Social Adjustment

Abstract

Social adjustment is a form of social behavior: the process by which a person adapts to the social environment, and the degree of fit that results. MeSH defines it as adaptation of the person to the social environment, achieved in either of two directions — by changing the self to fit the environment, or the environment to fit the self. Cognitive psychology studies it along converging lines: a measurement tradition that turned the construct into graded role-performance scores; an appraisal–coping tradition locating adjustment in how a person weighs social demands against resources; a belonging tradition treating acceptance as a fundamental need and self-esteem as its gauge; and fit, acculturation, and developmental traditions charting adaptation to new environments and across the lifespan. A worked demand–resource example and three interactive demonstrations of the demand–resource balance, Berry's acculturation strategies, and the sociometer follow.

Keywords: social adjustment, cognitive appraisal, coping, belonging, acculturation

What Social Adjustment Is

Social adjustment is the process by which a person adapts to the social environment, together with the quality of the fit that process produces. A well-adjusted person meets the role demands of work, family, friendship, and community without disabling conflict or distress; a poorly adjusted one is at odds with those demands in ways that cost them performance, relationships, or well-being. MeSH defines social adjustment as adaptation of the person to the social environment and files the descriptor under social behaviour. That placement is partly an indexing convention: adjustment is an internal, appraisive process as much as an interpersonal one, but it is defined by its expression in social roles and its consequences for social life, so the classification reflects where the construct makes itself felt.

The MeSH definition contains a conceptual key that is easy to miss: adjustment may take place in either of two directions. A person can change themselves to fit the environment — adopting new habits, revising expectations, learning the local rules — which psychologists call autoplastic adjustment. Or a person can change the environment to fit themselves — renegotiating a role, leaving a bad situation, reshaping a relationship — which is alloplastic adjustment. Neither is inherently healthier; mature adjustment typically blends the two, and the balance that is adaptive depends on how much of the misfit lies in the person and how much in the situation. This two-route structure recurs throughout the research literature and is the organising idea of the worked example below.

Social adjustment sits within a family of terms worth keeping apart. Psychological adaptation is the broader capacity to adjust to any demand, social or not; coping is the set of specific efforts a person makes to manage demands that tax their resources; and psychosocial functioning is the observable outcome — how well the person actually performs across life domains. Social adjustment is the adaptation that these other terms variously enable, enact, or describe. The sections that follow take up its measurement, its cognitive engine, the belonging motive that drives it, the problem of fit and acculturation, and its development across the lifespan; Table 1 orients the reader to these five converging traditions before each is developed in turn.

Measuring Social Adjustment

For much of its history social adjustment was an impression rather than a measurement — a clinician's global sense that a patient was or was not coping with life. The construct became tractable when Eugene Paykel, Myrna Weissman, and colleagues showed that social adjustment in depressed patients was not one thing but a set of distinguishable dimensions — performance at work, in the marital relationship, with the extended family, in parenting, and in social and leisure life — each of which could be rated and which did not move in lockstep (Paykel et al., 1971). A patient could be impaired in the marital role yet adequate at work, so a single global score discarded information that mattered clinically.

Weissman and Bothwell turned this insight into the instrument that dominated the field: the Social Adjustment Scale, and in particular a self-report version in which patients rate their own role performance, feelings, and satisfaction across the same role areas (Weissman & Bothwell, 1976). The scale's importance is methodological as much as clinical. By decomposing adjustment into role domains and scoring each on a graded scale, it converted an abstract construct into a quantity that could be tracked over time, compared across patients, and used as an outcome in treatment trials. It also embedded a theoretical commitment: adjustment is multidimensional and role-specific, so the right question is not whether this person is well adjusted overall, but in which roles, and how well. That commitment is why the worked example below scores adjustment domain by domain rather than as a lump.

The role-specific view also clarifies what a measurement is really capturing. A score on the social-adjustment scale reflects both the objective demands of a person's roles and their subjective appraisal of how they are meeting them — which is precisely the junction the next section takes up.

The Appraisal–Coping Engine

Why does the same social demand leave one person well adjusted and another overwhelmed? Richard Lazarus's answer, developed with Susan Folkman, is that adjustment turns on cognitive appraisal. When a person meets a social demand they first make a primary appraisal — is this situation threatening, challenging, or benign? — and a secondary appraisal — do I have the resources to cope with it? Strain arises not from the demand itself but from an appraised imbalance in which demands are judged to exceed resources (Folkman et al., 1986). On this account social adjustment is the running product of appraisal and coping: the person continuously evaluates the social environment against their psychological resources and acts to close any gap.

