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.
CHAPTER 5
Loneliness experie nces acr oss cu ltures w ith
different le vels of soc ial embeddedness: A
qualitative study in five c ou ntries
This chapter is based on:
Heu, L. C., Hansen, N., van Zomeren, M., Levy, A., Ivanova, T. T., Gangadhar, A., & Radwan, M. (2020). Loneliness across countries with different levels of social embeddedness: A qualitative study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Additional to the supplemental materials we present following this chapter, online supplemental materials with more detailed information about interviewers, samples, research contexts, and specific steps taken in the analysis can be found online in the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/7ae4g/?view_only=992bb58c6f4e4e728f7025c6e7169423
Abstract
Although loneliness is often viewed as closely related to social isolation, loneliness is widespread in cultures where individuals are embedded in tight social networks. This may indicate an insufficient cross-cultural understanding of loneliness, particularly because most psychological research has been conducted in cultures with lower social embeddedness. To improve such understanding, we thematically analysed 42 semi-structured interviews about individuals’ loneliness experiences from five countries with different levels of social embeddedness (Austria, Israel, Bulgaria, Egypt, and India). Using a deductive approach, we examined whether influential conceptualisations from the loneliness literature (definitions, causes and remedies) would be reflected in individuals’ experiences. Encouragingly, our results suggest that influential conceptualisations from the literature accurately capture individuals’ experiences in different cultural contexts: Loneliness was described as result of an impaired relation between the self and the outside world, and as clearly different from solitude. Types of perceived causes (e.g., impaired relationship quality, separations) and remedies (e.g., focus on own life, open up to others) also converged. Furthermore, using an inductive approach, we identified aspects that have been less considered in previous literature (i.e., loneliness despite fulfilling social relationships; social withdrawal and higher independence as remedies) and potential cultural differences (e.g., solitude as potentially more relevant remedy for loneliness in more than in less socially embedded cultures). We discuss theoretical and practical implications of these findings, including suggestions for culturally-sensitive interventions.
Keywords: loneliness, culture, social embeddedness, in-depth interviews,
Loneliness is a major risk factor for impaired mental and physical health (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, obesity, depression, anxiety disorders; Cacioppo, Grippo, London, Goossens, & Cacioppo, 2015). To counteract chronic loneliness and its aversive consequences, much psychological research has hence examined causes of and possible solutions to loneliness. However, since most psychological research is conducted in western, individualistic cultures (particularly the US; see also Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), we know comparatively little about loneliness in contexts with higher social embeddedness (i.e., cultures where individuals are more embedded in social networks, have more stable social relationships, and spend less time alone). This is striking because multiple studies indicate that loneliness is, on average, higher in more than in less socially embedded societies (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014).
Indeed, different cultural norms about social relationships are likely to provide different breeding grounds for loneliness experiences: They do not only influence how embedded individuals are in social networks, but also in which relationships they receive essential social provisions (e.g., emotional support in friendships or partnerships), and which relationships or relationship qualities they perceive as important (e.g., love in partnerships; shared decision-making in family relationships). Such differences in how individuals relate to each other and what they expect from their relationships seem to imply quantitative differences in loneliness levels, causes, and experiences (e.g., Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Rokach, Orzeck, Cripps, Lackovic-Grgin, & Penezic, 2001), but little is known about qualitative differences in the phenomenon of loneliness itself. As such, it is yet unclear whether loneliness is cross-culturally comparable at all, and whether existing research about loneliness from less socially embedded cultures is useful or sufficient to understand loneliness in more socially embedded cultures.
To answer this question, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in five countries with different levels of social embeddedness (i.e., Austria, Israel, Bulgaria, Egypt, and India), where little research about loneliness has been done (in comparison to, e.g., the US). More specifically, we compared interviewees’ lay definitions, perceived causes, and remedies with influential conceptualisations from the loneliness literature. This allowed us to examine whether the phenomenon of loneliness is comparable across cultures and to identify less considered aspects in previous literature.
Loneliness and Differences in Social
Embeddedness
Like most psychological research, research about loneliness has widely been conducted in western countries (e.g., the US, Canada, the Netherlands; Henrich et al., 2010). When compared to other parts of the world, these countries share a number of cultural elements (i.e., they contain some similar shared beliefs, norms, or values; Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi, Shteynberg, & Wan, 2010). For instance, they are generally characterized by higher individualism (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), lower relational stability (i.e., cultural norms to hold on to existing social relationships; Heu, Hansen, & van Zomeren, 2019; Chapter 3 in this thesis), or less restrictive norms about social relationships (i.e., fewer, less strict, and less demanding norms about social relationships; Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis). As such, these countries are characterized by lower social embeddedness: Individuals are less embedded in tight social networks (e.g., families or community structures), spend more time or are more likely to live alone, have less stable and less long-lasting relationships, and are more independent from each other when making choices. Such differences in social embeddedness may hence provide different breeding grounds for loneliness, which is often viewed as particularly closely related to social isolation (e.g., De Jong Gierveld, Van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006).
Specifically, differences in social embeddedness reflect differences in cultural norms about social relationships (in line with Chiu et al., 2010), and these seem to have the potential to influence risk factors for, and the prevalence of loneliness (Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014): For one, relationship norms influence how individuals relate to each other, while loneliness can be caused by unfulfilling social relationships (e.g., if relationships do not offer relevant relational provisions; Weiss, 1974; Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis). Second, relationship norms trace shared expectations from social relationships, and deviations from such standards can cause loneliness because of individual dissatisfaction or social sanctions (Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis; Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). As such, cultural differences in social embeddedness may also imply qualitative differences in loneliness experiences. For instance, lacking understanding by family members may be a more prominent driver of loneliness in more socially embedded cultures, where individuals often live together with their families and in-laws. Accordingly, a lack of familial understanding may then also be more relevant to definitions of loneliness in these cultures.
More knowledge about such qualitative differences is relevant because loneliness can only validly be compared (e.g., in quantitative research) and existing insights only potentially be
applied across cultures if they refer to a similar phenomenon. This study hence aims to compare scientific conceptualisations of loneliness (i.e., definitions, perceived causes, and remedies) from less socially embedded cultures with interview data about loneliness experiences from cultures with different levels of social embeddedness.
Loneliness in Contexts of Lower Social
Embeddedness
As basis for our qualitative cross-cultural comparison of loneliness experiences, we now present an overview of influential conceptualisations of loneliness from less socially embedded cultures. Specifically, we focus on (1) definitions and typologies of loneliness, (2) mechanisms and causes, and (3) coping strategies (for an overview, see Tables 1a-d in the supplemental materials).
Definitions of Loneliness
Loneliness has been defined as perceived social isolation (VanderWeele, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2012), the feeling of being cut-off or separated from others (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987), or the aversive experience that results from a perceived discrepancy between actual and desired relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Loneliness definitions hence typically describe the subjective experience of a relational impairment.
