homesickness: a review of scientific...

Homesickness: A Review

Supplemental Materials

Homesickness: A Systematic Review of the Scientific Literature

by M. Stroebe et al., 2015, Review of General Psychology

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000037

Online Supplementary Material - Integral

Homesickness:

Empirical Studies of Correlates, Risk Factors & Consequences

Author(s)Country

Sample &Design

HS Measure Research Focus / Major Variables

Main ResultsSingle / Dual “Home-

New Place” Component Analyses

Comments

Archer et al. (1998)U.K.

1st semester studentsN=264, age range=18-37 yrs. M. & F.Cross-sectional

Archer et al. (1998) The Homesickness Questionnaire (HQ). 2 factors: (1) disliking university (2) attachment to home

HS emotion focused and avoidant coping strategies.Depression, anxiety, somatic & obsessional symptoms

Separate analyses of home and new environment variables. Attachment to home factor showed closest association with single item HS measure. HS students > health, psychological problems, cognitive failures.Women > HS than men, Subscale: this difference confined to attachment to home. Women more intrusive thinking; no diff. in avoidance

Important identification of the 2 factors. Support for a dual process model; concluded that “the subjective assessment of homesickness was more closely related to items indicating attachment to the home than to negative attitudes to the current environment (p. 217)”.

Beck, Taylor, & Robbins (2003)U.S.A.

1st semester studentsN=167, mean age=18.10yrs (SD= 0.93).M & F; 70% F. Cross-sectional

The Homesickness Questionnaire (HQ) (Archer et al., 1998)

Personal Style Inventory to measure: Sociotropy (St.; cf. anxious attach.) vs. autonomy (At.; cf. comp. self-reliance). CES-D.

Subscale analyses (they were highly correlated), which gave evidence of different ways that personality traits are related to home vs. current environment difficulties. St. persons more likely to be preoccupied by home and be depressed but not more HS generally. Attachment to home mediated effects of St. on depression. At. persons less attached to home but also depressed by transition (mediated by disliking university).

Disliking new environment considered a HS construct (p. 161). Selection into sample (here & other studies?) of those who are HS – not clear but likely to have been presented as HS study.Differential relationship of facets of HS to St. vs. At. Dislike of university & attachment to home.Individual diffs. patterns in relation to the 2 types of difficulties.

Bell & Bromnick (1998)U.K.

1st semester studentsN=83; mean age=18.41 (SD=7.5mths) Longitudinal: uni. start & 6wks later

Dundee Relocation Inventory (Fisher, 1989)

Self-disclosure No subscale analyses (though home/new place components in DRI). HS declined over time. Negative relationship between HS & self-disclosure. Hi self-disclosers > reduction in HS over time.

(Cause/effect of self-disclosure x time effect? Self-disclosure would surely not work if it is just (socially) ruminative (but NB that higher self-disclosure was related to lower HS).

Benn, Harvey, Gilbert, & Irons (2005)U.K.

1st semester studentsN=89; M=30; F=59, F: mean age=21.23 yrs. (SD=3.05); M: mean age=19.75 (SD=2.46Cross-sectional

HQ (Archer et al., 1998)

Recall of parental support / rejectionSocial rankInterpersonal trustPrevalence

Subscale analyses but focus on total HS. Recall of supportive parenting associated with lo HS; rejection hi HS (directly). Recall of rejection generated feelings of inferiority that mediates distress when moving to new environment.Prevalence: 39%

Factors accounting for HS also within the home & university domains.

Brewin, Furnham & Howes (1989)

1st yr. students, 1mth pre-university

Prevalence & expectation of HS

BDI; Confiding & social support; sex diffs.;

No subscale analyses (probably home focus in HS questions?).

One of few pre-university longitudinal studies, but

1


U.K. & 1st semesterN=80 (64 at 2nd wave); M=27, F=53, mean age=20 yrs, range=18-39.Longitudinal

questions. 4 questions about own HS.

demographic & psychological factors

No sex diffs. in HS but F more likely to confide about HS & deal with it in more affiliative manner. Younger students, those who estimated higher frequency of HS & the more dependent higher HS. No diff. re. distance from home.

unvalidated measure of HS

Burt (1993)Australia

1st semester students. 1. Relocated N=93, mean age 21.1, range=17-46 yrs. M=25, F=68 cf. 2. Local resident N=59, mean age=23.3, range=17-54.Cross-sectional


Cognitive functioning tasks & academic performance.HS inducement task. Subscale analyses for the 2 factors (Home-HS & Adaptation)

No home-new place subscale analyses despite home- new place focus in DRI (just analysed pos vs. neg item scores).Home HS associated with reduction in ability to concentrate but not sufficiently so to affect academic ability. No sex diffs. in total HS.

Includes a control group of local, non-relocated students (to tease out impact, e.g., on academic performance), quite rare in HS research. Also unusual: Did some separate analyses for attachment-related vs. commitment-to-studies HS factors.

Carden & Feicht (1991)U.S.A. & Turkey

1st semester students, all F. 1. American N=75, mean age=17.83, SD=0.50. 2. Turkish, N=69, mean age=17.78, SD=1.11. Cross-sectional with follow-up interviews with some U.S. students.

A newly-constructed Homesickness Questionnaire which included correlates and well-being items, from which HS items were separated for analysis.

