1

wayf;il4 a1 4

,OPyriglft Saw (3'1~;16 -1

Journal of Community Psychology

Volume 14, January 1986
SENSE

Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory Riger and Lavrakas

attachment and found tv<
David W. McMillan and David M. Chavis George bonding and behavioral r.
Peabody College of Vanderbilt University ing the ability to identify
neighborhood children ki
For several years many of us at Peabody College have participated in the
evolution of a theory of community, the first conceptualization of which of community residency,
was presented in a working paper (McMillan, 1976) of the Center for of residency. Using these
Community Studies. To support the proposed definition, McMillan groups of citizens": youn
focused on the literature on group cohesiveness, and we build here on that bonded, low rooted), iso
original definition. This article attempts to describe the dynamics of the
sense-ofcommunity force-to identify the various elements in the force and (high bonded, high root
to describe the process by which these elements work together to produce attachment.
the experience of sense of community.
Examining the relati(
fear of crime, Riger, LeE
Review of Related Research involvement: feelings of and
degree of social inter
Doolittle and MacDonald (1978) developed the 40-item Sense of Community Scale (SCS) bondedness were related last
to probe communicative behaviors and attitudes at the community or neighborhood level of two, reflecting behav of
social organization. The basis of the SCS was what had been called the "critical dimension of crime. A plausible expl a
community structure" (Tropman, 1969, p. 215), and it was to be used to differentiate low,
medium, and high SCS neighborhoods on its five factors: informal interaction (with neighbors), domain (e.g., feelings o
safety (having a good place to live), prourbanism (privacy, anonymity), neighboring preferences correlated than are varia
(preference for frequent neighbor interaction), and localism (opinions and a desire to participate (Campbell & Fiske, 1959
in neighborhood affairs). The results of Doolittle and MacDonald's study led to three explanation, we believe t
generalizations. First, there is an inverse relationship between pro-urbanism and preference for community in the lives c
neighboring. Second, there is a direct relationship between safety and preference for neighbor-
ing. Finally, pro-urbanism decreases as perception of safety increases. Ahlbrant and Cunni
Glynn's (1981) measure of the psychological sense of community is based on the work of tributor to one's commit
Hillery (1955), augmented by responses to a questionnaire distributed to randomly selected that those who were mo:
members of the Division of Community Psychology of the American community within the ci
Psychological Association. Glynn administered his measure to members of three communities the city, and thought o
and hypothesized that residents of Kfar Blum, and Israeli kibbutz, would demonstrate a greater residents-the characteris
sense of community than residents of two Maryland communities. He identified 202 behaviors munity. Also considerec
or subconcepts related to sense of community, from which 120 items were developed, satisfaction with it was s
representing real and ideal characteristics. As predicted, higher real levels of sense of terpersonal relationships'
community were found in the kibbutz than in the two American towns. However, no
differences were found among the three on the ideal scale. Multiple regression analysis showed Bachrach and Zautr
that 18 selected demographic items could predict adequately the real scale score (RZ = .613, p < waste facility in a rural led to
.001) but not the ideal score (RZ = .272). problem-focused c counter
the threat-and 1 efforts to
adjust emotions that
problem-focused co
The strongest predictors of actual sense of community were (a) expected length of community volvement (e.g., reading
residency, (b) satisfaction with the community, and (c) the number of neighbors one could concluded that stronger and
identify by first name. Glynn also found a positive relationship between sense of community and perceived control" i (1983)
the ability to function competently in the community. identified the proc of
community. Others ha and
Wandersman and Gi: munity
Reprint requests should be sent to David M. Chavis, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 to distinguish the not.
Washington Place, New York, NY 10003.
6

d M. Chavis -hilt
University
ge have participated in the
onceptualization of which
76) of the Center for
Comtion, McMillan
focused on here on that
original definilynamics of
the sense-ofments in the
force and to )rk together to
produce the
earch
40-item Sense of Community Scale
attitudes at the community or is of
the SCS was what had been
ire"~Tropman, 1969, p. 215), and
aigh SCS neighborhoods on its five
y (having a good place to live), pro
ferences (preference for frequent
esire to participate in neighborhood
study led to three generalizations.
)anism and preference for neighbor
;afety and preference for neighbor
i of safety increases.
ense of community is based on the
a questionnaire distributed to ran
Lunity Psychology of the American
measure to members of three com
Blum, and Israeli kibbutz, would
ients of two Maryland communities.
F to sense of community, from which
characteristics. As predicted, higher
kibbutz than in the two American
g the three on the ideal scale. Mul
:mographic items could predict ade
but not the ideal score (RZ = .272).
iity were (a) expected length of com
dty, and (c) the number of neighbors
a positive relationship between sense
tently in the community.
3rtment of Psychology, New York University,
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 7
Riger and Lavrakas (1981) studied sense of community as reflected in neighborhood
attachment and found two empirically distinct but correlated factors they called social
bonding and behavioral rootedness. The social bonding factor contained items concerning
the ability to identify neighbors, feeling part of the neighborhood, and number of
neighborhood children known to the respondent. Behavioral rootedness refers to years of
community residency, whether one's home is owned or rented, and expected length of
residency. Using these factors, the authors identified four "meaningful and distinct groups of
citizens": young mobiles (low bonded, low rooted), young participants (high bonded, low
rooted), isolates (low bonded, high rooted), and established participants (high bonded, high
rooted). In this study, age played a major role in determining attachment.
Examining the relationship between community involvement and level of residents' fear
of crime, Riger, LeBailly, and Gordon (1981) identified four types of community
involvement: feelings of bondedness, extent of residential roots, use of local facilities, and
degree of social interaction with neighbors. They found that the first two types of
bondedness were related significantly and inversely to residents' fear of crime, while the last
two, reflecting behavior rather than feelings, were not related significantly to fear of crime. A
plausible explanation for the differential relationships is that variables within a domain (e.g.,
feelings of bondedness and other feelings) are more likely to be strongly correlated than are
variables measured across domains (e.g., feelings and behaviors) (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
Despite the weakness of the study as suggested by such an explanation, we believe that the
findings of Riger et al. attest to the force of sense of community in the lives of neighborhood
residents.
Ahlbrant and Cunningham (1979) viewed sense of community as an integral con-
tributor to one's commitment to a neighborhood and satisfaction with it. They found that
those who were most committed and satisfied saw their neighborhood as a small community
within the city, were more loyal to the neighborhood than to the rest of the city, and thought
of their neighborhood as offering particular activities for its residents-the characteristics
representing the authors' conceptualization of sense of community. Also considered to be a
contributor to commitment to neighborhood and satisfaction with it was social fabric, a term
they used to capture the "strengths of interpersonal relationships" as measured through
different types of neighbor interactions.
Bachrach and Zautra (1985) studied the coping responses to a proposed hazardous
waste facility in a rural community. They found that a stronger sense of community led to
problem-focused coping behaviors-behaviors that attempt directly to alter or counter the
threat-and had no bearing on whether emotion-focused coping strategiesefforts to adjust
emotionally to the threat-were applied. A path analytic model showed that problem-focused
coping contributed strongly to the level of one's community involvement (e.g., reading
reports, attending meetings, signing petitions), and the authors concluded that stronger sense
of community may lead to a "greater sense of purpose and perceived control" in dealing with
an external threat. In a similar study, Chavis (1983) identified the process of empowerment,
which occurs through the development
of community. Others have reported consistent findings; Florin and Wandersman (1984) and
Wandersman and Giamartino (1980) found high self-reported levels of sense of community
to distinguish those who participated in block associations from those who did
not.
3 McMILLAN AND CHAVIS SEN.

