Community Belongingness and Subjective Well-being among Unemployed

People in a Finnish Community

Abstract

Purpose - Community belongingness has been found to be positively associated with subjective well-
being. Scholars have verified this connection with different social groups. In the present study, we
are interested in the group of unemployed people and compare their situation to employed people.
Specifically, we examine whether a sense of community belonging prevents negative impacts of
unemployment on subjective well-being.

Design/ Methodology/Approach - The study is based on a survey conducted in 2016. The data
consist of 830 respondents from which 723 had the labor market status of employed people and 107
had the labor market status of unemployed people.

Findings - The results of this study show that there are both positive and negative factors which
support or weaken community belongingness. Interpersonal trust supports the sense of community
belonging of individuals, but loneliness weakens their community belongingness. However,
unemployed people have a lower rate of community belongingness and subjective well-being
comparing to employed people. Furthermore, community belongingness is positively associated with
subjective well-being, but this connection is conditional in order that a high rate of community
belongingness buffers the negative impacts of unemployment.

Originality/Value - The study emphasizes the significance of community belongingness as a basis of

subjective well-being. On the other hand, the negative impacts of unemployment can be mitigated
by supporting integration of unemployed people into social communities. From a sociopolitical view,
the results underline the fact that governmental measurements promote the social inclusion of
unemployed people.
INTRODUCTION

It is widely known that the level of subjective well-being is higher among employed people than
among unemployed people (e.g. Blank et al., 2015). Employment has a positive influence on the
health and well-being of individuals. Employment (the work) has also some latent functions in the
everyday life of individuals, such as giving structure to the day (e.g. Christiansen and Townsend,
2010). The previous studies further reveal that employment gives opportunities for social network
engagement, which in turn supports the subjective well-being of individuals. On the other hand,
there is consistent evidence that unemployment is detrimental to the well-being of the individuals
involved (Bartrum and Creed, 2006; Koen et al., 2013; Ferreira, 2015). Unemployment is a social risk,
which produces social problems if it is prolonged. Welfare states have tried to find ways to reduce
these social risks and social problems by activating unemployed people, but also by trying to
integrate them better into society.

In this study, we explore whether community belongingness could be seen as an instrument which
reduces social risks and promotes the well-being of unemployed people. In general, well-being has
been strongly linked with the quality of social bonds and social interaction of individuals. Baumeister
and Leary (1995, p. 497) proposed the belongingness hypothesis, which suggests that “human beings
have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive and
significant interpersonal relationships”. The belongingness hypothesis has been verified in many
studies. For instance, Albanesi et al. (2007) showed that a sense of belonging predicts well-being
among adolescents but similar results are found also among many other social groups such as
elderly people (Cramm and Nieboer, 2015), immigrants (Amit and Bar-Lev, 2015), and students
(Stebleton et al., 2014). The belongingness hypothesis also covers the significance of wider social
entities such as neighbors and communities (e.g. Shields, 2008)

The belongingness hypothesis is widely studied but less so in the group of unemployed people. In
this article, we are interested in the association of community belongingness and subjective well-
being. We compare the results of our study of employed and unemployed people. We assume that a
sense of belonging and subjective well-being are positively associated, but especially so in
unemployed people because they have a lower sense of belonging and subjective well-being
comparing to employed people. Furthermore, we assume that community belongingness has a
buffering effect on well-being so that it mitigates the negative effects of unemployment.

BACKGROUND

Sense of belonging

Anant (1966) defines the concept of belongingness as the experience of personal involvement (in a
system) to the extent that a person feels that they are an indispensable and integral part of that
system. Later, Hagerty et al. (1992) expanded the definition of belongingness as proposed by Anant
(1966) to include two additional dimensions. The first dimension consists of experience whereby an
individual feels that they are valued, needed, and accepted. The second dimension involves the
person’s perception that their characteristics articulate with or complement the system. Hagerty et
al. (1992, p. 173) defined a sense of belonging 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”. According to the belongingness hypothesis of Baumeister and Leary (1995), the
human drive for social relationships is an essential feature of human beings (cf. Baumeister, 2005).
Social belongingness may be based on social interaction with our own significant people, but it can
also be focused on relationships which allow us to feel a part of a larger symbolic entity (e.g.
community) that expands the capacities and boundaries of their own self (Aron et al., 2001).