Within such broad definitions, loneliness experiences can, however, be characterized as multi-faceted (Rokach, 1988). In a large-scale qualitative study in Canada, four main aspects of loneliness experiences were identified: (1) Self-alienation (i.e., feelings of emptiness, unreality, no connection to oneself or the world around), (2) interpersonal isolation (missing an intimate relationship, missing a specific other, feeling different from others, socially rejected, or abandoned), (3) agony (negative emotional experiences), and (4) physiological or behavioural distressed reactions. The prevalence of each facet varied by individual and situation, indicating that loneliness experiences are quite heterogeneous.
Types of Loneliness
Indeed, the literature distinguishes different types of loneliness by duration (e.g., chronic vs. situational vs. transient loneliness; Beck & Young, 1978; De Jong Gierveld & Raadschelders, 1982) and cause (e.g., emotional vs. social vs. existential loneliness; Mijuskovic, 1977; Weiss, 1973). For one, chronic loneliness is longer-lasting than transient or situational loneliness (i.e., randomly occurring or situation-bound loneliness experiences; Beck & Young, 1978). Furthermore, emotional loneliness flows from a lack of a close, intimate relationship (e.g., a
partnership or close friendship), whereas social loneliness flows from missing a social network or others to spend time with (e.g., friends or a community; Weiss, 1973). By contrast,
existential loneliness (e.g., Mijuskovic, 1977) results from the realization that humans move
from birth to death alone, without knowing whether their experiences are truly shared by others.
Mechanisms Underlying Loneliness
From an evolutionary perspective, loneliness is an evolved response to a threat to reliable social relationships (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, & Boomsma, 2014). Specifically, loneliness motivates individuals to ensure that they are embedded in social relationships of high quality, because social isolation used to jeopardize survival throughout most of human history. Similarly, loneliness has been suggested to emerge if an individual lacks certain social provisions (Weiss, 1974). These include attachment (a relationship that provides a sense of security and belonging), social integration (a group that shares one’s interests or activities, that provides a shared interpretation of experience, companionship, and exchange of services), reassurance of worth (recognition of one’s competences by others), reliable alliance (relationships that one can count on for assistance; e.g., family relationships), guidance (someone to provide advice), and opportunity for nurturance (relationships in which one can care for someone else, providing a sense of being needed; e.g., parent-child relationships). A more cognitive perspective focuses on the subjective perception of a relational lack as mechanism underlying loneliness (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). It suggests that loneliness flows from an unfavorable comparison between actual and desired social relationships, and should hence be influenced by the various factors that impact on relationships or expectations about them (see Table 1c in the supplemental materials). This is in line with the somewhat broader perspective that loneliness results if individuals’ relationships cannot meet their - individually and culturally specific - needs, expectations or desires regarding relationships (Johnson & Mullins, 1987). As such, one person can feel lonely because of not having a romantic partner whereas another person in the same situation may not feel lonely at all.
Against this backdrop, more specific loneliness causes in previous empirical research can broadly be distinguished into relational, intrapersonal, situational, and cultural characteristics. Thus far, studies have mostly focused on the first two. For instance, relational causes of loneliness include few social interactions (De Jong Gierveld, Keating, & Fast, 2015), being unmarried, or lacking relationship quality (Hawkley et al., 2008). Intrapersonal causes of loneliness include genetic disposition (Matthews et al., 2016), higher introversion, or higher neuroticism (Buecker et al., 2020). Similarly, causes that were perceived by lay people in Canada (Rokach, 1989) could broadly be grouped into relational deficits,
characterological/developmental variables and traumatic events (see Table 1c in the supplemental materials for the specific content of each category).
Coping with Loneliness
Although research about coping with loneliness is sparse, three phases were identified in an analysis of Canadians’ loneliness experiences (Rokach, 1990): acceptance (e.g., solitary activity, reflecting on and accepting loneliness), transition (e.g., seeking professional support, religion, changing how one interacts with others) and reaching out to belong (e.g., re-establishing or improving relationships). Additional to such constructive strategies, individuals also reported self-destructive or nonbeneficial strategies (e.g., addiction, self-harm, avoidance and self-induced isolation).
Loneliness in Contexts of Higher Social
Embeddedness: The Current Research
Compared to these findings from less socially embedded cultures, we know little about loneliness in more socially embedded cultures. As such, it is unclear whether findings from less embedded cultures are also applicable in more embedded cultures. Indeed, existing quantitative studies about loneliness suggest a number of cultural differences: For one, loneliness seems to, counterintuitively, be higher in more than in less socially embedded cultures (Fokkema, de Jong Gierveld, & Dykstra, 2012; Jylhä & Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014, cf. Barreto et al., 2020): Although for instance living alone or being unmarried seem to put at risk for loneliness (e.g., Hawkley et al., 2008; Swader, 2019), living in a country where less people live alone and more people are married hence seems to relate to a higher risk for loneliness. Second, cross-cultural comparisons of risk factors suggest some differences in the relevance of predictors of loneliness: In different European countries, more interaction with family members was more strongly related to lower loneliness in cultures where family relationships were more valued (i.e., more collectivistic and supposedly more socially embedded cultures; Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014).
Third, in quantitative comparisons of individuals’ perceptions of loneliness (e.g., experiential aspects, self-perceived causes, or coping strategies), Canadians scored higher on all scales than individuals from more socially embedded cultures (Croatians, Portuguese, Turks, or Argentinians; e.g., Rokach et al., 2001; Rokach & Bacanli, 2001; Rokach, Bacanli, & Ramberan, 2000; cf. Rokach & Sharma, 1996). This may suggest that Canadians have more severe or more differentiated loneliness experiences. However, given that all questionnaires were
loneliness tends to be lower in less than more socially embedded cultures (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014), these findings may also suggest that these questionnaires did not sufficiently capture aspects of loneliness in more socially embedded cultures.
Indeed, most cross-cultural studies or quantitative research in more socially embedded cultures is based on theorizing and scales from less socially embedded cultures (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Rajesh & Rangaiah, 2019). Only few qualitative studies have also examined meanings of loneliness in more socially embedded groups: They suggest that loneliness experiences revolve around similar themes as in less socially embedded cultures (e.g., loneliness as an aversive experience, loneliness as revolving around impaired relationships), but also revealed some different aspects (e.g., disrespectfulness by younger generations as risk factor for loneliness among elderly people; e.g., Heravi-Karimooi, Anoosheh, Foroughan, Sheykhi, & Hajizadeh, 2010; Van der Geest, 2004). However, these qualitative studies were conducted in single cultural samples and among elderly people only, while cross-cultural qualitative research in broader age groups is missing.
This research seeks to build and expand on this work with a thematic analysis of semi-structured in-depth interviews from Austria, Israel, Bulgaria, Egypt, and India (i.e., contexts that should contain cultures with different levels of social embeddedness). Specifically, we examined whether previous theorizing and research can adequately capture loneliness experiences in less and more socially embedded cultures by comparing loneliness definitions, perceived causes, and remedies across samples and with influential conceptualisations in the literature. This is important because the phenomenon of loneliness needs to be comparable for valid interpretations of cross-cultural quantitative research. The qualitative design of this study furthermore allowed us to identify aspects that may have been overlooked or less considered in research from less socially embedded cultures.
