Evidence that loneliness can be reduced by a whole-of-community intervention to increase neighbourhood identification

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113909Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Hosting a Neighbour Day event boosted and sustained neighbourhood identification at six months.

  • Increased neighbourhood identification led to reduced loneliness and increased social cohesion.

  • Interventions aimed at social identification may help individual and community wellbeing.

Abstract

Rationale

Social identification with the people in one's neighbourhood has a wide variety of benefits for individual and community health and wellbeing. In particular, previous research shows that residents' social identification with their neighbourhood is protective of mental health. However, researchers are only just beginning to design and evaluate interventions that directly target social identification on health grounds.

Objective

This longitudinal study evaluated a whole-of-community intervention at scale (Neighbour Day, 2019), in which Australian residents were encouraged to build social connections in their local community. Neighbour Day is a campaign that seeks to raise public awareness of the importance of connecting with neighbours and had a reach of approximately 300,000 people in 2019.

Methods

Participants were 437 hosts of neighbourhood events held across 276 diverse suburbs across Australia. Participants were surveyed at three-time points; before and after Neighbour Day, as well as at six-month follow up.

Results

Hosting a Neighbour Day event led to a significant increase in neighbourhood social identification, which was sustained six months later. This increase in social identification predicted increased social cohesion, reduced loneliness and improved wellbeing.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that neighbourhood identification is an effective target mechanism to curb loneliness and social fragmentation in the community. Implications are discussed with a focus on how social identity-building interventions can be effectively implemented in community settings to benefit public health.

Introduction

Loneliness is a recognized public health concern, due to its robust detrimental effect on health and longevity (Elovainio et al., 2017; Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017). Observational studies have identified a particularly close association between loneliness and mental health (Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Numerous factors are also known to contribute to loneliness — including having few confidants, little contact with family or friends, being in poor physical health, having limited financial means, belonging to a marginalized group, living with a disability, and genetic predisposition (Bartels et al., 2008; Cacioppo and Cacioppo, 2012; Golden et al., 2009; Klinenberg, 2016; MacDonald et al., 2018). Less clear is how to manage this problem at scale. On this point, there is growing recognition that intervention is likely to be more successful where it draws on resources within people's local communities and neighbourhoods.

Where a person lives matters to their health and wellbeing, and there is a large body of research that confirms the importance of a neighbourhood's social environment for mental health and wellbeing outcomes (e.g., Mair et al., 2008; Stafford et al., 2008; Ziersch, 2005). In particular, research suggests that a neighbourhood's social infrastructure (e.g., community and green spaces) may help to facilitate social interactions between residents which reduce loneliness (Finlay et al., 2019; van den Berg et al., 2016) and that perceptions of neighbourhood environment quality can also impact residents' sense of loneliness (Domenech-Abella et al., 2020; Kearns et al., 2015). For example, Kearns et al. (2015) found that residents reported fewer symptoms of loneliness if they perceived their neighbourhood environment to be of higher quality and if they frequented local amenities more. In contrast, cues to neighbourhood ‘disorder’ (e.g., the perceived presence of vandalism, graffiti, litter) commonly associated with disadvantaged areas, may engender feelings of mistrust and reduce residents' willingness to engage socially (Ross and Jang, 2000; Sampson et al., 1997). Together, these findings suggest that loneliness is not simply an individual-level problem, but is embedded within, and shaped by, the broader socio-structural context.

Hitherto, neighbourhood interventions have been developed to combat loneliness using community-based and/or place-based approaches. Community-based interventions foster social connections through community-development and have shown promising results. These tend to target older adults (e.g., Ehsan et al., 2020; Gardiner et al., 2018), or faith, interest or vulnerable groups (e.g., Cox et al., 2014; Crossley et al., 2001; van Olphen et al., 2003). Community- and/or place-based interventions may also involve making changes to a neighbourhood's built environment. This type of hybrid intervention approach engages with local residents around ways to improve public spaces to help facilitate social engagement (Pendola and Gen, 2008; Teig et al., 2009). Other initiatives have also sought to emphasize inclusion and community-empowerment through technology and social media (Smith et al., 2010). Research suggests that when social media is used to enhance existing or form new social connections, it can reduce loneliness and improve wellbeing (Kim, 2018; Nowland et al., 2018). Geographically-based social media platforms that seek to connect people who are located close by may also help to increase individual wellbeing and collective efficacy (Hampton, 2003; Masden et al., 2014).

