australia with need to belong were entered on Step
2. Homesickness and the interaction of homesickness
and need to belong were then entered on a third step,
in case homesickness masked any other effects. This
was not the case, so only the results at Step 3 of the
analysis are reported. All interactions were computed
on centered variables.
The regression model at Step 3 explained 16% of the
variance in phone calls made, with social activity and
homesickness the only significant predictors (see Table
2). The strongest predictor was homesickness, which
explained 8.4% of the variance in a positive direction.
Social activity was the only other significant predictor,
explaining 3.2% of the variance.
It is possible that the positive relationship between
homesickness and phone calls home reflects a causal
direction where the act of speaking on the phone
increases homesickness. If this is the case, phone calls
made and phone calls received should both positively
predict homesickness. We tested this possibility by
repeating the earlier multiple regression on homesick-
ness, including phone calls made and phone calls
received (log transformed) as additional predictors.
Results showed phone calls made significantly predicted
homesickness (sr = .22, p = .002), but phone calls
received did not (sr = .006, p = .94).
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Hypothesis 3 predicted that people who felt less
accepted in the new location would experience more
distress (homesickness) and would make more effort to
sustain relationships in the old location. The previously
reported results showed that those who felt less accepted
experienced more homesickness, and those who experi-
enced more homesickness also made more phone calls,
but there was no direct relationship between acceptance
and number of phone calls made. We tested whether
such a relationship might be moderated by need to
belong, but this was not the case.
STUDY 2
Study 1 provided a preliminary test of our hypothe-
ses, however the correlational nature of the design does
not allow causal inferences to be drawn. The primary
purpose of Study 2 was to extend Study 1 by using an
experimental design to investigate whether need to
belong exerts a causal effect on homesickness.
The study also provided an opportunity to replicate
elements of Study 1. As well as manipulating need to
belong in people who had recently relocated, we meas-
ured the number of close friendships in the new location
and included this as a predictor of homesickness. This
furnished a second test of Hypothesis 2. We also tested
whether the relationship found in Study 1 between
acceptance in the new location and homesickness was
replicated in Study 2 and whether people who feel
accepted in the new location will make less effort to sus-
tain relationships in the old location (Hypothesis 3).
Experimental Design
New intake students at the University of New England
(UNE) participated in this experiment. The university is
located in Armidale, New South Wales (Australia).
Armidale is in a rural location, and most students must
leave home to attend the university. Consistent with
Stroebe et al. (2002), this study was conducted 6 weeks
into the semester, at a time when students would be past
the initial novelty of being at university and most prone
to homesickness. A simple experimental design was used
in which participants were randomly allocated to an
experimental group where need to belong was primed or
to a control group where need to belong was not primed.
The need to belong manipulation consisted of completing
a “publication survey” in which students evaluated a
number of potential publications. In the experimental
condition, some titles evoked the need to belong and in
the control condition they did not (a pilot study tested
the efficacy of the manipulation). Participants completed
the homesickness measure and other scales immediately
after the need to belong manipulation.
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   523
Method
Participants
In this research, 144 (50 male and 94 female) first-year
students at UNE participated. There were 71 participants
in the control condition and 73 in the experimental condi-
tion. Participants were aged between 18 and 28 years
(M = 18.60, SD = 1.28). The majority were single (97.2%)
and originated from Australia or New Zealand (93.1%).
English was the first language of 93.8% of participants,
and religious affiliation included Protestant (37.5%),
Catholic/Orthodox (19.4%), Muslim/Hindu (2.1%),
Buddhist/other (1.4%), and no affiliation (39.6%).
Measures
Demographics. Participants provided demographic
information, including gender, age, marital status, coun-
try of birth, religion, and whether or not English is their
first language.
Need to belong manipulation. Need to belong was
manipulated by completing a publication survey that pre-
sented titles and descriptions of nine potential publica-
tions. Participants were asked to indicate whether or not
they would be interested in reading each article and how
valuable they thought it would be. These measures were
intended to ensure participants would read the informa-
tion and to provide face validity for the task. The control
condition presented descriptions of articles on neutral
topics that would not evoke feelings of homesickness or
lack of belonging. For example:
“Comparison of Composition”—This article discusses the
various eras of art history and offers a unique compari-
son of traditional and contemporary techniques.
