Homesickness, Mood and Self-Reported Health Van Tilburg, M.A.L.; Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M.; Van Heck, G.L.; Kirchbaum, C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tilburg University Homesickness, mood and self-reported health van Tilburg, M.A.L.; Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M.; van Heck, G.L.; Kirchbaum, C. Published in: Stress Medicine Publication date: 1999 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): van Tilburg, M. A. L., Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M., van Heck, G. L., & Kirchbaum, C. (1999). Homesickness, mood and self-reported health. Stress Medicine, 15(3), 189-196. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. sep. 2021 STRESS MEDICINE Stress Med. 15, 189±196 (1999) HOMESICKNESS, MOOD AND SELF-REPORTED HEALTH MIRANDA A. L. VAN TILBURG1*, MA, AD J. J. M. VINGERHOETS1, PhD, GUUS L. VAN HECK1, PhD AND C. KIRSCHBAUM2, PhD 1Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands 2University of Trier, Germany SUMMARY The present study focused on health status, mood, cognition, saliva cortisol, and social activities in homesick (N 80), homesick-prone (N 152), recovered (N 48) and non-homesick adult women (N 45). Self-reported health and mood were decreased and cognitive functions were poorer in homesick and homesick-prone subjects compared with non-homesick and recovered persons. Cortisol levels, on the other hand, failed to dier among the four groups. Furthermore, homesick, homesick-prone and recovered individuals reported more diculties making friends, fear of heights, dislike of travelling alone, school phobia and less club membership in childhood compared to the non-homesick. It is suggested that a personality-linked vulnerability factor is responsible for making anxious individuals prone to develop homesickness. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. KEY WORDS Ð cognitive failures; health status; homesickness; mood; saliva cortisol Separation from home has been acknowledged to speci®c groups like conscripts,9±11 migrant popu- be a signi®cant stressor linked to somatic health lations and refugees,12±16 non-resident students, problems, including de®ciencies in the immune student nurses, boarding school children.8,17±25 and system1 and leukaemia,2 as well as psychological institutionalized people.26 To our knowledge, there problems, for example depression.1±5 A common has not yet been an investigation of homesickness phenomenon in those who have left home is in those who are `homesick-prone', i.e. those who homesickness.1,3±6 Homesick persons report feel- do not suer from homesickness at the moment, ings of unhappiness, being physically unwell, but who anticipate that they will develop home- anxiousness and depression (see Van Tilburg sickness when they have to leave their familiar et al.7). On the basis of several studies among surroundings temporarily or permanently. Is this university students and student nurses, Fisher8 group also at risk of developing (mental) ill health concluded that homesick subjects are more likely in their home surroundings, or only when in a real to report psychoneurotic symptoms (even before homesickness situation? Raised levels of psycho- the move), absent-mindedness and somatic symp- neurotic symptoms and decreased mood have been toms than their non-homesick counterparts. These found in those who are prone to homesickness results led Fisher to hypothesize that homesickness before a planned leave from home.8,27 But does this might be a speci®c form of post-traumatic stress also hold when these people are not intending to disorder. Both the loss of the old environment leave home? and the lack of control in a demanding new environ- Furthermore, to our knowledge there has been ment might cause homesickness. In this view, home- only one study on homesickness which included, sickness is a distressing experience which creates besides subjective distress measures, a biochemical increased risk of physical and mental ill health. stress marker such as cortisol,27 a hormone believed It is unfortunate that the scarce psychological to be indicative of stress. In that multiple case studies on homesickness are rather limited to study, no relationship between morning and even- ing cortisol levels and homesickness was found. The present exploratory study focused upon *Correspondence to: Miranda A. L. Van Tilburg, Department of Psychology, Tilburg University, P. O. Box 90153, 5000 LE physical and mental health problems, cognitive Tilburg, The Netherlands. failures and cortisol levels associated with home- CCC 0748±8386/99/030189±08$17.50 Received 4 December 1997 Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 8 July 1998 190 M. A. L. VAN TILBURG ET AL. sickness in a more general sample. Four groups In order to assess mood states, the shortened