The appraisal framework maps directly onto the two routes to adjustment. Problem-focused coping — acting on the environment to reduce a demand — is the cognitive machinery of alloplastic adjustment; emotion-focused coping — regulating one's own reaction and reappraising the situation — is the machinery of autoplastic adjustment. Folkman and Lazarus showed that people use both within a single stressful encounter, and that which predominates depends on whether the situation is appraised as changeable. A demand judged controllable pulls for problem-focused effort; one judged uncontrollable pulls for reappraisal and emotional regulation. Adjustment is thus not a fixed trait but a process that is well or poorly calibrated to the controllability of the social world the person faces.

This is also why adjustment is cognitive rather than merely behavioural. Two people facing identical social demands and possessing identical objective resources can adjust very differently if they appraise those demands and resources differently — one reading a new workplace as a threat to be survived, the other as a challenge to be mastered. The lever of adjustment is as much in the appraisal as in the environment, which is what makes it a topic for cognitive psychology and what gives psychological intervention its purchase.

The DemandResourceBalance demonstration below makes this engine interactive: setting the appraised demand and resource in each of three role domains computes the strain in each, and a toggle applies an autoplastic or alloplastic intervention so the two routes to a better fit can be compared directly.

Belonging and the Sociometer

Behind the effort to adjust lies a motive. Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary argued that the need to belong — to form and maintain lasting, positive relationships — is a fundamental human motivation, as basic as hunger, shaping cognition and emotion across situations and cultures (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). If belonging is a need, then social adjustment is not an optional nicety but the ongoing satisfaction of a drive, and failures of adjustment that threaten acceptance should register as something close to pain. This reframes much of the social-adjustment literature: the costs of poor adjustment are steep precisely because a core need is going unmet.

Leary's sociometer theory supplies the internal mechanism. It proposes that self-esteem is not an end in itself but a gauge — a sociometer — that monitors the degree to which a person is being accepted or rejected by others, and that drops in self-esteem are the subjective readout of declining relational value, functioning as an alarm that motivates repair of one's social standing (Leary et al., 1995). On this view the familiar link between social rejection and low self-esteem is not a malfunction but the system working as designed: self-esteem tracks inclusion so that the person knows when their belonging is at risk and can act to restore it — a direct cognitive bridge between social acceptance and the self.

Jennifer Crocker and Connie Wolfe extended the account by showing that self-esteem does not track acceptance uniformly; it rises and falls most sharply in the specific domains on which a person has staked their self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Someone whose self-worth is contingent on social approval will have a sociometer exquisitely sensitive to the slightest social feedback, while someone who bases worth on other domains will be comparatively buffered. Contingencies of self-worth thus explain why the same social setback can be devastating to one person and trivial to another, adding an individual-differences layer to the belonging account and connecting social adjustment to the structure of self-concept.

The SociometerGauge demonstration below makes the monitor visible: adjusting a person's perceived relational value moves the self-esteem readout and crosses a threshold into the social-pain range, illustrating how the gauge signals threats to belonging.

Fit and Acculturation

If adjustment is a fit between person and environment, then a change of environment is its sharpest test. The person–environment fit tradition, reviewed by Annelies van Vianen, holds that adjustment, satisfaction, and performance depend on the correspondence between a person's characteristics and their situation — their needs against what the environment supplies, and their abilities against what it demands — rather than on either in isolation (van Vianen, 2018). Poor fit is a misalignment that can be repaired from either side, which is the organisational-psychology face of the autoplastic/alloplastic distinction: a person can change to fit the job, or the job can be reshaped to fit the person.

The most demanding case of refitting is adapting to a new culture. John Berry's acculturation framework distinguishes four strategies defined by two questions: does the person maintain their heritage culture, and do they seek contact with the host culture? Answering yes to both yields integration; heritage-no, host-yes yields assimilation; heritage-yes, host-no yields separation; and no to both yields marginalisation (Berry, 2005). The strategies are not equally adaptive: integration is generally associated with the best psychological and sociocultural adjustment, and marginalisation with the worst. Acculturation shows in stark form that adjustment to a social environment is not automatic but strategic — it depends on the stance a person takes toward competing cultural demands.

