See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281507534

"I Want to Go Home": Homesickness Experiences

and Social-Support-Seeking Practices

Article  in  Environment and Behavior · June 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0013916515590475

CITATIONS READS

8 2,437

3 authors:

Kristina M. Scharp Christina Paxman

University of Washington Seattle Minot State University
37 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lindsey Thomas
Illinois State University
18 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Understanding Family Communication Influences on Undergraduate Student Adjustment View project

Parent-Child Estrangement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristina M. Scharp on 06 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

590475
research-article2015
EABXXX10.1177/0013916515590475Environment and BehaviorScharp et al.

Article
Environment and Behavior
1–23
“I Want to Go © 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Home”: Homesickness sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916515590475
Experiences and Social- eab.sagepub.com

Support-Seeking
Practices

Kristina M. Scharp1, Christina G. Paxman2,

and Lindsey J. Thomas3

Abstract
Almost everyone experiences homesickness at some point in their life,
regardless of their age. Given the deleterious outcomes associated with
homesickness, this study explores what homesick individuals miss about their
homes, what their homes mean to them, and how individuals seek support
when they are homesick. Thirty-four in-depth interviews were collected, and
results from a content analysis indicate that there are 12 distinct content areas
that individuals miss about their homes. Results suggest that activities (100%),
family (97%), feelings (100%), and places (97%) are the most salient for homesick
individuals. Furthermore, a thematic analysis reveals that “home” is generally
synonymous with a comfortable and safe environment. Although the majority
of participants reported that they did not seek social support when they
were homesick, those who sought support did so both directly and indirectly.
Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords
homesickness, support seeking, attachment theory, symbolic interactionism

1Utah State University, Logan, USA

2University of Iowa, IA, USA
3University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Kristina M. Scharp, Utah State University, 0720 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA.
Email: kristina.scharp@gmail.com

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

2 Environment and Behavior

Almost everyone experiences homesickness during their life, regardless of

age (Thurber & Walton, 2012). Homesickness is associated with psychologi-
cal symptoms such as absentmindedness (e.g., Fisher, 1984, 1989; Fisher &
Hood, 1987) and is also linked to adjustment disorders (Vingerhoets, 2005).
People experiencing homesickness also report psychological disturbances,
somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, and poor academic performance
(Fisher & Hood, 1987). Homesickness is an obstacle to student success
(Guinagh, 1992) and is associated with serious health problems in adults and
the elderly population (Vingerhoets, 2005).
Despite its prevalence and severity, Vingerhoets (2005) argues that little
attention has been paid to homesickness, especially in the United States. This
is problematic because understanding the content and gestalt meaning of
“home” has implications for how to address homesickness. Homesickness and
the meaning of home might also help illuminate the fundamental bonds with
places and individuals that enrich people’s lives. Furthermore, how individu-
als make sense of home (i.e., their environment) and homesickness might have
implications for support seeking. Supportive communication can alleviate the
deleterious outcomes associated with homesickness (Nijhof & Engels, 2007).
Researchers, however, often focus on psychological adjustment to a new envi-
ronment (e.g., Tognoli, 2010) instead of how individuals behaviorally seek
support in their new environment. If and how individuals seek support likely
have consequences for whether support is enacted or perceived as helpful.
Consequently, the present study explores the content of what individuals
miss, the gestalt meaning of home, and the communicative practices adult
Americans use to seek support for homesickness. In particular, we argue that
“home” is an environment that is constituted by more than merely a place and
is constituted by a multitude of factors and components. Results reveal theo-
retical implications for attachment theory and social support research and
might help counselors, universities, and practitioners prevent homesickness
and/or assuage negative ramifications through targeted interventions.
Furthermore, the present study might help us better understand a, perhaps ubiq-
uitous, experience that elucidates what humans fundamentally value. With
these implications in mind, this study reviews scholarly conceptions of home-
sickness before turning to attachment theory and symbolic interactionism as
theoretical guides. We then discuss the deleterious outcomes of homesickness
and importance of social support seeking before presenting our results.

The Experience of Homesickness

Conceptions of Homesickness, Home, and Attachment Theory
Scholars have long recognized that home, including spaces and places as well
as relationships and feelings, helps individuals to develop and maintain

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 3

identities and a sense of continuity in their lives (e.g., Blunt & Dowling,
2006; Fried, 1963). When one leaves home and disrupts this continuity, how-
ever, these spaces, places, and/or relationships can become losses that are
grieved (Fried). Indeed, individuals often experience homesickness when
they are separated from important others or key places, regardless of whether
their situation improves because of that separation (see Fisher, 1989). To
date, homesickness research has often been conducted by psychologists and
focused on determinants (Kazantzis & Flett, 1998) and outcomes (Fisher &
Hood, 1987). According to Nijhof and Engels (2007), there is no unambigu-
ous definition of homesickness. Fisher and Hood (1987) regard homesick-
ness as a complex cognitive-motivational-emotional state concerned with
grieving and yearning for home. The American Psychiatric Association
defines homesickness as an anxiety disorder, marked by recurrent cognitions
focused on home. For Nijhof and Engels, homesickness is a “negative emo-
tional state characterized by recurrent thoughts of home, missing friends, the
desire to go back to the familiar environment and often co-occurring physical
complaints” (p. 710). Finally, Thurber and Walton (2007) argue that home-
sickness is characterized by distress and functional impairment resulting
from actual or anticipated separation from home and attachment objects.
Although each of these definitions provides a slightly different understand-
ing of homesickness, each conceptualization centers on the concept of “home.”
Despite being essential to the experience, researchers have yet to explore what
homesick individuals mean when they reference “home.” Perhaps one reason
for this oversight is a result of hegemonic gendered assignations to space.
Rose (1993) argues that women often get relegated to private spaces such as
the home and that these spaces are consistently undervalued compared with
spaces culturally and historically associated with men. She further explains
that examining spaces such as the home offers an important point of disruption
where the space can take on its own identity and escape a gendered coding.
Thus, failing to explore the home as an important environment not only has
implications for those who miss it, but it also denies the reimagining of the
home as a space for new possibilities and identities to emerge.
From a homesickness perspective, Thurber and Walton (2012) contend
that nearly all students miss something when they are homesick, yet existing
literature provides no empirical data suggesting what those “things” are. This
oversight is critical considering that homesickness might be easily remedied
through targeted interventions. Furthermore, identifying precisely what indi-
viduals miss might have theoretical implications and help researchers exam-
ine drivers of adverse outcomes.
Regarding “home” and attachment objects, research first conducted by
Bowlby (1969, 1973) suggests that children experience distress when sepa-
rated from someone (i.e., parents) with whom they have developed a strong