The relationship of the self and community may be described in different ways and by using
concepts. For instance, individuals’ connections to local networks (bonds) and their interactions are
seen to be strongly related to community attachment (Kasardan and Janowitz, 1974). On the other
hand, community belongingness is said to refer to a situation where people feel a membership with
an environment (Mecsh and Manor, 1998). Furthermore, place rootedness is described as a very
strong bond to home (Hay 1998). Similarly place familiarity may be defined as pleasant memories,
achievement memories and environmental images associated with places. Hence, there is no clear
definition for the situation in which people are intensely related to a place (Raymond et al., 2010).

Mahar et al. (2013) suggest that the following five elements are central to a multidimensional
understanding of a sense of belonging. First, achieving a sense of belonging requires that the
individual perceive that they are valued, respected or otherwise subjectively engaged. Second, an
appropriate understanding of a sense of belonging requires that a referent group for belonging is
provided to anchor the subjective feeling. For example, in education referent groups include schools,
peer groups, classrooms or an entire campus community. Third, a sense of belonging is based on
reciprocity, which refers to connectedness that is shared by the individual and the external referent.
Fourth, both physical and social environments may contribute to or detract from an individual’s
sense of belonging. Fifth, self-determination respects the right of the individual to choose to interact
with referents and their perceived power in the interaction. But, individuals who feel powerless to
belong may never successfully achieve a sense of belonging.

Community belongingness and subjective well-being

Lambert et al. (2013) found that there is a strong positive correlation between community
belongingness and subjective well-being. They suggest that a sense of belonging predicts how
meaningful life is perceived to be. Sandstrom and Dunn (2014) found that the correlation is not only
based on intensive social interactions but so-called weak ties are also related to social and emotional
well-being. They revealed that even social interactions with the more peripheral members of our
social networks contribute to our well-being.

Scholars have studied the association of community belongingness and subjective well-being in
different types of social groups. Albanesi et al. (2007) suggest that a sense of community belonging
predicts social well-being among adolescents. Their findings suggest that in order to increase social
well-being it is important to provide adolescents with more opportunities to experience a sense of
belonging to the peer group and to promote prosocial behaviors in the community context. Similarly,
Newman et al. (2007) argue that a sense of peer group belonging was negatively related to
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems among adolescents. Adolescents who viewed peer
group membership as very important to them had a positive sense of peer group belonging and they
also had significantly fewer behavior problems than those who viewed peer group membership as
very important, but did not have a positive sense of peer group belonging. The association of
community belongingness and subjective well-being is found also among students. Stebleton et al.
(2014) studied the sense of belonging, mental health status, and use of mental health services in
first-generation student compared to other students. They found that the first-generation students
tended to report lower ratings of belonging, greater levels of depression, and a lower use of services
compared to other students. According to Grobecker (2016), a sense of belonging has a positive
influence on the learning, motivation and confidence of students and thus it is associated with their
well-being.

Also, the well-being of older people seems to be linked with community belongingness. Young,
Russel and Powers (2004) found that a better sense of neighborhood was associated with better
physical and mental health, lower stress, better social support and being physically active among
older women. Similarly, Cramm and Nieboer (2015) confirmed that the neighborhood has been
identified as an important aspect of the well-being of older people. Poor neighborhood conditions
can pose difficulties in obtaining support, especially for older people who live alone. Older people
living in socially deprived neighborhoods report poorer overall well-being and instrumental goals to
achieve well-being. Amit and Bar-Lev (2015) suggest that life satisfaction is associated with
community belongingness among immigrants (e.g. Gonzales et al., 2013).

Furthermore, scholars have reported on a buffering effect of community belongingness against

negative factors of well-being. A buffering effect is a process in which a social resource reduces the
impact of life stress on subjective well-being, thus in this case persons with a high sense of belonging
show less adverse impacts from negative events. For instance, Hombrados‐Mendieta et al. (2013)
confirmed that community belongingness acts as a moderating variable that buffers the effect of the
adaptation process experienced by immigrants (cf. Berry and Hou, 2017). On the other hand, the
well-being of individuals also seems to protect them from the negative effects of unemployment.
Binder and Coad (2015) note that individuals with high well-being suffer less from becoming
unemployed.

