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

net/publication/288139501

Investigating sense of community in primary schools

Article in Educational and Child Psychology · March 2013

DOI: 10.53841/bpsecp.2013.30.1.9

CITATIONS READS

12 2,203

4 authors, including:

Phil Stringer Ehab W. Hermena

University College London Zayed University
17 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 196 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Phil Stringer on 05 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Investigating sense of community in
primary schools
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena

The desire to be a part of a wider social network is a basic human need and research has found that
possessing a strong ‘sense of community’ is associated with a range of positive outcomes, both in terms of
physical and mental health. In adults and adolescents alike, it has been argued that four factors contribute
to an individual’s sense of community, namely; membership, influence, shared emotional connection, and
reinforcement of need (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Given that pupils’ sense of community in primary
school has been relatively neglected by the literature, a new measure of the construct was developed for this
age group. The impact of pupils’ gender and year group on sense of community was also explored. A focus
group with Year 5 and 6 pupils was used to develop the Sense of Community Index-Primary (SCI-P) and
following piloting, 452 Year 5 and Year 6 pupils completed the measure in school. Exploratory factor analysis
revealed a two-factor model of sense of community, which represents a departure from McMillan and
Chavis’s (1986) framework. A significant main effect of gender was found, while a year group hypothesis
was only partially supported. Practical applications and limitations of this research are also discussed.
Keywords: Psychological sense of community; school; sense of community index; school belonging; children;
citizenship; community cohesion; inclusive schools.

T
HE NEED FOR social connection is
thought to be a fundamental human
drive (Bastian & Haslam, 2010). Indeed,
effective social integration has been found to
support individuals’ mental health (Seeman,
1996) and the positive association between
social support and physical health is well
documented (Uchino, 2006). It seems plau-
sible to suggest then, that community level
factors can exert considerable influence on
the individual (Jensen, 2007).
A review of community psychology is
beyond the scope of this article. Some of the
challenges and possibilities for educational
psychologists (EPs) can be found, for
example, in MacKay (2006), Jones (2006),
Stringer, Powell and Burton (2006), King
and Wilson (2006), and Davis and Cahill
(2006). However, it remains the case that,
‘…the early ideals of the EP working at the
heart communities are at present remote…’
(MacKay, 2006, p.14). Among the reasons
for this MacKay (2006) continued by
pointing to the overwhelming focus ‘on
narrow educational issues’. Again, to join
this discussion is beyond the scope of this
article. What we want to do, though, is to
focus upon a somewhat neglected but prof-
itable area of practice for EPs and this
concerns an interest in the school itself as a
community.
Schools, as social institutions, have an
important role to play in forming and main-
taining constructive geographical and rela-
tional communities. Research in New
Zealand has suggested that schools are
considered to be central community facili-
ties (Witten, McCreanor & Kearns, 2007).
This survey of parental opinion found that
the perceived values, opinions and group
goals were instrumental in guiding new
members’ choice to join a community.
Further, the research findings highlighted
several vital roles that schools played in
supporting the community at large. These
included being a source of community
knowledge, supplying a common meeting
place and offering a point from which to
develop networks of support and friendship.
More widely, it has been contended that
communities should be understood as
settings that can foster interdependence,
mutual commitment, and provide support,
with the notion of helping being the core

