Drawing on data from 26 European countries, Aude Bernard, Patricia McMullin, and Sergi Vidal uncover a strong association between the number of internal moves and childhood loneliness.
Childhood migration and the loss of social networks
Childhood migration is consistently associated with adverse life outcomes (Anderson et al. 2014), and the leading explanation is the disruption of social networks. In a recent study (Bernard, McMullin and Vidal 2025), we tested this hypothesis by using loneliness as a proxy for the loss of social ties. Three key findings emerge:
1. Number of moves: The more times children move, the higher the likelihood of reporting loneliness during their school years (Figure 1a).
2. Duration of residence: Loneliness decreases with the length of stay of children in the same place, suggesting that they gradually rebuild social networks at destination (Figure 1b).
3. Chronic migration: The protective effect of residential stability weakens with repeated moves, highlighting the social risks of chronic mobility (Figure 1c).
The moderating role of family structures
Family members are an important source of social support. We therefore tested whether family structure protects against migration-induced loneliness. Results show that living with both parents and having siblings both reduce the likelihood of feeling lonely, by around 30% and 20% respectively. Crucially, siblings moderate the effect of migration: movers without siblings report an 11.2% predicted probability of being often lonely, compared with 6.7% among movers with siblings (Figure 2). In contrast, living with both parents does not buffer the negative impact of migration.
The societal context: individualism versus collectivism
Cultural values shape the experience of loneliness (Barreto et al. 2021).
Two patterns stand out (Figure 3):
• Absolute levels: Collectivist societies, where tighter family-based networks are the norm (southern and eastern Europe), display consistently lower overall loneliness than individualist ones, where independence and self-reliance are emphasised (northern and western Europe);
• Relative impact: The association between number of moves and loneliness is comparatively stronger in collectivist societies. This may reflect higher social needs and a greater gap between expected and realised relationships among repeat movers (Johnson and Mullins 1987). In individualist countries, by contrast, children may develop better coping strategies when moving (Tamis‐LeMonda et al. 2008), but still report higher baseline levels of loneliness.
Policy implications
By considering how the association between internal migration and loneliness varies by frequency, and by unpacking the moderating role of family structures and cultural values, we can identify the groups most at risk. These are children without siblings living in highly individualist and highly mobile societies, such as France, Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden.
Two broader demographic trends are likely to intensify risks: the rise of single-child families and the global spread of individualist orientations, even if relative differences between countries remain stable (Beugelsdijk, Maseland, and Van Hoorn 2015). As a result, the impact of internal migration on loneliness may be greater for today’s children than for earlier cohorts. In Europe, the spatial gradient of higher mobility in the North and West versus lower mobility in the South and East mirrors the cultural gradient in individualism. Together, these patterns suggest that migration-induced loneliness will remain a pressing issue, particularly in northern and western Europe. At the same time, falling levels of internal migration in some countries (Alvarez, Bernard, and Lieske 2021) have lowered aggregate exposure to migration but have not attenuated risks among childhood movers. Rather, the decline in migration is likely to have shifted the risk of mobility-induced loneliness toward a smaller group of children with higher needs.
In summary, a single childhood migration may have limited effects on loneliness and can even foster valuable skills through learning how to leave and enter new social contexts (Bernard 2023). Conversely, children who move often are at a higher risk of more adverse consequences. It is therefore essential to identify and support those children most at risk of isolation in their new location, particularly in countries with individualist orientations.
References
Alvarez, M., A. Bernard, and S. N. Lieske. 2021. ‘Understanding internal migration trends in OECD countries’, Population, Space and Place, e2451.
Anderson, Sara, Tama Leventhal, Sandra Newman, and Veronique Dupéré. 2014. ‘Residential mobility among children: A framework for child and family policy’, Cityscape, 16: 5-36.
Barreto, Manuela, Christina Victor, Claudia Hammond, Alice Eccles, Matt T Richins, and Pamela Qualter. 2021. ‘Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness’, Personality and Individual Differences, 169: 110066.
Bernard, Aude. 2023. ‘Does Internal Migration Contribute to the Intergenerational Transmission of Socioeconomic Inequalities? The Role of Childhood Migration’, Demography: 10826486-86.
Bernard, Aude, Patricia McMullin, and Sergi Vidal. 2025. ‘Internal Migration and Loneliness in Childhood: The Moderating Role of Family Structure and Cultural Individualism’, European Journal of Population, 41: 1-33.
Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, Robbert Maseland, and André Van Hoorn. 2015. ‘Are scores on H ofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A Cohort Analysis’, Global Strategy Journal, 5: 223-40.
Johnson, D Paul, and Larry C Mullins. 1987. ‘Growing old and lonely in different societies: Toward a comparative perspective’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 2: 257-75.
Tamis‐LeMonda, Catherine S, Niobe Way, Diane Hughes, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Ronit Kahana Kalman, and Erika Y Niwa. 2008. ‘Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals’, Social development, 17: 183-209.