The buffering effect is based on an individual-level social attachment in interpersonal relationships

and also on the social engagement of individuals in broader communities. From a positive point of
view, a sense of belonging is based on social connectedness, which supports social attachment
among individuals. Satisfaction with social relationships is a strong predictor of community
belongingness (Cemalcilar, 2010). The thicker the social network and active social participation, the
higher the sense of belonging (Jetten et al., 2014). The larger the social network of friends, family,
and club memberships that an individual has, the better the mental and physical health of that
individual. From a negative point of view, the lack of friends and thin social network are associated
with a low rate of a sense of belonging. Social isolation can adversely affect well-being while social
engagement and attachment can lead to positive outcomes and significantly reduce health and
social risks (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010). Thus, community belongingness supports well-being in
general, but it also prevents the effects of negative features of well-being such as loneliness.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

The data are based on a survey provided by the Department of Social Sciences at the University of X
in 2016. The survey was focused on an ordinary life in a small town in Finland. The target town had
21 500 inhabitants (the median of Finnish municipalities was 6 178, the population of the whole
country was 5 503 297) in 2016. The town is a traditional industrial town but it is located within a
rural region. Its economic structure is based on industries having a share of 24.1 percent (average of
2014 and 2015) compared to the average of 14.4 percent for all municipalities. Its demographic
dependency ratio was 66.7 (the average for the whole country: 59.1). The measure of educational
level was 318 (the average for the whole country: 363) in 2016, which shows that the theoretical
period of education per person was 3.2 years after completing basic education. The percentage of
unemployed people (as % of labor force) was 17.2 (the average for the whole country: 13.2) in 2016.

The study was focused on 5000 urban residents aged 18-85 years who were selected randomly from
the Population Register Center. In the first wave (October 2016) the questionnaire was sent by post
but the respondents were asked to use the internet for responding to the electronic survey. In the
second wave, those respondents who did not answer were sent a paper form and they were asked
to fill out either an electronic form or a paper form (November 2016). In the third wave, a reminder
was sent to those who had not yet responded, and especially to those in age group of 18-36 years
because there were fewer respondents in this group than in other age groups. Later, the data on
gender, age and education were corrected by using a weighting adjustment. The population
distribution of the variables was obtained from the National Statistical Institute. The response rate
was 1970 which is 39.4 percent of the whole sample.

Design

The main aim of the study was to explore how community belongingness (CB) is associated with
subjective well-being (SWB) among unemployed people. According to previous studies, we can
assume that community belongingness and subjective well-being are positively associated (e.g.
Sundstrom and Dunn, 2014). Also, we assume that community belongingness and subjective well-
being are lower among unemployed people than among employed people. Thus, we assume that
labor market status (LMS) is a significant factor in explaining the association between community
belongingness and subjective well-being. We test whether the labor market status moderates the
effect of community belongingness on subjective well-being. Furthermore, if there is a significant
difference in community belonging between employed and unemployed people, then it is
reasonable to also investigate which factors may explain a sense of community belonging in both
groups.

The analysis is based on the following hypotheses:

H1: SWB and CB are positively associated
H2: Both CB and SWB are higher among employed people than among unemployed people.
H3: CB has a buffering effect on SWB, so that LMS moderates its effect on SWB.
H4: There is no difference between the predictors of CB among employed and unemployed people.

The hypotheses were tested in the following way. At the start of the analysis, the focus was set on
the relationship between community belongingness (CB) and subjective well-being (SWB) by
describing the relationship separately among employed and unemployed people. The correlations
between the variables were examined by using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
(PPMCC) (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, the mean rates of SWB and CB were calculated in the groups
of unemployed and employed people (Hypothesis 2). In the next phase of analysis, the study was
focused on whether the labor market status (LMS) effects on the relationship of CB and SWB. That is,
whether the effect of CB on SWB is the function of LMS (Hypothesis 3). The moderation models were
tested by using a conditional process analysis program (PROCESS ), which computes ordinary least
square (OLS) regressions to test for moderation models (Hayes, 2013). Because the influence of CB
on SWB depended on LMS, it was also reasonable to study whether CB was based on similar
predictors among employed and unemployed people. The predictors of CB were analyzed by using
linear regression analysis using the stepwise method (Hypothesis 4). Before carrying out the
regression analyses, the validity of the conditions was checked. The normality of the residual
distributions and the linearity condition were assessed graphically. Multicollinearity between the
independent variables was tested by using variance inflation factor (VIF) coefficients, whose scores
are presented in the results section.