“The ‘Natural’”—This article raises the nature/nurture
debate in relation to musicians and people with unique
talents—are they “naturals,” or is their ability the direct
result of learning and practice?
Participants in the experimental condition completed
the same publication survey as in the control condition,
but five titles and their accompanying descriptions were
replaced with items designed to provoke the need to
belong. These were drawn from items on the Need to
Belong Scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, as
cited in Leary et al., 2001). For example:
“I Need to Belong”—This article talks about belongingness—a
human motivational tendency to form certain relation-
ships or belong to various groups. It discusses positive
aspects, such as comfort and support, as well as the
negatives associated with a lack of belongingness, such as
anxiety and loneliness.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
“Person Alone”—This article discusses loneliness and pos-
sible coping mechanisms for loneliness.
A full list of the items in the publication survey is
presented in the appendix. A pilot study evaluated the
efficacy of the publication survey in priming need to
belong. A sample of 70 community members aged
between 18 and 61 years of age (M = 36.2, SD = 10.2)
completed either the control version or the experimental
version of the publication survey and then completed
the Need to Belong Scale. The t test results showed that
respondents in the control group scored significantly
lower on the Need to Belong Scale than respondents
in the experimental group, t(68) = –2.13, p = .037,
MControl = 2.87, SD = .55, MExperimental = 3.16, SD = .58,
indicating that the manipulation influenced need to
belong. Further analyses showed that age, gender, mari-
tal status, country of birth, and whether English is spo-
ken as a first language did not contribute significantly
to the scores on the Need to Belong Scale.
Homesickness. Homesickness was measured with the
Utrecht Homesickness Scale. Reliability analysis revealed
good interitem reliability for this sample (α = .92).
Contact with home. The same questions were used as
in Study 1. Once again, analysis focused on number of
phone calls home.
Social network in the new location. Participants were
asked how many close friends they have in Armidale.
They were also asked how many acquaintances, whether
members of their immediate family live in Armidale,
and whether they have a boyfriend or girlfriend in
Australia.
Social activity. Social activity was assessed by asking
the number of times during the past 4 weeks partici-
pants had gone out socially.
Acceptance at UNE. The measure from Study 1 was
adapted for this study. Participants rated “I feel accepted
by people at UNE” on a 5-point scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Procedure
A total of 600 questionnaires inviting participation
in a study of “the adjustment of first-year students to
university life” were distributed to first-year students
living in residential colleges and studying at UNE (New
South Wales, Australia) 6 weeks into their first semester
of study. The invitation to participate in the research
contained a packet of all study materials. Participants
524   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
were distributed the control condition questionnaire or
the experimental questionnaire at random, and response
rates were almost identical across the two conditions. A
response rate of 24% was obtained. This is a typical
response rate among student samples in Australia and
did not arouse our concern.
Results and Discussion
Homesickness
Homesickness in the control condition showed an
average elevation of 2.12 (SD = .77), which most closely
corresponds with “weak” on the 5-point scale. This is a
little lower than the average elevation of 2.43 (SD = .92)
among international students that we obtained in Study
1. It is comparable with the results obtained by Stroebe
et al. (2002) of 2.26 (SD = .73) for their U.K. sample and
1.93 (SD = .71) for their Dutch sample. Homesickness
was significantly higher in the experimental condition,
t(142) = –4.62, p < .001, with an average elevation of
2.72 (SD = .78), which most closely corresponds with
“moderate” on the 5-point scale. The means and stand-
ard deviations of the predictor variables and the correla-
tions among them are shown in Table 3.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted to examine the predictors of homesickness. The
predictors entered into Step 1 of the regression model were
gender (coded as 1 = male, 2 = female), acceptance in the
new location, social activity, and number of friends in the
new location. Step 2 then entered the need to belong
manipulation (coded as 0 = control condition and 1 =
experimental condition). Step 3 entered the interactions of
social acceptance and number of close friends in the new
location with the need to belong manipulation. Social activ-
ity and number of friends were submitted to log 10 trans-
formation prior to analysis to correct positive skew, and the
data were screened for multivariate outliers at p < .001.
