Early SOC work found that when people feel safe, they desire greater neighbor interactivity (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Studies show that SOC is driven by high behavioral rootedness and high social bonding (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Further, the strength of interpersonal relationships within community contribute to satisfaction, commitment, and loyalty to community, as well as more problem-focused behavior and community contributions in response to a perceived threat (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). SOC also is associated with an individual’s capacity to function competently within the community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

READ MORE

On an individual level, belonging has a significant, positive effect on emotional and mental processes, whereas a lack of belonging or the threat of the loss of a bond is shown to create significant negative affect and have negative impact on health and wellbeing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Glynn, 1981; Mellor et al., 2008). Belonging promotes wellbeing by reducing stress and generating happiness through relational bonds and a sense of meaning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lambert et al., 2013; Pogosyan, 2017).

In international development, participatory processes foster a strong sense of belonging and empowerment that help reinforce community bonds (Mercy Corps, 2010). In the field of education, studies have shown a sense of belonging improves academic performance (Laldin, 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011). This is due, in part, to a capacity to see challenges as shared versus stemming from a personal deficit (Laldin, 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011). In health fields, research shows that social capital is a driver of social cohesion, which in turn, impacts community wellbeing through encouragement of positive behavior along social norms (Sampson et al, 1997; Uchino, 2006).

Like many other measures of the intangible, there is a lack of consensus or consistency in the definition of and metrics for a sense of community.  The challenges are four-fold:

• There is a lack of clarity on what components make up SOC. There is a need to understand further the differing impact of the material, systemic, and relational components of community on an individuals’ perception of SOC (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Isolated conditions may contribute to some measures of community wellbeing, but may not have any relationship to the level of a sense of community (Chavis & Pretty, 1999)

• It is unclear how the various factors in the various scales that make up SOC relate to each other. 

• There is a need to understand more clearly how SOC manifests and differs on an individual versus collective level.

• There is the question of who should be determining the definition and boundaries of community and community membership. In most cases, the idea of community and sense of community must involve some level of individual subjective perspective. But, there may exist inherent biases and inaccuracies related to people’s inability to identify the reasons why they feel a certain way (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

By its very nature, a strong, positive sense of community is likely fundamental to improvements in collective wellbeing and social change. Trust and social support, both drivers of social capital and social cohesion, play an important role in a sense of collective efficacy, a community’s ability to create change and influence behavior through social norms (Sampson et al, 1997). Having a sense of community, including the relationships between members and the involvement of community institutions, has also been shown to be a driver of civic engagement and resilience (Chavis & Pretty, 1999; Norris et al., 2007).

READ MORE

Norris et al. (2007), in evaluating resilience theory, concluded that the personal, social, and economic capacities and structures that enable resilient systems, have the following qualities: (1) robustness – the ability of communities to withstand stress without breakdown, (2) redundancy - resources that can be substituted during disruption, and (3) rapidity – the ability to mobilize resources and achieve outcomes quickly. Social capital is considered a primary resource that supports resilience, including inter-organizational networks, perceived support, reciprocity, and engagement of members (Norris et al., 2007; Sherrieb et al., 2010).

A group of resilient people does not necessarily guarantee a resilient community, and often social capital is damaged when a community fails to protect a survivor from harm during atrocity.  Consequently, the individual process of healing is enhanced through some form of societal recourse (Herman, 1992).  Social capital and resilience are fostered by efforts like restorative justice endeavors, which use a collective dialogue process to rehabilitate and repair the relationship between individuals and community (Chavis & Pretty, 1999).

Participation, or participatory development theory, involves the leadership of local communities in defining priorities and designing solutions. Under these approaches, the goal is sustainable wellbeing for all, including quality of life, economic, social, mental, spiritual, physical, and mental wellbeing, as defined by the person or community themselves (Chambers, 2009). Such models of community-driven development are critical in building social capital, connection, and a sense of belonging. They ensure all stakeholders find ownership in the diagnosis and solution, and thus participate in the behavior required to achieve the desired outcomes. Benefits include: participation allows capacity building and ownership, programs can be tailored cooperatively to local urgent needs, and it builds trusting relationships and accountability (Mercy Corps, 2010).

What are the corresponding mechanisms on an individual level? Studies have shown that intrinsic or internal rewards are significantly more effective than extrinsic or external rewards in motivating behavior and driving greater interest, persistence and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to self-determination theory, self-motivation and wellbeing requires competence, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). People who feel close and securely connected to other people, will see behavior modeled by those people, which they are more likely to adopt (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  In contrast, punitive measures, threats or external rewards, sabotage intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 

In summary, feeling a sense of belonging and experiencing high levels of social support from a sense of community, can contribute directly to the intrinsic motivation that will result in behavior that is in alignment with the shared values and norms of that community, especially towards a greater social good (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000).