Method
This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Psychology at the University of Groningen. We conducted 42 semi-structured in-depth interviews in total, with seven Austrian, eight Israeli, eight Bulgarian, nine Indian, and ten Egyptian participants.32
Recruitment
We sampled from different countries that were outside the main hubs of psychological research, with cultures of relatively high (except for Austria), yet different levels of social
32 We report results in line with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research
embeddedness (based on interviews with informants from each country and in line with data about average household size, share of one-person households, and share of extended family or multi-generation households; United Nations, 2019b). The specific choice of countries depended on the availability of proficient collaborators who could conduct interviews in the predominant language of the country. We thus sampled from India and Egypt as cultural contexts with high, Israel and Bulgaria as contexts with intermediate, and Austria as context with rather low social embeddedness.
We determined in advance to conduct between six and ten interviews in each country. This would allow us to examine differences and similarities of loneliness experiences within each cultural context, and was a realistic number to achieve.33 We then used a mix of purposive
sampling and convenience sampling (with snowballing): Specifically, we aimed to sample participants between the age of 25 and 45 (to add to a better understanding of loneliness among middle-aged adults; Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016), with similar shares of men and women, both individuals with and without partners and/or children, and some variation regarding education level (within each cultural context). In the Israeli context, we additionally aimed to interview both religious and non-religious individuals. Participants were mostly recruited through interviewers’ social networks because, in all contexts, individuals tended to be reluctant to talk about loneliness in an interview situation unless approached through personal contact. Except for one Indian participant whom we stopped interviewing after some initial questions (due to a lack of involvement), no participant dropped out during the interview. For a more detailed description of samples and study contexts, see the online supplemental materials for this chapter.
Procedure
Participants were invited to be interviewed and filmed34 for a project about loneliness, and
fully informed about the aim of the interviews and their rights. They could choose the locations for their interviews, provided that video or audio recordings would be possible. Interviews were conducted in the respective local language by different native collaborators together with the first author (and principal researcher; see online supplemental materials for interviewer information). During the interviews, native collaborators paraphrased responses in English so that the principal researcher could probe and adjust the course of the interview.
33 Due to the heterogeneity of loneliness experiences and definitions, theoretical saturation
could have been achieved with large numbers of participants only, and was hence not used to determine the number of interviews.
34 Interviews were video-recorded (instead of being audio-recorded only) because this
Only in Austria, the principal researcher conducted interviews alone. All interviews were translated into, and analysed, in English.
Interview length varied between around 10 and around 60 minutes. After some initial small-talk, an introduction, and two superficial questions about participants’ family status, we asked about personal experiences with loneliness, including questions about perceived causes of loneliness, ways of coping with loneliness, perceived solutions to loneliness, and own definitions of loneliness. If participants had hardly ever felt lonely, we asked what they thought had protected them, and about their perception of loneliness experiences among others in their social surroundings. Before answering a final question about their advice for a lonely person, participants filled in a short, written questionnaire with demographic questions, questions about relationships and about cultural characteristics. The purpose of this order was to monitor and avoid that participants would leave the interview in agitation (for the full interview guide and a brief summary of answers to the written questionnaire, see the online supplemental materials for this chapter).
Data Preparation and Analytical Approach
Interviews were translated into English and/or transcribed by professional translators, international students, or the principal researcher. For transcriptions, we used the movie editing software DaVinci Resolve, which allowed to evaluate what was being said in context. All translations were double-checked by collaborators or translators.
We conducted a thematic analysis (in line with Braun & Clarke, 2006), combining a theoretical (i.e., deductive) approach (to examine whether existing influential conceptualisations of loneliness in the literature converged with loneliness experiences in more socially embedded cultures) with a more inductive analysis (to identify novel aspects). Finally, taking a more quantitative approach, we examined whether certain codes were clearly more prevalent in some than in other contexts.
More specifically, we first integrated influential taxonomies and theorizing from the literature (e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990) into a broader framework that would allow to compare this previous work with our own findings (see Figure 5.1 below and Tables 1a-d in the supplemental materials). Within this more abstract structure, codes and themes were not only taken from the literature, but also based on an exploratory analysis of the data. As such, the codes in our final codebook deviate from previous schemes to better fit the current data, and because of lacking convergence of categories and labels in the literature: For instance, personal factors (Perlman & Peplau, 1981) and characterological
concepts from the literature to current codes in the codebook and in Tables 1a-d in the supplemental materials.
All interviews were then coded twice by the principal investigator35 with a widely semantic
and realist approach (codes were based on the explicit content of participants’ accounts rather than on what was driving their narratives). However, some of the coding was also latent to apply more abstract categories from the literature (e.g., lack of attachment; Weiss, 1974) to the concrete experiences that interviewees reported (for a more detailed description of the analysis, see the online supplemental materials for this chapter).
Fig ur e 5. 1. Br oa d ca te go rie s su m m ar isi ng c au se s of lo ne lin es s in p re vi ou s lit er at ur e as b as is fo r co m pa ris on w ith pe rc ei ve d ca us es in o ur int er view s. Ca us es Pe rs on al ch ar act er ist ics In tra pe rs on al ca use s Chi ldho od an te ce de nt s Re la tio na l ca use s St ruc tur al ca use s Si tua tio na l ca use s Low re la tio ns hi p qua nt ity La ck of sp eci fic re la tio ns hi p So lit ude Si tua tio na l / co nt ext ua l ca use s Sepa ra tio ns No n-so ci al st re sso rs So ci al ma rg in al ity Low re la tio ns hi p qua lit y Cha ng e
Results
We analysed whether influential conceptualisations from the literature were reflected in individuals’ reports of loneliness in samples with different levels of social embeddedness, and whether we could identify potentially under-researched aspects or cross-cultural differences. In the following, we will, first, briefly summarise our findings regarding definitions and types of loneliness, and will then turn to causes and remedies. Due to limited space, we will illustrate novel aspects by few quotes only, but will provide more quotes for key themes in Tables 2a-d of the supplemental materials.
1. Definitions of Loneliness
To be able to conduct cross-cultural research about loneliness, it is pivotal that the term “loneliness” summarises similar experiences and phenomena in different cultures. Our findings from five countries suggest such similarity: explicit definitions of loneliness converged across cultural contexts, with a taxonomy of reported loneliness experiences by Canadians (Rokach, 1988), and with influential theorizing that loneliness is defined by perceived shortcomings in social relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). To summarise, loneliness was cross-culturally (1) described by experiences of some impairment of the relation between the self and the outside world, (2) viewed as something different from being alone, (3) experienced as aversive or negative, yet as potentially beneficial, and (4) described as similar to depression (see Figure 1 in the supplemental materials for an overview; see Table 2a in the supplemental materials for corresponding quotes). Notably, experiences of loneliness were highly diverse (in line with Rokach, 1988) - yet mostly within, and not systematically so
between different cultural samples.
