University of Groningen
Solving the Cultural Paradox of Loneliness
Heu, Luzia
DOI:
10.33612/diss.156121537
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2021
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Heu, L. (2021). Solving the Cultural Paradox of Loneliness. University of Groningen.
https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.156121537
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
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.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
INTRODUCTION
“For far too many people, loneliness is the sad reality of modern life.” (Theresa May, 2018) “We have set loose a scourge of loneliness and isolation that we are still afraid to acknowledge as the distinct social dysfunction of our age of individualism.” (Levin, 2016) “There are plenty of secondary reasons for this distress, but it seems to me that the underlying cause is everywhere the same: human beings, the ultrasocial mammals, whose brains are wired to respond to other people, are being peeled apart. Economic and technological change play a major role, but so does ideology. Though our wellbeing is inextricably linked to the lives of others, everywhere we are told that we will prosper through competitive self-interest and extreme individualism.” (Monbiot, 2016)
Across the globe, humans are born into, and move through their lives in networks of social relationships: They form, maintain, and dissolve interpersonal relations, and live together in various social groups (e.g., families, tribes, communities, or societies). As such, loneliness - the feeling of being cut-off or separated from others (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987) – is usually described as an aversive experience (e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988) with negative consequences for mental and physical health (e.g., increased depression, higher blood pressure; Cacioppo, Grippo, London, Goossens, & Cacioppo, 2015). It is hence essential to understand and prevent causes and mechanisms underlying loneliness.
Since loneliness is defined as the subjective experience of being isolated from others (VanderWeele, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2012), social isolation is often viewed as one of its main drivers (e.g., De Jong Gierveld, Van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006; Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020). Specifically, as illustrated by the quotes above, a common line of thought is that loneliness is particularly pressing in modern and individualized societies. These contain cultures that focus on individual success and self-realization, and promote that increasing numbers of people live alone, divorce, renounce family life, or are cared for in institutions rather than by their relatives. Indeed, loneliness seems to be more common among the unmarried than the married (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 1995; Hansen & Slagsvold, 2015; Hawkley et al., 2008), or among those who live alone rather than with others (Snell, 2017; Swader, 2019).
Accordingly, interventions and policies against loneliness often aim to increase social interaction and to strengthen community bonds – for instance, through better public transport, built environments that encourage social encounters in public space, or the organization of social activities such as community meals (e.g., Local Government Association, 2016).
Nevertheless, much research suggests, perhaps rather surprisingly, that loneliness is not more prevalent in more individualistic societies: Although consequences of higher individualism (e.g., living alone, being unmarried) seem to make individuals more likely to feel lonely, loneliness is higher in more collectivistic countries than in more individualistic countries (e.g., Jylhä & Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; cf. Barreto et al., 2020). On the one hand, this “cultural paradox of loneliness” highlights that loneliness as subjective experience is not the same as objective social isolation (i.e., a characteristic of an individual’s social network). For instance, loneliness can also flow from unfulfilled expectations from social relationships (Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). On the other hand, the lack of a solid explanation for this paradox reveals how little we understand yet of how culture can influence loneliness.
In fact, most psychological research about loneliness focuses on individuals and their relationships (i.e., the microsystem in Bronfenbrenner, 1979), but individuals and their relationships are also embedded in broader systems of cultural norms (i.e., the macrosystem in Bronfenbrenner, 1979; culture in line with an intersubjective definition of culture as shared ideas; Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi, Shteynberg, & Wan, 2010). Such cultural norms (i.e., what is commonly done or what is approved versus socially sanctioned, and what can hence steer human behaviour; Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991) should have the potential to act as risk factors for loneliness and to influence how other individual or relational characteristics (e.g., introversion; closeness to one’s parents) relate to loneliness (i.e., whether and to which extent they act as protective or risk factors): This is because such norms can shape how individuals relate to each other (e.g., whether individuals select their partners based on their own or their parents’ choice; whether they talk about their worries and emotions to their friends; Chiu et al., 2010) and what they expect from their social relationships (e.g., whether romantic love is viewed as prerequisite for partnerships; whether friends are expected to provide emotional support; Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). However, these relations have hardly been empirically examined yet.
Against this backdrop, the overarching aim of this thesis is hence to gain a better understanding of how loneliness is influenced by cultural norms – that is, of loneliness as a symptom of the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; in line with Adams, Estrada-Villalta,
Sullivan, & Markus, 2018). We1 believe that such understanding is theoretically and practically
relevant: It may help to resolve the cultural paradox of loneliness and provide starting points for culture-sensitive interventions.
