Psychological Sense of Community: Suggestions for Future Research

Jean L. Hill New Mexico Highlands University

The research on psychological sense of community leads to few firm conclusions. Among these are the idea that psychological sense of community is context specific, must be understood as involving more than individual behaviors, and should be researched at a community level. It is suggested that research on psychological sense of community could best be accomplished using a multidisciplinary approach and that the assumption that psychological sense of community is on the decline in modem American society should be empirically examined. Finally, it is suggested that in order to have a complete understanding of psychological sense of community, we need to begin to research its related construct, a sense of transcendence.

In 1974, Seymour Sarason presented the psychological sense of community as a candi- date for the overarching value by which community psychology should be defined. As part of this presentation, he discussed a review he had made of writings in literature, philosophy, and other fields which had identified a sense of isolation and anomie as a major problem with modem society. Twenty five years later, a review of writings on psychological sense of community yields equally interesting results. The most obvious of these results is the paucity of standardized research findings regarding this construct. This article will attempt to summa- rize what we have learned about the dimensions and correlates of psychological sense of community, and to describe some potentially useful approaches for further research in this field.

Dimensions of Psychological Sense of Community To date, there have been less than 30 published research studies which directly measure

a psychological sense of community. Although there are some common methodological and theoretical threads that run through these studies, the specific findings are quite varied. For example, there seems to be little trouble getting people to agree on a general definition of psychological sense of community, yet the development of a standardized, operational defini- tion of the construct has eluded researchers. At least five measures of the construct have been developed, and there is still a lack of agreement as to what specific dimensions make up psychological sense of community.

There are two different approaches to answering this question, a factor analytic ap- proach and a theoretical one. The factor analytic approach involves developing a measure of psychological sense of community, collecting data with the measure, and then factor analyz- ing that data to look for common groupings among the items. There are five reports of factor analytic studies of psychological sense of community in the literature.

Glynn (1981) in one of the earliest attempts to objectively measure psychological sense of community, developed a 60 item scale. He conducted a factor analysis of the scale, and

Please address requests for reprints to Jean L. Hill, School of Behavioral Sciences, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas, NM 87701. E-mail: Hill-jean@venus.nmhu.edu. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, 431-438 (1996) 8 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4392/96/04043 1-08

43 1

432 HILL

reported that the scale tapped six dimensions. These dimensions included objective evalua- tion of community structure, supportive relationships in the community, similarity and rela- tionship patterns of community residents, individual involvement in the community, quality of community environment, and community security.

Doolittle and MacDonald (1978), in their factor analysis of their 26 item scale, identified six factors: supportive climate, family life cycle, safety, informal interaction, neighborly interaction, and localism. Even extremely small measures have been found to have more than one dimension. Riger and Lavrakas (198 l), based on a factor analysis of six items, found two components to community attachment-social bonding and physical rootedness. Although the dimensions proposed from these two studies have some relationship to those proposed by Glynn, they certainly are not the same.

There are also studies which support the conclusion that psychological sense of commu- nity is a unidimensional construct. Buckner (1988) originally developed his scale to include items measuring three dimensions, attraction to neighboring, degree of neighboring, and psychological sense of community. However, the results of a factor analysis of the scale convinced him that it made more sense to interpret the scale in terms of one dimension, which he labeled cohesion. Davidson and Cotter (1986) factor analyzed their 17 items scale and concluded that it was unidimensional. They labeled this dimension sense of community.

To date, there is only one theoretical discussion of the dimensions of psychological sense of community that has been presented in the literature. McMillan and Chavis (1986) have hypothesized that psychological sense of community is composed of four elements: membership, influence, integration, and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connec- tion. Some of these constructs are related to the dimensions mentioned by other researchers. For example, their hypothesized influence element involves cohesion, the dimension identi- fied by Buckner. However, many of the constructs they include in their elements have not been previously discussed in the research. For example, in their definition of the element- shared-emotional connection, they include the constructs of honor and humiliation, and spiritual bond.