Homesickness scores were normally distributed, and unlike
Study 1 did not require transformation. Before including
acceptance in the regression model, we checked whether
the experimental manipulation had any effect on this vari-
able. No significant effect was found, so we proceeded with
including acceptance as a predictor in the regression
model.
The regression model was statistically significant at
Step 1 (R2 = .17, p < .001). However, it was significantly
improved by the addition of the need to belong manipu-
lation at Step 2 (R2 change = .09, p < .001). Thus, con-
sistent with Hypothesis 1 there was a significant effect
of need to belong on homesickness. Including the mod-
eration terms at Step 3 did not significantly improve the
model (R2 change = .001, p = .94). The other significant
predictors of homesickness were feelings of acceptance
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
at UNE (explaining 8.4% of variance), such that those
who felt more accepted also felt less homesick, and gen-
der (explaining 2.6% of variance) in a positive direc-
tion, indicating that females felt more homesick. Neither
social activity nor number of friends in the new location
predicted homesickness. The interaction of priming
need to belong and acceptance also did not have a sig-
nificant effect on homesickness, nor did the interaction
of priming need to belong and number of close friends
in the new location. Results of the regression analysis at
Step 3 are shown in Table 4.
The regression analysis was repeated for each home-
sickness subscale (adjustment difficulties and rumina-
tions were first submitted to log 10 transformation to
correct positive skew). Priming need to belong increased
homesickness on each subscale. Feeling accepted in the
new location was also associated with decreased home-
sickness on each subscale except missing family. Gender
predicted scores on just two subscales—loneliness and
missing friends. The effect in both cases was in a posi-
tive direction, indicating that females were more lonely
and missed friends more than males.
These results support Hypothesis 1, that need to
belong has a causal effect on homesickness, and are
consistent with those of Study 1, especially in the finding
that feeling accepted in the new location predicted less
homesickness on all homesickness subscales except for
missing family (supports Hypothesis 3). Once again,
there was no evidence to support Hypothesis 2, that
making new social contacts will reduce homesickness.
That is, homesickness was not predicted by number of
friends in the new location.
Contact Initiated With Home
The variables relating to contact home were substan-
tially skewed. Most participants had initiated a moderate
amount of contact with home in the previous 4 weeks,
with a median of 6.5 phone calls made, 12 mobile phone
text messages sent, and 4 e-mail messages sent. However,
some showed extremely high frequency of contact, with
a maximum of 100 phone calls made, 500 mobile phone
text messages sent, and 200 e-mails sent. As in Study 1,
there was also a significant portion of participants who
did not make any phone calls (5.6%), send any mobile
phone text messages (16.7%), or send any e-mails
(22.2%). We again used number of phone calls as the
dependent variable in the analysis as more people would
have access to this technology; this provided results that
are directly comparable with Study 1.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was con-
ducted on participants in the control group only to
examine predictors of phone calls home. The predictors
entered on Step 1 of the regression model were gender,
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   525

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

Correlations

Median M SD 1 2 3 4 5

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

Acceptance at University of New England (2) 4.00 4.15 0.78 –.05 1
Social activity (3)  8.00 9.60 7.08 –.06 .15*** 1
Number of friends in new location (4) 4.00 4.60 4.00 .10 .15 .28*** 1
Homesickness (5) 2.40 2.42 0.83 .19* –.37*** –.14 –.05 1
Phone calls made (6) 6.50 12.80 18.20 .25** –.07 .13 .18* .42***

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

acceptance in the new location, social activity, and
number of friends in the new location. Step 2 then
entered homesickness and the interaction of homesick-
ness and acceptance. Phone calls home was first submit-
ted to log 10 transformation to correct positive skew. As
in Study 1, homesickness was entered on a second step
in case it masked any other effects. This was not the
case, so only the results at Step 2 of the analysis are
reported.