Most other interventions that seek to reduce loneliness have been conducted in small group therapeutic settings with older adults. These have been found to have mixed effectiveness (e.g., Gardiner et al., 2018; Masi et al., 2011). In part, this is because the intervention mechanisms that serve to reduce loneliness are not well understood (Courtin and Knapp, 2017; O'Rourke et al., 2018). In this context, it is also notable that relatively few interventions have used large-scale public campaigns open to the whole-of-community at the grassroots level to engage neighbourhood communities. Nevertheless, research has generally highlighted the health benefits of local ties and relationships that flow from the practice of ‘neighbouring’ (Greenfield and Reyes, 2014; Kearns et al., 2015; Walton, 2018). This link between neighbouring practices and health has been examined by researchers in various fields (e.g., public health, social epidemiology, community psychology, environmental psychology). Together, this body of literature suggests that support and interactions between residents imbue a sense of place identity, community, belonging, social connectedness, and social cohesion in the neighbourhood.

So how might we integrate these observations theoretically? And, more specifically, how might we translate them into large-scale intervention? These are key questions that the present paper seeks to address. One theoretical approach that can draw together these interrelated concepts and explain their impact on health and wellbeing is derived from the large corpus of work informed by social identity theorizing (after Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This approach argues that the health benefits of efforts to build local place-based ties derive primarily from the capacity for these to contribute to the development of a sense of shared (place- or neighbourhood-based) social identity (a sense of ‘us-ness’; Haslam et al., 2018). In what follows, we draw on this approach to test at scale the utility of a neighbourhood intervention that seeks to deliver health benefits — in particular, wellbeing — by building a sense of shared neighbourhood social identity.

Neighbouring — a term used to characterize social connections and interactions between locals and residents — can take various forms. It might involve passive contact, civic participation, information sharing, reciprocity, or exchange of favours (Campbell and Lee, 1990; Kusenbach, 2006). Studies show that neighbouring is a vehicle to access tangible forms of instrumental and pragmatic support, which are important for reducing loneliness and thus for wellbeing, particularly for those living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Kearns et al., 2015; Miao et al., 2019). Nevertheless, research suggests that it is the less tangible, psychological aspects of neighbouring — those of connectedness, cohesion, and a sense of community — that are especially important in reducing loneliness and supporting health (Gordeev and Egan, 2015; Mahmoudi Farahani, 2016; Pretty et al., 2007; Prezza et al., 2001; Unger and Wandersman, 1985). At the same time, though, previous studies tend to be cross-sectional and do not allow for rigorous examination of cause and effect, or of the processes through which these aspects of neighbouring affect health and wellbeing (Talo et al., 2014). Equally problematic is the absence of theorizing that might explain the mechanisms through which neighbouring exerts its effects. As intimated above, the present research addresses these gaps by (a) drawing on research in the social identity tradition to suggest that neighbourhood identification might be a key driver of the benefits of neighbouring, and then (b) targeting this mechanism in a whole-of-community intervention to determine its power to improve outcomes. Specifically, the study uses a prospective design to evaluate a nationwide intervention that seeks to increase peoples’ sense of neighbourhood identity and thereby leading to benefits both for individuals (reduced loneliness, improved wellbeing) and the community (social cohesion).

Research shows that loneliness is prevalent in contemporary neighbourhoods, particularly disadvantaged ones (Kearns et al., 2015; Tigges et al., 1998). Recent figures show that people have less time to socialize with neighbours due to longer working hours and longer commute times (Chatterjee et al., 2019; Weston et al., 2019). Relatedly, whereas three decades ago women in households tended to engage in neighbouring activities, this has reduced in recent years due to lack of time particularly in Western countries (Campbell and Lee, 1990; Weston et al., 2019). Similarly, trends also indicate that rates of volunteering, religious participation, and average network size have all decreased, and that a growing number of people have few contacts with whom they can discuss personal matters (Cooperman et al., 2015; Grimm and Dietz, 2018; McPherson et al., 2005).

