A Conceptual Relation Between the Need to Belong and Sense-of-Belongingness

Abstract

All humans have a fundamental need to belong (NTB), that is, forming and maintaining social connections. However, having these positive social bonds does not necessarily equal one’s sense-of-belongingness (SOB). Contemporary literature frequently uses NTB and SOB interchangeably, or SOB is seen as a by-product of NTB satisfaction. This conceptual paper aims to (1) provide the arguments that there exists a difference between the “Need to Belong” as a universal construct of fundamental psychological need and “sense-of-belongingness” as a sensation that arose from distinct belongingness conditions, and (2) argue that these differences bear on human action under specific situations and contexts. Two hypothetical life situations are presented to illustrate the divergence of one’s motivational need to belong compared to the specific self-processes regarding one’s sense-of-belongingness. We concluded that there are arguments to claim that NTB and SOB, under specific social conditions, might be conceptually and empirically opposed or unrelated to one another.

Keywords

Need to belong sense-of-belongingness emotional appraisals motivation interpersonal relationships

Introduction

The need to belong (NTB) is commonly associated in contemporary literature with numerous interpersonal and group psychological processes, where the focus on affectively pleasant interactions between people over time and the concern for each other’s welfare is central (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). NTB is evident in many specific and common human acts such as friendships and various social connections, appreciating the presence of others, seeking social interactions, cooperating, conversing sociably, and loving and intimate relations. Hence, it is not surprising to learn that the NTB represents a well-established theme in contemporary research with the broad empirical and theoretical literature on the subject (e.g., Cockshaw et al., 2014; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Hagerty et al., 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000). There exists undisputed agreement that the quality and strength of NTB are beneficiary towards the human psyche, in the sense that ability to initiate, form and maintain relationships over time has a clear protective effect on our general psychophysical functioning, providing people with well-being and general life satisfaction (Gardner et al., 2000). The support for the negative consequences of social deprivation and isolation is also striking, showing that people who lack social connections have deteriorated physiological and psychological health and increased mortality risk (Leary et al., 2003; Slavich, 2020). Failing to satisfy NTB can lead to both short-and long-term psychological consequences, making individuals more susceptible to dire adverse effects, such as aggression and hostility (e.g., Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Zadro et al., 2004). Originally, a critical aspect of NTB as a psychological need was distinctly articulated by Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) extensive analysis, where NTB was conceptualised as a complex construct that connects itself to the biological, emotional, cognitive, and physical aspects of every human being. Baumeister and Leary (1995) examined their hypothesis of NTB as a fundamental human need against nine criteria of meta-theoretical requirements as a fundamental motivation. Evidence indicates that people seek to maintain enduring relationships with both individuals and groups having thus “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal bonds” (p. 497).

Following these theoretical developments where NTB was established as innate and universal human motivation, a related notion of “belongingness” (i.e., sense-of-belongingness or SOB) has also emerged over the last few decades as a central construct of theoretical importance (e.g., Allen, 2020; Kern et al., 2020; Marshall & Foster, 2002; Wright, 2015). This is not surprising considering that the conceptualisation of NTB as a fundamental human motivation and desire for interpersonal attachments was originally formulated as a belongingness hypothesis (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Similarly, as is the case with NTB, research shows that failure to obtain SOB can stimulate a threat to one’s healthy functioning, based on feeling loneliness, rejection, and social exclusion (Baumeister, 2005), concluding thus that SOB is beneficial and valuable for psychological functioning and well-being (Choenarom et al., 2005; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The notion of SOB is widely used in different theoretical fields such as psychology (McCallum & McLaren, 2010), education (Healy, 2019), and sociology (Antonsich, 2010). In addition, the idea of SOB is also operationalised in various instrumental scales, such as Social Ecological Framework (Allen et al., 2016), Sense of Belonging Instrument-Antecedents (Pillow et al., 2015), Belonging and Belonging Uncertainty (Walton, 2014), and The General Belongingness Scale (Malone et al., 2012). Although the idea of SOB has been widely researched and developed in numerous fields, there nonetheless exists a lack of consensus when it comes to defining “belongingness” as a scientific concept, how it is best measured, and specific descriptions of how to satisfy one’s “belongingness”. Thus, the notion of “belongingness” currently represents a broad construct that is under-theorised and as such relatively vague when it comes to theoretical precision (Anthias, 2006; Antonsich, 2010). In that sense, it is not surprising to learn that NTB and SOB can be used together, or SOB is seen as a by-product of NTB satisfaction in contemporary literature. Indeed, there has been a proposal towards a more consolidative frame on the “belongingness” construct where researchers have identified the need to devise nuanced differences between these concepts (May, 2011; Pillow et al., 2015). For example, Allen et al. (2021) describe how non-task-based (NTB) characteristics reflect personal “traits,” while task-based (SOB) characteristics align more closely with concrete “states” related to specific conditions of sense-of-belongingness. Similarly, Fazio and Olson (2014) distinguish between motivation and opportunity where they define motivation as the drive or desire to achieve a certain result, and the opportunity as the external factors that influence our ability to reach that result. Finally, Allen et al. (2021) proposes an integrative framework that views belonging as a dynamic social system based on four interconnected components (i.e., competencies, opportunities, motivations, and perceptions) that emerge, interact, and adapt to social systems in which individuals live.