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

4 Environment and Behavior

attachment. Parents serve as a secure base from which children can explore
new surroundings and to which they can return when they feel threatened
(Trees, 2006). The attachment bond, central to attachment theory, typically
focuses on relationships; however, individuals might also develop additional
bonds with other attachment figures/objects over the course of their lifetime.
A growing number of researchers (e.g., Altman & Low, 1992; Manzo, 2003;
Manzo & Devine-Wright, 2014; Scannell & Gifford, 2013) argue that indi-
viduals also experience place attachment.
Manzo (2003) explains that existing research on place attachment often
focuses on traditional conceptions of home such as place of residence, yet
place attachment might extend well beyond the household to other places
such as nature. This assertion supports the research by Tognoli (1987) who
contends that home corresponds to the following five attributes: (a) central-
ity, (b) continuity, (c) privacy, (d) self-expression, and (e) personal identity.
Specifically, Tognoli provides these characteristics to argue that there is a
fundamental difference between a home and a house. In addition, Manzo
argues that places are deeply emotional. Therefore, we might understand
place attachment and people’s conceptions of home as a function of the emo-
tions that they associate with home, and perhaps without home (e.g., feelings
of depression and anxiety during homesickness).
In addition to people and places, Trinke and Bartholomew (1997) contend
that young adults can identify an average of five attachment figures.
Determining the content of these figures could provide scholars with oppor-
tunities to extend the application of attachment theory and attachment theory
concepts. In other words, it is possible that individuals not only become
attached to the people and places associated with home but also other funda-
mental markers associated with that environment. Given that research sug-
gests individuals might have multiple attachment figures and little is known
about what homesick individuals miss, the first research question is as
follows:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What do individuals report missing about

their home when experiencing homesickness?

Symbolic Interactionism and the Meaning of Home

Leeds-Hurwitz (2006) conveys that “symbolic interactionism emphasizes
meanings, the self, and the ways in which the self is constructed through
interactions with others” (p. 232). Blumer (1969) contends that symbolic
interactionism has three primary premises: (a) individuals act toward things
in light of their meanings, (b) meanings are constituted in social interaction,

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 5

and (c) individuals interpret and modify meanings within interactions. At

“home,” then, individuals interact with people and places, constituting an
overall meaningful experience. To focus on meaning and interaction, studies
have appropriated symbolic interaction to explore how individuals communi-
catively construct the meaning of places with personal significance (e.g.,
Borer, 2006; Kato, 2011; Kusenbach, 2006). This scholarship emphasizes
that places or environments can carry different meanings for individuals
depending on their social interactions.
In many ways, scholars taking a symbolic interactionism approach align
with environment and behavior scholars (e.g., Di Masso, Dixon, & Durrheim,
2014; Seamon 1982, 2014; Seamon & Mugerauer, 1985) from the phenom-
enological tradition. Such scholars argue that phenomenology and hermeneu-
tics emphasize the embodied experience of making meaning and the
significance of language in individuals’ encounters with the environment.
Indeed, scholars who subscribe to both symbolic interactionist and phenom-
enological approaches (i.e., interpretivism) jettison positivist science.
Alternative to a positivist approach, symbolic interactionists focus on the
ways individuals with similar cultural referents construct shared meaning. In
the present study, symbolic interactionism provides a framework for explor-
ing the meaning of “home,” as constituted by language and through relation-
ships, from the point of view of homesick individuals. Consequently, this
study does not assume that “home” is merely a sum of content factors but
rather explores how the meaning of “home” emerges in relationship to peo-
ple, places, and attachment figures. Thus, exploring homesickness might
require both specific and gestalt understandings of the meanings of “home.”
Therefore, the second research question is as follows:

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What is the meaning of “home” as consti-

tuted by homesick individuals?

Deleterious Outcomes and the Importance of

Social Support
Across the life span, individuals often experience losses of important people
and things (Bonanno, 2001). Research has primarily focused on deaths of
family members, such as spouses or children (Golish & Powell, 2003), rein-
forcing the perception that objects of loss are concrete and permanently
absent. However, Paul and Brier (2001) argue that leaving home also requires
a grieving process; they position homesickness as a type of ambiguous loss
(see Boss, 2007) that has the potential to produce adverse physiological and

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

6 Environment and Behavior

emotional symptoms. Physiological symptoms include stomach and intesti-

nal complaints, appetite loss, sleep disturbances, headaches, and fatigue (Van
Tilburg, Vingerhoets, & Van Heck, 1996). Severe somatic symptoms such as
binge eating, suicide attempts, and heart complaints are also reported by
homesick individuals (Van Tilburg, 2005). Moreover, Van Tilburg et al.
(1996) argue that people who are homesick experience depression, insecurity,
nervousness, and loneliness.
Tognoli’s (2010) research suggests that homesick individuals often long
for family and friends and are better adjusted when they maintain contact
with important individuals. These important others might be significant
sources of social support (i.e., the perceived availability of helpful persons or
behaviors; MacGeorge, Feng, & Burleson, 2011). Social support can improve
mental health (Goldsmith & Albrecht, 2011) and buffer against depression
(Olstad, Sexton, & Sorgaard, 2001). Thus, there is a clear relationship
between homesickness and social support. Similarly, Newland and Furnham
(1999) found that decreased perceptions of social support predict homesick-
ness in new college students. In addition, research suggests that seeking
social support is one of four strategies that homesick adults report to cope
with missing home (Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets, & Van Heck, 1999). However,
scholars have yet to explore how individuals seek social support for their
homesickness. Thus, our third research question is as follows:

Research Question 3 (RQ3): How, if at all, do individuals seek social

support for their homesickness?