Apart from the changing work and lifestyle patterns that might be impacting neighbourhood connectedness, neighbourhoods have also witnessed increasing ethnic diversity (Zwiers et al., 2018). For instance, between 1980 and 2010, the number of US zipcodes that comprised a predominant ‘White’ majority has dropped from 90% to 33% (Lee et al., 2014). This pattern of greater ethnic diversity in neighbourhoods is now observed across Western cities (Forrest and Dunn, 2010; Kearns and Whitley, 2018). Researchers have proposed that diversity tends to diminish social cohesion (Putnam, 2007). Furthermore, research shows that disputes between neighbours have risen, particularly in gentrifying neighbourhoods which have mixed-income residents, and that authorities have increasingly needed to act as mediators of these disputes (Cheshire et al., 2018). These various findings point to ways that structural changes within neighbourhoods over time can threaten a sense of community. They also highlight the challenges that neighbours have increasingly experienced as they seek to resolve problems cooperatively (Cheshire et al., 2018). In particular, it is apparent that residents today often feel they have less in common with each other than they did in the past, and this undermines social cohesion.

Previous studies have shown that informal neighbourhood networks can have a positive impact on individual and community outcomes (Bolland and McCallum, 2002; Kearns et al., 2015; Zahnow and Tsai, 2019). For example, one study found that a sense of community predicted whether public housing residents would engage collectively with neighbours to tackle neighbourhood problems (Bolland and McCallum, 2002). The adverse effects that stigma and discrimination, based on where a person lives, have on health outcomes are well known (Gonzales et al., 2017; Kelaher et al., 2010). Studies have shown that positive contact, social connectedness, and shared place-based identity between locals can overcome the adverse effects of neighbourhood diversity and disadvantage (Fong et al., 2019a; 2019b; Stevenson et al., 2019; 2020). Moreover, research shows that a shared sense of belonging associated with a place-based identity is beneficial for both individual wellbeing and social cohesion (Kusenbach, 2008; Sturgis et al., 2010; Unger and Wandersman, 1985; Wilkinson, 2007). For instance, Sturgis and colleagues (2010) found that although ethnic diversity across British neighbourhoods was associated with lower social cohesion, this association was weaker among those who felt socially connected to their neighbours. Together, these findings suggest that a common place-based identity can support neighbourhood social cohesion.

However, relying on neighbourhood residents to organically connect has its challenges. People who live close, such as in urban areas, habitually ignore one another as ‘familiar strangers’; treating them as they would commuters on public transport (Milgram, 1972). Yet as one experimental study showed, simply assigning people on trains and buses to engage in conversation with a fellow commuter helped to create a social connection that benefited commuter wellbeing (Epley and Schroeder, 2014). Extending this to the neighbourhood context, one might ask whether a similar intervention might increase community connectedness in ways that support wellbeing? To answer this question, we must first consider the psychological mechanism through which residents, who might otherwise be strangers, come to feel socially connected. Drawing on social identity theorizing, we propose that it is through the development of a shared, place-based, neighbourhood identity, that neighbourhood life can improve social cohesion and reduce loneliness, with consequent benefits for wellbeing.

The social identity approach is an influential psychological framework that explains when and how people come to form psychological bonds with others as members of a common ingroup (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1981). Fundamental to this approach is the idea that people's self-definition — and the cognition, emotion, and behaviour that flows from this — is derived in part from their membership in social groups: their social identity. When a person identifies with a particular social group, they come to think of themselves, not in terms of “I” and “me”, but rather as “us” and “we”. In the residential neighbourhood context, these group- and place-based self-definitions can be reflected in a collective sense of “us commuters,” or as “we Brixton residents.” When these social identities are salient, they then structure a person's thinking, feelings, and actions in ways that align them with the collective perspective of the group (Turner et al., 1987).

Social identification is the basis for a range of psychological resources that are of interest in the present research: namely social cohesion, social support, trust, and helping behaviour (Cruwys et al., 2021; Levine et al., 2005). In particular, research informed by the social identity approach to health (after Haslam et al., 2018; Haslam et al., 2009; Jetten et al., 2012) predicts that neighbourhood identification is the “active ingredient” that underpins the benefits of neighbouring seen in previous research: reduced loneliness, improved social cohesion, and wellbeing. Evidence supporting these predictions is provided by a series of high-quality panel studies that have investigated the link between neighbourhood identification and mental health using multilevel modelling on population data. For example, one study found that neighbourhood identification in a large sample of UK residents (N = 4319) was associated with fewer depressive symptoms (McIntyre et al., 2018). Another study with a representative sample of Australian residents (N = 14,874) found that neighbourhood identification protected mental health (Fong et al., 2019a), while a follow-up longitudinal study (N = 8376) revealed that the degree to which residents had an increased sense of neighbourhood identification over time attenuated the negative impact of neighbourhood change on their mental health (Fong et al., 2019b). Finally, Heath et al. (2017) found that neighbourhood identification provided a basis for self-efficacy, collective-esteem, and access to social support, which in turn enhanced the wellbeing of residents in communities undergoing urban regeneration (Heath et al., 2017). Other studies also show that a sense of community identification (with one's residential neighbourhood) is negatively associated with feelings of loneliness (Prezza et al., 2001), and positively associated both with wellbeing and with higher perceived neighbourhood cohesion (Wilkinson, 2007; Yetim and Yetim, 2014).