The regression model explained 35.9% of the vari-
ance in phone calls home. The significant predictors
were social activity and homesickness (see Table 4).
Homesickness was the strongest predictor, explaining
16.4% of the variance. The more homesick, the more
phone calls home. Social activity was the only other
significant predictor of phone calls home, explaining
5.8% of the variance in a positive direction. Gender,
acceptance at UNE, and number of friends in the new
location did not predict phone calls home, and none of
the interaction terms showed a significant effect.
As a final check, we repeated the test conducted in
Study 1 to examine the relationship between phone
calls made and received as predictors of homesickness.
The results were almost identical to those of Study 1.
Phone calls made significantly predicted homesickness
(sr = .20, p = .003), but phone calls received did not
(sr = .05, p = .41). This result again suggests the act of
speaking on the phone does not relate to increased or
decreased homesickness.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to investigate
whether homesickness arises in belongingness needs.
The results indicate a causal role of need to belong in
homesickness. Study 1 found that need to belong cor-
related with homesickness, and Study 2 found that
priming need to belong influenced feelings of homesick-
ness. These results were obtained in quite different sam-
ples. The first included participants of many different
ages, from 42 different countries, who had been in
TABLE 4:  Predictors of Homesickness and Phone Calls Home in
Study 2
Homesickness Phone Calls
at Step 3 Home at
of the Step 2 of
Analysisa the Analysisb
β sr β sr
Priming need .31*** .31*** — —
to belong
Gender .17* .16* .15 .14
Acceptance at –.31*** –.29*** .05 .04
   University
   of New England
Social activity –.09 –.09 .25* .24*
Number of friends in .04 .04 .18 .17
   new location
Priming Need to –.02 –.02 — —
   Belong × Acceptance
Priming Need to .02 .01 — —
   Belong × Friends
Homesickness — — .44*** .41***
Homesickness × — — .20 .17
   Acceptance at UNE
a. R = .52, R2 = .27, adjusted R2 = .23, F(7, 135) = 6.99, p < .001.
b. R = .60, R2 = .36, adjusted R2 = .30, F(6, 63) = 5.87, p < .001.
*p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .001.
Australia for varying lengths of time, and were confront-
ing cultural differences of more or less extremity. The
second sample was comparatively homogenous.
Participants were young Australians 6 weeks into their
university experience. They were not confronting issues
of adjustment to a new culture or discrimination within
the new community, and yet the same effects of need to
belong were present. The combination of correlational
and experimental results across these two samples adds
to our confidence that need to belong has a causal role in
homesickness.
This finding offers a valuable new perspective on
homesickness. Previous theoretical work has described
homesickness in frameworks of grief and loss and
attachment. These both relate to belongingness needs;
grief arises in the loss of important social connections,

Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016

526   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
and attachment concerns security in one’s bonds with
other people. The belongingness hypothesis can there-
fore be seen as a metatheory that encompasses these
more specific effects of need to belong.
Need to belong predicted all subscales of the Utrecht
Homesickness Scale, both loss-oriented (missing family,
missing friends, loneliness, ruminations about home)
and restoration-oriented (adjustment difficulties). In
other words, it related to homesickness arising in sepa-
ration from the old location as well as homesickness
arising in entry into the new location. This is consistent
with previous findings (Archer et al., 1998; Fisher,
1989; Stroebe et al., 2002) and is also consistent with
predictions of the belongingness hypothesis; people are
expected to react with distress and protest at separa-
tion from existing bonds and also to feel distressed if
belongingness needs are not fulfilled in the new loca-
tion or show little potential to be fulfilled.
Although need to belong predicted homesickness, there
was little evidence to support the substitution hypothesis.
The belongingness hypothesis proposes that individuals
need a certain amount of relatedness and that social rela-
tionships should to some extent be interchangeable
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If this is the case, people
who have formed close relationships in the new location
should be less prone to distress (homesickness) on reloca-
tion as their belongingness needs are being met.
