147

British Journal of Psychology (2002), 93, 147 –168

© 2002 The British Psychological Society
www.bps.org.uk

Homesickness among students in two cultures:

Antecedents and consequences

Margaret Stroebe1*, Tony van Vliet1, Miles Hewstone2

and Hazel Willis3
1
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
2
Oxford University, UK
3
Cardiff University, UK

Review of the theoretical and empirical literature on homesickness showed that

despite recent advances, scientiŽ c understanding of the impact on students of leaving
home for college is still limited. Further empirical investigation using standardized
measures, structural equation models and including additional mediating/moderating
variables is needed. Two studies were thus conducted, one in the Netherlands, and
one in the UK. Homesickness was investigated among recent-intake students, using
a newly developed instrument, the Utrecht Homesickness Scale. Variables investigated
in relationship to homesickness included depression, personality factors (self-liking,
competence, self-esteem) and family situation (attachment to family). Homesickness
was found to be a common though differentially prevalent phenomenon (approximately
50% in the Netherlands; 80% in the UK). Structural equation models showed that
students missed family and friends and had difŽ culties adjusting to college life. These
difŽ culties were associated with ruminations about home and loneliness, which
themselves were associated with depression. There were differences in intensity (UK
students were more homesick) and there were gender differences (UK females
experienced more homesickness). Both the personality and family situation factors
had an impact on homesickness. The results supported the conceptualization of
homesickness as a ‘mini-grief’, to be viewed from theoretical perspectives in the Ž eld
of loss and bereavement .

Empirical and theoretical overview of student homesickness

There is a limited scientiŽc literature on the topic of homesickness. This is surprising,
since departure from the home environment, particularly for young persons, can be a

*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Margaret Stroebe, Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University,
PO Box 80140, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
148 Margaret Stroebe et al.
highly stressful experience (see Fisher, 1989; van Tilburg, 1998; van Tilburg, Vinger-
hoets, & van Heck, 1996, for recent reviews of the literature). Homesickness is a more
widespread phenomenon than is usually believed. As many as 50 –75% of the general
population have experienced homesickness at least once in their life (Fisher, 1989).
Furthermore, 10 –15% of the homesick have experienced it to such an extent that it
interferes with their daily activities (Fisher, 1989). While there have been some previous
studies on homesickness among college students (e.g. Archer, Ireland, Amos, Broad, &
Currid, 1998; Brewin, Furnham, & Howes, 1989; Carden & Feicht, 1991; Fisher & Hood,
1987, 1988; van Tilburg, 1998), these only yield information on a limited number of
psychological variables, and employ a variety of homesickness measures, some of them
non-standardized. In fact, even a precise deŽnition of homesickness is hard to Žnd in the
literature. Generally, it is understood that homesick children or students miss their
parents and family, friends and other familiar persons, their familiar surroundings and
home comforts, and they feel extremely insecure (cf. Baier & Welch, 1992; Eurelings-
Bontekoe, Vingerhoets & Fontijn, 1994; Fisher, 1989). With respect to student home-
sickness, some dimensions include ‘disliking the university’ as well as ‘attachment to the
home’ (cf. Archer et al., 1998). These dimensions reect the varied descriptions that can
be found, which range from ‘depression as a result of absence from home’ (The Oxford
Dictionary), to ‘longing for home and family while absent from them’ (Webster’s
Dictionary).

Empirical overview
What is the state of knowledge about prevalence, predisposition for, and impact of
homesickness among students thus far? Wide differences in the prevalence of home-
sickness have been reported, although it is generally considered by researchers to
affect people from all cultures and all age groups (van Tilburg et al., 1996). Research has
indicated that homesickness occurs in large numbers of students who leave home.
Among student populations in Great Britain, for example, between 30% and 60% of
both men and women reported being affected by homesickness during their Žrst year
at university. For example, Brewin et al. (1989) found that 40% of the students in their
sample reported feeling homesick, 20% were unsure and 40% reported not feeling
homesick. By comparison, also among students, Fisher and Hood (1987, 1988) found
30–35% to be slightly to very homesick, while 65 –70% were not. On a dichotomous
homesickness measure, Fisher, Murray, and Frazer (1985) found that 60% of the Žrst
year students in their sample reported being homesick. Vastly different percentages
have been reported for other countries. Carden and Feicht (1991), for example, found
that 19% of American and 77% of Turkish students attending universities in their own
countries could be classiŽed as being homesick in their Žrst year (based on a cut-off
point of 1 standard deviation above the mean rating for the group on a homesickness
questionnaire). The diversity in percentages both within and between countries is
likely to be due, at least in part, to differences in the scales used and in the duration of
time since leaving home. Indeed, it is sometimes difŽcult to compare results across
samples, particularly with respect to prevalence of homesickness, because investigators
use their own speciŽc homesickness scales (cf. Archer et al., 1998; Eurelings-Bontekoe,
Tolsma, Verschuur, & Vingerhoets, 1996; Eurelings-Bontekoe, Verschuur, Koudstaal, &
van der Sar, 1995; van Tilburg, Vingerhoets, & van Heck, 1997).
The psychological literature on predispositional factors, risk factors and mediators
of homesickness has mainly studied personal characteristics which predispose persons
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 149
to become homesick, and characteristics of the environment or situation that are
associated with greater intensities of it. Highly relevant for student populations is the
question of gender differences as a risk factor for homesickness. While lay assump-
tions might lead to expectations of greater female homesickness on leaving home
for college, the literature does not support this. Brewin et al. (1989) reported that
homesickness was similarly prevalent among male and female students, a Žnding
conŽrmed by Fisher for a variety of samples (e.g. Fisher et al., 1985; Fisher & Hood,
1987, 1988). Ways of coping, however, differed between the genders, with women
seeking more social support than was the case for men. Similarly, Archer et al. (1998)
found that female students showed higher levels of intrusive thinking about home-
sickness, mediated by their higher scores on the attachment factor of a homesick-
ness questionnaire, whereas there was no gender difference in avoidant responses
to homesickness. There are gender differences in coping with and consequences of
other negative life-events, notably—in this context—bereavement (e.g. health detri-
ments are relatively more extreme for widowers than for widows, see Stroebe &
Stroebe, 1987). Thus, further examination of patterns of gender differences in home-
sickness would seem timely.
Van Tilburg et al. (1996) have recently emphasized the need for further examination
of cultural differences in the prevalence and experience of homesickness, noting that
this had not been studied systematically. Carden and Feicht (1991) studied home-
sickness among Turkish and American students in their own countries, but limited
investigation to females. Hojat and Herman (1985) studied a sample of Iranian and
Filipino individuals, but these were all resident in the USA and the sample was
composed of physicians. Ward and Kennedy (1993) examined homesickness among
students in different cultures, but these were all from New Zealand, residing in 23
different countries of the world. Lu (1990) also examined students who had moved to
study in a different culture, but again, the study was conŽned to one cultural group,
namely, Chinese students, all of whom had moved to a university in the UK.
Particularly important too in the context of our investigation are Žndings to do
with personal vulnerability factors. Both Carden and Feicht (1991) and Brewin et al.
(1989) reported associations between dependency and homesickness. In the Brewin
et al. (1989) study ‘dependency on others’ was a predictor of homesickness; in the
Carden and Feicht (1991) study, dependency on family and parents was found to be
characteristic of homesick but not non-homesick students. Personality and dispositional
correlates of homesickness have also been identiŽed among student samples. Fisher
(1989) found that introversion, depression and obsession were related to homesickness,
but that self-esteem was no different among homesick versus non-homesick students.
In other samples, lower self-esteem has indeed been reported for homesick samples
(Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1994; Hojat & Herman, 1985). Furthermore, Eurelings-
Bontekoe et al. (1994) also found higher levels of introversion, rigidity and negativism
and lower levels of dominance among homesick conscripts. Rigidity proved to be the
best predictor for homesickness. These patterns are not, however, always conŽrmed
for other samples (cf. van Tilburg et al., 1996).
Turning from personal to situational factors, ‘geographic distance’ is also important
for the current investigation. Among students, Fisher et al. (1986) found homesickness
to be higher for those more distant from home (although, notably, distance from
home did not make a difference among boarding school children). Needing further
investigation are related factors such as psychological distance and possibilities for
communication with home.
150 Margaret Stroebe et al.
Finally, with respect to the consequences or outcomes associated with homesick-
ness among students, studies have also found a relationship between homesickness
and a greater number of cognitive failures, poor concentration, handing in work late,
decrements in work quality, and higher scores on anxiety and depression measures
(Burt, 1993). This has recently been conŽrmed in a meta-analysis of four studies
conducted by Archer et al. (1998). As Brewin et al. (1989) emphasized, such Žndings
suggest that homesickness is a potentially important phenomenon that may exercise
a considerable inuence on academic performance, at least in the short term.