More specifically, definitions included feeling closed off from others (e.g., not feeling understood, feeling rejected, feeling trapped inside oneself), shortcomings in relationships (e.g., lacking closeness or love, support, not being able to count on, or share one’s thoughts with others), or descriptions of perceived or actual isolation (including separation from specific others). Furthermore, participants associated loneliness with various aversive emotional experiences (e.g., sadness, fear, or hopelessness) and issues with oneself (e.g., not being able to be, or disliking oneself). Loneliness was associated with similar states as depression - including, for instance, meaninglessness, helplessness, powerlessness, emptiness, restlessness, or frustration. This is in line with previous literature, which, however, found both concepts to be empirically distinguishable (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2010).
Although some participants defined loneliness by (perceived) isolation, the large majority in all samples implicitly or explicitly emphasized the difference between solitude and loneliness.
Whereas solitude was viewed as potentially enjoyable, loneliness itself was usually described as aversive. Nevertheless, many participants viewed loneliness as purposeful – for instance, as an opportunity for personal development or to appreciate fulfilling social relationships more.
2. Types of Loneliness
We found indications of emotional, social, and existential loneliness across samples (for quotes, see Table 2b in the supplemental materials), but experiences of social or emotional loneliness as initially described in the literature (i.e., as structural shortcomings in one’s relational network; Weiss, 1973) were rare. Indeed, most experiences of loneliness occurred without actual social isolation, without the perception of too few social relationships, and despite a close relationship with another person. Indeed, individuals often felt lonely because they were missing some specific relational quality in a specific situation (e.g., when not fitting in on an evening out, when lacking guidance regarding a life decision; see section about
Loneliness despite fulfilling relationships below). These individuals may be viewed as
temporarily emotionally lonely, but only in a very broad interpretation of emotional loneliness. Existential loneliness (i.e., feeling lonely because of the inherent separateness of human experience) hardly occurred.
Furthermore, although most instances of loneliness were indeed situational (i.e., bound to a specific event, such as a separation, an unenjoyable evening out), around half of the participants (distributed over all samples) described feelings of loneliness that persisted throughout large parts of their lives (i.e., chronic loneliness). Notably, such chronic loneliness was often described as latently present and clearly perceptible only in specific situations (or as usually present, and suppressed in specific situations).
3. Causes and Solutions
Across the different cultural samples, causes and solutions to loneliness could nicely be fit into the broad conceptual structure that we derived from existing literature. Together with the convergent definitions of loneliness, this suggests that loneliness as subjective experience may be comparable across cultures with distinct levels of social embeddedness.36 For a
comparison of coding schemes from the literature versus from these interviews, see Tables 1a-d and Figures 1 to 3 in the supplemental materials, as well as the codebook.
36 This does not mean that every theme that was mentioned in previous work was also
mentioned in the current interviews. However, the broader categories of perceived causes and solutions converged.
However, an absence of fundamental qualitative differences does not imply that there are no cultural differences in loneliness experiences at all. Indeed, we observed some cultural singularities (e.g., only in the Indian sample, having “bad habits” such as being lazy, aggressive, or unwilling to work was perceived as cause of loneliness), potential differences in the importance of specific themes (e.g., high independence from others was more often mentioned as loneliness cause in highly embedded samples; a maladaptive family background during childhood was more often mentioned as cause of later loneliness in less embedded samples), and differences in the manifestation of certain themes (e.g., whether a new partnership as remedy for loneliness usually meant getting married or starting to date a girlfriend/boyfriend). For sample quotes, see Table 2c in the supplemental materials. Additionally, we also found some aspects of loneliness that are less considered in the literature and which were, surprisingly, not unique to more socially embedded contexts: For instance, 1) individuals mostly experienced loneliness despite having fulfilling social relationships and 2) loneliness was often resolved by higher independence from others and social withdrawal (instead of more social contact or relationships) – particularly in more socially embedded samples. Below, we will discuss these two striking aspects in more detail (for additional sample quotes, see Table 2d in the supplemental materials).
Loneliness despite fulfilling social relationships.
Previous literature hasfocused much on shortcomings of social relationships as cause of loneliness (Hawkley et al., 2008). Unsurprisingly, impairments of relationship quality such as feeling different from, or misunderstood by others, lacking support, or separations were recurrent themes in our interviews as well. However, relational causes for loneliness often emerged in specific relationship domains or were bound to specific situations (see also situational loneliness in Table 2b of the supplemental materials) rather than being general relational shortcomings – which is in contrast to what is typically measured in empirical studies (e.g., overall relationship quantity or quality; Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2019; Chapter 2 in this thesis). Furthermore, although loneliness was usually viewed as the subjective experience of unfulfilling social relationships, many participants identified causes that were quite unrelated to social relationships. Most prominently, loneliness seems to not only cause instability, unease, or illbeing (Cacioppo et al., 2015), but to sometimes also be their result.
For instance, interviewees reported feeling lonely when feeling alone with problems or
decisions. Indeed, rather than feeling lonely because of a lack of support, they reported
feeling lonely because they ultimately had to resolve problems and were responsible for consequences of their decisions themselves:
I6 (Israeli, male, 35): There was a period that was extremely difficult and stressful, where I felt that I was alone. Despite having partners, despite having a community around me that was supportive and invested in me - my father worked alongside me - I still felt alone. Because it was my responsibility to deal with things that were extremely difficult and complex. E6 (Egyptian, male, 40): Well, if you find something that makes you happy in life or something that pulls you out of hardships or problems, that's when you don't feel loneliness. But as long as there are problems or difficulties in your life, you feel lonely. [...] As long as you're financially sufficient in life, you don't feel lonely.
Related to that, others described loneliness when in a novel or unstructured situation or when
lacking an aim:
I8 (Israeli, female, 32): That you can't find some kind of purpose for yourself, some kind of goal, something that you do that is making you understand why you were put here on this earth. So, you'll feel lonely - no matter how many people you have around you. […] But you just don't feel like you're living the life that you want to live. Then, no matter what, you'll feel a sense of loneliness.
Furthermore, multiple participants viewed internal instability or a difficult relationship with
themselves as the true cause of their loneliness (e.g., little self-love, little self-acceptance,
difficulty being or deciding by oneself).
I2 (Israeli, female, 33): The loneliness came from the inside, the outside is not... like, it’s something that I have with myself - the difficulty of being alone with myself in peace. So, the environment is distracting, but it’s not solving the problem. […] When you are in a relationship, it's - you let somebody else accept you, love you, you know - you don't have to do it yourself. But, you know, that's something I learned through the years, that, if you don't do it yourself, it won't come from outside.
This is related to, yet slightly different from previous research, which viewed, for instance, low self-esteem as cause of loneliness because it should hamper relationships with others (Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1989). Although some participants followed this line of thought, others eventually noticed that their longings in relationships were unrealistically
demanding, or that even their fulfillment would not erase loneliness. Indeed, some participants explained that their longing for different relationships had only been a symptom of their unfulfilling relationship with themselves:
B6 (Bulgarian, female, 27): While I was lonely, I wanted to talk to someone about this problem, but I couldn't. Afterwards, I actually suddenly realized that I have to have a talk with myself, to deal with my own emotions and with what is happening deep inside me.
As such, loneliness may sometimes feel, but not actually be, about social relationships.
Higher independence and social withdrawal as remedies.