Specifically, in this thesis, we take a cultural-psychological perspective and employ a multi-method empirical approach with samples from multiple different cultures (e.g., primary data from 13 different nations). We use both quantitative survey and qualitative interview data to examine how different cultural norms, as perceived by individuals, influence loneliness. We hence (1) identify risk factors for loneliness that are implied by specific cultural norms about social relationships, and (2) theoretically integrate these and past findings about cultural norms and loneliness in a novel theoretical framework, providing an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness. In this introduction chapter, we, first, briefly review past research about loneliness, we then describe our approach to a cultural psychology of loneliness, and conclude with a preview of the remaining chapters of this thesis.
Loneliness in the Microsystem
Loneliness has been defined as the feeling of being cut-off or separated from others (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987) or as perceived social isolation (VanderWeele, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2012). Loneliness is thus a subjective experience rather than an objective state.
Nevertheless, loneliness seems to have quite tangible consequences for health and well-being: In numerous correlational and longitudinal studies, feeling lonely seemed to put at risk for unhealthy lifestyles (e.g., a higher likelihood of smoking, less physical activity; Hawkley, Thisted, & Cacioppo, 2009; Richard et al., 2017), impaired mental and physical health (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, social anxiety, obesity, higher blood pressure, sleeping problems, a higher risk of inflammation, and weaker immunology; for an overview, see Cacioppo et al., 2015), and premature mortality (Lunstad et al., 2015; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010).
For instance, among elderly people, loneliness was found to be associated with faster cognitive decline (Wilson et al., 2007), a higher risk of mental illness (Coyle, & Dugan, 2012), and higher activity of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, which is related to multiple disease processes (Adam, Hawkley, Kudielka, & Cacioppo, 2006). Also among students, higher loneliness was related to poorer sleep, weaker cardiac performance, and greater age-related increases in blood pressure (Cacioppo et al., 2002). As such, in a longitudinal study with a sample of adult Swedes, loneliness was associated with a 27 % higher risk of mortality
1 Since this dissertation is the result of close collaboration with my supervisors, I will use “we”
over a 14-year period (Henriksen, Larsen, Mattisson, & Andersson, 2019). Ironically, loneliness also seems to negatively impact on how individuals are perceived by others (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, & Boomsma, 2011) and on how they interpret social situations (e.g., more attention for negative social cues, more negative memories of social interactions). It may therefore be particularly difficult to escape loneliness by oneself. To prevent or decrease loneliness and its negative consequences, much research has hence focused on understanding when and why individuals feel lonely.
Indeed, risk factors for loneliness are heterogeneous: Individuals can feel lonely because they lack social contacts or a sufficiently large social network (e.g., friends or a community; i.e.,
social loneliness, Weiss, 1973), or because they lack a specific intimate relationship (e.g., a
partnership, a close friendship; i.e., emotional loneliness). They can even feel lonely because of the awareness that, as human beings, they are born and die alone, and never know whether their experiences are shared by others (i.e., existential loneliness, e.g., Mijuskovic, 1977).2
More specifically, individuals can feel lonely because of characteristics of their relationships - such as having few or low-quality relationships (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 1995; Hawkley et al., 2008; Shiovitz-Ezra & Leitsch, 2010), few social interactions - particularly with close others (e.g., De Jong Gierveld, Keating, & Fast, 2014; Lee & Ko, 2018; von Soest, Luhmann, Hansen, & Gerstorf, 2020), or being single (Adamczyk, 2015; Çeçen, 2007). Furthermore, although loneliness has been suggested to be experienced by most, if not all, human beings at some point in their lives (Masi et al., 2011; Rokach, 2004), certain personal
characteristics seem to predispose for loneliness. These include a genetic disposition to feel
lonely (Boomsma, Willemsen, Dolan, Hawkley, & Cacioppo 2005; Matthews et al., 2016), insecure attachment style (Erozkan, 2011; Wei, Shaffer, Young, & Zahalik, 2005), a tendency to disclose little about the self (Wei et al., 2005), a tendency to evaluate close relationships or social interactions negatively (Lodder, Scholte, Goossens, & Verhagen, 2015), higher introversion, higher neuroticism (Buecker, Maes, Denissen, & Luhmann, 2020; Hensley et al., 2012; Stokes, 1985), or lower self-esteem (Jones et al., 1985). Also, age is frequently discussed as risk factor for loneliness, with elderly people being the target of much media attention and interventions (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016; Yang & Victor, 2011). However, although loneliness
2 Furthermore, loneliness can occur as short-lived reaction to specific events (situational
loneliness; e.g., after the termination of a romantic relationship; Beck & Young, 1978), as short-lived experience without a clear reason (transient loneliness), or as longer-lasting episode (chronic loneliness).
seems to peak among both adolescents and the elderly, this does not mean that other age groups are immune to loneliness.3
In this thesis we suggest that it is worth moving beyond such microsystem explanations for loneliness (i.e., individual and relational characteristics), and to take a cultural-psychological
perspective. We hence aim to contribute to a better understanding of loneliness through an
examination of how loneliness is influenced by cultural norms within and across different cultural groups. After all, loneliness seems to be experienced across cultures (Rokach & Bacanli, 2001; Rokach & Sharma, 1996), yet to be more likely in certain cultural contexts than in others (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014).