Yet despite these promising findings, there is still no evidence for any interventions which target the building and strengthening of neighbourhood identification. Studies on neighbouring and social participation show benefits such as increased sense of community, but these have not measured neighbourhood identification (Berg-Warman and Brodsky, 2006; Greenfield et al., 2015; Farrell et al., 2004).

Beyond the neighbourhood context, evidence suggests that interventions to increase social identification tend to improve health and wellbeing in wider settings among sports teams, special interest groups, and aged care residents (Gleibs et al., 2011; Koni et al., 2019; Scarf et al., 2016). Social identity interventions have also proved useful in enhancing other outcomes among vulnerable and stigmatized groups, such as collective action, community participation, and collective efficacy (Ball et al., 2014; Rees and Bamberg, 2014; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Although health was not a study outcome, Rees and Bamberg (2014) showed that intention to take part in a neighbourhood-based initiative for climate action was predicted by neighbourhood identification. Recent meta-analytic data also showed that interventions with the capacity to build social identification have a moderate to strong effect on health and wellbeing (Steffens et al., 2019). Again, though, these social identity building interventions have not been applied at scale, and typically only involve members of vulnerable groups (e.g., people with depression, or experiencing homelessness; Steffens et al., 2019). A manualized social identity intervention (Groups 4 Health) has been shown to reduce loneliness and associated psychological distress but is not well suited to this task because it requires 7 hours of facilitated content in small groups (Haslam et al., 2016, 2019).

To sum up the current state of the evidence, prior research provides support for an association between neighbourhood identification, reduced loneliness, higher social cohesion, and wellbeing. However, the correlational nature of these data means that the nature of these relationships is unclear (e.g., Heath et al., 2017; Prezza et al., 2001). It is plausible, for example, that residents who experience higher wellbeing are more likely to engage with neighbours, to feel less lonely and thus, experience higher levels of social cohesion. While evidence from social identity interventions provides greater confidence in the direction of these relationships, none of these studies have been conducted in the context of neighbourhoods or examined the role of neighbourhood identity specifically. The present research seeks to fill this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of a community-based intervention designed to increase neighbourhood identification and thereby improve key individual and community outcomes.

This study is the first to evaluate a whole-of-community intervention designed to increase a person's social identification with their neighbourhood. The intervention targeted neighbourhood identification with a view to reduce loneliness and improve social cohesion and wellbeing. It involved a nationwide campaign called Neighbour Day, promoted by the community-based not-for-profit organisation Relationships Australia. As part of this campaign, residents across Australia are encouraged to connect with others in their neighbourhood on one particular day of the year (the last Sunday of March). It promotes the event via local newspapers, notices in community spaces, national and social media, and on Relationships Australia's website. In addition to raising awareness of Neighbour Day, Relationships Australia also helps individuals and community groups to host events by providing a variety of resources on their website (e.g., downloadable posters, invitations, cards). The website also offers practical information on how to plan and host a Neighbour Day event. In-house calculations conducted by Relationships Australia conservatively estimated that 290,608 people took part in Neighbour Day in 2019.

The specific activities held on Neighbour Day are varied and include: hosting social gathering of neighbours at home or in a communal space (e.g., a driveway, a park, a street party, a community centre), leaving cards in neighbours’ letterboxes on ways to connect, checking in on vulnerable and/or elderly neighbours, playing community-based games, community meetings, and engaging with the community via social media. These events can involve both small-scale activities (e.g., to promote neighbourly relationships) and large-scale gatherings of over 500 people by community organizations. These events seek to create an opportunity for residents to get together with neighbours, old and new, and to make introductions or reacquaint themselves with one another. Virtual methods of connecting also align well with the aims of the campaign, with research showing that social media (e.g., a Street Facebook page) is a good starting point for neighbourhood engagement (Johnson and Halegoua, 2015).

