- Email: [email protected]
Loneliness as a risk factor in adolescent hopelessness
JOURNAL
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
25,
189-195
(19%)
Loneliness as a Risk Factor in Adolescent Hopelessness RANDY M. PAGE Division
of H. P. E.R. D., Universip Ohio
of Idaho, State University
and School
of H. P. E. R.,
The extent to which loneliness was related to adolescent hopelessness was determined in a sample of 1297 high school students. Loneliness accounted for 24.21% of the variance between adolescents who were categorized as high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, and not hopeless. Other lifestyle variables (i.e., smoking cigarettes, watching television, and weight satisfaction) significantly discriminated between groups, but the contribution was minimal in comparison to the contribution of loneliness. The results of this study point out that the early identification and treatment of loneliness may have potential for reducing adolescent hopelessness and its consequences upon emotional health and development. Q 1991 Academic Press, Inc.
One who maintains a series of negative or pessimistic expectancies concerning his or her future and present self may be described as being hopeless (Stotland, 1969). An instrument designed by Beck, Weissman, Lester, and Trexler (1974), the Beck Hopelessness Scale, has been found to be a reliable and sensitive measure of those negative expectancies which are described as hopelessness. This scale is known to have impressive psychometric properties (Holden, 1987; Holden & Fekken, 1988). Hopelessness has rarely been studied among adolescents and in particular among nonclinical populations of adolescents (Kashani, Reid, & Rosenburg, 1989). As such little is known about the extent of hopelessness among adolescents nor its correlates with psychosocial characteristics or behavioral characteristics. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the extent to which loneliness was related to hopelessness among a large sample of high school students. Young (1982) defines loneliness as the absence or perceived absence of satisfying social relationships (Young, 1982). As such, loneliness is not synonymous with social aloneness, solitude, or This research was funded by a grant from the University of Idaho, Office of University Research. Reprint requests should be addressed to the author at Division of H.P.E.R.D., University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843. 189 0092-6X6/91
$3.00
Copyright @ 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
190
RANDY
M. PAGE
isolation (Williams, 1983). Loneliness is usually accompanied with negative affect, such as anxiety, distress, or depression (Berman & Schwartz, 1990). Thus, those who are alone or socially deprived and do not suffer from negative affect are not lonely. It was hypothesized that hopeless adolescents would be more likely to score high on loneliness than less hopeless adolescents. Also, when compared to adolescents who score low on hopelessness, hopeless adolescents were expected to use illicit drugs more frequently, smoke more cigarettes, drink alcohol and get drunk more frequently, exercise less, be less satisfied with their weight, have more body fat, and spend more time watching television. A determination of possible lifestyle differences is important because it may suggest behavioral patterns that serve as either antecedents or consequences of hopelessness in adolescence. Further, these variables were included in the study in order to assess the relative importance of loneliness in discriminating adolescents who score within differing ranges on the Hopelessness Scale. There is interest in hopelessness as a measure of suicide potential (Petrie & Chamberlain, 1985) and as a factor in suicidal behaviors (Beck, 1986). The research conducted to date with the scale is based upon clinical, adult samples. Therefore, the utility of the Hopelessness Scale in determining suicide potential in adolescents is uncertain at present. This study is important because it may assist mental health specialists become more skilled in the early identification of hopelessness. A recognition of factors which contribute to or indicate hopelessness seems to be an especially important component of mental health interventions. METHOD
Subjects During the fall of 1988, 12 high school principals were asked to have their schools serve as survey sites for the current study. These schools were selected from pools of schools within specific geographic sectors of the state, thus providing a geographically representative sample of schools throughout the state and were stratified by school size. Included in the sample were four large schools (student body in excess of lOOO), four medium-sized schools (500-1000 students), and four small schools (less than 500 students). Students enrolled in health classes (a required course for graduation) in these schools (n = 1297) served as the subjects for the study.