The payoff of the integrative strategy is quantified in the biculturalism literature. A meta-analysis by Angela-MinhTu Nguyen and Verónica Benet-Martínez found that biculturalism — maintaining both heritage and host cultural identities — had a significant and strong positive association with both psychological adjustment (such as life satisfaction and lower anxiety) and sociocultural adjustment (such as academic achievement and fewer behavioural problems), and that this relationship was stronger than that for either culture alone (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). Holding two cultural frames, rather than being torn between them, is on balance an adjustment asset — a finding that directly supports Berry's ranking of integration.

The AcculturationGrid demonstration below makes Berry's two-by-two scheme interactive: choosing whether to maintain the heritage culture and whether to engage the host culture names the resulting strategy and reports its typical adjustment implication.

Development and Resilience

Social adjustment has a developmental trajectory, and its early chapters are written in the peer group. John Parker and Steven Asher, reviewing decades of research, established that children's peer relations are not merely a correlate of adjustment but a predictor of it: low peer acceptance and rejection in childhood forecast later difficulties, including dropping out of school and other markers of maladjustment, making early social adjustment a genuine risk factor for later outcomes (Parker & Asher, 1987). Learning to be accepted by peers is, on this evidence, part of the developmental work of adjustment, and failures in it cast a long shadow.

Yet maladjustment is not the default outcome of adversity. Ann Masten's influential synthesis argued that resilience — good adjustment despite serious threats to development — is strikingly common, and that it arises not from rare or extraordinary qualities but from the operation of ordinary human adaptive systems: attachment relationships, self-regulation, motivation to master the environment, and functioning families and communities (Masten, 2001). She called this ordinary magic. The implication reframes social adjustment under adversity: good outcomes are expectable when the basic protective systems are intact, and the real danger lies in conditions that damage those systems. Adjustment is thus less about inner fortitude than about whether the ordinary machinery of adaptation is allowed to function.

What, then, is the endpoint of good adjustment? Carol Ryff's model of psychological well-being supplies one answer by defining flourishing as more than the absence of distress. Her multidimensional model identifies several components of positive functioning, among them positive relations with others and environmental mastery — the capacity to manage one's life and surroundings effectively (Ryff, 1989). Those two dimensions are, in effect, the two routes to adjustment seen as achievements: environmental mastery is autoplastic and alloplastic competence realised, and positive relations are the belonging need fulfilled. Ryff's framework thus closes the loop, casting good social adjustment not as the mere avoidance of conflict but as a constituent of a life going well.

Worked Example: Two Routes to the Same Fit

Figure 1

The two routes to adjustment can be made precise with a little arithmetic that ties together the appraisal engine, the multidimensional measurement, and the autoplastic/alloplastic distinction. Suppose a person's social world is divided into three role domains — work, family, and social life — and that in each we have their appraised demand and their appraised coping resource, each on a 0–10 scale. Let the demands be D = (8, 4, 7) and the resources be R = (5, 6, 3). Following Lazarus and Folkman, the strain in a domain is the appraised gap in which demand exceeds resource, and is zero when resources are sufficient:

s = max(0, D − R) = (max(0, 3), max(0, −2), max(0, 4)) = (3, 0, 4)

The family domain carries no strain, because appraised resources (6) exceed demands (4); the work and social domains are strained, the social domain most of all. The total strain is the sum across domains:

S = 3 + 0 + 4 = 7

Now consider the two routes to a better fit, each targeted at the most-strained social domain. The autoplastic route changes the self — building coping resources through skill, reappraisal, or support — raising the social resource from 3 to 7. The social strain becomes max(0, 7 − 7) = 0, and the total falls to S = 3 + 0 + 0 = 3. The alloplastic route changes the environment — renegotiating or reducing the demand itself — cutting the social demand from 7 to 3. The social strain becomes max(0, 3 − 3) = 0, and the total again falls to S = 3. Both routes achieve the same reduction, from 7 to 3, by different means: one closed the gap by lifting the resource to meet the demand, the other by lowering the demand to meet the resource.