In line with theabove, many interviewees reported that their loneliness had been diminished by reducing contact with, or dependency on others (e.g., through a better relationship with themselves). Accordingly, solitude or solitary activity emerged as relevant coping strategies both in this and previous research (e.g., focusing on daily responsibilities or enjoyable leisure activities; Rokach, 1990). However, previous literature mostly presents solitary involvement as preparation for eventually reaching out to others again, and social withdrawal sometimes even as maladaptive reaction to loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2015; Rokach, 1988, 1990). This is in contrast to perceptions by many interviewees in this study. Although they acknowledged the importance of strong social relationships, they perceived self-focused or solitary coping strategies as ultimately more effective (see quote above).
Additionally, many interviewees perceived a reduction, rather than the expansion, of their social contacts or networks as a solution to their loneliness. Specifically, they identified sorting out their relationships as relevant coping strategy:
B6 (Bulgarian, female, 27): There was a point when I was very discouraged about what my environment was and I constantly surrounded myself with new people. I tried one environment, I tried another, I was straight up, "scattering" myself. And I still didn't feel okay with those people, I couldn't have a meaningful conversation, um... Until at some point, I started practicing "hygiene" towards the people close to me. […] Um, and it's very important that a person realizes this eventually and is not afraid of removing all the friends around them, but keeps their closest ones. Like, now, years later, I have fewer friends, I see fewer friends, like, we're all busy, but, um... I know that we are very close and I feel very comfortable with them. I've never felt lonely with them. Whereas, when I think about before - when I
was surrounded by, like, "Sulyo and Pulyo" (Tom, Dick and Harry), it was just a nightmare.
Specifically, participants explained that social withdrawal or solitude could reduce the number of loneliness-eliciting interactions, allow to process loneliness-eliciting events, order one’s thoughts, reach some inner balance, obtain a better relationship with oneself, or prevent being overwhelmed by additional stimulation from the outside:
IN4 (Indian, female, 29): Being alone helps me. During that time, I cool down and I won't take any tension. Suppose I was with others and talked about it – that would remind me of it.
Regarding this paradoxical relation between loneliness and solitude, we additionally observed some potential cultural differences: Solitude appeared to be perceived both as cause and solution for loneliness in all samples, but as solution more often in more socially embedded samples (and as cause slightly more often in less socially embedded samples). In line with that, only in more socially embedded samples, loneliness was by some participants perceived as strongly intertwined with wanting to be alone:
E9 (Egyptian, male, 25): Loneliness is actually a feeling. You always feel that you want to be alone, uh... You don’t want to talk to anybody, you don’t want to argue or discuss with anybody about any topic.
IN4 (Indian, female, 29): I felt that I didn't need anybody: “I should live alone, I should be alone” - that's when it (loneliness) came to my mind.
Discussion
To examine whether influential conceptualisations of loneliness (e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990) can describe loneliness across cultures where individuals are more or less embedded in stable social networks, we conducted in-depth interviews in five countries with different levels of social embeddedness. We specifically examined lay definitions, perceived causes and remedies, which together define the phenomenon of loneliness and are pivotal for the development of culture-sensitive interventions. Across the board, we did not find fundamental qualitative differences: Individuals in all cultures seemed to know loneliness and, for instance, experience it because of unsatisfying relationship quality, separations, or feeling different or misunderstood. This is reassuring with an eye to the validity of previous cross-cultural findings about loneliness, and encouraging for future research in the field.
Against the backdrop of this general convergence of loneliness experiences, our findings additionally offer some novel insights: 1) That loneliness often emerges despite generally fulfilling social relationships, and 2) that higher independence from others (e.g., through a better relationship with oneself) and social withdrawal are important remedies for loneliness. Although not entirely new to the literature (Rokach, 1989, 1990), the dominance of these themes was striking given the strong focus on social relationships in public opinion (e.g., Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020) and many interventions (e.g., Local Government Association, 2016). Furthermore, we observed some potential cultural differences in particularly common aspects of loneliness experiences (e.g., solitude as more common perceived remedy for loneliness in more socially embedded cultures), and in the specific examples and situations within broader themes (e.g., getting married versus dating a new boyfriend/girlfriend as different manifestations of a new partnership [as remedy for loneliness] in more versus less embedded cultures). As such, our findings can also provide concrete starting points for future research about loneliness and for a cultural psychology of loneliness in particular.
Implications for Research about Loneliness
Different theories describe loneliness as the result of a mismatch between the provisions of, and individual expectations or needs from social relationships (Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). The current research suggests that such a mismatch is often specific to particular relationships or situations. For instance, individuals can feel lonely despite overall fulfilling social networks because they miss someone who shares their music taste, or when they have to decide about whether or not to dismiss an employee. As such, loneliness may often result from a relationships x person x situation interaction: a mismatch between what is provided by an individual’s social network (e.g., guidance, confirmation) and the individual’s relational needs (e.g., personally needed levels of social interaction) in a specific situation (e.g., at a party, when having financial problems). Since all three variables in this interaction should also be influenced by cultural norms (i.e., cultural norms should influence which relationships individuals establish, what they expect from them, and which situations they are typically in; Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis), loneliness may be viewed as the result of a culture x person x relationships x situation interaction (in line with the C-CAPS model; Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007; or the CuPS approach; Leung & Cohen, 2011). Particularly given that chronic loneliness was often manifested in repeated situational loneliness, our research suggests that these four variables may need to be considered jointly in future theorizing and research about loneliness.
Implications for Cross-Cultural Research about Loneliness
Our finding that conceptions of loneliness converged across samples and with influential conceptualisations in the literature suggests that loneliness is comparable across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. This is encouraging for cross-cultural research about loneliness, yet counter to the notion that such different cultures provide different breeding grounds for loneliness and hence cause qualitative differences in the phenomenon itself. One explanation is that aspects of social embeddedness seemed comparatively irrelevant for loneliness in our interviews: Social loneliness (i.e., feeling lonely because of lacking relationships or social interaction) was rare, while most individuals reported feeling lonely without being alone or even despite generally fulfilling social relationships. This suggests that most variation in loneliness stems from factors that can occur in both more and less socially embedded cultures (e.g., separations, personal insecurities, relational or non-relational problems).Notably, an absence of fundamental qualitative differences does not rule out the possibility of quantitative cultural differences (e.g., different prevalence of certain causes or remedies). For instance, we observed that solitude seemed to more often be viewed as remedy for loneliness in more socially embedded samples (and potentially more often as cause in less socially embedded samples). Clearly, such differences need to be interpreted with caution because of small samples and convenience sampling - a robust interpretation would require in-depth ethnological knowledge and quantitative research. Nevertheless, theoretically, a higher likelihood of solitude and social isolation in less embedded cultures (e.g., due to the option of living alone or divorcing) may indeed make solitude a more common and salient cause of loneliness (Heu et al., in press; Chapter 6 in this thesis). By contrast, in more socially embedded cultures, less individual freedom to choose one’s relationships may more often bind individuals to unfulfilling (potentially loneliness-eliciting) relationships. As much as social interaction may ease the loneliness of the socially isolated, solitude may ease the loneliness of those whose relationships are unresponsive (e.g., unsupportive, less emotionally close) - particularly in cultures where social norms prevent that relationship issues are discussed with others (e.g., friends). Solitude may hence have a double role regarding loneliness across cultures, yet the frequency with which it is cause or solution may differ by level of social embeddedness.