Method
Pilot Study
A pilot test was first conducted to assess face validity of the interview proto-
col, provide a baseline for developing content areas (RQ1), and familiarize
ourselves with themes that characterize meanings of home (RQ2). We con-
ducted an exploratory study using data collected from 12 college students 18
years or older, the majority of whom were White females (92%). These stu-
dents were interviewed for approximately 20 to 40 min about their homesick
experiences, and their interviews were transcribed. Results, based on induc-
tive analytic coding (see Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), were used to refine the
interview protocol. Participants also stressed the importance of communica-
tion in their homesick experiences: Communicating or not communicating
with friends, family, and classmates/colleagues seemed to strongly influence
participants’ abilities to cope with homesickness. In other words, garnering

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 7

social support seemed to influence their abilities to cope. Consequently, we

added an additional research question (RQ3) to capture the support-seeking
practices used by homesick individuals.

Participants and Data Collection

Upon Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants were recruited
through a large Midwestern university’s listserv. Participants had to be at
least 18 years of age, have missed or currently miss home, and consider their
home to be in the United States. Participants’ mean age was 33.18
(SD = 16.47) and median age was 26 (SD = 16.87); the majority were White
(88.24%) and female (70.59%). This disproportionate number of females is
consistent with the existing literature (e.g., Stroebe, van Vliet, Hewstone, &
Willis, 2002), which indicates that females might experience homesickness
more often than males.
A total of 34 semi-structured interviews (McCracken, 1988) were col-
lected. Researchers sampled until reaching saturation, which Corbin and
Strauss (2008) define as the point, “when no new categories or relevant
themes are emerging” (p. 148). Both coders reached saturation at the third
interview for RQ2 and the 16th interview for RQ3. Because saturation is
determined retrospectively (determined at Interview 17), and in order to per-
form verification procedures, 17 additional interviews were collected.

Content Analysis (RQ1)

To answer “What do individuals report missing about their home when expe-
riencing homesickness?” we conducted a content analysis, which included
the following steps: (a) deriving content areas from the data (see Neuendorf,
2002), (b) generating a coding book and training coders, and (c) determining
the reliability of the coders. First, we became familiar with the data. Open
coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was then used to identify emergent content
areas. This process garnered 12 discrete and exhaustive categories represent-
ing what individuals identified as missing about homes. Content areas were
informed by, and aligned with, research from the pilot study as well as extant
literature (Nijhof & Engels, 2007; Thurber & Walton, 2007). Next, we devel-
oped a codebook detailing the 12 content areas that the second and third
authors used for analysis; these authors trained (20 hrs) to determine whether
each content area appeared in a given interview (contact first author if code-
book is desired).
Coders practiced on the 12 pilot interviews. To check coder reliability, a
random 50% of interviews were selected for rating by both coders. Inter-rater

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

8 Environment and Behavior

reliability was calculated using Cohen’s (1960) kappa. Kappa statistics

ranged from .68 to 1.00 among coding categories: activities (κ = .79), animals
(κ = 1.00), family (κ = 1.00), feelings (κ = 1.00), food (κ = .68), friends
(κ = .89), normalcy (κ = .68), perks (κ = .89), places (κ = .89), romantic partner
(κ = .68), safety (κ = .68), and traditions (κ = .89).

Thematic Analysis (RQ2 and RQ3)

Thematic analysis is a “method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting pat-
terns (themes) within the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). We conducted
our thematic analysis in six steps: (a) becoming familiar with the data, (b)
generating coding categories, (c) generating themes, (d) reviewing themes,
(e) defining and naming themes, and (f) locating exemplars. Data familiariza-
tion consisted of reading and re-reading the data. Generating codes consisted
of systematically coding and collating data pertinent to each code. We gener-
ated themes by collating the codes into themes. We then checked whether the
themes worked in relation to the coded text segments and the entire data set.
We then refined each theme with a clear definition and name. Finally, we
selected rich, compelling examples that provide evidence of each theme as it
relates to the research question.
We conducted four verification procedures: (a) referential adequacy, (b)
peer-debriefing, (c) investigator triangulation, and (d) the audit trail (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). Referential adequacy was achieved by collecting and
archiving a “second half” of the data set. This allowed the second half of the
data to be analyzed in comparison with the first half. The coding authors
found that the second half of the data was consistent with the first half. The
coding authors also engaged in peer-debriefing, in which they read every
transcript and discussed the thematic categories. Investigator triangulation
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was achieved when the first author independently
identified the same emergent themes as the coding authors. Finally, detailed
notes were kept throughout the analysis, which aided in presenting the results
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results
RQ1 (Content Meaning of Home)
Twelve areas, as detailed in Table 1, emerged as constituting the content of
what people miss about home (RQ1) and permeated interviews across the
corpus. Participants reported at least one of the following content areas as
something they miss: activities (100%), animals (47%), family (97%),

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 9

Table 1. Content Areas of What Individuals Report Missing about Home.