Two features of the result are worth drawing out. First, the work domain's strain of 3 survives both interventions, because each was aimed at a single domain — which is exactly why Weissman's scale measures adjustment role by role rather than as one number, and why a person can be well adjusted in one part of life and strained in another. Second, the equivalence of the two routes is only local: in the real cases the sections above describe, resources and demands are rarely so freely adjustable, and the route that is adaptive depends on how controllable the demand is (Folkman et al., 1986) and on where the misfit actually lies (van Vianen, 2018). Mature adjustment is the judicious blend of the two across the domains that need them.

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of social adjustment has converged, from several starting points, on a coherent picture. At its centre is the idea that adjustment is a fit between a person and their social environment, repairable from either side — by changing the self or by changing the situation — a two-route structure present in the MeSH definition, in Lazarus's problem- versus emotion-focused coping, and in the person–environment fit tradition (Folkman et al., 1986; van Vianen, 2018). The fit is not objective but appraised: strain is the gap a person perceives between social demands and their coping resources, which is why two people in the same circumstances can adjust so differently and why the leverage of intervention lies partly in cognition.

The motive that drives the whole process is belonging. Treating the need to belong as fundamental explains why failures of social adjustment are so costly, and the sociometer account shows the cognitive mechanism by which the cost is registered: self-esteem tracks acceptance and falls as an alarm when belonging is threatened, tuned most sharply to the domains on which a person has staked their worth (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary et al., 1995; Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Measurement made the construct scientific — Weissman's multidimensional scale turned a clinical impression into a role-specific quantity (Paykel et al., 1971; Weissman & Bothwell, 1976) — and the developmental and acculturation literatures situated adjustment in time and in culture, showing that early peer relations forecast later outcomes, that resilient adjustment flows from ordinary adaptive systems, and that the integrative strategy toward competing cultures is on balance the most adaptive (Parker & Asher, 1987; Masten, 2001; Berry, 2005; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013).

The practical upshot is that social adjustment should be understood as a process to be supported rather than a trait to be judged. Its costs fall most heavily where a strong need to belong meets an environment that frustrates it, or where the ordinary systems of adaptation have been damaged. That analysis points to where help is most effective — at the appraisal, the coping resources, and the social conditions that determine fit — and it is the basis of the contemporary move to treat social connection as a matter of public health, taken up next.

Current Directions

The most consequential contemporary line treats social connection as a determinant of physical health, not merely of happiness. Julianne Holt-Lunstad and colleagues, in a meta-analysis of mortality data, found that loneliness and social isolation are associated with a substantially increased likelihood of death, with effect sizes comparable to well-established risk factors such as smoking and obesity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). The follow-on argument is a policy one: that the quality of a person's social adjustment — their connection or isolation — should be regarded as a public-health priority on a par with the classic medical risk factors, reframing a construct born in the psychiatric clinic as a population-level concern (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017).

A second, fast-moving direction shows that social adjustment can be shifted by brief, precisely targeted cognitive interventions. Gregory Walton and Geoffrey Cohen demonstrated that a short social-belonging intervention — reframing early social adversity in a new environment as common and temporary rather than as evidence of not belonging — produced durable improvements in the academic and health outcomes of minority college students (Walton & Cohen, 2011). A large field experiment later found that the same belonging intervention improved adult life outcomes for Black Americans years after college, establishing belonging as a manipulable cognitive lever with long-range effects rather than a fixed disposition (Brady et al., 2020). The work operationalises the belonging motive as something that can be addressed by changing construal — an autoplastic intervention of the purest kind.

A third strand consolidates the construct of belonging itself. Kelly-Ann Allen and colleagues proposed an integrative framework drawing together the many literatures in which belonging appears — attachment, acceptance, person–environment fit, identity — and specifying the competencies, opportunities, motivations, and perceptions that determine whether a person feels they belong (Allen et al., 2021). In parallel, the developmental evidence has been sharpened: a meta-analysis by Sandra Rueger and colleagues established that perceived social support prospectively protects against depression in childhood and adolescence, clarifying which sources and types of support matter and tightening the long-observed link between social adjustment and mental health (Rueger et al., 2016). Across these efforts the trajectory is away from treating social adjustment as a static clinical rating and toward specifying the cognitive, developmental, and societal levers that move it.

Common Misconceptions

Good social adjustment means conforming to one's environment.

It need not. MeSH itself notes that adjustment can proceed by changing the environment to fit the self (alloplastic change) as well as by changing the self to fit the environment (autoplastic change). Renegotiating a role or leaving a harmful situation can be as adaptive as adapting to it; mature adjustment blends both routes (Folkman et al., 1986; van Vianen, 2018).