A theoretical approach
There has been surprisingly little exploration of the theoretical underpinnings of
these phenomena and manifestations of homesickness, a notable exception being the
analysis of Fisher (e.g. 1989). In fact, from a psychological perspective, there are good
reasons to consider homesickness a ‘mini-grief’ experience (Stroebe, Stroebe, & Schut,
1993), and to draw on theoretical formulations in the Želd of bereavement to derive
hypotheses and explain phenomena (cf. Stroebe & Stroebe, 1987). It is well established
that bereavement has severe mental and physical consequences for some, but not all,
individuals. It is also known that the time course and symptomatology of grief are
complex and varied (Stroebe, Stroebe & Hansson, 1993). If homesickness is understood
as the emotional reaction to (temporary) loss of signiŽcant persons, then some —
perhaps less extreme —parallels with reactions of grief following losses through death
would be expected. Thus, insofar as homesickness is a grief experience, one would
expect more homesickness the greater the degree of (perceived) separation from home.
A recent bereavement-speciŽc model, the Dual Process Model of Coping with
Bereavement (DPM, Stroebe & Schut, 1999) provides a framework for integrating
some of the central propositions of two very different approaches, cognitive stress
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and attachment (Bowlby, 1980) theories, both of which have
been applied to the speciŽc stressor of bereavement. The DPM identiŽes two types
of stressor that are relevant to the prediction of outcome (in terms of variables such
as health and well-being); namely, those that are loss- versus restoration-oriented.
Loss-orientation refers to concentration on, coping with, the loss experience itself,
and restoration-orientation refers to efforts to adjust to the concurrent, changed and
demanding situation. The model postulates the necessity of ‘oscillation’ between
these two tasks, identifying the need both to come to terms with loss, and to adapt
to the different environment.
In the case of loss through death, loss-orientation would include missing the
deceased person; in the case of homesickness, it would include missing the absent
family and friends. Elements of attachment theory are clearly relevant here. One would
expect more homesickness among those whose attachment is less secure (cf. Bowlby,
1980). Following the reasoning of attachment theory as applied to grief experiences
(cf. Parkes, Stevenson-Hinde, & Marris, 1991), an insecure style of attachment would
be a predictor of homesickness, which would lead to health consequences.
Restoration-orientation following a death would include developing a new identity
and new roles, independent of the deceased. After relocation it would seem likely that
somewhat similar adjustments are needed (becoming a ‘college student’, member of
new social, housing and academic groups) as are necessary following a loss through
death. In line with cognitive stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the DPM predicts
that those individuals experiencing a severe stressor (relocation) who lack the resources
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 151
(e.g. social support from home) would be unable to cope with the demands of the new
situation (e.g. academic performance) and would suffer homesickness and possibly
detrimental health consequences.
Thus, the DPM predicts that attention to and oscillation between these two tasks,
loss- and restoration-oriented, are necessary for successful adaptation. Similarly, we
would predict that students’ well-being is dependent not only on the fact of having
left home, but also on successful adjustment to the new situation. Thus, the DPM pro-
vides a theoretical basis for introducing two classes of variables into a structural
equation model for empirical investigation; namely, those to do with missing home,
friends, and so on, and adjustment difŽculties in the new environment. Interestingly,
Archer et al. (1998) recently identiŽed two similar factors on a questionnaire measure
of homesickness, representing attachment to home, and adjustment to the university.