were distinguished: (i) persons who are currently in version of the Dutch Pro®le of Mood States a long-lasting or chronic homesickness situation, (POMS)29,30 was used, containing the following for instance due to a permanent move; (ii) home- subscales: depression, anger, vigor, tension and sick-prone individuals, who feel comfortable in fatigue. Cronbach's alpha for these scales ranges their living situation but have had homesickness from 0.82 to 0.91 and the validity of the experiences previously and who expect to develop questionnaire is good.29 acute homesickness when they have to leave their Self-reported failures in perception, memory and house, for instance due to a holiday or a move; motor function were measured with the Cognitive (iii) persons who have had homesickness experi- Failure Questionnaire (CFQ).31 CFQ scores are ences in the past but consider themselves to be fully reasonably stable and correlate with measures of recovered; and (iv) persons who have never de®cit in memory, absent-mindedness and slips of experienced homesickness (non-homesick). This action.31 The HSCL, POMS and CFQ had to be study explores the correlates of homesickness over completed with reference to the previous couple of a wide range of homesick(-prone) and non-home- weeks. sick persons. The chronic homesick were asked to rate their homesickness intensity on a 10-point scale. Three years later the chronic homesick were approached METHODS again and were asked to rate their present home- sickness intensity as well as, retrospectively, the Subjects intensity of homesickness 3 years previously. Subjects were 325 females, who were recruited In a subgroup of 57 participants (18 chronic through women's magazines and newspaper homesick, 28 homesick-prone and 11 non-home- announcements in which volunteers were asked sick), saliva cortisol was measured as an indication to participate in a study on homesickness. As very of biological changes that might occur during a few non-homesick subjects responded, separate homesickness experience. Saliva samples were announcements were placed in order to recruit obtained using the Salivette sampling device non-homesick subjects. Age varied from 18 to (Sarstedt, Germany) as described by Hellhammer 79 years (M 42.4, SD 13.4). Seventy-eight et al.32 The saliva samples for the determination of percent of the respondents were married or had a cortisol were taken in the morning (between 8.00 stable relationship. Approximately 80 percent of and 8.30 am) and in the evening (between 10.30 the sample had the minimum of a high school and 11.00 pm on a quiet evening, i.e. not after a education; the remaining 20 percent had had only quarrel, a sports game or a scary movie). The basic education. subjects had to chew gently on the cotton swab for Subjects were assigned to one of four groups on about 1 minute to stimulate saliva ¯ow. The the basis of their own estimate of which group they samples, together with the questionnaires, were ®tted into best, i.e. subjects de®ned themselves as returned by mail. Cortisol analyses were performed either chronic homesick (N 80), homesick-prone with a time-resolved ¯uorescence immunoassay. (N 152), recovered (N 48) or non-homesick This assay has a lower detection limit of 8.6 pg/well (N 45). These four groups did not dier in age, (95 percent con®dence interval). marital status and educational level. Three years Finally, participants were asked about youth later the chronic homesick were approached again. experiences, social activities, fear of heights, travel A total of 39 persons (49 percent) returned the sickness and demographic variables. second questionnaire. RESULTS Measures The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL)28 One-way ANOVAs with Schee post hoc tests were was administered to rate somatic (somatization performed to test the between-groups dierences scale) and psychological subjective health status on the HSCL, CFQ, POMS scales and cortisol (psychological complaints scale). The reliability levels (see Tables 1 and 2). For the HSCL the and validity of the HSCL and the two subscales is following results were found. Scores on all HSCL good.28 scales diered signi®cantly among groups. Post hoc Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress Med. 15, 189±196 (1999) HOMESICKNESS, MOOD AND HEALTH 191 Table 1 Ð Means of POMS, HSCL and CFQ scale scores Chronic Homesick- Recovered Non- F-value homesick prone homesick homesick MM M M HSCL Total 112.11 104.53 96.62 75.69 19.12{ Physical health 13.35 21.16 12.50 10.60 17.34{ Psychological health 34.54 37.57 29.06 22.78 5.00{ CFQ 91.77 88.25 83.38 78.98 5.56{ POMS Depression 17.30 12.37 10.21 9.75 21.40{ Anger 14.50 12.27 10.42 9.76 8.90{ Vigor 14.72 14.74 15.98 16.63 2.84* Tension 14.68 12.69 10.02 8.75 17.41{ Fatigue 13.38 12.00 11.49 9.93 3.58* *p 4 0.05; {p 4 0.01; {p 4 0.001.