The Cultural Paradox of Loneliness
The few studies that have already examined associations between cultural characteristics such as individualism-collectivism (IC; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, 1995) and loneliness provide perhaps rather unintuitive findings: Counter to the common popular belief that more social isolation in a culture increases loneliness (e.g., Hendrix, 2018; Whitley, 2017), most of these studies suggest that loneliness is, on average, higher in more collectivistic than in more individualistic countries (Anderson, 1999; Fokkema, De Jong Gierveld, & Dykstra, 2012; Imamoğlu, Küller, Imamoğlu, & Küller, 1993; Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana, 1985, Jylhä & Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Sundström, Fransson, Malmberg, & Davey, 2009; Swader, 2019; Walker, 1993; Yang & Victor, 2011; cf. Barreto et al., 2020). Put differently, those in countries or regions where individuals should be more (versus less) embedded in social relationships, and spend less time alone, reported more loneliness.
Notably, this cultural paradox of loneliness emerged irrespective of whether pairs of countries (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Imamoğlu et al., 1993) or multiple countries were compared, and irrespective of whether the countries’ level of IC was derived from geographical location (e.g., Fokkema et al., 2012; Sundström et al., 2009), measured by IC indicators (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014), proxies (e.g., valuing independence; Swader, 2019), or by levels of social embeddedness (Jylhä & Jokela, 1990). For instance, in European regions where less elderly people lived alone, and where community bonds were stronger, elderly people
3 As such, individual characteristics and individual ways of relating to others have also been
the main targets of interventions: These aim to make individuals more socially embedded (e.g., increasing social support or opportunities for social interaction; Masi et al., 2011), or at changing their ways of relating to others (e.g., improving social skills or maladaptive social cognition, for instance in cognitive behavioural therapy or through medication; Cacioppo et al., 2015; Masi et al., 2011).
reported to feel lonelier than in regions where more elderly people lived alone and were these bonds were weaker (Jylhä & Jokela, 1990). Similarly, in large-scale samples (with responses from both elderly people in Eurobarometer data and individuals aged 15 and older in the European Social Survey), individuals in more collectivistic European countries reported higher loneliness than those in more individualistic European countries (Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014). One exception to this consistent pattern is a recent study in 237 different countries, islands, and territories (with a high proportion of relatively individualistic samples), in which loneliness was related to higher individualism (Barreto et al., 2020). Nevertheless, across the board, the literature strongly suggests a cultural paradox of loneliness at the country-level.
The few studies that have examined IC or social embeddedness at the individual level add even more complexity: Indicators of collectivism or social embeddedness that were related to higher loneliness at the country-level might actually be related to lower loneliness or be unrelated to it at the individual level (Jylhä & Jokela, 1990; Swader, 2019; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). For example, when individuals described themselves by more collectivistic traits (Triandis et al., 1988) or were more embedded in traditionally collectivistic relational structures (e.g., when elderly people were living together with their family or had closer bonds with neighbours; Jylhä & Jokela, 1990), they were less likely to report loneliness. At the same time, valuing independence in decision making (i.e., an indicator of higher individualism) was unrelated to loneliness (Swader, 2019). This may be unsurprising given that individual- and country-level results do not necessarily converge, but the lack of theorizing or evidence to interpret such differences shows that we lack understanding of how cultural variables impact on loneliness and its risk factors. The aim of this dissertation is to contribute to such better understanding – including a resolution of the cultural paradox of loneliness – through an integration of the scattered research literature, and an expansion thereof by novel theorizing and empirical research about how cultural norms about social relationships relate to loneliness.