Measures

The measure of subjective well-being (SWB) can be constructed by including various components
(Dolan and Metcalfe, 2012; Dolan et al., 2011; see also Cramm and Nieboer, 2012; Adler and
Seligman, 2016). Life satisfaction refers to well-being, which is based on the individual’s assessment
and cognitive reflection of their life situation (Diener et al., 1985). Another way of measuring
subjective well-being is based on emotions. Affective well-being is seen to contribute to upward
spirals in coping ability, self-esteem, performance, and productivity at work (Watson et al., 1998).
Furthermore, subjective well-being may be approached as eudemonic, which includes the
individual’s assessment of the meaning of their own life. In this study, subjective well-being is a sum
variable, which consisted of six variables, which were Likert-type scale items (1= Strongly disagree,…,
5= Strongly agree). The sum variable consisted of three items, which measured an individual’s
cognitive reflection of their own life situation, and three items of eudemonic type, which were
focused on the meaning of life. Thus, the component of affective well-being was not included in the
measure. The reliability of the constructed variable was .904 in the entire data and its distribution
was nearly normal in both groups.

The original measure of community belongingness (CB) was based on twelve items, which in factor
analysis was loaded for three factors: community, family and relatives, and engagement in social
groups. In this analysis, we studied a sense of community belonging, which consisted of three Likert-
type items (1-5) where respondents were asked to assess how solidly they feel they are belonging in
the following communities: neighborhood, town, and society (1= Very loosely,…, 5= Very firmly
agree). The reliability of the sum variable was .690 in the entire data.

Labor market status (LMS) was measured by using a categorical variable, which contained eight
options. However, only the categories of employed and unemployed were taken into the analysis,
thus the data were divided into two groups consisting of 723 employed and 107 unemployed
respondents. The variable was treated as a dummy.

The independent variables were used as predictors of CB in the linear regression analysis. The
variable of institutional trust consisted of 7 items. The reliability of the sum variable was 0.920. The
variable of loneliness was formed from two items. The reliability of the sum variable was 0.823. The
sum variable of problems was formed from four items which measured mental health problems,
alcohol problems, physical problems, and interpersonal problems. The reliability of the variable was
0.663. Other independent variables were based on single items, for which values and means are
described separately in the groups of employed and unemployed people in Table 1.

Table 1. The predictors of community belongingness

Variable Values Alpha, based Employed, Unemployed,
on entire data mean mean
Gender 0=male, 1=female - 0.58, n=719 0.61, n=105
Age 18–67 - 48.87, n=701 50.82, n=101
Spouse 0= no, 1 = yes - 0.86, n=720 0.66, n=104
Children 0= no, 1 = yes - 0.75, n=719 0.67, n=104
Education low to high, 1-5 - 3.52, n=721 3.19, n=104
Income low to high, 1-5 - 2.92, n=717 2.09, n=105
Adequacy of income high to low, 1-5 - 1.90, n=716 2.61, n=76
 Interpersonal trust low to high, 0-10 - 7.07, n=714 6.81, n=105
Institutional trust low to high, 0-10 7 items, 0.920 5.32, n=717 4.77, n=105
Future good to bad, 1-5 - 2.10, n=720 2.49, n=105
Loneliness good to bad, 1-5 2 items, 0.823 1.90, n=721 2.26, n=105
Stress low to high, 1-5 - 2.83, n=721 2.65, n=105
Health good to bad, 1-5 - 1.84, n=721 2.23, n=105
Problems good to bad, 1-4 4 items, 0.663 1.47, n=715 1.71, n=105

RESULTS

The data were analyzed in three phases. The analysis was started by examining the relationship
between community belongingness (CB) and subjective well-being (SWB) in the groups of employed
and unemployed people. Correlations were calculated for CB and SWB scores. As expected, well-
being and community belongingness were positively and moderately correlated in both groups
(Table 2), that is, as a sense of belonging increases well-being increases which supports Hypothesis
1. However, the employed group had the higher mean both in CB and SWB compared to the
unemployed group as Hypothesis 2 suggests (Table 3).