We start our argumentation by acknowledging that there certainly exists a conceptual similarity between the two concepts in the sense that both NTB and SOB are related to the social domain where people in interaction are driven by the fundamental motivation to give or seek social contact, preferably based on acceptance, respect, and value (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2008; Kern et al., 2020; Leary, 2021). This somewhat simplistic, yet reasonably correct description of similarities between NTB and SOB is probably the reason why it is common to jointly use these concepts or to see SOB as a by-product of NTB satisfaction. In addition, it is clear that both concepts traditionally share a tendency toward the general and overarching definitions and use, together with the proximity of similar broad understanding and importance to the social domain (Pardede & Kovač, 2023). However, NTB and SOB differ in many aspects. For instance, NTB is commonly taken to represent an innate fundamental overarching motivation while maintaining simultaneously at least a minimum level of ongoing, positive, and significant interpersonal bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). On the other side, SOB is in current literature defined as “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment” (Hagerty et al., 1992, p. 173). Thus, SOB is perceived as a construct that is contextual and holds itself to the reflections of individual social connection and concrete life situations (e.g., Allen et al., 2021; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995; Leach, 2002; Lee & Robbins, 1995; Pardede & Kovač, 2023).

This is natural given that individuals frame themselves in more distinct and specific expressions of human connectedness (i.e., the varying forms of SOB under different life conditions), be that in the form of “interpersonal relationships”, “institutional”, “operational/ religious”, or “social groups and community”. This is not to say that the conceptualisation of the SOB in the present paper is reduced to mere ‘social connectedness’ but rather that SOB is presently perceived as a broad concept that encapsulates various subjective experiences in social domain and appraisals of social situations. Indeed, scholars have previously observed and critically discussed distinct types of belongingness for example, psychological and political (Yuval-Davis, 2006), and how it can be attached to a place of belongingness (e.g., sense of place) (Relph, 1976; Sakhaeifar & Ghoddusifar, 2016). In that sense, our understanding of SOB is in the line of “belonging as a personal, intimate feeling of being ‘at home’ in a place and belonging as a discursive resource which constructs, claims, justifies, or resists forms of socio-spatial inclusion/ exclusion” (Antonsich, 2010, p. 645). For example, Amit (2010) draws on how sense of community is often attached or connected to the aspect of a sense-of-belongingness, however, the joint connection is not necessarily associated with one-or-the-other. Amit (2010) further discusses on the need to acknowledge that different emotional responses can overlap with the varied experiences of multiple subjecthood, and as such, we must also accept that any situation may trigger a variety of reactions. Therefore, we cannot take for granted that the “affect-belonging” (e.g., SOB) is emotionally charged or tied to collective interdependence (e.g., the interrelationship of satisfaction between NTB and SOB). In simple words, SOB represents one’s sense of self that emerges through concrete experiences, influences, and challenges in the social environment (Kern et al., 2020). Although the interchangeable use in most cases is possible and feasible, failure to explore the possible differences between NTB and SOB directly inhibits nuanced theoretical knowledge toward understanding one of the most fundamental aspects of human motivation. More specifically, the differentiation between NTB and SOB might provide a ground for answering the question: “Why are so many people still experiencing no SOB, despite having positive, and significant interpersonal relationships, or being surrounded by other people, and in possession of relatively lasting social bonds?” Hence, the present paper herein attempts to present arguments (1) that there exists a rationale difference between the “Need to Belong” (NTB) as a construct of fundamental psychological needs and “sense-of-belongingness” (SOB) as a subjective concrete belongingness-condition, and (2) that this difference has impact on human action under specific conditions, contexts, and situations. In other words, we will argue that SOB, in contrast to the general NTB, is based on one’s personal experiences in specific social environments and response to appraisals of social interactions in their given conditions (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 2013). Thus, we will explore the theoretical possibility that these different conditions generate specific appraisals in the form of SOB that affect and modify the initial NTB, consequently creating personal variations in which the general NTB is displayed.

NTB as a General Motivational Frame

The NTB has been continuously identified to be as fundamental as the need for water and food (Allen et al., 2021). It follows that all individuals, with no exception, have a certain “amount” of NTB (i.e., desire for interpersonal and preservation of social connections), making NTB universal among humans (Horowitz et al., 2006; Locke, 2018). However, the NTB is considered to be different from specific psychological processes in the realm interpersonal interactions, for example the need for attachment (Bowlby, 1973) where there is an emphasis on the role of significant other during a dyadic interaction between the primary caregiver and the child. Thus, the need for attachment as a process represents a more specific need where individuals are regulating the potential attachment anxiety based on the given attachment styles (Read et al., 2018). Indeed, studies show that attachment anxiety correlates with more negative emotional responses and self-view (Ein-Dor et al., 2011; Fraley et al., 2006) where people commonly experience an incongruence and interpretation of their perceived relational value based on the assessment operated (Leary, 2010; Leary & Gabriel, 2022). Thus, in comparison, NTB is based on the need for individuals to behave in a way that maintains a certain number of ongoing quality relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The quantity of these positive and mutually supportive relations is found to be different in their own degree for each specific individual (e.g., Leary et al., 2013; Verhagen et al., 2018). For instance, Leary et al., (2013) argued that people may vary in their levels of NTB and that having a higher level of NTB is connected to adverse characteristics. This indicates that NTB has a positive association with the merit people place on significant relationships such as family members, partners, and friends (Leary et al., 2013). Therefore, it is only natural that one is more prompt to minimise, hinder, and even defend the painful feeling of social rejection based on adverse characteristics (Leary et al., 2003). Another important aspect of the NTB is the notion of satiation, that is, once the need is satisfied, our motivation to hound further social relationships should be quenched (Baumeister & Leary. 1995). This implies that NTB is subject to a more stationary, reparative, and resolution process in which people get rewarded when the need to have a minimum quantity of continuing, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships is satisfied. Indicating the likelihood of living a healthy and maintained life without any form of social connections is impossible, making us as humans conditioned to the NTB as a frame that surrounds the whole human existence (Choenarom et al., 2005; Hagerty & Williams, 1999; Tuncgenc et al., 2023). In other words, NTB is a general frame for human motivation based on “forming and sustaining at least a minimum quantity of continuing, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” as it was defined by (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), with well-documented negative consequences if one fails to satisfy this need (Levett-Jones et al., 2007). Therefore, if one acknowledges that NTB is a universal motivational frame for human existence, the previously posed question still stands: “Why are so many people still experiencing no sense of belongingness despite having positive, and significant interpersonal relationships, or being surrounded by other people, and in possession of relatively lasting social bonds?”.

