Global Patterns of Belonging: A Cross-National Study of 22 Countries

Global Patterns of Belonging: A Cross-National Study of 22 Countries | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Global Patterns of Belonging: A Cross-National Study of 22 Countries Victor Counted, Kelly-Ann Allen, Byron R. Johnson, Tyler J. VanderWeele This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Belonging is the human need to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant connections. However, as our societies grow more diverse and complex, understanding the factors associated with a sense of belonging has become increasingly challenging, particularly because these experiences can vary widely across different cultures and countries. Studying belonging across multiple countries is needed to capture this variability and understand how individuals connect with their communities. This study investigates patterns of belonging across 22 countries using data from 202,898 individuals, examining how demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, employment, religious service attendance, education, immigration status, religious affiliation, and race/ethnicity are associated with belonging. The meta-analysis reveals general trends: older individuals and those employed tend to report higher belonging compared to younger participants and the unemployed. Frequent religious service attendance is also linked to higher belonging, even in more secular countries. However, these patterns vary across countries. For instance, belonging decreases with age in India, but shows a mixed pattern in Nigeria, and in Japan after remaining stable across ages 18–49, increases substantially from age 50 onwards, with the highest levels observed among those 80 or older. Similarly, while men generally report lower belonging than women, some countries, like Sweden and Germany, show lower belonging among individuals of other gender. Unemployed individuals generally report lower belonging, though the gap is smaller in countries like Mexico, while migrants also tend to report lower belonging, with varying differences across countries such as Egypt and Indonesia, where native-born individuals reported lower belonging than migrants. These insights offer global benchmarks and suggest that public health strategies and community interventions might benefit from being tailored to address the specific needs of subpopulations with lower belonging levels, varying by demographic and country context. Health sciences/Health care Health sciences/Health care/Health policy Health sciences/Health care/Public health Health sciences/Health care/Quality of life Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Urban ecology Self-rated Belonging Sense of Belonging Community Belonging Cross-Cultural Flourishing Global Belonging Global Flourishing Study Introduction Amidst unprecedented global connectivity, mobility, and geopolitical tensions, understanding the dynamics of belonging across borders has never been more critical. Belonging is a fundamental human need associated with well-being, influencing everything from individual health outcomes to societal cohesion 1 , 2 . However, as societies become increasingly diverse and interconnected, the ways in which individuals experience belonging—rooted in their demographic and intersectional identities—pose complex questions for researchers and policymakers alike. Recent studies highlight the substantial role that social factors such as age, gender, marital status, and employment play in shaping an individual's sense of belonging 3 , 4 . Yet, most of this research has been conducted within relatively homogenous cultural contexts 5 , leaving a substantial gap in our understanding of how cultural diversity and demographic factors influence people's sense of belonging across different global contexts. This study aims to bridge this gap by providing an in-depth, cross-national analysis of individuals' subjective experiences of belonging, examining how these perceptions vary across 22 countries with diverse cultural backgrounds. We focus on key demographic factors—age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status—to explore their relationship with self-reported feelings of belonging. This approach is grounded in the hypothesis that demographic characteristics influence how individuals experience and interpret their sense of belonging 6 , 7 , with variations that reflect the diverse cultural and societal norms present in our international sample. For example, studies show that age is associated with belonging across the lifespan 3 , 8 , influencing social connections and community engagement. As a psychological need, an individual’s sense of belonging can manifest through familial ties in childhood, peer relationships in adolescence, professional and familial networks in adulthood, and, in older age, familial and community ties. This is supported by several studies, suggesting that older adults often report a strong sense of belonging tied to long-standing relationships and community ties 9 , though they also face challenges like social isolation 10 . On the other hand, young people navigating transitions such as starting university or new careers, may experience fluctuations in their sense of belonging, with these transitions offering both opportunities for establishing new connections as well as challenges in maintaining them 11 . Gender is also associated with belonging, with societal norms and expectations influencing how individuals engage with their social environments. Research indicates that women often report higher levels of social support and connectedness than men, which may contribute to a stronger sense of belonging 12 . However, this can also subject women to greater vulnerability when social networks are disrupted, potentially reflecting broader, unmet gender-specific needs. For instance, relationships focusing on reliable alliances rather than guidance enhance social connectedness for women 13 . In contrast, for men, the sense of connectedness is more associated with relationships that affirm their value without necessarily emphasizing reliable alliances or opportunities for nurturance 12 . Therefore gender-based differences may potentially play an important role in shaping individuals' overall sense of belonging. Marital status is linked to belonging, with married individuals often reporting higher levels of social support and emotional well-being compared to their single counterparts 14 . Marriage may provide a foundational sense of belonging, though the quality of the marital relationship may potentially play a substantial role. For example, a study found that couples who engaged in regular, meaningful conversations reported a stronger emotional connection and higher marital satisfaction 14 , 15 . This illustrates, to an extent, how the depth and quality of interactions within a marriage are fundamental to fostering a sense of belonging and well-being, surpassing the mere status of being married. Employment status is also associated with belonging, not only through workplace relationships but also through the social identity and status conferred by professional roles 16 , 17 . Unemployment can erode the sense of belonging by diminishing these social and identity-affirming benefits, especially when one has a disability 18 . This is well-documented in the social identity theory, which proposes that individuals derive a sense of identity and belonging from their group memberships 19 . Being employed or unemployed can potentially contribute to one's social identity through affiliation with a professional group that contributes to their social status and belonging. This is often the case within religious communities. For example, religious service attendance offers a clear example of how structured social activities can foster a sense of belonging 20 , 21 . Regular participation in religious services builds social networks and norms of reciprocity, enhancing social ties and community belonging, which, in turn, contribute to individual well-being 22 . In other words, this ‘social capital’ contributes to how the individual sees themselves flourishing within their immediate environments, reinforcing their sense of identity and enhancing overall life satisfaction through community integration and mutual support. Another example of such environments is education institutions. Education serves as a crucial avenue for socialization, impacting belonging both through the cultivation of social networks and the development of social capital 23 , 24 . Higher education institutions can expand individuals' social horizons, though it may also introduce challenges in maintaining a sense of belonging within increasingly diverse environments. Immigration status is another key factor that influences individuals’ social identity and group affiliations 25 . For example, non-natives or migrants often face unique challenges in establishing a sense of belonging in new cultural contexts. While the pursuit of integration can lead to new social connections (e.g., via acculturation), it can also entail experiences of marginalization and exclusion 26 . To explore the unique ways demographic factors may associate with sense of belonging across diverse global contexts, we first seek to delineate the distribution and descriptive statistics of key demographic factors within a broad international cohort, laying the groundwork for a global understanding of the populations under examination. Second, we explore how mean levels of belonging vary across different countries, reflecting how geographical and cultural contexts potentially contribute to this essential human need. Third, this study probes the variability of belonging across diverse demographic categories to shed light on the ways these factors vary. Correspondingly, our hypotheses posit that demographic features will reveal diverse patterns across the international sample, mean levels of belonging will meaningfully vary by country, and sense of belonging will exhibit considerable variations across different demographic categories—each nuanced by specific cultural and societal norms. Methods The description of the methods below has been adapted from VanderWeele et al. 34 . Further methodological detail is available elsewhere. 30 , 32 , 34 , 36 – 38 Data The Global Flourishing Study (GFS) is a study of 202,898 participants from 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries, with nationally representative sampling within each country, concerning the distribution of determinants of well-being. Wave 1 of the data included the following countries and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong (S.A.R. of China, with mainland China included from 2024 onwards), India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. The countries were selected to (a) maximize coverage of the world's population, (b) ensure geographic, cultural, and religious diversity, and (c) prioritize feasibility and existing data collection infrastructure. Data collection was carried out by Gallup Inc. Data for Wave 1 were collected principally during 2023, with some countries beginning data collection in 2022 and exact dates varying by country 39 . Four additional waves of panel data on the participants will be collected annually from 2024–2027. The precise sampling design to ensure nationally representative samples varied by country and further details are available in Ritter et al. 39 . Survey items included aspects of well-being such as happiness, health, meaning, character, relationships, and financial stability 43 , along with other demographic, social, economic, political, religious, personality, childhood, community, health, and well-being variables. The data are publicly available through the Center for Open Science (COS) ( https://www.cos.io/gfs ). During the translation process, Gallup adhered to TRAPD model (translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation) for cross-cultural survey research (ccsg.isr.umich.edu/chapters/translation/overview). Measures Demographics Variables : Continuous age was classified as 18–24, 25–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and 80 or older. Gender was assessed as male, female, or other. Marital status was assessed as single/never married, married, separated, divorced, widowed, and domestic partner. Employment was assessed as employed, self-employed, retired, student, homemaker, unemployed and searching, and other. Education was assessed as up to 8 years, 9–15 years, and 16 + years. Service attendance was assessed as more than once/week, once/week, one-to-three times/months, a few times/years, or never. Immigration status was dichotomously assessed with: “Were you born in this country, or not?” Religious tradition/affiliation with categories of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha’i, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Primal/Animist/Folk religion, Spiritism, African-Derived, some other religion, or no religion/atheist/agnostic; precise response categories varied by country. 33 Racial/ethnic identity was assessed in some, but not all, countries, with response categories varying by country. For additional details on the assessments see the COS GFS codebook( https://osf.io/y3t6m ) or Crabtree et al. 30 . Outcome Variable(s) : One item was used to measure the sense of belonging in one's country: “How would you describe your sense of belonging in your country?” The response was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very weak) to 10 (very strong). The response was analyzed as a continuous score, with a higher score indicating a stronger sense of belonging. Analytical Strategy Descriptive statistics for the full sample, weighted to be nationally representative within each country, were estimated for each of the demographic variables. Nationally representative means for belonging were estimated separately for each country and ordered from highest to lowest along with 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, and Gini coefficients. Variation in means for belonging across demographic categories were estimated, with all analyses initially conducted by country (online supplement). Primary results consisted of random effects meta-analyses of country-specific means of belonging in each specific demographic category 29 , 31 along with 95% confidence intervals, standard errors, upper and upper limits of a 95% prediction interval across countries, heterogeneity (τ), and I 2 for evidence concerning variation within a particular demographic variable across countries 35 , 45 . Forest plots of estimates are available in the online supplement. All meta-analyses were conducted in R 49 using the metafor package 47 . Within each country, a global test of variation of outcome across levels of each particular demographic variable was conducted and a pooled p-value 48 across countries reported concerning evidence for variation within any country. Bonferroni corrected p-value thresholds are provided based on the number of demographic variables. 