The Sense of Community Index was based on the theory developed by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, and Wandersman (1986) prepared 100 profiles of respondents to a large survey the Neighborhood Participation Project Questionnaire. The profiles were based on responses to 43 items from the survey, 39 of which were believed to be related to one of the four elements in McMillan and Chavis’ theory. Twenty-one judges then gave each profile a rating (from 1 to 5) based on the judge’s perceptions of sense of community. There was a very high (.97) level of agreement among the judges, which lends strong support both to Sarason’s original statement that we know a psychological sense of community when we see it and to the usefulness of McMillan and Chavis’ theory. Twenty- three of the items were used to develop the SCI. Respondents to the Neighborhood Participa- tion Project Questionnaire were asked to rate on a five point scale how much sense of community they felt with residents of their own blocks. Total SCI scores were compared to these sense of community scores for the 100 profile respondents and a correlation of .52 was obtained. The fact that the SCI only predicted 25% of the variance in respondents’ own ratings of their sense of community suggests that while the SCI includes sufficient infonna- tion to allow judges to make highly reliable ratings of sense of community, the measure is missing some important components of individuals’ feelings of community.

The SCI has been found useful in several other investigations, in reference to several different referents of community (Pretty, 1990; Pretty & McCarthy, 1991; Pretty, Andrews,

FUTURE RESEARCH 433

& Collett, 1994) and seems to lend support to the usefulness of conceptualizing sense of community as a multidimensional construct. Basically all researchers agree, however, that much more work needs to be done, in a variety of settings, before an agreed upon understand- ing of the components of psychological sense of community can be obtained.

Correlates of Psychological Sense of Community Just as it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the dimensions of psychological

sense of community from the research, there is also limited consensus on what factors foster this construct. Much of the published literature has involved an identification of variables related to a strong psychological sense of community, yet there are few robust findings. Even the earliest and most basic conclusion about correlates, that years spent in a community is positively correlated with psychological sense of community (Buckner, 1988; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995) has not held true in all investigations (David- son & Cotter, 1986; Pretty & McCarthy, 1991). Other variables that have been found to correlate with psychological sense of community, at least in some studies, are income, age, education, race, gender, home ownership, presence of children in the home, number of neighbors that are known by name, and additional number of years expected to live in the neighborhood (Buckner, 1988; Davidson & Cotter, 1986; Davidson, Cotter, & Stovall, 1991; Davidson & Cotter, 1993; Glynn, 1981; Lounsbury & DeNeui, 1995; Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995). For each of these variables, however, there is at least one study in which the relationship did not hold true.

Conclusions

Even though the research to date may not have resulted in specific, robust findings concerning dimensions or correlates, there are several very interesting conclusions that may be drawn. First, the research strongly suggests that psychological sense of community is, to a significant extent, setting specific. In other words, the reason for the lack of consistent findings regarding dimensions and correlates is that some significant percentage of these aspects of psychological sense of community differ from setting to setting.

Second, our understanding of the general definition of psychological sense of commu- nity has increased to the point where we can conclude that psychological sense of community refers to variables beyond individual relationships and behaviors. Third, there is widespread agreement that psychological sense of community is an aggregate variable, and is most useful when studied at the community level of measurement. These points will be discussed further.

Although the original studies of sense of community focused on neighborhoods as the communities under investigation, several researchers have pointed out that individuals can define the communities that are important to them in several ways, and that one individual can belong to many communities (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986; Petty, Andrews, & Collett, 1994). Several authors have even suggested strongly that the commu- nities that are most important to people may not be defined in a geographic sense (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Rheingold, 1991) and instead, consist of group- ings of people who have common interests and who may not ever physically meet each other. This means that if we are ever to come to an understanding of sense of community, we need to study it in a variety of contexts.

As the interest in psychological sense of community grows, so does the wide range of topics with which is is being associated. A review of messages posted to the computer list maintained by the Society for Community Research and Action reveals requests for informa-

434 HILL

tion about measuring psychological sense of community in children and adolescence, the developmental processes associated with psychological sense of community, the link be- tween psychological sense of community and opportunities for involvement with nature, and the link between psychological sense of community and myths and rituals. All of these are potentially fruitful areas for study, but the diversity of this list points out some of the major problems associated with researching psychological sense of community. If there is anything we can conclude from the research done to date, it is that the development and correlates of psychological sense of community change, some times radically, from setting to setting. This is not to say that there are not common elements to psychological sense of community across settings. The fact that measures such as the SCI have been successfully used in diverse settings argues strongly for the presence of common elements. However, in addition to these common elements, there are also other important elements of psychological sense of commu- nity that are unique to specific settings. This suggests that involvement in the natural environ- ment could be important for people in some settings and not at all important for people in other settings. Research on psychological sense of community in one setting may give you little information about psychological sense of community in another setting.