The answer is reasonably simple if one perceives satisficing the NTB as a human motivation as something that is unified toward SOB. However, the more elaborated resolution is that SOB, in contrast and in addition to NTB, represents a subjective appraisal of cognitive and emotional processing where one does not simply exist for the self but, also for the other and vice versa. Thus, there exists a difference between the general frame in which NTB is embedded, and the nature of the positive social bonds when one is self-navigating within the environment. In these situations, NTB reduces its potency, and the subjective experience and appraisals of SOB emerge which are in turn ‘actualised’ based on one’s belief and (self)-perception (Rogers, 1959, 1961). In situations where the discrepancy occurs within given social conditions negative feedback will impact the self-sense of worth thus, creating potentially an incongruence of the self (Rogers, 1959, 1961). The sum result in these situations is the absence of SOB, even though the general NTB might be intact. This indicates that one shouldn’t consider SOB as a simple extension of NTB (i.e., the satisfaction of forming and sustaining positive, and significant interpersonal relationships), but rather as distinct concept that operates parallel with NTB, and more importantly sometimes, under different conditions, produces different outcomes.

SOB as a Specific Experience of Intersocial Appraisals

The last paragraph in the previous section indicates that SOB represents a complex process in terms of one’s subjective experience and appraisals (Kern et al., 2020). It follows that the widely asserted assumption that satisfying a general NTB automatically leads to SOB might be imprecise. This simplistic outlook on NTB and SOB is embedded in the view that these concepts, used and treated combinedly, are both self-explanatory terms and as such left undefined or properly nuanced (e.g., Bromley, 2000; Marshall & Foster, 2002).

SOB represents a more active process that establishes the link between the self and society (May, 2011). This means that SOB is not fulfilled simply by the “motivation towards forming and sustaining a minimum quantity of continuing, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships” but rather represents an active process appraisal of self-involvement in social conditions and the constant attempt to balance social conditions where the role of interpersonal motives is central (Horowitz et al., 2006; Locke, 2018). In simple words, having a positive social connection does not necessarily qualify “to” or as “having” SOB (Jetten et al., 2015). NTB is a general and basic motivational frame in which human existence is embedded, while SOB represents an active experience of subjective appraisals in any given social condition (Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 2013). In addition, NTB is a need that fuels continual psychological development (Campbell et al., 2003; Diehl & Hay, 2011), while SOB is more conditioned and more concrete influence on one’s internalisation in developing connections and identification through life (Wright, 2015). As such, SOB is tied to one’s active experiences of subjective appraisals in various life situations. This situational, specific, and relatively frequent SOB is often at the forefront of our lives, as social beings we live in a matrix of interpersonal relationships and interactions and to that extent, people are positively striving towards self-enhancing and self-actualisation under various social conditions (Talevich et al., 2017). Similarly, to the general NTB, it is logical that the experience of SOB is an important forecaster of psychological functioning and components of our mental health (Leary, 2021). However, people tend to differ in their concerns, strengths, and tendencies of “belongingness” (Leary et al., 2013; Trampe et al., 2015). More importantly, several different conditions under which social interaction occurs make an impact on how the SOB is experienced and expressed. These variations represent an important difference between NTB and SOB constructs. We postulate that NTB in itself, does not necessarily lead to feelings of loneliness, social exclusion, or isolation (Bourgeois & Leary, 2001; Leary et al., 1995). In other words, the feeling and appraisal of loneliness (i.e., negative SOB) can still be experienced even when one is among or with other people, family, and friends (i.e., when NTB is seemingly satisfied).

Empirical findings indicate that lonely people do not automatically lack social bonds or spend less time than nonlonely people in interpersonal interactions (Hawkley et al., 2003). According to Cacioppo et al., (2015, p. 239) loneliness is a subjective feeling as “feeling alone or lonely does not necessarily mean being alone nor does being alone necessarily mean feeling alone”. Therefore, despite one might be among family, friends, or accepted within a group member (i.e., satisfied NTB) this does not guarantee the success of one’s SOB, due to one’s active experience of subjective appraisals. It follows that SOB, comparing to NTB, has a stronger link to one’s emotions and sensed relational value (Leary, 2021; Leary et al., 1995), making it a more dynamic emergent construct based on positive and negative experiences and connections with others and the environment (Allen, 2020). To use an analogy, the general need for food and the specific sense of hungriness might be two different things, in the sense that the need for food and drink does not make us want to eat and drink all the time. Even more, people eat and drink despite not feeling hungry, and conversely failing to consume when they are actually in need of nourishment. Consumption, under various conditions, situations, and contexts creates a sense or experience that is translated into complex appraisals that further guide human actions toward the procurement of food (Mattes, 2010). It follows that SOB, compared to relatively unchanging NTB, represents a more dynamic and complex concept that can be experienced in various ways, depending on various social situations and conditions in real life (Pardede & Kovač, 2023). This suggestion is logical considering that the general NTB is a need that all people share by definition regardless on the condition, while SOB is connected to multiple specific experiences that are formed through every individual life and contribute to the formation of the unique self in the realm of interpersonal relations (Allen et al., 2021). In simple words, all people have and share a universal need that is, NTB (Ryan & Deci, 2017), but SOB is unique for each person. As such, appraisals of one own SOB under various conditions is a different kind of experience from having others perceive your general belonging status more objectively (Healy, 2019).