In Study 1, length of residence in Australia and
number of close friends in Australia did not predict
how homesick participants felt. The same effect was
found in Study 2; number of close friends in the new
location did not predict homesickness. One would
intuitively expect length of residence and number of
close friends to predict reduced homesickness, but the
data from previous studies are mixed. For example,
the longer one stays in a new location, the more
opportunity to establish meaningful new relationships.
However, effects of length of stay have been very small
or nonsignificant in other studies. Stroebe et al. (2002)
reported slight but significant effects of duration of
stay among new intake students (Dutch sample path
coefficient = –.10; U.K. sample path coefficient =
–.13), and Hojat and Hermann (1985) reported small
but significant correlations between length of stay and
a single-item measure of homesickness in Iranian and
Filipino physicians in the United States, but unfortu-
nately did not provide details of these results. In a
more recent study, Tartakovsky (2007) reported in
adolescents who migrated to Israel without their par-
ents a very slight decline in homesickness after 2½
years (homesickness declined from average of 2.18 on
a 5-point scale 6 months after immigration to 2.08 2½
years after immigration). However, all these effects are
small and were not present in our data.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Making friends also did not predict homesickness.
Previous research has shown that people expect that
making new friends will predict positive adjustment
and reduce homesickness. Ryan and Twibell (2000)
reported that a primary concern in international stu-
dents is fitting in socially, and Archer et al. (1998) and
Kane (as cited in Archer et al., 1998) found that dis-
satisfaction with both friends and social life at univer-
sity predicted homesickness. Paul and Brier’s (2001)
study of “friendsickness” found that many students
included only precollege friends in their social net-
work at college, and Van Tilburg et al. (1999) con-
cluded from open-ended responses that the majority
of students attributed recovery from homesickness to
making friends in the new location. However, this
expectation (that making friends is important to home-
sickness) may not be correct. Van Tilburg et al. (1997a)
found the majority (52%) of homesickness sufferers
who were surveyed while experiencing homesickness
(in contrast with retrospective studies) did not attribute
their homesickness to insufficient friends in the new
location. The majority attributed it to missing persons
(82.7%), missing the environment (81.4%), and miss-
ing the atmosphere of the old environment (87.7%).
A possible explanation lies in the finding that home-
sick people are less socially skilled than nonhomesick
people. Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. (1994) found that
homesick military conscripts were more likely than con-
trols to seek social support as a coping strategy. However,
these people were also less socially skilled and were
therefore unable to obtain the support they desired.
Consistent with this, Van Tilburg et al. (1999) found
that seeking social support does not predict adjust-
ment and suggested that this may be due to poorer
social skills in homesick people. In this case, our data
indicate that even though homesick people report
similar numbers of friends to less homesick people,
they may be less able to obtain social activity and
support from those friends. This could lead to the dis-
satisfaction with friends and social life that predicted
continued homesickness in the studies by Archer et al.
(1998) and Kane (as cited in Archer et al., 1998). The
relation between social activity and homesickness in
Study 1 may also reflect the operation of social skill
as an underlying variable. Individuals with more
social skill may be more likely to be included in social
outings and also less likely to feel homesick because of
the dynamic previously described. However, an alter-
native explanation is that social activity may generate
positive affect, which counteracts feelings of home-
sickness. Future research could further address the
relation between social skills and homesickness and
could also benefit from investigating the effects of
social activity in reducing homesickness.
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   527
Feeling accepted in the new location was an important
predictor of homesickness in both our studies. This finding
has a number of implications that we explore in the fol-
lowing. Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested that
opportunities to develop new friendships on relocation
will be an important variable, and we extended this to sug-
gest that people may monitor a new environment for the
potential to make new friends. In line with this, our results
showed that people who feel less accepted by those in the
new community feel more homesick. This was found for
all subscales of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale in Study 1
and all but missing family in Study 2. Thus, like need to
belong, acceptance is related to distress at leaving the old
location and at entering the new location.