We used a prospective three time-point longitudinal survey design, with time-point 1 (T1) in the month leading up to Neighbour Day (March 31, 2019), time-point 2 (T2) in the month immediately following Neighbour Day, and time-point 3 (T3) approximately six months after T2. The primary goal was to evaluate whether taking part in Neighbour Day led to enhanced neighbourhood identification and whether this was sustained at a six-month follow-up. We further predicted that, to the extent that engaging in Neighbour Day led to increased neighbourhood identification, it would, in turn, reduce loneliness and increase perceptions of neighbourhood social cohesiveness. Finally, we tested whether increased neighbourhood identification, loneliness, and social cohesion (at T2) were associated with wellbeing at the six-month follow-up. These effects were further examined when controlling for individual attributes as covariates — notably, age, sex, neighbourhood socioeconomic status, and education that can affect loneliness and social cohesion (Dahlberg et al., 2015; Elovainio et al., 2017; Erdem et al., 2015; Feinstein et al., 2006).

Based on social identity theorizing and research (as set out above), our hypotheses were as follows:

H1: Following Neighbour Day, participants’ sense of neighbourhood identification will be higher at T2 (H1a) and T3 (H1b) than at T1.

H2: Neighbourhood identification at T2 will negatively predict change in loneliness at T2 (H2a) and positively predict change in social cohesion at T2 (H2b).

H3: Increased neighbourhood identification at T2 will positively predict participants’ wellbeing at T3.

H4: The relationship between neighbourhood identification at T2 and wellbeing at T3 will be mediated via loneliness (H4a) and social cohesion (H4b) at T2.

H5: The above effects will remain significant after controlling for baseline levels of the independent and dependent variables measured at T1 and after accounting for other known predictors of neighbourhood identification (i.e., age, sex, education, and neighbourhood socioeconomic status).

Section snippets

Participants and design

Participants were all invited to take part in the nationwide pre-event survey (T1) via e-newsletter, social media, and on the Relationships Australia Neighbour Day website, which visitors typically visit to access resources when planning to host, participate in events, or take action on Neighbour Day. Previous hosts of Neighbour Day events also received an invitation via an email mailing list. Respondents at T1 were asked to provide their email contact, which was used to invite participants to

Results

The sample comprised 437 participants at T1, of whom 207 were retained at T2 and 196 were retained at T3. Descriptive statistics and correlations are provided in Table 1. Most participants were female (82.8%), and the largest age group represented was the 30–39 year group (25.8%) but the sample was diverse in education level and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Almost half (49.2%) of the sample had not completed a university degree. The neighbourhood suburbs represented in the sample

Discussion

This study provides the first evidence of the benefits that flow from a whole-of-community campaign that sought to reduce loneliness by targeting neighbourhood social identification. More specifically, our results show that participation in Neighbour Day led to increased neighbourhood identification that was sustained six months later. This, in turn, had the effect of reducing loneliness and increasing social cohesion, after controlling for baseline levels of all three variables. We found that

Conclusions

This community-based study evaluated the capacity for a large-scale intervention to boost neighbourhood identification and thereby have a positive impact on residents’ wellbeing as well as the perceived social cohesion of the community as a whole. In line with hypotheses derived from social identity theorizing, we found not only that the intervention led to a sustained increase in neighbourhood identification, but also that this intervention, in turn, reduced loneliness, increased social

CredIT

Polly Fong, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Visualization. Tegan Cruwys, Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Sam L. Robinson, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. S. Alexander Haslam, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Catherine Haslam, Writing –

Declaration of competing interest

Three of the authors are employed by Relationships Australia, the community based not-for-profit organisation which promotes Neighbour Day. The data collection was funded by Relationships Australia.

Acknowledgments

The second author is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, #1173270. This research was funded by Relationships Australia.

References (136)

  • D.E. Keene et al.

    Race, class and the stigma of place: moving to “opportunity” in Eastern Iowa

    Health Place

    (2010)
  • M. Kelaher et al.

    Health & place living in ‘ birdsville ’: exploring the impact of neighbourhood stigma on health

    Health Place

    (2010)
  • G. Knies et al.

    Life satisfaction , ethnicity and neighbourhoods : is there an effect of neighbourhood ethnic composition on life satisfaction ?

    Soc. Sci. Res.

    (2016)
  • N. Leigh-Hunt et al.

    An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness

    Publ. Health

    (2017)
  • J. Miao et al.

    Neighborhood, social cohesion, and the elderly's depression in Shanghai

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2019)
  • K.E. Pickett et al.

    Income inequality and health: a causal review

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2015)
  • T. Astell-Burt et al.

