Wikia

Psychology Wiki

Belongingness

Talk0
34,141pages on
this wiki
Revision as of 14:52, December 7, 2013 by Dr Joe Kiff (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Social psychology: Altruism · Attribution · Attitudes · Conformity · Discrimination · Groups · Interpersonal relations · Obedience · Prejudice · Norms · Perception · Index · Outline


Belongingness is the human emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. Whether it is family, friends, co-workers, or a sports team, humans have an inherent desire to belong and be an important part of something greater than themselves.[1] The motive to belong is the need for "strong, stable relationships with other people."[2] This implies a relationship that is greater than simple acquaintance or familiarity. The need to belong is the need to give and receive affection from others.

Belonging is a strong and inevitable feeling that exists in human nature. To belong or not to belong can occur due to choices of one's self, or the choices of others. To belong will take a lifetime, yet isolation happens quite often, therefore, isolation/alienation acts as the catalyst to loyalty. For a successful and long lasting affection of belonging; one must accept and appreciate the adversary first. Not everyone has the same life and interests, hence not everyone belongs to the same thing or person. Without belonging, one cannot identify themselves as clearly, thus having difficulties to communicate and relate with their surroundings.

Psychological needsEdit

Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong was a major source of human motivation. He thought that it was one of 8 basic needs, along with physiological, safety, self-esteem, and self-actualization.[3] These needs are arranged on a hierarchy and must be satisfied in order. After physiological and safety needs are met an individual can then work on meeting the need to belong and be loved. If the first two needs are not met, then an individual cannot completely love someone else.[4]

Other theories have also focused on the need to belong as a fundamental psychological motivation. According to one contemporary viewpoint, all human beings need a certain minimum quantity of regular, satisfying social interactions. Inability to meet this need results in loneliness, mental distress, and a strong desire to form new relationships. [5]

Several psychologists have proposed that there are individual differences in people's motivation to belong. People with a strong motivation to belong are less satisfied with their relationships and tend to be relatively lonely.[6] As consumers, they tend to seek the opinions of others about products and services and also attempt to influence others' opinions. [7]

According to Baumister, much of what human beings do is done in the service of belongingness. The need for power, intimacy, approval, achievement and affiliation are all driven from the need to belong. Human culture is compelled and conditioned by pressure to belong. The need to belong and form attachments is universal and innately prepared among humans. This counters the Freudian argument that sexuality and aggression are the major driving psychological forces. Those who believe that the need to belong is the major psychological drive also believe that humans are naturally driven toward establishing and sustaining relationships and belongingness. For example, interactions with strangers are possible first steps toward non-hostile and more long-term interactions with strangers that can satisfy the need for attachments. Certain people who are socially deprived can exhibit physical, behavioral, and psychological problems, such as stress or instability. These people are also more likely to show an increase in aiming to form new attachments. [5]

AttachmentsEdit

In all cultures, attachments form universally. Social bonds are easily formed, without the need for favorable settings. The need to belong is a goal-directed activity that people try to satisfy with a certain minimum number of social contacts. The quantity of interactions is more important that the quality of interactions. People who form social attachments beyond that minimal amount experience less satisfaction from extra relationships, as well as more stress from terminating those extra relationships. People also effectively replace lost relationship partners by substituting them with new relationships or social environments. For example, individuals with strong family ties could compensate for aloneness at work.[8]

Relationships missing regular contact but characterized by strong feelings of commitment and intimacy will also fail to satisfy the need. Just knowing that a bond exists may be emotionally comforting, yet it would not provide a feeling of full belongingness if there is a lack of interaction between the persons. The belongingness hypothesis proposes two main features. First, people need constant, positive, personal interactions with other people. Second, people need to know that the bond is stable, there is mutual concern for one another, and that there will be a continuation of that attachment into the future. This means that the need to belong is not just a need for intimate attachments or a need for connections, but that the perception of the bond is just as important as the bond itself. They need to know that the other person cares about his or her well-being and loves him or her.[9]