Purposes of the empirical study

Taken together, what are the implications of this empirical and theoretical overview
for further investigation of homesickness among students? The review of empirical
studies identiŽes some emergent patterns of homesickness in relationship to personal
and situational factors, but some conicting results. There is a need for replication of
Žndings and extension of the variables under investigation. We have emphasized the
need for further investigation of the origins, manifestations and consequences of
homesickness among vulnerable groups. From the outline above, it is evident that
students leaving home for college belong in this category of vulnerable groups. Lacking
still is not only information on predictors and outcomes, but also on component parts
of homesickness derived from the implementation of standard validation techniques.
Thus, the Žrst aim of this study was to provide a detailed examination of homesick-
ness among college students. To this end, two studies of homesickness were conducted,
one in the Netherlands, and one in the UK.
This two-study investigation enabled some examination of cultural patterns of
homesickness. To our knowledge, this research provides the Žrst cross-cultural exam-
ination of homesickness in both male and female students in their own countries. Thus,
the additional factor of acculturation (i.e. moving abroad and adjusting to the new
country) does not occur in the examination of homesickness here. Our research is
also unique in that it focuses on two cultures similar in terms of general societal back-
ground, in that they are both western European, but different with respect to a central
attachment theory-related variable noted above, namely, accessibility to home (as will
be discussed later, accessibility is greater, in general, in the Netherlands). As the above
review indicated, it is important to clarify the relationship between gender and home-
sickness among student samples.
A further advantage of the two reported studies is that they used the same
standardized homesickness measure. In addition, in each of the studies, the relationship
of homesickness to a number of potentially important variables could be explored,
including depression; self-liking; competence or self-esteem; and secure or conicted
attachment to the family. The indices were standardized and thus provide useful
within-culture information, which was the main focus of the analyses. Between-culture
comparisons are to be made cautiously, since some of the measures employed differed
between the two countries (e.g. one standardized depression scale was used in the
UK, a different one in the Netherlands). However, given the paucity of research to
date, and the intrinsic interest in comparing these phenomena across the two cultures,
152 Margaret Stroebe et al.
as well as within each culture, results are presented comparatively. In addition, a
number of demographic variables are analysed (e.g. gender; age; living arrangements).
Following the theoretical predictions outlined above, it was expected that home-
sickness would be prevalent and associated with distress and poorer mental health in
the student samples of both cultures, but that prevalence would be greater in the
culture with lower accessibility to home (UK). Following the DPM, it was predicted
that missing home and difŽculty adjusting to the new situation would be antecedent
to distress (rather than vice versa). Also, that those who missed home more would be
the ones to have more difŽculty adapting to the new college situation (subscales on
the homesickness questionnaire). Furthermore, it was predicted that homesickness
would be greater among those living further from home, irrespective of culture, since,
following attachment theory, the possibility of meeting up with signiŽcant others
should reduce separation anxiety and distress. Again, also following attachment
theory, it was predicted that students with greater parental conict1 or insecure attach-
ment patterns would feel more homesick. Homesickness was expected to occur in both
male and female students of both cultures, but it was predicted that female rates
would be higher (they could feel more comfortable admitting to homesickness). Finally,
it was predicted that a longer time period since leaving home (or being at university)
would be associated with lower homesickness (i.e. an adjustment effect), but that some
students would still suffer homesickness even after being away for a longer period.

Method
Study 1: The Netherlands (NL)
Respondents and procedure
All new-intake students entering the Faculty of Social Sciences of Utrecht University were mailed a
questionnaire containing the homesickness scale. This took place in January 1995. Four weeks
later a reminder was mailed to non-respondents. This resulted in 482 completed and returned
questionnaires (response rate: 65%). Eighty per cent of the respondents were female, which is
similar to the proportion of females entering this faculty. The mean age was 19.6 years (SD= 2.1).
Twenty-nine per cent still lived at home with their parents, 48.9% had moved from the parental
home to lodgings, 19.6%had recently moved from one place of lodging to another) and 2.6%had
moved back from lodgings to the parental home. Most of the data analyses were conducted on the
48.9%relocated students, while those living at home were included in speciŽc analyses for control
purposes (see below). The Utrecht students are referred to here as the NL sample.

Measures
Socio-demographic information
Respondents were asked questions about their age, gender, previous living situation, present
living situation, and the duration of their present living situation.

The Utrecht Homesickness Scale (UHS)

Designed to assess the extent of homesickness, the UHS was developed in the following manner
(see van Vliet, Stroebe, &Schut, 1998). Items were initiallyderived from previous research (Carden &
Feight, 1991 ; Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1994 ; Fisher, Elder, &Peacock, 1990; Fisher, Frazer, &Murray,

1
This prediction was tentative, given that the evidence on con icted relationships is mixed (cf. Archer, 1999, pp. 170–172).
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 153
1984, 1985, 1986 ; Fisher & Hood, 1987, 1988). Items derived from a pilot study, in which 100
respondents were asked to give a deŽnition of homesickness, supplemented the original list.
This preliminary questionnaire was given to 300 social science students, who were asked to
rate the extent to which 51 items were associated with homesickness. This resulted in a list of 45
items. This version of the questionnaire was then given to 117 third year psychology students.
These students were asked to rate the extent to which they had experienced the 45 homesickness-
related aspects in the past four weeks. This led to a third version of the questionnaire, which was
used in the Utrecht Homesickness Project. The 45 items assess the extent to which students
experienced these various aspects of homesickness in the past 4 weeks (using the answer
categories ‘not’, ‘weak’, ‘moderate’, ‘strong’, ‘very strong’).
Aprincipal component analysis (minimum eigenvalue > 1) with a varimax rotation over the 45
items was computed for students who had felt homesick in the past four weeks (N = 151)
resulting in nine factors. On the basis of a scree plot, we used the Žrst Žve factors which were
clearly interpretable and explained 57% of the variance. These Žve factors correspond closely to
the features that, according to most authors, constitute homesickness: missing family, missing
friends, having adjustment difŽculties, ruminations about home and feeling lonely.
Based on these Žve factors, a reduced set of items (20) was selected, to ensure that the
determinant of the correlation matrix would be > 0. This is necessary to avoid co-linearity of sets
of items. A second principal component analysis with a varimax rotation over these 20 items and
the restriction that Žve factors should be extracted, revealed that the items loaded as expected on
the relevant Žve factors. This last procedure was repeated with all the students (N = 439) and
revealed the same factor loading pattern. Within this set of 20 variables, the Žve factors explained
73% of the variance. On the basis of the Žve-factor structure, scales were computed resulting
in very acceptable Cronbach’s alphas (see Table 1). This set of subscales will be referred to as the
Utrecht Homesickness Scale (UHS). Note that if there were missing values, ‘list-wise deletion’ was
used.

Additional measures
Students were also asked how often they had experienced homesickness in the past 4 weeks
(never, rarely, sometimes, often, very often). A discriminant analysis whereby the Žve UHS scales
are used to predict whether or not students endorsed feeling homesick (never versus rarely,
sometimes, often, very often) in the past 4 weeks revealed that 83% were correctly classiŽed.
Furthermore, there was a strong correlation between the total homesickness score and the
frequency of homesickness in the past 4 weeks (r = .71) which indicates that the UHS scale is
closely related to a direct measure of homesickness, even though the scale does not mention
homesickness speciŽcally. The Dutch version of the Symptoms Check List (SCL-90; Arrindell &
Ettema, 1975) was used as an indicator of mental health status of the NL sample. Only the
depressive mood subscale (a = .92) and the total health score (a = .97) were used for this part of
the investigation.
Personality factors were measured by means of a Dutch translation of the Golberg Bi-polar Big
5 (De Jong, van Eck, & van den Bos, 1994 ; e.g. Goldberg, 1992). Only emotional stability (a = .85)
was used for this investigation.
A Dutch translation of the Attachment Style Measure (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) was used to
assess insecure (that is, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent, see Hazan & Shaver, 1987) versus secure
attachment. This particular scale was chosen because of its conciseness and applicability for use
with these student samples.