    Racism , ethnic density and psychological well-being through adolescence: evidence from the Determinants of Adolescent Social well-being and Health longitudinal study

    Ethn. Health

    (2012)
  • D. Baker

    All the Lonely People: Loneliness in Australia

    (2012)
  • T.C. Ball et al.

    Positive social identity interventions

  • S. Barber et al.

    Double-jeopardy: the joint impact of neighborhood disadvantage and low social cohesion on cumulative risk of disease among African American men and women in the Jackson Heart Study

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2016)
  • M. Bartels et al.

    Genetic and environmental contributions to stability in loneliness throughout childhood

    Am. J. Med. Genet., Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics

    (2008)
  • A. Berg-Warman et al.

    The supportive community A new concept for enhancing the quality of life of elderly living in the community

    J. Aging Soc. Pol.

    (2006)
  • J.M. Bolland et al.

    Neighboring and community mobilization in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods

    Urban Aff. Rev.

    (2002)
  • P. Bressan

    Strangers look sicker (with implications in times of COVID-19)

    Bioessays

    (2020)
  • F. Bu et al.

    Loneliness during a strict lockdown: trajectories and predictors during the COVID-19 pandemic in 38,217 United Kingdom adults

    Soc. Sci. Med.

    (2020)
  • P. Butterworth et al.

    The validity of the SF-36 in an Australian national household survey: demonstrating the applicability of the household income and labour dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey to examination of health inequalities

    BMC Publ. Health

    (2004)
  • J.T. Cacioppo et al.

    Social relationships and health: the toxic effects of perceived social isolation

    Soc. Personal Psychol. Compass

    (2014)
  • K.E. Campbell et al.

    Gender differences in urban neighboring

    Socio. Q.

    (1990)
  • M.X.-L. Chang et al.

    Cultural identity and the expression of depression: a social identity perspective

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2017)
  • K. Chatterjee et al.

    Commuting and wellbeing: a critical overview of the literature with implications for policy and future research

    Transport Rev.

    (2019)
  • L. Cheshire et al.

    Neighbourhood change and neighbour complaints : how gentrification and densification influence the prevalence of problems between neighbours

    Urban Stud.

    (2018)
  • A. Cooperman et al.

    America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christian Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow

    (2015)
  • E. Courtin et al.

    Social isolation, loneliness and health in old age: a scoping review

    Health Soc. Care Community

    (2017)
  • A. Cox et al.

    Using participatory action research to prevent suicide in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities

    Australian J. Prim. Health

    (2014)
  • M.L. Crossley

    The “armistead” project: an exploration of gay men, sexual practices, community health promotion and issues of empowerment

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2001)
  • T. Cruwys et al.

    When trust goes wrong: a social identity model of risk taking

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (2021)
  • T. Cruwys et al.

    A social identity perspective on COVID-19: health risk is affected by shared group membership

    Br. J. Soc. Psychol.

    (2020)
  • L. Dahlberg et al.

    Predictors of loneliness among older women and men in Sweden: a national longitudinal study

    Aging Ment. Health

    (2015)
  • D.J.H. Deeg et al.

    Discrepancies between personal income and neighbourhood status: effects on physical and mental health

    Eur. J. Ageing

    (2005)
  • J. Domènech-Abella et al.

    Loneliness and depression among older European adults: the role of perceived neighborhood built environment

    Health Place

    (2020)
  • Y. Dong et al.

    Principled missing data methods for researchers

    SpringerPlus

    (2013)
  • B. Doosje et al.

    Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification

    J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.

    (1995)
  • U. Dutta

    Creating inclusive identity narratives through participatory action research

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2017)
  • A. Ehsan et al.

    Collaborative competence, social capital, and mental health: a cross-sectional analysis of a community-based intervention for older adults

    J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol.

    (2020)
  • N. Ellemers et al.

    Self and social identity

    Annu. Rev. Psychol.

    (2002)
  • N. Epley et al.

    Mistakenly seeking solitude

    J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.

    (2014)
  • Ö. Erdem et al.

    Structural neighbourhood conditions, social cohesion and psychological distress in The Netherlands

    Eur. J. Publ. Health

    (2015)
  • S.J. Farrell et al.

    Neighborhoods and neighbors: do they contribute to personal well-being?

    J. Community Psychol.

    (2004)
  • L. Feinstein et al.

    Measuring the effects of education on health and civic engagement

    Journal Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium

    (2006)
  • J. Finlay et al.

    Closure of ‘third places’? Exploring potential consequences for collective health and wellbeing

    Health Place

    (2019)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text