SOB as a Product of the Given Social Conditions

Experienced SOB, by definition, never appears alone and is always accompanied by given social conditions, for example, the way people socially self-represent (Kingsbury et al., 2021; Orben, 2020), the way people experience social support, or being an instrumental aspect of one’s self-perception (Allen & Bowles, 2012). These spaces and places where SOB as lived conditions are experienced and further coupled with various self-processes accentuate how SOB is caught within a complex web of multidimensional relational relations and interweaving experiences of active appraisals (Ahn & Davis, 2020; Massey, 2005; Thomas, 2015). Thus, SOB never works or appears alone as it is followed or even fuelled by the number of self-relevant processes. This again means that the objective assessments of the general NTB (i.e., level of acceptance of certain groups or individuals) might portray a different picture than SOB that resides within every layer and different levels and stages of various social interactions and relations. The role of self-representation in SOB is central as the emergence of SOB is dependent upon feedback-seeking and the management of various self-beliefs that are created under various social conditions (Kingsbury et al., 2021; Orben, 2020). By this token, SOB contains both emotional and cognitive appraisals of oneself with others under various social conditioning where the role of self-representation and social support is accentuated (Pardede & Kovač, 2023). Under unfortunate conditions, these appraisals might be both internalising and externalising indicators of feeling lonely, depression, and suicidal ideation (Becker et al., 2020; Fisher et al., 2015). As such, a potentially thwarted SOB creates a condition of a negative sense of self-worth and an inverse link between social support and well-being (Chu et al., 2010). This is probably the reason why there exists a substantial theoretical and empirical stance demonstrating the role of SOB as a predictor of depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation (e.g., Becker et al., 2020; Chu et al., 2018; Kinsella et al., 2020; Fisher et al., 2015; Arango et al., 2019; McCallum & McLaren, 2010; McLaren & Challis, 2009), as well as thwarted SOB is associated with feelings of loneliness, the absence of mutual care (Van Orden et al., 2010, 2012).

In sum, we argue that SOB experiences, compared to general NTB, are subjective (i.e., might be different for different perceivers), multidimensional (i.e., many self-processes working sometimes together with NTB, yet sometimes opposing to NTB) and unique (i.e., unrepeatable as they are bonded to specific situations, persons, and in time and space) (Antonsich, 2010; Yuval-Davis, 2006). Thus, people’s SOB is shaped by the nature of the specific social conditions in the given environment. All this suggests that SOB might be independent of general NTB in terms of specific interindividual experiences and appraisals in each given situation (Van Orden et al., 2010). Depending on the nature of the social conditions and potent self-processes, the SOB might seemingly be opposed to NTB, and yet sometimes be supportive. However, it is easier to identify differences between these concepts in the situations where NTB and SOB operate independently, comparing to situations where they work in concert. For instance, in the situations when SOB is lost due to the appraisal of rejection one’s behaviour might become transgressive (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2011; DeWall et al., 2009). However, in order to counteract this sensation, one can engage in more prosocial actions (for review see Maner et al., 2007; Ouwerkerk et al., 2005). This variableness is exactly the reason why SOB and NTB are commonly and frequently poorly distinguished in current literature where the SOB is perceived as a mere by-product of NTB satisfaction.

Hypothetical Condition 1: The Role of Self-Representation in SOB

Drawing from this understanding, we present two hypothetical, yet relatively ordinary and probable, life situations to illustrate how SOB can be simplistically and wrongly taken as satisfaction of NTB (Walton & Cohen, 2011). The first condition illustrates the situation where SOB is created under social conditions where the need for social self-representation is dominant. This specific self-process guides consequently future choices in the interpersonal domain that might collide with the general and established NTB. Case 1 describes the scenario where there exists a discrepancy between how a person should feel or react based on one’s general NTB versus how one actually feels or reacts guided by one’s SOB, under specific conditions where interpersonal and group processes are accentuated.

Sofia is a typical adolescent who has different groups of friends (e.g., school, neighbourhood, and social clubs) who show appreciation for her company. Sofia also has a stable and satisfying relationship with her family. However, recently a new behavioural pattern has emerged where during the weekends Sofia chooses to be part of a group of friends who drink alcohol and participate in antisocial behaviour. Although Sofia has established social connections with others, Sofia is nevertheless persistent in socialising with people with whom she is less acquainted and continues to participate in anti-social behaviours. The logical question arises: why is Sofia choosing new friends who pursue the self-destructive course of action when alternatives in terms of social relations are both established and available?