The relation between acceptance and homesickness
connects homesickness with community attitudes. This
is important because a great deal of research has
addressed community attitudes toward immigration,
but little research has investigated the impact of these
attitudes on immigrants. One exception is a longitudi-
nal study conducted by Tartakovsky (2007), which
found that perceived discrimination in the host country
was the strongest single predictor of acculturative stress
and homesickness.
Newcomers in communities that are rejecting of immi-
gration, either domestic or international, can be expected
to perceive poor community acceptance. Our results
show that this is independent of having a network of
close and supportive friends as well as entry reference
group size—even newcomers who associate only with a
few welcoming friends are more likely to feel homesick
and unhappy if they live in a rejecting community. These
results therefore add to the evidence that immigration
attitudes have very real effects on immigrants.
Of interest, social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,
1986) emphasizes the importance of acceptance by the
ingroup, but our data suggest that it is acceptance by
the community at large (“I feel accepted by Australians”
or “I feel accepted by people at UNE”) that predicts
homesickness; developing an ingroup (as indicated by
number of friends) did not predict homesickness in our
studies. Future research on this topic would benefit
from examining how acceptance is judged. A related
literature has found many biases in the perception of
discrimination. For example, people commonly believe
that discrimination affects members of their group but
not themselves (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995). We expect
that judging community acceptance will be an equally
biased process (Carvallo & Pelham, 2007).
Contact With Home
Baumeister and Leary (1995) suggested that efforts to
sustain friendships across long distances should be inversely
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
proportional to opportunities to develop new friendships.
From this, we developed the hypothesis that those who feel
less accepted in the new location will make more calls
home because the new location offers less friendship
potential. The two studies provided very similar results.
That is, neither study found a relationship between per-
ceived acceptance and phone calls home, but both found
positive relations between social activity and phone calls
home and between homesickness and phone calls home.
This correlation does not tell us about causal direction, but
there is a further hint in the data. If the causal direction is
one where the act of speaking on the phone increases
homesickness, we would expect phone calls made and
phone calls received both to relate to homesickness.
However, both studies found no relation between phone
calls received and homesickness. This suggests that phone
calls do not perpetuate homesickness but are simply made
in response to feeling homesick. However, given that talk-
ing on the phone does not relate to reduced homesickness,
it is unlikely that making calls home is effective in relieving
homesickness. They may simply act as a comfort when
homesickness is strong.
People who were more socially active also tended to
make more phone calls home. This was originally
included as a control variable because we thought
engaging in pleasurable activities might generate posi-
tive affect that would counteract homesickness. However,
this cannot explain the relation between social activity
and phone calls home; the result may simply reflect the
operation of an underlying variable related to sociability
or social support seeking.
Implications for the
Belongingness Hypothesis
Need to belong was used in this research to generate
a theoretical framework to offer a new perspective on
homesickness. We have shown that homesickness
partly arises in this fundamental motivation. However,
these results also add to our understanding of the need
to belong. Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed that
people experience distress when their belongingness
needs are threatened. The current research adds to the
evidence for this basic component of belongingness
theory by showing that need to belong predicts the
distress (homesickness) experienced on relocation. Our
tests of the substitution hypothesis further explored the
belongingness hypothesis, which proposes that the
motivation to satiate the need to belong should be
reduced when there are sufficient social bonds. As
discussed previously, both studies failed to provide
support for this.
One possibility that we have already considered is
homesick people may have less social skill and are
528   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
therefore less able to elicit from new friends the close-
ness and support that they desire. We discuss here
another possibility. Baumeister and Leary (1995)
acknowledged that perhaps some kinds of relationships
cannot effectively be replaced with other kinds of rela-
tionships, and perhaps people need at least one particu-
larly strong close attachment. Their particular example
was romantic relationships. However, Stroebe et al.
(2002) found that the factor explaining by far the
most variance (62%) in the Utrecht Homesickness
Scale was Missing Family. Family bonds are particu-
larly important relationships. They often are geneti-
cally linked, are very long lasting, involve a deep
commitment to the others’ well-being, and are not
easily replaced. It is possible that the relation between
homesickness and need to belong in both our studies
arose mainly in separation from family and that mak-
ing new friends could not replace those special bonds.