Cultural differences in HSAspects of home-life, personality, social presence, well-being,

No home- new place subscale analyses but separate analyses for items of HS scale, including many home-items, &“satisfaction with college” question. Selected extreme HS & no-HS subgroups to identify correlates. U.S. & Turkish: HS > no-HS on social presence. HS > no-HS on dependence on family advice & guidance. HS > personal well-being across many symptom areas (e.g. crying, lonely). Some x-cultural differences, e.g.: Turkish > initial HS than U.S.

Extended investigation to compare cultures: to find common underlying variables as well as culture-specific dimensions of HS

Eurelings-Bontekoe, Vingerhoets & Fontijn(1994)Netherlands

Military conscripts: HS: N=131, mean age=20.4, cf. psychopathology (PP): N=111, mean age=20.6, & healthy controls: N=496, mean age=18.0Cross-sectional

9-item checklist (HS=reactive depression)

Personality (inc. neuroticism, etc.), , social skills & anxiety; coping; childhood homesickness, emotional ties

No home- new place subscale analyses.HS subgroup characterized by combination of social anxiety, low assertiveness, strong tie to parents, high rigidity, low dominance, extraversion, & self -esteem, strong need for social support. Had experienced HS in childhood.

Inclusion of 2 control groups.Really HS (see E-B et al., 2000)?

Eurelings-Bontekoe, Duijsens & Verschuur (1996a)Netherlands

HS & Psychopathology groups same as Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. (1995); healthy controls N=95, mean age=24.2 (SD=3.48)

9-item checklist Personality disorders according to ICD-10 & DSM- III-R.

No home- new place subscale analyses. 58% HS had personality disorders. Obsessive-compulsive, anankastic, dependent & avoidant / anxious disorders high prevalence.

Consequences or antecedents of HS? (The HS sample was help-seeking conscripts). The personality disorders measure could partly reflect current disturbed state. 8 of the 9 HS items describe major depression symptoms which correlate highly with dependent & avoidant personality disorders. Self-reported, not diagnostic tool.

Eurelings-Bontekoe, Brouwers, Verschuur, & Duijsens (1998)Netherlands

Same as Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. (1996b)

Self-reported HS (long-lasting; during holidays only) – for categorization into chronic, episodic & healthy HS subgroups.

See Eurelings-Bontekoe et al. (1996b).

No home- new place subscale analyses. Correlations between HS & measures of personality disorders, particularly avoidant/anxious and dependent personality traits..

See comments regarding measurement of vulnerability (re. Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1996b).

Eurelings-Bontekoe, Brouwers, & Verschuur (2000)Netherlands

Employees, diverse nationalities, high-tech company in NL. N=171: F=71, M=100. Mean age=42.1, SD=10.2 Cross-sectional.

9-item checklist (HS=reactive depression) & brief self-report of occurrence & intensity of HS

Prevalence of HS Examined predictor variables including sex, age, nationality, marital status and duration of stay.

No home- new place subscale analyses. Severe HS in 18.9%, 30% less severe. Duration curvilinear (6-8 yrs highest) (the only independent predictor of HS). No significant sex diffs. Age pattern curvilinear (highest among 34-39yrs.). HS varied across nationalities, southern European and French > British

Problematic operationalization: depressive and melancholic complaints. Is this really HS?Cross-sectional, so interpret age & duration patterns with caution.

2


& German.Fisher & Hood (1987)U.K.

Students residential & home-basedLongitudinal (before leaving, 1 yr. N=100, mean age=18.64 (SD=1.78), M=60, F=40. Post-1st yr. subgroup N=25, mean age=19.56 (SD=0.26) M=10, F=15.

Subjective HS: 4 pt scale from “not homesick” to “very homesick” & Dundee Relocation Inventory (Fisher et al., 1987).

Psychological disturbance

Home- new place individual features analyses (cf. their Table 3, p. 433) but not systematic subgroup analyses.Both resident and home students raised disturbance post-transition. Hi HS greater problems. No sex diffs.

Rare longitudinal. New place - with home-based comparison..

Fisher & Hood (1988)U.K.

Students N=198 Personal definitions & Dundee Relocation Inventory (Fisher et al., 1987).

Prevalence Vulnerability factors

Home- new place individual features analyses (cf. their Table 1, p. 313) but not systematic subgroup analyses.31% reported HS. No sex differences in HS. F>psychological disturbance and cognitive failure than M. Prior away-from-home experience = lower HS

Prior away less HS could be selection? (Those away who had HS may stay at home for studies).

Fisher, Elder, & Peacock (1990)Australia

Boarding school (outward bound) pupils, N=112, M=76, F=35. Age range=14-16. 1. Previously in parent school 2. Previously day 3. New pupilsCross-sectional

Subjective reports of HS (broadly defined), incidence & frequency.

Prevalence of HSLevel of demand & control at school.

No home- new place subgroup analyses.No significant sex difference in incidence of reported HS (75%=M; 83%=F). New pupils had highest (91%), previous day lowest incidence level. More F reported high frequency of HS than M. HS pupils perceived higher demand and lower control than they would prefer.

Direction of causality between HS and strain at boarding school unknown.

Fisher, Frazer, & Murray (1984)U.K.

Boarding school pupils, aged 11-16, M=28 & F=26, 1st term

Subjective, spontaneous list of reported problems.

Prevalence of HS Problems relating to the school.

School- & home-oriented problems. Former initially more frequent than latter, but latter more worrying for pupils. No sex differences. Very low reports of HS (16%).

In studies like this, where the word HS is not explicitly mentioned, rates are much lower.