Code Brief description Exemplar

Activities Tasks, events, and other “Where I live there’s a lot of forests and
things that people do hiking trails and there’ll be little springs
at home and it was really nice to walk” (18)
Animals Companion and other “I love my dog and so I see dogs all
animals that reside at around here and the little ones will
home remind me of him so that always
causes me to miss home a lot.” (8)
Family Individuals who are “I miss, I mean [city] is nice because it’s
identified as family close to family . . . my parents were
members there and my grandparents were there
and my wife’s family is in [state] as well
. . . ” (1)
Feelings Emotions, memories, “ . . . it’s all about emotions, and
and psychological emotions can also be very difficult
experiences to conceptualize, in our daily lexicon
. . . For me personally, I just miss
something that I felt like was never
there.” (25)
Food Meals and dishes; eating- “ . . . you’re homesick in bed crying
related talk in general that you want your mother’s lasagna
because it’s only thing that will make
life better.” (4)
Friends Individuals who are “ . . . my friends back home. I wrote one
identified as friends of them a letter, cuz I’ve been missing
her a lot.” (29)
Normalcy Routines, predictability, “I miss my routine a lot. I think my
etc. routine sort of keeps me, I don’t know,
grounded or sane a little bit.” (19)
Perks Objects/interactions “You know, in the bathtub in a motel it’s
available only at home like gross, you know, so I like my own
bathtub and my own hot tub and my
own whirlpool . . . ” (7)
Places Physical locations, “I miss, there’s a pond back in my
buildings, etc. hometown that I really love to go to .
. . ” (34)
Romantic An individual who is “I miss my girlfriend . . . we would have
partner identified as a romantic been gone from each other more than
partner we’ve dated . . . ” (5)
Safety Sense of security “The knowing that I was in no danger,
(emotional/physical) being taken care of.” (33)
Traditions Recurring, meaningful “ . . . birthdays were a really big deal in
events my family growing up . . . I miss some of
those events like family milestones.” (19)

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

10 Environment and Behavior

feelings (100%), food (65%), friends (71%), normalcy (85%), perks (62%),
places (97%), romantic partner (53%), safety (62%), and traditions (56%).
Results suggest that activities (100%), family (97%), feelings (100%), and
places (97%) are the most salient for homesick individuals (see Table 1 for
description of the content area and exemplars), whereas animals (47%) and
romantic partners (53%) were least prevalent. Although many people might
not have an animal or a romantic partner to report, the open-ended research
questions did not ask about these specifics so as to ensure that people self-
reported on what was most salient to them. Overall, results suggest that these
12 areas comprehensively capture what individuals miss about their homes.

RQ2 (Gestalt Meaning of Home)

The 12 content areas from RQ1 also construct emergent meanings of home
from the perspective of homesick individuals (RQ2). “Home” is created
within talk that, although based on content areas, constructs various mean-
ings that are greater than the “sum” of categorical parts. Three themes
emerged as central to the meaning of home; home is: a physical location,
people, and feelings. These three themes coalesced into an overarching theme
that permeated the entirety of the story corpus: Home means physical, social,
and emotional comfort.

Home is a physical location. Some participants emphasized the importance of

a location or a structure as a meaningful marker of “home”:

Home is, it’s the turf where the sort of the whole group lives and works together.
It includes more than just my parental home it includes the farm, it includes the
homes of my uh, my relatives there, it’s, but it’s definitely a turf sensation for
me, so much so, that when I cross the county line when we’re driving I feel
home. (6)

Although this participant emphasizes geographical location (e.g., “turf”)

and a physical structure (e.g., “parental home”), she also references people
(e.g., “the whole group”) and the activities (e.g., working) that they perform
as integral components of home as a physical presence.
Another participant also reflected on the physical location of “the farm,”
while indicating that it is also more than simply a structure:

. . . my mom still lives on the farm. I go back and I visit her because I can, and
I enjoy walking around. She has barn cats, I enjoy spending time with them,
and when we still had livestock I used to go out and, you know, be with them.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 11

It’s just nice to be outdoors and interact with peop- you know, animals too, as
well as people . . . There’s a lot of things about the farm that make your life rich,
and, and I don’t have that in town. (24)

In this excerpt, “home” is marked by a location (i.e., “the farm”), but inter-
actions with people and animals are what create enjoyment and make visits
home meaningful.

Home is people. Talk about family and friends further constructs the meaning
of home when they are one’s home:

I live in my own home, and my own home is mine, it’s what makes me, you
know it- I am probably still more comfortable in my own home, but it’s still, I
could always sleep well at my mom’s. I can sleep late at my mom’s and it’s
probably cause I wake up and I think oh geez, my mom will take care of me . .
. so it doesn’t matter I think my mom is a home, no matter where she lives.
Mom represents home. (7)

Although this participant owns another home where she comfortably lives
with her children, she also feels comfortable and cared for when she stays at
her mother’s house. Her mom is the embodiment of “home”; although her
mother’s activities (e.g., care) occur in a place, it is the mother herself who
“is a home.”
Another participant emphasized the relationship between home and peo-
ple, saying, “My friends create the sense of home here . . . but when I have a
real yearning for my parents’ house, only talking to my sister or my mom can
really put that at ease” (4). This participant yearns for his parents’ house, but
it is people who provide a sense of home and ease his homesickness. Another
participant talked about home as something that he has never had, due to the
death of the person who is, and could create, home:

[I’ve] never had a traditional sense of home, but more than missing that place,
I’m missing, I have a void that I’m trying to work through that I need to
convince myself I don’t necessarily need to fill to feel completion or wholeness
. . . my mom died when I was four, and I miss her pretty much every day. I,
well, not pretty much, I do miss her every day, multiple times per day, so, [I]
never really got to know her, but I associate her with home, and, uh, something
that was never there . . . Home is a place I would like to have a refuge to in
tougher times . . . (25)

This participant states that home could be a place, but more than that,
home means having a mother who makes him feel complete, who provides

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

12 Environment and Behavior

both emotional and physical refuge throughout life. Despite owning the
house that his mother bequeathed him, because his mother died, this partici-
pant feels homeless.