Statistical analyses
Comparable to what was done in the pre-test described previously, we Žrst conducted factor
analysis on the homesickness scale which identiŽed the Žve subscales. A principal component
analysis (minimum eigenvalue > 1) with a varimax rotation over the 45 items resulted in nine
factors. On the basis of a scree plot, we used the Žrst Žve factors which were clearly interpretable
154 Margaret Stroebe et al.
Table 1. Utrecht Homesickness Scale factor structure and reliabilities (NL sample)

Factor
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Percentage of explained variance 62% 15% 9% 8% 6%

Item
Factor loadings

(1) Missing family (a = .90)

Missing your parents .89 .12 .20 .06 .16
Missing your family .87 .13 .19 .09 .14
Missing home .74 .12 .21 .18 .37
Feeling missed by your family .74 .15 .19 .15 .04
(2) Loneliness (a = .85)
Feeling lonely .21 .78 .22 .25 .09
Feeling unloved .12 .75 .22 .15 .07
Feeling isolated from the rest of the world .09 .72 .14 .33 .22
Feeling uprooted .08 .64 .21 .35 .22
(3) Missing friends (a = .87)
Longing for acquaintances .16 .22 .83 .19 .16
Searching for familiar faces .19 .18 .73 .23 .12
Missing people whom you trust and can talk with .25 .31 .71 .07 .20
Missing your friends .36 .14 .70 .15 .14
(4) Adjustment difŽ culties (a = .88)
Finding it difŽ cult adjusting to a new situation .23 .27 .15 .77 .16
Feeling uncomfortable in a new situation .15 .44 .06 .71 .23
Feeling lost in the new situation .17 .46 .22 .69 .21
Having difŽ culties in getting used to new customs .03 .14 .38 .68 .26
(5) Ruminations about home (a = .80)
Having thoughts that an old situation was better than
here and now .16 .15 .18 .28 .81
Regretting the decision to leave an old situation .10 .21 .08 .31 .79
Continuously having thoughts about home .41 .08 .24 .13 .68
Repeatedly thinking of the past .18 .45 .28 ± .01 .52

Total homesickness (a = .94) (20 items)

Note. The questions were formulated in the following manner: Could you please indicate to what extent
you have experienced the following in the past 4 weeks: Missing your parents: not–weak–moderate–
strong–very strong. N = 439.

and explained 57% of the variance. These Žve factors correspond closely to the factors identiŽed
in the pre-test on the UHS, namely missing family, missing friends, having adjustment difŽculties,
ruminations about home and feeling lonely.
Then we carried out a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to test differences in
homesickness scores between the UK and NL samples. We then computed path analyses (using
LISREL8.1), in order to examine multiple relationships simultaneously. We hypothesized identical
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 155
models for both cultures, assuming that the patterns of associations would be similar. We
examined models of the relationships between homesickness and its putative antecedents and
consequences, in terms of both overall scores and subscale scores. Precise details of these models
are given in the results section.
Several Žt indices, as described by Jaccard and Wan (1996), are appropriate for our investigation
of path models. To demonstrate the overall degree of correspondence between predicted and
observed covariance matrices, the x2 statistic with p > .05 indicates that a perfect Žt model does
exist in the population. The goodness-of-Žt index (GFI > .90) indicates goodness of Žt. The
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR < .10) indicates a deviation of less than .10
correlation units on average between predicted and observed correlations. The root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA < .08) implies an adequate model and < .05 implies a good model
with the p value for close Žt (CFit) being non-signiŽcant (> .05). CFI > .90 implies a good Žt.

Study 2: The United Kingdom (UK)

Respondents and procedure
During the autumn term of 1996 new-intake students at Cardiff University were asked
to participate in a student survey. Questionnaires were administered in October and November
and 280 completed questionnaires were returned, representing approximately a 60% response
rate. Seventy-two per cent of the respondents were female. The mean age was 18.8 years
(SD = 2.1). All respondents had moved from the parental home to lodgings on campus. The
Cardiff students are referred to here as the UK sample.

Measures
An English translation of the Utrecht Homesickness Scale (UHS) was used to measure the extent of
homesickness. The reliabilities of the scales were comparable to the NLsample: missing the family
(a = .85), loneliness (a = .84), missing friends (a = .78), adjustment difŽculties (a = .84),
ruminations about home (a = .86) and the total score for homesickness (a = .93). Again,
respondents were also asked to indicate how often they had felt homesick during the past 4
weeks. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961)
was used to give a reliable measure of current level of depression (a = .82). The Self-liking/Self-
competence Scale was used to assess self-esteem (a = .91) (cf. Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). An
adapted version of the Conict Tactics Scale (cf. Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)
was used to ascertain type of family background of the UK respondents. The Conict Tactics Scale
consists of six subscales with similar, acceptable alpha levels (on average .72) which assess the
extent to which parents are perceived as handling conicts with the respondents in certain ways.
The items used here reected three factors, that is, verbal reasoning (three items), verbal
aggression (six items) and physical aggression (three items) of either father or mother. Selection
of these items from the original, much longer scale was thought to be less intrusive and easier for
respondents to answer, while still providing a measure of the three factors. The students were also
asked to state the name of their home town. On the basis of this information, distances could be
calculated between their home and their university lodgings.

Statistical analyses
The analyses described above for Study 1 apply here too.

Results
The results section is structured in three parts. In the Žrst section results on the NL
sample are reported. In the second section the same is done for the UK sample. In the
last section a comparison is made between the two samples.
156 Margaret Stroebe et al.
Study 1: NL
Homesickness
Almost 50%of the students reported having felt homesick at least some of the time after
having started their new education (N = 230). There were no differences between
males and females with respect to homesickness intensity. The intensity of home-
sickness, as measured by the UHS subscales (range: 1 (not experienced) to 5 (very
strongly)) revealed that on average the highest scores were obtained for missing friends
(M = 2.38, SD = 1.02) and missing the family (M = 2.15, SD = 0.95).2 The other
dimensions scored were adjustment difŽculties (M = 1.80, SD = 0.88), ruminations
about home (M = 1.52, SD = 0.71) and loneliness (M = 1.79, SD = 0.87). These
averaged to a total mean score of 1.93 (SD = 0.71).