Fisher, Murray, & Frazer(1985)U.K.

1st yr. students, cf Fisher et al. (1987)

Questions about incidence and frequency of HS broadly defined (see their Table 1, p. 188).

Prevalence of HSPersonality & environmental factors

Features analysis but no home- new place subgroup analyses. 60% reported HS. Geographic distance & lack of satisfaction with new environment associated with HS. HS decreased over 1st 5 weeks of term. Responsibility for decision to leave home < HS.

Cause and consequences of dissatisfaction and HS unknown.

Fisher, Frazer, & Murray, (1986)U.K.

Boarding school pupils, N=117, end of 1st yr.

Self-reports HS; diary keeping. Broad features (cf. their Table 1, p. 41).

Prevalence of HSNon-traumatic ailments & days off school.

Features analysis but no home- new place subgroup analyses.71% had experienced HS during yr; HS > ailments & days off school.

Regards geographic move as “a necessary but not sufficient condition for a homesickness experience” (p. 35).

Flett, Endler, & Besser (2009)Canada

Students, 1st yr., N=152, M=95, F=57. Mean age=22.6 (SD=4.8). X-s.

Archer et al.’s (1998) Homesickness questionnaire (HQ), 33 items

Trait separation anxiety & perceived controllability

Home-new place subscale analyses. Mediation pathways for home and new place subscale analyses (p. 273-5). Trait separation anxiety correlated with both dimensions & overall. Thus, focus on overall HS construct. HS and trait separation anxiety correlated, but only modestly, thus should not equate HS with separation anxiety. Perceived controllability of the situation and state anxiety were both mediators of relationship between separation anxiety and HS.

In line with models of HS focusing on insecure attachment & need to stay close to attachment figures.

Hafen, Reisbig, White & Rush (2008)U.S.A.

78 1st yr. veterinary students; 1st & 2nd semestersLong.

One item on HS; 4-pt Likert scale

To establish factors underlying depression (“struggling” students).

No home- new place subscale analyses. HS in 1st, not 2nd, semester predicted T2 depression

HS as indep. (stressor), not dep. variable.No validated HS measure.

Hendrickson, Rosen, & International Shin & Abell’s Social network lens: No home- new place subscale Possible sample bias due to

3


Aune (2011)Hawaii

students, longer, N=84, inc. Mean age=28 (SD=5.72), M=29, F=51. Average length of stay=33mths.X-s.

(1999) Homesickness & Contentment (HC) scale (inc. depression).

friendships with own & host-country students.

analyses (interesting examination of social connectedness separately from HS: host country friendships, lower HS). Those with higher ratio of friends from host country were less homesick (and happier).

recruitment via friendship-promoting list serve: those who participated in the study could be the ones who made conscious effort to be more connected to local community. Causality direction?

Ireland & Archer (2000).U.K.

Prison inmates, N=179, M, aged 15-21 yrs., mean age 18.5 yrs. X-s.

Homesickness Questionnaire (HQ, Archer et al.,1998, adapted). Single-item HS measure

Prevalence of HS Demographic variables including prior imprisonments

Factor analysis revealed a main factor (contrast with Archer et al., 1998): attachment to home. 75% classified as (currently) homesick on the single-item measure. HS> among 1st sentence inmates and on arrival in prison. But length of time in prison not associated with HS.

Higher HS among prisoners than university students. More variation among university students in disliking university than attachment to home, opposite here for prisoners (probably because dislike of prison was common).

Kazantzis & Flett (1998)New Zealand

1st yr. students, N=100 M=43, F=57. Age range=18-33; Mean age=19.61 (SD=2.77yrs.).X-s.

Dundee Relocation Inventory (Fisher & Hood, 1987).

Family functioning: cohesion

No home- new place subscale analyses.High prevalence of HS, with most reporting experiencing it. 18% variance accounted for by family cohesion and age. Previous mobility did not. No sex differences.

Cohesion measure not explicit, could reflect attachment patterns.

Kerns, Brumariu, & Abraham (2008)U.S.A.

School children at summer camp. N=97, F, 8-12yrs. Mean age=10.3yrs. (SD=10.97)Long. (inc. prior measures).X-s.

Thurber & Sigman’s (1998) Rate Your Day measure, which includes 3-item HS measure.

Attachment security; social self-concept; peer relationships.

No home- new place subscale analyses.Peer relationships & social self-concept related to HS and predicted subsequent HS. Mother-child attachment did not. Precamp HS did not correlate with HS at camp.

Surprising not to find attachment – HS relationship, and contrary to Thurber studies (which measured attachment not before but at camp). Measure of attachment was “..developed only recently and need[s] to be validated more thoroughly”(p. 494.

Longo & Kim-Spoon (2013)U.S.A.

1st yr college students; N=311 (f=195; m=116). Age 17-19, mean = 18.03 (SD=0.31). X-s.

Archer et al.’s (1998) HS scale.

Religiousness as moderator between HS & depression

Missing home and disliking university subscale analyses (cf. their pp. 494-5). Differential relationship to depression: higher dislike of university (but not attachment to home), higher depression.Religiousness not universally protective against depression when homesick, only for those low on “attachment to home” dimension

Seeking comfort from religion when not attached to home?

Lu (1990)U.K.

Chinese students in UK. 1. Within 2 weeks arrival in UK & after 2 mths. N=49, M=40, F=9.Long.

HS items derived from Fisher et al. (1985). 4 items at Time 1; 1 item at Time 2.