Instrumentation A survey form which included the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Revised U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, and some items assessing health and lifestyle practices was administered to subjects. Subjects were instructed to not place their name upon the survey forms and that their responses would be used for research purposes only. Each school that participated in the study received an analysis for their school as well as results for the entire sample, but no efforts were made to identify individual students who scored high on any measure. The Beck Hopelessness Scale is a 20-item true/false inventory that assesses pessimistic
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
191
cog&ions. Scores on this instrument can range from 0 (not hopeless) to 20 (extremely hopeless). An a coefficient of .93 (Beck et al., 1974) and test-retest correlation of .85 (Holden & Fekken, 1988) have been reported for the scale. The Revised U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale consists of 20 items which measure the degree of an individual’s dissatisfaction with current social relationships. Scores on this scale can range from 20 (not lonely) to 80 (extremely lonely). The scale is known to be a reliable and valid measure (Russell, 1982) and to be a related, but empirically distinct construct than depression and loneliness (Weeks, Michela, Peplau, & Bragg, 1980). Subjects also completed a few questions about substance use and health-related behavior. They were asked to indicate the number of times they used illicit substances (cocaine, marijuana or hashish, hallucinogens, sedatives, or amphetamines) in the past month, the number of times they get drunk and drink alcohol during an average month, and the number of cigarettes they smoke during an average day. Subjects were also asked to report the number of days per week that they exercise hard enough to significantly increase their heart rate for 20 minutes or more and the number of hours they spend watching television during the average day. Weight satisfaction was measured by asking students to rate their feelings about their present weight on a five-point scale which ranged from completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (5). Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight data provided from sample members. The formulation used in this study for body mass index was weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (W/H').
Data Analysis Subjects were categorized into four groups based upon scores on the hopelessness scale. Those scoring 10 or higher on the scale were classified into the high hopeless group. This reporesented 5.6% (n = 72) of the sample members and was formed to include those above the adult cutoff point established by Beck (1986) to indicate those who may be at “substantial long-term suicidal risk.” Another group was formed of those who scored between 4 and 9 on the scale. This group represents those who scored above the mean on the scale (M = 3.00, SD = 3.52) and were accordingly classified into the hopeless group. This group comprised 21.4% (n = 277) of the sample. Those who scored between 1 and 3 on the scale were classified into the low hopeless group. The low hopeless group included 700 sample members (53%). The 248 who scored 0 on the scale (n = 248, 20.5%) were classified as the not-hopeless group. Members of this classification group reported no hopelessness expectancies on the scale. Hopelessness was transformed into a four-level classification (dependent) variable in order to make it possible to determine the relative importance of the several continuous independent variables in discriminating hopelessness categories. Stepwise discriminant analysis was the statistical technique that was selected for this purpose. The independent continuous variables were loneliness, illicit substance use, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, smoking cigarettes, exercise, weight satisfaction, body mass index, and television viewing. Three-way analysis of variance tests were also computed to determine whether hopelessness scores differed according to grade level, gender, or school size. A two-way ANOVA test was also computed to test the main and interacting effects of hopelessness category and gender on loneliness. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between hopelessness, and health/lifestyle variables.
RESULTS In this sample, the number of females (n = 630) and males (n = 654) was fairly equivalent (13 did not report their gender). The average age of a respondent was 15.3 (SD = 2.98) and approximately 90% were
192
RANDY
M. PAGE
TABLE 1 VARIABLES SELECTEDAS DISCRIMINATINGBETWEEN VERY-HOPELESS,HOPELESS,AND NOTHOPELESSAWLE~CENTS Variable Loneliness Cigarette smoking Weight satisfaction/ dissatisfaction Watching television
Partial R
F statistic
p value
.2421 JO87
113.47 3.12
.ooo1 .0248
3080 a067
2.86 2.39
.0353 4661
white. The modal grade level was the junior class level which made up nearly half of the sample (48.1%). Freshmen made up 14.9% of the sample, sophomores 21.7%, and seniors 15.3%. Students from large schools made up 42.6% of the sample. Those from medium and small schools comprised 34.8% and 22.7% of the sample, respectively. Stepwise discriminant analysis revealed that loneliness discriminated between the four hopelessness groups (high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, and not-hopeless) more than any of the health and lifestyle variables included in the study. Loneliness accounted for 24.21% of the variance between these four groups. Smoking cigarettes, weight satisfaction, and watching television also significantly discriminated the groups but collectively only contributed an additional 2.34% to the variance between groups. Therefore, loneliness and these variables combined to explain 26.55% of the variance between the four groups. Drinking alcohol, getting TABLE 2 MEAN SCORESFOR VERY-HOPELESS,HOPELESS,AND NOT-HOPELESSAWLE~CENI’S Variable Loneliness Getting drunk Watching television Weight satisfaction/ dissatisfaction Exercise Cigarette smoking Drink alcohol Using illicit drugs Body mass index
High hopeless
Low hopeless
Not-
Hopeless
50.87 1.59 3.36
41.11 1.03 2.61
54.46 1.03 2.53
34.93 0.54 2.29”
2.48 2.51 2.34 2.34 1.25 21.75
2.94 3.11 0.93 1.93 2.03 21.45
3.08 3.50 1.07 1.94 1.45 21.34
3.19 3.58 0.72 1.25 0.52 20.94
Nore. This analysis included 72 high-hopeless, 277 hopeless, 614 low-hopeless, 248 nothopeless adolescents. a Discriminating variables selected in stepwise discriminant analysis.