We note that friends in the new location also did not
predict less homesickness on the Missing Friends sub-
scale of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale. Like family
relations, perhaps long-established close friendships
cannot easily be replaced. Future research should
address which bonds are most necessary to fulfill the
need to belong and which can be substituted for one
another. This might vary with age. The sample of
international students in Study 1 was less homogenous
than the sample in Study 2, but both samples were of
relatively young people for whom separation from
family may have been particularly painful.
Summary and Directions for
Future Research
This research provides evidence that homesickness
arises partly in the need to belong. Belongingness needs
influenced the distress participants experienced on sepa-
rating from the old location and on entering the new
location, and this distress was greater when participants
perceived less acceptance in the new location. The rela-
tionship between feeling accepted in the new location
and homesickness forms an important bridge between
research into immigration attitudes and migrant adjust-
ment. We are currently planning studies to explore
whether acceptance has a causal role in homesickness
and adjustment. Future research should also examine
how acceptance is perceived and whose acceptance is
most important
As well as showing an effect of need to belong on
homesickness, this research provided information perti-
nent to belongingness theory. The results did not sup-
port the substitution hypothesis. Homesickness was not
reduced when participants had more friends in the new
location or when they had been there for longer.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
However, these findings are preliminary. The questions
regarding number of friends, for example, did not ask
how close the friends were and how they compared
with friends in the old location. Future research should
focus on which social connections are important in
homesickness. This would allow counselors to advise
migrants and sojourners where they could focus their
efforts to relieve homesickness. Our results do suggest
that homesickness should be reduced when the need to
belong is satisfied in the new location. However, satisfy-
ing the need to belong may rely more on making one or
two very close connections rather than making a large
number of new friends.
In summary, this research provides testimony to
belongingness needs. Homesickness arises partly in the
need to belong and further relates to perceived accept-
ance in the new location, indicating that happiness in a
new location is partly determined by the potential to fit
in socially. The research implies that experiencing dis-
tress on leaving places where we already have a strong
sense of belongingness is normal and the sense of loss
does not dissipate easily. It is simply a product of our
construction as social beings.
APPENDIX
ITEMS IN THE “PUBLICATION SURVEY”
CONTROL CONDITION
“Comparison of Composition”—This article discusses
the various eras of art history and offers a unique
comparison of traditional and contemporary tech-
niques.
“Photography for Beginners”—This article discusses the
relationship between color and emotion.
“The ‘Natural’”—This article raises the nature/nurture
debate in relation to musicians and people with unique
talents–are they “naturals,” or is their ability the direct
result of learning and practice?
“Vitamins”—This article provides information on a wide
range of vitamins and discusses the comparative value
of multivitamins.
“Experimental Music”—This article discusses an aspect of
contemporary music in which everyday sounds and
noises are used in the creation of unique composition.
“Glasses or Contact Lenses?”—This article offers a com-
parison between glasses and contact lenses, including
the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also offers
advice for choosing which is right for you.
“Study Techniques”—This article provides a comparison
of popular study techniques and helps you determine
which method is right for you.
“What to Wear”—This article offers advice for choosing
clothing to complement your body type—including sug-
gestions for color, pattern, and design.
(continued)
 Watt, Badger / SOCIAL BELONGING AND HOMESICKNESS   529
APPENDIX (continued)
“Preschooling”—This article discusses the ramifications of
early learning on achievement in later life.
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION
“Where to Turn?”—This article highlights the importance of
having someone to turn to, for support or advice.
“Photography for Beginners”—This article discusses the
relationship between color and emotion.
“I Need to Belong”—This article talks about belongingness—a
human motivational tendency to form certain relation-
ships or belong to various groups. It discusses positive
aspects, such as comfort and support, as well as the negatives
associated with a lack of belongingness, such as anxiety
and loneliness.
“Vitamins”—This article provides information on a wide
range of vitamins and discusses the comparative value
of multivitamins.
“Person Alone”—This article discusses loneliness and pos-
sible coping mechanisms for loneliness.