Antecedents and consequences of homesickness

The NL data set offered the possibility of comparisons between students still living at
home and those who had relocated.3 This provided the opportunity to test whether
relocation (R) would indeed be associated with depression (D) which, in and of itself,
we assumed would be associated with homesickness (H). We must be cautious, given
the cross-sectional design of our studies, in assuming mediation between the R–D–H
variables. Based on Baron and Kenny (1986), a requirement for mediation with this data
set would be that relocation and depression are signiŽcantly associated; in other words,
there must be an effect to be mediated. In our data we Žnd that relocation and
depression are not signiŽcantly associated and therefore a mediation analysis is not
appropriate. Nevertheless, a path analysis is possible if we regress depression on re-
location and homesickness, and regress homesickness on relocation (see Fig. 1). Our
results show a signiŽcant path from relocation to homesickness (b = .21) a signiŽcant
path from homesickness to depression, controlling for relocation (b = .62), and a non-
signiŽcant direct path from relocation to depression (b = ± .05). Showing that the
two component paths of the indirect effect are each signiŽcant is not the same as
showing that the indirect effect is signiŽcant. Testing for an indirect path (Sobel, 1982),
revealed that the indirect effect of relocation on depression is signiŽcant (b = .13). It
seems reasonable to conclude, then, that the data are consistent with an indirect effect
of relocation on depression by means of the intervening variable homesickness. While
there are good reasons to argue that there is an indirect effect of relocation on
depression through homesickness, it is evident that this effect, though signiŽcant, is
quite small, and not strong enough to produce an overall effect of R on D.
The model shown in Fig. 1 was also tested using the SCL-90 total score as the health
measure, instead of using the depression subscale. This showed an almost identical
solution. The analysis provides further evidence that the assumed pattern is justiŽed,
and that it is not just due to some correspondence between depression and home-
sickness. The pattern suggests that relocation may be an antecedent for homesickness
but not for depressive moods or general ill-health, and that homesickness may be
an important antecedent for ill-health. Having found evidence for this relationship,
structural equation models could be tested with respect to the effects of emotional
stability, gender and duration of stay on homesickness and depression (see Fig. 2). The

2
Controlling for age and duration of stay in order to make comparisons with the UK sample possible.
3
Some students who had not moved also reported being homesick (15%) in the past 4 weeks. The vast majority of them
(90%) reported that they experienced homesickness only ‘rarely’ or ‘sometimes’.
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 157

Figure 1. Model of relocation, homesickness and depression for NL students.

literature suggests that emotional instability is a good predictor for both homesickness
(Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1996) and depression (cf. Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). Thus
one could assume that emotional stability (the opposite of emotional instability) would
explain the variance of depression. However, we Žnd that even though reduced,
homesickness retains an effect on depression. This suggests that irrespective of the
level of emotional stability, homesickness is a precursor for depression. Furthermore,
the emotionally unstable, as expected, have higher levels of homesickness and depres-
sion. What we also Žnd is that the longer one is away from home, the less intense the
homesickness reaction, which suggests that adaptation to the new situation takes place.
In order to create a more comprehensive picture, a model was formulated which
included the subscales of the UHS instead of the total homesickness score. The
assumptions were that (1) adjustment difŽculties would be associated with missing
family and friends, ruminations about home and loneliness; (2) missing family and
friends, in turn, would be associated with ruminations about home and loneliness; (3)
ruminations would also be associated to loneliness and depression and (4) loneliness
in turn to depression. Results with respect to this model revealed that in principle the
assumptions were correct, if two modiŽcations were incorporated. These were:
establishing a link between missing family and friends, and removing the path from
missing family to loneliness. The choice was made to let the errors of missing friends
and family correlate because no prior hypotheses were made as to a causal relation-
ship between both features and to delete the non-signiŽcant path.4 Figure 3 indicates
how the homesickness subscales are related and how these are linked to the measured
antecedents and consequences. To enhance the visual impact of the model, the thick-
ness of paths corresponds to the size of the path coefŽcients.
Figure 3 suggests that to become depressed one has to experience adjustment

4
For the sake of comparison with the forthcoming UK model the non-signiŽ cant paths between missing friends and loneliness,
gender and adjustment difŽ culties and duration of stay and missing family were not removed from the model.
158 Margaret Stroebe et al.

Figure 2. Model of NL sample.

difŽculties and consequently loneliness and to ruminate about home. If the relocated
students experience severe adjustment difŽculties these do seem to go hand in hand
with missing family and friends, ruminations about home and loneliness. SpeciŽcally,
loneliness is most strongly associated with depression. Furthermore, the analyses
suggest that the best predictor for adjustment difŽculties in this study is emotional
stability (b = ± .41). Emotional stability also has a strong relationship to depression
(b = ± .45) and, to a lesser extent, to missing friends (b = ± .20) and loneliness
(b = ± .15). The slight association of duration of stay with total homesickness dis-
appeared when its relationship was tested on the Žve separate homesickness subscales.

Study 2: UK
Homesickness
More than 80% of the students reported having felt homesick at least some of the time
after having started their new education (N = 280). The intensity of homesickness
as measured by the UHS subscales (likewise controlling for age and the number of days
away from home) revealed that on average the highest scores in the UK were obtained
for missing family (M = 2.93, SD = 0.97) and missing friends (M = 2.72, SD = 0.94).
The other dimensions scored were adjustment difŽculties (M = 2.05, SD = 0.84),
ruminations about home (M = 1.66, SD = 0.86) and loneliness (M = 1.95,
SD = 0.92). These averaged to a total mean score of 2.26 (SD = 0.73).

Antecedents and consequences of homesickness

Although the hypothesis could not be tested with the UK sample, it seems reasonable to
assume, based on the NL data, that relocation would be associated with homesickness,
which in turn would be associated with depression and not vice versa (of course, similar
cautions about mediating variables to those expressed for Study 1 are in order here too).
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 159

Figure 3. Detailed model of NL sample.

Accepting this premise and despite the differences in the depression and personality
scales used in the UK and the NL, what one would expect is comparable patterns of
correlations, since these should be the same, irrespective of the particular instrument
used. We formulated a structural equation model analogous to the one used in the NL
study, examining the effects of self-esteem, gender and duration of stay based on
homesickness and depression for the UK students (see Fig. 4). This analysis revealed
that, analogous to the NL data (Fig. 2), homesickness is associated with depression,
and that low self-esteem can be considered a risk factor for becoming homesick and
depressed. To see whether or not homesickness is the precursor for self-esteem instead
of self-esteem being the precursor as hypothesized, the alternative model was tested.
Results did not show a signiŽcant effect of homesickness on self-esteem. Thus, low self-
esteem, like low emotional stability, can rather be considered a vulnerability factor
for homesickness. Again, we see that after controlling for self-esteem the relationship
between homesickness and depression remains signiŽcant. This suggests that home-
sickness is associated with depression irrespective of the level of self-esteem, while, if
one has low self-esteem, the risk of becoming homesick and depressed is greater. The
UK results also reveal the slight negative effect of duration of stay: the longer students
live in a new situation the lower the level of homesickness. In contrast to the NL
data, the UK data do reveal a gender difference. Female students (M = 2.41, SD = 0.74)
report higher levels of homesickness (F(278, 1) = 15.85, p < .001), than male students
(M = 2.04, SD = 0.60).
Analogous to the NL study, we formulated a more detailed model including the
UHS subscales (Fig. 5). This revealed a similar pattern of correlations, although there
are some obvious differences. Adjustment difŽculties are assumed to be the crux of
160 Margaret Stroebe et al.
the model and the data conŽrm this. From adjustment difŽculties there are two paths
that are connected indirectly to depression, one via loneliness and the second via
ruminations about home. Self-esteem (a personality trait which was assumed to have
some commonality with emotional stability) has a similar relationship to adjustment
difŽculties and depression in the UK sample as emotional stability in the NL sample. As
demonstrated previously with respect to the total homesickness score, when analysed
at the subscale level, females in the UK study report having more adjustment difŽculties
than males. This would indicate that the difference in homesickness mainly lies in
females reporting more adjustment difŽculties.