Plenty of evidence suggests that social bonds are formed easily. In the classic Robbers Cave study, stranger boys were randomly grouped into two different groups and almost immediately, group identification and strong loyalty developed to their specific group. However, when the two groups were combined to form one big group, behaviors and emotions accommodated quickly to that new group. In an attempt to understand causes of in-group favoritism, researchers formed a group so minimal and insignificant that no favoritism would be found, yet in-group favoritism appeared immediately. Researchers agree that banning together against a threat (the out-group) and sharing rewards are primary reasons groups form and bond so easily. Mere proximity is another powerful factor in relationship formation. Just like babies form attachments with their caregivers, people develop attachments just because they live near one another. This suggests that proximity sometimes overcomes the tendencies to bond with others who are similar to us. Positive social bonds form just as easily under fearful circumstances, such as military veterans who have undergone heavy battle together. This can be explained by either misattribution (interpreting feelings of anxious arousal as feelings of attraction for another person) or reinforcement theory (the presence of another person reduces distress and elicits positive responses). The formation of social attachments with former rivals is a great indicator of the need to belong. Belonging motivations are so strong that they are able to overcome competitive feelings towards opponents.[10]

People form such close attachments with one another that they are hesitant in breaking social bonds. Universally, people distress and protest ending social relationships across all cultures and age spans. Even collective groups struggle with the idea that the group may eventually dissolve. The group may have fulfilled their purpose, but the participants want to cling on to the relationships and social bonds that have been formed with one another. The group members make promises individually and collectively to stay in touch, plan for future reunions, and take other steps to ensure the continuity of the attachment. For example, two people may never speak for an entire year, but will continue sending Christmas cards to that acquaintance or a stranger from whom they receive cards. People do not want to risk damaging a relationship or breaking an attachment because it is distressing.[11]

People are so hesitant in breaking social bonds that in many cases, they are hesitant to dissolve even bad relationships that could be potentially destructive. For example, many women are unwilling to leave their abusive spouses or boyfriends with excuses ranging from liking for the abuse to economic self-interests that are more important than physical harm. This unwillingness to leave an abusive partner, whether mentally or physically, is just another indicator of the power of the need to belong and how reluctant individuals are to break these bonds. Breaking off an attachment causes pain that is deeply rooted in the need to belong.[12]

People experience a range of both positive and negative emotions; the strongest emotions linked to attachment and belongingness. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals that are accepted, welcomed, or included lead those individuals to feel positive emotions such as happiness, elation, calm, and satisfaction. However, when individuals are rejected or excluded, they feel strong negative feelings like anxiety, jealousy, depression, and grief. Both positive and negative reactions in emotion are connected to status of relationship. The existence of a social attachment changes the way one emotionally responds to the actions of a relationship partner and the emotions have the potential to intensify.[13]

Lack of constant, positive relationships has been linked to a large range of consequences. People who lack belongingness are more prone to behavioral problems such as criminality and suicide and suffer from increasing mental and physical illness. Based on this evidence, multiple and diverse problems are caused by the lack of belongingness and attachments. It therefore seems appropriate to regard belongingness and attachments as a need rather than simply a want.[14]

Relationships that are centrally important in the way people think are interpersonal relationships. The belongingness hypothesis suggests that people devote much of their cognitive thought process to interpersonal relationships and attachments. For example, researchers found that people store information in terms of their social bonds, such as storing more information about a marriage partner as opposed to a work acquaintance. People also sort out-group members on the basis of characteristics, traits, and duties, whereas they sort in-group members on person categories. Cognitive processing organizes information by the person they have a connection with as opposed to strangers. Researchers had a group of people take turns reading out-loud and they found that they had the greatest recall for the words they personally spoke, as well for words spoken by dating partners or close friends. There is a cognitive merging of the self with specific people that is followed by the need to belong. Flattering words that are said to a spouse can enhance the self just as positively. People always believe that nothing bad can happen to themselves, and extend that thought to their family and friends.[15]