Cognitive failures; locus of control; academic & social demands; psychological symptoms

No home- new place subscale analyses (no new place variable).All reported HS (criterion: score above zero?). No diffs between more and less HS groups in personality, perceived demands or symptoms. Psychological symptoms decreased, HS stayed stable over time.

Longitudinal, but not long duration. HS measure not validated (only one item at Time 2). One explanation given for hi HS: strong Chinese family ties. Although not stated explicitly, it seems all who did not average “never” on 5-point scale were classified as HS – “every subject reported homesickness”(p. 228).

McKinlay, Pattison, & Gross (1996)U.K.

55 international graduate students; predominantly male. Mean age 31yrs.

Dundee Relocation Inventory (Fisher, 1989)Total score

Main purpose to explore effects of cultural orientation program on well-being, inc HS.

No home- new place subscale analyses.HS higher among those who had received cultural orientation course. Scores for these students higher than Fisher’s (1989) norms for home student populations.

Placed here not intervention, since course was not HS specific. Possibility of selection into the course – mainly determined by sponsor, who may have perceived student as a potentially poor adapter.

Newland & Furnham (1999)U.K.

1st yr. Students N=123 (f=92; m=21). Age 19-30. X-s.


Social support & mental health variables as predictors of HS

No home- new place subscale analyses.Low perceived social support combined with high psychological disturbance was predictive of HS.

Authors suggest importance of underlying personality factors for HS, and interpret the social support / mental health findings in terms of tendency for individuals with psychological disturbance to have lower quality social network.

Nijhof & Engels(2007)

College & university students. N=670; M=255,

Single-item measure of HS, (how often HS in the last 4 weeks), +

Parenting styles; ways of coping (problem-solving, avoidance,

No home- new place subscale analyses.Authoritative & permissive

Non-validated measure of HS. Sample included home-living students.

4


F=414. Aged 16-25, mean age=19.X-s.

measure of expressing (unclear if HS) & coping with HS. (van Tilburg et al., 1997).

support seeking). parenting > HS than authoritarian or uninvolved parenting. Ways of (in)effective coping impacted on these patterns.

Focus on attachment-related variables but using Baumrinds model: 4 parenting styles.

Platt & Eisenman (1970)U.S.A.

Ist yr. Students, 1st & current 2nd semesters. N=432, M=253, F=179.

HS measure not described, but seems simple HS questions about past and present incidence.

Prevalence, incidence and stability of HS.

No home- new place subscale analyses.Percentages now or at some time during the past of over 70% but less than a quarter for current HS alone. Fairly similar %s for M & F. Rates not declining across time.

An early study, giving HS incidence. A bit misleadingly highlights high incidence.

Porritt & Taylor(1981).Australia

Student nurses. N=185; 85 after 4mths, 100 after 10mths from leaving home. Above minimum admission age.

Newly-constructed “HS symptoms scale” (home variables)

Nursing interest; other problems

No home- new place subscale analyses.More recent home-leavers > symptoms. Greater distance associated with more symptoms after 1st 6 weeks.42% HS in their first six weeks of training.

Retrospective: Asked about 1st 6 weeks much later. N.B. they mention the possibility of attrition due to HS.

Poyrazli & Lopez (2007)U.S.A.

Students. N=439 (198 international, 241 U.S.). M=29%, F=71%. Age range 18-48; Mean= 23.38, SD=5.33.X-s.

Archer et al.’s (1998) HQ.

Perceived discrimination; age; English proficiency; yrs of U.S. residence

No home- new place subscale analyses.International>HS than U.S. students. Lo English proficiency & hi discrimination > HS among international students. Younger > HS than older. Longer residence < HS. European origin < HS than other parts of world. GPA unrelated to HS.

Correlational, like others, but important here, e.g., because of possibilities of HS causing perceived discrimination rather than vice versa.

Radcliffe & Turk (2007)U.K.

Children with learning disabilities in a respite unit. Age 2-18yrs. N=35, M=20, F=15. children.

Caregivers, parents and children asked about the degree to which child experienced HS.

Behavioral reactions at home, school.

No home- new place subscale analyses (no new place variables included).Lack of concordance between parents, teachers and the children regarding their level of distress.

Small sample and largely qualitative. Need more studies on special subgroups such as this one, in which it can be difficult to tell whether there’s HS if the children cannot talk very much.

Scopelliti & Tiberio(2010)Italy

Students, N=200; M=100, F=100. Age range = 19-30, mean=22.53 (SD=2.59).X-s.

Verschuur et al.’s HS Vulnerability Questionnaire (HVQ), i.e., risk factors, not HS home- new place features.

Place attachment to home & new place;Sex diffs. Native (Rome) vs non-native (places outside Rome).

No home- new place subscale analyses, given vulnerability factors focus.No sex diffs. No diffs. between natives and non-natives on vulnerability factors, but former < HS than latter. Various correlates identified, including previous HS as predictor.

Multicausal HS model advocated, including new-place attachment.

Shal, Sharbaf, Abdeekhodaee, Masoleh, & Salehi (2011)Iran

Students N=150 males; aged 16-21 (mean=19).

Archer et al.’s HQ (1998).

Attachment style; general self-efficacy

No home- new place subscale analyses.Secure attachment and self-efficacy associated with low HS. Anxious attachment hi HS.

Cross-sectional. Showing similar relationships between HS & attachment in a different cultural setting than the usual western ones.