Loneliness Within the Macrosystem: A Cultural
Psychology of Loneliness
Culture can be manifested in manifold ways, including shared ways of thinking (e.g., Chiu et al., 2010; Matsumoto, 1996), acting (i.e., customs; Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952), in internalized characteristics (e.g., Triandis, 1995), or in cultural products such as language, art, or advertising (Kroeber & Kluckhohn 1952; Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008). We focus on shared ideas about what is valuable and valid or important and true (i.e., norms, beliefs, or values). That is, we conceptualise culture in line with an intersubjective approach (Chiu et al., 2010;
Chiu, Leung, & Hong, 2011) because shared ideas are not only strongly intertwined with the other aspects of culture named above, but they are also important drivers of human cognition, emotion, and behaviour (e.g., Chiu et al., 2010; Shteynberg, Gelfand, & Kim, 2009). Indeed, this influence seems to persist even if norms are, for instance, not internalized or not actually manifested in the ways that others act (e.g., pluralistic ignorance, Katz & Allport, 1931). More specifically, cultural norms about social relationships are pivotal in a cultural psychology of loneliness (for examples of different relationship norms, see Adams, Anderson, & Adonu, 2004; Adams, Kurtiş, Salter, & Anderson, 2012; Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka, & Contarello, 1986; Bejanyan, Marshall, & Ferenczi, 2014; González, Moreno, & Schneider, 2004; Imamoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2006; Li, Bhatt, Zhang, Pahal, & Cui, 2006). Such norms (e.g., rules about whether or not individuals should marry; whether or not love is a prerequisite for romantic relationships; whether life-changing decisions need to be taken by family members or by oneself) are strongly intertwined with how individuals relate to each other and what they expect from these relationships. This is important because both established relationships and expectations about them are crucial determinants of loneliness (Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981, 1984): According to influential theorizing, individuals feel lonely if they perceive a discrepancy between their actual and ideal social relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1981, 1984) or, put differently, if their relationships cannot live up to their expectations, needs, or desires (Johnson & Mullins, 1987).
As such, cultural norms about social relationships can influence loneliness through influencing the prevalence of its risk factors, the weight or importance of specific risk factors, and the
types or sets of risk factors. Differences in the prevalence of risk and protective factors have,
thus far, been the main focus of popular (see quotes at the start of this introduction; Hendrix, 2018; Whitley, 2017) and some scientific theorizing (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Swader, 2019). For one, cultural norms can promote that individuals relate to others in ways that hamper that their relational needs are fulfilled (which should increase the likelihood that they feel lonely; Weiss, 1974). For instance, more individuals may be socially isolated if the norms in their culture allow to live alone or not to maintain long-lasting relationships; more men may lack emotional closeness if norms prohibit that emotions are talked about in male friendships. Second, cultural norms can systematically suggest that it is common or important to have relationships that are in fact difficult to obtain (e.g., sustained romantic love in partnerships or being continuously surrounded by family members). Through such - often unattainable - relationship ideals, more individuals will feel lonely because they experience their social relationships as insufficient.
Additionally, cultural relationship norms can also influence the weight or importance of risk factors (i.e., how strongly social contact with family members predicts loneliness; Lykes &
Kemmelmeier, 2014). This is because cultural norms create social realities in which certain personal or relational characteristics can be more or less relevant to receive sufficient social provisions (e.g., extraversion to create new relationships and thus stay socially embedded; family relationships to receive instrumental support).4 Lacking personal or relationship
characteristics that are culturally valued or normative should hence put at a higher risk for loneliness: For instance, in cultures where emotional closeness is exclusively provided in partnerships, singles may lack an important social provision (Weiss, 1974) and therefore be at a higher risk for feeling lonely than those in partnerships – irrespective of whether or not they have large friendship or family networks (in line with Seepersad, Choi, & Shin, 2008).5
Furthermore, individuals who relate to others in ways that are not normative (e.g., being single in a culture where individuals tend to be in romantic relationships; marrying someone from the “wrong” socioeconomic background or caste) may feel lonely because they experience social sanctions by others (e.g., lower social status; social exclusion or relationship termination) or because they themselves perceive their relationships as insufficient or wrong (because of internalized norms about social relationships; Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Adolescents without a romantic relationship, for example, may judge their relationships as unfulfilling (and thus feel lonely) mostly or only in cultures where it is common and valuable to have romantic relationships at that age (in line with Seepersad et al., 2008). Through cultural norms, risk factors for loneliness in one culture may therefore hardly or not at all put at risk for loneliness in a different culture (i.e., sets of risk factors may be different in different cultural contexts).
In sum, cultural norms about social relationships seem to have the potential to influence what puts at risk for (or protects from) loneliness, to influence the prevalence of risk factors, and to hence also influence the overall prevalence of loneliness in a cultural group. A cultural-psychological perspective on loneliness may therefore both enrich and qualify previous findings about loneliness: it may help to identify new risk factors for loneliness that are implied by cultural norms (e.g., overly high cultural ideals about social relationships) and boundary
4 Although we assume that humans generally require social embeddedness (i.e., a universal
need to belong; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; a universal need for social provisions; Weiss, 1974), cultural norms should hence influence the way social embeddedness is reached in practice (e.g., whether emotional closeness is derived from partnerships, family relationships, and/or friendships).