There is an emotional implication to belongingness in which positive affect is linked to increases in belongingness while negative affect is linked to decreases in belongingness. Positive emotions are associated with forming social attachments, such as the experience of falling in love, as long as the love is mutual. Unrequited love (love without belongingness) usually leads to disappointment whereas belongingness in love leads to joy. Occasions such as childbirth, new employment, and fraternity/sorority pledging are all associated with the formation of new social attachments surrounded by positive emotions. Forming bonds is cause for joy, especially when the bond is given a permanent status, such as a wedding. Weddings signify permanent commitment and complete the social bond by committing to the spouse’s need to belong. Positive experiences shared emotions increases attraction with others. Close personal attachments, a rich network of friends and high levels of intimacy motivation are all correlated to happiness in life.[16]

The breaking of social bonds and threats to those bonds are primary sources of negative affect. People feel anxious, depressed, guilty or lonely when they lose important relationships. Social exclusion is the most common cause of anxiety. Anxiety is a natural consequence of being separated from others. Examples include children suffering from separation anxiety from being separated from their mothers. Adults act similarly when their loved ones leave for a period of time. Memories of past rejection and imagining social rejection all elicit negative emotions. Losses of attachments lead directly to anxiety. If people are excluded from social groups, people get anxious, yet the anxiety is removed when they experience social inclusion. Failing to feel accepted can lead to social and general depression. Depression and anxiety are significantly correlated. Social exclusion is also a major cause of jealousy, which is a common reaction when one’s relationships are threatened. Jealousy is cross-culturally universal and in all cultures, sexual jealousy is common. It was said earlier that belongingness needs can only truly be met with social contact, but social contact by itself does not shield people against loneliness. Loneliness matters more when there is a lack of intimacy as opposed to lack of contact. Another negative affect is guilt, which is caused to make the other person want to maintain the relationship more, such as paying more attention to that person.[17]

Divorce and death are two negative events that spoil the need to belong. Divorce causes distress, anger, loneliness, and depression in almost everyone. The death of oneself and other people are the most traumatic and stressful events that people can experience. Death can cause severe depression, which is not a reaction to the loss of the loved one, but because there is a loss of the attachment with that other person. For example, a death of a spouse in which there was marriage problems can still elicit in extreme sadness at the loss of that attachment. Death is linked to anxiety and fear of loneliness. The idea of being separated from friends and family, and not the fact that they would no longer exist on this earth, is what brings about this anxiety.[18]

Evolutionary perspectivesEdit

One reason for the need to belong is based on the theory of evolution. In the past belonging to a group was essential to survival: people hunted and cooked in groups. Belonging to a group allowed tribe members to share the workload and protect each other. Not only were they trying to ensure their own survival, but all members of their tribe were invested in each other's outcomes because each member played an important role in the group. More recently in Western society, this is not necessarily the case. Most people no longer belong to tribes, but they still protect those in their groups and still have a desire to belong in groups.[1]

Self-presentationEdit

In order to be accepted within a group, individuals may convey or conceal certain parts of their personalities to those whom they are trying to impress. This is known as self-presentation.[1] Certain aspects of one’s personality may not be seen as desirable or essential to the group, so people will try to convey what they interpret as valuable to the group. For example, in a business setting, people may not show their humorous side but they will try to show their professional side in an attempt to impress those present.

Group membershipEdit

Individuals join groups with which they have commonalities, whether it is sense of humor, style in clothing, socioeconomic status, or career goals. In general, individuals seek out those who are most similar to them. People like to feel that they can relate to someone and those who are similar to them give them that feeling. People also like those that they think they can understand and who they think can understand them.[1]