Sofia’s NTB might be perceived as being common for many adolescents who suddenly during their teenage years tend to expand their social circles. Sofia is a part of the ordinary social constellations that any teenager might have, and Sofia experiences a relatively high level of support through existing relationships. However, although a stable NTB framework is already present, the frequent and specific SOB that is produced through various new acquaintances motivate Sofia to seek new social relations and consequently engage in antisocial behaviours. During these new social interactions, Sofia might experience, for example, feelings of self-identification and attribute these appraisals to their new friends. Sofia might also start to re-categorise herself as someone who is a rebel, a person that their previous relations do not sufficiently appreciate. In the attempt to validate one self’s newly formed self-perception, Sofia once again might attribute these feelings to the social constellations where antisocial actions are pursued.

From Sofia’s perspective the increased activity with this particular “group of new friends”, even though they can be seen as negative influencers, is nourishing as these social interactions are directly connected to the number of emerging self-mechanisms that have an impact on her decision-making process. This suggests that the need to experience frequent SOB where Sofia has the chance to engage in altered social self-representation may reflect greater motivation compared to satisfying the general NTB through previously established relationships. It is commonly accepted that humans are social beings in the need for self-representation that is shaped through social identification with a particular person or group, and the consequent process of self-categorisation (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1999). The central premise is the existence of the need to form one’s self-image through social interactions and classify oneself by the groups with which they are motivated to identify (Hogg, 2016; Stets & Burke, 2000). However, self-representation and self-categorisation are not isolated psychological processes, operating in a vacuum. They appear and work per definition through social domain and human interconnectedness. Hence, social conditions where certain self-mechanisms are potent (e.g., self-representation and self-categorisation) produce various SOBs and directly influence future actions. This SOB is independent of the general NTB and represents a different process that is more intimately connected to individual self-mechanisms.

Hypothetical Condition 2: The Role of Social Support in SOB

The second hypothetical condition illustrates the situation where SOB is created under social conditions of social support. However, in contrast to condition 1, condition 2 portrays a situation where NTB and SOB work in harmony, making these two processes indistinguishable and seen as mere satisfaction. Case 2 describes the scenario where there is no discrepancy between how a person should feel or react based on Janine’s general NTB versus how Janine actually feels or reacts guided by SOB.

Janine is a young woman who has just been diagnosed with breast cancer and must undergo the experience of a chronic illness, chemotherapy, and surgical removal of one of her breasts. This challenging situation is a burden to Janine’s physicality and self-image perceptions. At the same time, the communication and news from the doctor have a detrimental emotional impact on Janine that makes Janine unable to express emotional needs and ask important questions. Hence, Janine must accept the current situation. Janine is however surrounded by people who care for her. They express emotional support and are careful in their communication where they are sensitive to Janine’s needs and the general state of mind.

According to Schulman-Green et al.’s (2016) having different forms of social support (e.g., peer, caregiver, emotional, perceived and received) can help breast cancer patients not only overcome the social stigmatisation of being treated as an illness or a dying person but, give recognition on the personal level which has been shown to be more beneficial towards patients’ devotion to treatment. In line with the buffering model and coping mechanism (Chen & Zhang, 2021; Martela & Ryan, 2016) having social support for Janine becomes a pressing motivation, especially during a time that is more stressful and emotional than normal. Experience of social support, similar to self-categorisation, is the process that is intimately connected to self-mechanisms and is by definition immersed in the social domain. The social support that is given during the breast cancer treatment reinforces frequent and specific SOB and as such represents a motivational force that pulls in the same direction as the general NTB. In this hypothetical situation, there is no motivational battle between social connections that are established in one’s life and frequent SOB that is produced between Janine and her social circle.

Notwithstanding the importance of the general NTB, we argue that self-processes and various social conditions can produce strong interpersonal experiences that translate towards a specific need. SOB as an active experience of appraisals in some situations or conditions might be compatible with NTB, but in some situations might produce alternative courses of action. Certain unique social conditions might become a powerful social experience resulting in appraisals that expand the complexity of human nature, over and above the basic NTB. In other words, the end result in which emerging SOB and NTB become immersed and continuously maintained, distinguished, and balanced would always be following the personal importance and contextual conditions.

In sum, hypothetical case 2 illustrates the situation of crisis or personal burdensome where the need for social support represents, together with NTB, a joint motivational force that guides actions and evokes appraisals. Thus, under some conditions, these two processes can support each other, and this allied work is exactly the reason why the general NTB and many specific SOBs are frequently difficult to separate conceptually. It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of the situations where these processes co-emerge but, it is possible to speculate that the number of possible life situations where this happens is large. It follows that NTB frequently might reflect itself within and be part of other needs (e.g., need for social self-representation and social support) that guide action when dealing with interpersonal interactions, relationships, and social experiences. In addition, NTB seems to be relatively stable over time, while SOB tends to fluctuate depending on the social conditions and the appraisals attached to it. Taking all this into consideration, it is easy to understand why SOB can be seen as an extension of one’s satisfaction with NTB, both in current literature but also in ordinary life.