27 , 46 Religious affiliation/tradition and race/ethnicity were used, when available, as control variables within country, but were not included in the meta-analyses since the availability of these response categories varied by country. As a supplementary analysis, population weighted meta-analyses were also conducted. All analyses were pre-registered with COS prior to data access ( https://osf.io/4bdp7 ); all code to reproduce analyses are openly available in an online repository. 37 Missing Data Missing data on all variables was imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations, and five imputed datasets were used. 28 , 40 , 41 , 42 To account for variation in the assessment of certain variables across countries (e.g., religious affiliation/tradition and race/ethnicity), the imputation process was conducted separately in each country. This within-country imputation approach ensured that the imputation models accurately reflected country-specific contexts and assessment methods. Sampling weights were included in the imputation models to account for specific-variable missingness that may have been related to probability of inclusion in the study. Accounting for Complex Sampling Design The GFS used different sampling schemes across countries based on availability of existing panels and recruitment needs. 39 All analyses accounted for the complex survey design components by including weights, primary sampling units, and strata. Additional methodological detail, including accounting for the complex sampling design is provided elsewhere. 36 , 38 Results Descriptive Analyses In the overall sample combined across countries, there are relatively similar proportions of people in the different age groups, except fewer participants were older than 80+ years (Table 1). The sample has a balanced representation of female (51%) and male (49%) participants, with a small proportion who identified as other gender (0.3%). Higher proportions of participants were married (53%), employed (57%), had 9-15 years of education (57%), and were native-born (94%), with a smaller proportion reporting they never attended religious services (37%). Sample sizes in each country ranged from 1,473 (Türkiye) to 38,312 (United States). Participant characteristics for each country are shown in Supplementary Table S1A to S22A. Ordered Mean Level of Belonging by Country Population mean scores of belonging are highest in Egypt (8.86 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI: 8.78, 8.94) and Indonesia (8.78, 95% CI: 8.72, 8.84), and lowest in Japan (6.03, 95% CI: 5.99, 6.07) and Turkey (6.86, 95% CI: 6.66, 7.07) (Table 2). Overall, the higher-ranking countries prominently include those with collectivist cultures (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico), whereas many high-income and individualistic countries are featured prominently in the lower-ranking countries (e.g., Japan, Germany, United Kingdom). Variation within country in responses to the belonging item is highest in Turkey (SD = 3.35) and lowest in Indonesia (SD = 1.81). Further, countries with a lower ranking on mean belonging also tend to have greater inequality in population distribution of belonging, as indicated by a larger Gini coefficient (Table 2). Sociodemographic Variation in Belonging Levels: Pooled Estimates Across Countries The random effect meta-analysis that pooled results from country-specific analyses shows mean belonging is patterned by all demographic factors in the total sample (Table 3, all global p-values are below the Bonferroni corrected significance level of p < .007). For instance, older vs. younger participants reported incrementally higher levels of belonging (e.g., mean belonging age 80+ = 8.21 [95% CI: 7.86, 8.56] vs. mean age 18-24 = 7.47 [95% CI: 7.08, 7.85]). Belonging among females (M = 7.77, 95% CI: 7.48, 8.06) is slightly higher than in males (M = 7.71, 95% CI: 7.42, 8.01), and substantially higher than among individuals of other gender identities (M = 6.40, 95% CI: 5.59, 7.21). Further, those who are married (M = 7.91, 95% CI: 7.63, 8.18) reported higher belonging than divorced (M = 7.61, 95% CI: 7.24, 7.97) or single/never married (M = 7.40, 95% CI: 7.03, 7.77) participants. While those who are retired reported the highest belonging rating (M = 8.09, 95% CI: 7.81, 8.36), the unemployed (M = 7.28, 95% CI: 6.85, 7.71) reported substantially lower belonging than those who are employed for an employer (M = 7.70, 95% CI: 7.39, 8.02) or self-employed (mean = 7.71, 95% CI: 7.41, 8.01); these reports are consistent with the population weighted meta-analysis (see Table S23). In the random effects meta-analysis, those with 16+ years of education reported lower belonging (M = 7.68, 95% CI: 7.37, 8.00), compared to those Up to 8 years of education (M = 7.77, 95% CI: 7.44, 8.11). However, belonging tended to increase with education in the population-weighted meta-analysis (Table S23), with the highest levels observed among those with 16+ years of education (M = 8.13, 95% CI: 7.99, 8.27), compared to those with up to 8 years (M = 7.95, 95% CI: 7.85, 8.05), in part reflecting the weight given to India in that supplementary analysis. In the random effects meta-analysis (Table 3), participants who attend religious services frequently (meaning those >1/week attendance = 8.13, 95% CI: 7.92, 8.34) also reported higher belonging than those never attending services (e.g., never attendance: M = 7.36, 95% CI: 7.01, 7.71). Lastly, the mean for belonging is slightly higher among the native-born (M = 7.76, 95% CI: 7.47, 8.05) compared to migrants (M = 7.38, 95% CI: 7.02, 7.74). The heterogeneity analysis across the demographic categories reveals substantial variability in belonging within each sociodemographic factor (Table 3). The τ values, which estimate the standard deviation of underlying effects across countries, were consistently high, particularly for variables such as employment status (e.g., τ = 1.00 for "Unemployed and looking for a job") and marital status (e.g., τ = 0.88 for "Single, never married"). The I² statistics suggest that the observed differences in belonging across demographic categories are not solely due to random variation but reflect genuine differences influenced by demographic factors that vary significantly across populations. For instance, age group and religious service attendance showed moderately robust heterogeneity (e.g., τ = 0.91 for the "18-24" group and τ = 0.83 for "Never" attending religious services), indicating considerable cross-national variation in the impact of these factors on belonging. Sociodemographic Variation in Belonging Levels: Country-Specific Estimates In country-specific analyses, it is worth noting that immigration status does show considerable associations (p < .05) in several countries, including Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Age-related patterns of belonging varied across regions and countries. In North America, as represented by the US, belonging consistently increased with age. In South America, exemplified by Brazil, belonging generally increased with age, though the pattern was not as linear as in the US. Most European countries also showed an increase in belonging with age. African and Asian countries displayed diverse patterns, with some showing increases, others decreases, and some exhibiting non-linear relationships between age and belonging. For example, belonging generally decreased with age in India, while it clearly increased with age in Japan. For example, individuals aged 18-24 reported a mean belonging score of 5.59 (95% CI: 5.45, 5.74), and belonging remained relatively stable across the 25-49 age groups in Japan. However, a noticeable increase occurred from age 50 onwards, with those aged 50-59 reporting a mean score of 5.82 (95% CI: 5.73, 5.90), which rose sharply in the 60-69 age group (M = 6.37, 95% CI: 6.30, 6.45) and continued to increase among those 70-79 (M = 7.02, 95% CI: 6.95, 7.10) and 80 or older (M = 7.49, 95% CI: 7.27, 7.72). This trend indicates that belonging strengthens considerably with age in Japan, particularly after 50. In Kenya, there was a considerable age effect, with belonging showing a non-linear pattern across age groups. In Tanzania, belonging tended to decrease with age, similar to India. These diverse patterns highlight the importance of considering cultural and societal contexts when examining age-related trends in belonging. In most countries, mean belonging is slightly higher in females vs. males; however, compared to both females and males, individuals identifying as other gender reported substantially lower belonging in many countries, even in countries with generally high social acceptance of gender minority populations (e.g., Sweden, UK, Australia, Germany); however, this estimate should be interpreted with caution as the imprecision with estimating these means is substantial because the within-country sample size tended to be a very small proportion of the sample (≤1% in all countries). The differences in belonging based on marital status varied across countries, revealing interesting patterns that don't always align with expected trends. For instance, in Sweden, a country with a prominent culture of singlehood, married individuals reported higher mean belonging (8.90) than both divorced (8.67) and never married (8.01) individuals. However, in India, a country with low national divorce rates (about 1%), never married individuals reported higher belonging (8.73) than married individuals (8.38), with divorced individuals reporting the lowest (7.31). Spain, known for higher divorce rates (about 50%), showed a different pattern, with widowed individuals reporting the highest belonging (8.06), followed by divorced individuals (7.80), married (7.63) and then never married (7.22) individuals. Moreover, participants with higher socioeconomic status also reported higher belonging levels in most countries. Specifically, mean belonging was higher among people who are employed vs. unemployed, even in countries with a good social welfare system (e.g., Sweden, Germany, UK). Similarly, higher belonging levels are correlated with having more years of education in most countries. However, we observed substantial heterogeneity in the correlation between unemployment and belonging across countries. Overall, belonging varied by unemployment levels across countries. For example, in Mexico, a middle-income country, the mean belonging among unemployed people (M = 8.44) was relatively high and close to the overall country mean (8.50). In Brazil, another middle-income country, the unemployed reported lower belonging (M = 7.43) compared to the country's overall mean (7.79). In contrast, some high-income countries showed considerably lower mean belonging among the unemployed, such as Japan (M = 4.79) and Australia (M = 6.63). These variations highlight the unique ways employment status and economic context contribute to the variability of belonging across different nations. Also, individuals who reported attending religious services frequently (e.g., >1/week) tended to have higher belonging than those who never attend services, and this association was evident even in some of the most secular countries/territories (e.g., Hong Kong, Germany). Belonging differs by immigration status in several countries, with patterns varying across nations. In most cases, native-born individuals reported higher levels of belonging than migrants. For instance, in Australia (M = 7.90), Sweden (M = 8.68), and the UK (M = 7/19), native-born individuals reported substantially higher belonging than migrants (7.46, 7.26, and 6.68, respectively). The difference was particularly pronounced in Sweden (roughly 19.57%). In Spain (M = 7.64), Egypt (M = 9.19), and Indonesia (M = 9.44), migrants tended to report higher belonging compared to native-borns (7.52%): 7.49, 8.86, and 8.78, respectively. In the US and Brazil, native-born individuals reported higher belonging, but the differences were not substantial. The magnitude of these differences varies across countries, highlighting the complex relationship between immigration status and sense of belonging. Additional findings for belonging by religious affiliation and race/ethnicity (response categories for these two demographic factors varied across countries) are also presented with the country-specific analyses and reported in the supplement (Supplementary Table S1B to S22B). The population weighted meta-analysis that pooled results from country-specific analyses considering population sizes in each country yielded largely similar results as the random effects meta-analysis, except that the mean belonging score in the oldest age groups were lower than that in the random effect meta-analyses (Supplementary Table S23). This is likely due to the substantial size of the India sample in the population weighted meta-analysis, where older people reported a low mean score of belonging. Discussion This study bridges the gap in understanding how demographic factors associate with individuals’ sense of belonging across different global contexts. We examined self-rated belonging in 22 countries ( N = 202,898), with results showing substantial variations in belonging levels by demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status. While certain demographic patterns—such as older age and frequent religious attendance—generally correlate with higher belonging, these associations do not hold uniformly across all countries. For example, belonging tends to decrease with age in India, shows a mixed pattern in Nigeria with some fluctuations across age groups, and increases steadily with age in Japan, illustrating the diverse age-related trends across countries. Gender differences in belonging also vary, with men typically reporting lower belonging than women, but in countries like Sweden and Germany, individuals with other gender identities report notably lower belonging. In some cases, specific subpopulations, such as unemployed individuals in Brazil and Mexico or immigrants in Sweden and the UK, show lower belonging levels compared to other groups within their countries. These findings reveal the complexity of belonging, as a fundamental human need and highlight the important role that demographic and cultural contexts play in shaping this experience. Importantly, they suggest that strategies aimed at improving belonging should be tailored to the specific demographic and national contexts, as the factors influencing belonging can vary substantially across different global settings. The first hypothesis posited that demographic characteristics would reveal diverse patterns across the international sample. This was supported by findings that all demographic factors varied across levels of belonging in some countries. For instance, older participants consistently reported higher levels of belonging compared to younger participants, except perhaps in places like India where older groups had lesser belonging. This finding aligns with previous research indicating stronger community ties and social connections among older adults; 8 – 9 however, the results in India (less belonging with age) might also signal other country-level factors. Gender differences also emerged, with females reporting slightly higher levels of belonging than males, reflecting the higher levels of social support and connectedness found among women. 