Scholarlink

<p>Belongingness is a universal human need, with strong links to mental health and wellbeing. It is an essential element of theoretical perspectives across clinical, social, organisational and educational domains. In the early 1990s, belongingness was rigorously described and operationalised leading to considerable ongoing research. Nevertheless, while overlapping substantially, theoretical conceptualisations to date have not coalesced into a unified understanding. This study systematically examined existing literature on belongingness published between 1992 and 2022 to produce a unified definition and integrated conceptual framework. Essential characteristics of belongingness were mapped, yielding a two-by-two conceptualisation: (1) a cognitive vs. behavioural continuum; (2) a membership vs. relational value continuum. This integration of previous literature may facilitate a more precise measurement model, mapping of belongingness research onto a unified framework, and advances in belongingness-based interventions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An integrated conceptual framework for belongingness: re-evaluation, explication and synthesis of literature from the last 30 years

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月14日

查看全文
  • Susan Graham,
  • Wendell Cockshaw,
  • Chris Powell,
  • Leila Karimi

摘要

Belongingness is a universal human need, with strong links to mental health and wellbeing. It is an essential element of theoretical perspectives across clinical, social, organisational and educational domains. In the early 1990s, belongingness was rigorously described and operationalised leading to considerable ongoing research. Nevertheless, while overlapping substantially, theoretical conceptualisations to date have not coalesced into a unified understanding. This study systematically examined existing literature on belongingness published between 1992 and 2022 to produce a unified definition and integrated conceptual framework. Essential characteristics of belongingness were mapped, yielding a two-by-two conceptualisation: (1) a cognitive vs. behavioural continuum; (2) a membership vs. relational value continuum. This integration of previous literature may facilitate a more precise measurement model, mapping of belongingness research onto a unified framework, and advances in belongingness-based interventions.