Bachrach and Zautra (1985) reported that they used a "brief, but face valid" sense of We propose four (
community scale on the basis of questions developed by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) and the definition needs to 1
Rhoads (1982). Their measure included seven items: feeling at home in the community, tifiable; third, it needs
satisfaction with the community, agreement with the values and beliefs of the community, finally, it needs to proN
feeling of belonging in the community, interest in what goes on in the community, feeling of the experience. We
an important part of the community, and attachment to the community. The scale was found Our proposed de
to be internally consistent (alpha = .76). Membership is the feel
The studies reviewed here contributed to our initial understanding of sense of com- The second element is i
munity and emphasize the importance of this concept for research, intervention, and policy. and of the group matte
Most important is the recurring emphasis on neighboring, length of residency, planned or tion and fulfillment of the
anticipated length of residency, home ownership, and satisfaction with the community. resources received t
Glynn's (1981) work is particularly important in its recognition of the discrepancies emotional connection,
between real and ideal levels of sense of community and in demonstrating the relationship share history, commor
between sense of community and an individual's ability to function competently within it. ing one sees in farmers
The study by Riger and Lavrakas (1981) is especially significant for its conceptualization of families; it is the sense
the emotional aspect of the experience. Michener (1965). In a
These were the initial studies in the area of sense of community; however, they cannot munity is a feeling tha
be expected to contribute an elaborated theoretical understanding of what sense of one another and to the ;
community is and how it works, and there are some important limitations to which we hope their commitment to t
to respond. All of these studies, for example, lack a coherently articulated conceptual
perspective focused on sense of community, and none of the measures used in the studies
were developed directly from a definition of sense of community. Five of the studies used Membership Membership
factor analytic techniques to create, post hoc, their domains and/or subdomains without is a f and therefore has a
theoretical or prior empirical justification, a practice about which Gorsuch (1974) and rit It is a feeling of belon
Nunnally (1978) suggest caution. The sixth (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985) defined its domain has boundaries; this Ir.
on the basis of face validity. The boundaries provic
In addition, all authors assumed that each element in their measures of sense of feelings to be exposed
community contributed equally to an individual's experience, although the value-laden 1971; Wood, 1971). The
nature of the phenomenon (as expressed by Sarason, 1974) would lead one to believe that most trouble Wayward
some feelings, experiences, and needs would be more important than others. It is also Puritans, Kai boundaries.
notable that the studies reviewed did not investigate what was common among their He recoui the persecution
participants regarding their sense of community. Rather, the studies focused on prov of the For each of these
incid deteriorating and
ing the validity of their measures through differentiation of communities or individuals. how unite. The
Primarily, these studies revealed that the experience of sense of community does community . Social
psychology ing their
exist and that it does operate as a force il~human lif , What is needed now. is a full
personal spac cries.
description of the nature of sense of community as a whole. We begin that process of
People need then While
development with a definition and theory.
much sympathe group
A Definition and Theory of Sense of Community members' legitin tions
have often been We
Gusfield (1975) distinguished between two major uses of the term community. The would like to r which
first is the territorial and geographical notion of community-neighborhood, town, city. The comes from the tinue
second is "relational," concerned with "quality of character of human relationship, without until we clarify Second,
reference to location" (p. xvi). Gusfield noted that the two usages are not mutually while it is clea
exclusive, although, as Durheim (1964) observed, modern society develops community boundaries, little is said
around interests and skills more than-around locality. The ideas presented in this article will ing a rule or speaking o
apply equally to territorial communities (neighborhoods) and to relational communities
(professional, spiritual, etc.).
AVIs
y used a "brief, but face valid" sense
)ped by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974)
items: feeling at home in the comnt
with the values and beliefs of the
interest in what goes on in the comity,
and attachment to the communrnt
(alpha = .76).
nitial understanding of sense of com-
:cept for research, intervention, and
on neighboring, length of residency,
ownership, and satisfaction with the
important in its recognition of the of
community and in demonstrating n
individual's ability to function comas
(1981) is especially significant for
the experience.
sense of community; however, they
:oretical understanding of what sense
some important limitations to which
ple, lack a coherently articulated conty,
and none of the measures used in tion of
sense of community. Five of !ate, post
hoc, their domains and/or 1
justification, a practice about which
tion. The sixth (Bachrach & Zautra,
Llidity.
:lement in their measures of sense of
experience, although the value-laden
:son, 1974) would lead one to believe .
be more important than others. It is
stigate what was common among their
Rather, the studies focused on prov-
tiation of communities or individuals.
perience of sense of community does an
life. What is needed now is a full as a
whole. We begin that process of
ense of Community
.ajor uses of the term community. The
immunity-neighborhood, town, city. ty
of character of human relationship, ted
that the two usages are not mutually
modern society develops community
ility. The ideas presented in this article
eighborhoods) and to relational com
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY
We propose four criteria for a definition and theory of sense of community. First, the
definition needs to be explicit and clear; second, it should be concrete, its parts identifiable;
third, it needs to represent the warmth and intimacy implicit in the term; and, finally, it
needs to provide a dynamic description of the development and maintenance of the
experience. We will attempt to meet these standards.
Our proposed definition has four elements. The first element is membership.
Membership is the feeling of belonging or of sharing a sense of personal relatedness. The
second element is influence, a sense of mattering, of making a difference to a group and of
the group mattering to its members. The third element is reinforcement: integration and
fulfillment of needs. This is the feeling that members' needs will be met by the resources
received through their membership in the group. The last element is shared emotional
connection, the commitment and belief that members have shared and will share history,
common places, time together, and similar experiences. This is the feeling one sees in
farmers' faces as they talk about their home place, their land, and their families; it is the
sense of family that Jews feel when they read The Source by James Michener (1965). In a
sentence, the definition we propose is as follows: Sense of community is a feeling that
members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group,
and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together
(McMillan, 1976).
Membership
Membership is a feeling that one has invested part of oneself to become a member and
therefore has a right to belong (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Buss & Portnoy, 1967). It is a
feeling of belonging, of being apart (Backman & Secord, 1959). Membership has
boundaries; this means that there are people who belong and people who do not. The
boundaries provide members with the emotional safety necessary for needs and feelings to
be exposed and for intimacy to develop (Bean, 1971; Ehrlich & Graeven, 1971; Wood,
1971).
The most troublesome feature of this part of the definition is boundaries. In Wayward
Puritans, Kai Erikson (1966) demonstrated that groups use deviants to establish boundaries.
He recounted the banishment of Anne Hutchinson as a heretic in 1637, the persecution of
the Quakers from 1656 to 1665, and the witch trials of Salem in 1692. For each of these
incidents, Erikson showed how the sense of order and authority was deteriorating and how
there was a need for an issue around which the Puritans could unite. The community in each
case needed a deviant to denounce and punish as a whole.
Social psychology research has demonstrated that people have boundaries protecting
their personal space. Groups often use language, dress, and ritual to create boundaries.
People need these barriers to protect against threat (Park, 1924; Perucci, 1963): While much
sympathetic interest in and research on the deviant have been generated, group members'
legitimate needs for boundaries to protect their intimate social connections have often been
overlooked.
We would like to note two additional points concerning boundaries. First, the harm
which comes from the pain of rejection and isolation created by boundaries will continue
until we clarify the positive benefiits that boundaries provide to communities. Second, while
it is clear that groups use deviants as scapegoats in order to create solid boundaries, little is
said about the persons who volunteer for the role of deviant by breaking a rule or speaking
out against the group consensus in order to obtain attention (Mead,
 to MCMILLAN AND CSAVIS SEA

1918). We think that deviants often use groups, just as the groups use them in the creation of boundaries intention,
group boundaries. (McMillan, 1976). Be
The role of boundaries is particularly relevant to a neighborhood community. The the black community
earliest research on community in American sociology focused on the boundaries established and Park (1924) offer
by neighborhood residents (e.g., Park & Burgess, 1921). Park and the Chicago School's reside in its name, a 1
ecological model explains the mechanisms of classes and ethnic groups as they work out holidays, the flag, an
spatial relations among themselves (Bernard, 1973): boundaries define who is in and who is basic archetypes unit
out. However, the boundaries can be so subtle as to be recognizable only by the residents To summarize, rr
themselves (e.g., gang graffitti on walls marking ethnic neighborhoods) (Berger & Neuhaus, of belonging and ide
1977; Bernard, 1973). Berger and Neuhaus (1977) see them as creations of social distance- These attributes wor
sources of protection against threat-that are necessary when people are interpersonally munity and who is n
vulnerable. Such barriers separate "us" from "them" and allay anxiety by delimiting who can
be trusted. influence