Table 2. Correlations between subjective well-being (SWB) and community belongingness (CB) in the
groups of unemployed and employed people
r n(N)
Entire sample 301*** 830
Unemployed .408*** 107 (830)
Employed .247*** 723 (830)
***<.001

Table 3. Mean scores of subjective well-being (SWB) and community belongingness (CB) in groups of
unemployed and employed people
Mean SoB Mean SWB n(N)
Entire sample 3,33 (.83) 4,16 (.67) 830
Unemployed 3,09 (.86) 3,80 (.82) 107 (830)
Employed 3,36 (.82) 4,21 (.63) 723 (830)

In the second phase, the relationship between community belongingness (CB) and subjective well-
being (SWB) were examined more deeply from the view of the labor market status (LMS). We
studied whether the effect of the CB (X) on SWB (Y) was different at different values of the labor
market status (M) (employed or unemployed). This can be expressed as in the following equation: Y
= i1+b1X+b2M+b3XM+eY1. According to the analysis (Table 4), the coefficients of community
belongingness (CB = .208) and the labor market status (.225) estimate conditional effect when the
other variable is zero. Furthermore, b3 (-.356) is statistically different from zero, meaning that the
effect of community belongingness (CB) with respect to subjective well-being (SWB) depends on the
labor market status (LMS). More specifically, as community belongingness increases by one unit,
difference between the groups in subjective well-being decreases by 0.356 units. Hence, the labor
market status moderates the effect of community belongingness (CB) on subjective well-being
(SWB) as hypothesis 3 suggests. In the moderation model, age, gender and adequacy of income level

1
Regression coefficient b3 determines how much the effect of X is contingent on M. Test of significance intervals based on
b3 answers the question as to whether M moderates the effect of Xs. When XM is in a model with X and M, the coefficients
for X and M are conditional effects, which means that they are conditioned on the other variable being zero. When XM is
not in the model, these are partial effects (cf. main effects in ANOVA).
were used as control variables (C1, C2, and C3). However, some reservation is needed regarding the
moderation model, because its ability to explain the variance in subjective well-being is 17.6 %.

Table 4. Results from a regression analysis examining the moderation of the effect of community
belongingness (CB) to well-being on labor market status (LMS), controlling for age and gender and
adequacy of Income
Coeff. SE t p
Intercept i1 4.560 .136 33.601 .000
CB (X) b1 .208 .027 7.751 .000
LMS (M) b2 .225 .078 2.860 .004
CBxLMS (XM) b3 -.356 .089 -3.980 .000
Gender (C1) b4 -.024 .045 -.538 .591
Age (C2) b5 .001 .002 .334 .739
Adequacy of income (C3) b6 -.198 .032 -6.123 .000
R2=.175, MSE=376
F(6,767)=26.984, p<.001

The moderation model can also be visualized, which makes it clearer what is happening in the data
(Figure 1). In both groups of labor market status (employed and unemployed) community
belongingness and subjective well-being are positively associated. However, among the group of
unemployed people the association is steeper than among the group of employed people. The labor
market status moderates the effect of community belongingness to subjective well-being in different
way in both groups.

Figure 1. Visual representation of the moderation of the effect of community belongingness (CB) on
subjective well-being (SWB) by labor market status (LMS) (employed = black, unemployed = grey)

4,6

4,4

4,2

3,8

3,6

3,4

3,2

3
Low Medium High
Community belongingness

In the final phase, we were interested to study whether the same predictors are associated with
community belongingness in both groups (employed and unemployed). First and second regression
models describe the results from the group of employed people, and the models three and four
describe the results from the group of unemployed people (Table 5). First and third regression
models shown in Table 5 include all of the independent variables, which were examined, but the
second and fourth models describe the results of a stepwise method. In the model 1, the highest VIF
value was 1.420, and in the model 2 the highest VIF value was 1.251. In the model 3, the highest VIF
value was 2.275. In the model 4, the value for both interpersonal trust and loneliness was 1.087.

Table 5. Linear regression analysis. Dependent variable: community belongingness

Employed Unemployed
Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
(Stand. beta) (Stand. beta) (Stand. beta) (Stand. beta)
Gender -.016 -.125
Age .019 -.036
Spouse -.050 -.072
Children -.041 .067
Education .031 .107
Income -.047 -.001
Adequacy of income .009 .148
Interpersonal trust .167*** .180*** .267 .293**
Institutional trust .221*** .229*** -.070
Future -.086 -.253
Loneliness -.089* -.117** -.402** -.422***
Stress .016 .209
Health .051 .065
Problems -.013 -.076
Adjusted R2 .143 .143 .280 .314
F 9.122*** 38.698*** 2.941** 17.038***
*= p<.05. ** = p<.01. *** = p<.001.

