Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10)

Abstract

The Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10), originally conceptualized in French as the Échelle du sentiment d’appartenance sociale (ESAS) by Robert J. Vallerand and Simon F. Richer (1995, 1998), is a psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the degree to which an individual experiences psychological relatedness within interpersonal and organizational environments. Grounded within Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, the instrument operationalizes relatedness not merely as social contact, but as a dual-faceted psychological state comprising Acceptance and Intimacy. The scale consists of 10 items scored along a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“Do not agree at all”) to 7 (“Very strongly agree”). Five items capture the perception of social acceptance, feeling valued, listened to, safe, and supported, while the remaining five items assess interpersonal intimacy, feeling close, attached, bonded, close-knit, and connected as a friend.

Extensive psychometric investigations have affirmed the robust structural, convergent, and discriminant validity of the NRS-10 across workplace, athletic, educational, and general social contexts. Confirmatory factor analyses systematically support a correlated two-factor model as well as a hierarchical model reflecting an overarching latent construct of perceived relatedness. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega) regularly exceed .85 across both subscales and .90 for the aggregate score. The NRS-10 has served as a foundational empirical tool in research examining intrinsic motivation, professional burnout, emotional well-being, interpersonal cohesion, and job retention, demonstrating that the satisfaction of the need for relatedness serves as a pivotal psychological buffer against alienation, cynicism, and turnover intentions.

Keywords

Need for Relatedness Scale, NRS-10, Self-Determination Theory, basic psychological needs, perceived relatedness, social acceptance, interpersonal intimacy, work motivation, psychometrics, scale validation, Robert J. Vallerand, Simon F. Richer

Authors

The Need for Relatedness Scale was conceived and validated by Canadian social psychologists Simon F. Richer and Robert J. Vallerand. Dr. Robert J. Vallerand is a Full Professor of Psychology at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), where he directs the Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Comportement Social (LRCS), and holds a Canada Research Chair in Motivational Processes and Optimal Functioning. Dr. Vallerand is recognized internationally for his seminal contributions to motivation theory, the development of the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM), and the Dualistic Model of Passion. Simon F. Richer conducted this foundational psychometric research in collaboration with Dr. Vallerand at UQAM, initially presenting the scale at the annual conference of the Société Québécoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie (SQRP) in 1995 before formal publication in the Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée (European Review of Applied Psychology) in 1998.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10) is to provide an empirically rigorous, theoretically grounded measurement of perceived relatedness satisfaction. According to Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), a sub-theory within Self-Determination Theory, human beings have three innate psychological needs essential for optimal functioning, psychological growth, and constructive social development: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. While autonomy reflects self-governance and competence denotes personal effectiveness, relatedness refers to the fundamental feeling of being socially connected, cared for, and accepted by significant others within a given social milieu.

Prior to the introduction of the NRS-10, existing sociometric inventories often conflated objective social network size, contact frequency, or general social support with the phenomenological experience of psychological relatedness. Richer and Vallerand designed the NRS-10 to directly measure the psychological quality of relatedness experiences rather than structural social variables. In applied organizational contexts, the scale diagnoses psychological alienation, teamwork dynamics, and supportive climate indices. In clinical and counseling settings, the scale quantifies deficits in interpersonal belongingness, which are heavily implicated in depressive symptomatology, loneliness, and social anxiety. In sport psychology, researchers such as Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) have used the instrument to investigate how coaching behaviors influence athletes’ basic need satisfaction and subsequent intrinsic motivation.

Furthermore, the NRS-10 addresses a critical measurement gap by dividing relatedness into two functionally distinct yet interrelated psychological dimensions: feeling accepted by the group (social validation and safety) and experiencing intimacy with individual members (emotional closeness and bonding). This dual-dimensional architecture enables researchers to discern whether social interventions succeed in cultivating broad institutional safety or whether they successfully nurture deep dyadic connections.

Psychological Construct

The construct of relatedness represents an essential nutrient for human psychological thriving. Richer and Vallerand (1998) delineated perceived relatedness as a psychological state characterized by two distinct phenomenological components: Acceptance and Intimacy.