" Emotional safety may be considered as part of the broader notion of security. influence is a bif
V Boundaries established by membership criteria provide the structure and security that a member to be attr<
protect group intimacy. Such security may be more than emotional; gangs, for example, the group does (Pete
provide physical security and collectives enhance economic security (Doolittle & Mac- On the other hand, cc
Donald, 1978; Riger, LeBailly, & Gordon, 1981). (Kelley & Volkart, 19
The sense of belonging and identification involves the feeling, belief, and expectation that apparently contradic
one fits in the group and has a place there, a feeling of acceptance by the group, and a t i Several
fl it! s
studies
willingness to sacrifice for the group. The role of identification must be emphasized here. It
1954; Taguiri & Kog
may be represented in the reciprocal statements "It is my group" and "I am part of the
needs, values, and of
group."
while those who alw,
Personal investment is an important contributor to a person's feeling of group and opinions of oth
membership and to his or her sense of community. McMillan (1976) contended (a) that The second que 1965),
working for membership will provide a feeling that one has earned a place in the group and and the major and
(b) that, as a consequence of this personal investment, membership will be more meaningful pressure to confc
and valuable. This notion of personal investment is paralleled by the work of cognitive (1956) considered the
dissonance theorists (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Festinger, 1953). For example, the hazing ritual of group cohesivene
of college fraternities strengthens group cohesiveness (Peterson & Martens, 1972). Personal
investment places a large role in developing an emotional connection (such as in home There is a set c
ownership) and will be considered again. the contentions abo
A common symbol system serves several important functions in creating and maintaining construct assumes t
sense of community, one of which is to maintain group boundaries. Nisbet and Perrin (1977) see, feel, and under
stated, "First and foremost of the social bond is the symbolic nature of all true behavior or have shown that pe
interaction" (p. 39). White (1949) defined a symbol as "a thing the value or meaning of which feedback and reasst it
is bestowed upon it by those who use it" (p. 22). Understanding common symbols systems is is seen in the sam,
prerequisite to understanding.community. "The symbol is to the social world what the cell is Implicit in conform
to the biotic world and the atom to the physical world.... The symbol is the beginning of the dividual to validate t
social world as we know it" (Nisbet & Perrin, 1977, p. 47). wright & Zander,
Warner and Associates (1949), in their classic study of "Jonesville," a midwestern However, consensus
community, recognized the strong integrative function of collective representation such as ity is transactional-
myths, symbols, rituals, rites, ceremonies, and holidays. They found that in order to obtain uniform and confoi
smooth functioning and integration in the social life of a modern community, especially when validate its member
there is heterogeneity, a community must provide a common symbol. system. Groups use
Conformity is i
these social conventions (e.g., rites of passage, language, dress) as
and Riger (this issu
close community in
HAVIS
st as the groups use them in the crea
. to a neighborhood community. The
ciology focused on the boundaries
Burgess, 1921). Park and the Chicago s
of classes and ethnic groups as they -
nard, 1973): boundaries define who .n
be so subtle as to be recognizable
graffitti on walls marking ethnic 3,
1973). Berger and Neuhaus (1977) ~f
protection against threat-that are ale.
Such barriers separate "us" from be
trusted.
of the broader notion of security. vide
the structure and security that than
emotional; gangs, for example, =nomic
security (Doolittle & Mac
-Ives the feeling, belief, and expectaa
feeling of acceptance by the group, )le
of identification must be empha-
statements "It is my group" and "I
utor to a person's feeling of group
McMillan (1976) contended (a) that
one has earned a place in the group
vestment, membership will be more
investment is paralleled by the work
1959; Festinger, 1953). For example,
ns group cohesiveness (Peterson &
role in developing an emotional con-
considered again.
-tant functions in creating and main-
intain group boundaries. Nisbet and
)cial bond is the symbolic nature of
49) defined a symbol as "a thing the y
those who use it" (p. 22). Underto
understanding community. "The Ie
biotic world and the atom to the of the
social world as we know it"
study of "Jonesville," a midwestern
ion of collective representation such
holidays. They found that in order
social life of a modern community, ty
must provide a common symbol rites
of passage, language, dress) as
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY
boundaries intentionally to create social distance between members and nonmembers
(McMillan, 1976). Bernard (1973) mentioned that black leaders used symbols to unify the
black community and defy the white population (e.g., Black Power, clenched fist), and Park
(1924) offered a rationale for this strategy. Symbols for a neighborhood may reside in its
name, a landmark, a logo, or in architectural style. On the national level, holidays, the flag,
and the language play an integrative role, and, on a broader scale, basic archetypes unite
humankind (Jung, 1912).
To summarize, membership has five attributes: boundaries, emotional safety, a sense
of belonging and identification, personal investment, and a common symbol system. These
attributes work together and contribute to a sense of who is part of the community and who
is not.
Influence
Influence is a bidirectional concept. In one direction, there is the notion that for a
member to be attracted to a group, he or she must have some influence over what the group
does (Peterson & Martens, 1972; Solomon, 1960; Zander & Cohen, 1955). On the other
hand, cohesiveness is contingent on a group's ability to influence its members (Kelley &
Volkart, 1952; Kelley & Woodruff, 1956). This poses two questions: Can these apparently
contradictory forces work simultaneously? Is it a bad thing for a group to exert influence on
its members to attain conformity?
Several studies suggest that the forces can indeed work simultaneously (Grossack,
1954; Taguiri & Kogan, 1960; Thrasher, 1954). People who acknowledge that others' needs,
values, and opinions matter to them are often the most influential group members, while
those who always push to influence, try to dominate others, and ignore the wishes and
opinions of others are often the least powerful members.
The second question has received more attention than the first (see Lott & Lott, 1965),
and the major finding has been a positive relationship between group cohesiveness and
pressure to conform. Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) and Kelley and Woodruff (1956)
considered these correlational findings to be a demonstration of the negative effects of group
cohesiveness (i.e., loss of freedom and individuality).
There is a set of studies on consensual validation that provides some balance to the
contentions about group cohesiveness and conformity. The consensual validation construct
assumes that people possess an inherent need to know that the things they
see, feel, and understand are experienced in the same way by others, and the studies have
shown that people will perform a variety of psychological gymnastics to obtain feedback
and reassurance that they are not crazy-that what they see is real and that it is seen in the
same way by others (Backman & Secord, 1959; Byrne & Wond, 1962). Implicit in
conformity research has been an assumption that group pressure on the individual to validate
the group's world view is the primary force behind conformity (Cartwright & Zander, 1960;
Heider, 1958; Newcomb, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). However, consensual validation
research demonstrates that the force toward uniformity is transactional-that it comes from
the person as well as from the group. Thus, uniform and conforming behavior indicates that
a group is operating to consensually validate its members as well as to create group norms.
Conformity is not necessarily synonymous with loss of personal choice. A. Hunter and
Riger (this issue) caution that many people do try to escape the conformity of the close
community in order to express their individual freedom. This emphasizes the need
 SENSE
7 McMMLAN AND CHAVIS

to develop communities that can appreciate individual differences. The group member shown that group success
believes that either directly or indirectly he or she can exert some control over the com- terpersonal attraction sug
munity. Long (1958) saw that through the leadership role, people can feel that they have Weitz, Anchor, & McKee,
influence even when their influence may be only indirect. According to Long, the people in a whose skills or competence
community sense "a need for a leadership with the status, capacity, and the role to attend to people and groups tha
the general problems of the territory and give substance to a public philosophy" (p. 225). person-environment fit.
The role of power and influence within a community has been at the head of one of the classic The main point is the
paradigms in sociology (Bernard, 1973). Nisbet (1953) organized The Quest for Community around the unanswered: How do pec
ways that power and influence have determined the forma survival needs? What cre. an
organizing principle sec
concepts.
tion and functions of community. Bernard (1973) believed that as influence is drawn away One such directing c
from a locality, the integration and cohesion of the community are threatened. Voluntary each of us a set of person,
associations act as intermediates (or mediating structures) between the individual and the and the order in which we
state (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977) by increasing influence and fostering a sense of efficacy. they find that they have s
Through collective action, they cause the environment to be more responsive to the needs of that in joining together th
the individual and the small collectivity. Participation in voluntary associations or in reinforcement they seek. IS
government programs yields a sharing of power that leads to greater "ownership" of the communities (Cohen, 197E
community by the participants, greater satisfaction, and greater cohesion (Dahl, 1961; F. munity work to find a way
Hunter, 1953; Wandersman, 1981). The concepts of while meeting their own n
The following summa
`'power, influence, and participation as they relate to a sense of community can be seen in the growing
neighborhood movement, the strength of labor unions, various social movements (Killian; 1964), and of community:
the Japanese perspective on management (Pascale & Athos, 1981).
In summary, the following propositions concerning influence can be drawn from the group 1. Reinforcement
cohesiveness research: community.
2. Some of the rew of
membership, success c
1. Members are more attracted to a community in which they feel that they are members.
influential. 3. There are many o
2. There is a significant positive relationship between cohesiveness and a com- values are the source of tl
munity's influence on its members to conform. Thus, both conformity and community among community membc
influence on members indicate the strength of the bond. prioritize its need-fulfillm 4.
3. The pressure for conformity and uniformity comes from the needs of the individual A strong commu
and the community for consensual validation. Thus, conformity serves as a force for closeness needs while they meet the
as well as an indicator of cohesiveness.
4. Influence of a member on the community and influence of the community on a
member operate concurrently, and one might expect to see the force of both operating Shared Emotional Conne, A
simultaneously in a tightly knit community. shared emotional i necessary
that group mem they must
Integration and Fulfillment of Needs identify with it. attributes of
the events m
The third component of our definition of sense of community is integration and fulfillment of needs,
which, translated into more ordinary terms, is reinforcement. Rein The following featu
forcement as a motivator of behavior is a cornerstone in behavioral research, and it is obvious connection:
that for any group to maintain a positive sense of togetherness, the 1. Contact hypothe.
individual-group association must be rewarding for its members. Given the complexity of become close (Allan & Al
individuals and groups, however, it has been impossible to determine all of the reinforcements Wilson & Miller, 1961).
that bind people. together into a close community, although several reinforcers have been
identified. One is the status of being a member (Kelley, 1951; Zander &,Cohen, 1955). 2. Quality of
Berkowitz (1956), Peterson and Martens (1972), and Sacks (1952) have interac the greater the bond.
S