The regression analysis shows that loneliness is significantly and negatively associated with
community belongingness in both groups (Table 5). Thus, loneliness is a factor which weakens the
sense of community belonging. Furthermore, both interpersonal trust and institutional trust are
positively associated with community belongingness in the group of employed people. However,
only interpersonal trust is positively associated with community belongingness among unemployed
people. Thus, the predictors of community belongingness are mostly similar in the groups of
employed and unemployed people as hypothesis 4 suggests, however institutional trust is significant
only among employed people. Altogether, these factors explain as much as 31.4% of the total
variance in the variable of community belongingness in the group of unemployed people, but the
explanation share of variance is only 14.3 % in the group of employed people. Thus, we need to
remark that the low R-squared value need to take account in the interpretation of the results,
especially among the group of employed people.

DISCUSSION

According to the classic definition of Anant (1966), belongingness is based on the experience of
personal involvement in a group or community. As aforementioned, Baumeister and Leary (1995)
also note that humans are driven build and maintain interpersonal relationship. The belongingness
hypothesis is widely studied but less within a labor market status. In the present study, we were
interested in the association of community belongingness and subjective well-being among
unemployed people. The results of the study encouraged us to address the issue from three
perspectives.

First, we find that community belongingness is based on social interaction, which is consistent with
previous studies in the literature (e.g. Cemalcilar, 2010). Also, we find that there are positive and
negative factors which predict the sense of community belonging. Interpersonal trust supports an
individual’s sense of community belonging, but loneliness reduces it. In this sense, satisfaction with
social relationships is a strong predictor of community belongingness. For instance, Jetten et al.
(2014) also find that the thicker the social network and the more active the social participation, the
higher the rates of belongingness, but the lack of friends and more generally thin social network are
associated with the low rates of community belongingness. One’s sense of community belonging is
strongly based on social relationships and social interaction (Mahar et al., 2012).

Second, we find that the stronger the sense of community belonging, the higher the subjective well-
being. The result is consistent with the previous studies in the literature. For instance, Lambert et al.
(2013) find that a sense of belonging correlates positively with well-being. In this sense, community
belongingness predicts how meaningful life is perceived to be. The same positive association has
been found among different kinds of social groups. Albanesi et al. (2007) find the association of
community belongingness among adolescents, Cramm and Nieboer (2015) have also identified the
similar association among older people, Amit and Bar-Lev (2015) confirmed the same connection
among immigrants (see also Gonzales et al., 2013). According to Grobecker (2016), a sense of
belonging has a positive influence on the learning, motivation and confidence of students and thus it
is associated with their well-being. Furthermore, Jetten et al. (2014) showed that the larger one’s
social network of friends, family, and club memberships, the better one’s mental and physical
health. In this sense, it is not a surprise that in the present study, community belongingness is also
associated with subjective well-being among unemployed people.

However, there is a difference between employed and unemployed people regarding the rates of
community belongingness and subjective well-being. Unemployed people have slightly lower rates
of community belongingness and clear lower rates of subjective well-being compared to employed
people. We also find that the association between community belongingness and subjective well-
being is conditional, hence there is no difference in subjective well-being between employed and
unemployed people in the case of thick (high rate) community belongingness, but the difference is
significant in the case of thin (low rate) community belongingness. This result allowed us to assume
that community belongingness somehow buffers the negative effects of unemployment (cf. Binder
and Coad, 2015). A buffering effect is a process in which a social resource reduces the impact of
negative factors on subjective well-being, thus in this case, persons with a high sense of belonging
show a less adverse impact from negative factors on their subjective well-being. The result is
consistent with the previous studies in the literature, which have found that a sense of belonging has
a buffering effect. For instance, Shnabel et al. (2013) note that social belongingness improves the
situation of the members of negatively stereotyped groups. Also, Hombrados‐Mendieta et al. (2013)
confirm that a sense of belonging acts as a moderating variable that buffers the effect of the
adaptation process experienced by immigrants (cf. Berry and Hou, 2017). According to Minkkinen et
al. (2016), the higher level of belongingness to a primary group buffers the negative factors of
happiness among a risk group (suicide). From this perspective, it is understandable that community
belongingness is a significant factor solely among unemployed people whose social status is
questioned in a society.

Third, the belongingness hypothesis is typically seen to be based on interpersonal relationships. For
instance, Baumeister and Leary (1995) note that individuals try to form and maintain at least a
minimum quantity of lasting, positive and significant interpersonal relationships which are the basis
for belongingness. In the present study, we explore community belongingness which is not focused
at an interpersonal level but rather has a focus at a community level. We assume that this kind of
community level belongingness could not be based on social interactions alone, but it also could
have an abstract level background such as, for instance, institutional trust. However, we find that
institutional trust does not predict the rate of community belongingness among unemployed people
as it does among employed people. In this sense, there is a difference between unemployed and
employed people regarding the basis of community belongingness. We may assume that the societal
situation is a factor which explains the difference in institutional trust between the groups.
Unemployment is not accepted as a societal situation, thus it is detrimental to the institutional trust
of an individual. In this sense, the labor market status is a societal factor which is associated with
community belongingness.