The second conclusion, that psychological sense of community must be understood as involving more than just individual behaviors, is one of the factors that makes psychological sense of community so uniquely appropriate for study by community psychologists. Pretty, Andrews, and Collett (1994) hypothesize that although psychological sense of community is strongly related to social support and social networks, it is not limited to these constructs. These authors stress that psychological sense of community needs to be reviewed as a construct which does not depend upon individual behaviors. To illustrate, the authors quote an adolescent in their study who stated that he would feel much more comfortable approach- ing a stranger who lived on his block for assistance than he would approaching a stranger on any other block. This was true even though the respondent reported that he had not met most of his neighbors.

This finding, and others like it, add support to the argument that our definition of psychological sense of community has to be taken beyond individual relationships. As Grace Pretty and her colleagues argue, it has to go beyond social networks and social support- beyond behaviors. Klein and D’Aunno (1986) talk about five possible referents for psycho- logical sense of community in the workplace. The first two are a friendship network and a functional subgroup of the organization. It is possible to argue that neither of these are truly referents for psychological sense of community because both depend upon continuing inter- actions between distinct individuals. Whenever you limit your referent to groups of people, all of whom know each other and all of whom have a history of interacting with each other, you are probably discussing social support and social networks, not psychological sense of community.

This need to go beyond individual behaviors and relationships is particularly interesting given the fairly strong consensus in the literature that psychological sense of community is a form of attachment. This statement is not based on any research findings, but rather on the frequency with which the word attachment is associated with some form of psychological sense of community (Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Attachment relationships are generally viewed as being built upon some form of frequent interaction. If psychological sense of community is a form of an attachment relationship, that would suggest that the relationship does not depend upon interaction or give and take with any specific members of a group, but instead with any member of the group. Each interaction could be with a different member and this would not interfere with the development of psychological sense of community. In fact,

FUTURE RESEARCH 435

psychological sense of community would probably benefit from interactions with many different members by fostering a sense of membership with every other member, even those you have never met and probably never will. Once established, psychological sense of community can probably exist, at least for a time, even without interactions, just like any other attachment relationship. All of this would suggest that to measure the aspects of psychological sense of community which go beyond the behaviors of social support and networking, you must use a referent that includes individuals who do not know each other, or who may know each other but on a normal basis have little contact.

The final point that may be drawn from the literature is that psychological sense of community is most usefully measured as an aggregate variable at a community level. The reasons for this are fairly self-evident to community psychologists, but probably bear repeat- ing. One finding which has been consistent in the literature, and which probably fuels much of the interest in this field, is that communities do differ in expected directions in terms of aggregate measures of psychological sense of community. This finding is true for the earliest research on psychological sense of community (Glynn, 1981), as well as for the most recent studies (Nasar & Julian, 1995). This means that psychological sense of community has consistently been shown to be exactly what Sarason (1974) originally proposed it as, a characteristic of communities, not of people living within them. This makes psychological sense of community especially appropriate for study by community psychologists. Unfor- tunately, research which employs aggregate levels of psychological sense of community is in the minority. The majority of research looks at this construct solely on the individual level.

The arguments in favor of community psychologists focusing on community level phenomena have been made forcefully and often (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Felton & Shinn, 1992; Heller, 1989; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Judging from the persistent relative sacristy of community level research, the difficulties of doing research at the community level probably outweigh the arguments in favor of it for most researchers. This will probably continue to be the case, however, it should be noted that since psychological sense of community is defined as a community level construct, we will never achieve a true under- standing of it without community level research.

Suggestions

In addition to the summary points made above, it is possible to infer several other points about psychological sense of community. These might be better labeled suggestions than conclusions, due to their tentative nature.