Social adjustment is a single trait a person either has or lacks.

It is multidimensional and role-specific. Weissman's Social Adjustment Scale showed that a person can be well adjusted at work yet strained in family life, so adjustment is measured role by role rather than as one global score. The right question is in which roles, and how well (Paykel et al., 1971; Weissman & Bothwell, 1976).

Resilient adjustment requires rare, exceptional strength.

Masten's evidence points the other way. Good adjustment despite adversity is common and flows from ordinary adaptive systems — attachment, self-regulation, functioning families and communities — rather than from extraordinary traits. The real threat to adjustment is damage to those ordinary systems, not an absence of heroism (Masten, 2001).

Adapting to a new culture means giving up one's own.

Berry's framework and the biculturalism evidence show that the most adaptive strategy is usually integration — maintaining the heritage culture while engaging the host culture — not assimilation. Holding two cultural frames is, on balance, an adjustment asset rather than a burden (Berry, 2005; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013).

Glossary

Acculturation.

The process of psychological and cultural change that follows sustained contact between cultures; Berry's framework distinguishes integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation as strategies differing in adjustment outcome.

Alloplastic adjustment.

Adjustment achieved by changing the environment to fit the self — renegotiating, reshaping, or leaving a situation; the counterpart of autoplastic change, and the cognitive home of problem-focused coping.

Autoplastic adjustment.

Adjustment achieved by changing the self to fit the environment — adopting new habits, revising expectations, reappraising a demand; the cognitive home of emotion-focused coping.

Belonging.

The need to form and maintain lasting, positive interpersonal relationships; argued by Baumeister and Leary to be a fundamental human motivation that drives social adjustment.

Cognitive appraisal.

In Lazarus's theory, the evaluation of a situation as threatening, challenging, or benign (primary appraisal) and of one's resources to cope with it (secondary appraisal); the junction at which social demands become strain or not.

Contingencies of self-worth.

The domains on which a person stakes their self-esteem; self-esteem rises and falls most sharply in response to feedback in these domains, tuning the sociometer's sensitivity.

Coping.

The cognitive and behavioural efforts a person makes to manage demands appraised as taxing their resources; problem-focused coping acts on the environment, emotion-focused coping on one's own reaction.

Integration.

In Berry's acculturation scheme, the strategy of maintaining one's heritage culture while also engaging the host culture; generally associated with the best psychological and sociocultural adjustment.

Person–environment fit.

The correspondence between a person's needs and abilities and what the environment supplies and demands; good fit predicts adjustment, satisfaction, and performance, and can be improved from either side.

Resilience.

Good adjustment despite serious threats to development; shown by Masten to arise from ordinary adaptive systems rather than rare traits, the phenomenon she called ordinary magic.

Social Adjustment Scale.

The instrument developed by Weissman and colleagues that scores role performance across work, family, and social life, operationalising social adjustment as a multidimensional, role-specific quantity.

Social adjustment.

Adaptation of the person to the social environment, and the quality of fit it produces; classified by MeSH under social behaviour and achievable by changing the self or the environment.

Sociometer.

Leary's proposal that self-esteem is an internal gauge monitoring the degree to which a person is accepted or rejected by others, with drops in self-esteem signalling threats to belonging.

Strain.

The appraised gap in which a social demand exceeds the coping resources brought to it; the proximal driver of poor adjustment in the demand–resource view.

Key Researchers

John W. Berry

(Queen's University, Canada). Developed the acculturation framework distinguishing integration, assimilation, separation, and marginalisation, showing that adjustment to a new culture depends on the strategy a person adopts toward heritage and host cultures. Wikipedia

Julianne Holt-Lunstad

(Brigham Young University). Quantified the health consequences of social connection and its absence, showing that weak social relationships rival established risk factors for mortality and reframing social adjustment as a public-health concern. ORCID

Richard S. Lazarus

(University of California, Berkeley, 1922–2002). Established the cognitive-appraisal theory of stress and coping, showing that adjustment to a social demand turns on how the person appraises the demand against their resources, not on the demand alone. Wikipedia

Mark R. Leary

(Duke University). Proposed the sociometer hypothesis, which casts self-esteem as an internal gauge of relational value that monitors acceptance and warns of social exclusion. Wikipedia