13 The second hypothesis suggested that mean levels of belonging would vary considerably by country. This was confirmed, as belonging scores were highest in collectivist cultures such as Egypt and Indonesia, and lowest in more individualistic countries like Japan and Turkey. These results support previous research indicating that collectivist cultures often emphasize community and social cohesion, thereby enhancing individuals' sense of belonging. 1 The lower scores in individualistic cultures may reflect the prioritization of personal goals over community integration. 5 The third hypothesis posited substantial variations in belonging across different demographic categories, potentially influenced by specific cultural and societal norms. This hypothesis was also supported. For example, married individuals reported higher levels of belonging compared to their single or divorced counterparts. This is consistent with research highlighting the psychological benefits of marital support in sustaining happier marriages. 14 Employment status also indicated considerable variability on belonging, with employed individuals reporting higher levels of belonging than those unemployed, supporting the social identity theory which posits that professional roles contribute to social identity and belonging. 16 The trends observed in this study can be conceptually understood through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which identifies belonging (or relatedness) as a fundamental psychological need critical for well-being. 50 SDT suggests that individuals inherently seek connection and meaningful relationships, and the satisfaction of this need is pivotal for psychological growth and flourishing. Our findings across 22 countries reinforce this idea by demonstrating how individuals' sense of belonging is intricately connected to their demographic and cultural realities. For instance, countries like Egypt and Indonesia, which have strong collectivist cultures, show higher levels of belonging, supporting the notion that environments emphasizing community and social cohesion foster this essential human need. In these settings, individuals are likely to experience stronger social ties and communal support, which can enhance their sense of belonging. This suggests that in collectivist cultures, social structures may naturally align with the psychological need for belonging. Conversely, in more individualistic countries like Japan, the lower levels of belonging reported could be attributed to cultural norms that prioritize personal independence over communal ties. In more individualistic societies, where personal achievements and independence are prioritized, social group identities may also be less salient, leading to a weaker sense of belonging. This could explain why individuals in these countries report lower levels of belonging—there may be fewer opportunities or incentives to derive self-worth and connection from group memberships, thus affecting their overall sense of belonging. In such contexts, individuals might find it more challenging to satisfy their need for relatedness. This indicates that cultural values play a substantial role in how the need for belonging is met, and in more individualistic societies, the pathways to fulfilling this need may be less straightforward or may require different forms of social engagement. Furthermore, the variations in belonging across demographic factors may also reflect different levels of access to social support and community engagement. For instance, the trend of older individuals generally reporting higher belonging could be related to the increased likelihood of having established social networks and stable community roles over time, which may help fulfill their need for relatedness. However, the reversal of this trend in countries like India and Nigeria, where belonging decreases with age, might be influenced by social and economic factors that could lead to marginalization or reduced social engagement for older populations, potentially affecting their sense of belonging. Gender differences in belonging, particularly the lower scores reported by individuals with other gender identities in some countries, may reflect societal attitudes and levels of acceptance towards gender diversity. Individuals with other gender identities who report lower belonging in certain countries might experience identity conflict or discrimination due to their marginalized status within the dominant social groups. This intersectional approach emphasizes how multiple identities (e.g., gender, nationality, occupation) intersect to influence an individual’s sense of belonging, 6 with some identities being more valued or accepted in certain cultural contexts than others. In countries where gender nonconformity is less accepted, individuals with other gender identities may face exclusion or discrimination, which can negatively impact their sense of belonging. 51 The higher belonging levels observed among subpopulations such as unemployed individuals in Egypt or migrants in both Indonesia and Egypt suggest that belonging is not solely determined by employment status or native-born status. Instead, it might reflect the presence of strong community support systems or social integration efforts that help these groups feel connected and valued. While the data generally shows lower belonging scores for migrants across countries, the reasons for this are likely complex and multifaceted. Further research is needed to understand the specific challenges migrants face in developing a sense of belonging, as well as any potential coping mechanisms or support systems they may develop. The variation in belonging scores among migrant populations across different countries suggests that cultural, social, and policy factors may play important roles in shaping migrants' experiences of belonging. On the other hand, lower belonging among unemployed individuals in some high-income countries could be linked to being part of an out-group that is stigmatized or devalued in those societies, potentially leading to feelings of exclusion and lower self-esteem. Countries and subpopulations that emphasize social cohesion, community support, and acceptance may be more likely to fulfil individuals’ psychological need for belonging, while environments that exhibit exclusionary attitudes might hinder the fulfilment of this need, possibly resulting in lower levels of belonging. Implications for belonging The findings from this study have several theoretical implications. First, they highlight the importance of considering cultural context in understanding the sense of belonging. The variations in belonging scores across different countries suggest that cultural norms and values may play a role in shaping individuals' experiences of belonging. This observation draws attention to the need for a more culturally sensitive approach in research on belonging. 2 Second, the demographic variations in belonging observed in the study suggest that intersectional identities should be considered in research. For instance, the lower belonging scores among individuals identifying as other genders, even in countries with high social acceptance of gender minorities, indicate a potential connection between gender identity and cultural context. This finding is consistent with Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality, 6 which explores how social categorizations such as race, gender, and class intersect to shape experiences of marginalization. These findings also have practical implications for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance social cohesion and well-being. Interventions designed to foster a sense of belonging should be tailored to the specific geographic, cultural, and demographic contexts of the target populations. In individualistic cultures, initiatives that prioritize creating opportunities for social connections and networks may be beneficial. In collectivist cultures, enhancing belonging might involve reinforcing existing community structures and communal bonds. Educational institutions, workplaces, and community organizations can support belonging by fostering inclusive environments that recognize and celebrate diversity. Addressing the challenges and strengths faced by underrepresented groups, such as gender minorities and migrants, is important for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to feel a sense of belonging. Limitations and Future Research While offering valuable insights into the dynamics of belonging across various demographic and national categories and cultural contexts, this study is still subject to several limitations that merit consideration. One primary limitation is the single item measure of belonging. While single-item measures can provide a straightforward and efficient way to capture a concept globally, they lack the depth and nuance necessary to fully capture the complexity of belonging. Another limitation stems from our cross-sectional design, which captures data at a single point in time, though effort is currently ongoing to collect a second wave of the GFS data. Perhaps future efforts would make it possible to infer causality or track changes in sense of belonging over time. As belonging is a dynamic construct that can fluctuate with life events, longitudinal studies (as currently exemplified with the GFS study) are needed to understand how sense of belonging evolves across different life stages or in response to societal changes. These limitations highlight a need for caution in interpreting the findings but offer a strong direction for future research. When interpreting cross-national differences, it is important to do so with caution, as these differences may be influenced by factors like translation challenges, varying assessment methods, cultural norms, how respondents perceive items and response scales, and the timing of data collection, which may vary seasonally across countries. Although the study aims to be cross-national, the conceptualization of belonging might vary considerably across different cultures and countries, potentially influencing how participants interpret and respond to survey questions. While the study examines belonging across several demographic categories, it may not fully account for the intersectionality of these identities. The intersecting relations of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability, among others, on an individual’s sense of belonging are not deeply explored. An intersectional approach could provide a broader understanding of how overlapping identities are tethered to the variability of belonging outcomes, especially in culturally diverse contexts. The generalizability of the study's findings to countries or cultures not included in the sample may be limited since the unique contexts (e.g., cultural, political, social) of the included countries may have played a vital role in shaping the global patterns of belonging, and these findings may not apply to nations with potentially different contexts. These limitations suggest the need for future research to adopt longitudinal designs, develop culturally sensitive measures of belonging, and incorporate an intersectional perspective in the study of global belonging trends going forward. Conclusion As societies continue to evolve, marked by increasing diversity and complexity, understanding the patterns of belonging—with its implications for individual well-being and social cohesion—remains ever pressing. This study contributes to a growing body of research exploring these trends, providing a foundation for future inquiries and interventions that may potentially foster a sense of belonging. Our findings suggest that belonging is not just a psychological need but also a social construct that is tethered to group identities and the broader social context. The bigger message here is that fostering a strong sense of belonging involves creating inclusive social environments where different identities are recognized, valued, and integrated into the collective whole. While our cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported data present certain limitations, the findings offer valuable insights into the complex nature of belonging. They highlight the importance of considering a wide range of demographic variables when studying belonging and emphasize the need for policies and practices that promote belonging in increasingly diverse societies. Future research should build on these insights by employing longitudinal designs and mixed methods to better capture the dynamic and multifaceted factors contributing to a sense of belonging. As the world becomes more interconnected yet culturally diverse, the pursuit of belonging remains a critical human drive and challenge, with considerable implications for individual well-being and the fabric of global flourishing. Declarations Acknowledgements The Global Flourishing Study was generously funded by the John Templeton Foundation (#61665), Templeton Religion Trust (#1308), Templeton World Charity Foundation (#0605), Well-Being for Planet Earth, Fetzer Institute (#4354), Well Being Trust, Paul L. Foster Family Foundation, and the David & Carol Myers Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Information related to the Global Flourishing Study as well as the official citation can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8. The funders have/had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the coding team (Noah Padgett, Ying Chen, Sung Joon Jang, Matt Bradshaw, and Koichiro Shiba) for their help with analysis codes. Author contributions Victor Counted : Conceptualization Methodology Formal analysis Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Supervision Visualization Byron R. Johnson : Data curation Writing – review & editing Funding acquisition Supervision Project administration Kelly-Ann Allen : Writing – review & editing Tyler VanderWeele : Methodology Writing – review & editing Supervision Project administration Funding acquisition Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data Availability Statement The methodological framework and objectives of our study have been outlined in a pre-registration document available on the Open Science Framework (OSF). This document, which can be accessed https://osf.io/x6qgf , details our investigative approach into the demographic variation in sense of belonging across 22 countries. Additionally, The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the pre-registration of the Global Flourishing Study on OSF (see here: https://osf.io/3jtz8). This procedural step is important for maintaining the data's integrity and confidentiality while ensuring our research upholds the highest standards of scientific inquiry and ethical considerations. References Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development , 57–89. (2017). Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T. & Haslam, C. Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Appl. Psychology-an Int. Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Int. 58 (1), 1–23 (2009). Ahn, M. Y. & Davis, H. H. Students’ sense of belonging and their socio-economic status in higher education: a quantitative approach. Teach. High. Educ. 28 (1), 136–149 (2023). Crawford, J. et al. Sense of belonging in higher education students: an Australian longitudinal study from 2013 to 2019. Stud. High. Educ. 49 (3), 395–409 (2024). Jetten, J., Haslam, C. & Haslam, S. A. The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (Psychology, 2012). Crenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories (23–51). Routledge. (2013). Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: Read. 56 (65), 9780203505984–9780203505916 (1979). Morgan, T. et al. Social connectedness: what matters to older people? Ageing Soc. 41 (5), 1126–1144 (2021). Seeman, T. E. Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older adults. Am. J. health promotion . 14 (6), 362–370 (2000). Golden, J. et al. Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. Int. J. Geriatric Psychiatry: J. psychiatry late life allied Sci. 24 (7), 694–700 (2009). Settersten, R. & Ray, B. E. Not quite adults: Why 20-somethings are choosing a slower path to adulthood, and why it's good for everyone (Bantam, 2010). Taylor, Y. Fitting into place? Class and gender geographies and temporalities (Routledge, 2016). Lee, R. M. & Robbins, S. B. Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. J. Couns. Dev. 78 (4), 484–491 (2000). Waite, L. & Gallagher, M. The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier and better off financially (Crown, 2001). Lawrence, E. M., Rogers, R. G., Zajacova, A. & Wadsworth, T. Marital happiness, marital status, health, and longevity. J. Happiness Stud. 20 (5), 1539–1561 (2019). Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 (1), 20–39 (1989). Sheng, X. & Zhou, H. Decent work and proactive behaviors: a moderated chain mediation model. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 61 (2), 277–299 (2023). Fuentes, K., Hsu, S., Patel, S. & Lindsay, S. More than just double discrimination: A scoping review of the experiences and impact of ableism and racism in employment. Disabil. Rehabil. 46 (4), 650–671 (2024). Haslam, S. A., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T. & Dingle, G. A. Social identity. The Wiley encyclopedia health psychology , 679–688 (2020). Dunbar, R. I. Religiosity and religious attendance as factors in wellbeing and social engagement. Relig. Brain Behav. 11 (1), 17–26 (2021). Michaels, J. L., Hao, F., Ritenour, N. & Aguilar, N. Belongingness is a mediating factor between religious service attendance and reduced psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Relig. Health . 61 (2), 1750–1764 (2022). Putnam, R. Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Can. J. policy Res. 2 (1), 41–51 (2001). Schneider, B. Social systems and norms: A Coleman approach. In Handbook of the sociology of education (365–385). Boston, MA: Springer US. (2000). Rogošić, S. & Baranović, B. Social capital and educational achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu. Cent. Educational Policy Stud. J. 6 (2), 81–100 (2016). Berry, J. W. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Appl. Psychol. 46 (1), 5–34 (1997). Renzaho, A. M., Mansouri, F., Counted, V. & Polonsky, M. The influence region of origin, area of residence prior to migration, religion, and perceived discrimination on acculturation strategies among sub-Saharan African migrants in Australia. J. Int. Migration Integr. 23 (1), 141–160 (2022). Abdi, H. Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics , 3(01), 2007. (2007). Acock, A. C. Working With Missing Values. J. Marriage Family . 67 (4), 1012–1028 (2005). Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Synthesis Methods . 1 (2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12 (2010). Crabtree, S., English, C., Johnson, B. R., Ritter, Z. & VanderWeele, T. J. Global Flourishing Study: Questionnaire Development Report (Gallup Inc., 2021). Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge. Int. J. Selection Assess. 8 (4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156 (2000). Johnson, B. R. et al. The Global Flourishing Study. (2024). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8 Johnson, K. A., Moon, J. W., VanderWeele, T. J., Schnitker, S. & Johnson, B. R. Assessing religion and spirituality in a cross-cultural sample: Development of religion and spirituality items for the Global Flourishing Study. Relig. Brain Behav. 0 (0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2023.2217245 (2023). Lomas, T. et al. The development of the Global Flourishing Study survey: charting the evolution of a new 105 Item inventory of human flourishing. Center for Open Science. (2024). https://osf.io/36hry?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d Mathur, M. B. & VanderWeele, T. J. Robust metrics and sensitivity analyses for meta-analyses of heterogeneous effects. Epidemiology . 31 (3), 356–358 (2020). Padgett, R. N. et al. Methodology for the Childhood Predictor Analyses for Wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Center for Open Science. (2024a). https://osf.io/abn7j?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d Padgett, R. N. et al. Global Flourishing Study Statistical Analyses Code . Center for Open Science. (2024b). https://osf.io/vbype/?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d Padgett, R. N. et al. Survey Sampling Design in Wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Center for Open Science. (2024c). https://osf.io/q39yc?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d Ritter, Z. et al. Global Flourishing Study Methodology (Gallup Inc, 2024). Rubin, D. B. Multiple imputation after 18 + years. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91 (434), 473–489 (1996). Sterne, J. A. C. et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. BMJ , 338 , b2393. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393 van Burren, S. Flexible imputation of missing data (second edition). [Retrieved from (2023). https://stefvanburren.name/fimd/] *VanderWeele, T. J. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(31), 8148–8156. (2017). *VanderWeele, T. J. et al. (2024). The Global Flourishing Study and initial results. VanderWeele, T. J. & Ding, P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann. Intern. Med. 167 (4), 268. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607 (2017). VanderWeele, T. J. & Mathur, M. B. Some desirable properties of the Bonferroni correction: Is the Bonferroni correction really so bad? Am. J. Epidemiol. 188 (3), 617–618 (2019). Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36 (3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 (2010). Wilson, D. J. The harmonic mean p-value for combining dependent tests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 (4), 1195–1200 (2019). R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2024). https://www.R-project.org/ Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11 (4), 227–268 (2000). Herţa, L. M. & Corpădean, A. The social construction of identity and belonging: perceptions of EU in the Western Balkans. In Perceptions of the European Union’s identity in international relations (42–88). Routledge. (2018). Tables Tables 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables1to3.docx TableS23.docx SupplementaryTablesfor22Countries.docx ForestPlotsbelongingdemographics.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5292945","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":371116817,"identity":"dfe07b41-8838-46c1-a9f5-3c2ecf39bc91","order_by":0,"name":"Victor Counted","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Regent University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victor","middleName":"","lastName":"Counted","suffix":""},{"id":371116818,"identity":"d9c5ccc3-dac2-4b24-98f9-6667709c2e65","order_by":1,"name":"Kelly-Ann Allen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Monash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kelly-Ann","middleName":"","lastName":"Allen","suffix":""},{"id":371116819,"identity":"a5567517-47a3-4e73-ae4b-19e7633a657c","order_by":2,"name":"Byron R. Johnson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Baylor University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Byron","middleName":"R.","lastName":"Johnson","suffix":""},{"id":371116820,"identity":"8b127cdb-84c1-40de-b79b-58e2c13d74fa","order_by":3,"name":"Tyler J. VanderWeele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harvard University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tyler","middleName":"J.","lastName":"VanderWeele","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-19 06:53:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":70730585,"identity":"18ce892d-290a-4f46-b494-332ff05c777a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-06 05:33:02","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":499925,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5292945/v1/84c7f822-271a-4991-b029-478a0927a87e.pdf"},{"id":68474753,"identity":"83b0bae6-ffcd-4d52-81e8-57462245a6ac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-07 15:43:06","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":32111,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables1to3.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5292945/v1/16ef071f506aa6fe5acb254e.docx"},{"id":68474752,"identity":"cf5c343f-d44e-46f0-af3a-d5f0fb1f386a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-07 15:43:06","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19765,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS23.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5292945/v1/a8622da3101ca19f518f45c3.docx"},{"id":68474754,"identity":"13a91933-e521-4193-9da0-a65731171294","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-07 15:43:06","extension":"docx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":195460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTablesfor22Countries.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5292945/v1/0f4742be9ddf0b6a53d0cf06.docx"},{"id":68474756,"identity":"b4b4c9d4-74f2-466d-92f9-62e62d7127f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-07 15:43:06","extension":"docx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":8479614,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ForestPlotsbelongingdemographics.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5292945/v1/f5b98c51be372e954ae960de.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Global Patterns of Belonging: A Cross-National Study of 22 Countries","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAmidst unprecedented global connectivity, mobility, and geopolitical tensions, understanding the dynamics of belonging across borders has never been more critical. Belonging is a fundamental human need associated with well-being, influencing everything from individual health outcomes to societal cohesion \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, as societies become increasingly diverse and interconnected, the ways in which individuals experience belonging\u0026mdash;rooted in their demographic and intersectional identities\u0026mdash;pose complex questions for researchers and policymakers alike. Recent studies highlight the substantial role that social factors such as age, gender, marital status, and employment play in shaping an individual's sense of belonging \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Yet, most of this research has been conducted within relatively homogenous cultural contexts\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, leaving a substantial gap in our understanding of how cultural diversity and demographic factors influence people's sense of belonging across different global contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to bridge this gap by providing an in-depth, cross-national analysis of individuals' subjective experiences of belonging, examining how these perceptions vary across 22 countries with diverse cultural backgrounds. We focus on key demographic factors\u0026mdash;age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status\u0026mdash;to explore their relationship with self-reported feelings of belonging. This approach is grounded in the hypothesis that demographic characteristics influence how individuals experience and interpret their sense of belonging \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, with variations that reflect the diverse cultural and societal norms present in our international sample. For example, studies show that age is associated with belonging across the lifespan \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, influencing social connections and community engagement. As a psychological need, an individual\u0026rsquo;s sense of belonging can manifest through familial ties in childhood, peer relationships in adolescence, professional and familial networks in adulthood, and, in older age, familial and community ties. This is supported by several studies, suggesting that older adults often report a strong sense of belonging tied to long-standing relationships and community ties\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, though they also face challenges like social isolation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. On the other hand, young people navigating transitions such as starting university or new careers, may experience fluctuations in their sense of belonging, with these transitions offering both opportunities for establishing new connections as well as challenges in maintaining them\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Gender is also associated with belonging, with societal norms and expectations influencing how individuals engage with their social environments. Research indicates that women often report higher levels of social support and connectedness than men, which may contribute to a stronger sense of belonging\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, this can also subject women to greater vulnerability when social networks are disrupted, potentially reflecting broader, unmet gender-specific needs. For instance, relationships focusing on reliable alliances rather than guidance enhance social connectedness for women\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, for men, the sense of connectedness is more associated with relationships that affirm their value without necessarily emphasizing reliable alliances or opportunities for nurturance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore gender-based differences may potentially play an important role in shaping individuals' overall sense of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarital status is linked to belonging, with married individuals often reporting higher levels of social support and emotional well-being compared to their single counterparts\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Marriage may provide a foundational sense of belonging, though the quality of the marital relationship may potentially play a substantial role. For example, a study found that couples who engaged in regular, meaningful conversations reported a stronger