“Glasses or Contact Lenses?”—This article offers a com-
parison between glasses and contact lenses, including
the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also offers
advice for choosing which is right for you.
“The Importance of Acceptance”—This article talks about
the psychological ramifications of feeling accepted by
others.
“What to Wear”—This article offers advice for choosing
clothing to complement your body type—including sug-
gestions for color, pattern, and design.
“Moving on”—This article discusses the impact on peo-
ple’s lives of friends moving away. It offers advice for
coping with associated difficulties.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Archer, J., Ireland, J., Amos, S.-L., Broad, H., & Currid, L. (1998).
Derivation of a homesickness scale. British Journal of Psychology,
89, 205-221.
Baier, M., & Welch, M. (1992). An analysis of the concept of home-
sickness. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6, 54-60.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3,
27-52.
Bowlby. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation anxiety and
anger. New York: Basic Books.
Burt, C. D. B. (1993). Concentration and academic ability following
transition to university: An investigation of the effects of home-
sickness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 333-342.
Carvallo, M., & Pelham, B., W. (2007). When fiends become friends:
The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group dis-
crimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
94-98.
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
De Cremer, D., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Cooperation in social
dilemmas and the need to belong: The moderating effect of group
size. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7, 168-174.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does
rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302,
290-292.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York:
Norton.
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Vingerhoets, A., & Fontijn, T. (1994).
Personality and behavioral antecedents of homesickness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 229-235.
Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition, and health. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to univer-
sity: A longitudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-
mindedness and vulnerability to homesickness. British Journal of
Psychology, 78, 425-441.
Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1988). Vulnerability factors in the transition to
university: Self-reported mobility history and sex differences as fac-
tors in psychological disturbance. British Journal of Psychology,
79, 309-320.
Freud, S. (1946). Civilisation and its discontents (J. Riviere, Trans.).
London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1930)
Hojat, M., & Herman, M. W. (1985). Adjustment and psychosocial
problems of Iranian and Filipino physicians in the U.S. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 41, 130-136.
Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding
the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898-909.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion
hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223.
Maslow, A. (1968). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper
& Row.
Millard, B. (2004). “Homesick.” Lyrics. Perf. MercyMe. Undone.
Inotof, 2004
Nesdale, D., & Mak, A. S. (2000). Immigrant acculturation attitudes
and host country identification. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 10, 483-495.
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition to col-
lege: Precollege predictors and college adjustment correlates.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 77-89.
Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2004). Getting a
cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095-1107.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimina-
tion: How disadvantaged group members perceive the discrimina-
tion that confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 826-838.
Ryan, M. E., & Twibell, R. S. (2000). Concerns, values, stress, cop-
ing, health and educational outcomes of college students who
studied abroad. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
24, 409-435.
Stroebe, M., & Schut, M. (1987). The dual process model of coping
with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23,
197-224.
Stroebe, M., van Vliet, T., Hewstone, M., & Willis, H. (2002).
Homesickness among students in two cultures: Antecedents and
consequences. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 147-168.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-
group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.
Tartakovsky, E. (2007). A longitudinal study of acculturative stress
and homesickness: High-school adolescents immigrating from
Russia and Ukraine to Israel without parents. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 42, 485-494.
Thurber, C. A. (1999). The phenomenology of homesickness in boys.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychiatry, 27, 125-139.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L. (2005). The psychological context of homesick-
ness. In M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of geographical moves: Homesickness and
530   PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
acculturation stress (2nd ed., pp. 37-49). Tilburg, the Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.
(1997a). Coping with homesickness: The construction of the adult
homesickness coping questionnaire. Personality and Individual
Differences, 22, 901-907.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.
(1997b). Homesickness: A review of the literature. Psychological
Medicine, 26, 899-912.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L.
(1999). Determinants of homesickness chronicity: Coping
Downloaded from psp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,
531-539.
Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2005). The homesickness concept: Questions
and doubts. In M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. Vingerhoets (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of geographical moves: Homesickness and
acculturation stress (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Tilburg, the Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Received October 8, 2007
Revision accepted October 28, 2008