Stroebe et al. 2002)U.K. & N.L.

New-intake students in UK & NL. UK: N=280. F=72%; M=28%. Mean age= 18.8 (SD=2.1).NL: N=482, M=20%, F=80%. Mean age=19.6 (SD=2.1).

Utrecht Homesickness Scale (UHS): home and new place subscales + 1-item frequency-of-HS measure.

PrevalencePersonality: emotional stability. Attachment style. Sex diffs.

Home- new place subscale analyses (cf. e.g., their Table 1; Figs. 3 & 5, pp. 154, 159. 1611)F > M (UK sample). Prevalence: 50% HS in NL; 80% in UK sample. Missing family & friends & adjustment difficulties associated with rumination about home & loneliness, which were associated with depression. UK > HS intensity than NL (10% vs. 5% often HS). Insecure attachment (NL) or conflict with parents (UK) related to certain aspects of HS. UK females more HS; NL no gender difference.

NL sample: Living at home cf. relocated in some analyses. UK-NL differences: geographic proximity and free transport in NL could lower HS.

Suanet & van de Vijver (2009)Russia

Exchange students from various continents. N=187. M=110; F=77. Mean age=21.24 (SD=2.68).

A 10-item HS scale (not specified).

Perceived cultural distance

No home- new place subscale analyses.Perceived cultural distance & lack of open mindedness predicted HS.

Focus on acculturation but included HS as an outcome measure.

Terry, Leary, & Mehta (2013)

119 students (M=58, F=56, 5

Archer et al. (1998) HQ scale.

Self-compassion ; depression ; social life

No home- new place subscale analyses.

Compatible with some recommendations for treatment

5


U.S.A. unknown). Long. (before starting college; end of 1st semester)

satisfaction Students hi in self-compassion before starting college reported lower HS at end of semester. Results suggested that self-compassion buffered those who were dissatisfied with their social lives against HS.

(maintaining perspective & acknowledging normality) but not others (ignore or suppress thoughts & feelings about home).

Thurber(1995); U.S.A.

Children & adolescents aged 8-16; sports camp. N=329.

Daily assessment during 2 or 4 week separation from parent (figures) – HS questions included in “Rate Your Day” measure; leaders ratings of HS.

PrevalenceRelating HS to depression & anxiety. Age differences.

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).83% reported some HS on at least one day. Younger > HS than older. HS increased over stay away, less just before reuniting. HS experienced as combination of depression (particularly) & anxiety.

N.B. simultaneous depression & anxiety.

Thurber & Weisz (1997a)U.S.A.

Subsample of Thurber (1995) sample, N=56

Interviews Coping, age and stressor controllability

No home- new place subscale analyses, focus on home in interview.Older boys used more “secondary control coping” (i.e., adjusting oneself to fit objective conditions) in dealing with HS.

Use of physical activity to control for HS (either because opportunity was provided, or the boys sought it out) suggested in this study, for further investigation (useful for intervention?).

Thurber & Weisz (1997b)U.S.A.

N=1,032 boys & girls at 2 weeks residential summer camps.

Ways of Coping with HS (WOCH) designed for this study

Secondary control coping (see Thurber & Weisz, 1997a).

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).Hi HS associated with low perceived control over HS. Engaging in distractive physical activity was effective in dealing with HS.

Developed new coping with HS scale. Useful, rare focus on coping with HS among children.

Thurber & Sigman (1998)U.S.A.

N=293 boys at 2 weeks sports summer camp. Mean age= 12.3

Daily measurement on RYDR (see Thurber, 1996).

Integrated variety of predictors (14) and sequelae (8) of HS

No home- new place subscale analyses.69% variance accounted for by “HS disposition” (negative interpersonal attitudes & perceived control) & little prior separation experience.

Article provides a comprehensive review and empirical test of HS phenomena among children –up to 1998.

Thurber (1999)U.S.A.

N=316 boys aged 8-16 yrs. Summer camp. Longitudinal.


Prevalence & patterns over time of HS; depression & anxious symptoms. Pre- and post-camp measures

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).18% had moderate to high HS levels; 7% also had severe depression & anxious symptoms.For severe cases, HS increased over time. HS anticipated before separation. HI HS less likely to return to camp.

N.B. Different trajectories for different HS severities.

Thurber, Sigman, Weisz, & Schmidt (1999).U.S.A.

N=117 girls aged 8-16. 2 week summer camp. Longitudinal.


Actual & anticipated HS No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).Anticipated HS associated with hi HS, Vulnerable girl profiles: insecure interpersonal attitudes; lower SES ratings; more somatic complaints; social problems etc.

Gender patterns interesting: Similar prevalence, intensity & longitudinal course as boys’ samples, different risk factors, correlates and sequelae.

Thurber, Patterson, & Mount (2007)

Hospitalized (psychiatric; burn; rehabilitation) children N=50; m&f; aged 3,9-18.6 (M=11; SD=3.5)

Self-report & observational (questionnaire) data from staff & caregivers; RYDR (see Thurber, 1996).

Prevalence No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).88% children reported some HS during stay. 50% > or = midpoint on HS scale, cf. 20% in summer camp samples. HS more unpredictable in this than other less stressful environments (e.g., summer camps). Insecure attachment and low perceived control did not predict HS.

Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets, & van Heck (1999c)NL

Female students N=59X-s.

AHCQ (recruiting asked for experienced HS after move away from home).