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
193
drunk, illicit substance use, and body mass index did not discriminate the groups. Table 1 lists the significant discriminating variables and associated partial R2 and F statistics. Table 2 lists means scores for each of the independent variables by hopelessness group category. While there were no significant grade level or school size main effects on hopelessness, there was a significant gender main effect, F(1, 1198) = 4.15, p = .0419. Males scored significantly higher on hopelessness (M = 3.20) than females (M = 2.78). Grade level, school size, and gender did not produce significant interaction effects. Also, the hopelessness category did not interact with gender on loneliness. Hopelessness significantly (p < .05) correlated positively with loneliness (I = .50), watching television (r = .12), getting drunk (r = .06), smoking cigarettes (r = .05), and negatively with weight satisfaction (I = - .16) and exercise (r = - .14). DISCUSSION This study clearly shows that loneliness is highly and positively related to hopelessness among adolescents. Young people who scored high on the Hopelessness Scale were correspondingly likely to score high on loneliness when compared to those who scored lower on hopelessness. Loneliness explained almost one-quarter (24.2%) of the variance between the four groups. Variables measuring the frequency of smoking cigarettes, satisfaction with weight, and viewing television significantly discriminated between the groups; however, the contribution of these variables was minimal in comparison to loneliness in explaining adolescent hopelessness. The cognitions of hopeless adolescents are permeated with negative expectancies such as “my future seems dark to me,” “all I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness” and “there is no use in really trying to get something I want because I probably won’t get it.” Hopeless adolescents view problems, situations, and events which create distress as insoluble and having a low probability of changing for the better. Because of the cross-sectional and correlational nature of this study, it should not be assumed that loneliness (or any other variable which significantly discriminated groups) causes hopelessness. It is also plausible. that the causal nature of this relationship may alternatively be such that hopelessness causes loneliness. Or perhaps, a third variable, not accounted for in this study, may be responsible for the covariance of loneliness and hopelessness. Future research efforts must strive to delineate the causal nature and direction of this relationship among adolescents. Most studies of hopelessness have been conducted almost exclusively with adults. Therefore, empirical data and normative distributions of hopelessness in the general population of adolescents are generally lacking (Kashani, Reid, & Rosenberg, 1989). Also. little is known about the
194
RANDY
M. PAGE
influence of hopelessness upon emotional and mental health development of children and adolescents. The fact that hopelessness is an indicator of suicide potential in adults raises the plausibility that hopelessness may also be predictive of adolescent suicides, suicide attempts, and/or suicidal ideations. However, whether there is such a link between hopelessness and suicidal potential in adolescents is not presently known, As such, future research efforts are certainly needed to determine the consequences of hopelessness upon adolescents. In the meantime, it is evident that loneliness represents an important indicator or risk factor of adolescent hopelessness. Therefore, it may follow that interventions which focus upon reducing or preventing loneliness may effectively alleviate feelings of hopelessness and its consequences (possibly even suicidal behavior) in some adolescents. The systematic and comprehensive approach for understanding loneliness by Young (1982) provides a model for treating lonely adolescents. He defines loneliness as the absence or perceived absence of satisfying social relationships, accompanied by symptoms of psychological distress that are related to the actual or perceived absence. This approach emphasizes the importance of cognition, behavior, and emotion in defining and treating loneliness. Particular behaviors and emotions that accompany loneliness are often a function of the lonely person’s thoughts, attributions, and assumptions. Accurately assessing how lonely individuals view their relationships and themselves can provide understanding into why they act and feel the way they do. Having gained this understanding, mental health professionals can apply cognitive behavioral techniques to reduce or alleviate loneliness. Researchers should also examine forces and factors which contribute to an adolescents’ sense of hopefulness. Such study will “hopefully” lead to interventions which effectively enable adolescents to develop “learned hopefulness.” Learned hopefulness may be viewed as the process whereby individuals learn and utilize problem-solving skills and the achievement of perceived or actual control (Zimmerman, 1990). This achievement theoretically can lead to improvements and enhancements of one’s psychological empowerment (sense of mastery and control over the environment). Zimmerman suggests that acquired problem-solving skills “may increase one’s repertoire of personal coping strategies and social support, and help inoculate individuals against the debilitating consequences of life distress.” Therefore, learned hopefulness theory has potential for reducing or preventing hopelessness and loneliness in adolescents and other groups of people and thereby deserves further study and attention. In conclusion, this study has determined that there is a strong relationship between adolescent hopelessness and loneliness (explaining about one-fourth of the variance in hopelessness). While loneliness was a major