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1 9

© The British Psychological Society, 2013
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
element (Barrera, 2000; Herrero & Gracia,
2007). Further support for such findings is
seen in research implying that a stronger
sense of community identity (in terms of
area of inhabitancy, long-term membership,
and interpersonal ties) correlates positively
with the value individuals place upon the
community and their experience within it
(Puddifoot, 1994).
Evidence suggests that possessing a
strong sense of community (SoC) is associ-
ated with a range of positive outcomes in
children. For example, schools that fostered
community spirit reported lower levels of
student delinquency (Payne, Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 2003), drug use (Battisch &
Hom, 1997) and student ‘burn out’ (Royal &
Rossi, 1996). Furthermore, pupils who
reported experiencing a strong sense of
‘school connectedness’ were also less likely
to suffer from anxiety or depression as adults
(Bond et al., 2007). Indeed, a UK Govern-
ment drive to promote community cohesion
in schools (DCSF, 2007) supported the
assumption that developing pupils’ SoC in
school is worthwhile.
Feeling a sense of community has been
identified as an extra-individual phenom-
enon of significant interest to the field of
contemporary psychology (Peterson, Speer
& Hughey, 2006). Herrero and Gracia
(2007) have suggested that developing a
strong sense of community forms a dynamic
resource positively linked to stress manage-
ment and well-being, based upon notions of
members’ integration, active participation,
and organisation of shared resources at a
systemic level. However, much research, such
as that by Witten et al., (2007), has focused
exclusively upon parental perspectives. To
gain a more comprehensive understanding
of the manner in which schools may shape a
sense of community research needs to take
account of the views of the consumers of
education, the pupils themselves.
The clearest reflection of the importance
placed upon pupils’ sense of community
within schools can be seen from the integra-
tion of citizenship into the national
10
curriculum. In a recent report, Keating et al.
(2009) observe that citizenship education is
well embedded within secondary education
curriculum and school processes. Further-
more, the report highlights that greater
emphasis is being placed upon promoting
the acceptance of diversity, with the promo-
tion of community cohesion becoming a
statutory duty for schools in England.
Osterman (2000) questioned whether
pupils experienced school as a community
and explored pupil’s ratings of the impor-
tance of this concept to their education. The
findings suggested that pupils did experi-
ence school as a community that influenced
aspects of behaviour and motivation to
achieve. Osterman (2000) concluded that
staff in schools should be more conscious of
the impact of their own organisational prac-
tices in this area. Further research has
suggested that fostering a sense of commu-
nity has beneficial impacts upon young
people’s engagement in learning and overall
mental health, whereas the failure to do so
may lead to negative outcomes (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995; Frederickson & Baxter, 2009).
Multiple measures have been constructed
to explore attitudes towards aspects of
community such as interpersonal relation-
ships, together with the understanding and
influence of belonging in children as young
as 4-years-old (Social Cognitive Mapping,
Cairns & Cairns, 1994; The Belonging Scale,
Frederickson et al., 2007; The Four Field
Map, Sturgess et al., 2001;). Yet, as Freder-
ickson and Baxter (2009) report, such tools
have independently distinct aims and
although they can be mapped onto theoret-
ical frameworks, these do not form the foun-
dations of the measures. For instance,
Battistich et al.’s (1995) development of ‘The
Sense of School Community Scale (Primary)’
has provided valid a tool to access the views of
8- to 11-year-olds and it is consistent with
McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) definition of
relational community. However, once divided
into its three subscales of ‘classroom support-
iveness’, ‘school supportiveness’, and ‘class-
room autonomy’, the measure only focuses
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools
upon the role of supportive interpersonal
relationships and the opportunity to partici-
pate in decision-making (Frederickson &
Baxter, 2009). As such, it is unclear how fully
these subscales map onto the theoretical
framework outlined by McMillan and Chavis
(1986). At this point it is helpful to turn to a
specific consideration of a ‘psychological
sense of community’.
Psychological Sense of Community (SoC)
It will be apparent that numerous definitions
of sense of community potentially makes
engaging with the literature a fraught expe-
rience, with different constructs being
applied to different populations, under the
same umbrella.
Our interpretation draws from the
original work of Sarason (1974), who
regarded ‘psychological sense of community
as the overarching criterion by which to
judge any community effort…’ (p.4). This
has inspired a rich vein of work that has
considered how individuals experience a
SoC. The notion of SoC has been conceptu-
alised as both a unidimensional (Buckner,
1988) and a multidimensional construct
(Bishop, Chertok & Jason, 1995; McMillan &
Chavis, 1986; Obst, Zinkiewicz & Smith,
2002). The majority of definitions in the
literature however, capture a sense of togeth-
erness or social cohesion (Pretty & Chavis,
1999). For example, Bryk and Driscoll
(1988) defined SoC in terms of shared
values, shared activities, and mutual respect.
From the point of view of this study, we
have taken the widely utilised and robust
conceptualisation of SoC proposed by
McMillan and Chavis (1986), who empha-
sised the role of four components: member-
ship, influence, reinforcement of need, and
a shared emotional connection (Pretty et al.,
2007). McMillan and Chavis (1986) assert
that individuals must think that they belong
to a community in order to experience a
1
Primary schools in England educate children from the age of 5 to the age of 11 years. Entry into Year
R(eception) is for children who are rising 5-years-old during a school year starting in September. Children
leave primary school in July, when they are in Year 6, and are either 11-years-old or will be 11-years-old by the
following September.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
sense of membership and that these feelings
may be strengthened by the presence of a
common symbol system (such as a uniform
or logo). Individuals must also perceive that
they have a degree of influence over the
community and are willing to be influenced
by the community in return. Further, individ-
uals must think that the community meets
their needs in order to have a strong SoC
and experience an emotional bond with
other community members.
McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) theory
does not specify a particular referent, and
indeed researchers have investigated adults’
SoC in their neighbourhood (Obst, Smith &
Zinkiewicz, 2001) and workplace (Chipeur &
Pretty, 1999). In addition, more attention is
now being paid to children’s SoC both in
schools (Pooley et al., 2008; Stringer & Traill,
2009) and the virtual classroom (Rovai,
2002). A recent qualitative study by Pooley et
al., (2008) found that primary school1
children spontaneously defined SoC ‘in
terms of people, places for activities and
interaction, a place for safety, co-operation,
influence and functionality’ (p.87), which
echoes aspects of McMillan and Chavis’s
(1986) conceptualisation.
At this point, it is important to acknowl-
edge that there is some overlap in the litera-
ture between research on pupils’
experiences of their school as a community
and a related construct known as ‘belonging-
ness’. Belongingness refers to ‘a feeling that
one is respected and valued as a member of
one’s school community’ (Rostosky et al.,
2003, p.742), which illustrates the semantic
proximity of the two constructs. This paper,
however, argues that the two terms are not
interchangeable as, according to McMillan
and Chavis’s (1986) framework, belonging
reflects only one facet of community – that
of membership. Furthermore, Pooley et al.
(2008) claim that focusing on individuals’
sense of belonging taps only within-child
11
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
factors, whereas focusing on the construct of
SoC encourages consideration of broader,
systemic issues. They conclude that ‘the body
of research needs to alter its focus from
examining sense of belonging to sense of
community’ (Pooley et al., 2008, p.89)
The majority of the research investigating
SoC has attempted to measure the construct
quantitatively and according to Peterson,
Speer and McMillan (2008), the Sense of
Community Index (SCI; Chavis et al., 1986) is
one of the most widely used instruments in
the literature. In its initial version, the SCI is
a 12-item true/false inventory designed to
tap the four aspects of SoC. One of the key
strengths of this measure lies in its ability to
investigate SoC in a range of geographical
and relational settings (Obst & White, 2004).
Chipeur and Pretty (1999) conducted factor
analysis on the SCI and found some support
for the four-factor model of SoC, although
factor loadings were not consistent across
adolescent and adult data sets.
By contrast, Proescholdbell, Roosa and
Nemeroff (2006) questioned the face validity
of the fulfilment of needs subscale, and
claimed that a number of items in this scale
tapped another construct, that of ‘shared
community values’ (p.11). They found
evidence for a three-factor model of SoC,
collapsing the needs fulfilment and member-
ship dimensions into one factor. It has also
been suggested that the dichotomous
response format of the SCI constrained the
sensitivity of the measure (Long & Perkins,
2003) and subsequent confirmatory factor
analysis of the SCI in its original formulation,
was not found to support a four-factor solution
(Long & Perkins, 2003; Obst & White, 2004).
In an attempt to address such issues, the
response format of the SCI was much modi-
fied, with an increased number of items, to