Coping strategies & personality styles

No home- new place subscale analyses (coping with HS focus). Mental escape (coping style) and neuroticism predicted HS chronicity. Recovery from HS attributed to making new friends

Their HS measure was one of coping with HS. Neuroticism more important than coping style. Causality direction (e.g., making new friends & HS)? Focus on chronic HS.

Van Tilburg, de Waal, Vingerhoets, & van Heck (1999a)

Individuals with severe HS experiences

Interviews on HS experiences in chronological order

Identifying subtypes of HS

The analyses revealed two types of HS: 1. Recurrent HS, associated with more general

A qualitative study, but included because data analysis of the text fragments was included.

6


N=31 (of these, 24 interviewed texts used), aged 22-74 (M=43, SD=12)

(texts were transcribed and quantitatively analyzed)

psychopathology, problems in the parent-child relationship, and childhood HS and 2. Recovered HS, associated with difficulty in breaking with familiar routines during holidays specifically.

Van Tilburg et al. (1999d).NL

Female adults N=325, newspaper etc. ad respondents. Mean age = 42.4, SD 13.4. Longitudinal only for chronic HS subgroup N=39

Self-defined into 4 groups: chronic HS, HS-prone, HS recovered, non-HS.

Health, mood, cognition functioning, saliva cortisol & social activities.

No home- new place subscale analyses.Health & mood, cognitive functioning poorer in HS & HS-prone subgroups, no sig. diffs. in cortisol. Various social activities more difficult. for HS, HS-prone and HS-recovered.

Suggest that a personality-linked vulnerability factor makes anxious persons prone to HS.N.B. no HS scale included.

Tochkov, Levine, & Sanaka (2010).U.S.

Freshmen students: (1) Indian: N=40; 55%=F; 45%=M. Mean age=22, range=21-24. (2) U.S.: N=35; 62.9%=F; 37.1%=M. Mean age=21, range=18-51.

Archer et al.’s (1998) HQ

Depression, anxiety, family and university environment

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).HS> Indian than U.S. students. Anxiety & depression positively associated with HS among Indian sample. N.B.: Longer residence > HS among Indians. Visits home > HS among Indians. Those planning to stay in U.S.< HS. M > HS than F among Indians. More credits < HS. Financial security< HS.

Small but interesting cultural comparison and variables identified. Relationship with credit could be either direction (lo-HS better able to study; better ability < HS).

Urani, Miller, Johnson, & Petzel (2003)U.S.

1st yr. Students (N=105; M=87, M=18). Mean age 18.07, range 17-19. T 1 (retrospective) 1st 2 weeks; current (5th-7th week of school).

Fisher’s (1986) Dundee Relocation Inventory

Social anxiety and social support

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).HS related to social anxiety early on. HS declined over time. SS negatively related to HS.

Highlights importance of SS, but a retrospective evaluation of early HS.

Verschuur, Eurelings-Bontekoe, Spinhoven & Duijsens (2003)NL

2 samples: 1. N=485 adults (random telephone directory). F=57%. Age= 17-90 (M=45.5; sd=15.2).2. n=445. F=59%. Age=18-887 (M= 45.1; SD=15.7.Cross-sectional.

6 self-report HS questions & Homesickness Decision Tree (Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1994) for severity of HS. Sample 1 also the HVQ for vulnerability to HS.

Temperament and character; HS vulnerability or protective factors such as early HS experiences, rigidity, assertiveness

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).HS predicted by various personality characteristics including harm avoidance & reward dependence; severe HS lower self-directedness. Earlier HS experiences the strongest predictor of HS severity.

Recurrent HS could be in a current state of HS, confounding assessment of the personality trait measures.

Verschuur, Eurelings-Bontekoe, & Spinhoven (2004)NL

Sample 1 of Verschuur et al. (2003)

See Verschuur et al. (2003)

Anxiety, depression, anger, self-expression and control, anxiety sensitivity

No home- new place subscale analyses (home focus).HS associated with anxiety & depression and externalization of anger. State/trait results: depression more characteristic of HS as state, anxiety of HS as enduring tendency.

Theory oriented: HS as state and/or trait.

van Vliet (2001)NL

Student X-s study (1): N=482, F=80.6%. Age: Mean=19.6, SD=2.12Student long. study (2): students N=216 thro T5 (5x 4 month intervals). Mean age (at start)= 19,71, SD= 2.83.Expatriots study (3)Long.; 2 yr period (4x 6 month intervals; T1=4-6 wks before leaving). N= 118; controls=20 thro T4. Age expats T1 Mean= 36.15, SD=10.52.

Utrecht HS Scale (van Vliet, 2001; van Vliet et al., 1998)

Prevalence Multiple antecedents, consequences and mediational processes of HS, main interests: sociodemographic patterning; coping; personality variables.

Home- new place subscale analyses. UHS scale development (van Vliet, 2001)Student study (1) : being anxious about relationships & emotional instability were important predictors.Study (2) 50% of 1st yr students who moved from home experienced HS sometimes; 5% often. 50% of this sample had experienced HS some time in lives. Hi and Lo HS similar academic performance. Crucial mediating role of adjustment difficulties.Study (3) fewer HS than the other 2 studies. Self-selection hypothesized. More demanding situations and fewer resources> HS. E.g., hi perceived social support < HS. “Strangeness” of culture predicts HS.

Theoretically-based, longitudinal as well as x-sectional, in-depth investigation of HS. Strong evidence that adults experience HS, not just HS but expats.