Furthermore, an absence of fundamental qualitative differences does not rule out that abstract causes and remedies are manifested in different culture-specific situations or words. For instance, solitude was more likely to refer to being in an apartment where one lived by oneself in less socially embedded cultures versus to being alone in a room in an apartment that was shared with family members in more socially embedded cultures. Although only the
first may count as solitude from a less socially embedded perspective, individuals in the latter situation were in solitude relative to what they were used to.
Practical Implications
The convergence of loneliness experiences across cultural samples and literature suggests that effective interventions against loneliness may provide useful starting points for interventions in cultures of higher social embeddedness. Nevertheless, differences in prevalence and concrete manifestations of abstract causes or remedies also indicate that interventions may need culture-specific adjustments. For instance, when individuals in more socially embedded cultures feel lonely because of a relationship termination, they usually refer to the end of an emotional (non-sexual), pre-marital connection or an engagement. This implies the loss of a close emotional bond and/or the perspective of a shared future. By contrast, when individuals in less embedded samples feel lonely because of a relationship termination, they often refer to the end of quite committed partnerships, with significant upheavals in the partners’ lives (e.g. moving out of a shared household; losing shared friends or the partner’s family) and a relatively stronger decrease in physical intimacy. As such, these individuals may require quite different interventions despite similar general reasons for feeling lonely.
Indeed, even within one culture, a one-size-fits all intervention may be insufficient. In our interviews, loneliness emerged for highly diverse reasons and was resolved in very different ways (in line with Rokach, 1988). As such, what was experienced as remedy by some could exacerbate loneliness for others. For instance, although many interventions revolve around increased social interaction (e.g., telephone helplines or community meals; Local Government Association, 2016), many chronically lonely interviewees described feeling lonely even or
particularly when surrounded by others. Such interventions may hence help those who feel
lonely because of being isolated (e.g., elderly people), but may even be counterproductive for others. In sum, this calls for a variety of different loneliness interventions that are targeted at loneliness causes in specific (cultural) groups rather than interventions that are targeted at the experience of loneliness itself.
Relatedly, our results suggest that, rather than increasing relational provisions only (e.g., increasing social interaction, strengthening social networks), interventions should also aim for decreases in demands from relationships (e.g., increasing comfort with occasional solitude; increasing emotional independence). This aligns with our finding that the relational needs that caused loneliness were often too specific or situation-bound to be fulfillable by a change to individuals’ relational networks. Particularly individuals with more chronic forms of loneliness therefore reported less loneliness after reducing their relational needs: They had
focused on enjoyable activities or duties, accepted loneliness as part of their lives, accepted differences or occasional disharmonies in relationships, or developed higher self-acceptance.
Limitations and Future Directions
One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling. Most participants were recruited through collaborators’ networks because this allowed us to access participants who might otherwise have been reluctant to talk about a sensitive topic like loneliness in an interview. At the same time, this may have affected responses: Participants may, for instance, have been less willing to talk about experiences that concerned their relation with the interviewer (e.g., friendship) or with a person that both were acquainted with. They may also have been less likely to report feeling lonely because of social isolation than those whom we did not reach. Certain topics, such as shame, social exclusion, or isolation may therefore be underrepresented in our interview data. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why we believe that this limitation does not invalidate our conclusions:
For one, despite convenience sampling, we obtained samples that were diverse in terms of loneliness experiences (e.g., different frequency and longevity) and other relevant characteristics (e.g., level of social isolation; marital status). Furthermore, the level of anonymity or acquaintance with the interviewer appeared to not importantly affect what interviewees disclosed: Even friends of interviewers were not reluctant to tell if, for instance, the lack of a close friend had caused their loneliness. Similarly, participants who opted out of video-recording did not seem to report systematically different loneliness experiences from those who agreed to be video-recorded. Finally, our results widely converged with findings in Canadian studies (Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990), in which written, and hence more anonymized, answers were collected. Nevertheless, we encourage future research to replicate our findings with exclusively purposive sampling, and no personal relationship between interviewers and interviewees.
It is also important to note what the results of this study cannot offer. For one, our findings do not allow for conclusions about actual loneliness causes or remedies. Causes and remedies that are perceived by lay people help to understand whether loneliness describes a similar experience and phenomenon across cultures, but not necessarily what actually causes or resolves loneliness. Second, our findings do not allow for conclusions about the prevalence of (perceived) causes or solutions in different cultures (cf. e.g., Rokach & Bacanli, 2001; Rokach et al., 2000, 2001). Due to the qualitative design of this study, we could, thus far, only observe tendencies regarding frequency or relevance of aspects of the loneliness experience. We hence recommend to conduct longitudinal and quantitative studies in the future (e.g., based on taxonomies derived from this qualitative data; see Figures 1-3 in the supplemental
materials and the codebook) to (1) better understand actual causes and remedies, and (2) to compare the prevalence of loneliness causes or solutions across different cultures.
Finally, our finding that there were no fundamental qualitative differences in loneliness experiences in this set of samples does not imply that there are no such cross-cultural differences at all. While we focused on samples from cultures with different levels of social
embeddedness, it is possible that cultures that differ on other dimensions may give rise to
unique loneliness definitions, causes or remedies. Nevertheless, the finding that culturally very different samples (like those in the current study) share a similar notion of loneliness strongly suggests that loneliness may describe similar experiences across many cultures (e.g., in line with Cacioppo et al., 2013).
Conclusion
In-depth interviews from five countries suggest that influential conceptualisations of loneliness in the literature may quite accurately describe the phenomenon of loneliness across both less and more socially embedded cultures. Specifically, definitions, causes, and solutions converged with those provided by lay people from cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. Additionally, our interviews revealed some aspects that have been considered less in previous literature: that loneliness frequently emerges despite fulfilling social relationships and that social withdrawal and higher independence (rather than more social contacts) may be important remedies. We also identified potential cultural differences in relevance and specific manifestations of certain aspects of loneliness experiences. All these findings from our rich interview data provide some first indication that the phenomenon of loneliness may validly be examined across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. As such, they pave the way for future cross-cultural research on loneliness, and suggest that existing knowledge about loneliness may provide useful starting points to decrease loneliness across the globe.