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
19.5
discriminator between hopeless and not hopeless adolescents, only a few lifestyle variables significantly discriminated between groups (smoking cigarettes, watching television, and satisfaction with weight). However, these variables only minimally contributed to the variance between hopelessness categories (high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, not-hopeless). Illicit drug use, getting drunk, exercise, drinking alcohol, and body mass index did not discriminate significantly between groups. These findings suggest that loneliness may play an important role in determining adolescent hopelessness. However, given the cross-sectional nature of this research, problems with directionality and additional effects of confounding variables cannot be ruled out. In addition, the loneliness and hopelessness measures used in the study were developed with older populations. Further research is needed to confirm the applicability of using these measures with younger populations. REFERENCES
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting Beck, A. T. (1986). Hopelessness as a predictor M. Stanley (Eds.), Psychobiology of suicidal Academy of sciences. Berman, A. L., & Schwartz, R. H. (1990). Suicide American
Journal
of Diseases
of Children,
L. (1974). Measurement of pessimism: Psychology, 42, 861-865. of eventual suicide. In J. .I. Mann & behavior. New York: The New York and Clinical
attempts among adolescent drug users.
144,310-314.
Holden, R. R. (1987). The Hopelessness Scale. In R. C. Sweetland & D. J. Keyser (Eds.), ‘Pest critiques (Vol. 5). Kansas City: Test Corporation of America. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, C. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the Hopelessness Scale and its items in a university population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 40-43. Kashani, J. H., Reid, .I. C., & Rosenburg, T. K. (1989). Levels of hopelessness in children and adolescents: A developmental perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57, 496-499.
Petrie, K., & Chamberlain, K. (1985). The predictive validity of the Zung Index of Potential Suicide. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 11-102. Russell, D. (1982). The measurement of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: WileyInterscience. Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weeks. D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Bragg, M. E. (1980). The relation between loneliness and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1238-1244. Williams, E. G. (1983). Adolescent loneliness. Adolescence, 18, 51-66. Young, J. E. (1982). Loneliness, depression, and cognitive therapy. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model analysis of participation and empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality, 24,7186.
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
25,
189-195
(19%)
Loneliness as a Risk Factor in Adolescent Hopelessness RANDY M. PAGE Division
of H. P. E.R. D., Universip Ohio
of Idaho, State University
and School
of H. P. E. R.,
The extent to which loneliness was related to adolescent hopelessness was determined in a sample of 1297 high school students. Loneliness accounted for 24.21% of the variance between adolescents who were categorized as high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, and not hopeless. Other lifestyle variables (i.e., smoking cigarettes, watching television, and weight satisfaction) significantly discriminated between groups, but the contribution was minimal in comparison to the contribution of loneliness. The results of this study point out that the early identification and treatment of loneliness may have potential for reducing adolescent hopelessness and its consequences upon emotional health and development. Q 1991 Academic Press, Inc.
One who maintains a series of negative or pessimistic expectancies concerning his or her future and present self may be described as being hopeless (Stotland, 1969). An instrument designed by Beck, Weissman, Lester, and Trexler (1974), the Beck Hopelessness Scale, has been found to be a reliable and sensitive measure of those negative expectancies which are described as hopelessness. This scale is known to have impressive psychometric properties (Holden, 1987; Holden & Fekken, 1988). Hopelessness has rarely been studied among adolescents and in particular among nonclinical populations of adolescents (Kashani, Reid, & Rosenburg, 1989). As such little is known about the extent of hopelessness among adolescents nor its correlates with psychosocial characteristics or behavioral characteristics. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the extent to which loneliness was related to hopelessness among a large sample of high school students. Young (1982) defines loneliness as the absence or perceived absence of satisfying social relationships (Young, 1982). As such, loneliness is not synonymous with social aloneness, solitude, or This research was funded by a grant from the University of Idaho, Office of University Research. Reprint requests should be addressed to the author at Division of H.P.E.R.D., University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843. 189 0092-6X6/91
$3.00
Copyright @ 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
190
RANDY
M. PAGE