Ann S. Masten

(University of Minnesota). Showed that resilient adjustment under adversity arises from ordinary adaptive systems rather than rare traits, reframing good outcomes in hard environments as expectable when basic protective processes are intact. ORCID

Carol D. Ryff

(University of Wisconsin–Madison). Formalised a multidimensional model of psychological well-being in which positive relations with others and environmental mastery are core facets, framing good adjustment as flourishing rather than the mere absence of distress. ORCID

Gregory M. Walton

(Stanford University). Demonstrated that brief social-belonging interventions, by changing how people construe early social adversity, produce durable improvements in academic and health adjustment, establishing belonging as a manipulable cognitive lever. ORCID

Myrna M. Weissman

(Columbia University). Co-developed the Social Adjustment Scale, the dominant self-report measure of social adjustment across work, family, and social roles, turning an abstract construct into a measurable clinical outcome. ORCID

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social adjustment?

Social adjustment is the process by which a person adapts to the social environment, together with the quality of the fit that results. A well-adjusted person meets the demands of their roles (work, family, friendship, community) without disabling conflict or distress. MeSH defines it as adaptation of the person to the social environment and notes that it can occur by changing the self or by changing the environment.

What are the two routes to social adjustment?

Adjustment can be autoplastic, changing the self to fit the environment by adopting new habits, revising expectations, or reappraising a demand; or alloplastic, changing the environment to fit the self by renegotiating, reshaping, or leaving a situation. Neither is inherently healthier, and mature adjustment usually blends the two depending on how controllable the situation is and where the misfit lies.

How is social adjustment measured?

The standard approach, pioneered by Weissman and colleagues in the Social Adjustment Scale, scores a person's role performance across domains such as work, marriage, parenting, extended family, and social and leisure life, rather than assigning a single global rating. This captures the fact that a person can be well adjusted in one role and strained in another, so adjustment is assessed role by role.

Why do people differ so much in how well they adjust to the same situation?

Lazarus's appraisal theory locates the difference in cognition. Strain arises not from a social demand itself but from the gap a person appraises between the demand and their coping resources. Two people facing identical circumstances can adjust very differently depending on whether they read the situation as a threat or a challenge and whether they judge themselves able to cope.

What does belonging have to do with social adjustment?

Baumeister and Leary argued that the need to belong is a fundamental human motivation, which is why failures of social adjustment are so costly. Leary's sociometer theory adds the mechanism: self-esteem works as an internal gauge of how accepted a person is, dropping as an alarm when belonging is threatened and motivating them to repair their social standing.

Is adapting to a new culture a matter of giving up one's own?

Not according to the evidence. Berry's framework distinguishes four acculturation strategies, and integration, which maintains the heritage culture while also engaging the host culture, is generally the most adaptive. A meta-analysis found that biculturalism is positively associated with both psychological and sociocultural adjustment, so holding two cultural frames is on balance an asset.

Does good adjustment under hardship require exceptional strength?

No. Masten's research shows that resilience, good adjustment despite serious adversity, is common and arises from ordinary human adaptive systems such as close relationships, self-regulation, and functioning families and communities. Good outcomes are expectable when these ordinary systems are intact, and the real danger to adjustment is damage to them.

Why is social adjustment considered a health issue?

Because social connection predicts physical health. Holt-Lunstad's meta-analytic work found that loneliness and social isolation raise the risk of death by amounts comparable to smoking and obesity. On that evidence, researchers argue that the quality of a person's social relationships should be treated as a public-health priority alongside the classic medical risk factors.

References

Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Brady, S. T., Cohen, G. L., Jarvis, S. N., & Walton, G. M. (2020). A brief social-belonging intervention in college improves adult outcomes for Black Americans. Science Advances, 6(18), eaay3689. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay3689

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.593

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. American Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.227

Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111435097

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.357

Paykel, E. S., Weissman, M. M., Prusoff, B. A., & Tonks, C. M. (1971). Dimensions of social adjustment in depressed women. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 152(3), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-197103000-00002

Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., Pyun, Y., Aycock, C., & Coyle, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(10), 1017–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000058

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

van Vianen, A. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198364

Weissman, M. M., & Bothwell, S. (1976). Assessment of social adjustment by patient self-report. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33(9), 1111–1115. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1976.01770090101010