Ward & Kennedy Study 1: 178 9 specific HS items of The distinction between No home- new place subscale HS marginal interest, but

7


(1993) secondary school students from New Zealand in an exchange program (mean stay 10 weeks abroad). Mean age 17 years (SD = 0.75)Study 2: secondary school students in New Zealand. Mean age 17 years (SD = 0.53)

the Dundee Relocation Inventory (excluding non-specific maladjustment items such as feeling lonely)

psychological and socio-cultural adjustment

analyses (home focus) HS was related to psychological adjustment, but not to social difficulty and socio-cultural adaptation.

psychological adjustment and adjustment to new environment included, thus listed here.

Watt & Badger (2009)Australia

Study 1: International students in Australia. Age 18-45 (M=24.54; SD=5.85) duration 1mth- 10yrs.Study 2: N=144. M=50; F=94. Exp. Condition=73; controls=71. Age 18-28, mean=18.60, SD=1.28

Utrecht HS Scale. Need to Belong (see Leary et al., 2001). Social activity, integration, & network measures. Study 2 – and experimental manipulation of need to belong.

No home- new place subscale analyses.Study 1: Need to belong positively correlated with HS.Study 2: need to belong causally related to HS, relationships in new environment do not compensate. HS persists over time. No relation between phone calls received from home & HS. HS not reduced by phoning home.

Includes experimental design.Theoretical approach: Belongingness Theory. Can results be explained by in/secure attachment? (cf. p. 528: they suggest this as an alternative explanation).

Ying (2005)U.S.A.

Taiwanese graduate studentsLongitudinal

Migration-Acculturation Stressors Scale: HS identified by factor analysis, one of 5 domains, 5 items

Examined stressors over 2 yrs (5 data collections).

No home- new place subscale analysesDecline (gradual, linear) in stressors over time, inc. HS. Academic stressors posed even greater difficulty than HS.

Detailed examination of pattern of HS over time.

Abbreviations: F=female; M=males. Prev.=prevalence of HS

8


References: Empirical studies

Archer, J., Ireland, J., Amos, S., Board, H., & Currid, L. (1998). Derivation of a homesickness

scale. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 205-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1998.tb02681.x

Beck, R., Taylor, C., & Robbins, M. (2003). Missing home: Sociotropy and autonomy and

their relationship to psychological distress and homesickness in college freshmen.

Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 155-166.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2003.10382970

Bell, J., & Bromnick, R. (1998). Young people in transition: The relationship between

homesickness and self-disclosure. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 745-748.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.1998.0193

Benn, J., Harvey, J., Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2005). Social rank, interpersonal trust and recall

of parental rearing in relationship to homesickness. Personality and Individual

Differences, 38, 1813-1822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.11.010

Brewin, C.R., Furnham, A., & Howes, M. (1989). Demographic and psychological

determinants of homesickness and confiding among students. British Journal of

Psychology, 80, 467-477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02336.x

Carden, A. & Feicht, R. (1991). Homesickness among American and Turkish college students.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 418-428.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022191223007

Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. (1997). Homesickness, personality and personality disorders:

An overview and therapeutic considerations. In M.A.L. van Tilburg & A.J.J.M.

Vingerhoets (Eds.), Psychological aspects of geographical moves. Homesickness and

acculturation stress (pp. 197-212). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Brouwers, E., Verschuur, M., & Duijsens, I. (1998). DSM-III-R and

9


CD-10 personality disorder features among women experiencing two types of self-

reported homesickness: An exploratory study. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 405-

416. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1998.tb02693.x

Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Duijsens, I., & Verschuur, M. (1996a). Prevalence of DSM-III and

ICD-10 personality disorders among military conscripts suffering from homesickness.

Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 431-440.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00031-1

Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Brouwers, E., & Verschuur, M. (2000). Homesickness among foreign

employees of a multinational high-tech company in The Netherlands. Environment and

Behavior, 32, 443-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972612

Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: A longitudinal study of

psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness, and vulnerability to homesickness.

British Journal of Psychology, 78, 425-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1987.tb02260.x

Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1988). Vulnerability factors in the transition to university: Self-

reported mobility history and sex differences as factors in psychological disturbance.

British Journal of Psychology, 79, 309-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1988.tb02290.x

Fisher, S. Elder, L., & Peacock, G. (1990). Homesickness in a school in the Australian bush.

Children’s Environments Quarterly, 7, 15-22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41514740

Fisher, S. Frazer, N. & Murray, K. (1984). The transition from home to boarding school: A

diary-style analysis of the problems and worries of boarding school pupils. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 4, 211-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-

4944(84)80042-0

10

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00031-1


Fisher, S., Murray, K., & Frazer, N.A. (1985). Homesickness, health, and efficiency in first

year students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 181-195.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80016-5

Fisher, S. Frazer, N. & Murray, K. (1986). Homesickness and health in boarding school

children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 35-47.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(86)80033-0

Flett, G.L., Endler, N.S., & Besser, A. (2009). Separation anxiety, perceived controllability,

and homesickness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 265-282.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00438.x

Hafen, M., Reisig, A., White, M., & Rush, B. (2008). The first-year veterinary student and

mental health: The role of common stressors. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education,

35, 102-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.1.102

Hendricksen, B., Rosen, D., & Aune, R. (2011). An analysis of friendship networks, social

connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35. 281-295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.08.001

Ireland, C. & Archer, J. (2000). Homesickness among a prison population. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 5, 97-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532500168001