5 Similarly, introversion may only be a risk factor for loneliness (Buecker et al., 2020) in cultures
where it is common to form new social relationships (i.e., cultures with higher relational mobility; Yuki & Schug, 2012) through positive self-presentations or self-disclosure (e.g., Kito, Yuki, & Thomson, 2017) – but not in cultures where individuals are born into widely stable social networks.
conditions for existing individual-level risk factors (e.g., to what extent living alone is a risk factor for loneliness in old age; Jylhä & Jokela, 1990). Below we outline the specific research questions we asked in the different chapters of this thesis, and the research approach we used to answer them.
This Dissertation
Using a multi-method (i.e., quantitative individual- and multi-level analyses of primary and secondary data; a qualitative thematic analysis of in-depth interviews) and multi-country approach (with primary data from 13 different nations, and analyses of data from 30 nations in total), the aim of this dissertation is to contribute to a better understanding of the influence of cultural norms about social relationships on loneliness and to thereby provide an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness. We expand on previous findings with empirical research and novel theorizing, including an integration of all these findings about cultural norms and loneliness in the novel culture-loneliness framework. Table 1.1 offers an overview of the key concepts, methodology, and samples used in each chapter.
Notably, for each chapter, we also provide supplemental materials, which we either present directly in this thesis or which are available online (with the published article or in the Open Science Framework; for links to the supplemental materials, see title page of each chapter). Generally, we have included supplemental materials directly in this thesis if they add important insights to a chapter (e.g., comparisons between previous literature and findings from our qualitative interviews in Chapter 5; a new analysis of European Social Survey data to support our theoretical framework in Chapter 6). By contrast, supplemental materials that are available online offer additional detail for particularly interested readers and/or serve to increase transparency (e.g., additional information about previous literature, about materials or method; results of further analyses).
Ta bl e 1. 1 Ov er vi ew o f C ha pt er s Re se ar ch q ue st ion Me th od Sa m ple C ha ra ct er ist ic s Cu ltu ra l C on te xt s Ch ap te r 2 qu an tit at iv e; c ro ss -se ct io na l d at a (p rim ar y da ta ) Au st ria , T he Ne th er la nd s, Sw ed en, It aly , Po rtu ga l Ch ap te r 3 qu an tit at iv e; c ro ss -se cti on al d ata (p rim ar y da ta ) Au st ria , F in la nd , Po la nd , Po rtu ga l Ch ap te r 4 Do es h ig he r c ol le ct iv ism re la te to h ig he r lo nelines s a t t he ind iv id ua l lev el? Do es h ig he r i nd iv id ua lis m im pl y a hi gh er ri sk o f so ci al is ol at io n, a nd hig her c ollec tiv ism a hig her ris k of p er ceiv ed d ev ia tio ns fr om re la tio ns hi p id ea ls? Ca n hi gh er R M n (n or m s im pl ie d by h ig he r re la tio na l m ob ili ty ) p ro te ct fro m lo ne lin es s an d lo w er R Sn (n or m s sum m ar ised a s rel at io na l st ab ili ty ) p ut a t r isk fo r l on el in ess, a lth ou gh bo th im pl y m or e in di vi du al fr ee do m to c ho os e on e’ s so ci al re la tio ns hi ps ? Ca n th es e as so ci at io ns b e ex pl ai ne d by re la tio ns hi p ch ara cte ris tic s (i. e. , a h ig he r ri sk o f sm al l a nd lo w -qu al ity s oc ia l n et w or ks im pl ie d by lo w er R M n, a nd a h igh er ri sk o f s oc ia l iso la tio n im plied b y lo w er R Sn) ? Ca n he rit ag e re la tio na l m ob ili ty p ro te ct st ud en t m ig ra nt s fro m fe el in g lo ne ly a fte r mi gr at io n? qu an tit at iv e; c ro ss -se ct io na l d at a (p rim ar y da ta ) Be tw ee n 18 a nd 6 5 ye ar s; a pp ro x. e qu al di st ribu tio n of ge nde r an d ed uc at io n le ve l Be tw ee n 18 a nd 6 5 ye ar s; a pp ro x. e qu al di st ribu tio n of ge nde r, ed uc at io n lev el , a nd ci tie s ve rs us vi lla ge s St ud en ts a bo ve the a ge of 1 6 ye ar s Ch in es e an d Ge rm an s tu de nt s i n th e N eth erl an ds
Ch ap te r 5 qu al ita tiv e; in -de pt h int er view s; the m at ic an al ys is Be tw ee n 24 a nd 4 5 ye ar s o f a ge ; b ot h m en an d w om en Au st ria , B ul ga ria , Is ra el , E gy pt , In di a Ch ap te r 6 Do c on ce pt ua lis at io ns o f l on el in es s in p re vi ou s lit er at ur e ad eq ua tely d es cr ib e lo nelin es s ex per ienc es in m or e so cia lly em bed ded cu ltu re s? Is th e ph en om en on o f l on el in es s co m pa ra bl e in cult ur es w ith d iff er en t lev els o f s oc ia l em bed ded nes s? Ca n lo ne lin es s ex pe rie nc es fr om m or e so ci al ly em bed ded c ult ur es rev ea l a sp ec ts o f lo nelines s t ha t ha ve b een c ons id er ed les s in th e lite ra tu re fro m le ss s oc ia lly e m be dd ed cu ltu re s? Wh y do es h ig he r r es tr ic tiv en es s re la te to hig her lo nelines s in co un tries , a nd to lo w er lo nelines s (o r s eem un rel at ed to it ) a m ong ind iv id ua ls? Ca n hi gh er re st ric tiv en es s pu t a t a h ig he r r isk fo r e m ot io na l a nd p er ce iv ed is ol at io n, a nd lo w er res tric tiv enes s at a hig her ris k fo r ph ys ic al iso la tio n? th eo re tic al int eg ra tio n, qu an tit at iv e: c ro ss -se ct io na l su rv ey da ta (s ec on da ry da ta ) Ag ed 1 5 ye ar s o r o ld er 25 Eur op ea n co un tr ie s (in cl ud in g Ru ss ia ) i n W av e 3 of th e Eu ro pe an S oc ia l Sur vey d at a