Study 1 and Study 2 comparison

There were a number of signiŽcant differences between the two national samples.
Dutch students were older (M = 19.2 years) than British students (M = 18.8 years;
t (478) = 2.95, p < .01); and Dutch students (M = 198.8 days) had spent a longer number
of days away from home than British students (M = 50.1 days; t (224) = 10.98, p < .001).
Furthermore, there were proportionately more females in the NL sample than the UK
sample (82% versus 72%). The implications of these differences are discussed later.

Homesickness
After controlling for age and duration of relocation, it was still found that the NLand UK
students differed considerably with respect to homesickness, with the UK students
reporting more intense homesickness. Univariate differences were found for three of
the Žve subscales (missing family, missing friends, adjustment difŽculties) and the total
homesickness score. Adjusted means for the subscales and for total homesickness for
the two samples are presented in Table 2.
Furthermore, when asked, in the separate question about general feelings of home-
sickness, the UK students more frequently endorsed having felt homesick (see Table 3).

Figure 4. Model of UK sample.

 Homesickness among students in two cultures 161

Figure 5. Detailed model of UK sample.

These analyses indicate not only that the UK students are more often homesick, but
that they are so to a greater extent.

Antecedents and consequences of homesickness

The global models (Figs 2 and 4) demonstrate that homesickness is related to depres-
sion in both cultures and that low self-esteem or emotional instability are linked to
higher levels of self-reported homesickness and depression. More possibly, however,
the longer the stay in the new situation the less homesick and consequently less
depressed one tends to be. However, the evidence also suggests that there may be
cultural differences with respect to gender differences in homesickness.
The more detailed models (Figs 3 and 5) have the same basic structure, although
there are some differences. In the UK, females are more likely to experience adjustment
difŽculties than are males (b = .15) and the longer a UK student has experienced the
new situation the less he or she is inclined to miss the family (b = ± .12), effects which
are non-signiŽcant in the NL study. To enhance comparisons between the cultures, the
geographical distance to the parental home (data not available in the NL sample) was
not included here in the UK model. However, if included, the pattern remained the same
and revealed that distance from home was only reliably associated with missing the
family (b = .19).

Attachment style and family background

We conducted further analyses to explore the association between attachment style and
family background variables with homesickness. In the NLstudy the effects of insecure
attachment on relocation, the homesickness features, depression and emotional stability
162 Margaret Stroebe et al.
Table 2. Mean scores for the homesickness subscales for the NL and UK samples

Adjusted means per scale NL UK F(1,495)

Missing family 2.148 2.925 64.6**

Missing friends 2.378 2.715 11.6***
Loneliness 1.788 1.951 3.1
Adjustment difŽ culties 1.800 2.046 7.9**
Ruminations about home 1.518 1.658 2.9

Total homesickness 1.926 2.259 20.7***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3. Frequency distribution of having felt homesick by study

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often N

NL 51.3% 25.2% 17.8% 4.3% 1.3% 230

UK 17.9% 42.5% 29.6% 7.9% 2.1% 280

were explored. The analysis revealed that insecurely attached individuals had a higher
probability of being less emotionally stable (b = ± .38), more lonely (b = .16) (as
measured on a subscale of the UHS) and more depressed (b = .11). It is worth noting
that only 5% of the sample fell within the insecure attachment category ‘anxious/
ambivalent’—since one might expect this category to be most dependent on home (and
therefore homesick) —while 24% could be classiŽed as ‘avoidant’.
In the same fashion, the associations between perceived parental conict tactics
(reasoning, verbal aggression and physical threat) and the homesickness features,
depression and self-esteem were explored in the UK sample. This analysis revealed
that the perceived verbal aggression of the mother was associated with a reduced
likelihood of missing the family (b = ± .17) and that the perceived physical threat of the
father was associated with an increased likelihood of having adjustment difŽculties, as
measured on the UHS (b = .23).
It is interesting to note that there is a stronger association between missing friends
and loneliness in the UK than in the NL sample —possibly due to the fact that home
and friends are more accessible in NL due to both geographical proximity and the free
availability of public transport. While there is a weaker association between loneliness
and depression in the UK than in the NLsample, caution must be observed with respect
to interpreting this comparison, given the differences in the severity of depression
measured in the two samples (see also discussion).