emotional connection and higher marital satisfaction \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This illustrates, to an extent, how the depth and quality of interactions within a marriage are fundamental to fostering a sense of belonging and well-being, surpassing the mere status of being married. Employment status is also associated with belonging, not only through workplace relationships but also through the social identity and status conferred by professional roles \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Unemployment can erode the sense of belonging by diminishing these social and identity-affirming benefits, especially when one has a disability \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This is well-documented in the social identity theory, which proposes that individuals derive a sense of identity and belonging from their group memberships\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Being employed or unemployed can potentially contribute to one's social identity through affiliation with a professional group that contributes to their social status and belonging. This is often the case within religious communities. For example, religious service attendance offers a clear example of how structured social activities can foster a sense of belonging \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Regular participation in religious services builds social networks and norms of reciprocity, enhancing social ties and community belonging, which, in turn, contribute to individual well-being\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In other words, this \u0026lsquo;social capital\u0026rsquo; contributes to how the individual sees themselves flourishing within their immediate environments, reinforcing their sense of identity and enhancing overall life satisfaction through community integration and mutual support. Another example of such environments is education institutions. Education serves as a crucial avenue for socialization, impacting belonging both through the cultivation of social networks and the development of social capital \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Higher education institutions can expand individuals' social horizons, though it may also introduce challenges in maintaining a sense of belonging within increasingly diverse environments. Immigration status is another key factor that influences individuals\u0026rsquo; social identity and group affiliations \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For example, non-natives or migrants often face unique challenges in establishing a sense of belonging in new cultural contexts. While the pursuit of integration can lead to new social connections (e.g., via acculturation), it can also entail experiences of marginalization and exclusion\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore the unique ways demographic factors may associate with sense of belonging across diverse global contexts, we first seek to delineate the distribution and descriptive statistics of key demographic factors within a broad international cohort, laying the groundwork for a global understanding of the populations under examination. Second, we explore how mean levels of belonging vary across different countries, reflecting how geographical and cultural contexts potentially contribute to this essential human need. Third, this study probes the variability of belonging across diverse demographic categories to shed light on the ways these factors vary. Correspondingly, our hypotheses posit that demographic features will reveal diverse patterns across the international sample, mean levels of belonging will meaningfully vary by country, and sense of belonging will exhibit considerable variations across different demographic categories\u0026mdash;each nuanced by specific cultural and societal norms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe description of the methods below has been adapted from VanderWeele et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Further methodological detail is available elsewhere.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR37\" citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Global Flourishing Study (GFS) is a study of 202,898 participants from 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries, with nationally representative sampling within each country, concerning the distribution of determinants of well-being. Wave 1 of the data included the following countries and territories: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong (S.A.R. of China, with mainland China included from 2024 onwards), India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States. The countries were selected to (a) maximize coverage of the world's population, (b) ensure geographic, cultural, and religious diversity, and (c) prioritize feasibility and existing data collection infrastructure. Data collection was carried out by Gallup Inc. Data for Wave 1 were collected principally during 2023, with some countries beginning data collection in 2022 and exact dates varying by country\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Four additional waves of panel data on the participants will be collected annually from 2024\u0026ndash;2027. The precise sampling design to ensure nationally representative samples varied by country and further details are available in Ritter et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Survey items included aspects of well-being such as happiness, health, meaning, character, relationships, and financial stability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, along with other demographic, social, economic, political, religious, personality, childhood, community, health, and well-being variables. The data are publicly available through the Center for Open Science (COS) (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cos.io/gfs\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.cos.io/gfs\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). During the translation process, Gallup adhered to TRAPD model (translation, review, adjudication, pretesting, and documentation) for cross-cultural survey research (ccsg.isr.umich.edu/chapters/translation/overview).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDemographics Variables\u003c/span\u003e: Continuous age was classified as 18\u0026ndash;24, 25\u0026ndash;29, 30\u0026ndash;39, 40\u0026ndash;49, 50\u0026ndash;59, 60\u0026ndash;69, 70\u0026ndash;79, and 80 or older. Gender was assessed as male, female, or other. Marital status was assessed as single/never married, married, separated, divorced, widowed, and domestic partner. Employment was assessed as employed, self-employed, retired, student, homemaker, unemployed and searching, and other. Education was assessed as up to 8 years, 9\u0026ndash;15 years, and 16\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;years. Service attendance was assessed as more than once/week, once/week, one-to-three times/months, a few times/years, or never. Immigration status was dichotomously assessed with: \u0026ldquo;Were you born in this country, or not?\u0026rdquo; Religious tradition/affiliation with categories of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Baha\u0026rsquo;i, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, Primal/Animist/Folk religion, Spiritism, African-Derived, some other religion, or no religion/atheist/agnostic; precise response categories varied by country.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Racial/ethnic identity was assessed in some, but not all, countries, with response categories varying by country. For additional details on the assessments see the COS GFS codebook(\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/y3t6m\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/y3t6m\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e or Crabtree et al.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eOutcome Variable(s)\u003c/span\u003e: One item was used to measure the sense of belonging in one's country: \u0026ldquo;How would you describe your sense of belonging in your country?\u0026rdquo; The response was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very weak) to 10 (very strong). The response was analyzed as a continuous score, with a higher score indicating a stronger sense of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalytical Strategy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics for the full sample, weighted to be nationally representative within each country, were estimated for each of the demographic variables. Nationally representative means for belonging were estimated separately for each country and ordered from highest to lowest along with 95% confidence intervals, standard deviations, and Gini coefficients. Variation in means for belonging across demographic categories were estimated, with all analyses initially conducted by country (online supplement). Primary results consisted of random effects meta-analyses of country-specific means of belonging in each specific demographic category \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e along with 95% confidence intervals, standard errors, upper and upper limits of a 95% prediction interval across countries, heterogeneity (τ), and I\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e for evidence concerning variation within a particular demographic variable across countries\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Forest plots of estimates are available in the online supplement. All meta-analyses were conducted in R\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e using the metafor package\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Within each country, a global test of variation of outcome across levels of each particular demographic variable was conducted and a pooled p-value\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e across countries reported concerning evidence for variation within any country. Bonferroni corrected p-value thresholds are provided based on the number of demographic variables.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Religious affiliation/tradition and race/ethnicity were used, when available, as control variables within country, but were not included in the meta-analyses since the availability of these response categories varied by country. As a supplementary analysis, population weighted meta-analyses were also conducted. All analyses were pre-registered with COS prior to data access (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/4bdp7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/4bdp7\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e);\u003c/span\u003e all code to reproduce analyses are openly available in an online repository.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMissing Data\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMissing data on all variables was imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations, and five imputed datasets were used.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e To account for variation in the assessment of certain variables across countries (e.g., religious affiliation/tradition and race/ethnicity), the imputation process was conducted separately in each country. This within-country imputation approach ensured that the imputation models accurately reflected country-specific contexts and assessment methods. Sampling weights were included in the imputation models to account for specific-variable missingness that may have been related to probability of inclusion in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAccounting for Complex Sampling Design\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe GFS used different sampling schemes across countries based on availability of existing panels and recruitment needs.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e All analyses accounted for the complex survey design components by including weights, primary sampling units, and strata. Additional methodological detail, including accounting for the complex sampling design is provided elsewhere.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescriptive Analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the overall sample combined across countries, there are relatively similar proportions of people in the different age groups, except fewer participants were older than 80+ years (Table 1). The sample has a balanced representation of female (51%) and male (49%) participants, with a small proportion who identified as other gender (0.3%). Higher proportions of participants were married (53%), employed (57%), had 9-15 years of education (57%), and were native-born (94%), with a smaller proportion reporting they never attended religious services (37%). Sample sizes in each country ranged from 1,473 (Türkiye) to 38,312 (United States). Participant characteristics for each country are shown in Supplementary Table S1A to S22A.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrdered Mean Level of Belonging by Country\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePopulation mean scores of belonging are highest in Egypt (8.86 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI: 8.78, 8.94) and Indonesia (8.78, 95% CI: 8.72, 8.84), and lowest in Japan (6.03, 95% CI: 5.99, 6.07) and Turkey (6.86, 95% CI: 6.66, 7.07) (Table 2). Overall, the higher-ranking countries prominently include those with collectivist cultures (e.g., Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico), whereas many high-income and individualistic countries are featured prominently in the lower-ranking countries (e.g., Japan, Germany, United Kingdom). Variation within country in responses to the belonging item is highest in Turkey (SD = 3.35) and lowest in Indonesia (SD = 1.81). Further, countries with a lower ranking on mean belonging also tend to have greater inequality in population distribution of belonging, as indicated by a larger Gini coefficient (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSociodemographic Variation in Belonging Levels: Pooled Estimates Across Countries\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe random effect meta-analysis that pooled results from country-specific analyses shows mean belonging is patterned by all demographic factors in the total sample (Table 3, all global p-values are below the Bonferroni corrected significance level of p \u0026lt; .007). For instance, older vs. younger participants reported incrementally higher levels of belonging (e.g., mean belonging age 80+ = 8.21 [95% CI: 7.86, 8.56] vs. mean age 18-24 = 7.47 [95% CI: 7.08, 7.85]). Belonging among females (M = 7.77, 95% CI: 7.48, 8.06) is slightly higher than in males (M = 7.71, 95% CI: 7.42, 8.01), and substantially higher than among individuals of other gender identities (M = 6.40, 95% CI: 5.59, 7.21). Further, those who are married (M = 7.91, 95% CI: 7.63, 8.18) reported higher belonging than divorced (M = 7.61, 95% CI: 7.24, 7.97) or single/never married (M = 7.40, 95% CI: 7.03, 7.77) participants. While those who are retired reported the highest belonging rating (M = 8.09, 95% CI: 7.81, 8.36), the unemployed (M = 7.28, 95% CI: 6.85, 7.71) reported substantially lower belonging than those who are employed for an employer (M = 7.70, 95% CI: 7.39, 8.02) or self-employed (mean = 7.71, 95% CI: 7.41, 8.01); these reports are consistent with the population weighted meta-analysis (see Table S23). In the random effects meta-analysis, those with 16+ years of education reported lower belonging (M = 7.68, 95% CI: 7.37, 8.00), compared to those Up to 8 years of education (M = 7.77, 95% CI: 7.44, 8.11). However, belonging tended to increase with education in the population-weighted meta-analysis (Table S23), with the highest levels observed among those with 16+ years of education (M = 8.13, 95% CI: 7.99, 8.27), compared to those with up to 8 years (M = 7.95, 95% CI: 7.85, 8.05), in part reflecting the weight given to India in that supplementary analysis. In the random effects meta-analysis (Table 3), participants who attend religious services frequently (meaning those \u0026gt;1/week attendance = 8.13, 95% CI: 7.92, 8.34) also reported higher belonging than those never attending services (e.g., never attendance: M = 7.36, 95% CI: 7.01, 7.71). Lastly, the mean for belonging is slightly higher among the native-born (M = 7.76, 95% CI: 7.47, 8.05) compared to migrants (M = 7.38, 95% CI: 7.02, 7.74).