Chapter 2
As a first step into the field of research about cultural norms and loneliness, and towards a better understanding of the cultural paradox of loneliness, we examine how different facets of IC relate to loneliness in Chapter 2 (Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2019). This is because most research revealing the cultural paradox of loneliness has revolved around the cultural-psychological construct of IC. Due to the intersubjective approach we take, we focus, among others, on individualistic and collectivistic norms that individuals perceive in their immediate social environment. In this chapter, we therefore first examined the role of IC as potential risk factor for, or protective factor from, loneliness at the individual level. This perspective is different from the one taken by most past research about IC and loneliness, which has predominantly been conducted at the country-level, widely relies on indirect assessments of IC (i.e., sampling from countries that are assumed to have a certain level of IC because of their geographical location; Fokkema, De Jong Gierveld, & Dykstra, 2012; or based on Hofstede values; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014), and has usually not distinguished different aspects of the broad concept of IC (Oyserman et al., 2002). Differentiating these aspects (e.g., cultural norms and manifestations in actual relationships) is not only relevant for a more nuanced understanding of the cultural paradox of loneliness, but also to provide more specific starting points for interventions.
Specifically, we examined whether higher collectivism was, in line with most past culture-level research, related to higher loneliness at the individual level. We hypothesized that higher individualism may imply a higher risk of social isolation, yet higher collectivism a higher risk of perceived deviations from relationship ideals. To test these ideas, we conducted two cross-sectional survey studies in a total of five European countries that should differ in their overall levels of IC (Austria, Italy, Portugal, The Netherlands, and Sweden; total N = 860). As such, these countries should be comparable on many dimensions such as level of economic development, but provide different cultural backgrounds to replicate the individual-level associations we were interested in.
We found different aspects of higher collectivism to be related to lower loneliness at the individual level. Overall, our findings hence suggest that the cultural paradox of loneliness does not emerge at the individual level, where, quite in line with popular belief, higher individualism was related to higher loneliness. However, our results also support that both individualism and collectivism may entail certain risks for loneliness: Whereas higher individualism was consistently related to lower social embeddedness, higher collectivism was related to higher ideals about social embeddedness, which were, in turn, related to larger discrepancies between actually established and culturally demanded and/or individually desired relationships. Higher collectivism may therefore put at risk for less relationship
satisfaction - although overall, our findings suggest a potential protective role of collectivism at the individual level.
Chapter 3
Despite the potential protective role of collectivism that Chapter 2 suggests, the cultural paradox of loneliness as well as our more detailed findings from Chapter 2 indicate that there may also be a loneliness-protective side to individualism. After all, besides potentially decreasing expectations regarding social embeddedness, higher individualism may also allow individuals more freedom to select relationships that suit their individual needs. Cultural differences in individual freedom to choose one’s relationships are thus the focus of Chapter 3 (Heu, Hansen, & van Zomeren, 2019).
In line with our cultural-psychological perspective, we again turn to the extent to which specific cultural norms allow individuals to decide whom they relate to. This should not only contribute to gaining a better understanding of how different cultural norms can influence loneliness, but also to resolving what we refer to as the cultural loneliness paradox of choice - that more freedom to choose relationships may be a double-edged sword regarding loneliness. Specifically, more individual choice regarding social relationships may allow individuals to seek rewarding relationships, but it may also undermine the stability of relationships and social networks. We hence differentiate norms about whether to hold on to established social relationships (norms summarised as relational stability, or RSn) from cultural norms about opportunities to meet new others (i.e., norms implied by relational mobility, or RMn; Yuki & Schug, 2012).