Implications

The present work has several theoretical contributions and practical implications. First, to the best of our knowledge in terms of theory, this is the first study that explicitly and parsimoniously distinguish between NTB and SOB by specifying mechanisms under which these two concepts co-exist. This theoretical conceptualisation implies that NTB alone and in itself explains little if it is not connected to specific social conditions or individual self-experiences and appraisals. Therefore, the distinction between a psychological need as a basic motivation (i.e., NTB) and experiences as an active cognitive and emotional appraisal (i.e., SOB) is significant as it shows that NTB when paired with SOB, goes beyond a simple drive for social contact or interaction. Second, the present analysis can also be conceptually connected to the concept of inclusion, as this term is in current literature frequently associated with the NTB (Kovač & Vaala, 2021). However, similarly to the main premise of the present paper, the question arises: “Why it is so challenging to successfully implement inclusive measures if NTB is the motor behind social interaction?” We argue that automated inclusion, following the premises of NTB, is insufficient (i.e., placing all children together, regardless of their differences) if additional analysis of SOB and the corresponding social condition in each specific context is not examined. Thus, analysis of SOB is crucial to determine if the child experiences inclusion. It follows that there exists a far better match between numbers of possible SOB under many different life conditions and the concept of inclusion, compared to propositions that the complexity of inclusion is based on relatively straightforward motivation such as NTB. Third, the differentiation between NTB and SOB opens the question of what human needs are and what are merely social conditions. In other words, is social support a human need or represents merely a social condition? Thus, the present distinction offers a parsimonious framework to distinguish between the basic needs or motivations that set a frame for human actions and specific conditions that create human experiences and cognitive appraisals in every given situation. Fourth, in terms of measurement, the present analysis provides an argument for why it is important to simultaneously measure the general belonging status (i.e., NTB) and particular SOB that emerge during specific social interactions and under specific social conditions.

Based on the present theoretical argumentations, there are reasons to believe that NTB and SOB, under specific social conditions, could be statistically opposed or unrelated to one another. Finally, the basic logic in the present framework could be transferable to other theoretically assumed fundamental motivations such for example autonomy, control, achievement and even survival. Using the same argumentation, one could thus explain the occasional paradoxes where people, seemingly irrationally, pursue actions that are in contradiction to above mentioned basic human motivations. Future research should aim to (1) further nuance or tune present theoretical statements, (2) empirically test the difference between basic motivations such as NTB and specific experiences such as SOB, (3) identify the most recurring and most powerful SOB that dominate common social interactions, and (4) empirically examine possible effects that different SOB, under different social conditions, have on human functioning and the general decision-making process.

Conclusions

Gravity is the force in nature that pulls us towards the centre of the earth. The existence of gravity is undisputed and well-accepted. However, gravity is an invisible force meaning that we infer its existence through its directly observable effects. In addition, gravity exerts its influence only in the situation of “all things being equal”, or when no other forces are present that might overpower gravity. We know that some animals do indeed fly in the air and that objects can defy the basic “force” being pulled down when they are fuelled with other forms of energy. This example illustrates the relation between the basic motivation for NTB and SOB as multiple specific forms of “energies” that modify and sometimes work in opposition to NTB. We reason that NTB is a basic motivational force that is observable only through its effects, that is, multiple, and specific SOB under various social conditions. General NTB represents a powerful force that is embedded in all social creatures by nature. Its existence is not dependent on any special circumstances as people are hard-wired at birth with this motivational urge (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). However, people over time tend to develop self-consciousness that consequently generates various self-processes, mechanisms and needs that influence the general NTB, and the way NTB is expressed in human actions (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). All this complexity in the social domain is visible in multiple SOBs, shaped under the specific social conditions that produce human experiences and cognitive appraisals. Thus, complex self-processes and specific social conditions form multiple SOB that might interfere with the general NTB, just as a motor engine can fight gravity back. In other words, emotional experiences and various cognitive appraisals in the social domain are sufficient to cause a swing in the general NTB following individual development over time. This means that in very early childhood most infants are only influenced by the general NTB as the complexity of the “Self” has not emerged yet. It follows that basic attachment processes dominate in early childhood where multiple SOBs that emerge overlap with basic NTB. This balance changes with the emergence of self-processes and increased activity of lived experiences and cognitive appraisals, under various social conditions. Similarly, the workings of SOB are less detectable in the animal world where the dominance of basic NTB is easily detectable. People, in contrast to animals, experience frequent SOB in their everyday lives and need these to develop and function.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted under the PhD funding at the University of Agder, 970 546 200.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Saga Pardede

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author Biographies

Saga Pardede, PhD at the Department of Psychosocial Health, and University Lecturer at the Department of Education at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

Velibor Bobo Kovač, Professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Education at the University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway

References

Ahn

M. Y.

Davis

H. H.

(2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university. Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1564902

Allen

K. A.

(2020). Psychology of belonging. Routledge.

Allen

K. A.

Bowles

(2012). Belonging as a guiding principle in the education of adolescents. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 12, 108–119.

Allen

K. A.

Kern

M. L.

Rozek

C. S.

McInereney

Slavich

G. M.

(2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Allen

K. A.

Vella-Brodrick

Waters

(2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.5

Amit

(2010). Community as “good to think with”: The productiveness of strategic ambiguities. Anthropologica, 52(2), 357–363. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29546038

Anthias

(2006). Belongings in a globalising and unequal world: rethinking translocations. In N. Yuval-Davis, K. Kannabiran, U. Vieten (Eds.). (Vol. 17, p. 31). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213490

Antonsich

(2010). Searching for belonging–an analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x

Arango

Cole-Lewis

Lindsay

Yeguez

C. E.

Clark

King

(2019). The protective role of connectedness on depression and suicidal ideation among bully victimized youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology: The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 48(5), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2018.1443456

10.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2005). The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. Oxford University Press.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

12.

Becker

S. P.

Foster

J. A.

Luebbe

A. M.

(2020). A test of the interpersonal theory of suicide in college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 260, 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.09.005

13.

Bourgeois

K. S.

Leary

M. R.

(2001). Coping with rejection: Derogating those who choose us last. Motivation and Emotion, 25(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010661825137

14.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss: Separation: Anxiety and anger (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

15.