Kazantzis, N. & Flett, R. (1998). Family cohesion and age as determinants of homesickness

in university students. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 195-202.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1998.26.2.195

Kerns, K.A., Brumariu, L.E., & Abraham, M.M. (2008). Homesickness at summer camp:

Associations with the mother-child relationship, social self-concept, and peer

relationships in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 473-498.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0010

Longo, G. & Kim-Spoon, J. (2013). Homesickness in college students: the role of religion in

11

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0010


combating depression. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 16, 489-500.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2012.696600

Lu, L. (1990). Adaptation to British universities: Homesickness and mental health of Chinese

students. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 225-232.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515079008254253

McKinlay, N., Pattison, H., & Gross, H. (1996). An exploratory investigation of the effects of a

cultural orientation program on the psychological well-being of international university

students. Higher Education, 31, 379-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00128438

Nijhof, K., & Engels, R. (2007). Parenting styles, coping strategies, and the expression of

homesickness. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 709-720.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.009

Platt, J., & Eisenman, R. (1970). Homesickness: Incidence and stability. Psychology, 7, 42-45.

Porritt, D., & Taylor, D. (1981). An exploration of homesickness among student nurses.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 57-62.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00048678109159411

Poyrazli, S., & Lopez, M. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and

homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The

Journal of Psychology, 141, 263-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.141.3.263-280

Radcliffe, J., & Turk, V. (2007). Distress in children with learning disabilities at a respite unit:

perspectives on their experiences. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 91-101.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2007.00469.x

*Scopelleti, M. & Tibero, L. (2010). Homesickness in university students: The role of multiple

place attachment. Environment and Behavior, 42, 335-350.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916510361872

Shal, R., Sharbaf, H., Aghamohammadian, H., Abdeekhodaee, M., Masoleh, M., & Salehi, I.

(2011). Survey the relationship between attachment style and general self efficacy with

12

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2007.00469.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.009


homesickness among college students. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30,

538-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.105

Stroebe, M., van Vliet, T., Hewstone, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Homesickness among students

in two cultures: Antecedents and consequences. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 147-

168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712602162508

Suanet, I., & Vijver, F. van der (2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among

exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19,

182-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.989

Terry, M., Leary, M., & Mehta, S. (2013). Self-compassion as a buffer against homesickness,

depression, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college. Self and Identity, 11, 1-13.

Thurber, C. (1995). The experience and expression of homesickness in preadolescent and

adolescent boys. Child Development, 66, 1162-1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131805

Thurber, C. (1999). The phenomenology of homesickness in boys. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 27, 125-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021911514768

Thurber, C.A., Patterson, D., & Mount, K. (2007). Homesickness and children’s adjustment to

hospitalization: Toward a preliminary model. Children’s Healthcare, 36, 1-28.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02739610701316753

Thurber, C.A., & Sigman, M.D. (1998). Preliminary models of risk and protective factors for

childhood homesickness: Review and empirical synthesis. Child Development, 69, 903-

934. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06151.x

Thurber, C.A. & Weisz, J. (1997a). Describing boys’ coping with homesickness using a two-

process model of control. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 10, 181-202.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809708249300

Thurber, C.A. & Weisz (1997b). “You can try or you can just give up”: The impact of perceived control

and coping style on childhood homesickness. Developmental Psychology, 33, 508-517.

doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.508

13

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.508

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02739610701316753


Thurber, C.A., Sigman, M.D., Weisz, J.R., & Schmidt, C.K. (1999). Homesickness in

adolescent and preadolescent girls: Risk factors, behavioral correlates, and sequelae.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 185-196.

Tilburg, M. van, de Waal, K. de, Vingerhoets, A. & Heck, G. van (1999a). Homesickness and

separation anxiety: Are they different? Psychological Studies, 44, 95-100.

Tilburg, M. van, Vingerhoets, A., & Heck, G. van (1999c). Determinants of homesickness

chronicity: Coping and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 531-

339.

Tilburg, M. van, Vingerhoets, A., van Heck, G., & Kirschbaum, C. (1999d). Homesickness,

mood and self-reported health. Stress Medicine, 15, 189-196.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199907)15:3<189::AID-SMI814>3.0.CO;2-

U

Tochkov, K., Levine, L., & Sanaka, A. (2010). Variation in the prediction of cross-cultural

adjustment by Asian-Indian students in the United States. College Student Journal, 44,

677-689.

Urani, M., Miller, S., Johnson, J., & Petzel, T. (2003). Homesickness in socially anxious first

year college students. College Student Journal, 37, 392-390.

Verschuur, M.J., Eurelings-Bontekoe, E.H.M., Spinhoven, P., & Duijsens, I. J. (2003).

Homesickness, temperament and character. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,

757-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00281-7

Verschuur, M., Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., & Spinhoven, P. (2004). Associations among

homesickness, anger, anxiety and depression. Psychological Reports, 94, 1155-1170.

doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1155-1170

Vliet, A. J. van (2001). Homesickness: antecedents, consequences and mediating processes.

Utrecht University.

14


Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-

cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home.

International Journal of Psychology, 28, 129-147.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207599308247181

Watt, S., & Badger, A. (2009). Effects of social belonging on homesickness: An application

of the belongingness hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 516-

530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208329695

Ying, Y.-W. (2005). Variation in acculturative stressors over time: A study of Taiwanese

students in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 59-

71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.003

15

homesickness: a review of scientific...

Documents