become a four-point Likert scale, the Sense
of Community Index II (SCI-2, Chavis, Lee &
Acosta, 2008). Although to the best of our
knowledge researchers have not yet
2 Secondary schools in England educate young people from the age of 11 to the age of 16 years, in year groups
from Year 7 to Year 11.
12
explored the factor structure of the SCI-2,
this 24-item measure has been found to
possess good reliability, with an overall coef-
ficient alpha score of .94 and the individual
subscales were found to range in reliability
from .79 to .86 (Chavis, Lee & Acosta, 2008).
Stringer and Traill (2009) adapted the
SCI-2 for use with secondary school pupils2
with a view to exploring variance in SoC
between pupils in different year groups,
including gender differences. As reported by
Stringer and Traill (2009), results showed
that girls tended to have a higher SoC than
boys across the four dimensions in Years 7 to
10, although not all results reached signifi-
cance. By contrast, boys reported signifi-
cantly higher SoC scores on the
reinforcement of need subscale than their
female counterparts.
Stringer and Traill (2009) also reported
that pupils’ SoC differed by age. Data indi-
cated that younger pupils’ scored highest
and suggested a potential pattern of
decreasing SoC from Years 7 to 10, which
plateaued during Year 11. Such findings are
consistent with research by Cicognani et al.
(2006), who found that adolescents’ SoC
scores decreased with age (as cited in
Chiessi, Cicognani & Sonn, 2010). By
contrast, Chiessi et al. (2010) found no
evidence of differences in SoC as a function
of year group. This may be the result of
methodological differences in the sampling
of participants. While Stringer and Traill
(2009) sampled pupils undergoing transi-
tion from Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4, Chiessi
et al. (2010) did not investigate pupils’ SoC
undergoing major educational transitions.
The present study: Aims
The starting point for the present study was
a question about the suitability of using
Stringer and Traill’s (2009) modified SCI-2
with primary school pupils. This is a relevant
question, not least since this an area that has
thus far received little attention (Freder-
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools
ickson et al., 2007), and the applicability of
using adult SoC measures with younger
populations has been questioned (Albanesi,
Cicognai & Zani, 2007). More specifically,
the questions that this study set out to
address were:
● Do primary school pupils experience a
sense of community, as defined by
McMillan and Chavis (1986)?
● Can a revised version of the SCI-2
(Stringer & Traill, 2009) be adapted in
order to measure this?
● Is a pupil’s sense of community related to
the importance that they place on each
of the four components of sense of
community identified by McMillan and
Chavis (1986)?
● How does age and gender relate to
pupil’s sense of community?
Accordingly (based upon the research
evidence presented above), the present
study hypothesised that primary-aged pupils
do experience their schools as communities;
that the SCI-2 could be adapted into an age-
appropriate instrument while retaining its
theoretically based structure, construct
validity and reliability; and that there will be
differences in how children experience
sense of community according to age and
gender.
Participants
Following an invitation to the headteachers
of nine schools to participate in the study,
the headteachers of five primary schools in
Hampshire agreed to participate. Opt-out
consent forms were sent to the parents of all
pupils (N=561) in Years 5 and 6 in the
primary schools. For the initial development
phase, six Year 5 and Year 6 pupils of varying
academic ability participated in a focus
group, which had an even gender and year
group split. These pupils all attended the
same school, the school with the highest
number of participants (30.8 per cent),
which became the lead school for this work.
The resulting Sense of Community Index-
Primary (SCI-P) was then piloted on 58
pupils in the lead school (48 per cent were
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
boys, 50 per cent were girls). No data was
available to calculate pupils’ ages, although
all pupils were in Years 5 (N=32) and 6
(N=26). In the final testing phase involving
all five schools, 452 participants completed
the SCI-P measure, giving an 80.6 per cent
response rate. Participants’ ages ranged
from 9.6 years to 11.9 years (M=10.9 years,
SD=0.60 years). Of those pupils who indi-
cated their gender, 51 per cent were boys
and 49 per cent were girls.
Measure
Sense of Community Index-Primary (SCI-P)
This measure is based on Stringer and
Traill’s (2009) SoC Index for secondary
school pupils. Following the focus group
noted above, the language of the majority of
the items on Stringer and Traill’s (2009)
measure was changed in order to make it
more accessible for a younger age group (see
Appendix A). Items were clustered into five
sections to make the length of the measure
less intimidating to primary school pupils.
The researchers decided to add four items in
order to rate the importance of each partic-
ular subscale. This follows the SCI-2’s
existing introductory item that asks partici-
pants to rate the importance of feeling a
sense of community. Dependent upon the
schools’ IT facilities, the revised question-
naire was delivered either in paper format or
electronically, via a university programme
called i-survey.
Procedure
Following ethical approval from the Univer-
sity of Southampton (Study ID=1198) and
written agreement from the headteacher of
the school, opt-out consent letters were sent
to all pupils in Years 5 and 6 in the lead
school. Parents also received an information
sheet detailing the aims of the study in order
to ensure informed consent was given.
The researchers (three of the four
authors of this paper) introduced themselves
to the focus group participants, and the
notion of SoC, through a PowerPoint pres-
entation and pupils’ written assent was
13
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
sought. The researchers then asked for a
volunteer to read each item on Stringer and
Traill’s (2009) measure and invited children
to comment on their understanding of the
questions and the accessibility of the
phrasing. Where appropriate, pupils were
encouraged to suggest alternative phrasing
more suitable for their peers. Children were
thanked, debriefed and given a small reward
for their participation. The session lasted
approximately two hours and was observed
by the deputy headteacher of the school.
The measure was subsequently adapted
and distributed in paper form to a pilot
group of 58 pupils in Years 5 and 6 in the
same school. Pupils’ assent was sought
before researchers read each item aloud.
The researchers encouraged participants to
ask questions if they did not understand and
debriefed pupils when they had finished.
Minor modifications to the scale occurred as
a result of the pilot study. Given that pupils’
responses were normally distributed and
appeared to be meaningful, the SCI-P was
then distributed to the rest of the Years 5 and
6 cohort. The researchers provided each
class with a brief verbal introduction to the
project and sought pupils’ written assent.
Each question was then read aloud to pupils
in order to give a suitable ‘pace’ to the
session. Pupils were debriefed and thanked
following their participation. The session
lasted approximately 30 minutes and was
observed by the pupils’ class teacher.
Email correspondence was then initiated
with the headteachers of eight other schools
who expressed an interest in the study. Four
headteachers agreed to participate in the
research. Each school was given opt-out
consent forms for all pupils in Years 5 and 6.
The researchers visited up to two schools each
and, following a brief introduction to the
project, obtained pupils’ written assent. In the
presence of the class teacher, pupils were
asked to complete the SCI-P, either in a paper
or electronic format according to the prefer-
ence of the school. Following this, pupils were
debriefed and thanked for their participation.
14
Analysis
Participants’ data was anonymised and
entered into the statistical programme,
PASW, for analysis. The frequency distribu-
tion of each variable was assessed visually,
given that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of
normality was found to be unreliable for the
large sample size (Field, 2009).
Correlational analysis was used to explore
the relationship between participants’
responses to the four additional items and
total score, in order to explore the useful-
ness of these items. Once assumptions of
homoscedascity, multicollinearity, linearity,
and independence were met, multiple
regression was then used to assess the predic-
tive value of each of the four additional items
on the total score. The sample size (N=452)
exceeded Field’s (2009) minimum recom-
mendation (10 to 15 cases per predictor) for
multiple regression. The ‘Enter’ method was
chosen over hierarchical regression as there
is no indication in the literature that partici-
pants’ perceptions of the importance of
membership, influence, shared emotional
connection, and reinforcement of need are
ordered.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was
then performed in order to explore the
underlying factor structure of the SCI-P. The
sample size (N=452) was considered large
enough to run an EFA, given that sample
sizes above 300 participants are thought to
produce stable factor solutions (Field, 2009).
All items on the questionnaire were included
in an initial unrotated factor analysis. Given
the theorised connection between aspects of
sense of community, oblique factor rotation
(direct oblimin) was then used to aid inter-
pretation of the extracted factors. To address
issues of multicollinearity and singularity, the
resulting correlation matrix was visually
inspected in order to ensure no items corre-
lated above r=.90. Factor extraction was
guided by the default Kaiser criterion and
visual inspection of the resulting scree plot.
In the final coefficient display table, small
coefficients below .4 were suppressed, to aid
interpretation further (Field, 2009). Relia-
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools

bility analysis was then performed on the
data to establish Cronbach’s alpha for the
measure, and each factor that emerged from
the EFA.
A two-stage multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA) was used to investigate the
main and interaction effects of gender and
year group on participants’ scores on all
factors. These were followed by separate
analysis of variances (ANOVA) to further
explain any significant difference between
groups. The assumption of homogeneity of
covariance matrices was checked through
reference to Box’s test and multivariate
normality was established through checking
the univariate normality of each variable.
Assumptions of independence and random
sampling were also satisfied.
Results
Correlation and regression analysis
The four items added by the researchers that
tapped the perceived importance of
membership, influence, reinforcement of
need, and shared emotional connection,
were all positively and strongly correlated
with participants’ total SoC score (Table 1).
Multicollinearity was not an issue within
the data set, as VIF values were below 10 and
all tolerance values were above 0.2. Regres-
sion plots indicated that the assumption of
homoscedascity and normality were met.
Multiple regression revealed that all four
additional questions significantly predicted
participant total score (F(4,444)=257.44,
p<.001) and the model explained 70 per cent
of the data (R=.84,R2=.70). Participants’
perceptions of the importance of shared
emotional connection explained the most
variance in the data (t=10.86, p<.001), then
membership (t=9.78, p<.001), then rein-
forcement of need (t=9.19, p<.001), and
finally influence (t=8.93, p<.001).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
EFA was found to be an appropriate method
of analysis given that the sample size was
sufficiently large enough to support factor
analysis (KMO statistic=.94) and all the diag-
onal values of the anti-image correlation
matrix surpassed the minimum criterion of
.5 (Field, 2009) . Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
was also significant (χ2 (406)=3938.64,
p<.001), which indicated the presence of
relationships between variables and the
appropriateness of factor analysis as a
method of investigating these.
Following EFA, six factors were found to
have an Eigenvalue above Kaiser’s criterion
of 1, which explained 52.36 per cent of the
variance in the data. The meaningfulness of
four of these factors was limited by the fact
that only one or two items loaded onto
Factors three, four, five and six over a value
of .4 (see Appendix B). Following considera-
tion of the scree plot and coherence of the

Table 1: Pearson correlation coefficients between participant total score and

four new items.
Item Correlation
coefficient
It is important for me to feel that am a member of this school .63*
It is important to me to feel that pupils can help change this school and that his
.63*
school can help pupils change and develop
It is important to for me to share feelings and events with this school and
.62*
its members
It is important to me that this school meets my needs .54*
Note: *=significant at p<.001 level.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1 15

Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
items in each factor, a two-factor solution was
considered to be more appropriate. This
solution explained 35.84 per cent of the vari-
ance in the data.
Factor one was termed by the researchers,
‘Valued Membership’, and reflected the
benefits of being part of the community.
Factor two was termed ‘Social Support’ and
reflected the perceived impact of other
people in the community. The item, ‘It is very
important for me to be a part of this school’,
loaded most highly onto the ‘valued
membership’ factor (.81), and the item, ‘It is
important for me to share feelings and events
with this school and its members’, loaded the
least onto this factor (.40). The item, ‘When
I have a problem I can talk about it with
someone in school’, loaded most highly onto
the ‘social support’ factor (.72) and the item,
‘People in this school have shared important
events together such as holidays, celebrations
or disasters’, (.49) loaded the least onto this
factor. The model provides a good fit to the
data as only 28 per cent of the non-redun-
dant residuals were found to have an absolute
value exceeding .05.
The overall reliability of the SCI-P was
found to be high (Cronbach’s α=.91). The
reliability of the ‘valued membership’
subscale was found to be good (Cronbach’s
α=.90) as was the ‘social support’ subscale
(Cronbach’s α=.74).
Table 2: Valued Membership and Social Support mean score by gender and year group.
Factor Gender
Valued Membership Male
Female
Male
Female
Social Support Male
Female
Male
Female
16
Multivariate analysis of variance
A non-significant Box test (M=15.03, p<.093)
indicated that the assumption of equality of
covariance matrices was not violated in this
study. Multivariate analysis of variance
revealed that there was a significant main
effect for gender (F(2,447)=10.04, p<.001);
a significant main effect for year group
(F(2,447)=.7.24, p=.001) and a non-signifi-
cant interaction between gender and year
group (F(2,447)=.017, p=.98) on pupils’ total
scores for the two subscales, ‘valued
membership’ and ‘social support’. Follow-up
univariate ANOVAs revealed a significant
gender effect, in favour of girls, on ‘valued
membership’ subscale scores (F=19.79,
p<.001) and ‘social support’ (F=4.90,
p=.027). Univariate ANOVAs also indicated a
significant effect of year group, in favour of
older pupils, on ‘social support’ (F=10.79,
p=.001), but not for the ‘valued member-
ship’ component (F=.19, p=.665). Pupils’
mean scores by gender and year group are
provided in Table 2.
Discussion
This study set out to investigate four ques-
tions: do primary school pupils experience a
sense of community, as defined by McMillan
and Chavis (1986); can a revised version of
the SCI-2 (Stringer & Traill, 2009) be
adapted in order to measure this; is a pupil’s
Year Group M SD
Year 5 22.76 7.42
Year 5 25.51 6.44
Year 6 22.93 7.24
Year 6 25.91 6.04
Year 5 11.27 3.06
Year 5 11.89 3.33
Year 6 12.20 2.77
Year 6 12.86 3.05
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools
sense of community related to the impor-
tance that they place on each of the four
sense of community components identified
by McMillan and Chavis (1986); and, how
does age and gender relate to pupil’s sense
of community?
This study hypothesised that primary
aged pupils do experience their schools as
communities and aimed to develop a suitable
measure to enable the exploration of these
feelings and experiences, through adapting
Chavis et al.’s (2008) SCI-2 as an age-appro-
priate instrument while retaining its theoreti-
cally based structure, construct validity and
reliability. In addition, the impact of gender
and age on pupils’ SoC was explored.
So far as the first question is concerned,
the SCI-P was found to be both an accessible
and useable measure of sense of community
for the research sample. The results
obtained showed a good overall rating of
internal consistency with the subscales found
to be reliable, suggesting support for the
hypothesis that primary aged pupils (at least
for the age group studied) do experience a
sense of community.
In terms of adpating the SCI-2, and the
second of the research questions, the two
underlying factors that emerged from
analysis of the measure do not map directly
onto the theoretical conceptualisation of a
pychological sense of community as set out
by McMillan and Chavis (1986). This
strongly echoes findings from previous
attempts to reproduce the conceptual model
through the orignal SCI measure (Long &
Perkins, 2003; Obst & White, 2004). Such
results provide a lack of support for the
study’s related hypothesis, which stated that
the SCI-2 could be suitably adjusted without
disrupting the construct validity and realia-
bility of the measure. That said, although the
factor matricies do not match, some similari-
ties between the conceptual model and the
extracted factors can be seen. As with
McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) model, the
results suggest that both membership and a
form of shared emotional connection play a
strong role in children’s sense of community.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
Two underlying factors emerged from
analysis of the measure: ‘valued member-
ship’ and ‘social support’. It seems that in
order to experience a SoC, primary school
children must perceive the benefits of being
a member of a community and of receiving
support from community members. Given
evidence, which suggests that adults
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986) and adolescents
(Stringer & Traill, 2009) experience SoC in
terms of membership, influence, shared
emotional connection, and reinforcement of
need, the findings of the present study indi-
cate that SoC in primary children may be
somewhat different. While McMillan and
Chavis (1986) emphasised the emotional
connection between people in a community,
primary school children appear to view
others in the community as a source of phys-
ical as well as emotional aid. Indeed, qualita-
tive evidence suggests that children
spontaneously emphasise the importance of
‘people’ in the community (Pooley et al.,
2008), which supports findings from the
present study.
Constructs such as ‘influence’ and ‘rein-
forcement of need’ did not emerge as
discrete factors in this study. Although adults
might view themselves as active agents in a
community, with a right to have their needs
met, it is possible that children of primary
school age do not possess such a view, given
the highly salient power imbalances in
schools between teacher and pupil (Devine,
2002).
The third question that this study investi-
gated was whether or not a pupil’s sense of
community related to the importance that
they place on each of the sense of commu-
nity components identified by McMillan and
Chavis (1986). By adding four questions, the
intention by the researchers was the same as
that behind the initial, ‘validating’ question
(‘How important is it to you to feel a sense
of community with other community
members’) on the original SCI-2. This ques-
tion, as Chavis et al., (2008) note, can be
correlated with total sense of community. In
this study, the additional questions were all
17
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
positively and strongly correlated with parti-
cipants’ total SoC score (Table 1).
The final research questions referred to
gender and age influences. The study found
a significant gender difference in pupils’
SoC, with girls scoring higher than boys on
both subscales. This is consistent with
evidence suggesting that girls typically expe-
rience a stronger SoC than boys (Stringer &
Traill, 2009) and value ‘belongingness’ more
(Brown & Lohr, 1987). Given that boys typi-
cally underachieve in school compared to
their female peers (Salisbury, Rees & Gorad,
1999), it is possible that boys experience less
affinity with some aspects of the education
system than girls. At the same time, based on
the work reported in this study, it would be
unwise to over-generalise. For example,
although both the present study and