Bromley

(2000). Narratives for a new belonging. Edinburgh University Press.

16.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hawkley

L. C.

Norman

G. J.

Berntson

G. G.

(2011). Social isolation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1231(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06028.x

17.

Cacioppo

Grippo

A. J.

London

Goossens

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2015). Loneliness: Clinical import and interventions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615570616

18.

Campbell

J. D.

Assanand

Di Paula

(2003). The structure of the self-concept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71(1), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.t01-1-00002

19.

Chen

Zhang

(2021). Community participation and subjective wellbeing: Mediating roles of basic psychological needs among Chinese retirees. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 743897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743897

20.

Choenarom

Williams

R. A.

Hagerty

B. M.

(2005). The role of sense of belonging and social support on stress and depression in individuals with depression. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 19(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2004.11.003

21.

Chu

Lin

Akutsu

P. D.

Joshi

S. V.

Yang

L. H.

(2018). Hidden suicidal ideation or intent among Asian American pacific islanders: A cultural phenomenon associated with greater suicide severity. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000134

22.

Chu

P. S.

Saucier

D. A.

Hafner

(2010). Meta-analysis of the relationships between social support and well-being in children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 624–645. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624

23.

Cockshaw

W. D.

Shochet

I. M.

Obst

P. L.

(2014). Depression and belongingness in general and workplace contexts: A cross-lagged longitudinal investigation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33(5), 448–462. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.5.448

24.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Perspectives on Motivation, Lincoln, NE (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288).

25.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

26.

DeWall

C. N.

Twenge

J. M.

Gitter

S. A.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2009). It's the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013196

27.

Diehl

Hay

E. L.

(2011). Self-concept differentiation and self-concept clarity across adulthood: Associations with age and psychological well-being. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 73(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.73.2.b

28.

Ein-Dor

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2011). Attachment insecurities and the processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022503

29.

Ellemers

Pagliaro

Barreto

Leach

C. W.

(2008). Is it better to be moral than smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1397–1410. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012628

30.

Fazio

R. H.

Olson

M. A.

(2014). Attitude-behaviour processes as a function of motivation and opportunity. In Sherman

J. W.

Gawronski

Trope

(Eds.), Dual process theories of the social mind (p. 624). Guilford Press. https://www.unc.edu/∼dcameron/dualprocess.pdf

31.

Fisher

L. B.

Overholser

J. C.

Ridley

Braden

Rosoff

(2015). From the outside looking in: Sense of belonging, depression, and suicide risk. Psychiatry, 78(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2015.1015867

32.

Fraley

R. C.

Niedenthal

P. M.

Marks

Brumbaugh

Vicary

(2006). Adult attachment and the perception of emotional expressions: Probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying anxious attachment. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00406.x

33.

Gardner

W. L.

Gabriel

Diekman

A. B.

(2000). Interpersonal processes. In Cacioppo

J. T.

Tassinary

L. G.

Berntson

G. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 643–664). Cambridge University Press.

34.

Hagerty

B. M.

Lynch-Sauer

Patusky

K. L.

Bouwsema

Collier

(1992). Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-h

35.

Hagerty

B. M.

Williams

R. A.

(1999). The effects of sense of belonging, social support, conflict and loneliness on depression. Nursing Research, 48(4), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199907000-00004

36.

Hagerty

B. M.

Williams

R. A.

Coyne

J. C.

Early

M. R.

(1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10(4), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9417(96)80029-X

37.

Hagerty

B. M. K.

Patusky

(1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing Research, 44(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003

38.

Hawkley

L. C.

Burleson

M. H.

Berntson

G. G.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2003). Loneliness in everyday life: Cardiovascular activity, psychosocial context, and health behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.105

39.

Healy

(2019). Belonging, social cohesion and fundamental British values. British Journal of Educational Studies, 67(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1506091

40.

Hogg

M. A.

(2016). Social identity theory. In Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory (pp. 3–17). Springer.

41.

Horowitz

L. M.

Wilson

K. R.

Turan

Zolotsev

Constantino

M. J.

Henderson

(2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4

42.

Jetten

Branscombe

N. R.

Haslam

S. A.

Haslam

Cruwys

Jones

J. M.

Cui

Dingle

Liu

Murphy

S. C.

Thai

Walter

Zhang

(2015). Having a lot of a good thing: Multiple important group memberships as a source of self-esteem. PLoS One, 10(5), Article e0124609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124609

43.

Kern

M. L.

Williams

Spong

Colla

Sharma

Downie

Taylor

J. A.

Sharp

Siokou

Oades

L. G.

(2020). Systems informed positive psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(6), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1639799

44.

Kingsbury

Reme

B. A.

Skogen

J. C.

Sivertsen

Øverland

Cantor

Hysing

Petrie

Colman

(2021). Differential associations between types of social media use and university students’ non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal behavior. Computers in human behaviour, 115, Article 106614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106614

45.

Kinsella

E. L.

Muldoon

O. T.

Fortune

D. G.

Haslam

(2020). Collective influences on individual functioning: Multiple group memberships, self-regulation, and depression after acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 30(6), 1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2018.1546194

46.

Kovač

V. B.

Vaala

B. L.

(2021). Educational inclusion and belonging: A conceptual analysis and implications for practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(10), 1205–1219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1603330

47.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

48.

Leach

(2002). Belonging: Towards a theory of identification with place. Perspecta, 33, 126–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/1567305

49.