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe heterogeneity analysis across the demographic categories reveals substantial variability in belonging within each sociodemographic factor (Table 3). The τ values, which estimate the standard deviation of underlying effects across countries, were consistently high, particularly for variables such as employment status (e.g., τ = 1.00 for \"Unemployed and looking for a job\") and marital status (e.g., τ = 0.88 for \"Single, never married\"). The I² statistics suggest that the observed differences in belonging across demographic categories are not solely due to random variation but reflect genuine differences influenced by demographic factors that vary significantly across populations. For instance, age group and religious service attendance showed moderately robust heterogeneity (e.g., τ = 0.91 for the \"18-24\" group and τ = 0.83 for \"Never\" attending religious services), indicating considerable cross-national variation in the impact of these factors on belonging. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSociodemographic Variation in Belonging Levels: Country-Specific Estimates\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn country-specific analyses, it is worth noting that immigration status does show considerable associations (p \u0026lt; .05) in several countries, including Australia, Brazil, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Mexico, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Age-related patterns of belonging varied across regions and countries. In North America, as represented by the US, belonging consistently increased with age. In South America, exemplified by Brazil, belonging generally increased with age, though the pattern was not as linear as in the US. Most European countries also showed an increase in belonging with age. African and Asian countries displayed diverse patterns, with some showing increases, others decreases, and some exhibiting non-linear relationships between age and belonging. \u0026nbsp;For example, belonging generally decreased with age in India, while it clearly increased with age in Japan. For example, individuals aged 18-24 reported a mean belonging score of 5.59 (95% CI: 5.45, 5.74), and belonging remained relatively stable across the 25-49 age groups in Japan. However, a noticeable increase occurred from age 50 onwards, with those aged 50-59 reporting a mean score of 5.82 (95% CI: 5.73, 5.90), which rose sharply in the 60-69 age group (M = 6.37, 95% CI: 6.30, 6.45) and continued to increase among those 70-79 (M = 7.02, 95% CI: 6.95, 7.10) and 80 or older (M = 7.49, 95% CI: 7.27, 7.72). This trend indicates that belonging strengthens considerably with age in Japan, particularly after 50. In Kenya, there was a considerable age effect, with belonging showing a non-linear pattern across age groups. In Tanzania, belonging tended to decrease with age, similar to India. These diverse patterns highlight the importance of considering cultural and societal contexts when examining age-related trends in belonging.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn most countries, mean belonging is slightly higher in females vs. males; however, compared to both females and males, individuals identifying as other gender reported substantially lower belonging in many countries, even in countries with generally high social acceptance of gender minority populations (e.g., Sweden, UK, Australia, Germany); however, this estimate should be interpreted with caution as the imprecision with estimating these means is substantial because the within-country sample size tended to be a very small proportion of the sample (≤1% in all countries). The differences in belonging based on marital status varied across countries, revealing interesting patterns that don't always align with expected trends. For instance, in Sweden, a country with a prominent culture of singlehood, married individuals reported higher mean belonging (8.90) than both divorced (8.67) and never married (8.01) individuals. However, in India, a country with low national divorce rates (about 1%), never married individuals reported higher belonging (8.73) than married individuals (8.38), with divorced individuals reporting the lowest (7.31). Spain, known for higher divorce rates (about 50%), showed a different pattern, with widowed individuals reporting the highest belonging (8.06), followed by divorced individuals (7.80), married (7.63) and then never married (7.22) individuals. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, participants with higher socioeconomic status also reported higher belonging levels in most countries. Specifically, mean belonging was higher among people who are employed vs. unemployed, even in countries with a good social welfare system (e.g., Sweden, Germany, UK). Similarly, higher belonging levels are correlated with having more years of education in most countries. However, we observed substantial heterogeneity in the correlation between unemployment and belonging across countries. Overall, belonging varied by unemployment levels across countries. For example, in Mexico, a middle-income country, the mean belonging among unemployed people (M = 8.44) was relatively high and close to the overall country mean (8.50). In Brazil, another middle-income country, the unemployed reported lower belonging (M = 7.43) compared to the country's overall mean (7.79). In contrast, some high-income countries showed considerably lower mean belonging among the unemployed, such as Japan (M = 4.79) and Australia (M = 6.63). These variations highlight the unique ways employment status and economic context contribute to the variability of belonging across different nations. Also, individuals who reported attending religious services frequently (e.g., \u0026gt;1/week) tended to have higher belonging than those who never attend services, and this association was evident even in some of the most secular countries/territories (e.g., Hong Kong, Germany).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelonging differs by immigration status in several countries, with patterns varying across nations. In most cases, native-born individuals reported higher levels of belonging than migrants. For instance, in Australia (M = 7.90), Sweden (M = 8.68), and the UK (M = 7/19), native-born individuals reported substantially higher belonging than migrants (7.46, 7.26, and 6.68, respectively). The difference was particularly pronounced in Sweden (roughly 19.57%). In Spain (M = 7.64), Egypt (M = 9.19), and Indonesia (M = 9.44), migrants tended to report higher belonging compared to native-borns (7.52%): 7.49, 8.86, and 8.78, respectively. In the US and Brazil, native-born individuals reported higher belonging, but the differences were not substantial. The magnitude of these differences varies across countries, highlighting the complex relationship between immigration status and sense of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional findings for belonging by religious affiliation and race/ethnicity (response categories for these two demographic factors varied across countries) are also presented with the country-specific analyses and reported in the supplement (Supplementary Table S1B to S22B). The population weighted meta-analysis that pooled results from country-specific analyses considering population sizes in each country yielded largely similar results as the random effects meta-analysis, except that the mean belonging score in the oldest age groups were lower than that in the random effect meta-analyses (Supplementary Table S23). This is likely due to the substantial size of the India sample in the population weighted meta-analysis, where older people reported a low mean score of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study bridges the gap in understanding how demographic factors associate with individuals\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging across different global contexts. We examined self-rated belonging in 22 countries (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;202,898), with results showing substantial variations in belonging levels by demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, employment status, religious service attendance, education, and immigration status. While certain demographic patterns\u0026mdash;such as older age and frequent religious attendance\u0026mdash;generally correlate with higher belonging, these associations do not hold uniformly across all countries. For example, belonging tends to decrease with age in India, shows a mixed pattern in Nigeria with some fluctuations across age groups, and increases steadily with age in Japan, illustrating the diverse age-related trends across countries. Gender differences in belonging also vary, with men typically reporting lower belonging than women, but in countries like Sweden and Germany, individuals with other gender identities report notably lower belonging. In some cases, specific subpopulations, such as unemployed individuals in Brazil and Mexico or immigrants in Sweden and the UK, show lower belonging levels compared to other groups within their countries. These findings reveal the complexity of belonging, as a fundamental human need and highlight the important role that demographic and cultural contexts play in shaping this experience. Importantly, they suggest that strategies aimed at improving belonging should be tailored to the specific demographic and national contexts, as the factors influencing belonging can vary substantially across different global settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first hypothesis posited that demographic characteristics would reveal diverse patterns across the international sample. This was supported by findings that all demographic factors varied across levels of belonging in some countries. For instance, older participants consistently reported higher levels of belonging compared to younger participants, except perhaps in places like India where older groups had lesser belonging. This finding aligns with previous research indicating stronger community ties and social connections among older adults;\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e however, the results in India (less belonging with age) might also signal other country-level factors. Gender differences also emerged, with females reporting slightly higher levels of belonging than males, reflecting the higher levels of social support and connectedness found among women.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The second hypothesis suggested that mean levels of belonging would vary considerably by country. This was confirmed, as belonging scores were highest in collectivist cultures such as Egypt and Indonesia, and lowest in more individualistic countries like Japan and Turkey. These results support previous research indicating that collectivist cultures often emphasize community and social cohesion, thereby enhancing individuals' sense of belonging.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The lower scores in individualistic cultures may reflect the prioritization of personal goals over community integration.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third hypothesis posited substantial variations in belonging across different demographic categories, potentially influenced by specific cultural and societal norms. This hypothesis was also supported. For example, married individuals reported higher levels of belonging compared to their single or divorced counterparts. This is consistent with research highlighting the psychological benefits of marital support in sustaining happier marriages.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Employment status also indicated considerable variability on belonging, with employed individuals reporting higher levels of belonging than those unemployed, supporting the social identity theory which posits that professional roles contribute to social identity and belonging.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe trends observed in this study can be conceptually understood through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which identifies belonging (or relatedness) as a fundamental psychological need critical for well-being.