Home is feelings. Participants drew upon various feelings when describing

home. One participant explained,

My children and my family, and my husband, and the extended family that we
have, our siblings, our parents, um, it’s not just a place, it’s a feeling. . . .
Somewhere that you fit in, and you feel comfortable, and you feel safe, and you
feel loved . . . home is, really someplace where I belong, where, um . . . it’s
elusive. It’s hard to put into words . . . it is just that place that feels right, that
brings positive memories. There’s not, everything is not always 100 percent
perfect, but it’s definitely the place that, that you feel you belong. (28)

This participant indicates that home could be, but is not merely, a physical
location (i.e., “it’s not just a place”), and she mentions many people when
describing her home. However, the physical location and presence of people
within produce more than homey places or relationships; for this participant,
home is a comfortable environment, where she belongs. Feelings of safety
and love that stem from relationships with people within a place create home.
In sum, these three themes coalesce to suggest that the meanings of home
are synonymous with what individuals call “comfort.” Home, then, is a place
where one can conduct preferred activities, closely interact with important
people, and feel safe and loved:

Really, it’s that place where I feel the most comfortable. Um, I-I don’t want to
say where I feel the most loved because I, I mean that’s, if I go to visit my
children, or, you know, but definitely where I feel the most comfortable, where
I can be myself. (29)

The concepts of “comfort,” “safety,” and “love” permeate the corpus and
suggest that the connection between homesickness and discomfort might not
only be psychological but also environmental and behavioral (i.e., the loss of
doing activities with friends, communicating love, etc.).

RQ3 (Social Support Seeking)

Seven subthemes constituting two themes explain if and how homesick indi-
viduals garner social support. Although some participants recounted requests
for support, other participants explained that homesickness was not some-
thing for which they sought support.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 13

Request social support. Participants who sought social support to help them
cope with homesickness made direct and indirect requests. Participants
reported soliciting support over the phone, online (e.g., Skype), and in person
from both proximal (e.g., at college with them) and distal (e.g., at home)
individuals. When directly requesting support, one participant explains,

I asked my mom, or I called my mom to talk to her and get emotional support
that way, um, either I’d ask her to come up and see me or take a shopping trip
together, do something together or I would pack up my stuff and go home for
the weekend pretty often, um, tangible support I never really asked for but, um,
like she would pack up food and stuff and that was always good. (10)

Here, direct requests for social support can yield multiple types of support
(e.g., emotional, tangible) that come in many forms (e.g., trips home, visits
from parents, care packages). Some participants explain that social support is
the only thing that helps them ameliorate homesickness symptoms. One
woman shares,

The only time I’ve missed, when I was homesick, the only time I missed home
less is if I was on the phone with my mom or Skyping . . . Internet also, like that
also, saved me. The first night or two I didn’t have internet and they called me
until I got internet and I was like, “Okay, good. I can do this now.” (15)

This woman suggests that video chatting allowed her to assuage the dis-
comfort of her homesickness.
In addition to seeking social support over the phone and online, a number
of participants explained that they seek support in person. In particular, some
participants underscored the value of seeking support from people who are
from the same state/region. One woman explains,

I think that the best social support I ever experienced from homesickness was
in college and in particular um, my, when I was a sophomore a gal from my
high school came to the same school . . . and we got to be really close because
we knew all of the same stories, and we have the same points of reference, and
I could just say things in short hand and she’d get it and that was enormous
social support for that phase of my life so, she was an insider, she was
experiencing the exact same nuances of homesickness that a farm kid
experiences . . . (6)

Thus, participants indicated that they are more likely to seek social sup-
port from someone who is also missing home and/or someone who under-
stands their particular “flavor” or experience of homesickness.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

14 Environment and Behavior

Some participants also made indirect social support requests. When asked
if he sought support from others, one man responded, “I don’t know that I’d
do it directly, but I might make it a point of spending more time with friends
and being social” (15). It appears that spending time with others is a coping
strategy that can help offset the negative effects of homesickness. When
asked if she seeks social support, another participant replies,

Um, no . . . well usually I’ll just talk to my friends cause I feel like they all have
the same, like we’re all in the same boat, like everyone from home knows you
better than people at school just because you’ve lived at home better, I mean
longer, so I basically I talk mostly with friends or family . . . (9)

Like other participants, this woman does not explicitly seek social support
but explains that talking to others who understand is supportive. Many par-
ticipants articulated that they perceived support when friends and family
were “there for me” (20). Our results indicate that homesick individuals use
both direct and indirect tactics to garner support from social network mem-
bers, including family members, friends, roommates, and romantic partners.

Don’t request social support. Despite the symptoms associated with homesick-
ness and the documented benefits of social support, the overwhelming major-
ity of participants indicated that they do not seek support for homesickness.
Participants highlighted three reasons for not seeking support. First, some
participants explained that homesickness is a fact of life and, as such, some-
thing they need to learn how to deal with:

. . . it’s part of that maturation, it’s a part of growing and figuring out yourself,
and I think dealing with that yourself is going to be helpful in the long run, if
you get that figured out because your career, your family, whatever that might
be is inevitably going to take you away from home to some degree, so you’ve
got to figure it out sometime. (26)

Thus, some participants associate their ability to handle homesickness on

their own as a life lesson that will serve them well in the future.
Some participants also explained that they do not request social support
because they do not believe that their social network members are willing
and/or able to provide support. One participant explains that this is because
her dad “doesn’t really get it” (16). Another participant shares,

. . . I didn’t talk to my parents. You know, I think my parents really missed me

too. And my parents weren’t a great source of support when it came to
homesickness, you know. I remember calling my mother and being like “I

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 15

really miss home” and she was like “Great. Pack your bags, we’re coming to
get you.” I think she missed me and, um, I think I wanted her to say like “No,
stick it out, it’ll be great” and she didn’t say that, so I stopped talking with her
about missing home because I didn’t feel like she was going to support me to
do what I should have done, which was focus on my college education. So I
definitely didn’t talk to my parents about it anymore after that. (19)