ConformityEdit

Group membership can involve conformity. Conformity is the act of changing one’s actions, attitudes, and behaviors to match the norms of others. Norms are unsaid rules that are shared by a group. The tendency to conform results from direct and indirect social pressures occurring in whole societies and in small groups. There are two types of conformity motivations known as informational social influence and normative social influence. Information social influence is the desire to obtain and form accurate information about reality. Information social influence occurs in certain situations, such as in a crisis. This information can be sought out by other people in the group or experts. If someone is in a situation where they do not know the right way to behave, they will look at the cues of others to correct their own behavior. These people conform because the group interpretation is more accurate than your own. Normative social influence is the desire to obtain social approval from others. Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be accepted by members of a group, since the need to belong is in our human desire. When people do not conform, they are less liked by the group and may even be considered deviant. Normative influence usually leads to public compliance, which is fulfilling a request or doing something that one may not necessarily believe in, but that the group believes in.[19]

People often conform to gain the approval of others, build rewarding relationships, and enhance their own self-esteem. Individuals are more likely to conform to groups who describe out-group members with stereotype traits, even though don’t publicly express their agreement. People desire to gain approval so they conform to others. However, within informational social inclusion, those primed with motivation to make accurate decisions or held accountable, would resist conformity. The beliefs held by others and how we react to those beliefs is often reliant on our view of the amount of agreement for those beliefs. Researchers are interested in exploring informational and normative motivational influences to conform on majorities and minorities. Objective consensus theory suggests that majority influence of a group is informational, while conversion theory views it as normative. Normative influences may be the underlying motivations behind certain types of conformity; however, researchers believe that after time, informational influences such as confidence in the accuracy of one’s intergroup norms is positively correlated with distinguished level of compromise.[20]

Researchers found that when an individual has a strong opinion about something and it is strongly opposed, the individual is more likely to struggle getting their point across because they are trying to avoid a group conflict, unless self-interest is threatened. However, if participants hold two moderate opposing opinions, an individual is more likely to choose the majority group, or the group that is numerically larger. This is also dependent on how strong the opinion of the individual was prior to choosing to conform. Social impact theory suggests that an individual is more likely to conform to the beliefs of the local numerical majority than to the local numerical minority, or the group who is less proximate to the individual. When this type of belonging ensues, attitudes are clustered and diversity is minimized. Researchers also continue to study conformity of intergroup behaviors and attitudes like stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice. They found that you are more likely to act prejudiced if the group around you is more prejudiced. For example, prejudiced participants are more likely to sit farther away from an African American participant than non-prejudiced participants, especially if other participants are also sitting farther away from that African American participant.[21]

Outside the conscious mind, a type of conformity is behavioral mimicry, otherwise known as the chameleon effect. Behavioral mimicry is when individuals mimic behaviors such as facial expressions, postures, and mannerisms between other individuals. Researchers found that individuals subconsciously conformed to the mannerisms of their partners and friends and liked these partners more who mirrored them. This is important in regard to rapport building and forming new social relationships-we mirror the behaviors we are supposed to, to get to where we want to belong in the group. People are motivated to conform in order to gain social approval, as well as enhance and protect their own self-esteems. However, people who wish to combat conformity and fight that need to belong with the majority group can do so by focusing on their own self-worth or by straying from the attitudes and norms of others. This can establish a sense of uniqueness within an individual. Yet, most individuals keep positive assessments of themselves and still conform to valued groups.[22]

Peer NetworksEdit

As the span of relationships expands from childhood into adolescence, a sense of peer group membership is likely to develop. Adolescent girls have been found to value group membership more and are more identified with their peer groups than boys. Adolescent girls tend to have a higher number of friends than boys. They expect and desire more nurturing behavior from their friends. Girls experience more self-disclosure, more empathy, and less overt hostility compared to boys. It has been found that girls use ruminative coping which involves perseverating on the negative feelings and the unpleasant situations associated with problems. Boys on the other hand, tend to be less intimate and have more activity based friendships. Boys do not benefit as much as girls from feelings of belonging that are a product of enduring and close friendships. They are less vulnerable to the emotional distress that is likely to accompany high levels of co-rumination and disclosure. [23]