1. The Acceptance Dimension

The Acceptance dimension measures the respondent’s cognitive and affective perception of being validated, welcomed, and treated as an intrinsically valuable member of the collective. It addresses the systemic and environmental safety afforded by the interpersonal group. Within the NRS-10, acceptance is assessed through five experiential markers:

• Supported (Item 1): Feeling that colleagues or group members are dependable allies who provide emotional and operational backing during challenging circumstances.
• Understood (Item 3): Experiencing cognitive and empathetic alignment, wherein one’s perspectives, motives, and challenges are accurately perceived and acknowledged by others.
• Listened to (Item 5): Perceiving that one’s voice, feedback, and opinions are actively solicited, heard, and given weight in interpersonal exchanges.
• Valued (Item 7): Feeling respected as a distinct individual with meaningful contributions, contrasting directly with feelings of instrumental commodification or marginalization.
• Safe (Item 9): Experiencing psychological safety, meaning freedom from interpersonal fear, mockery, retaliation, or exclusion within the social ecology.

Acceptance reflects the foundational, contextual climate that establishes interpersonal trust. In organizational environments characterized by high acceptance, workers feel secure enough to voice novel ideas, express vulnerability, and ask for assistance without apprehension of social penalty.

2. The Intimacy Dimension

While acceptance concerns group-level inclusion and validation, the Intimacy dimension operationalizes the affective depth, mutual warmth, and reciprocal bonding experienced with specific others. It encapsulates emotional proximity and interpersonal attachment:

• Close to them (Item 2): A subjective sense of reduced emotional distance, reflecting mutual familiarity and shared affective resonance.
• Attached to them (Item 4): Experiencing psychological interdependence and affective bonds, wherein the welfare of the collective or specific colleagues holds subjective value.
• Bonded to them (Item 6): The perception of enduring solidarity, reciprocal loyalty, and unified team cohesion.
• Close-knit (Item 8): Experiencing the social unit as an interwoven, tightly integrated collective rather than a fragmented aggregate of isolated individuals.
• As a friend (Item 10): The qualitative transformation of a purely instrumental or formal relationship into a genuine, communal friendship based on intrinsic care.

Together, these two sub-constructs account for the multifaceted nature of human belongingness. An employee may feel broadly accepted and safe (high acceptance) yet lack profound personal connections (low intimacy). Conversely, a student might have a select confidant (high intimacy) while feeling broadly excluded by the surrounding group (low acceptance). The NRS-10 captures both axes accurately.

Theoretical Framework

The Need for Relatedness Scale is primarily anchored in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. SDT adopts an organismic-dialectical meta-theory, conceptualizing individuals as active, growth-oriented organisms possessing natural tendencies toward psychological integration and psychological wellness. However, these inherent constructive tendencies do not occur automatically; they require sustained psychological nutriments from the social environment.

Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT)

Within SDT’s sub-theories, Basic Psychological Needs Theory posits that psychological health is directly contingent on the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others—to love and care, and to be loved and cared for. When relatedness needs are satisfied, individuals internalize external values, demonstrate heightened self-regulation, experience elevated vitality, and display pro-social organizational behaviors. Conversely, when the need for relatedness is thwarted, individuals exhibit psychological alienation, passive non-compliance, defensive posturing, and emotional burnout.

The Need to Belong Hypothesis

The conceptual framework of the NRS-10 also aligns directly with the seminal work of Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary (1995) regarding the “Need to Belong.” Baumeister and Leary postulated that human evolution selected for a powerful drive to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships. According to their model, belongingness requires two distinct criteria: (a) frequent, affectively pleasant interactions with a few other people, and (b) these interactions must take place in the context of a temporally stable and enduring framework of mutual concern. The NRS-10 reflects these dual criteria directly through its two-factor structure: Acceptance provides the stable framework of security and mutual concern, while Intimacy captures affective bonding and reciprocal warmth.

The Hierarchical Model of Motivation

Vallerand’s (1997) Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM) further contextualizes the NRS-10. The HMIEM establishes that social factors (e.g., leadership style, cooperative tasks, organizational fairness) influence psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness), which in turn dictate motivational orientations (intrinsic, extrinsic, or amotivation) across situational, contextual, and global life levels. The NRS-10 functions within this model as an exact contextual-level measurement tool, quantifying the psychological mediating bridge between social work environments and motivational outcomes.

Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Need for Relatedness Scale have established robust evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive (criterion) validity across varied populations.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

During the initial validation studies by Richer and Vallerand (1998) involving over 600 adult participants in both French and English organizational contexts, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated whether relatedness is best represented as unidimensional or multidimensional. The hypothesized two-factor oblique model (Acceptance and Intimacy) demonstrated an exemplary fit to empirical data, substantially outperforming alternative single-factor specifications. Factor loadings for all 10 items systematically exceeded .65, confirming that the indicators are powerful empirical reflections of their respective latent variables.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through significant correlations between the NRS-10 and established indices of interpersonal wellbeing, social support, and attachment:

• Perceived Social Support: Demonstrates high positive correlations with the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), with coefficients typically ranging between r = .55 and r = .72 (p < .001).
• Affective Commitment: Strongly correlates with Allen and Meyer’s Affective Organizational Commitment Scale (r = .48 to .60), demonstrating that employees who feel accepted and emotionally close to colleagues identify more strongly with their employing organization.
• Job Satisfaction: Correlates positively with generalized job satisfaction indices (r = .45 to .58), confirming that workplace relatedness is a salient component of occupational well-being.

3. Discriminant Validity

The NRS-10 demonstrates clear discriminant validity relative to other basic psychological needs and personality dimensions. When modeled simultaneously with measures of perceived autonomy (e.g., the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale) and perceived competence, the NRS-10 loads cleanly onto its intended factor without problematic cross-loadings (inter-factor correlations typically range between .35 and .50, confirming related yet functionally independent constructs). Furthermore, the scale correlates moderately, but not redundantly, with personality traits such as extraversion (r ≈ .28) and agreeableness (r ≈ .32), demonstrating that the scale measures subjective psychological states derived from relational environments rather than static biological personality dispositions.

4. Predictive and Criterion Validity

In predictive validity designs, the NRS-10 accounts for unique variance in psychological and behavioral outcomes:

• Emotional Burnout: Longitudinal research shows that baseline scores on the NRS-10 negatively predict future emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (β = -.34 to -.42, p < .001).
• Intrinsic Motivation: In athletic settings, Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) demonstrated that athletes’ scores on the NRS-10 significantly predicted intrinsic motivation, mediated by autonomous self-regulation.
• Turnover Intentions: Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand (2002) confirmed that relatedness deficits measured by the NRS-10 directly predicted elevated turnover intentions via lowered emotional energy and autonomous motivation.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10) has been consistently confirmed using multiple estimation methods across diverse cultural, demographic, and occupational groups.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies conducted by Richer and Vallerand (1998), internal consistency was rigorously evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha across multiple independent workplace samples:

• Acceptance Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently range between .86 and .92. Corrected item-total correlations for the five items remain uniformly high, typically spanning from .66 to .81.
• Intimacy Subscale (5 items): Cronbach’s α coefficients span between .85 and .91, with corrected item-total correlations ranging between .64 and .79.
• Total Relatedness Scale (10 items): When aggregated into a global index of perceived relatedness, internal consistency systematically yields α values between .90 and .95.

Subsequent investigations across alternative contexts have replicated these high internal consistency metrics. In sports psychology research (e.g., Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005), alpha coefficients for the adapted scale items exceeded .88. Studies calculating McDonald’s omega (ω) similarly yield values above .90, demonstrating that the high reliability is not an artifact of alpha’s assumption of tau-equivalence.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments have demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability across varying time horizons:

• Over a two-week interval, Richer and Vallerand observed test-retest correlation coefficients exceeding r = .82, confirming that the scale is stable against brief daily mood fluctuations.
• Over a six-month longitudinal interval in stable workplace settings, stability coefficients remained moderately high (r = .62 to .68), demonstrating characteristic stability of social environments while retaining sensitivity to actual shifts in team dynamics, reorganizations, or supervisory changes.

Factor Analysis

The dimensionality of the NRS-10 has been evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale development, principal axis factoring with oblimin (oblique) rotation was conducted on an initial pool of candidate items. The scree test and eigenvalue analysis (> 1.0) unambiguously supported a two-factor solution explaining over 68% of the total variance. Factor 1 cleanly aggregated items assessing emotional depth, closeness, and camaraderie (Intimacy), while Factor 2 aggregated items indexing organizational security, being valued, and feeling understood (Acceptance). No item exhibited cross-loadings exceeding .25 on the non-target factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In subsequent validation samples, Richer and Vallerand (1998) tested competing structural models using maximum likelihood structural equation modeling:

• Model 1 (Unidimensional Model): All 10 items loading onto a single general relatedness factor. Fit was mediocre: χ²/df > 5.2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .84, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .80, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .112.
• Model 2 (Two-Factor Orthogonal Model): Two independent, uncorrelated factors representing Acceptance and Intimacy. Fit was poor: χ²/df > 7.8, CFI = .76, RMSEA = .138.
• Model 3 (Two-Factor Oblique Model): Two correlated factors (Acceptance and Intimacy). Fit was excellent: χ²/df = 1.94, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .046 (90% CI [.031, .061]), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038.