130 Ta bl e 1a O ve rv ie w o f T yp es o f L on el in es s in P re vi ou s Re se ar ch Li te ra tu re By c au se (e .g ., M iju sk ov ic , 1 97 7; We iss , 1 97 3) Em ot ion al lon el in es s So cia l l onelines s Ex ist en tia l l on el in es s Th e lo ne lin es s th at fl ow s fro m a la ck o f a c lo se , i nt im at e re la tio ns hi p Th e lo ne lin es s th at fl ow s fro m m iss in g a so ci al n et w or k or s oc ia l c on ta ct s Th e lo ne lin es s th at is in he re nt to b ei ng h um an in th e fa ce o f u nc er ta in ty a nd de at h; be ca us e of m ov in g fro m bi rt h to de at h al on e By d ur at io n (e .g ., Be ck & Y ou ng , 1 97 8; D e Jo ng G ie rv el d & R aa ds ch el de rs , 1 98 2) Ch ro ni c lo ne lin es s Sit ua tio na l l onelines s Tr an sie nt lo ne lin es s Lo ng er -la st in g fee lin g of lo ne lin es s; a c on st an t f ee lin g of s om e sho rtc om in g in one’ s so ci al rel at io ns hi ps Sho rt-liv ed lo nelines s th at a ris es a s a re ac tio n to s pe ci fic e ve nt s (e .g ., a di vo rc e or b re ak -up , t he d ea th o f a s pec ific p er so n) Mo m en ta ry a nd s ho rt-liv ed lo nelines s ex per ienc es th at a re u nr ela ted to ev ent s No te . Fo r t yp es o f l onelines s, w e us ed the s am e la bels a s in th e lit er at ur e (s ee the co deb oo k fo r m or e de ta ils ).
Ta bl e 1b Ov er vi ew o f a De sc rip tio n of th e Lo ne lin es s Ex pe rie nc e in P re vi ou s Re se ar ch Li te ra tu re Rok ac h (1 98 8) 1 Self -al ie na tio n Em pt in es s an d se lf-vo id Em pt in es s De pe rs on al iza tio n In te rp er so na l Is ol at io n Ab se nc e of int im ac y La ck o f c lo se ne ss to ot he rs Mi ss in g a sp ec ifi c pe rs on o r r el at io ns hi p Fee ling em pt y, h oll ow , b la nk , f eeling lik e one do es n ot ex ist Feeling s of unr ea lit y, c onf us ed id ent ity , sim ila r t o psy ch ot ic e xp er ie nc es De fic ie nc y in re la tio ns hi ps ; m iss in g an int im at e rel at io ns hi p Lo ng in g fo r s om eo ne w ho is c ur re nt ly no t a va ila ble or w ho ha s le ft on e’ s lif e, or for a s pe ci fic ty pe of re la tion sh ip ; e. g. , a fter the per so n’ s de at h, a b re ak -up , o r a g eo gr ap hic al s ep ar at io n Re la te d to (c ur re nt c od e) : em pt ines s; m ea nin gles snes s (fe el in g lo st ; u na bl e to b e on es el f) (re la tio nal d ef ic ie nc y) la ck o f c lo senes s se pa ra tio n 1 Al th ou gh fa ce ts o f t he lo ne lin es s ex pe rie nc e by R ok ac h (1 98 8) a lso c or re sp on d to s om e ca us es or re m ed ie s we h av e id en tif ie d, we o nl y lin k th em to c od es d es cri bi ng d ef in iti on s o f l on el in es s he re (u nl es s no c or re spo nd in g fa ce t h as b ee n id en tif ie d in R ok ac h, 1 98 8) .
Pe rc ei ve d so ci al al ie na tio n Feeling d isc onn ec ted fe el in g cl os ed o ff; fe el in g di ffe re nt ; n o un de rs ta ndi ng So cia l r ejec tio n Ab an do nm en t In tim at e re je ct io n Be tra ya l Ag on y In ne r t ur m oi l De fe ns el es sn es s Co nf us io n Pe rc ei vi ng n ot to fi t i n or n ot to c on ne ct to o th ers e m oti on al ly ; f ee lin g di ffe re nt fro m s pe ci fic o th er s or s ep ar at e fro m so ci et y Pa ss iv e (fe el in g un su pp or te d, n ot inc lud ed , o r ig no red ) v er sus a ct iv e re je cti on (f ee lin g ac tiv el y ex cl ud ed or rid ic ul ed ) Feeling lef t a lo ne o r r ejec ted b y cl os e ot he rs Feeling s of g ene ra liz ed d es er tio n by ot he rs ; f ee lin g no t a cc ep te d, unw elc om ed , o r b et ra ye d by o th er s De sp ai r, be in g or fe el in g vu ln er ab le La ck in g or ie nt at io n, h av in g sca tte re d or inc ohe ren t t ho ug ht s fe el in g re je ct ed ab an do nm en t / n o on e to co un t o n fe el in g re je ct ed fe el in g re je ct ed unc om fo rta bl e em ot io na l ex per ienc e ho peles snes s/ neg at iv ity ; po w er le ss ne ss /v ul ne ra bi lit y fe el in g lo st
Nu m bn es s - Em ot ion al u ph ea va l Pa in pa in Un ce rta in ty fe ar Di sc om po su re (ta bo o) An ge r an ge r; (fr us tra tio n) Di st re ss ed Re ac tion s Ph ys io lo gi ca l a nd be ha vi ou ra l di st re ss So m at ic c om pl ain ts [ir re le va nt fo r t hi s re se ar ch ] Be ha vi ou ra l s tre ss Self -de pr ec ia tio n Self -do ub t e. g. , no t b eing a ble to c le ar ly ta st e, se e, o r h ea r Sa dnes s, a che An xi et y, fe ar , w or rie s a bo ut p re se nt o r fu tu re Sha m e or em ba rra ss m en t f or fa ili ng in th e sp he re o f s oc ia l re la tio ns hi ps An ge r o r h at re d at o th er s o r o ne ’s sit ua tio n e. g. , hea da ches , f eeling w ea k, sle ep in ess, h av in g an u pse t s to m ac h e. g. , c ry ing , m ak ing m ist ak es , b ei ng unf oc us ed , d oin g “c ra zy thing s” Ne ga tiv e p er ce pt io ns o f a nd th ou gh ts ab ou t t he se lf, fe el in gs of wo rth le ss ne ss , i ns ec ur ity no t in p ea ce w ith self
So cia l c om pa ris on (c au se s: e xp ec ta tio ns ; s oc ia l no rm s) Self -ge ne ra te d so ci al d et ac hm en t Wi th dr aw al Ac tiv e se pa ra tio n Im m ob ili za tio n Po or s el f-im ag e bec aus e of c om pa ris on wi th o th er s Be co m in g un in vo lv ed in o rd er to s el f-pr es er ve ; be in g he sit an t t o ta lk to o th er pe opl e, u na bl e to c om m un ic at e w ith ot he rs Re fu sin g to s pe ak to p eop le , r ef us in g to o pe n up Pa ra ly sis a nd h op el es sn es s in th e fac e of lon el in es s wa nt in g to b e al on e wa nt in g to b e al on e ho peles snes s/ neg at iv ity ; (u nh el pf ul s tra te gi es : let ha rg y)