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e SDT suggests that individuals inherently seek connection and meaningful relationships, and the satisfaction of this need is pivotal for psychological growth and flourishing. Our findings across 22 countries reinforce this idea by demonstrating how individuals' sense of belonging is intricately connected to their demographic and cultural realities. For instance, countries like Egypt and Indonesia, which have strong collectivist cultures, show higher levels of belonging, supporting the notion that environments emphasizing community and social cohesion foster this essential human need. In these settings, individuals are likely to experience stronger social ties and communal support, which can enhance their sense of belonging. This suggests that in collectivist cultures, social structures may naturally align with the psychological need for belonging. Conversely, in more individualistic countries like Japan, the lower levels of belonging reported could be attributed to cultural norms that prioritize personal independence over communal ties. In more individualistic societies, where personal achievements and independence are prioritized, social group identities may also be less salient, leading to a weaker sense of belonging. This could explain why individuals in these countries report lower levels of belonging\u0026mdash;there may be fewer opportunities or incentives to derive self-worth and connection from group memberships, thus affecting their overall sense of belonging. In such contexts, individuals might find it more challenging to satisfy their need for relatedness. This indicates that cultural values play a substantial role in how the need for belonging is met, and in more individualistic societies, the pathways to fulfilling this need may be less straightforward or may require different forms of social engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the variations in belonging across demographic factors may also reflect different levels of access to social support and community engagement. For instance, the trend of older individuals generally reporting higher belonging could be related to the increased likelihood of having established social networks and stable community roles over time, which may help fulfill their need for relatedness. However, the reversal of this trend in countries like India and Nigeria, where belonging decreases with age, might be influenced by social and economic factors that could lead to marginalization or reduced social engagement for older populations, potentially affecting their sense of belonging. Gender differences in belonging, particularly the lower scores reported by individuals with other gender identities in some countries, may reflect societal attitudes and levels of acceptance towards gender diversity. Individuals with other gender identities who report lower belonging in certain countries might experience identity conflict or discrimination due to their marginalized status within the dominant social groups. This intersectional approach emphasizes how multiple identities (e.g., gender, nationality, occupation) intersect to influence an individual\u0026rsquo;s sense of belonging,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e with some identities being more valued or accepted in certain cultural contexts than others. In countries where gender nonconformity is less accepted, individuals with other gender identities may face exclusion or discrimination, which can negatively impact their sense of belonging.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The higher belonging levels observed among subpopulations such as unemployed individuals in Egypt or migrants in both Indonesia and Egypt suggest that belonging is not solely determined by employment status or native-born status. Instead, it might reflect the presence of strong community support systems or social integration efforts that help these groups feel connected and valued. While the data generally shows lower belonging scores for migrants across countries, the reasons for this are likely complex and multifaceted. Further research is needed to understand the specific challenges migrants face in developing a sense of belonging, as well as any potential coping mechanisms or support systems they may develop. The variation in belonging scores among migrant populations across different countries suggests that cultural, social, and policy factors may play important roles in shaping migrants' experiences of belonging. On the other hand, lower belonging among unemployed individuals in some high-income countries could be linked to being part of an out-group that is stigmatized or devalued in those societies, potentially leading to feelings of exclusion and lower self-esteem. Countries and subpopulations that emphasize social cohesion, community support, and acceptance may be more likely to fulfil individuals\u0026rsquo; psychological need for belonging, while environments that exhibit exclusionary attitudes might hinder the fulfilment of this need, possibly resulting in lower levels of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for belonging\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study have several theoretical implications. First, they highlight the importance of considering cultural context in understanding the sense of belonging. The variations in belonging scores across different countries suggest that cultural norms and values may play a role in shaping individuals' experiences of belonging. This observation draws attention to the need for a more culturally sensitive approach in research on belonging.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Second, the demographic variations in belonging observed in the study suggest that intersectional identities should be considered in research. For instance, the lower belonging scores among individuals identifying as other genders, even in countries with high social acceptance of gender minorities, indicate a potential connection between gender identity and cultural context. This finding is consistent with Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e which explores how social categorizations such as race, gender, and class intersect to shape experiences of marginalization. These findings also have practical implications for policymakers and practitioners aiming to enhance social cohesion and well-being. Interventions designed to foster a sense of belonging should be tailored to the specific geographic, cultural, and demographic contexts of the target populations. In individualistic cultures, initiatives that prioritize creating opportunities for social connections and networks may be beneficial. In collectivist cultures, enhancing belonging might involve reinforcing existing community structures and communal bonds. Educational institutions, workplaces, and community organizations can support belonging by fostering inclusive environments that recognize and celebrate diversity. Addressing the challenges and strengths faced by underrepresented groups, such as gender minorities and migrants, is important for ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to feel a sense of belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile offering valuable insights into the dynamics of belonging across various demographic and national categories and cultural contexts, this study is still subject to several limitations that merit consideration. One primary limitation is the single item measure of belonging. While single-item measures can provide a straightforward and efficient way to capture a concept globally, they lack the depth and nuance necessary to fully capture the complexity of belonging. Another limitation stems from our cross-sectional design, which captures data at a single point in time, though effort is currently ongoing to collect a second wave of the GFS data. Perhaps future efforts would make it possible to infer causality or track changes in sense of belonging over time. As belonging is a dynamic construct that can fluctuate with life events, longitudinal studies (as currently exemplified with the GFS study) are needed to understand how sense of belonging evolves across different life stages or in response to societal changes. These limitations highlight a need for caution in interpreting the findings but offer a strong direction for future research. When interpreting cross-national differences, it is important to do so with caution, as these differences may be influenced by factors like translation challenges, varying assessment methods, cultural norms, how respondents perceive items and response scales, and the timing of data collection, which may vary seasonally across countries. Although the study aims to be cross-national, the conceptualization of belonging might vary considerably across different cultures and countries, potentially influencing how participants interpret and respond to survey questions. While the study examines belonging across several demographic categories, it may not fully account for the intersectionality of these identities. The intersecting relations of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability, among others, on an individual\u0026rsquo;s sense of belonging are not deeply explored. An intersectional approach could provide a broader understanding of how overlapping identities are tethered to the variability of belonging outcomes, especially in culturally diverse contexts. The generalizability of the study's findings to countries or cultures not included in the sample may be limited since the unique contexts (e.g., cultural, political, social) of the included countries may have played a vital role in shaping the global patterns of belonging, and these findings may not apply to nations with potentially different contexts. These limitations suggest the need for future research to adopt longitudinal designs, develop culturally sensitive measures of belonging, and incorporate an intersectional perspective in the study of global belonging trends going forward.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs societies continue to evolve, marked by increasing diversity and complexity, understanding the patterns of belonging\u0026mdash;with its implications for individual well-being and social cohesion\u0026mdash;remains ever pressing. This study contributes to a growing body of research exploring these trends, providing a foundation for future inquiries and interventions that may potentially foster a sense of belonging. Our findings suggest that belonging is not just a psychological need but also a social construct that is tethered to group identities and the broader social context. The bigger message here is that fostering a strong sense of belonging involves creating inclusive social environments where different identities are recognized, valued, and integrated into the collective whole. While our cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported data present certain limitations, the findings offer valuable insights into the complex nature of belonging. They highlight the importance of considering a wide range of demographic variables when studying belonging and emphasize the need for policies and practices that promote belonging in increasingly diverse societies. Future research should build on these insights by employing longitudinal designs and mixed methods to better capture the dynamic and multifaceted factors contributing to a sense of belonging. As the world becomes more interconnected yet culturally diverse, the pursuit of belonging remains a critical human drive and challenge, with considerable implications for individual well-being and the fabric of global flourishing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Global Flourishing Study was generously funded by the John Templeton Foundation (#61665), Templeton Religion Trust (#1308), Templeton World Charity Foundation (#0605), Well-Being for Planet Earth, Fetzer Institute (#4354), Well Being Trust, Paul L. Foster Family Foundation, and the David \u0026amp; Carol Myers Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Information related to the Global Flourishing Study as well as the official citation can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8. The funders have/had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the coding team (Noah Padgett, Ying Chen, Sung Joon Jang, Matt Bradshaw, and Koichiro Shiba) for their help with analysis codes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVictor Counted\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConceptualization\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMethodology\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFormal analysis\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; original draft\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSupervision\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVisualization\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eByron R. Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eData curation\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding acquisition\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSupervision\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eProject administration\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKelly-Ann Allen\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTyler VanderWeele\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMethodology\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWriting \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSupervision\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eProject administration\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding acquisition\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe methodological framework and objectives of our study have been outlined in a pre-registration document available on the Open Science Framework (OSF). This document, which can be accessed https://osf.io/x6qgf , details our investigative approach into the demographic variation in sense of belonging across 22 countries. Additionally, The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the pre-registration of the Global Flourishing Study on OSF (see here: https://osf.io/3jtz8). This procedural step is important for maintaining the data\u0026apos;s integrity and confidentiality while ensuring our research upholds the highest standards of scientific inquiry and ethical considerations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumeister, R. F. \u0026amp; Leary, M. R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. \u003cem\u003eInterpersonal development\u003c/em\u003e, 57\u0026ndash;89. (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T. \u0026amp; Haslam, C. Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. \u003cem\u003eAppl. Psychology-an Int. Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Int.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e58\u003c/b\u003e (1), 1\u0026ndash;23 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhn, M. Y. \u0026amp; Davis, H. H. Students\u0026rsquo; sense of belonging and their socio-economic status in higher education: a quantitative approach. \u003cem\u003eTeach. High. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e28\u003c/b\u003e (1), 136\u0026ndash;149 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrawford, J. et al. Sense of belonging in higher education students: an Australian longitudinal study from 2013 to 2019. \u003cem\u003eStud. High. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e49\u003c/b\u003e (3), 395\u0026ndash;409 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJetten, J., Haslam, C. \u0026amp; Haslam, S. A. \u003cem\u003eThe social cure: Identity, health and well-being\u003c/em\u003e (Psychology, 2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories (23\u0026ndash;51). Routledge. (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G. \u0026amp; Worchel, S. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational identity: Read.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e56\u003c/b\u003e (65), 9780203505984\u0026ndash;9780203505916 (1979).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorgan, T. et al. Social connectedness: what matters to older people? \u003cem\u003eAgeing Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e41\u003c/b\u003e (5), 1126\u0026ndash;1144 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeeman, T. E. Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older adults. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. health promotion\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e (6), 362\u0026ndash;370 (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolden, J. et al. Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Geriatric Psychiatry: J. psychiatry late life allied Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e (7), 694\u0026ndash;700 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSettersten, R. \u0026amp; Ray, B. E. \u003cem\u003eNot quite adults: Why 20-somethings are choosing a slower path to adulthood, and why it's good for everyone\u003c/em\u003e (Bantam, 2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor, Y. \u003cem\u003eFitting into place? Class and gender geographies and temporalities\u003c/em\u003e (Routledge, 2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, R. M. \u0026amp; Robbins, S. B. Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. \u003cem\u003eJ. Couns. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e78\u003c/b\u003e (4), 484\u0026ndash;491 (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWaite, L. \u0026amp; Gallagher, M. \u003cem\u003eThe case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier and better off financially\u003c/em\u003e (Crown, 2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLawrence, E. M., Rogers, R. G., Zajacova, A. \u0026amp; Wadsworth, T. Marital happiness, marital status, health, and longevity. \u003cem\u003eJ. Happiness Stud.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e20\u003c/b\u003e (5), 1539\u0026ndash;1561 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshforth, B. E. \u0026amp; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. \u003cem\u003eAcad. Manage. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e (1), 20\u0026ndash;39 (1989).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheng, X. \u0026amp; Zhou, H. Decent work and proactive behaviors: a moderated chain mediation model. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pac. J. Hum. Resour.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e61\u003c/b\u003e (2), 277\u0026ndash;299 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFuentes, K., Hsu, S., Patel, S. \u0026amp; Lindsay, S. More than just double discrimination: A scoping review of the experiences and impact of ableism and racism in employment. \u003cem\u003eDisabil. Rehabil.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e46\u003c/b\u003e (4), 650\u0026ndash;671 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaslam, S. A., Haslam, C., Jetten, J., Cruwys, T. \u0026amp; Dingle, G. A. Social identity. \u003cem\u003eThe Wiley encyclopedia health psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 679\u0026ndash;688 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunbar, R. I. Religiosity and religious attendance as factors in wellbeing and social engagement. \u003cem\u003eRelig. Brain Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e (1), 17\u0026ndash;26 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichaels, J. L., Hao, F., Ritenour, N. \u0026amp; Aguilar, N. Belongingness is a mediating factor between religious service attendance and reduced psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eJ. Relig. Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e61\u003c/b\u003e (2), 1750\u0026ndash;1764 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam, R. Social capital: Measurement and consequences. \u003cem\u003eCan. J. policy Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e (1), 41\u0026ndash;51 (2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchneider, B. Social systems and norms: A Coleman approach. In Handbook of the sociology of education (365\u0026ndash;385). Boston, MA: Springer US. (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogošić, S. \u0026amp; Baranović, B. Social capital and educational achievements: Coleman vs. Bourdieu. \u003cem\u003eCent. Educational Policy Stud. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e (2), 81\u0026ndash;100 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerry, J. W. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. \u003cem\u003eAppl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e46\u003c/b\u003e (1), 5\u0026ndash;34 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRenzaho, A. M., Mansouri, F., Counted, V. \u0026amp; Polonsky, M. The influence region of origin, area of residence prior to migration, religion, and perceived discrimination on acculturation strategies among sub-Saharan African migrants in Australia. \u003cem\u003eJ. Int. Migration Integr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e23\u003c/b\u003e (1), 141\u0026ndash;160 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdi, H. Bonferroni and Šid\u0026aacute;k corrections for multiple comparisons. \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics\u003c/em\u003e, 3(01), 2007. (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAcock, A. C. Working With Missing Values. \u003cem\u003eJ. Marriage Family\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e67\u003c/b\u003e (4), 1012\u0026ndash;1028 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. \u0026amp; Rothstein, H. R. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eRes. Synthesis Methods\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e (2), 97\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jrsm.12\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrabtree, S., English, C., Johnson, B. R., Ritter, Z. \u0026amp; VanderWeele, T. J. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Flourishing Study: Questionnaire Development Report\u003c/em\u003e (Gallup Inc., 2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHunter, J. E. \u0026amp; Schmidt, F. L. Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Selection Assess.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e (4), 275\u0026ndash;292. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1468-2389.00156\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson, B. R. et al. The Global Flourishing Study. (2024). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17605/OSF.IO/3JTZ8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson, K. A., Moon, J. W., VanderWeele, T. J., Schnitker, S. \u0026amp; Johnson, B. R. Assessing religion and spirituality in a cross-cultural sample: Development of religion and spirituality items for the Global Flourishing Study. \u003cem\u003eRelig. Brain Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e0\u003c/b\u003e (0), 1\u0026ndash;14. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2023.2217245\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2153599X.2023.2217245\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLomas, T. et al. The development of the Global Flourishing Study survey: charting the evolution of a new 105 Item inventory of human flourishing. Center for Open Science. (2024). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/36hry?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/36hry?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMathur, M. B. \u0026amp; VanderWeele, T. J. Robust metrics and sensitivity analyses for meta-analyses of heterogeneous effects. \u003cem\u003eEpidemiology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e31\u003c/b\u003e (3), 356\u0026ndash;358 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePadgett, R. N. et al. Methodology for the Childhood Predictor Analyses for Wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Center for Open Science. (2024a). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/abn7j?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/abn7j?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePadgett, R. N. et al. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Flourishing Study Statistical Analyses Code\u003c/em\u003e. Center for Open Science. (2024b). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/vbype/?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/vbype/?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePadgett, R. N. et al. Survey Sampling Design in Wave 1 of the Global Flourishing Study. Center for Open Science. (2024c). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://osf.io/q39yc?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://osf.io/q39yc?view_only=0372838c315d46a995c122f9c637ae5d\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRitter, Z. et al. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Flourishing Study Methodology\u003c/em\u003e (Gallup Inc, 2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubin, D. B. Multiple imputation after 18\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;years. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Stat. Assoc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e91\u003c/b\u003e (434), 473\u0026ndash;489 (1996).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSterne, J. A. C. et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. \u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cb\u003e338\u003c/b\u003e, b2393. (2009). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmj.b2393\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Burren, S. \u003cem\u003eFlexible imputation of missing data\u003c/em\u003e (second edition). [Retrieved from (2023). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://stefvanburren.name/fimd/]\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://stefvanburren.name/fimd/]\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e*VanderWeele, T. J. On the promotion of human flourishing. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 114(31), 8148\u0026ndash;8156. (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e*VanderWeele, T. J. et al. (2024). The Global Flourishing Study and initial results.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanderWeele, T. J. \u0026amp; Ding, P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. \u003cem\u003eAnn. Intern. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e167\u003c/b\u003e (4), 268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7326/M16-2607\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanderWeele, T. J. \u0026amp; Mathur, M. B. Some desirable properties of the Bonferroni correction: Is the Bonferroni correction really so bad? \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Epidemiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e188\u003c/b\u003e (3), 617\u0026ndash;618 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eViechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. \u003cem\u003eJ. Stat. Softw.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e (3), 1\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18637/jss.v036.i03\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson, D. J. The harmonic mean p-value for combining dependent tests. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e116\u003c/b\u003e (4), 1195\u0026ndash;1200 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team. \u003cem\u003eR: A language and environment for statistical computing\u003c/em\u003e (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2024). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.R-project.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.R-project.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeci, E. L. \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. \u003cem\u003ePsychol. Inq.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e (4), 227\u0026ndash;268 (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHerţa, L. M. \u0026amp; Corpădean, A. The social construction of identity and belonging: perceptions of EU in the Western Balkans. In Perceptions of the European Union\u0026rsquo;s identity in international relations (42\u0026ndash;88). Routledge. (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 3 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Self-rated Belonging, Sense of Belonging, Community Belonging, Cross-Cultural, Flourishing, Global Belonging Global Flourishing Study","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eBelonging is the human need to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant connections. However, as our societies grow more diverse and complex, understanding the factors associated with a sense of belonging has become increasingly challenging, particularly because these experiences can vary widely across different cultures and countries. Studying belonging across multiple countries is needed to capture this variability and understand how individuals connect with their communities. This study investigates patterns of belonging across 22 countries using data from 202,898 individuals, examining how demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, employment, religious service attendance, education, immigration status, religious affiliation, and race/ethnicity are associated with belonging. The meta-analysis reveals general trends: older individuals and those employed tend to report higher belonging compared to younger participants and the unemployed. Frequent religious service attendance is also linked to higher belonging, even in more secular countries. However, these patterns vary across countries. For instance, belonging decreases with age in India, but shows a mixed pattern in Nigeria, and in Japan after remaining stable across ages 18\u0026ndash;49, increases substantially from age 50 onwards, with the highest levels observed among those 80 or older. Similarly, while men generally report lower belonging than women, some countries, like Sweden and Germany, show lower belonging among individuals of other gender. Unemployed individuals generally report lower belonging, though the gap is smaller in countries like Mexico, while migrants also tend to report lower belonging, with varying differences across countries such as Egypt and Indonesia, where native-born individuals reported lower belonging than migrants. These insights offer global benchmarks and suggest that public health strategies and community interventions might benefit from being tailored to address the specific needs of subpopulations with lower belonging levels, varying by demographic and country context.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Global Patterns of Belonging: A Cross-National Study of 22 Countries","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-11-07 15:43:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5292945/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"28960994-45d8-4ee7-86b1-b825ec499353","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 7th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":39488583,"name":"Health sciences/Health care"},{"id":39488584,"name":"Health sciences/Health care/Health policy"},{"id":39488585,"name":"Health sciences/Health care/Public health"},{"id":39488586,"name":"Health sciences/Health care/Quality of life"},{"id":39488587,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology/Urban ecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-12-06T05:08:43+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-11-07 15:43:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5292945","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5292945","identity":"rs-5292945","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}