This excerpt underscores the potential for people to disagree on what con-
stitutes social support. While this participant perceives her parents as unsup-
portive of her educational goals, it is possible that her parents perceive
themselves as supportive.
Finally, some participants explained that they do not request social sup-
port because they do not want their social network members to know that
they are homesick:

I don’t normally talk to my siblings about it because, like, my sister’s getting to

the age where she has to like pick colleges, I don’t want her to like pick, we live
right next to [name] university, she doesn’t want to go there at all, but I don’t
want her to be like “Going away sucks so I have to pick somewhere close.” So
I don’t want to like scare them or like make them think that I’m miserable all
the time. (16)

In sum, participants have several attributions for not seeking social sup-
port. Although some individuals do not seek social support from certain peo-
ple (e.g., “in-laws,” 29), others explained that they do not seek support from
anyone. Given the symptoms associated with homesickness and the benefits
associated with social support, this finding is noteworthy and troubling.

Discussion
This study examined homesickness experiences and support-seeking prac-
tices of individuals from the United States who miss their homes. Few studies
have examined this distressing phenomenon (Vingerhoets, 2005), and to our
knowledge, no study has addressed what individuals miss when they are
homesick. To help counsel those suffering from homesickness and to illumi-
nate more about the environmental conditions required to feel safe and com-
fortable, this study offers insight into both the content and gestalt meanings
of home(sickness) and individuals’ support-seeking behaviors.
Our results suggest that homesick individuals miss 12 components related
to their home. Activities (100%), family (97%), feelings (100%), and places
(97%) were the most salient. This finding corresponds with our pilot data and
Nijhof and Engels (2007), who argue that missing family is associated with

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

16 Environment and Behavior

homesickness. Friends, sometimes considered the most influential relation-

ship in the homesickness experience (Paul & Brier, 2001), however, was
reported by only 71% of participants, suggesting that their importance might
be secondary to family. Future research should address the differences between
these two types of relationships and the ways they influence homesickness.
Perhaps most interesting, activities surfaced as one of the most salient
categories. This suggests that researchers might include “what we do” as
attachment figures. This finding might be unsurprising considering research
(e.g., Pederson, 2014) suggests that people’s identities are intrinsically tied to
what they do and that difficulty arises when individuals are no longer able to
perform certain activities. Overall, the content categories might provide
attachment theory scholars an opportunity to explore attachment styles in
relation to various attachment objects. In addition, all of our participants indi-
cated that they missed “feelings” associated with home. Future research
might examine how emotion influences homesickness experiences or how
emotion regulation (see Gross, 2008) might affect one’s coping ability.
Finally, participants identified animals (47%) and romantic partners (53%)
least frequently. This might be explained by the fact that not everyone had
animals or romantic partners involved in their lives.
Our second research question focused on the meaning of home as con-
structed by homesick individuals. Three themes emerged; home is: a physical
location, people, and feelings. Moreover, these themes coalesce to construct
home as a place of “comfort,” where participants could be “safe,” “loved,” and
free to be themselves. This finding corresponds with Bowlby’s (1969, 1973)
theory that individuals seek attachment relationships that provide comfort and
safety. However, symbolic interactionists and attachment theorists might ben-
efit from considering a broader spectrum of relationships (e.g., our relationship
with an activity) as opposed to those relationships strictly between people.
Research suggests that altering a person’s sense of security can influence mood
and attitudes about new experiences (Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias, &
Gillath, 2001); therefore, “safety” might be especially helpful in creating inter-
ventions to alleviate homesickness symptoms. Overall, participants constructed
the meaning of home as primarily behavioral rather than strictly psychological.
Future researchers might re-conceptualize homesickness as a relational/behav-
ioral phenomenon in addition to a psychological problem.
Finally, our third research question revealed that individuals experiencing
homesickness request social support both directly and indirectly. Participants
seeking direct support reported calling someone on the phone, making con-
tact online, and/or interacting face-to-face. Indirectly, participants socialized
with network members in their present location or talked with individuals
from home. Indirect requests suggest that social support might not require

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 17

active effort from support providers; rather, the perception of someone “being
there” might be its own form of social support via the communication of
social presence. This corresponds with a recent study that found people
sometimes prefer social presence support over other types of social support
(Scharp, 2014). Thus, it is possible that individuals who do not feel comfort-
able disclosing their problem find it comforting when others simply let them
know that they are “there.” Future research should explore whether social
presence support is distinct from other types of social support.
Perhaps the most interesting finding was that most participants reported
not requesting any social support when they experienced homesickness.
These participants reasoned that homesickness is simply a part of life, social
network members are unwilling/unable to provide support, and/or being
homesick is private information. In particular, homesick individuals some-
times reported perceiving that they were not receiving social support even
though network members appeared to be trying. Results reinforce the idea
that an individual’s perception of (non)support influences his or her coping
ability (see MacGeorge et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is possible that not seek-
ing social support might be beneficial if the people from home offer “unhelp-
ful” support. Overall, results from RQ3 suggest that interventions might first
encourage network members to communicate that they “are there” instead of
simply focusing on homesick individuals.