4vIs
ual differences. The group member in
exert some control over the comrole,
people can feel that they have rect.
According to Long, the people n the
status, capacity, and the role -y and
give substance to a public
nunity has been at the head of one .
Nisbet (1953) organized The Quest
fluence have determined the forma-
believed that as influence is drawn of
the community are threatened. :diating
structures) between the inincreasing
influence and fostering cause the
environment to be more l collectivity.
Participation in voluns a sharing of
power that leads to ticipants, greater
satisfaction, and
indersman, 1981). The concepts of a
sense of community can be seen gth of
labor unions, various social )ective on
management (Pascale &
rning influence can be drawn from
ity in which they feel that they are
between cohesiveness and a coms,
both conformity and community
bond.
ty comes from the needs of the intion.
Thus, conformity serves as a siveness.
and influence of the community on a
to see the force of both operating
e of community is integration and
inary terms, is reinforcement. Rein-
one in behavioral research, and it
mitive sense of togetherness, the its
members. Given the complexity
ossible to determine all of the rein-
ommunity, although several reinzg a
member (Kelley, 1951; Zander rtens
(1972), and Sacks (1952) have
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 8
shown that group success brings group members closer together. The literature on interpersonal
attraction suggests that competence is another reinforcer (Hester, Roback, Weitz, Anchor, &
McKee, 1976; Zander & Havelin, 1960). People are attracted to others whose skills or
competence can benefit them in some way. People seem to gravitate toward people and groups .
that offer the most rewards. Rappaport (1977) calls this person-environment fit.
The main point is that people do what serves their needs. But this leaves questions
unanswered: How do people prioritize their needs, especially after meeting the basic survival
needs? What creates a need beyond that of basic survival? Reinforcement as an organizing
principle seems blind and directionless unless it is complemented by other
concepts.
One such directing concept is shared values. Our culture and our families teach each of us a set of
personal values, which indicate our emotional and intellectual needs and the order in which we
attend to them. When people who share values come together, they find that they have similar
needs, priorities, and goals, thus fostering the belief that in joining together they might be better
able to satisfy these needs and obtain the reinforcement they seek. Shared values, then, provide
the integrative force for cohesive
communities (Cohen, 1976; Doolittle & MacDonald, 1978). Groups with a sense of community
work to find. a way to fit people together so that people meet the needs of others
while meeting their own needs. (cf. Riley, 1970; Zander, Natsoulas, & Thomas, 1960).
The following summarizes the role of integration and fulfillment of needs in a sense
of community:
1. Reinforcement and need fulfillment is a primary function of a strong
community.
2. Some of the rewards that are effective reinforcers of communities are status of
membership, success of the community, and competence or capabilities of other members.
3. There are many other undocumented needs that communities fill, but individual
values are the source of these needs. The extent to which individual values are shared among
community members will determine the ability of a community to organize and prioritize its
need--fulfillment activities.
4. A strong community is able to fit people together so that people meet others' needs
while they meet their own.
Shared Emotional Connection
A shared emotional connection is based, in part, on a shared history. It is not necessary that
group members have participated in the history in order to share it, but they must identify with it.
The interactions of members in shared events and the specific attributes of the events may
facilitate or inhibit the strength of the community
The following features are important to the principle of shared emotional connection:
1. Contact hypothesis: The more people interact, the more likely they are to become close
(Allan & Allan, 1971; Festinger, 1950; Sherif, White, & Harvey, 1955; Wilson & Miller, 1961).
2. Quality of interaction: The more positive the experience and the relationships,
the greater the bond. Success facilitates cohesion (Cook, 1970).
9 MCMILLAN AND CHAVIS SENSE

3. Closure to events: If the interaction is ambiguous and the community's tasks are Dynamics Within the El,
left unresolved, group cohesiveness will be inhibited (Hamblin, 1958; Mann & Mann, 1959). Now that we have d how the
4. Shared valent event hypothesis: The more important the shared event is to those subelements worl together
involved, the greater the community bond. For example, there appears to be a tremendous to create and m Five
bonding among people who experience a crisis together (Myers, 1962; Wilson & Miller, 1961; attributes of m way, with all
Wright, 1943). conditions h Lion for
5. Investment: This feature contributes more than just boundary maintenance and intimacy. The em, people to
cognitive dissonance. Investment determines the importance to the member of the com- feel that there A sense of
munity's history and current status. For example, homeowners who have invested money belonging and bol system,
and time in their part of a neighborhood are more likely to feel the impact of the life events of which defines belonging
that community. Similarly, persons who donate more time and energy to an association will and emotional the
be more emotionally involved. Intimacy is another form of investment. The amount of consequence of giving
interpersonal emotional risk one takes with the other members and the extent to which one
opens oneself to emotional pain from the community life will affect one's general sense of Table I
community (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Peterson & Martens, 1972).
6. Effect of honor and humiliation on community members: Reward or humiliation in El fS fC
the presence of community has a significant impact on attractiveness (or adverseness) of the I. Membership
community to the person (Festinger, 1953; James & Lott, 1964).
7. Spiritual bond: This is present to some degree in all communities. Often the
Boundaries
spiritual connection of the community experience is the primary purpose of religious and
quasi-religious communities and cults. It is very difficult to describe this important
element. Bernard (1973) calls this factor "community of spirit," likening it to the nineteenth- Emotional Safety 11.
century concept of volkgeist (folk spirit). The concept of soul as it relates to blacks and its I fl A. Member openness
role in the formation of a national black community is an excellent example of the role of a to community.
spiritual bond. B. Member need for con!
to influence members
Integration and Fulfillmer A.
To the degree that co
They [blacks] had a spiritual bond that they understood and that white people could not. among members, me Shared
Soul was an indefinable, desirable something; black people had it but white people could Emotional Connec A.
hardly aspire to it. It was the animating spirit behind their music, their dance, and their Formula l: Shared ei B.
styles. It even expressed itself in their taste in food, their language, and their speech. Not Formula 2: High-quali
even all black people shared it. Those who rejected their blackness did not. (Bernard, 1973, x sharedness of the
p. 130) .

This element of shared emotional connection can be traced through T6nnies' (1957) use
of the term gemeinschaft: a social unity based on locale. According to Konig (1968),
gemeinschaft's root, gemeinde (local community), had a long-time original application as "the
totality of those who own something in common" (p. 15). Cohen (1976) found this in the Within the context of or
related concept of the Bund. Neither gemeinschaft nor Bund nor shared emotional her to have more influe
connection as presented here includes the requirement of a small-scale local community. fluence or tries to dominate
Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) demonstrated that "increased population size and density do to choose a leader who list
not significantly weaken local community sentiments" (p. 338), which further aids us in up and will never change. ;
understanding communities that are not bounded by location. ly lead to having influence
Future research should focus on the causal factor leading to shared emotional con- (community norms) and o
nection, since it seems to be the definitive element for true community. In summary, strong people choose freely whet
communities are those that offer members positive ways to interact, important strengthen community non
events to share and ways to resolve them positively, opportunities to honor members, tion of its members, the s
opportunities to invest in the community, and opportunities to experience a spiritual j bond The transactional dyna
among members. munities organize around i

IAVIS
zbiguous and the community's tasks
ited (Hamblin, 1958; Mann & Mann,
important the shared event is to those
ample, there appears to be a tremensis
together (Myers, 1962; Wilson &
than just boundary maintenance and
iportance to the member of the com-
:)meowners who have invested money
e likely to feel the impact of the life
donate more time and energy to an
macy is another form of investment.
ekes with the other members and the n
from the community life will affect Is,
1959; Peterson & Martens, 1972).
tunity members: Reward or humilia-
impact on attractiveness (or adverse-
1953; James & Lott, 1964).
tegree in all communities. Often the
is the primary purpose of religious ry
difficult to describe this important
tunity of spirit," likening it to the it).
The concept of soul as it relates nal
black community is an excellent
derstood and that white people could
thing; black people had it but white
animating spirit behind their music,
ed itself in their taste in food, their
people shared it. Those who rejected
.30)
:an be traced through Tunnies' (1957)
)n locale. According to Konig (1968),
had a long-time original application
mmon" (p. 15). Cohen (1976) found
zeinschaft nor Bund nor shared emu
luirement of a small-scale local comd
that "increased population size and y
sentiments" (p. 338), which further )t
bounded by location.
:tor leading to shared emotional cont
for true community. In summary,
positive ways to interact, important y,
opportunities to honor members,
iportunities to experience a spiritual
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 10
Dynamics Within the Elements
Now that we have defined the elements of sense of community, we will consider how
the subelements work together to create each element and how all work dynamically together
to create and maintain sense of community. (See Table 1.)
Five attributes of membership seem to fit together ill a circular, self-reinforcing way,
with all conditions having both causes and effects. Boundaries provide the protection for
intimacy. The emotional safety that is a consequence of secure boundaries allows people to
feel that there is a place for them in the community and that they belong. A sense of
belonging and identification facilitates the development of a common symbol system, which
defines the community's boundaries. We believe too that feelings of belonging and emotional
safety lead to self-investment in the community, which has the consequence of giving a
member the sense of having earned his or her membership.
Table 1
Elements of Sense of Community and Their Hypothesized Relationships
I. Membership
)0- Common Symbol System
j Sense of Belonging
Belonging
and Identification
Emotional Safety
P lI t t
11. Influence
A. Member openness to influence by community members.E-.r. power of member to influence the
community.
B. Member need for consensual validation x community's need for conformity = community's power to
influence members (community norms).
Integration and Fulfillment of Needs
A. To the degree that communities successfully facilitate person-environment fit (meeting of needs) among
members, members will be able to develop sense of community.
Shared Emotional Connection
A. Formula 1: Shared emotional connection = contact + high-quality interaction.
B. Formula 2: High-quality interaction = (events with successful closure - ambiguity) x (event valence x sharedness
of the event) + amount of honor given to members - amount of humiliation.
Within the context of influence, community influence on the member allows him or her to
have more influence in the community. When one resists the community's influence or tries to
dominate the community, one is less influential. People are more likely to choose a leader
who listens and is influenceable rather than one whose mind is made up and will never
change. So, allowing others to have power over oneself can eventually lead to having
influence with them. The last two attributes of influence, conformity (community norms) and
consensual validation, are less clear to us. We believe that if people choose freely whether to
conform, their need for consensual validation will strengthen community norms. The more a
community provides opportunities for validation of its members, the stronger community
norms become.
The transactional dynamics of integration and fulfillment of needs are dearef. Com-
munities or anize around needs, and people associate with communities in which their
 SENSE O
11 McMILLAN AND CHAVIS

needs can be met; people can solve their problems and meet their needs if they have In this idealized story
alternatives and resources. Reinforcement at the community level allows people to be used by the community or
together so that everyone's needs are met. People enjoy helping others just as they enjoy integration. He called a me
being helped, and the most successful communities include associations that are and there asked members
This led to the formulatio
mutually rewarding for everyone. began to accept others' ne
Shared emotional connection can be represented symbolically in two heuristic for (going out together in grc
mulas. Formula 1 specifies the elements of shared emotional connection. Formula 2 deals catalyst for participation i
with the content of high-quality interaction. (See Table 1.)
The youth gang. The posed
Dynamics Among the Elements of alienated individu
It is difficult to describe the interworkings of the four elements of sense of com shared experience of estra
munity in the abstract. Therefore, the following examples are offered as illustrations. (emotional and physical)
develop both territorial an
The university. Someone puts an announcement on the dormitory bulletin board
about the formation of an intramural dormitory basketball team. People attend the initiation rites serve as th~
organizational meeting as strangers out of their individual needs (integration and fulfill important mechanisms fo
ment of needs). The team is bound by place of residence (membership boundaries are set) tremendous pressure on mF
and spends time together in practice (the contact hypothesis). They play a game the bonding even moreso.
and win (successful shared valent event). While playing, members exert energy on behalf the shared values and nec
nities, youth gangs give m as
of the team (personal investment in the group). As the team continues to win, team
individuals (Cloward ~
members become recognized and congratulated (gaining honor and status for being
members). Someone suggests that they all buy matching shirts and shoes (common sym The kibbutz. Before
bols) and they do so (influence). to establish a new state b,,
Thus, the elements of sense of community operated in a linear fashion. Individuals sought of the state of Israel, the
to meet their needs by integrating them with the needs of others. Membership and cultural norms. The fc
(1976) work.
boundaries were set and practice sessions for members only were scheduled. This allowed
for shared time and space, which in turn provided shared valent events. Winning The people who forn
facilitated reinforcement for being a member, which engendered influence and for a rebirth of a Jewish
conformity. but would be the doming
way that integrated the b
The neighborhood. Consider a community organizer, whose prime task is the creation of
sense of community. First, he talks to people in an area to find out their problems and pression. Many had been
concerns, that is, what would reinforce them and motivate them to work a new home. They gathers
together (integration and fulfillment of needs). When a common concern emerges (i.e., emotional connection. B
by sharing the vision an(
something they all seem to need, such as a safe neighborhood), the organizer begins
to conceive of ways in which the residents can work together to meet their need. Many of great personal sacrifices is
the residents have been victims of muggings, robberies, and assaults. Those who have not ity on a hostile part of tht
been victimized are ruled by their fear of becoming a victim. Fear of further vic new world, and while the,
timization is a shared valent event. The community organizer calls a meeting of con take great personal risks a
cerned neighbors with an announcement that explains whom the meeting is for. This sets a sense of security that th
the boundaries for belonging. At the meeting, the organizer introduces neighbors This shared caring engenc
to one another and tells them about their common concerns. Members elect officers, set up aries and a willingness fo
bylaws, and begin to plan and implement programs (influence and salient event). ciple of membership.
They talk and plan for getting to know one another, and watching out for one another's The pioneering spirit
safety emerges as a common theme. Other meetings are planned around buffet suppers but based instead on car;
communities cohesive an
at members' homes (another valent event). People arrange travel to and from these
meetings in groups for safety. Neighbors begin calling the police when they see strangers government of Israel, w'
lands and make them pr
in the area, and intruders breaking into homes are caught (influence). The success con
tinues with neighbors feeling a greater sense of community. ment used it as one of th

rIs
and meet their needs if they have
mmunity level allows people to be
joy helping others just as they en-
iities include associations that are
I symbolically in two heuristic for-
)tional connection. Formula 2 deals
"able 1.)
-Ie four elements of sense of com-
imples are offered as illustrations. t
on the dormitory bulletin board
isketball team. People attend the
dual needs (integration and fulfill-
ence (membership boundaries are .t
hypothesis). They play a game ;,
members exert energy on behalf the
team continues to win, team ning
honor and status for being ig shirts
and shoes (common sym
d in a linear fashion. Individuals
he needs of others. Membership
.nly were scheduled. This allowed
shared valent events. Winning rich
engendered influence and
er, whose prime task is the creaI
an area to find out their probm
and motivate them to work
common concern emerges (i.e.,
3orhood), the organizer begins
ether to meet their need. Many >,
and assaults. Those who have
a victim. Fear of further vic-
;anizer calls a meeting of con-
,vhom the meeting is for. This
)rganizer introduces neighbors
terns. Members elect officers, s
(influence and salient event).
watching out for one another's
)tanned around buffet suppers
nge travel to and from these
police when they see strangers
(influence). The success con-
:Iity.
S E N S E O F C O M M U N I T Y : A D E F I N I T I O N A N D THEORY 13
In this idealized story, one can see how the elements of sense of community were used
by the community organizer. He studied needs and thought about their possible integration.
He called a meeting of residents, thus creating a potential for membership, and there asked
members to discuss the shared valent event of victimization and fear. This led to the
formulation of a structured plan and a successful outcome. Members began to accept others'
needs as influencers of their behavior, leading to conformity (going out together in groups).
The neighborhood's sense of community served as a catalyst for participation in local action
(cf. Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Chavis, 1983).
The youth gang. The youth gang is a community generally considered to be composed
of alienated individuals. Its formation and maintenance are based on its members' shared
experience of estrangement from traditional social systems and on the security (emotional
and physical) that membership provides (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960). Gangs develop both
territorial and symbolic boundaries. Gang colors (dress and symbols) and initiation rites serve
as the bases for the, integration and bonding of members and as important mechanisms for
differentiating gang members from others. The gang exerts tremendous pressure on members
to conform, and the gang's status and victories enhance the bonding-even moreso. The rules
to which members conform are based largely on the shared values and needs met by the gang.
Along the same lines as college fraternities, youth gangs give members influence over the
environment not available to them as individuals (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).
The kibbutz. Before World War II, idealistic Zionists began immigrating to Palestine
to establish a new state based on humanistic and religious values. After the formation of the
state of Israel, the kibbutzim became primary holders of the new state's values and cultural
norms. The following analysis of the kibbutz movement is based on Cohen's (1976) work.
The people who formed the original kibbutzim were Jews who expressed a hunger for a
rebirth of a Jewish community that was not a minority in a dominant culture, but would be
the dominant culture. They hoped to experience Jewish fellowship in a way that integrated
the best aspects of the Western European ghetto without the oppression. Many had been
displaced from their homes in Europe and were in search of a new home. They gathered,
then, in hopes of integrating their needs and out of a shared emotional connection.
Boundaries of membership were defined by being Jewish and by sharing the vision and
symbols of these Jewish pioneers. Kibbutz members made great personal sacrifices in order
to reach Israel and to establish a new viable community on a hostile part of the earth. Their
sacrifices were a part of their investment in their new world, and while they made their own
sacrifices, they watched their fellow members take great personal risks also. Such a willingness
to risk for the community gave members a sense of security that they were among people
who cared and whom they could trust. This shared caring engendered a sense of belonging
that in turn supported strong boundaries and a willingness for personal investment. These
dynamics are all part of the principle of membership.
The pioneering spirit, to create a culture that was not capitalistic and. individualistic
but based instead on caring and a willingness to share their vision and ideals, kept the
communities cohesive and intact for some years. Their resources came in part from the
government of Israel, which needed citizens of the new state to inhabit unproductive lands
and make them productive. The kibbutz movement was proud that the government used it
as one of the chief socializers of the new nation and as an example to the
 14 MCMILLAN AND CHAVIS
SENSE

nation and the world that a state in which human caring is as important as power and
economic success could exist. The esteem or pride that came about was a source for Given all of these prc
change in the values of kibbutzim. Dependent on the outside world for economic support pered for so long as active a
and esteem, the kibbutzim were vulnerable to outside demands for change. The needs of shared emotional conne
the kibbutz communities thus merged with those of the larger community (integration and their country's enemies a:
fulfillment of needs), and the attributes that were appreciated and valued by the threats (shared valent eve in
government and the greater culture began to filter into the kibbutzim. Simultaneously, as F i d d l e r o n t h e R o o f tf
they received attention from the outside world, their inner strength grew. when the world is so host
Once the state of Israel became well established economically, militarily, and kibbutzim, even in their E it
politically, it was not as dependent on kibbutzim for socializing immigrants and no longer was settled and how it fully
wanted to support the communities with tax dollars. Consequently, kibbutzim began to to survive. Member shared
feel pressure for economic self-sufficiency. Because of this pressure, many kibbutzim story is the basis
failed and were disbanded or resettled. Others specialized and modernized their means of The kibbutz provide of
production. A management structure developed, and power was no longer shared equally. a sense of community time
As influence was directed more to the Israeli state, many kibbutzim lost their autonomy. through changing val tation,
Those that maintained or reinstilled it remained strong. specialization of p of the
The formation of classes or subgroups within the kibbutzim came about with the kibbutz demonstra meeting
introduction of new members, who were less experienced in all aspects of the community's different needs (e these
life. Housing and resources were often allocated on the basis of seniority of membership. communities are coi dividual
This resulted in a status differential between the new and the old. Seniority came to values and needs
symbolize commitment and stability, creating a shared emotional connection (Glynn, 1981; communities is very mucl
Riger & Lavrakas, 1981). tions are based both on t
and on what Durkheim (1
The life stages of the members also changed the value orientation of the kibbutz etc.).
movement. Members were initially antifamily, but as children were born, members began to A fuller understandi
identify themselves as family units oriented toward the nurturance of new life. The The definition and theory
education of members into specialists, who were part of a profession and whose profes- we believe, to all types o
sional problems and challenges were understood only by other professionals who were likely four elements will be of and
not to be members of the commune, also weakened members' orientation toward the its membership. Thes
kibbutz as the primary reference group. These developments highlight the changes in contrasting various comr
cohesiveness that must occur when values are no longer closely shared or with
differentiation.
With these changes came economic success and abundance; having more than the
community needed for subsistence became a serious problem. How were resources to be
allocated fairly? Who got to take trips and who got to continue their education? Did the
community want to support members to meet individual interests and needs that were The theoretical fram
irrelevant or unbeneficial to the community, even if it had the resources to do so? A group's applications. Dokecki (15
success in negotiating this problem of integration of resources and needs reflected the tentionally model public p(
success of the community itself. Members needed to feel that they had power in such He suggested that emerg
decisions, yet the community needed to know that members would place the community's highlight the implication:
needs high on their list of priorities. Abundance, however, meant that the community was community. Our definiti
basically secure and that members were more concerned with pursuing their individual Dokecki's criteria. A clez
needs and interests. munity can provide the fi
that meet their stated goa.
Jason (1980) have shown
community psychologist c
reinforce behaviors leadif
For example, consid-
Because of the kibbutzim's organizational success and internal and external changes,
dividual application. Whz
cohesive bonds loosened. Day-to-day conduct of affairs became separated from the
certain benefiits? This woi
founding values, and these values were weakened. Life on the kibbutz lost its sacred quality.
a certain percentage of ar all
Social ties rather than idealistic allegiance became the chief integrating force, and subgroups
might not want the as
formed.

CHAVIS
in caring is as important as power and -
ide that carne about was a source for
in the outside world for economic sup
e to outside demands for change. The
vith those of the larger community (in-
butes that were appreciated and valued
began . to filter into the kibbutzim. the
outside world, their inner strength
iblished economically, militarily, and for
socializing immigrants and no longer
)1lars. Consequently, kibbutzim began
cause of this pressure, many kibbutzim
pecialized and modernized their means
)ped, and power was no longer shared
[sraeli state, many kibbutzim lost their 3 it
remained strong.
Zin the kibbutzim came about with the
)erienced in all aspects of the commun-
ited on the basis of seniority of member!n
the new and the old. Seniority came a
shared emotional connection (Glynn,
!d the value orientation of the kibbutz it
as children were born, members began
oward the nurturance of new life. The
part of a profession and whose profes
i only by other professionals who were
weakened members' orientation toward
_se developments highlight the changes
are no longer closely shared or with
and abundance; having more than the
rious problem. How were resources to
who got to continue their education?
to meet individual interests and needs
munity, even if it had the resources to
oblem of integration of resources and
self. Members needed to feel that they
y needed to know that members would
priorities. Abundance, however, meant
at members were more concerned with
.ccess and internal and external changes,
of affairs became separated from the
ied. Life on the kibbutz lost its sacred
nce became the chief integrating force,
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 15
Given all of these problems one wonders how the kibbutzim have survived and pros-
pered for so long as active and thriving communities. One answer is that members have a
shared emotional connection. They have lived and worked together; they have fought
their country's enemies and the hostile climate together; and they have resolved these threats
(shared valent events) with positive outcomes. This is reminiscent of the song in Fiddler on
the Roof that asks how the Jews have managed to balance on the roof when the world is so
hostile. The answer is a loud, deep affirmation, "Tradition." The kibbutzim, even in their short
history, have built a tradition. Each has a story of how it was settled and how its life changed
and grew as the community struggled successfully to survive. Members are proud of what they
have accomplished together. Their shared story is the basis of their spiritual bond.
The kibbutz provides a good example of the dynamics inherent in the life cycle of a
sense of community. Sense of community is not a static feeling. It is affected by time through
changing values and external forces such as commerce, the media, transpor
tation, specialization of professions, economics, and employment factors. This example of the
kibbutz demonstrates the number of communities that one can belong to, each meeting
different needs (e.g., family, kibbutz, nation, profession, religion). Sometimes these
communities are compatible and sometimes their requirements are in conflict. Individual
values and needs determine one's top allegiance in such cases. The layering of communities is
very much part of modern life (Fischer, 1982), in which multiple affiliations are based both on
territoriality and tradition (neighborhood, city, state, nation) and on what Durkheim (1964)
called "organic solidarity" (interests, professions, religion, etc.).
A fuller understanding of the variety of communities in our society is essential. The
definition and theory of sense of community presented in this article apply equally, we believe,
to all types of communities because of their common core, although our four elements will be
of varying importance depending on the particular community and its membership. These
elements, then, can provide a framework for comparing and contrasting various communities.
Conclusion
The theoretical framework presented here has the potential for a broad range of
applications. Dokecki (1983; also Hobbs et al., 1984) has proposed that we should in-
tentionally model public policy around the values of human development and community. He
suggested that emerging policies be evaluated against a series of questions that. highlight the
implications for human development, the family, and the cohesion of a community. Our
definition of sense of community influenced the development of Dokecki's criteria. A clear
and empirically validated understanding of sense of community can provide the foundation
for lawmakers and planners to develop programs that meet their stated goals by strengthening
and preserving community. Glenwick and Jason (1980) have.shown that there are many
contingencies in a system and that the community psychologist can play a role in identifying
and designing mechanisms that
reinforce behaviors leading to the development of a sense of community.
For example, consider that most governnmental assistance programs require in
dividual application. What if it were required that residents apply as a group to receive certain
benefiits? This would necessitate that specific group activites take place and that
a certain percentage of an, area's residents participate in the decision to apply (though all
might not want the assistance themselves). A sense of community could develop,
16 McMILLAN AND CHAVIS
SENSE
especially if appropriate technical assistance were provided to assist in organizing. A
situation is thus established whereby members' needs are met by being part of the group. Bean, H. B. (1971). The effi
cohesiveness. Unpublishec
Facilitation of the other elements in our definition will further strengthen the formation of a
Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R J.
sense of community.
Berkowitz, L. (1956). Group
Our understanding of sense of community has implications also for community liking related to air crew
treatment programs for the retarded and mentally ill. Where "community" means more than Bernard, J. S. (1973). The s(
residency outside of an institution, strategies can be introduced to allow the therapeutic Buss, A. H., & Portnoy, N. W
benefits of community to be developed within group homes and to provide for better Social Psychology, 6, 106
integration with communities surrounding such facilities. Byrne, P., & Wond, T. J. (19(
Newman (1981) stated that an understanding of how communities are formed will attitudes. Journal of Abn
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (19
enable us to design housing that will be better maintained and will provide for better use of matrix. Psychological Bui
surrounding areas (streets and parks) and safety from criminal activity. Along similar lines, Cartwright, D., & Zander, A.
Ahlbrandt and Cunningham (1979) have shown that people make the greatest investments in Peterson.
home improvements in neighborhoods where there is a strong social fabric. Chavis, D. M. (1983). Sense c
Yankelovich (1981) reported that, in 1973, "roughly one-third of Americans felt an development. Unpublishe
intense need to compensate for the impersonal and threatening aspects of modern life by Nashville, TN.
Cloward, R., & Ghlin, L. (19( IL:
seeking mutual identification with.others," on the basis of a sense of belonging together. Free Press.
"By the beginning of the 1980s, the number of Americans deeply involved in the search for Cohen, E. (1976). The struct
community had increased from 32% to 47%" (p. 85). Social change. New York
It is clear that sense of community is a powerful force in our culture now. This force Cook, S. W. (1970). Motive:
does not operate just for good, however. In the South, the Klu Klux Klan is gaining in Levine (Eds.), Proceedini
membership and power. Urban vigilante forces are forming to attack and intimidate people Nebraska Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who go
in the name of community. Neighborhoods advertised as exclusive communities are fencing
Dokecki, P. R. (1983). The p
themselves in to keep out people who do not belong and to separate themselves from of Education, 60, 108-12:
poverty and problems of social justice. As the force of sense of community drives people Doolittle, R. J., & MacDonal,
closer together, it also seems to be polarizing and separating subgroups of people. The neighborhood: A factor z
potential for great social conflict is increasing -a side of community that must be understood Durkheim, E. (1964). The
as well. A critical examination of community is essential. di published 1893)
Ehrlich, J. J., & Graeven, D. E
It is our wish that this article will intensify the search for ways to strengthen the social
Psychology, 7, 389-400.
fabric with the development of sense of community. Somehow we must find a way to build
Erikson, K. (1966). Waywar
communities that are based on faith, hope, and tolerance, rather than on fear, hatred, and
Festinger, L. (1950). Labora
rigidity. We must learn to use sense of community as a tool for fostering understanding and periments in social proce:
cooperation. We hope that research on this topic will provide a base on which we can Festinger, L. (1953). Group
facilitate free, open, and accepting communities. We present the concept of community here dynamics. Research and,
not as a panacea, rather, as one of the means to bring about the kind of world about which Festinger, L., Schachter, S., &
we and others have dreamed. tors in housing. Stanford
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dt,
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A
ment. American Journal
Glenwick, D. A., & Jason, L. E
References New York: Praeger.
Glynn, T. J. (1981). Psychol-
Ahlbrant, R. S., & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A new public policy for neighborhood preservation. New 34, 780-818.
York: Praeger. Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Fact
Allan, T. H., & Allan, K. H. (1971). Sensitivity for community leaders. Proceedings of the 79th Annual
Grossack, M. M. (1954). Sot
Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6, 577-578. Psychology, 59, 341-348.
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The c
Aronson, E., &Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and
Hamblin, R. L. (1958). Gro
Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Bachrach, K. M., & Zautra, A. J. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The threat of a hazardous waste Heider, F. (1958). The psycl
facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 127-141. Hester, L. R., Roback, H., W
Backman, C., & Secord, P. (1959). The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal attraction. Human Relations, relationship in psychother
12, 379-384. Psychiatry, 17, 671-681.
~ AVIS
provided to assist in organizing. A s
are met by being part of the group. ill
further strengthen the formation
is implications also for community .1.
Where "community" means more !s
can be introduced to allow the within
group homes and to provide ng such
facilities.
>f how communities are formed will
.ntained and will provide for better
afety from criminal activity. Along
have shown that people make the
;hborhoods where there is a strong
oughly one-third of Americans felt
and threatening aspects of modern )n
the basis of a sense of belonging ser
of Americans deeply involved in 7o
to 47%" (p. 85).
rful force in our culture now. This le
South, the Kiu Klux Klan is gainare
forming to attack and intimidate
advertised as exclusive communities
lot belong and to separate themselves
force of sense of community drives
and separating subgroups of people. -
a side of community that must be
nmunity is essential.
e search for ways to strengthen the
nmunity. Somehow we must find a
hope, and tolerance, rather than on :e
of community as a tool for foster-
research on this topic will provide
accepting communities. We present
ather, as one of the means to bring ers
have dreamed.
policy for neighborhood preservation. New
ity leaders. Proceedings of the 79th Annual
577-578.
ion on liking for a group. Journal of Abnor
uimunity stressor: The threat of a hazardous .
127-141.
ng on interpersonal attraction. Human Rela
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 21
Bean, H. B. (1971). The effects of a role-model and instructions on group interpersonal openness and
cohesiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virgina University, Morgantown, WV.
Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R J. (1977). To empowerpeople. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Berkowitz; L. (1956). Group norms under bomber crews: Patterns of perceived crew attitudes,
and crew liking related to air crew effectiveness of Far Eastern combat. Sociometry, 19, 141•153.
Bernard, J. S. (1973). The sociology of community. Glenview,'IL: Scott, Foresman.
Buss, A. H., & Portnoy, N. W. (1967). Pain tolerance and group identification. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 6, 106-108.
Byrne, P., & Wond, T. J. (1962). Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of
attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 246-253.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1960). Group dynamics. Research and theory (2nd ed.). Evanston, IL: Row,
Peterson.
Chavis, D. M. (1983). Sense of community in the urban environment: Benefits for human and neighborhood
development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
TN.
Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.
Cohen, E. (1976). The structural transformation of the kibbutz. In G. K. Zollschan & W. Hirsch (Eds.), Social
change. New York: Wiley.
Cook, S. W. (1970). Motives in conceptual analysis of attitude related behavior. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dokecki, P. R. (1983). The place of values in the world of psychology and public policy. Peabody Journal of
Education, 60, 108-125.
Doolittle, R. J., & MacDonald D. (1978).. Communication and a sense of community in a metropolitan
neighborhood: A factor analytic examination. Communication Quarterly, 26, 2-7.
Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. (Original work
published 1893)
Ehrlich, J. J., & Graeven, D. B. (1971). Reciprocal self-disclosure in a dyad. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 7, 389-400.
Erikson, K. (1966). Wayward puritans. New York: Wiley.
Festinger, L. (1950). Laboratory experiments: The role of group belongingness. In J. G. Miller (Ed.), Ex-
periments in social process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Festinger, L. (1953). Group attraction and membership. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group
dynamics. Research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., &Back, 1. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human fac-
tors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation in community develop-
ment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 689-708.
Glenwick, D. P:., & Jason, L. A. (Eds.). (1980). Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects.
New York: Praeger.
Glynn, T. J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Relations,
34, 780-818.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Grossack, M. M. (1954). Some effects of cooperation and competition. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 59, 341-348.
Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.
Hamblin, R. L. (1958). Group integration during a crisis. Human Relations, 11, 67-76.
H id F (1958) Th h l fi l l i N Y k Wil
18 McMILLAN AND CHAVIS SENSE Ol

Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111-123. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psych
Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P. R., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Moroney, R. M., Shayne, M. W., & Weeks, K. H. (1984). Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sherif, M.,
Strengthening families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. White, B. J., & Harvey, of Sociology,
Hunter, A., & Riger, S. (this issue). The meaning o£ community in community health. 60, 370-379. Solomon, L. (1960). The
Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of influenc: ment of interpersonal trust. .
North Carolina Press. Taguiri, R., & Kogan, N. (1960). of
Personality, 28, 257-265. Thibaut, J.
James, A., & Lott, A. J. (1964). Reward frequency and the formation of positive attitudes toward group
W. & Kelley, H. H. i Thrasher, J. D.
members. Journal of Social Psychology, 62, 111-115.
(1954). Interper: tal
Jung, C. G. (1912). The psychology of the unconscious. Leipzig, East Germany: Franz Deutiche.
variations: An experimen. Tdnnies, F.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment and mass society. American Sociological (1957). Community
Review, 39, 328-339. c Tropman, J. E. (1969). Critical di
Kelley, H. H. (1951). Communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 4, 39-56. findings. Urban Affairs Quar
Kelley, H. H., & Volkart, E. H. (1952). The resistance to changge of group-anchored attitudes. American Wandersman, A. (1981). A fran
Sociological Review, 17, 453-465. Behavioral Science, 17, 27-SF
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino,
Kelley, H. H., & Woodruff, C. L. (1956). Members' reactions to apparent group approval of counternorm
fluences of an initial particip Warner,
communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 67-74.
W. L., & Associates. (194 Harper &
Killian, L. M. (1964). Social movements. In R. E. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of modern sociology. Chicago: Rand Row.
McNally. White, L. A. (1949). The scienc
Konig, R. (1968). The community (E. Fitzgerald, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wilson, W., & Miller, N. (1961).
Long, N. (1958). The local community as an ecology of games. American Journal of Sociology, 64, 251-261. Journal of Abnormal and Sc Wood, H.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with G. (1971). An analysi
antecedent and variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309. Wright, M. E. (1943). The influt and
Mann, J. H., & Mann, C. H. (1959). The importance of a group task in producing group member personality Personality, 12, 111-122 Yankelovich,
and behavior changes. Human Relations, 12, 75-80. D. (1981). New rul
down. Psychology Today, 1-,
McMillan, D. (1976). Sense of community: An attempt at definition. Unpublished manuscript, George Peabody
College for Teachers, Nashville, TN.
Mead, G. H. (1918). The psychology of punitive justice. American Journal of Sociology, 23, 577-602.

Michener, J. A. (1965). The source. New York: Random House. Zander, A., & Cohen, A. R. (1955 tal
demonstration. Journal o Zander, A., &
Myers, A. (1962). Team competition, success, and the adjustment of group members. Journal of Abnormal and Havelin, A. (1960) 21-32.
Social Psychology, 65, 325-332. Zander, A., Natsoulas, T., &
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Th Human Relations, 13,
333-3,
Newman, O. (1981). Community of interest. New York: Anchor Books.

Nisbet, R. A. (1953). The quest for community. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nisbet, R., & Perrin, R. G. (1977). The social bond. New York: Knopf.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Park, R. E. (1924). The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial attitudes and racial relations.
Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, 339-344.
Park, R. E., &Burgess, W. E. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The art of Japanese management. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Perrucci, R. (1963). Social distance strategies and intra-organizational stratification: A study
of the status system on a psychiatric ward. American Sociological Review, 28, 951-962.
Peterson, J. A., & Martens, R. (1972). Success and residential affiliation as determinants of team cohesiveness.
Research Quarterly, 43, 63-76.
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research and action. New York: Rhinehart and
Winston.
Rhoads, D. L. (1982). Person-environment fit as a model for the study of social alienation. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban
neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 55-66.
Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K., & Gordon, M. T. (1981). Community ties and urbanites' fear of crime: An ecological
kvis
greement. Rural Sociology, 20, 111-123.
y, R. M., Shayne, M. W., & Weeks, K. H.
ss,
nity in community health.
zcision makers. Chapel Hill, NC: University
ormation of positive attitudes toward group
pzig, East Germany: Franz Deutiche.
°-nt and mass society. American Sociological
led hierarchies. Human Relations, 4, 39-56.
ngge of group-anchored attitudes. American
to apparent group approval of counternorm
logy, 52, 67-74.
), Handbook of modern sociology. Chicago:
.ondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
American Journal of Sociology, 64, 251-261.
p,-rsonal attraction: A review of relationships
259-309.
group task in producing group member per
-80.
ion. Unpublished manuscript, George Peabody
nerican Journal of Sociology, 23, 577-602.
ouse.
tment of group members. Journal of Abnor
ork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Zchor Books.
Oxford University Press.
York: Knopf.
IcGraw-Hill.
to the study of racial attitudes and racial rela
ce of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
management. New York: Simon and Schuster.
nizational stratification: A study of the status
,view, 28, 951-962.
affiliation as determinants of team cohesiveness.
earch and action. New York: Rhinehart and
or the study of social alienation. Unpublished
AZ.
s of attachment and social interaction in urban
ology, 9, 55-66.
y ties and urbanites' fear of crime: An ecological
ogy, 9, 653-665.
cohesiveness and change in self-concept in a
versity of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
>erimentally established relationships between
Fychology, 47, 354-358.
SENSE OF COMMUNITY: A DEFINITION AND THEORY 23
Sarason, S. B. (1974). Thepsychological sense of community. Perspectives for community psychology. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sherif, M., white, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). of Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal
Sociology, 60, 370-379.
Solomon, L. (1960). The influence of some types of power relationships and game strategies upon the
development of interpersonal trust. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 223-230.
Taguiri, R., & Kegan, N. (1960). Personal preference and the attribution of influence in small groups.
Journal of Personality, 28, 257-265.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Thrasher, J. D. (1954). Interpersonal relations and gradations of stimulus structure as factors in judgmen-
tal variations: An experimental approach. Sociometry, 17, 228-249.
T6nnies, F. (1957). Community and society (C. P. Loomis, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Harper Torchbook.
Tropman, J. E. (1969). Critical dimensions of community structure: A reexamination of the Hadden-Borgotta
findings. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 5, 215-232.
Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community organizations. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 17, 27-58.
Wandersman, A., & Giamartino, G. A. (1980). Community and individual difference characteristics as in-
fluences of an initial participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 217-228.
Warner, W. L., &Associates. (1949). Democracy in Jonesville. A study in quality and inequality. New York:
Harper & Row.
White, L. A. (1949). The science of culture. New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Cudahy.
Wilson, W., & Miller, N. (1961). Shifts in evaluations of participants following intergroup competition.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 428-431.
Wood, H. G. (1971)., An analysis of social sensitivity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(2-B), 1200. Wright,
M. E. (1943). The influence of frustration upon the social relations of young children. Character and
Personality, 12, 111-122.
Yankelovich, D. (1981). New rules in American life: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside
down. Psychology Today, 15, 35-91.
Zander, A., & Cohen, A. R. (1955). Attibuted social power and group acceptance: A classroom experimental
demonstration. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 490-492.
Zander, A., & Havelin, A. (1960). Social comparison and interpersonal attraction. Human Relations, 13,
21-32.
Zander, A., Natsoulas, T., & Thomas, E. J. (1960). Personal goals and group's goals for the members.
Human Relations, 13, 333-344.