Various peer groups approve of varying activities and when individuals engage in approved activities, the peer group positively reinforces this behavior. For example, allowing the individual to become part of the group or by paying more attention to the individual is a positive reinforcement. This is a source of motivation for the individual to repeat the activity or engage in other approved activities. Adolescents have also been observed to choose friendships with individuals who engage in similar activities to those that they are involved in. This provides the individual with more opportunities to engage in the activity therefore the peer group may influence how often the individual engages in the activity. In order to feel a sense of belonging and fit in, adolescents will often conform to activities of a particular group by participating in the same activities as members of the peer group. [24]

Three different aspects of adolescents’ perceptions of group membership were found: peer group affiliation, the importance of peer group membership and a sense of peer group belonging to behavior problems in adolescence. To capture an adolescent’s self-perception of group affiliation one may ask an adolescent to identify themselves as a member of a group or discuss whether they belong in a group. An affective aspect of group belongings includes feelings of being proud of one’s group and being a valued group member. The affective nature of a sense of group belonging has been found to be the most internally consistent. It is important to find out how important it is for an adolescent to be a member of a group because not all adolescents are equally concerned about being part of a group. Those who strongly desire to be in a peer group and do not experience a sense of group belonging are expected to have the greatest social distress and are likely to report the most behavior problems. .[25]

School

Examination of dynamic features of peer groups in comparison to belonging has contributed to the understanding of the complex nature of peer networks as they relate to adolescents’ sense of belonging in the classroom. In relation to academic outcomes, belonging has been demonstrated to support student’s motivation and engagement, proposing that it serves an underlying experience for engaged, achievement related behavior. One approach used to study naturally occurring peer groups is the social cognitive mapping (SCM) approach. The SCM strategy asks students in a peer system, for example in a classroom, to identify which class members they have observed “hanging out” together”. Therefore, determining patterns of observed social affiliations. [26] Interactions and associations within peer networks theorize experience validation, acceptance, and affirmation of early adolescents in schools. The sense of connection within a classroom has been defined as having a sense of classroom belonging. Meaning, students feel they are being valued accepted, included and encouraged by others in the classroom setting. They perceive themselves to be an important part of the setting and activity of the class. [27]

Group membership during early adolescence is linked with greater academic engagement and heightened interest and enjoyment in school. However, early adolescents who lack membership may feel disaffection for the schooling environment. [28]

Workplace

The need to belong is especially evident in the workplace. Employees want to fit in at work as much as students want to fit in at school. They seek the approval of their leaders, bosses, and other employees in order to be accepted. Charismatic leaders are especially known to show off organizational citizenship behaviors such as helping and compliance if they feel a sense of belongingness with their work group. Researchers found that charisma and belongingness increased cooperative behavior among employees. Charismatic leaders influence followers by bringing awareness to the collective unit and strengthening the feeling of belonging, and that enhances employees’ compliance. Organizational citizenship behaviors are employee activities that benefit the collective group without the individual gaining any direct benefit. Helping is a huge component of organizational citizenship behaviors because helping is involves voluntarily assisting others with problems that are work-related and preventing other issues from arising. Task performance is enhanced and supported when the acts of helping in a work environment are established and evident. Charismatic leaders set a striking example for the way to organization should behave by reinforcing certain rules and values for the organization. These self-confident leaders inspire their followers to exceed expectations for the collective group instead of their own self-interest. This in turn gives employees an identity with which to belong.[29]

A sense of belongingness increases a person’s willingness to assist others in the group by the group rules. Belongingness and group membership encourages social groups with motivation to comply, cooperate, and help. Cohesive work groups show more consideration, report positive relationships within the group and elicits more organizational citizenship behaviors. Also, an already cohesive and collective group will make people more inclined to comply with the rules of the workplace. Some people help each other in return for a future expected favor; however, most workings help because it is the “right” thing to do or because they like their leaders so much and wish to express this likeness. People are more receptive to a leader who provides a clear sense of direction and inspiration with the promise of a better future. Workers who feel more isolated in the workplace feel the need to belong even more than those who are not isolated because they are missing that collective feeling of unity. A workplace functions better as a collective whole.[30]