There are some limitations in relation to the results of this study. In general, the data were collected
from a single town hence the results cannot be generalized in statistical terms. Nevertheless, the
results are consistent with the previous studies in the literature which argue that community
belongingness plays a significant role in subjective well-being among different kinds of social groups
such as adolescents, or even among marginalized groups such as immigrants. Furthermore, the main
argument of this study is focused on the buffering effect of community belonging, but the study
design did not allow us to analyze the difference between low and high sense of community
belonging within the group of unemployed people. It is obvious that the difference is related to the
length of unemployment and to the issues such as income or education level, but further research is
needed to deepen our knowledge on the issue.

CONCLUSION

The belongingness hypothesis (Baumeister and Leary, 1995) asserts that people have an innate drive
to pursue and to maintain a sense of belongingness. Community belongingness is deeply related to
subjective well-being, but it also has a buffering effect so that it mitigates the impacts of negative
factors on well-being. Social isolation can adversely affect subjective well-being while social
engagement and attachment can significantly reduce social risks (Holt-Lunstad et al. 2010).
According to research in the literature, community belongingness appears to be a factor that
promotes subjective well-being (e.g. Lambert at al., 2013; Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014).

The results of the present study confirm the belongingness hypothesis. Community belongingness
also promotes subjective well-being among unemployed people. However, this connection is
conditional, so that a high rate of community belongingness buffers the negative impacts of
unemployment. This means that although in general the well-being of unemployed people is lower
than that of employed people, there is no difference between the groups if unemployed individuals
have a high sense of community belonging. In this sense, community belongingness is a key factor in
studying and promoting the well-being of unemployed people.

Unemployment is a social risk, which undermines the subjective well-being of citizens. However,
from a sociopolitical viewpoint, the negative effects of unemployment can be mitigated by
supporting unemployed people in their integration into social communities. The integration can be
based on social interaction, which is a kind of basis for community belongingness. Social interaction
creates thick networks which support community belongingness. On the other hand, especially
institutional trust is the key factor in which the groups of employed and unemployed people differ.
In this sense, the governmental measurements should be focused on enhancing unemployed
people’s participation in communities, which supports their trust in institutions. In this sense, we
need two level measurements for tackling the social risks, at the level of the civil society and the
state.
However, unemployment is a multifaceted phenomenon which is not based only on social
interaction and institutional trust. It is also related to economic issues which create unequality, and
cultural issues as marginalization and stigmatization. In this sense, the contribution of the study is
needed to set into the broader framework. From this viewpoint, the result of the study may be
utilized in sociology and social policy education when talking about the risks of exclusion and the
welfare state´s responsibility for their citizens.

REFERENCES

Adler, A. and Seligman, M. E. (2016), Using wellbeing for public policy: Theory, measurement, and
recommendations. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(1).

Anant, S.S. (1966), The need to belong. Canada’s Mental Health, 14, 21–21.

Amit, K. and Bar-Lev, S. (2015), Immigrants’ sense of belonging to the host country: the role of life
satisfaction, language proficiency, and religious motives. Social Indicators Research, 124(3), 947–961.

Albanesi, C., Cicognani, E. and Zani, B. (2007), Sense of community, civic engagement and social well‐
being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 387-406.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N. & Norman, C. (2001), Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close
relationships and beyond. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social
psychology: Interpersonal processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 478–501.

Bartrum, D. and Creed, P. A. (2006), Explanations for deteriorating wellbeing in unemployed people:
Specific unemployment theories and beyond. Unemployment and health: International and
interdisciplinary perspectives, 1.

Baumeister, R. F. (2005), The cultural animal: Human nature, meaning, and social life. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. F. and Leary, M. R. (1995), The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Berry, J. W. and Hou, F. (2017), Acculturation, discrimination and wellbeing among second
generation of immigrants in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 61, 29–39.

Binder, M. and Coad, A. (2015), Heterogeneity in the relationship between unemployment and
subjective wellbeing: A quantile approach. Economica, 82(328), 865–891.