First, the conclusion that the dimensions and correlates of psychological sense of com- munity differ to a significant extent from setting to setting suggests that in order to investigate psychological sense of community in any giving setting, the researcher must have some prior knowledge of the characteristics of that setting. This in turn suggests that the most useful way of investigating psychological sense of community is through the use of multidisciplinary research. If psychological sense of community is setting specific, then the most effective way to study it would be to combine the expertise of a researcher familiar with the construct along with the expertise of a researcher familiar with the setting. Different settings and research questions require different research methods. The research to date has relied almost exclu- sively on surveys and quantitative methods. The diversity which underlies the nature of psychological sense of community would suggest that much could be gained by using diverse methods to study it, including qualitative approaches.

Another suggestion has to do with our understanding of the changes in psychological sense of community caused by urbanization and modem society. As Sarason pointed out in

436 HILL

his presentation of this concept, you do not have to look extensively into any field of modem thought before you find writings which describe in eloquent terms the decline of a psycho- logical sense of community (Sarason, 1975). This holds true for philosophy, religion, soci- ology, political science, history, and literature, as well as psychology. This has been the topic for complete books. Nisbett, in his book, The Quest for Community, talks about a modem experience of alienation, which he says is in contrast to our ancestors’ experience of commu- nity (Nisbett, 1953). Nisbett then goes on to say “And with these judgments there is the further, more drastic judgment, that contemporary society, especially middle-class society, tends by its very structure to produce the alienated, the disenchanted, the rootless, and the neurotic” (Nisbett, 1953, p. 19).

This perspective has not declined over the years (Jason & Kobayashi, 1995). In fact, there is even a current political movement that is founded, at least in part, on the idea that the American cultural emphasis on individualism inevitably results in the loss of community (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Etzioni, 1993). Although we have moved beyond the early belief that urbanization per se, with its increased population density, always results in loss of community, there still seems to be the prevailing belief that some- thing inherent in modern American society has robbed from us our sense of community, and that we need to do something drastic to get it back. The interesting point in this assumption is that there does not seem to be any documented evidence that we have experienced a loss of community that is unique to this century or modem America.

To date, there has only been one published study which investigated sense of community in a longitudinal manner. Hunter (1975) replicated a study done by Donald Foley (1952) in the same urban neighborhood 25 years later. The specific aim of Hunter’s study was to investigate the hypothesis that sense of community was on the decline in urban America. Hunter concluded that while local facility use had declined, and informal neighboring had stayed the same, sense of community had actually increased. He attributed this increase to the fact that the neighborhood in question was middle class, racially integrated, and urban, and had attracted new residents who moved there specifically because they valued these attri- butes. Although it is only one study, and it is now 20 years old, this study does suggest that the prevailing idea of sense of community in decline needs to be re-examined.

Howard Rheingold, in his book, The Virtual Community, talks about the growth of communities of people who connect with each other solely via computer. He says, “The idea of a community accessible only via my computer screen sounded cold to me at first, but I learned quickly that people can feel passionately about e-mail and computer conferences. I’ve become one of them. I care about these people I met through my computer, and I care deeply about the future of the medium that enables us to assemble.” (Rheingold, 1991). These kinds of communities, ones which, at least initially, are formed based on common interests, have been criticized as contributing to the compartmentalizing of our lives (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985). However, just like the hypothesized decline in psycho- logical sense of community, there has as yet been no research conducted which could provide evidence for or against this position. It may be that the sense of community Howard Rhein- gold is provided by his computer contacts is fundamentally the same, and provides the same benefits, as the sense of community derived from living in a small, rural community. It may be that modem society is not suffering from a decline in sense of community, but rather a shift in the ways we acquire it.

A final suggestion concerning research on psychological sense of community goes back to Sarason’s original discussion of the construct. Sarason has written extensively not only of the need for research on psychological sense of community, but also for research on a sense

FUTURE RESEARCH 437

of transcendence (Sarason, 1994). There are several reasons for believing the concepts are theoretically related. For example, McMillan and Chavis (1986) talk about a spiritual bond in their definition of shared emotional connection. If they are related, that would argue that a complete understanding of psychological sense of community can only be obtained within the context of understanding a sense of transcendence. The task is a formidable one.

In summary, there are several things which can be concluded about psychological sense of community based on the current research. First, psychological sense of community is a construct that relies heavily upon context for its description, perhaps more so than any other psychological construct currently being studied. Although we may be able to agree to a theoretical description of the components of psychological sense of community, the appropri- ate operational definition of psychological sense of community and its determinants will differ greatly from setting to setting. Second, the strong contextual nature of psychological sense of community requires that it be studied in as diverse a fashion as possible. Researchers of psychological sense of community should, ideally, utilize theories, methods, and tech- niques from as wide a variety of disciplines as possible. Finally, psychological sense of community is an extra-individual, aggregate variable and we need to put much more effort into measuring it at that level.

Sarason’s point about psychological sense of community being the overarching value for community psychology seems to be based on the belief that any community that is structured so that it fosters a strong psychological sense of community among its residents will most likely also be structured in such a way as to promote the healthiest possible outcomes for its residents. If we can learn what aspects of communities foster a strong psychological sense of community, and can learn to increase those aspects, perhaps we will not have to concern ourselves with specific problems and the interventions to deal with them. We could concentrate on forming healthy communities, and rely on the communities to form the healthy individuals. Then we could truly become community psychologists.

References

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A,, & Tipton, S. (1985). Buckner, J. (1988).

Community Psychology, 16, 771-791. Chavis, D., Hogge, J., McMillan, D., & Wandersman, A. (1986).

first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24-40. Chavis, D., & Wandenman, A. (1990).

community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-81. Davidson, W., & Cotter, F‘. (1986).

Applied Social Psychology, 16, 608-619. Davidson, W., & Cotter, P. (1993).

American Journal of Community Psychology, 2 1 , 59-66. Davidson, W., Cotter, P., & Stovall, J. (1991).

Psychological Reports, 68, 817-8 18. Doolittle, R., & MacDonald, D. (1978).

hood A factor analytic examination. Communicafion Quarterly, 26, 2-7. Etzioni, A. (1993). Felton, B., & Shinn, M. (1992).

Foley, D. L. (1952). Neighbors or urbanites? Rochester: University of Rochester. Glynn, T. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations, 34, 789-

Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 1-15.

Habits of the heart. New Yok Harper & Row. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of

Sense of community through Brunswick’s lens: A

Sense of community in the uban environment: A catalyst for participation and

Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of city. Journal of

Psychological sense of community and support for public school taxes.

Social predisposition for the development of sense of community.

Communication and a sense of community in a metropolitan neighbor-

The spirit of community. New York Crown. Social integration and social support: Moving “social support’’ beyond the

individual level. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 103-1 15.

818.

438 HILL

Hunter, A. (1975). 40, 537-552.

Jason, L., & Kobayashi, R. (1995).

Klein, K., & D’Aunno, T. (1986).

Lounsbury, J., & DeNeui, D. (1995).

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). nity Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Nasar, J. , & Julian, D. (1995). American Planning Association, 61, 178-184.

Nisbet, R. (1953). Pretty, G. (1990).

Pretty, G., Andrews, L., & Collett, C. (1994).

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991).

Rheingold, H. (1991). Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. (198 1). Community ties, patterns of attachment, and social interaction in urban neighbor-

Robinson, D., & Wilkinson, D. (1995). Sense of community in a remote mining town: Validating a neighborhood

Sarason, S. (1994). Psychoanalysis, General Custer, and the verdicts of history, and other essays on psychology in

Sarason, S . (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco:

Unger, D., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective compo-

The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. American Sociological Review,

Community building: Our next frontier. Journal of Primary Prevention, 15,

Psychological sense of community in the workplace. Journal of Community

Psychological sense of community on campus. College Student Journal, 29,

Sense of community: A definition and theory. American Journal of Commu-

The psychological sense of community in the neighborhood. Journal of the

195-208.

Psychology. 14, 365-377.

270-277.

The quest for community. New York: Oxford University Press. Relating psychological sense of community to social climate characteristics. Journal of Comrnu-

Exploring adolescents’ sense of community and its relationship to

Exploring psychological sense of community among women and men of the

nity Psychology, 18, 60-65.

loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology, 22 , 346-358.

corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 35 1-36 1. The virtual community. New York: Summit.

hoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9 , 55-66.

cohesion scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 137- 148.

the social sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jossey-Bass.

nents of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139-169.