Acceptance/RejectionEdit

The need to belong is among the most fundamental of all personality processes. Given the negative consequences of social rejection, people developed traits that function to encourage acceptance and to prevent rejection. But if the need to belong evolved to provide people with a means of meeting their basic needs for survival and reproduction based on evolutionary experiences, thwarting the need to belong should impact a variety of outcomes. Therefore, people should respond strongly to social exclusion because it strikes at the core of human functioning. [31]

Behavior/Social ProblemsEdit

Depression/SuicideEdit

Belongingness, also referred to as connectedness, has been established as a strong risk/protective factor for depressive symptoms. Empirically, there is growing evidence that the interpersonal factor of belongingness is strongly associated with depressive symptoms. The impression of low relational value is consciously experienced as reduced self-esteem, an integral element of depressive symptoms. According to these views then, belongingness cognitions have a strong direct impact upon depressive symptoms due to innate neurological mechanisms. [32]

Humans have a profound need to connect with others and gain acceptance into social groups. When relationships deteriorate or when social bonds are broken, people have been found to suffer from depressive symptoms.[33] Although feeling disconnected from others and experiencing a lack of belonging may negatively affect any individual, those who are depressed are more sensitive to these painful experiences. Due to the importance of social experiences to people’s well-being, and to etiology and maintenance of depression, it is vital to examine how depressed people’s well-being is enhanced or eroded by positive and negative social interactions. When people experience positive social interactions, they should feel a sense of belonging. However, depressed people’s social information-processing biases make it less likely that they will recognize cues of acceptance and belonging in social interactions. People who are depressed often fail to satisfy their need for belonging in relationships and consequently, report fewer intimate relationships. Those who are depressed appear to induce negative affect in other individuals, which in return elicits rejection and the loss of socially rewarding opportunities. Research has found that depressive symptoms may sensitize people to everyday experiences of both social rejection and social acceptance. [34]

Gender differences have been consistently observed in terms of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Girls reported more internalizing behaviors such as depression, and boys reporting more externalizing problems. . [35]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Fiske, S.T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. United States of America: Wiley.
  2. Mish, F.C. (Ed.). (2003), Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
  3. Kune, N. (2011). The need to belong: rediscovering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
  4. Friedman, H. S., Schustack, M. W. (1992), Personality: Classic theories and modern research. United States of America: Pearson.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.49
  6. Mellor, David, Stokes, M., Firth, L., Hayashi, Y., Cummins, R. (August 2008). Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction.. Personality and Individual Differences 45 (3): 213–218.
  7. Rose, Paul, Kim, JongHan (July 2011). Self-monitoring, opinion leadership and opinion seeking: a sociomotivational approach.. Current Psychology 30 (3): 203–214.
  8. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  9. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  10. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  11. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  12. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  13. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  14. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  15. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  16. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  17. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  18. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
  19. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  20. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  21. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  22. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  23. Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241-263.
  24. Bauman, K. E., & Ennett, S. T. (1994). Peer Influence on Adolescent Drug Use. American Psychologist , 820-822.
  25. Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241-263.
  26. Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). The dynamic reality of adolescent peer networks and sense of belonging. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1), 48-72.
  27. Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). The dynamic reality of adolescent peer networks and sense of belonging. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1), 48-72.
  28. Faircloth, B. S., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). The dynamic reality of adolescent peer networks and sense of belonging. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1), 48-72.
  29. Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1131-1139. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1131
  30. Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1131-1139. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1131
  31. DeWall, C., Deckman, T., Pond, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011). Belongingness as a Core Personality Trait: How Social Exclusion Influences Social Functioning and Personality Expression. Journal Of Personality, 79(6), 979-1012. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00695.x
  32. Cockshaw, W., & Shochet, I. (2010). The link between belongingness and depressive symptoms: An exploration in the workplace interpersonal context. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 283-289. doi:10.1080/00050061003752418
  33. Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Depression and everyday social activity, belonging, and well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 289-300. doi:10.1037/a0015416
  34. Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Depression and everyday social activity, belonging, and well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 289-300. doi:10.1037/a0015416
  35. Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J., & Newman, P. R. (2007). Peer group membership and a sense of belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241-263.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki