Assessment & Diagnosis

Connectedness: A Review of the

Literature With Implications for
Counseling, Assessment, and Research
Katharine C. Townsend and Benedict T. McWhirter

In this article, the authors review the current conceptual and empirical literature from a variety of disciplines
dealing with the construct of connectedness. A working definition of connectedness is provided along with a
discussion of its multidimensional nature and major characteristics. Its relationship with a variety of other vari-
ables is also presented. Particular attention is given to gender and cultural considerations in the experience and
operationalization of connectedness. Recommendations for counseling, assessment, and research related to
connectedness are provided.

Human beings have a powerful need for connectedness (Jor-
dan, 1997; Lee & Robbins, 2000), or, as Baumeister and
Leary (1995) have stated, “a fundamental human motiva-
tion” (p. 497) for regular, positive interactions within an
ongoing relational connection. When individuals do not
meet this need to be connected to each other and to main-
tain lasting social connections, there can be a negative
impact on their health, adjustment, and well-being (Moen,
1998; Rude & Burham, 1995). Because humans are born
with the need to be connected with others, individuals
whose worldviews are shaped by a lack of meaningful con-
nection to others tend to experience psychological dis-
tress (Buchholz & Catton, 1999). Some of the consequences
to individuals that result from being disconnected from
others may include social isolation, def icits in
belongingness, and a lack of meaning or purpose in life
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Disconnected individuals may
see themselves as cut off from the social world despite the
fact that they may have nonconflictual relationships with
professional colleagues, personal friends, and family mem-
bers. These individuals may report a lack of supportive
relationships that can serve as effective buffers against the
effects of stress. They may feel lost and alone, on both
intrapersonal and interpersonal levels; that is, these individu-
als might experience a pervasive sense of disconnection from
the internal self as well as from the external (social) world. A
lack of connectedness has thus been described as a perva-
sive social problem (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Because
of this, clarifying the conceptualization, definition, and
measurement of connectedness in the counseling and psy-
chological literature and highlighting important counseling
strategies and clinical research questions related to connect-
edness have a great deal of merit.
To explore the construct of connectedness in a thorough
manner, we conducted a literature review. The publications
selected for this review’s content pool met the following
criteria: (a) published from 1984 through 2003, (b) written
in English, and (c) included the key word connectedness.
The initial computerized literature search of the PsycINFO
database yielded a total of 581 publications that met all of
these criteria. From that list, 288 publications featured origi-
nal empirical research studies that were quantitative in na-
ture. In the preliminary review process, a variety of publica-
tions were selected that ranged from those that reported on
the psychometric development of measures of connectedness
to theoretically oriented articles that discussed the construct.
In addition to the articles chosen from the PsycINFO data-
base, we also identified articles and books from our personal
files and from bibliography reviews. Finally, the abstracts of
all the publications selected were scanned, and, ultimately, a
total of 85 contemporary publications were selected for this
review: 6 dissertations, 9 books, 7 chapter articles, and 63
journal articles. These publications were included in this re-
view because of their relevance to the historic intervention and
prevention mission of counseling and counseling psychology
(Brabeck, Walsh, Kenny, & Comilang, 1997).

Katharine C. Townsend, Counseling Center, University of New Hampshire; Benedict T. McWhirter, Counseling Psychology
Program, Counseling Psychology and Human Services Area, College of Education, University of Oregon. Katharine C. Townsend
is now at the Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Katharine C. Townsend, Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 (e-mail: ktownsend@bsc.harvard.edu).

© 2005 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 191–201
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83 191

In this article, the construct of connectedness is described
as it appears in the literature, particularly with respect to
gender and cultural issues. This review also suggests a
conceptualization of connectedness that may provide a frame-
work for increasing the efficacy of counseling assessment
and interventions for those who experience a problem with
being disconnected from others. This review concludes with
recommendations for counseling interventions and research
germane to this construct.
The Construct of Connectedness
In recent years, researchers of human development and psy-
chology have helped to debunk the myth that the goal of
human development hinges on individual independence and
self-sufficiency. Today, notions of interdependence and com-
munality are portrayed in a positive light in the develop-
mental process (E. H. McWhirter, 1994). Riggs and Bright
(1997), for example, highlighted the works of Miller and of
Surrey, both of whom identified several crucial components
in psychological growth that occurs within relationships:
(a) an increased sense of well-being that comes from feeling
connected to others, (b) motivation and the ability to act
positively both within and beyond the boundaries of the
relationship, (c) increased self-knowledge and knowledge
of the “other” in the relationship, (d) an increased sense of
self-worth, and (e) the desire for additional connections (as
cited in Riggs & Bright, 1997, p. 220).
This perspective of psychological growth, occurring through
connection with others, has developed within the context of
European American culture’s notion of highly valued and
rewarded independence and individualism (Katz, 1985). Such
an emphasis on independence and selfhood has the consequence
of nurturing such popular but pejorative ideas regarding con-
nectedness as “codependency.” By definition, codependency
has been characterized as a risk factor for individuals and their
network of relationships because it suggests that “too much”
connection with others is psychologically unhealthy. Indeed,
Cermak (1986) espoused conceptualizing codependency as a
disease and further suggested incorporating codependency as
a classification in the American Psychiatric Association’s (1980)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third
edition. Although the concept of codependency lacks con-
struct validation, it nevertheless continues to be frequently
used in popular psychology, and this notion of codependency
continues to depict, with a negative hue, characteristics and
behaviors that may be potent and valuable assets in peoples’
lives. In fact, individuals may actually be closely connected
with others in a positive way.
In response, feminist critics of the concept of
codependency have identified the source of codependent
behaviors as being linked with subordination roles rather
than as a characteristic of a personality disorder (Collins,
1993). Van Wormer (1989) argued that the codependency
192 Journal of Counseling & Development
Townsend & McWhirter
label is used in a discriminatory way against women, and
that the term has sociopolitical roots in sexism and the his-
torical oppression of women. Brown understood that those
in nondominant groups from other cultures demonstrated a
strong investment in the quality of relationships with those
in dominant roles based on a need for self-preservation (as
cited in Cowan, Bommersbach, & Curtis, 1995). Indeed, one
cost of the emphasis on autonomy, separation, and individu-
ation is the potential discrediting and undervaluation of the
capacity for, and benefits of, intimacy and connectedness
(Rude & Burham, 1995).
This review of the literature suggests that researchers are
increasingly considering connectedness as an important
factor in human development and psychology (Granello &
Beamish, 1998). As Jordan (1997) has noted, “The women’s
movement, the ecological movement, representatives of
diverse cultures, and relational models of psychology are
challenging the prevailing Western ‘separate self’ paradigm”
(p. 1). Although the literature does not support the idea that
connectedness is simply a positive reframe on
codependency, it is clear that the construct of connected-
ness is increasingly seen as both a protective agent in pre-
venting problems and an aid in helping to resolve inter- and
intrapersonal concerns (Karcher, 2002).
Indeed, researchers are increasingly recognizing that a
lack or loss of connectedness may be risk factors, posing
serious consequences for the individual (Jordan, 1997; Rude
& Burham, 1995). Some of the consequences of disconnect-
edness may include self-alienation, loneliness, and a lack of
meaning or purpose (Bellingham, Cohen, Jones, & Spaniol,
1989). Brown and Gillespie (1992) highlighted the com-
mentary of contemporary social commentators and cultural
analysts on the serious social costs of an extreme imbalance
between individualism and communitarianism: social dis-
content and increased alienation may be outcomes of this
imbalance (as cited in Cordingley & Webb, 1997, p. 142).
Loss of connectedness may also have serious health effects
at the broader societal and cultural levels. For example, re-
searchers have shown that bereaved people benefit from re-
constituted relational networks following a loss of social
connectedness; that is, the establishment of supportive con-
nections is associated with less intense current and remem-
bered grief (Forte, Barrett, & Campbell, 1996). Researchers
have suggested that healing and recovering from emotional
wounds arises out of connecting both within oneself and
with others (Hogg & Frank, 1992).
As the psychological literature has reflected a greater valu-
ing of the capacity for relatedness as a health-promoting agent
in peoples’ lives, there has been a proliferation of references
to connectedness (e.g., Karcher, 2002). Although connect-
edness and interdependence have been supported as impor-
tant constructs in healthy moral development for at least the
past 20 years (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1992), con-
nectedness as a construct is now receiving widespread atten-
■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Review of Connectedness
tion across many disciplines as well as subdisciplines within
counseling and psychology. Because of the importance of
connectedness, we thought it could be helpful to examine
the various ways in which psychological literature has re-
ferred to it. In the course of our review, we arrived at what we
believe is the most parsimonious definition of the construct
at this time. In subsequent sections, we review the multidi-
mensional nature of the construct of connectedness and ex-
plore its association with other variables.
Definition of Connectedness
Connectedness has been described in a variety of ways
throughout the literature that we chose for this review (e.g.,
Bellingham et al., 1989; Bengston & Grotevant, 1999;
Campbell, Adams, & Dobson, 1984; Lang-Takac &
Osterweil, 1992; Lee & Robbins, 2000; Rude & Burham,
1995; Tolman, Diekmann, & McCartney, 1989). Indeed,
the definition of connectedness seemed to shift from ar-
ticle to article and from author to author. It is possible that
the definitions of connectedness varied as a function of
the construct’s evolution. Connectedness as a psychologi-
cal construct might be understood as relatedness, which is
a key feature in identity development and a factor in men-
tal health and well-being. In research, connectedness has
been related to a number of variables, including
(in)dependence, embeddedness, engagement, loneliness,
belongingness, companionship, attachment, and affilia-
tion. Because connectedness has multiple dimensions, re-
searchers often described connectedness differently in dif-
ferent studies. Perhaps the most parsimonious definition of
connectedness is presented by Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer,
Patusky, and Bouwsema (1993), who described the state of
connectedness as occurring “when a person is actively in-
volved with another person, object, group, or environment,
and that involvement promotes a sense of comfort, well-
being, and anxiety-reduction” (p. 293). This definition is
clear and also suggests that the construct of connectedness
is an intricate and multidimensional one.
Dimensions of Connectedness
Most conceptualizations of connectedness included a self-
in-relation-to-others component and a more internally fo-
cused self-component. Moreover, researchers have reported
several different forms of connectedness, including connect-
edness to the self; connectedness to others, including the
social network of family, friends, colleagues, and other so-
cial groups; and connectedness to a larger meaning or pur-
pose in life (Bellingham et al., 1989). Types of connected-
ness include interpersonal (Newcomb, 1990), social
(Timpone, 1998), family (Troll, 1994), school (Neumark-
Sztainer, Story, French, & Resnick, 1997), and cultural
(Daneshpour, 1998) connectedness, as well as community
(Maton, Hrabowski, & Greif, 1998), affective (Rosen, 1999),
emotional (Phares, 1993), and empowered (Kearney, 1998)
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
connectedness. These descriptions in the literature suggest
that the construct is a multidimensional one.
More specifically, some authors have tended to refer to
connectedness with an emphasis on relationships with other
individuals and systems. For example, Newcomb (1990)
explained that interpersonal connectedness involves diverse
types of social support, such as “bonding, attachment, friend-
ship, intimacy, and companionship” (p. 479). Timpone (1998)
referred to social connectedness as “the level of an
individual’s integration into his or her social milieu and the
fullness of the resulting associative networks” (p. 59). In
their 1997 study of health-compromising behaviors among
adolescents, Neumark-Sztainer et al. (1997) measured school
connectedness by gauging how adolescents felt about going
to school. Daneshpour (1998) described cultural connect-
edness as involving a value system oriented around the con-
nectedness of relationships rather than on differentiation of
relationships (more typical in Western cultural value system).
Maton et al. (1998) reported that five facets of community
connectedness are connectedness with the extended fam-
ily, religious environment, extracurricular activity, peers,
and teachers.
Other authors have seemed to concentrate on a more inti-
mate, feeling-oriented aspect of connectedness (Rosen,
1999). Phares (1993) referred to emotional connectedness
as one of the potential benefits that fathers, mothers, and
children could gain from being in a family; thus, she stressed
the personal satisfaction derived from intimate human rela-
tionships as being at the core of connectedness. In this sense,
connectedness has also been contrasted with the construct
of separateness (Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992). Kearney
(1998) described empowered connectedness as “a sense of
having a safe place within a community and a meaningful
role to play” (p. 508).
This past research illustrates that the connectedness con-
struct reflects both breadth (quantity) and depth (quality) of
human relationships. Lee and colleagues (e.g., Lee, Draper, &
Lee, 2001; Lee & Robbins, 1995, 1998, 2000) have devel-
oped a line of inquiry into the dimension of social connected-
ness, and they provided a definition for social connectedness.
Lee and Robbins (1998) defined social connectedness as “the
subjective awareness of being in close relationship with the
social world” (p. 338). In more recent work examining social
connectedness in college women and men, Lee and Robbins
(2000) suggested that social connectedness includes a sense
of closeness to others that is critical to one’s sense of belong-
ing and is based on the aggregate experiences of proximal
and distal relationships (e.g., parents, friends, peers, strangers,
communities, and society). Social connectedness, then, “is an
enduring and ubiquitous experience of the self in relation
with the world, as compared with social support, adult attach-
ment, and peer affiliations, which represent more discrete,
current relationships” (p. 484). Although this definition does
not capture all of the social, cognitive, and emotional dimen-
193

sions of connectedness as implied in the Hagerty et al.
(1993) definition, it seems to be the best description of
social connectedness to date. In the next section, we re-
view some of the ways in which connectedness has been
assessed, particularly with respect to cultural and gender-
related factors.
Cultural and Gender-Related Factors
in Connectedness
Culture
Considerable research has been conducted on cultural dif-
ferences in connectedness. We do not comprehensively re-
view this entire body of literature here because connected-
ness, as conceived in literature focusing on culture and eth-
nic group differences and perspectives in counseling, has
broad meaning, usually related to understanding relation-
ships vis-à-vis collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
When we searched the literature for publications with the
term connectedness, we found that researchers have used
this term as a framework to describe many different kinds of
relationships within cultures. Although not comprehensive,
some examples merit inclusion here. Hamaguchi, for example,
found that many non-Western, minority, non-European
American societies tend to be more communitarian, concep-
tualized as more interdependent and connected as individu-
als and group members, than Western mainstream culture (as
cited in Rude & Burham, 1995). In their study focusing on
contemporaneous intergenerational relationships and
parenting in young African American families, Wakschlag,
Chase-Lansdale, and Brooks-Gunn (1996) looked at the trans-
formation of the mother–daughter relationship from child-
hood to its more mature form. These authors characterized the
daughter’s “transformation” from a relatively dependent rela-
tionship with her mother to one that is more autonomous and
peer-like, yet still emotionally connected. As additional ex-
amples, in separate studies examining the applicability of a
Western model of family therapy with Muslim immigrant fami-
lies in the United States and with Japanese families in Great
Britain, researchers found that differentiation among family
members was not highly valued and, thus, discordant with the
traditional Anglo-therapeutic stance. For both Muslim and
Japanese families, the most significant difference between
their value systems and that of the mainstream “West” was a
preference for greater connectedness (Daneshpour, 1998;
Tamura & Lau, 1999).
Other researchers have also explored cultural and family
differences in connectedness. For instance, Lay et al. (1998)
conducted four studies to test the construct validity of a mea-
sure of family connectedness and cultural differences in con-
nectedness with the Family Allocentrism Scale. The authors
found that family connectedness moderated the relationship
between daily hassles and depression with a group of Viet-
namese immigrant university students. Lay et al. pointed out
194 Journal of Counseling & Development
Townsend & McWhirter
that the results of their study correspond to the findings about
gender and family connectedness, namely, that “a general
emotional concern for others has been found to be more
characteristic of females than males, whereas individualism
and collectivism were found to differ between cultures, but
not between males and females” (pp. 455–456). In her 1997
dissertation, Wong examined the risks and protective factors
related to African American and White early adolescents’
experiences of perceived racial discrimination at school. Wong
found that for African Americans, strong feelings of connect-
edness to their ethnic/racial group buffered them from the
injurious consequences of perceived racial discrimination,
although this correlation was not demonstrated for White ado-
lescents (Wong, 1997). The author suggested that African
American adolescents’ connection to ethnic/racial group was
positively related to educational expectations, resiliency, and
perceived positive peer characteristics.
This brief review of the literature covering connectedness
and culture represents only the tip of the iceberg with respect to
future research and counseling applications in this area. We
encourage readers to pursue this area in much greater depth.
Gender
There is, similarly, a significant body of work focusing on
gender-related aspects of connectedness, which is related
strongly to cultural differences. What is clear is that scholars
(e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1992) have consistently re-
ported that within Western culture, women tend to be char-
acterized and to view themselves as more strongly linked to,
rather than separate from, family members, friends, col-
leagues, and the wider social context. Scholars have argued
that there are fundamental differences in the ways in which
women and men engage in relationships and that the central
organizing principle in women’s development is a sense of
connection to others (e.g., see Riggs & Bright, 1997). For
example, in a 1992 study examining 30 male and 30 female
Israelis of Western origin, women were found to be more
connected to others than were men (as measured by empa-
thy and desire for intimacy), and men were found to be more
separated than women (as measured by self–other differen-
tiations and independence; Lang-Takac & Osterweil, 1992).
Furthermore, in an exhaustive review of the literature on the
psychosocial development of women, Caffarella and Olson
(1993) discovered that interpersonal relationships and a sense
of connectedness to others were major and critical themes in
development for all women.
Meanwhile, although some authors have found clear gen-
der differences in the nature of connectedness—implying
that women tend to value connectedness more than do men—
the recent work of Lee and colleagues (e.g., Lee, Keough, &
Sexton, 2002; Lee & Robbins, 2000) has suggested that
social connectedness (defined as the subjective experience
of interpersonal closeness) is equally salient in both women’s
and men’s lives. The findings of these researchers suggest that
■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Review of Connectedness
college women and men differ in the types of relationships
that contribute to social connectedness and also differ in terms
of the kinds of social provisions that contribute to interper-
sonal closeness. Our own work also supports this contention
(Townsend, 2003). Although this body of work (regarding gen-
der) that we have just reviewed may not be generalized be-
yond a college population, a review of gender differences in
connectedness is enriched by these findings.
Studies of Connectedness: Implications
for Mental Health and Well-Being
Connectedness has typically been examined in terms of its
opposition to, or as it is subsumed by, other constructs and
social-psychological factors rather than as a focus of assess-
ment on its own. Studies have shown that disruptions in
people’s connectedness contribute to psychological, bio-
logical, and social disturbances (Baker & Baker, 1987; Lee
& Robbins, 1995, 1998, 2000). Researchers using quantita-
tive and qualitative methodologies have suggested that con-
nectedness has important implications for mental health and
well-being (see Floyd, 1999; McCreery, 1995; Sheilds, 1996;
Singelis, 1994; Theriault, 1997).
Some researchers have looked at the source of the devel-
opment of social connectedness: They have suggested that
a relationship with a mother figure has important connec-
tions with young adults’ level of interpersonal connected-
ness (Tolman et al., 1989). These researchers conducted an
additional set of studies examining Chodorow’s theory (as
cited in Tolman et al., 1989) concerning the relationship
between mothering and social connectedness. The authors
measured young adults’ social connectedness with the Inter-
personal Orientation (IO) scale. Tolman et al. found that
maternal absence because of death or divorce was related to
IO, whereas differences in maternal employment were not.
The researchers noted that daughters who lost their mothers
(through death or divorce) in early life and who did not have
a mother substitute reported lowest on IO. Other researchers
have also developed measures to quantify connectedness in
one-on-one relationships. In their study, Bengston and
Grotevant (1999) developed a Q-sort to assess individuality
and connectedness in dyadic relationships.
Other researchers have expanded beyond the mother–
child and one-on-one relationships to the entire family; in
the process, they came to a compelling conclusion about
the salience of family connectedness for preventing risk-
oriented or unhealthy behavior (Harris, Blum, & Resnick,
1991). In their broad-based study of teenage girls in Minne-
sota, Harris et al. (1991) found that a strong feeling of connect-
edness with parents and family was the most important factor
for protecting adolescent girls from developing “quietly
disturbed behaviors” (p. 119), such as developing eating
disorders and engaging in self-mutilating behaviors. Other
studies have also discussed the protective aspects of “fam-
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
ily connectedness” for male and female adolescents (Campbell
et al., 1984). A study on ethnic differences in factors associated
with disordered eating found that adolescent girls, regardless
of ethnic group membership, shared many of the same psycho-
social and health behaviors related to disordered eating. For
example, lower family connectedness was associated with binge
eating across all of the ethnic groups represented in the sample
(White, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian; French et
al., 1997). The 1998 National Longitudinal Study of Adoles-
cent Health found that parent–family connectedness and per-
ceived school connectedness were protective against seven
out of eight measured health-compromising behaviors (Resnick
et al., 1998). Parent–family and school connectedness provided
a buffer against the adolescents’ emotional distress; suicidal
thoughts and behaviors; violence; use of cigarettes, alcohol,
and marijuana; and age of sexual debut.
Connectedness seems to buffer against social isolation,
perhaps through the individual’s increased willingness to
take interpersonal risks. Since the mid-1990s, two research-
ers, Lee and Robbins, have been examining aspects of this
phenomenon with the aid of the Social Connectedness Scale
(Lee & Robbins, 1995).
Developed according to psychoanalytic self psychology theory
on a college-age population (Kohut, 1984; Wolf, 1988), The
Social Connectedness Scale (Lee & Robbins, 1995) measures
the degree of interpersonal closeness that is experienced be-
tween an individual and his or her social world (e.g., friends,
peers, society) as well as the degree of difficulty in maintaining
this sense of closeness. (Lee & Robbins, 1998, p. 339)
In a follow-up study to an earlier examination of women’s
social connectedness, Lee and Robbins (1998) found that
only women with high connectedness reported a willing-
ness to seek out relationships with other group members.
Women who reported feeling more distant from the social
world were less likely to take interpersonal risks to satisfy
their need for belonging.
Researchers interested in enhancing the understanding of
the experience of depression have also identified connected-
ness as a protective factor to consider (Rude & Burham, 1995).
Rude and Burham found that there is a strong linkage between
gender, connectedness, and emotional health. In their study of
431 undergraduates, Rude and Burham’s analysis yielded two
highly stable factors, namely connectedness and neediness.
They characterized connectedness by a “valuing of relation-
ships and a sensitivity to the effects of one’s actions on others”
(p. 323). They concluded that none of the connectedness
factors were associated with depressive symptomatology;
however, they did find that men and women differed on this
psychological dimension. The authors found that neediness,
which was described as “anxious concerns regarding possible
rejection” (Rude & Burham, 1995, p. 337), is associated with
depressive symptomatology but not with gender.
195

It is of interest that other researchers have homed in on
the possibility that connectedness had both positive and
negative dimensions with respect to psychological health
(Wetzel, 1994). Noting that women are 3 times more likely
to report an experience of depression than are men, Wetzel
also analyzed a spectrum of leading theories of depression
from a feminist perspective. She found four major themes
highlighted in each theory, including connectedness, which
she suggested has a “positive dimension reflecting psycho-
logical and environmental catalysts for mental health and
well-being, and a negative dimension that sets up barriers
that result in vulnerability to depression” (Wetzel, 1994, p.
85). Although women may report higher rates of depression
than men, women’s “connected” interpersonal orientation
does not necessarily predispose them to depression (Rude
& Burham, 1995). We believe this literature supports the
acknowledgment of the impact of environmental factors,
such as poverty and racism, on women’s higher reported de-
pression rates. In a study examining the possible role that
connectedness has in relation to perpetrators of domestic
abuse, Bogyo (1998) found that male spousal batterers
tended to report higher social isolation and lower social
connectedness to their communities than did their
nonabusive peers. Again, although connectedness clearly
has an important place in the discussion on depression, we
believe that other factors, such as socioeconomic status,
are equally important to consider but, unfortunately, are
beyond the scope of our current review.
The construct of connectedness has also been explored by
qualitative researchers interested in understanding positive
mental health. For example, one qualitative study on women’s
experiences of the meaning of empowerment (Sheilds, 1996)
found that the participants experienced empowerment as “a
multifaceted expansive process with three central themes:
the development of an internal sense of self, the ability to
take action based on their internal sense of self, and a salient
theme of connectedness” (p. 15). The author described
the theme of connectedness as occurring on two levels,
intrapersonal and interpersonal. In fact, she reported that
the concept of intrapersonal connectedness was the “most
tangible theme of empowerment” (p. 15). This theme is con-
sistent with definitions of empowerment presented elsewhere
(e.g., E. H. McWhirter, 1994, 2001).
The multidimensional nature of connectedness thus ex-
tends to many realms and clearly provides insight into the
factors that promote healthy human psychological devel-
opment and also into one’s sense of “self ” on an individual,
yet thoroughly interconnected, level.
Implications for Counseling,
Assessment, and Prevention
Whereas social isolation and disconnection from the self are
detrimental to an individual’s mental and physical health, it
196 Journal of Counseling & Development
Townsend & McWhirter
has also been argued that inner (self-oriented) and outer
(social-oriented) connectedness are protective factors in the
development of psychological and physical health problems
(Rude & Burham, 1995). Indeed, 20 years ago, Havens (1984)
suggested that “real connectedness can be one indication of
mental health” (p. 1209). Lee and Robbins (1998) further
asserted that psychological conditions associated with a lack
of social connectedness (i.e., proneness to anxiety, low self-
esteem, and a lack of interpersonal trust) present the mental
health professional with a number of clinical and research
opportunities. In fact, articulated in the philosophies of coun-
seling and counseling psychology is “a nonpathological
focus on normalcy and day-to-day problems in living, with
emphasis on strengths and adaptive strategies in our clients”
(Fassinger & Schlossberg, 1992, p. 242). Our literature review
indicates that there is considerable support for counseling
and assessment efforts conceptualized in terms of individu-
als’ connectedness (Kearney, 1998).
An excellent starting point to enable counselors to en-
hance positive connectedness in the counseling process is to
cultivate an internal appreciation for human connectedness.
Counselors who genuinely believe in the growth-promoting
possibility of connectedness would serve their clients well.
For example, drawing on this strength-based attitude, a coun-
selor would begin work with a client by recognizing the adap-
tive aspects of a motivation to connect and by believing in
the specific client’s capacity to grow and develop within
healthy relationships. The counselor would also do well to
adopt a nonjudging, observant attitude, moving beyond con-
ceptualizing connectedness as good or bad. The informed
practitioner would engage with her or his client, recognizing
that there are many nuances involved with the concept of
connectedness (Quintana & Kerr, 1993).
In addition, counselors would enhance their work with cli-
ents presenting with a diversity of concerns by embracing a
connectedness-oriented psychotherapy. The cornerstone to
this therapy is a process that fosters the human capacity
to connect with the internal self and on a relational level
with others. Indeed, researchers have underscored the power
of connectedness in therapy, particularly with clients with
borderline personality disorder and anorexia nervosa
(Wastell, 1996). Counselors who work with clients who re-
port low connectedness could provide these clients with a
sense of being cared about and help them build connections
through referrals to programs, services, or organizations that
offer one-on-one support and guidance. Moreover, because
connectedness can be a protective factor for adolescents,
especially when it comes through a close relationship with
an adult who is emotionally supportive of the adolescent
(Garmezy, 1987), attending to and enhancing connected-
ness is particularly important for counselors working with
adolescents (Karcher, 2002).
Connectedness-oriented assessment could also inform the
development of positive interventions. Studies of connected-
■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Review of Connectedness
ness have pointed to the importance of assessing the nature of
a client’s connectedness when conceptualizing intervention
efforts. In their 1993 study, Quintana and Kerr examined the
relative advantage of supportive relationships involving sepa-
rateness and connectedness as compared with nonsupportive
relationships involving separateness and connectedness in col-
lege students’ adjustment. The authors demonstrated that par-
ticipation in relationships that supported separateness, mirror-
ing, and nurturance needs was associated with freedom from
depressive complaints. Conversely, engulfment anxiety, sepa-
ration anxiety, and denial of dependency were associated with
such complaints. Counselors could work with their clients to
understand which unique forms of connectedness and sepa-
rateness were associated with positive outcomes (e.g., good
psychological health) and which forms of connectedness and
separateness were associated with distress.
Assessing connectedness at the intake stage of the coun-
seling process would also be useful. For example, at intake,
a counselor could ask her or his client to complete a con-
nectedness measure as well as a personality inventory. By
using the client’s reported personality makeup and con-
nectedness dynamics and taking into account the client’s
demographics, counselors might be better equipped to
collaborate with the client in devising appropriate therapeu-
tic goals. Counselors working with a multicultural clientele
can enhance therapeutic connectedness by integrating into
their initial screening efforts measures of connectedness that
tap multiple dimensions of a person’s social network and
support as well as personality inventories that reflect per-
sonality-related attributes (Falicov, 1998). The use of brief
rating scales, such as Shafer’s bipolar rating scales (Shafer,
1999a) or Saucier’s Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994), might be
especially helpful for counselors working in a brief therapy
modality. These could be used in conjunction with Lee et
al.’s (2001) Social Connectedness Scale-Revised or with “The
Hemingway” (Karcher, Davis, & Powell, 2002), which as-
sesses connectedness among adolescents in either an English
or a Spanish version. Of course, any formal paper-and-pencil
assessments should always be accompanied by thorough
interviews with clients (Liddell, 1998).
On the basis of our review, we also believe that both
female and male clients would benefit from a connectedness-
oriented approach to therapy. This approach highlights the
consideration of multiple levels of connectedness in the psy-
chological treatment of both women (Miller & Stiver, 1997)
and men (Bergman, 1991). Echoing Curtis’s (1992) process
view of consciousness and the “self,” an important step in
the therapeutic process could also include integrating a
“sense of connectedness with a sense of agency” (p. 29). In
fact, our review suggests that it is crucial to explore con-
nectedness beyond the individual level; that is, it is impor-
tant not to ignore, discount, or deny the interconnectedness
between a client’s “inner” world and the “outer” world of
which she or he is a part. Gerber (1992) advocated for this
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
multidimensional perspective by encouraging counselors
to make room for the political, historical, and social aspects
of self in the therapeutic encounter.
Consistent with best practices in counseling, it is also
critical to understand differences in value systems and
worldviews when working with clients from a connected-
ness-oriented intervention and prevention framework. In
particular, it is important to be conscious of and to integrate
a client’s particular cultural emphasis on relationship pat-
terns. In making any good assessment and determining a
subsequent intervention, for example, a counselor would
take into account a client’s context (such as past learning,
environmental influences, motivation, family communication
and relationship patterns, cultural norms) and self-reported
personality attributes along with client goals for change.
Without a connectedness-oriented, culturally aware filter in
place, for instance, a counselor might encourage a Muslim
immigrant who appears to be introverted and “neurotic” on
a personality inventory to distance him- or herself from what
may seem to the counselor to be a chaotic family life. In this
case, however, in conducting an assessment, devising a treat-
ment plan, or developing a prevention program, the counse-
lor would do better to consider Muslim families’ possible
preference for greater connectedness, a potentially less flex-
ible and more hierarchical family structure, and an implicit
communication style before making such a recommenda-
tion (Daneshpour, 1998). A connectedness orientation to
counseling would necessitate this.
To summarize, mental health practitioners would serve
their clients well by cultivating within themselves a strength-
based attitude as well as a nonjudgmental observational
stance toward their clients’ connectedness. In the process of
doing her or his own work, the interventionist could then
assess, on an ongoing basis, for clients’ unique capacity for
and experience of connectedness, as well as for aspects of
personality structure. Counselors will be better equipped to
accurately understand the person’s overall psychological
health, provide a connectedness-oriented approach to inter-
vention and prevention work, and recommend more focused
and appropriate health-promoting services.
Implications for Research
There is tremendous utility in applying the connectedness con-
struct to research and practice. For example, future research
could address the way in which individual differences, person-
ality structure, maturation, and ecological characteristics influ-
ence connectedness and delineate the developmental processes
that contribute to or hinder adaptive connectedness.
To promote the understanding of connectedness and per-
sonality attributes, it would be helpful to examine the de-
gree of association between the construct of connectedness
and a construct previously studied in terms of its associa-
tion with personality variables, such as emotional intelli-
197

gence (Goleman, 1995) or social intelligence (Shafer, 1999b).
For example, future research might study how the coping ten-
dencies of “socially intelligent” (Shafer, 1999b) people com-
pare with the coping tendencies of people who report valuing
separateness over connectedness. We would like to see new
research expand the scope of these findings by assessing the
contribution of personality factors (such as emotional intelli-
gence) and connectedness to self-reported eating attitudes.
Recent research has explored the relationship between
an individual’s social connectedness and psychological ad-
justment (Lee et al., 2001; Townsend, 2003). We believe this
is a line of inquiry worth extending because of the potential
contribution to theory development and, ultimately, the pros-
pect of informing intervention and prevention efforts. Lee
et al.’s study of 184 college students found support for the
mediation hypothesis that the direct negative effect of so-
cial connectedness on psychological distress was mediated
by dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors. Future research
could build on this work by exploring the relationship be-
tween social connectedness and psychological adjustment
and the association of these factors with a specific psycho-
social characteristic that has been shown to be linked to late
adolescents’ psychological well-being. For example, re-
searchers could examine the possible mediating relation-
ships among social connectedness, depression, and ambiva-
lence over emotional expression (King & Emmons, 1990). It
would also be informative to study how other important fac-
tors, such as gender and culture, participate in these rela-
tionships. In light of the fact that late adolescence is fre-
quently a period when issues of autonomy and connection
are intensified (Perlman, 1998), studies focusing on this co-
hort could be particularly helpful in our efforts to stave off
psychological difficulties in adulthood.
Indeed, an interesting additional avenue to explore with
respect to this web of relationships—with social connect-
edness as the linchpin—could involve using a develop-
mental perspective (Baik, 1997). A Scandinavian study (von
der Lippe & Amundsen, 1998) found connectedness to be
very helpful on individuation (e.g., family connectedness),
ego development, and the quality of conflict negotiation
in the families of adolescent girls. An important research
study, for example, could examine how college students’
degree of connectedness in the parent–child relationship
influences their capacity to connect with their peers in a
college environment and relates to their overall psycho-
logical well-being.
Researchers exploring this question would do well to keep
in mind the findings about children’s social behavior and
psychological distress: Children who experience difficulty
in forming or sustaining relationships, perhaps through so-
cial isolation or peer rejection, may experience maladjust-
ment in adolescence (e.g., negative outcomes such as delin-
quency, poor adjustment to school, internalizing and exter-
nalizing problems) and access support services for mental
198 Journal of Counseling & Development
Townsend & McWhirter
health problems as adults (Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990;
J. J. McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter, & McWhirter, 2004).
Indeed, Lee et al. (2001) conceptualized social connected-
ness as developing from past and present relational experi-
ences. For example, children sometimes learn to mimic their
family members’ behavior to feel connected to them and de-
velop interpersonal skills that validate a sense of connected-
ness. Lee and Robbins (1998) suggested that people who
experience acute or repeated interpersonal failures are more
likely to manifest low social connectedness. On the basis of
findings about the buffering effects of connectedness, re-
searchers have strongly supported mental health workers’
efforts to help their clients form links with programs that serve
to increase social connectedness (e.g., Harris et al., 1991).
There are clearly many avenues for interesting, informa-
tive research on connectedness. We suggest that researchers
could ultimately develop and experimentally examine in-
terventions that promote adaptive connectedness beginning
in childhood and throughout the life span. Findings reported
in the recovery, social support, medical, and psychological
literature (Brown & Gillespie, 1992; Forte et al., 1996; Stiver
& Miller, 1995; Turner, 1997) have illustrated how certain
forms of connectedness can be empowering and worth fos-
tering through interventions. Future research could tease
out the risk factors that are most critical to focus on (e.g.,
women who have high emotional ambivalence but have low
social connectedness) in our intervention efforts.
Conclusion
The counseling and psychology literature to date suggests
that connectedness is an important factor in healthy inter-
personal functioning. Adaptive connectedness leads to stron-
ger psychological resilience, for both women and men, and
is considered a protective factor among adolescents. Con-
nectedness is particularly important when considering the
economic, political, cultural, ethnic, and social forces (such
as racism, sexism, and homophobia) that act on the lives of
human beings. Moreover, there is substantial support for
using models of counseling that are strength-based and that
support epistemologies that value adaptive connectedness
in peoples’ lives for improved client outcomes (Belenky,
McVicker Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Caffarella
& Olson, 1993). Further expansion of the notion of connect-
edness to acknowledge the distinction between pathologi-
cal dependency and an interdependent or relational orienta-
tion might aid in our efforts, as counselors, to develop greater
strength-based models of relatedness. Doing so would cap-
ture the positive aspects of connectedness, thereby offering
people of diverse cultures the opportunity to reconceptualize
psychological dependence and personal well-being. For in-
stance, psychological resilience for both women and men
might be recognized as deriving from the power of healthy
connectedness within peoples’ diverse contexts.
■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Review of Connectedness
Finally, although connectedness is a fundamental hu-
man need (Buchholz & Catton, 1999), it is nonetheless
crucial to recognize the rich variability of individual ex-
perience and the importance of acknowledging such fac-
tors as gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual
orientation, (dis)ability, and age in evaluating an
individual’s level of and need for connectedness. As a mul-
tidimensional construct, connectedness deserves further
intervention and research attention. Counselors and re-
searchers who know the importance of models of related-
ness will be better equipped to assist clients in seeing,
understanding, and maximizing opportunities to develop
better connectedness. Despite the variability of individual
experience, a balance of connectedness with others and
within the self is a sign of positive emotional health. Help-
ing clients discover and maintain connectedness will also
facilitate positive mental health. Because of this, inter-
weaving the construct of connectedness into counseling
practice, assessment, and research agendas may very well
increase an understanding of human personality and de-
velopment, enhance the science of counseling, and im-
prove the services that we, as counselors, provide to a richly
diverse clientele.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baik, J. (1997). Individuation, college adjustment and ego identity:
Construction of a measure of individuation and psychometric
analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison,
1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 5157.
Baker, H. S., & Baker, M. N. (1987). Heinz Kohut’s self psychology:
An overview. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1–9.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Belenky, M. F., McVicker Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule,
J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self,
voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bellingham, R., Cohen, B., Jones, T., & Spaniol, L. (1989). Con-
nectedness: Some skills for spiritual health. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 4, 18–24, 31.
Bengston, P. L., & Grotevant, H. D. (1999). The individuality and
connectedness Q-sort: A measure for assessing individuality and
connectedness in dyadic relationships. Personal Relationships,
6, 213–225.
Bergman, S. J. (1991). Men’s psychological development: A rela-
tional perspective. Work in Progress, No. 48. Wellesley, MA:
Stone Center Working Paper Series.
Bogyo, G. R. (1998). Social isolation and community connectedness
among adjudicated spousal assaulters in northern British Colum-
bia, Canada (Doctoral dissertation, George Fox University, 1998).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 2412.
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Brabeck, M., Walsh, M. E., Kenny, M., & Comilang, K. (1997).
Interprofessional collaboration for children and families: Oppor-
tunities for counseling psychology in the 21st century. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 25, 615–636.
Brown, K., & Gillespie, D. (1992). Recovering relationships: A
feminist analysis of recovery models. American Journal of Oc-
cupational Therapy, 46, 1001–1005.
Buchholz, E. S., & Catton, R. (1999). Adolescents’ perceptions of
aloneness and loneliness. Adolescence, 34, 203–213.
Caffarella, R. S., & Olson, S. K. (1993). Psychosocial development
of women: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education
Quarterly, 43, 125–151.
Campbell, E., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Familial
correlates of identity formation in late adolescence: A study of
the predictive utility of connectedness and individuality in fam-
ily relations. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 13, 509–525.
Cermak, T. L. (1986). Diagnostic criteria for codependency. Journal
of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, 15–20.
Collins, B. G. (1993). Reconstructing codependency using self-in-
relation theory: A feminist perspective. Social Work, 38, 470– 476.
Cordingley, L., & Webb, C. (1997). Independence and aging. Re-
views in Clinical Gerontology, 7, 137–146.
Cowan, G., Bommersbach, M., & Curtis, S. R. (1995).
Codependency, loss of self, and power. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 19, 221–236.
Curtis, R. (1992). A process view of consciousness and the “self ”:
Integrating a sense of connectedness with a sense of agency.
Psychological Inquiry, 3, 29–32.
Daneshpour, M. (1998). Muslim families and family therapy. Jour-
nal of Marriage & Family Counseling, 24, 355–368.
Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A guide to
multicultural practice. New York: Guilford.
Fassinger, R. E., & Schlossberg, N. K. (1992). Understanding the
adult years: Perspectives and implications. In S. D. Brown, & R.
W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 217–249). New York: Wiley.
Floyd, K. (1999). To match or not to match: Effects of behavioral
congruence on interpersonal connectedness. Journal of Social
Psychology, 139, 309–322.
Forte, J. A., Barrett, A. V., & Campbell, M. H. (1996). Patterns
of social connectedness and shared grief work: A symbolic
interactionist perspective. Social Work With Groups, 19,
29–51.
French, S. A., Story, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Downes, B., Resnick,
M., & Blum, R. (1997). Ethnic differences in psychosocial and
health behavior correlates of dieting, purging, and binge eating in
a population-based sample of adolescent females. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 22, 315–322.
Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence, and development: Conti-
nuities in the study of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable
to psychopathology, and the search for stress-resistant children.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 159–174.
Gerber, L. (1992). Intimate politics: Connectedness and the social-
political self. Psychotherapy, 29, 626–630.
199

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory
and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Granello, D. H., & Beamish, P. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing
codependency in women: A sense of connectedness, not pa-
thology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 344–358.
Hagerty, B. M., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K., & Bouwsema, M.
(1993). An emerging theory of human relatedness. Image—Jour-
nal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 291–296.
Harris, L., Blum, R. W., & Resnick, M. (1991). Teen females in Minne-
sota: A portrait of quiet disturbance. Women & Therapy, 11, 119–135.
Havens, L. L. (1984). The need for tests of normal functioning in
the psychiatric interview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141,
1208–1211.
Hogg, J. A., & Frank, M. L. (1992). Toward an interpersonal model
of codependence and contradependence. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 70, 371–375.
Jordan, J. V. (1997). Relational therapy in a nonrelational world. Work in
Progress, No. 79. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center Working Paper Series.
Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimen-
sions of human relationships. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Karcher, M. J. (2002). The cycle of violence and disconnection
among rural middle school students: Teacher disconnection as a
consequence of violence. The Journal of School Violence, 1(1),
35–51.
Karcher, M. J., Davis, C., & Powell, B. (2002, Fall-Winter). The
effects of developmental mentoring on connectedness and aca-
demic achievement. The School Community Journal, 12, 35–50.
Katz, J. (1985). The components of White culture: Values and
beliefs. In D. W. Sue, R. T. Carter, J. M. Casas, N. A. Fouad, A.
E. Ivey, M. Jensen, et al. (Eds.), Multicultural counseling com-
petencies: Individual and organizational development (p. 20).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kearney, M. H. (1998). Truthful self-nurturing: A grounded formal
theory of women’s addiction. Qualitative Health Research, 8,
495–512.
King, L., & Emmons, R. (1990). Conflict over emotional expres-
sion: Psychological and physical correlates. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 58, 864–877.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1990). The role of
poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In S. R.
Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274–
305). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lang-Takac, E., & Osterweil, Z. (1992). Separateness and connected-
ness: Differences between the genders. Sex Roles, 27, 277–289.
Lay, C., Fairlie, P., Jackson, S., Ricci, T., Eisenberg, J., Sato, T., et al.
(1998). Domain-specific allocentrism-idiocentrism: A measure
of family connectedness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
29, 434–460.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness,
dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological dis-
tress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 48, 310–318.
200 Journal of Counseling & Development
Townsend & McWhirter
Lee, R. M., Keough, K. A., & Sexton, J. D. (2002). Social con-
nectedness, social appraisal, and perceived stress in college
women and men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80,
355–361.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The
Social Connectedness and Social Assurance scales. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 42, 232–241.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1998). The relationship between social
connectedness and anxiety, self-esteem, and social identity. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 338–345.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (2000). Understanding social connect-
edness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling & De-
velopment, 78, 484–491.
Liddell, D. L. (1998). Comparison of semistructured interviews with
a quantitative measure of moral orientation. Journal of College
Student Development, 39, 169–178.
Maton, K. I., Hrabowski, F. A., III, & Greif, G. L. (1998). Preparing
the way: A qualitative study of high-achieving African American
males and the role of the family. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 26, 639–668.
McCreery, M. F. (1995). Shame and women’s self orientation:
Perceptions of dependency needs and connectedness in bu-
limia nervosa and in recovery (Doctoral dissertation, Michi-
gan State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 56, 5816.
McWhirter, E. H. (1994). Counseling for empowerment. Alexan-
dria, VA: American Counseling Association.
McWhirter, E. H. (2001, March). Social action at the individual level: In
pursuit of critical consciousness. In P. Gore & J. Swanson (Chairs),
Counseling psychologists as agents of social change. Paper pre-
sented at the 4th National Conference on Counseling Psychology,
Houston, TX.
McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, R.
J. (2004). At risk youth: A comprehensive response (3rd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection: How women
form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston: Beacon Press.
Moen, P. (1998). Women’s roles and health: A life-course approach. In
K. Orth-Gomer & M. Chesney (Eds.), Women, stress, and heart
disease (pp. 111–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., French, S. A., & Resnick, M. D.
(1997). Psychosocial correlates of health compromising be-
haviors among adolescents. Health Education Research, 12,
37–52.
Newcomb, M. D. (1990). Social support by many other names: Toward
a unified conceptualization. Journal of Social & Personal Relation-
ships, 7, 479–494.
Perlman, J. R. (1998). Depressive vulnerability in college-aged fe-
males: Relation to separation-individuation (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Temple University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 59, 1376.
Phares, V. (1993). Father absence, mother love, and other family
issues that need to be questioned: Comment on Silverstein (1993).
Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 293–300.
■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Review of Connectedness
Quintana, S. M., & Kerr, J. (1993). Relational needs in late adoles-
cent separation-individuation. Journal of Counseling & Devel-
opment, 71, 349–354.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K.
M., Jones, J., et al. (1998). Protecting adolescents from harm: Find-
ings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. In R. E.
Muuss & H. D. Porton (Eds.), Adolescent behavior and society: A
book of readings (5th ed., pp. 376–395). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Riggs, S. R., & Bright, M. A. (1997). Dissociative identity disorder: A
feminist approach to inpatient treatment using Jean Baker Miller’s
relational model. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 11, 218–224.
Rosen, W. B. (1999). Moments of truth: Notes from a lesbian thera-
pist. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 69, 293–308.
Rude, S. S., & Burham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness and neediness:
Factors of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive
Therapy & Research, 19, 323–340.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s
unipolar Big Five Markers. Journal of Personality Assessment,
63, 506–516.
Shafer, A. B. (1999a). Brief bipolar markers for the five factor
model of personality. Psychological Reports, 84, 1173–1179.
Shafer, A. B. (1999b). Relation of the big five and factor v subcom-
ponents to social intelligence. European Journal of Personality,
13, 225–240.
Sheilds, L. E. (1996). Women’s experiences of the meaning of em-
powerment. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 15–35.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and inter-
dependent self-construals. Personality & Psychology Bulletin,
20, 580–591.
Stiver, I. P., & Miller, J. B. (1995). A relational perspective on what
is healing in therapy. In B. S. Mark & J. A. Incorvaia (Eds.), The
handbook of infant, child, and adolescent psychotherapy: A guide
to diagnosis and treatment (pp. 357–373). Northvale, NJ:
Aronson.
Tamura, T., & Lau, A. (1999). Connectedness versus separateness:
Applicability of family therapy to Japanese families. In K. S. Ng
(Ed.), Counseling Asian families from a systems perspective. The
family psychology and counseling series (pp. 95–125). Alexan-
dria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2005 ■ Volume 83
Theriault, J. (1997). Assessing family differentiation: Four areas of
competence in mother-adolescent relationships. Journal of Psy-
chology, 131, 565–568.
Timpone, R. J. (1998). Ties that bind: Measurement, demographics,
and social connectedness. Political Behavior, 20, 53–77.
Tolman, A. E., Diekmann, K. A., & McCartney, K. (1989). Social
connectedness and mothering: Effects of maternal employment
and maternal absence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychol-
ogy, 56, 942–949.
Townsend, K. C. (2003). Late adolescent psychological adjustment:
Roles of individuation, sex, social connectedness, and ambiva-
lence over emotional expression (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Oregon, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 4115.
Troll, L. E. (1994). Family connectedness of old women: Attach-
ment in later life. In B. F. Turner & L. E. Troll (Eds.), Women
growing older: Psychological perspectives (pp. 169–201). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turner, C. W. (1997). Clinical applications of the Stone Center theo-
retical approach to minority women. In J. V. Jordan (Ed.), Women’s
growth in diversity: More writings from the Stone Center (pp.
74–90). New York: Guilford.
Van Wormer, K. (1989). Co-dependency: Implications for women
and therapy. Women & Therapy, 8, 51–63.
von der Lippe, A. L., & Amundsen, E. (1998). Individuation, ego
development and the quality of conflict negotiation in the fam-
ily of adolescent girls. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
39, 25–32.
Wakschlag, L. S., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996).
Not just “ghosts in the nursery”: Contemporaneous intergenerational
relationships and parenting in young African-American families.
Child Development, 67, 2131–2147.
Wastell, C. A. (1996). Feminist developmental theory: Implications for
counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 575–581.
Wetzel, J. W. (1994). Depression: Women-at-risk. Social Work in
Health Care, 19, 85–108.
Wong, C. A. (1997). The risks and protective factors of the content
of racial stigma on African-American and early adolescents’ de-
velopment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 5675.
201