Blank, A. A., Harries, P. and Reynolds, F. (2015), ‘Without occupation you don't exist’: Occupational
engagement and mental illness. Journal of occupational science, 22(2), 197–209.

Cemalcilar, Z. (2010), Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate
factors on students’ sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology, 59(2), 243–272.

Cramm, J. M., and Nieboer, A. P. (2015), Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of
community-dwelling older people. BMC geriatrics, 15(1), 30.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., and Griffin, S. (1985), The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment 49, 71–75.

Dolan, P., Layard, R. and Metcalfe, R. (2011), Subjective well-being for public policy. London: Office
for National Statistics.

Dolan, P. and Metcalfe, R. (2012), Measuring subjective wellbeing: recommendations on measures

for use by national governments. Journal of Social Policy 41(2), 409–427.

Ferreira, J. A., Reitzle, M., Lee, B., Freitas, R. A., Santos, E. R., Alcoforado, L. and Vondracek, F. W.
(2015), Configurations of unemployment, reemployment, and psychological well-being: A
longitudinal study of unemployed individuals in Portugal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 54–64.

Gonzales, R. G., Suárez-Orozco, C. and Dedios-Sanguineti, M. C. (2013), No place to belong:

Contextualizing concepts of mental health among undocumented immigrant youth in the United
States. American behavioral scientist, 57(8), 1174–1199.

Cramm, J. M. and Nieboer, A. P. (2015), Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of
community-dwelling older people. BMC geriatrics, 15(1), 30.

Grobecker, P. A. (2016), A sense of belonging and perceived stress among baccalaureate nursing
students in clinical placements. Nurse education today, 36, 178–183.

Hagerty, B. M., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., Bouwsema, M., & Collier, P. (1992), Sense of
belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 6(3), 172–197.

Hay, R., (1998), Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of environmental psychology, 18(1),
5–29.

Hayes, A. F., (2013), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B. and Layton, J. B. (2010), Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-
analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

Hombrados‐Mendieta, M. I., Gomez‐Jacinto, L., Dominguez‐Fuentes, J. M. and Garcia‐Leiva, P.

(2013), Sense of community and satisfaction with life among immigrants and the native population.
Journal of Community Psychology, 41(5), 601–614.

Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. and Jones, J. M. (2014), How groups affect our health
and well‐being: the path from theory to policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 103–130.

Kasarda, J. D. and Janowitz, M. (1974), Community attachment in mass society. American

sociological review, 328–339.

Koen, J., Klehe, U. C. and Van Vianen, A. E. (2013), Employability among the long-term unemployed:
A futile quest or worth the effort? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 37–48.
Lambert, N. M., Stillman, T. F., Hicks, J. A., Kamble, S., Baumeister, R. F. and Fincham, F. D. (2013), To
belong is to matter: Sense of belonging enhances meaning in life. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39(11), 1418–1427.

Mahar, A. L., Cobigo, V., & Stuart, H. (2013), Conceptualizing belonging. Disability and rehabilitation,
35(12), 1026–1032.

Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998), Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment.
Environment and behavior, 30(4), 504–519.

Minkkinen, J., Oksanen, A., Näsi, M., Keipi, T., Kaakinen, M. and Räsänen, P. (2016), Does social
belonging to primary groups protect young people from the effects of pro-suicide sites? A
comparative study of four countries. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention,
37(1), 31.

Newman, B. M., Lohman, B. J. and Newman, P. R. (2007), Peer group membership and a sense of
belonging: Their relationship to adolescent behavior problems. Adolescence, 42(166), 241.

Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010), The measurement of place attachment: Personal,
community, and environmental connections. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(4), 422–434.

Sandstrom, G. M. and Dunn, E. W. (2014), Social interactions and well-being: The surprising power of
weak ties. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 910–922.

Shields, M. (2008), Community belonging and self-perceived health. Health reports, 19(2), 51.

Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J. and Cohen, G. L. (2013), Demystifying values-
affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering against identity threat.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663–676.

Stebleton, M. J., Soria, K. M. and Huesman, R. L. (2014), First‐generation students' sense of

belonging, mental health, and use of counseling services at public research universities. Journal of
College Counseling, 17(1), 6 –20.

Watson, D., Clark, L. and Tellegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54,
1063–1070.

Young, A. F., Russell, A. and Powers, J. R. (2004), The sense of belonging to a neighborhood: can it be
measured and is it related to health and wellbeing in older women? Social Science and Medicine,
59(12), 2627–2637.