Although higher RSn is usually implicitly viewed as part of lower relational mobility (Yuki & Schug, 2012) and could hence be viewed as the opposite of higher RMn, we suggest that distinguishing these two cultural norms allows researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of how more or less individual freedom to choose relationships (as granted or restricted by cultural norms) relates to loneliness. Indeed, although both higher RMn and lower RSn imply more individual relationship choice, they should have opposite implications for loneliness: More individual freedom to choose implied by norms of higher RMn might facilitate that individuals can establish social relationships that satisfy their relational needs, yet more individual freedom to choose implied by lower RSn may undermine the stability of established relationships and increase the risk of social isolation.
To test this reasoning, we conducted cross-sectional survey studies in four different European countries (Finland, Portugal, Poland, and Austria; total N = 981) that should provide enough within-country variation in RMn or RSn (e.g., between urban and rural regions) for an individual-level analysis. Also, the countries we would sample from should differ in their
overall levels of RMn and RSn to allow for a replication of individual-level effects in different cultural settings.
Results confirmed our predictions, with higher RMn consistently relating to lower loneliness, and lower RSn relating to higher loneliness in most countries (rather than having the same effects, as may be predicted if higher RSn was the mere opposite of higher RMn). That is, more individual choice regarding social relationships may put at risk for loneliness if related to a threat to established social relationships (i.e., lower RSn), but may protect from loneliness if related to more opportunities for new social relationships (i.e., higher RMn). Similar to our findings from Chapter 2, then, findings from Chapter 3 suggest that broader sets of cultural norms (e.g., norms implied by IC, norms determining the individual freedom to choose social relationships) usually imply both risk and protective factors for loneliness.
Chapter 4
Chapter 4 (Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2020) offers another examination of the link between norms implied by relational mobility and loneliness, yet in a different context and population, and, hence, with a different rationale than in Chapter 3: Whereas Chapter 3 is about loneliness among individuals who live in the cultural context that they were socialized in, Chapter 4 focuses on migrants - who do not live in the cultural context that they were socialized in - as high-risk group regarding loneliness.
Indeed, loneliness may be particularly problematic for those who move to a new cultural context in which they, when they arrive at least, lack networks and relationships. This raises the question whether migrants can be protected from social isolation and loneliness by the cultural norms of their heritage culture (i.e., the culture that they were socialized in, yet that they moved away from). Specifically, we hypothesize that migrants from background cultures with higher relational mobility have internalized ideas and developed skills related to forming new and choosing relationships that facilitate getting socially embedded after migration. At least when moving to a culture with higher relational mobility, this should make them less susceptible to loneliness.
In two cross-sectional survey studies with German and Chinese student migrant groups in the Netherlands (total N = 426), higher relational mobility in students’ heritage culture was indeed related to lower loneliness. This suggests that, if a new cultural context offers opportunities to meet new people and choose one’s relationships (such as the Netherlands), migrants who originate from a culture with higher relational mobility may have an advantage in getting socially embedded and avoiding loneliness. Important with an eye to resolving the cultural paradox of loneliness and in line with Chapters 2 and 3, this suggests that cultural norms that provide more individual freedom to choose whom to relate to (i.e., norms implied by higher
individualism or higher relational mobility) may – at least under certain circumstances - imply some protection from loneliness.
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 (Heu, Hansen, van Zomeren, Levy, et al., 2020) takes a different methodological approach to understanding the experience of loneliness in and across cultures - namely through in-depth interviews with individuals from five countries that were thus far often not represented in loneliness research (e.g., Egypt). This is different from Chapters 2-4, in which we assumed that the phenomenon of loneliness and its risk factors are the same across different cultures, allowing us to apply the same reasoning in, and compare results from different cultural samples. At least in Chapters 2-3, this is likely to hold since we examine loneliness in samples from countries that should be quite similar to each other - at least when compared to other countries of the world. All samples are from economically developed European countries, which tend to share higher individualism, higher RMn, and lower RSn than Asian or African countries, for example.
However, the approach in chapters 2-4 can also be criticized as imposed-etic or
neo-colonialist (Adams et al., 2012): It may be problematic to apply concepts and theories that
have predominantly been developed in a few countries with quite similar cultures (e.g., the US, Canada, the UK; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010) to groups whose psychological processes may be fundamentally different because of different cultural norms. Indeed, we know little about whether the phenomenon of loneliness (i.e., its definition and manifestation, its causes and consequences) is similar across cultures where individuals are more or less
socially embedded (i.e., embedded in stable social networks - such as in more collectivistic
versus more individualistic cultures) and hence relate to each other in profoundly different ways.
For instance, individuals in some cultures are hardly ever alone and usually take decisions together with others (i.e., higher social embeddedness), whereas individuals in most cultures where psychological research is being conducted (Henrich et al., 2010) can decide to even live by themselves, and take most of their decisions independently (i.e., lower social embeddedness). Such different cultural contexts with their different cultural norms may not only give rise to different risk factors for loneliness, but even to different loneliness experiences. After all, loneliness tends to be attributed to, or even mixed up with social isolation in less socially embedded cultures (e.g. Hendrix, 2018; Whitley, 2017), but individuals in more socially embedded cultures are hardly ever alone. This raises the question whether conceptualisations of loneliness from previous literature describe loneliness
experiences in less socially embedded cultures only or also those in more socially embedded cultures.
In Chapter 5, we therefore challenge the etic approach we take in Chapters 2-4 by exploring whether loneliness experiences are similar or different in cultural environments that differ in their level of social embeddedness. We conducted a thematic analysis of 42 semi-structured in-depth interviews about experiences of loneliness in five countries outside the hubs of loneliness research, and with mostly relatively high levels of social embeddedness (India, Egypt, Israel, Bulgaria, and Austria). We aimed to sample individuals between the age of 25 and 45 years, because of a lack of research about loneliness in this age group (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016).
Reassuringly, our results suggest that conceptualisations of loneliness in previous literature quite accurately describe loneliness experiences across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. The absence of fundamental qualitative differences we observed indicates that the phenomenon of loneliness may be comparable across different cultures. Additionally, we also identified some aspects of loneliness experiences that had been less considered thus far: that loneliness often occurs despite fulfilling social relationships and that social withdrawal and higher independence may be important remedies for loneliness. Furthermore, we noticed some potential cultural differences in the relevance of certain aspects of loneliness experiences, and in their concrete manifestation in specific situations or words. For one, Chapter 5 thus serves to validate our findings from Chapters 2-4. Additionally, it enriches our findings from Chapters 2-4 (that are all using survey methods) by providing real-life examples of loneliness experiences in different cultures. This also importantly contributes to a research literature that has mostly been focusing on loneliness in cultures of lower social embeddedness.6
6 Notably, our interview material also serves as basis for short video clips to communicate our
results to a lay audience. This material is currently being developed, and will be available online in due time. As loneliness tends to be stigmatized (Lau & Gruen, 1992), we particularly aimed to educate about the shared-ness, yet heterogeneity of loneliness experiences (Simmons, Jones, & Bradley, 2017). Specifically, by hearing individuals with different personal and cultural backgrounds talk about their loneliness, viewers should realize that loneliness can emerge even among those who are highly socially embedded. This should indirectly counteract loneliness through reducing stigmatization, but it may also relieve loneliness by directly speaking to lonely individuals, communicating to them that they are not alone with their experience of loneliness.
Chapter 6
In the sixth and final chapter of this thesis (Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, in press), we resolve the cultural paradox of loneliness by bringing together what we have learnt from Chapters 2-5 and previous research literature about cultural norms and loneliness. Specifically, we integrate theorizing and empirical evidence in the novel culture-loneliness framework, which revolves around the level of restrictiveness of cultural norms about relationships. The level of restrictiveness describes the extent to which norms determine how individuals should relate to others (i.e., how many norms regulate an individual’s social relationships, and how strict and demanding these are), and connects cultural norms such as IC (see Chapter 2), RMn, and RSn (see Chapter 3): It can be viewed as one aspect of IC (with higher collectivism being related to higher restrictiveness), and as strongly related to the amount of choice that individuals have (with higher restrictiveness being related to higher RSn and lower RMn). Higher restrictiveness usually aims to promote higher social embeddedness in a cultural group at the expense of individual freedom. By contrast, lower restrictiveness usually grants more individual freedom at the expense of social embeddedness.
In Chapter 6, we suggest that both lower and higher restrictiveness can put at risk for
loneliness, but through different types of isolation. Lower restrictiveness may make individuals
more likely to avoid or leave certain relationships and should thus imply a higher risk of physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships). By contrast, more restrictive norms about social relationships should limit individuals’ freedom to relate to others in individually desired ways and may hence put at a higher risk for emotional (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships) and perceived isolation (i.e., personal dissatisfaction with social relationships or social sanctions because of deviations from cultural norms about social relationships). We provide some first empirical support for the framework based on the loneliness literature, our findings from Chapters 2-3, and a new analysis of European Social Survey (ESS) data from 25 countries. As such, we conclude this thesis with an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness and by providing starting points for culture-sensitive interventions and future cultural-psychological research about loneliness.