Stringer and Traill’s (2009) work were
conducted in the same geographical area,
the individual school populations accessed
have their own particular characteristics and
qualities.
The present study found that older
pupils were more likely to score highly on
the ‘social support’ subscale than younger
pupils. Perhaps this reflects pupils’ attempts
to consolidate friendships before transition
to secondary school, coupled with a nostalgic
view of their primary school experience
prior to transition. Such findings contrast
with results from Stringer and Traill’s (2009)
study, which found a general pattern of
decline in overall SoC, at least in relation to
school, in adolescence. Although Stringer
and Traill did not account for their findings,
it is possible that as adolescents experiment
with different identities (Erikson, 1968) they
become members of myriad socially
constructed communities, thus weakening
their attachment to the school community.
In summary, it seems that primary school
children’s SoC can be reliably measured by
the SCI-P. The factor structure of this index
does not map exactly onto McMillan and
Chavis’s (1986) conceptualisation, as SoC is
described in terms of ‘valued membership’
and effective ‘social support’. Furthermore,
18
SoC appears to be influenced by gender, and
to some extent, year group.
Such conclusions, however, must be
considered in light of methodological limita-
tions inherent in this study. In order to
ensure an adequate sample size for factor
analysis, it was necessary to recruit partici-
pants from more than one school. Although
effort was made to recruit participants from
schools in the same locality in order to
minimise differences in socioeconomic
status, the effect of school size was not
controlled for. Given research that indicates
that pupils in smaller schools are likely to
possess a stronger SoC than pupils in larger
schools (Meier, 1996), this may have
confounded our results. Similarly, this study
assumed that pupils in Years 5 and 6 would
have spent the maximum amount of time in
a given primary school. However, it is
possible that some pupils may have recently
moved to the school in Years 5 or 6 in prepa-
ration for transition to secondary school and
hence had not had sufficient time to culti-
vate a strong attachment to school.
Future studies should seek to control for
such issues as far as possible. In addition, the
factor structure of the SCI-P should be tested
using confirmatory factors analysis in order
to assess the validity of the index developed
in the present study. Research into SoC
would also benefit from more longitudinal
research to explore changes in pupils’ SoC
over time and address any issues of causality.
Despite such limitations, the findings of
this study nonetheless have a number of
practical applications. The development of
an accessible measure for primary school
children would allow schools to identify
those who feel isolated and ensure the effec-
tive targeting of interventions such as a
school ‘buddy’ system. The research high-
lights that the population of boys in the
schools that participated in this work, may be
at risk of feeling detached from their school
community. This may or not be a finding
observed elsewhere, and is a question worthy
of further study. As it stands, at least staff in
the participating schools might need to
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools
consider ways to motivate and engage boys
within the school community.
Furthermore, this research suggests that
EPs could usefully consider SoC as part of
their casework as an additional way to
consider the impact of the wider school
context on individuals. This seems particu-
larly important when working with children
with special educational needs (SEN), as
research suggests that pupils with SEN often
feel ostracised from the wider school
community and hence are denied the bene-
fits associated with possessing a strong SoC
(Myers et al., 1998). Emphasising the impor-
tance of SoC is a potentially critical element
for EPs when discussing inclusive practices
with school staff, in order to ensure that all
pupils benefit from the range of positive
outcomes associated with being part of the
school community. In this respect we echo
Frederickson and Baxter’s (2009, p.1) obser-
vation that the climate in which young
people develop their social skills, under-
standing and sense of community ‘…needs to
be managed actively rather than left to chance’.
References
Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E. & Zani, B. (2007). Civic
involvement, sense of community and social well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 17, 387–406.
Barrera, M. (2000). Social support research in
community psychology. In J. Rappaport & E.
Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology
(pp.215–245). New York: Plenum Press.
Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from
humanity: The dehumanising effects of social
ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46, 107–113.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M. &
Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities,
poverty levels of student populations, and
students’ attitudes, motives, and performance:
A multilevel analysis. American Educational
Research Journal, 32(3), 627–658.
Battistich, V. & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship
between students’ sense of their school as a
community and their involvement in problem
behaviours. American Journal of Public Health, 87,
97–2001.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
Address for correspondence
Dr Ed Sayer
Isle of Wight and Southampton
Psychology Service,
Prevention and Inclusion East,
Children’s Services and Learning,
Southampton City Council,
Glenfield Avenue,
Southampton, SO184ER.
Email:
ed.sayer@southampton.gov.uk
dr.ed.sayer@gmail.com
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to
belong: Desire for interpersonal attachmentsas a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Bishop, P., Chertok, F. & Jason, L. (1997). Measuring
sense of community: Beyond local boundaries.
The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 193–212.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S.,
Bowes, G. & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school
connectedness in early secondary school as
predictors of late teenage substance use, mental
health, and academic outcomes. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 40, 357– 375.
Brown, B. & Lohr, M. (1987). Peer-group affiliation
and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of
ego-identity and symbolic-interaction theories.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
47–55.
Bryk, A. & Driscoll, M. (1988). The high school as
community: Contextual influences andconsequences for
students and teachers. Wisconsin: National Center
on Effective Secondary Schools.
19
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena
Buckner, J. (1988). The development of an
instrument to measure neighbourhood
cohesion. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 16, 771–191.
Cairns, R.B. & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks:
Pathways of youth in our time. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chavis, D., Hogg, J., McMillan, D., Wandersman, A.
(1986). Sense of community through
Brunswick’s lens: A first look. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 24–40.
Chavis, D., Lee, K. & Acosta J. (2008). The Sense of
Community (SCI) Revised: The reliability and validity
of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Community Psychology
Conference, Lisboa, Portugal.
Chiessi, M., Cicognani, E. & Sonn, S. (2010).
Assessing sense of community on adolescents:
validating the brief scale of sense of community
in adolescents (SOC-A). Journal of Community
Psychology, 38, 276–292.
Chipeur, H. & Pretty, G. (1999). A review of the Sense
of Community Index: Current uses, factor
structure, reliability, and further development.
Journal of Community Psychology. 27, 643–658.