Discussion
The overall picture obtained from the results of the two studies is that homesickness
is quite prevalent among new-intake college students both in the Netherlands and the
UK. These results support the general Žndings of investigators reviewed above (cf.
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 163
Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 1994; Fisher, 1989; van Tilburg, 1998). However, there are
substantial differences between the two countries in susceptibility. Students in the UK
are substantially more homesick. Whereas approximately half of the Dutch students
said they had been homesick at least to some extent since coming to college, this was
true for more than 80% of the students at the British university. This Žgure is higher
than that reported by other investigators (e.g. Fisher & Hood, 1987), possibly due to
differences in the measures used. Whereas 5% of the Dutch students often felt home-
sick, this was true for 10% of the British ones. Not only were more of them homesick,
but they suffered more intensely from it. They missed both their family and their friends
more, and they had greater adjustment difŽculties than the Dutch students. There were
also non-signiŽcant tendencies for the British students to be more lonely and to
ruminate more about home. This cross-cultural comparison is, to our knowledge, the
Žrst that uses the same instrument and controls for confounding factors (e.g. duration
at college and time span of homesickness; age). For all other studies it is difŽcult to
compare the amount or the intensity of homesickness for a speciŽc period at college.
This result raises interesting questions about the source of the cultural differences,
which we discuss below.
To what extent have our results shown that homesickness is associated with, or
even a causal factor in, distress or depression? In our view, the association is strong,
and indications are that homesickness affects distress or depression. The limitations
of structural equation modelling must be taken into account in making such causal
interpretations, particularly in cross-sectional studies such as ours (MacCullum & Austin,
2000). In our view, however, the results showed more support for our hypothesized
model (homesickness preceding depression) than feasible alternatives (e.g. depression
and homesickness occurring simultaneously). First, while relocation per se does not
show a signiŽcant relationship to distress or depression, the path analysis suggests
that homesickness mediates these negative health consequences. This implies that it
is not distress or depression that precedes homesickness, but that homesickness may
actually bring about distress or depression. This follows hypotheses formulated from
the DPM: relocation would be antecedent to both loss (of family and home) and change
(adjustment to the new situation) which themselves are associated with distress, rather
than vice versa. Homesickness seems to play a mediating role between the stressor and
outcome. This tentative conclusion must be further tested empirically using a long-
itudinal design. So far we can say that there is some justiŽcation for viewing home-
sickness as a ‘mini-grief’ experience, with consequences not unlike (if not as extreme)
as those following bereavement (cf. Stroebe & Stroebe, 1987). For example, the data Žt
this interpretation better than a conceptualization of homesickness as only an aspect
of emotional instability. The results shown in Fig. 2 are indicative of this. The rela-
tionship between homesickness and depressed mood remains strong even when the
vulnerability factor of emotional instability is entered into the equation.
It is plausible that homesick, depressed students who are maladapted to their new
surroundings would be unlikely to function well academically—or in other respects,
for that matter (cf. Archer et al., 1998; Burt, 1993). For 10%of the British and 5%of the
Dutch who suffer frequently from homesickness, this seems likely, but there are still
larger proportions who suffer sometimes, and who may add to the size of this risk group.
A longitudinal follow-up investigation would be required to validate such postulated
causal chains (see below). Such a study also needs to provide further investigation of
parameters of the DPM, e.g. the oscillation principle, and the relationship of insecure
styles of attachment to coping strategies.
164 Margaret Stroebe et al.
As expected, students who have been at college longer were found to be slightly less
homesick, although some indeed remain homesick even at longer durations. Given this
Žnding, it would seem important to target students early on to try to facilitate their
adjustment away from home. How could this be approached? The data suggested that,
not only is homesickness associated with and probably antecedent to depression, but
that personal feelings of competence or stability mediated this relationship, as measured
by an emotional stability scale (NL) or self-liking/competence scale (UK). One sugges-
tion would therefore be to work with students to raise their feelings of competence
and, perhaps, to develop their self-esteem and perceived self-efŽcacy, e.g. by monitoring
their successes over the Žrst few weeks of the semester.
Patterns emerging from the path analyses on separate subscales of homesickness
suggest further aspects that intervention might focus on, namely, those to do with
adjustment to the college situation. We noted the crucial role that adjustment difŽculties
to the college situation may play in relocated students missing family and friends,
ruminating about home and feeling lonely, and showed that loneliness is linked to
depression. We further learnt that emotionally unstable students are particularly prone
not only to having adjustment difŽculties but also that these are the ones who frequently
score highly on the homesickness subscales.
Turning to the cultural differences: why should UK students be more homesick
than those in the NL? Our original hypothesis was that accessibility to home would make
the critical difference, and it seems likely that this is at least a partial explanation. It is
noteworthy that results on the geographic indicator (distance from home) showed
that there was only an increase in the likelihood of high scores on one homesickness
subscale, namely, missing the family (which could be interpreted as supportive of
the attachment theory predictions). Further investigation of the accessibility to home
variable would be useful, particularly in relationship to geographic distance. In this
context, it is interesting to note that Fisher found no relationship with distance from
home among boarding school children (Fisher, Murray, & Frazer, 1985) but did among
college students (Fisher, Frazer, & Murray, 1986). Perhaps the critical difference
between school and college students is the fact that the latter are more free to come
and go between college and home, whereas boarding school pupils are typically only
allowed home at set holiday periods. Accessibility, or a perceived sense of closeness,
may be crucial.
Another curious Žnding that needs to be considered alongside the cultural differ-
ence in homesickness, is the fact that UK females were the ones to suffer most from
homesickness. We can only speculate about the reason for this. Could it be that female
students, in general, are indeed more homesick than males as we predicted they would
be, but that, in the NL sample this was mitigated by going home at weekends, which
students in NL, as opposed to UK, frequently do? The accessibility of home is greater
in NL than it is in UK, due to the comparative geographic proximity (the maximum
distance from home in NLwould be no more than a couple of hours), and the provision
to all Dutch students of free public transportation nationwide. Perhaps this is of more
beneŽt to females than males, given indications that females are more relationship-
oriented than males (cf. de Ridder, 2000).
Finally, following attachment theory and the DPM, we made the prediction that
those students who experienced problematic relationships with their parents would be
the ones to feel more homesick—a somewhat counter-intuitive prediction, given that
one could also imagine that problems are well left behind. In fact, there was some
evidence that attachment insecurity (NL) or conict with parents (UK) were related
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 165
to certain aspects of homesickness. Interestingly too, a differentiated picture emerged in
the UK data: while mother’s perceived aggression was associated with reduced home-
sickness (missing family subscale), perceived physical threat on the part of a father was
associated with increased homesickness (adjustment subscale). Thus, though partially
supportive, the results do not provide unequivocal support for the predictions from
attachment theory. However, it is questionable whether the operationalizations we
have used are adequate indices of secure versus insecure attachment. As noted above,
these aspects of the study are exploratory. The results are intriguing enough to merit
further investigation of the relationship between attachment and homesickness. The
fact that Brewin et al. (1989) found dependency on others to be a predictor of home-
sickness adds weight to the argument that relationship to family (particularly parental)
members may be one of the most critical variables, and one to be explored further
in future investigations. Thus, attachment theory emerges as a potentially important
theoretical perspective for homesickness research, and a necessary one for further
integration in the more speciŽc DPM.
In conclusion, it can be stated that homesickness is a widespread problem among
students who have recently moved to college. It occurs more frequently among students
in the UK than in NL. This could reect a difference in accessibility to home. Female
students in the UK are the highest risk group. Perhaps females are more vulnerable when
there is lack of access to home. Homesickness is associated with distress and depres-
sion—acting, we think, as their antecedent—and it is associated with other debilitating
psychological states, including loneliness. Given the links identiŽed in these data sets,
there are good reasons to argue that homesickness is indeed a ‘mini-grief’ phenomenon.
Like bereavement, the mental health consequences are negative and debilitating. In our
view, the patterns identiŽed in this cross-sectional investigation of homesickness need
further investigation, and theoretical understanding of the phenomena is essential. The
‘mini-grief’ interpretation deriving from the DPMhas explanatory potential. Thus, we are
now starting a new longitudinal study. This focuses on styles of attachment and coping,
aiming to test predictions from the theoretical perspective outlined above.

Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared while Miles Hewstone was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in
the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford. He gratefully acknowledges Žnancial support provided by the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

References
Archer, J. (1999). The nature of grief: The evolution and psychology of reactions to loss. London:
Routledge.
Archer, J., Ireland, J., Amos, S., Broad, H., & Currid, L. (1998). Derivation of a homesickness
scale. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 205 –221.
Arrindell, W. A., & Ettema, J. H. M. (1975). SCL-90 Handleiding bij een multidimensionele
psychopathologie-indicator [Guide to a multidimensional indicator of psychopathology].
Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Baier, M., & Welch, M. (1992). An analysis of the concept of homesickness. Archives of Psychiatric
Nursing, 6, 54 –60.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
166 Margaret Stroebe et al.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. E., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for
measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561 –571.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. London: The Hogarth
Res.
Brewin, C. R., Furnham, A., & Howes, M. (1989). Demographic and psychological determi-
nants of homesickness and conŽding among students. British Journal of Psychology, 80,
467 –477.
Burt, C. D. B. (1993). Concentration and academic ability following transition to university:
An investigation of the effects of homesickness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13,
333 –342.
Carden, A., & Feicht, R. (1991). Homesickness among American and Turkish college students.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 22, 418 –428.
De Jong, R. D., Van Eck, H. C. M., & Van den Bos, K. (1994). The big Žve personality
factors, leadership, and military functioning. In B. de Raad, W. K. B. Hostee and
G. L. van Heck (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 5, pp. 216–221). Tilburg:
Tilburg University Press.
de Ridder, D. (2000). Gender, stress and coping: Do women handle stressful situations differently
from men? In L. Sherr & J. S. St Lawrence (Eds.), Women, health and the mind (pp. 115 –135).
Chichester: Wiley.
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Tolsma, A., Verschuur, M. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (1996).
Construction of a homesickness questionnaire using a female population with two types of
self-reported homesickness: Preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 20,
415 –421.
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Verschuur, M., Koudstaal, A., van der Schar, S., & Duijsens, I. J.
(1995). Construction of a homesickness-questionnaire: Preliminary results. Personality and
Individua l Differences, 19, 319 –325.
Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H. M., Vingerhoets, A., & Fontijn, T. (1994). Personality and behavioral
antecedents of homesickness. Personality and Individua l Differences, 16, 229 –235.
Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition, and health. London: Erlbaum.
Fisher, S., Elder, L., & Peacock, G. (1990). Homesickness in a school in the Australian Bush.
Chilren’s Environments Quarterly, 7, 15 –22.
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 Environ-
mental Psychology, 4, 211 –221.
Fisher, S., Frazer, N., & Murray, K. (1986). Homesickness and health in boarding school children.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 35 –47.
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.
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.
Fisher, S., Murray, K., & Frazer, N. (1985). Homesickness, health and efŽciency in Žrst year
students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 181 –195.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26 –42.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journa l
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511 –524.
Hojat, M., & Herman, M. W. (1985). Adjustment and psychosocial problems of Iranian and Filipino
physicians in the U.S. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 130 –136.
Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISRELapproaches to interaction effects in multiple regression.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
 Homesickness among students in two cultures 167
Lu, L. (1990). Adaptation to British universities. Homesickness and mental health of Chinese
students. Counselling Psychology Qua rterly, 3, 225 –232.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Application of structural equation modeling in
psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201 –226.
Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Marris, P. (1991). Attachment across the life cycle. London
and New York: Routledge.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic conŽdence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conict Tactic
Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,
283 –316.
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1999). The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement: Rationale
and description. Death Studies, 23, 197 –224.
Stroebe, M. S., Stroebe, W., & Hansson, R. O. (Eds.) (1993). Handbook of bereavement: Theory,
research and intervention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. (1987). Bereavement and health: The psychological and physical
consequences of partner loss. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stroebe, W., Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1993). Working through loss: Does it help? Paper presented
at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Santa Barbara, CA.
Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensions of
global self-esteem: Initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65,
322 –342.
van Tilburg, M. A. L. (1998). When it hurts to leave home. Unpublished PhD thesis, Tilburg
University, The Netherlands.
van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & van Heck, G. L. (1996). Homesickness: A review
of the literature. Psychological Medicine, 26, 899 –912.
van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & van Heck, G. L. (1997). Coping with homesick-
ness: The construction of the Adult Homesickness Coping Questionnaire. Personality and
Individual Differences, 22, 901 –907.
van Vliet, A., Stroebe, W., & Schut, H. (1998). Verhuizen, heimwee en gezondheidsklachten bij
eerstejaars studenten. [Relocation, home sickness and health with Dutch university fresh-
men]. Gedrag & Gezondheid, 26, 91 –100.
Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-
cultural transitions: Acomparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International
Journal of Psychology, 28, 129 –147.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the
central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234 –254.

Received 22 December 1999; revised version received 28 December 2000

Appendix
168

Means, standard deviations and correlation coefŽ cients of the NL and UK samples

M SD Pearson correlations

NL sample (N = 204) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Emotional stability 5.40 1.29 1.00
2 Depression 31.68 12.07 ± 0.71 1.00
Margaret Stroebe et al.

3 Secure–insecure 1.29 0.45 ± 0.38 0.44 1.00

4 Gender 1.80 0.40 ± 0.07 0.13 0.10 1.00
5 Duration 198.00 201.61 0.10 ± 0.07 ± 0.07 ± 0.16 1.00
6 Adjustment difŽ culties 1.73 0.88 ± 0.41 0.54 0.21 0.00 ± 0.14 1.00
7 Missing family 2.09 0.92 ± 0.29 0.39 0.12 0.10 ± 0.11 0.49 1.00
8 Missing friends 2.28 1.02 ± 0.38 0.42 0.12 0.04 ± 0.16 0.52 0.60 1.00
9 Loneliness 1.72 0.84 ± 0.51 0.73 0.36 0.03 ± 0.09 0.76 0.41 0.50 1.00
10 Ruminations about home 1.49 0.67 ± 0.38 0.52 0.20 0.01 ± 0.07 0.60 0.51 0.56 0.61 1.00
11 Total score homesickness 1.86 0.70 ± 0.49 0.64 0.25 0.05 ± 0.15 0.83 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.79 1.00

UK sample (N = 215) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Self-liking self-competence 73.73 10.78 1.00
2 BDI 7.87 4.98 ± 0.53 1.00
3 Distance 286.11 908.27 ± 0.03 ± 0.04 1.00
4 Gender 1.72 0.45 ± 0.11 0.04 0.07 1.00
5 Duration 49.62 12.54 0.05 0.00 ± 0.02 0.06 1.00
6 Adjustment difŽ culties 2.05 0.82 ± 0.37 0.39 0.09 0.18 ± 0.07 1.00
7 Missing family 2.92 0.96 ± 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.15 ± 0.16 0.37 1.00
8 Missing friends 2.73 0.95 ± 0.26 0.38 0.11 0.14 ± 0.13 0.61 0.48 1.00
9 Loneliness 1.95 0.91 ± 0.40 0.50 0.13 0.15 ± 0.12 0.74 0.34 0.68 1.00
10 Ruminations about home 1.63 0.83 ± 0.31 0.45 0.24 0.09 ± 0.10 0.63 0.37 0.69 0.65 1.00
11 Total score homesickness 2.26 0.72 ± 0.33 0.45 0.18 0.18 ± 0.15 0.82 0.65 0.87 0.84 0.82 1.00