Standardized Factor Loadings

In the optimal correlated two-factor model, standardized factor loadings (λ) are robust across both subscales:

• Acceptance Factor: Item 1 (.76), Item 3 (.81), Item 5 (.78), Item 7 (.84), Item 9 (.72).
• Intimacy Factor: Item 2 (.80), Item 4 (.85), Item 6 (.83), Item 8 (.79), Item 10 (.75).

The correlation between the Acceptance and Intimacy latent factors is typically estimated at r = .65 to .72, indicating that while the dimensions share substantial common variance, they represent distinguishable facets of interpersonal experience. In research where a single global metric is required, a higher-order hierarchical model (where a superordinate ‘Relatedness’ factor accounts for the correlation between Acceptance and Intimacy) also fits the data exceptionally well (CFI = .97, RMSEA = .047).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Name of Tool: Need for Relatedness Scale (NRS-10)
• Original French Title: Échelle du sentiment d’appartenance sociale (ESAS)
• Primary Construct: Psychological relatedness satisfaction (Self-Determination Theory)
• Measurement Dimensions:
  • Acceptance: 5 items (Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
  • Intimacy: 5 items (Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10)
• Total Item Count: 10 self-report items
• Item Stem: “In my relationships with my work colleagues, I feel …” (Can be adapted to “In my relationships with my teammates/classmates…”)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Do not agree at all
  • 2 = Very slightly agree
  • 3 = Slightly agree
  • 4 = Moderately agree
  • 5 = Agree
  • 6 = Strongly agree
  • 7 = Very strongly agree
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • Directionality: All 10 items are positively keyed. There are no reverse-scored items.
  • Acceptance Subscale Score: Calculated by averaging the responses to items 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 (Theoretical range: 1.00 to 7.00).
  • Intimacy Subscale Score: Calculated by averaging the responses to items 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 (Theoretical range: 1.00 to 7.00).
  • Global Relatedness Score: Calculated by averaging all 10 items together (Theoretical range: 1.00 to 7.00).
• Normative Interpretation:
  • Mean 1.00 – 2.99: Marked relatedness deprivation; severe alienation, lack of perceived safety, or social isolation.
  • Mean 3.00 – 4.50: Moderate/ambivalent relatedness; transactional interpersonal relations with limited psychological depth.
  • Mean 4.51 – 5.99: Positive relatedness; well-integrated interpersonal climate with solid mutual trust.
  • Mean 6.00 – 7.00: Optimal relatedness; exceptional psychological safety, profound communal bonds, and high social synergy.
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The initial conceptualization and conference presentation of the scale occurred in 1995, followed by peer-reviewed academic publication in 1998 by Simon F. Richer and Robert J. Vallerand. The instrument was made publicly available to the global scientific community by the authors through the Laboratoire de Recherche sur le Comportement Social (LRCS) at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM).

The NRS-10 / ESAS is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, non-commercial research, and educational purposes. Researchers may adapt the target stem (e.g., substituting “work colleagues” with “teammates”, “students”, or “group members”) without prior written permission, provided that proper academic citation is accorded to the original authors (Richer & Vallerand, 1998). Commercial deployment, incorporation into fee-for-service psychometric platforms, or organizational consulting products requires formal consultation with the authors or copyright holders.

References

• 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
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviours and college athletes’ intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200590907540
• Richer, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Construction et validation de l’Échelle du sentiment d’appartenance sociale en milieu de travail. Communication présentée lors du congrès annuel de la Société Québécoise pour la Recherche en Psychologie (SQRP), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 27–29 octobre.
• Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction et validation de l’Échelle du sentiment d’appartenance sociale (ESAS) [Construction and validation of the perceived relatedness scale]. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 48(2), 129–137.
• Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2089–2113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28760
• Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2

Items of the Scale