Ta bl e 1c O ve rv ie w o f C au se s of L on el in es s in P re vi ou s Re se ar ch Li te ra tu re Un fu lfi lle d so ci al p ro vi sio ns (W ei ss , 1 97 4) La ck o f a tta ch m en t La ck o f a rel at io ns hi p tha t p ro vid es a s ens e of s ec ur ity a nd p la ce; in w hic h on e fe el s com for ta bl e La ck o f s oc ia l int eg ra tio n La ck o f re as su ra nc e of wo rth La ck o f r el ia bl e al lian ce La ck o f g ui da nc e La ck o f op por tu ni ty for nur tur anc e La ck o f a s en se o f b el on gi ng to a g ro up th at s ha re s in te re st s or a n ac tiv ity , wh ic h pr ov id es a s ha re d in ter pr et at io n of e xp er ie nc e, c om pa ni on sh ip , a nd ex cha ng e of s er vic es La ck o f a s en se th at o ne ’s co m pe te nc es a re re co gn ize d by o th er s (e .g ., in on e’ s pr of es sion al rol e, or in on e’ s rol e in th e fa m ily ) La ck o f b ei ng a bl e to c ou nt o n ot he rs fo r a ss ist an ce , i rr es pe ct iv e of h ow af fe ct io na te th es e re lat io ns hi ps a re (u su al ly ty pi cal o f f am ily re lat io ns hi ps ) La ck o f s om eo ne w ho c an p ro vi de a dv ic e or in st ru ct io n If on e ca nn ot ta ke c ar e of s om eo ne e lse (e .g ., a ch ild ), w hi ch w ou ld p ro vi de a se nse o f b ei ng n ee de d Re la te d to (c ur re nt c od e) : at tac hm en t; se cu re b as e/ saf e ha ven (g ro up ; s ha re d in te re st ) la ck of co nf irm at io n (c an no t t ru st ; f am ily m em be r; la ck of c om m itm en t; la ck of su pp or t) la ck o f g ui da nc e [d id n ot o cc ur ] Pe rlm an and P ep la u (1 981) Ch an ge s in a ct ua l so ci al re la tio nsh ip s Te rm in at io n of s oc ia l r el at io ns hi ps e. g. , t hr oug h a ro m ant ic b rea k-up or d ea th Re la te d to (c ur re nt c od e) : re la tio na l c au se s; s ep ar ati on s be re av em en t; re la tio ns hi p te rm in ati on ; s ep ar ati on s
Ph ys ic al s ep ar at io n St at us c ha ng e / r ole tr ans iti ons Qu an tit y of s oc ia l re la tio ns hi ps Qu al ity o f s oc ia l re la tio ns hi ps Ch an ge s in d es ire s re ga rd in g so ci al re la tio ns hi ps De ve lo pm en ta l Sit ua tio na l Ch an ge s in e xp ec ta tio ns e. g. , t hr oug h a m ov e ab ro ad o r tra ve lli ng e. g. , t ra ns iti on to u nem pl oy m en t, re tire m en t, or b ec om in g a pa re nt Ch an ge s in re la tio nal n ee ds be ca us e of m ov in g in to a di ffe re nt ph as e of li fe , e .g. , a do le sc en ce Ch an ge s in re la tio na l n ee ds be ca us e of th e sp ec ifi c ci rcu m st an ce s of a s itu at io n; e .g ., de pe ndi ng o n on e’ s m oo d Feeling lo nely w hen o ne’ s ex pec ta tio ns c ha ng e; e. g. , ex pec ting to m ak e m any new fri en ds w he n st ar tin g on e’ s st ud ie s or m ov in g to a sh ar ed h ou se ph ys ic al di st an ce ; u na va ila bi lit y; se pa ra tio ns (n ov el ty ; a im le ss ne ss ; c ha ng ed re la tio na l need s) re la tio ns hi p qu an tity ; s oc ia l iso la tio n re la tio ns hi p qu al ity ; l ac k of cl os en es s ch an ge d re la tio na l n ee ds ch an ge d re la tio na l n ee ds ch an ge d re lat io nal n ee ds ; int er na l im ba la nc e; in tro ve rted ph as e (e xp ec ta tio ns )
Pe rs on al fa ct or s Shy nes s, s elf -es teem , s oc ia l s kills Sim ila rit y De m og ra ph ic c ha ra ct er ist ic s Ch ild ho od a nt ec ed en ts Sit ua tio na l f ac to rs Cu ltu ra l v al ue s So cia l n or m s Sit ua tio na l c ons tra int s Be in g le ss li ke ly to fe el lo ne ly if o ne is sim ila r t o th os e ar ound o nes elf e. g. , g end er , m ar ita l s ta tus , inc om e, or a ge e. g. , p ar en ta l d iv or ce , ch ar act er ist ics o f t he p ar en t-ch ild re la tio ns hi p Cu ltu ra l v al ue s in flu en ce s oc ia l re la tio ns hi ps a nd in sti tu tio ns , a nd ca n he nce im pa ct o n lo ne lin es s; e. g. , r ug ged in div id ua lis m So cia l n or m s inf lue nc e an ind iv id ua l’s ex pec ta tio ns a nd de sir es fr om s oc ia l r el ati on sh ip s, an d can h en ce c au se lo ne lin es s A sit ua tio n th at d ec re as es op por tu ni tie s fo r a n in di vi du al to so ci al ly in te ra ct w ith o th er s; e .g ., be in g ho spi ta liz ed pe rs on al c ha ra ct er ist ic s “s oc ial s ki lls ”; in se cu rit y; (h ol di ng b ac k/ cl os in g of f) fe el in g di ffe re nt /la ck o f und er st and ing so ci al m ar gi na lit y; a ge ch ild ho od a nt ece de nt s co nt ext ua l c au se s cu ltu ra l v al ue s so ci al n or m s; (e xp ec ta tio ns) so lit ud e
Rok ac h (1 98 9) Re la tion al d ef ic its So cia l a liena tio n Sep ar at io n fro m lo ved o nes Is ol at io n fro m ot he rs In ad eq ua te s oc ia l su pp or t sy st em A cr ip pl ed s oc ia l su pp or t sy st em No nb el on gi ng Tr ou bl ed re la tio ns hi ps Un fu lfi lli ng re la tio ns hi ps Gr os sly la ck in g or ab us iv e re la tio ns hi ps Ph ys ic al s ep ar at io n fro m o ne ’s net w or k or c lo se o th er s Ph ys ic al is ol at io n in a s pe ci fic sit ua tio n, e .g . a fte r a m ov e A so ci al n et w or k th at is in su ffi ci en t to m ee t a n in di vi du al ’s n ee ds No t b eing p ar t o f a g ro up , n ot co nn ec tin g to o th er s, b ei ng ro otl es s Re la tion sh ip s th at d o not fu lfi l s om e ind iv id ua l need o r t ha t a re di sh ar m on io us Re la tion sh ip s w ith ou t i nt im ac y an d co m m un ic at io n, w he re cl os en es s ha s det er io ra ted Re la te d to (c ur re nt c od e) : re la tio na l c au se ph ys ic al di st an ce ; u na va ila bi lit y so lit ud e st ru ct ur al re la tio na l c au se s st ru ct ur al re la tio na l c au se s fe el in g di ffe re nt /la ck o f und er st and ing ; ( rela tio ns hip qu al ity ; gr ou p) re la tio ns hi p qu al ity re la tio ns hi p qu al ity (e .g ., m as k; “c an no t s har e”) re la tio ns hi p qu al ity ; l ac k of cl os en es s