Leary

M. R.

(2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 864–897). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002024

50.

Leary

M. R.

(2021). Emotional reactions to threats to acceptance and belonging: A retrospective look at the big picture. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883410

51.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9

52.

Leary

M. R.

Gabriel

(2022). The relentless pursuit of acceptance and belonging. In Advances in motivation science (Vol. 9, pp. 135–178). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2021.12.001

53.

Leary

M. R.

Kelly

K. M.

Cottrell

C. A.

Schreindorfer

L. S.

(2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511

54.

Leary

M. R.

Kowalski

R. M.

Smith

Phillips

(2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10061

55.

Leary

M. R.

Tambor

E. S.

Terdal

S. K.

Downs

D. L.

(1995). Self-Esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

56.

Lee

R. M.

Robbins

S. B.

(1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of counselling psychology, 42(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232

57.

Levett-Jones

Lathlean

McMillan

Higgins

(2007). Belongingness: A montage of nursing students’ stories of their clinical placement experiences. Contemporary Nurse, 24(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2007.24.2.162

58.

Locke

K. D.

(2018). Agentic and communal social motives. In Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 65–78). Routledge.

59.

Malone

G. P.

Pillow

D. R.

Osman

(2012). The general belongingness scale (GBS): Assessing achieved belongingness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027

60.

Maner

J. K.

DeWall

C. N.

Baumeister

R. F.

Schaller

(2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42

61.

Marshall

Foster

(2002). “Between belonging”: Habitus and the migration experience. Canadian Geographer, 46(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2002.tb00731.x

62.

Martela

Ryan

R. M.

(2016). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12215

63.

Massey

(2005). For space. Sage.

64.

Mattes

R. D.

(2010). Hunger and thirst: Issues in measurement and prediction of eating and drinking. Physiology & Behaviour, 100(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.12.026

65.

May

(2011). Self, belonging and social change. Sociology, 45(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511399624

66.

McCallum

McLaren

(2010). Sense of belonging and depressive symptoms among GLB adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.533629

67.

McLaren

Challis

(2009). Resilience among men farmers: The protective roles of social support and sense of belonging in the depression-suicidal ideation relation. Death Studies, 33(3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180802671985

68.

Orben

(2020). Teenagers, screens and social media: A narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(4), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4

69.

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

Kerr

N. L.

Gallucci

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2005). Avoiding the social death penalty: Ostracism and cooperation in social dilemmas. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 321–332). Psychology Press.

70.

Pardede

Kovač

V. B.

(2023). Distinguishing the need to belong and sense of belongingness: The relation between need to belong and personal appraisals under two different belongingness-conditions. European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 13(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13020025

71.

Pillow

D. R.

Malone

G. P.

Hale

W. J.

(2015). The need to belong and its association with fully satisfying relationships: A tale of two measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.031

72.

Read

D. L.

Clark

G. I.

Rock

A. J.

Coventry

W. L.

(2018). Adult attachment and social anxiety: The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies. PLoS One, 13(12), Article e0207514. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207514

73.

Relph

(1976) Place and placelessness (Vol. 67, p. 45). Pion.

74.

Rogers

C. R.

(1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centred framework. In Koch

(Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw Hill.

75.

Rogers

C. R.

(1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

76.

Roseman

I. J.

(2013). Appraisal in the emotion system: Coherence in strategies for coping. Emotion Review, 5(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912469591

77.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

78.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

79.

Sakhaeifar

Ghoddusifar

S. H.

(2016). Impact of location-behavior on sense of belonging to place. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 10(5), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v10n5p57

80.

Schulman-Green

Linsky

Jeon

Kapo

Blatt

Chagpar

(2016). Integrating palliative care into self-management of breast cancer: Protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 48, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.04.009

81.

Slavich

G. M.

(2020). Social safety theory: A biologically based evolutionary perspective on life stress, health, and behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045159

82.

Stets

J. E.

Burke

P. J.

(2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870

83.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

84.

Talevich

J. R.

Read

S. J.

Walsh

D. A.

Iyer

Chopra

(2017). Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of human motives. PLoS One, 12(2), Article e0172279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172279

85.

Thomas

(2015). Rethinking belonging through bourdieu, diaspora and the spatial. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 17(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.17.1.37

86.

Trampe

Quoidbach

Taquet

(2015). Emotions in everyday life. PLoS One, 10(12), Article e0145450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145450

87.

Tunçgenç

van Mulukom

Newson

(2023). Social bonds are related to health behaviors and positive well-being globally. Science Advances, 9(2), eadd3715. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.add3715

88.

Turner

J. C.

(1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorisation theories. In Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Blackwell.

89.

Van Orden

K. A.

Cukrowicz

K. C.

Witte

T. K.

Joiner

T. E.

(2012). Thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness: Construct validity and psychometric properties of the interpersonal needs questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025358

90.

Van Orden

K. A.

Witte

T. K.

Cukrowicz

K. C.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Selby

E. A.

Joiner

T. E.

Jr. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psychological Review, 117(2), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018697

91.

Verhagen

Lodder

G. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2018). Unmet belongingness needs but not high belongingness needs alone predict adverse well-being: A response surface modeling approach. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12331

92.

Walton

G. M.

(2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512856

93.

Walton

G. M.

Cohen

G. L.

(2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364

94.

Wright

(2015). More-than-human, emergent belongings: A weak theory approach. Progress in Human Geography, 39(4), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514537132

95.

Yuval-Davis

(2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331

96.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

Richardson

(2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(4), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006