Davis, B. & Cahill, S. (2006). Challenging
expectations for every child through innovation,
regeneration and reinvention. Educational &
Child Psychology, 23(1), 80–91.
Department for Children, Schools and Families
(DCSF) (2007). Guidance on the duty to promote
community cohesion. Retrieved from:
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderin
gDownload/DCSF–00598–2007.pdf
Devine, D. (2002). Children’s citizenship and the
structuring of adult–child relations in the
primary school. Childhood, 9, 303–320.
Erikson, E. 91968). Identity, youth and crisis. London:
Faber & Faber Ltd.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS
(3rd ed). London: Sage.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L. & Soulsby,
C. (2007). Assessing social and affective
outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special
Education, 34(2), 105–115.
Frederickson, N. & Baxter, J. (2009). Measures of
children’s mental health and psychological well-being:
A portfolio for education and health professionals –
Belonging. GL Assessment. (ISBN: 978-0-7078-
1913-8).
Herrero, J. & Gracia, E. (2007). Measuring perceived
community support: Factorial structure,
longitudinal invariance, and predictive validity of
the PCSQ (Perceived Community Support
Questionnaire). Journal of Community Psycholoy,
35(2), 197–217.
Jensen, J. (2007). Neighbourhood and community
effects on individual behaviour and social
functioning. Social Work Research, 31, 195–197.
20
Jones, P. (2006). Every child’s parent matters:
Community educational psychology and the
Plymouth Parent Partnership Service. Educational
& Child Psychology, 23(1), 16–26.
Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G. &
Benton, T. (2009). Embedding citizenship education
in secondary schools in England (2002–2008):
Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study – Seventh
Annual Report. National Foundation for
Educational Research.
(ISBN: 978-1-8477-5557-5).
King, E.N. & Wilson, M. (2006). Educational
psychology in Scotland: More community than
school-based? Educational & Child Psychology,
23(1), 68–79.
Long, D. & Perkins, D. (2003). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the Sense of Community Index and
development of a Brief SCI. Journal of Community
Psychology, 31, 279–296.
MacKay, T. (2006). The educational psychologist as
community psychologist: Holistic child
psychology across home, school and community.
Educational & Child Psychology, 23(1), 7–15.
McMillan, D. & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of
community: A definition and theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.
Meier, D. (1996). The benefits of smallness.
Educational Leadership, 54, 12–15.
Myers, F., Ager, A., Kerr, P. & Myles, S. (1998).
Outside looking in? Studies of the community
integration of people with learning disabilities.
Disability & Society, 13, 389–413.
Obst, P., Smith, S. & Zinkiewicz, L. (2001) An
exploration of sense of community, part 3:
Dimensions and predictors of psychological
sense of community in geographical commu-
nities. Journal of Community Psychology 30,
119–133.
Obst, P. & White, K. (2004). Revisiting the Sense of
Community Index: A confirmatory factor
analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 32,
691–705.
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L. & Smith, S. (2002). Sense of
community in science fiction fandom, part 2:
Comparing neighbourhood and interest group
sense of community. Journal of Community
Psychology, 30, 105–117.
Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging
in the school community. Review of Educational
Research, 70(3), 323–367.
Payne, A., Gottfredson, D. & Gottfredson, G. (2003).
Schools as communities: The relationships
among communal school organisation, student
bonding and school disorder. Criminology, 41,
749–777.
Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W. & Hughey, J. (2006).
Community: A methodological interpretation of
the structure debate. Journal of Community
Psychology, 34(4), 453–469.
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
 Investigating sense of community in primary schools
Peterson, N., Speer, P. & McMillan, D. (2008).
Validation of a brief sense of community scale:
Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of
community. Journal of Community Psychology, 36,
61–73.
Pooley, J.A., Breen, L., Pike, L.T., Drew, N.M. &
Cohen, L. (2008). Critiquing the school
community: A qualitative study of children’s
conceptualisations of their school. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21,
87–98.
Pretty, G., Bishop, B., Fisher, A. & Sonn, C. (2007).
Psychological sense of community and its
relevance to well-being and everyday life in
Australia. Australian Community Psychologist, 19,
6–25. Retrieved from:
http://www.groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/
Files/Community–Updated–Sept061.pdf
Pretty, G. & Chavis, D. (1999). Sense of community:
Advances in measurement and application.
Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 635–642.
Proescholdbell, R.J., Roosa, M.W. & Nemeroff, C.J.
(2006). Component measures of psychological
sense of community among gay men. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34, 9–24.
Puddifoot, J.E. (1994). Community identity and
sense of belonging in a north-eastern English
town. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5),
601–608.
Rostosky, S., Owens, G., Zimmerman, R. & Riggle, E.
(2003). Associations among sexual attraction
status, school belonging, and alcohol and
marijuana use in rural high school students.
Journal of Adolescence, 26, 741–751.
Rovai, A. (2002). Building a sense of community at a
distance. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 3, 1–16. Retrieved
from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/viewArticle/79/152
Royal, M. & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual-level
correlates of sense of community: findings from
workplace and school. Journal of Community
Psychology, 24, 395–416. Retrieved from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
(SICI)1520–6629(199610)24:4%3C395::
AID–JCOP8%3E3.0.CO;2–T/pdf
Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1
Salisbury, J., Rees, G. & Gorard, S., (1999).
Accounting for the differential attainment of
boys and girls at school. School Leadership &
Management, 19, 403–426.
Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of
community: Prospects for a community psychology.
San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Seeman, T. (1996). Social ties and health: the
benefits of social integration. Annals of
Epidemiology, 6, 442–451.
Stringer, P., Powell, J. & Burton, S. (2006).
Developing a community psychology orientation
in an educational psychology service. Educational
& Child Psychology, 23(1), 59–67.
Stringer, P. & Traill, M. (2009). Sense of Community
Index II. Adapted with permission from David
Chavis (Chavis, D., Lee, K. & Acosta J., 2008) for
use with young people in an English secondary
school. Unpublished; available from the authors.
Sturgess, W., Dunn, J. & Davis, L. (2001). Young
children’s perceptions of their relationships with
family members: Links with family setting,
friendships, and adjustment. International Journal
of Behaviour Development, 25(6), 521–529.
Townley, G. & Kloos, B. (2009). Development of a
measure of sense of community for individuals
with serious mental illness residing in community
settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 37,
362–380.
Traill, M. & Stringer, P. (2009). Sense of community
project: Results from the Sense of Community Index,
****** School. Hampshire Educational Psychology
Service. Unpublished manuscript.
Uchino, B. (2006). Social support and health:
A review of physiological processes potentially
underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 29, 377–387.
Witten, K., McCreanor, T. & Kearns, R. (2007). The
place of schools in parents’ community
belonging. New Zealand Geographer, 63(2),
141–148.
21
Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena

Appendix A: Sense of Community Index – Primary (SCI-P).

PLEASE TELL US YOUR:

SCHOOL NAME:

YEAR GROUP:

GENDER (please circle): male female

PASSWORD:

Section 1
How important is it to feel a ‘sense of community’ with other people (pupils and staff) in the school?
Please circle a number.
1 2 3 4 5
Not important Not very Sometimes Mostly Very
at all important important important important

Section 2
How well does each of the following sentences show how you feel about the school?
Please put a tick (✓) in one empty box.

Not at all Sometimes Mostly Always

1 My important needs, such as having a good
education, having friends, eating healthily,
and feeling happy, are met because I am
part of this school.
2 What is important to other people in this
school is important to me too.
3 The school is successful at meeting the needs
of its members.
4 Being part of this school makes me feel good.
5 When I have a problem, I can talk about it
with someone in school.
6 People in this school have similar needs,
priorities, and goals.
7 It is important to me that this school meets
my needs.

22 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1

 Investigating sense of community in primary schools

Section 3
How well does each of the following sentences show how you feel about the school?
Please put a tick (✓) in one empty box.

Not at all Sometimes Mostly Always

8 I can trust people in this school.
9 I can recognise most of the people in
this school.
10 Most people in school know me.
11 This school has symbols of membership,
such as houses or teams, logos, and clothes
that people can recognise.
12 I put a lot of time and effort into being part
of this school.
13 Being a member of this school is a part of
who I am now.
14 It is important for me to feel that I am a
member of this school.

Section 4
How well does each of the following sentences show how you feel about the school?
Please put a tick (✓) in one empty box.

Not at all Sometimes Mostly Always

15 It is important to me to make an effort to be
an active member of the school.
16 This school can help other schools to change,
develop or improve.
17 I care about what other people in this school
think of me.
18 I feel I can change things in this school,
because people listen to my ideas and opinions
when I share them.
19 When there are problems, people in the school
can help find solutions.
20 The school has good leaders.
21 It is important to me to feel that pupils can
help change this school and that the school
can help the pupils change and develop.

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1 23

Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena

Section 5
How well does each of the following sentences show how you feel about the school?
Please put a tick (✓) in one empty box.

Not at all Sometimes Mostly Always

22 It is very important to me to be a part of
this school.
23 I enjoy being with the people in this school.
24 Even when I leave this school, I still want to
feel part of it.
25 People in this school have shared important
events together, such as holidays, celebrations,
or disasters.
26 I think this school has a positive future.
27 Members of this school care about each other.
28 It is important for me to share feelings and
events with this school and its members.

24 Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1

 Ed Sayer, Alexandra Beaven, Phil Stringer & Ehab Hermena

Appendix B: Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
It is very important to me to be a part of this school .81
Even when I leave this school, I still want to be a part of it .76
It is important to me to feel that pupils can help change this
.74
school and that this school can help pupils change and develop
Being a member of this school is part of who I am now .69
I think this school has a positive future .64
It is important for me to feel that I am a member of this school. .63
Being part of this school makes me feel good .63
I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this school .52
It is important to me to make an effort to be an active member
.49
of this school
The school has good leaders .49
This school can help other schools to change, develop or improve .45
It is important for me to share feelings and events with this school and
.40
its members
This school is successful in meeting the needs of its members
It is important to me that this school meets my needs
I care about what other people in this school think of me
When I have a problem I can talk about it with someone at school .72
I enjoy being with people in this school .68
I can trust people in this school. .65
Members of this school care about each other .51
When there are problems, people in this school can help find solutions .51
People in this school have shared important events together, such as
.487
holidays , celebrations or disasters
I feel I can change things in this school because people listen to my ideas
and opinions when I share them
I can recognise most people in this school .82
Most people in school know me .79
How important is it to feel a sense of community with other people
.69
in the school
My important needs such as having a good education, having
friends, eating healthily, and feeling happy are met because .43
I am part of this school.
People in this school have similar needs, priorities and goals .83
What is important to other people in this school is important to me too. .71
The school has symbols of membership , such as house or teams, logos
.80
and clothes that people can recognise

Note: Only factor loadings >.40 are shown.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Eigenvalue 8.74 1.66 1.34 1.23 1.13 1.10
% of variance 30.13 5.71 4.61 4.23 3.90 3.78

Educational & Child Psychology Vol. 30 No. 1 25

View publication stats