Practical Implications
This study offers important implications for practice. First, unlike the existing
literature that speaks about “attachment objects” generally, the present study
illuminates 12 specific categories that can inform social support tactics. For
example, if birthday celebrations (i.e., a tradition) are an important component
of “home,” network members should make certain that the day is not forgot-
ten, or counselors might encourage people to create new traditions. These 12
categories provide insight that might help alleviate the negative ramifications
of each person’s “flavor” of homesickness. Furthermore, these categories sug-
gest that home is not merely a physical structure or even the individuals asso-
ciated with a place; rather, home is primarily constituted by everyday
communicative and behavioral interactions. Thus, involvement in new activi-
ties and instituting new rituals might be particularly effective ways to help
alleviate some of the deleterious outcomes associated with being homesick.
Second, results suggest that comfort and safety are integral to defining
what “home” means to homesick individuals. Consequently, interventions
from counselors or clinicians might consider security priming initiatives.
Security priming methods are effective (Cave, 1997) and include exposing

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

18 Environment and Behavior

individuals to security-related words (e.g., love, affection, support), exposing

individuals to pictures representing attachment security, and asking partici-
pants to recall being loved and supported by attachment figures (Gillath,
Selcuk, & Shaver, 2008). In the context of homesickness, individuals might
benefit from displaying pictures of family and friends or reminiscing about
times when they felt safe in their homes. These tactics might be especially
helpful for individuals experiencing a combination of homesickness and
social anxiety as these individuals often have more difficulty building new
support networks (Urani, Miller, Johnson, & Petzel, 2003).
Finally, given that social support acts as a buffer against the negative
effects of homesickness, individuals who miss home might consider main-
taining e-mail and phone contact with family and long-term friends. This
suggestion corresponds with Tognoli’s (2010) finding that homesick college
students were better able to adjust when they contacted parents and friends
from home. Interventions might also educate network members about secu-
rity priming and/or include ways for members to communicate that they are
“there for them.”

Study Limitations and Conclusion

This study captures some individuals’ retrospective accounts of their home-
sick experiences and others’ current experiences. Future research might
explore the experiences of people currently experiencing homesickness to
see if and how their experiences differ from people who have overcome
homesickness. Similarly, future research might longitudinally explore
whether meanings of home and homesickness change across the life span.
For example, the activities that people miss might change as people age and/
or live in different places. This might be especially true for people joining
college or the military, where they might have less privacy to enjoy solitary
activities such as reading. Of note, the meaning of home might take on differ-
ent characteristics if accounts were solicited from individuals who had never
experienced homesickness. Thus, it is important to recognize that these
results depict a positively valenced conceptualization.
In addition, our interview protocol only solicited questions about how
individuals seek social support and not whether support was helpful. Future
research might examine what messages homesick individuals perceive to be
supportive. Because our participants primarily considered their home to be in
the Midwest, future studies might address whether geographic location influ-
ences the content and meaning of “home.” For example, individuals from
certain areas of the country might tend to highlight accounts of resilience,
independence, or community more so than people from other parts of the

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 19

United States, and attachments to people, places, and activities might vary by
geographic location.
As noted in the method section, females might experience homesickness
significantly more than males (see Stroebe et al., 2002), or cultural expecta-
tions of masculinity might deter men from participating in homesickness
research and more importantly, from seeking help for their distress. Indeed,
feminist environmental scholars Blunt and Rose (1994) argue that women
might experience restrictions in light of cultural coding spaces as more hers
than his. Alternatively, men might experience cultural pressure about the
home being a “woman’s domain.” This belief could be particularly problem-
atic and have implications pertaining to shared domestic labor or child-rear-
ing practices. Future research should attend to the emerging sex/gender
differences surrounding the homesickness experience and meaning of home.
Finally, and perhaps counter intuitively, a study by High and Scharp (2015)
suggests that individuals who grew up in families that stress group harmony
(i.e., not focused on individual needs) were more motivated to seek direct
forms of social support than those individuals who grew up in families that
stress independence. More research is needed to parse out other antecedents
such as racial and ethnic differences that might contribute to or alleviate home-
sickness as well as hinder or encourage effective support-seeking behaviors.
Overall, our results provide crucial insight into the phenomenon of home-
sickness in the United States, specifically the content and meanings of “home”
from the perspective of homesick individuals and the ways they seek support.
Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to specifically explore what homesick
individuals miss. Our results suggest that home has varying meanings and is
generally constituted by everyday communicative interactions. Thus, home is
more than a place and most often evokes a sense of comfort and safety. Finally,
while the majority of participants did not ask for support, support-seeking
endeavors can be direct or indirect and require little effort from the support pro-
vider. With this in mind, we are encouraged that our findings can illuminate this
commonly shared experience and contribute to scholarship of home, provide a
foundation for practitioners to counsel and design interventions for homesick
individuals of all ages, and provide network members with practical insight.

Authors’ Note
A version of this manuscript was presented at the 2013 National Communication
Association Convention.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

20 Environment and Behavior

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

References
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. Human behavior and
environment: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 12). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. New York, NY: Routledge.
Blunt, A., & Rose, G. (Eds.). (1994). Writing women and space: Colonial and postco-
lonial geographies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bonanno, G. A. (2001). New direction in bereavement research and theory. American
Behavioral Science, 44, 718-726. doi:10.1177/00027640121956458
Borer, M. I. (2006). The location of culture: The urban culturalist perspective. City &
Community, 5, 173-197. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2006.00168.x
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and practitioners.
Family Relations, 56, 105-111.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 attachment. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2 separation: Anxiety and anger. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cave, C. B. (1997). Very long-lasting priming in picture naming. Psychological
Science, 8, 322-325.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Di Masso, A., Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2014). Place attachment as discursive prac-
tice. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in
theory, methods, and applications (pp. 75-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fisher, S. (1984). Stress and the perception of control. London, England: Erlbaum.
Fisher, S. (1989). Homesickness, cognition, and health. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Fisher, S., & Hood, B. (1987). The stress of the transition to university: A longi-
tudinal study of psychological disturbance, absent-mindedness and vul-
nerability to homesickness. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 309-320.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1987.tb02260.x
Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (Ed.), The urban condition:
People and policy in the metropolis (pp. 151-171). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 21

Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style:
Can repeated security priming help? Social & Personality Psychology Compass,
2, 1651-1666. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00120.x
Goldsmith, D. J., & Albrecht, T. L. (2011). Social support, social networks, and
health. In T. L. Thompson, R. Parrott, & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of health communication (2nd ed., pp. 335-348). New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Golish, T. D., & Powell, K. A. (2003). “Ambiguous loss”: Managing the dialec-
tics of grief associated with premature birth. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 20, 209-334. doi:10.1177/0265407503020003003
Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion regulation. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. F.
Barretts (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 497-512). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
Guinagh, B. (1992). Homesickness in the freshman year. Journal of the Freshman
Year Experience, 4, 111-120.
High, A. C., & Scharp, K. M. (2015). Examining family communication patterns and
seeking social support: Direct and indirect effects through ability and motivation.
Human Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/
hcre.12061
Kato, Y. (2011). Coming of age in the bubble: Suburban adolescents’ use of a spa-
tial metaphor as a symbolic boundary. Symbolic Interaction, 34, 244-264.
doi:10.1525/si.2011.34.2.244
Kazantzis, N., & Flett, R. (1998). Family cohesion and age as determinants of home-
sickness in university students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 26, 195-202. doi:10.2224/sbp.1998.26.2.195
Kusenbach, M. (2006). Patterns of neighboring: Practicing community in the paro-
chial realm. Symbolic Interaction, 29, 279-306.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2006). Social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. In D.
O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communica-
tion (pp. 229-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Burleson, B. R. (2011). Supportive communication.
In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal com-
munication (4th ed., pp. 317-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional
relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 47-61.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00074-9
Manzo, L. C., & Devine-Wright, P. (Eds.). (2014). Place attachment: Advances in
theory, methods and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective
component of the secure base schema: Affective priming with representations of

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

22 Environment and Behavior

attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 305-321.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.2.305
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newland, J., & Furnham, A. (1999). Perceived availability of social support.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 659-663. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(98)00254-2
Nijhof, K. S., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2007). Parenting styles, coping strategies, and
the expression of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 709-720. doi:10.
1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.009
Olstad, R., Sexton, H., & Sorgaard, A. (2001). The Finnmark study: A prospective
population study of the social support buffer hypothesis, specific stressor and
mental health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36, 582-589.
doi:10.1007/s001270050170
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition to college: Precollege
predictors and college adjustment correlates. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 79, 77-89. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01946.x
Pederson, J. R. (2014). Disruptions of individual and cultural identities: How online
stories of job loss and unemployment shift the American dream. Narrative
Inquiry, 23, 301-321. doi:10.1075/ni.23.2.05ped
Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and geography: The limits of geographical knowledge.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Comparing theories of interpersonal and place attach-
ment. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in
theory, methods, and applications (pp. 23-36). New York, NY: Routledge.
Scharp, K. M. (2014). (De)Constructing family: Exploring communicative practices
in accomplishing and maintaining estrangement between adult children and their
parents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, IA.
Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychol-
ogy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119-140. doi:10.1016/S0272-
4944(02)00074-9
Seamon, D. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic dynamism
of place. In L. C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances
in theory, methods, and applications (pp. 75-86). New York, NY: Routledge.
Seamon, D., & Mugerauer, R. (Eds.). (1985). Dwelling, place, and environment:
Towards a phenomenology of person and world. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stroebe, M., van Vliet, T., Hewstone, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Homesickness among
students in two cultures: Antecedents and consequences. British Journal of
Psychology, 93, 147-168. doi:10.1348/000712602162508
Thurber, C. A., & Walton, E. A. (2007). Preventing and treating homesickness. Child
and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16, 843-858. doi:10.1542/
peds.2006-2781
Thurber, C. A., & Walton, E. A. (2012). Homesickness and adjustment in university
students. Journal of American College Health, 60, 1-5. doi:10.1080/07448481.2
012.673520.

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

Scharp et al. 23

Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential environments. In I. Altman & D. Stokols (Eds.),

Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 655-690). New York, NY: Wiley.
Tognoli, J. (2010). Leaving home: Homesickness, place attachment, and transition
among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
18, 35-48. doi:10.1300/J035v18n01_04
Trees, A. R. (2006). Attachment theory: The reciprocal relationship between family
communication and attachment patterns. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter
(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (pp. 165-180). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships
in young adults. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 14, 603-625.
doi:10.1177/0265407597145002
Urani, M. A., Miller, S. A., Johnson, J. E., & Petzel, T. P. (2003). Homesickness in
socially anxious first year college students. College Student Journal, 37, 392-399.
Van Tilburg, M. A. L. (2005). The psychological context of homesickness. In M. A.
L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. Vingerhoets (Eds.), Psychological aspects of geograph-
ical moves: Homesickness and acculturation stress (2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Tilburg,
The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
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.
doi:10.1017/S0033291700035248
Van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., & Van Heck, G. L. (1999).
Determinants of homesickness chronicity: Coping and personality. Personality
and Individual Differences, 27, 531-539. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00262-1
Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2005). The homesickness concept: Questions and doubts. In
M. A. L. Van Tilburg & A. J. J. M. & Vingerhoets (Eds.), Psychological aspects
of geographical moves: Homesickness and acculturation stress (2nd ed., pp.
1-16). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Author Biographies
Kristina M. Scharp is an assistant professor at Utah State University (PhD, University
of Iowa) who specializes in Interpersonal, Family, and Health Communication. Her
research program addresses family disruption contexts, processes that help families
cope with disruptions (e.g., social support seeking) and family forms that disrupt what
it means to be a family (e.g., estranged families).
Christina G. Paxman is a doctoral candidate at the University of Iowa in the
Communication Studies Department where she focuses on Interpersonal and Health
Communication. Her program of research examines how people communicate about
their diet as it pertains to their health and identity.
Lindsey J. Thomas (PhD, University of Iowa) is a visiting assistant professor at the
University of Puget Sound. Her program of research broadly addresses questions per-
taining to Interpersonal, Family, and Health Communication. Specifically, she studies
marginalized family identities that are particularly discourse dependent (e.g., foster
care families).

Downloaded from eab.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2015

View publication stats