isolation (Williams, 1983). Loneliness is usually accompanied with negative affect, such as anxiety, distress, or depression (Berman & Schwartz, 1990). Thus, those who are alone or socially deprived and do not suffer from negative affect are not lonely. It was hypothesized that hopeless adolescents would be more likely to score high on loneliness than less hopeless adolescents. Also, when compared to adolescents who score low on hopelessness, hopeless adolescents were expected to use illicit drugs more frequently, smoke more cigarettes, drink alcohol and get drunk more frequently, exercise less, be less satisfied with their weight, have more body fat, and spend more time watching television. A determination of possible lifestyle differences is important because it may suggest behavioral patterns that serve as either antecedents or consequences of hopelessness in adolescence. Further, these variables were included in the study in order to assess the relative importance of loneliness in discriminating adolescents who score within differing ranges on the Hopelessness Scale. There is interest in hopelessness as a measure of suicide potential (Petrie & Chamberlain, 1985) and as a factor in suicidal behaviors (Beck, 1986). The research conducted to date with the scale is based upon clinical, adult samples. Therefore, the utility of the Hopelessness Scale in determining suicide potential in adolescents is uncertain at present. This study is important because it may assist mental health specialists become more skilled in the early identification of hopelessness. A recognition of factors which contribute to or indicate hopelessness seems to be an especially important component of mental health interventions. METHOD
Subjects During the fall of 1988, 12 high school principals were asked to have their schools serve as survey sites for the current study. These schools were selected from pools of schools within specific geographic sectors of the state, thus providing a geographically representative sample of schools throughout the state and were stratified by school size. Included in the sample were four large schools (student body in excess of lOOO), four medium-sized schools (500-1000 students), and four small schools (less than 500 students). Students enrolled in health classes (a required course for graduation) in these schools (n = 1297) served as the subjects for the study.
Instrumentation A survey form which included the Beck Hopelessness Scale, the Revised U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale, and some items assessing health and lifestyle practices was administered to subjects. Subjects were instructed to not place their name upon the survey forms and that their responses would be used for research purposes only. Each school that participated in the study received an analysis for their school as well as results for the entire sample, but no efforts were made to identify individual students who scored high on any measure. The Beck Hopelessness Scale is a 20-item true/false inventory that assesses pessimistic
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
191
cog&ions. Scores on this instrument can range from 0 (not hopeless) to 20 (extremely hopeless). An a coefficient of .93 (Beck et al., 1974) and test-retest correlation of .85 (Holden & Fekken, 1988) have been reported for the scale. The Revised U.C.L.A. Loneliness Scale consists of 20 items which measure the degree of an individual’s dissatisfaction with current social relationships. Scores on this scale can range from 20 (not lonely) to 80 (extremely lonely). The scale is known to be a reliable and valid measure (Russell, 1982) and to be a related, but empirically distinct construct than depression and loneliness (Weeks, Michela, Peplau, & Bragg, 1980). Subjects also completed a few questions about substance use and health-related behavior. They were asked to indicate the number of times they used illicit substances (cocaine, marijuana or hashish, hallucinogens, sedatives, or amphetamines) in the past month, the number of times they get drunk and drink alcohol during an average month, and the number of cigarettes they smoke during an average day. Subjects were also asked to report the number of days per week that they exercise hard enough to significantly increase their heart rate for 20 minutes or more and the number of hours they spend watching television during the average day. Weight satisfaction was measured by asking students to rate their feelings about their present weight on a five-point scale which ranged from completely dissatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (5). Body mass index was calculated from self-reported height and weight data provided from sample members. The formulation used in this study for body mass index was weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (W/H').
Data Analysis Subjects were categorized into four groups based upon scores on the hopelessness scale. Those scoring 10 or higher on the scale were classified into the high hopeless group. This reporesented 5.6% (n = 72) of the sample members and was formed to include those above the adult cutoff point established by Beck (1986) to indicate those who may be at “substantial long-term suicidal risk.” Another group was formed of those who scored between 4 and 9 on the scale. This group represents those who scored above the mean on the scale (M = 3.00, SD = 3.52) and were accordingly classified into the hopeless group. This group comprised 21.4% (n = 277) of the sample. Those who scored between 1 and 3 on the scale were classified into the low hopeless group. The low hopeless group included 700 sample members (53%). The 248 who scored 0 on the scale (n = 248, 20.5%) were classified as the not-hopeless group. Members of this classification group reported no hopelessness expectancies on the scale. Hopelessness was transformed into a four-level classification (dependent) variable in order to make it possible to determine the relative importance of the several continuous independent variables in discriminating hopelessness categories. Stepwise discriminant analysis was the statistical technique that was selected for this purpose. The independent continuous variables were loneliness, illicit substance use, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, smoking cigarettes, exercise, weight satisfaction, body mass index, and television viewing. Three-way analysis of variance tests were also computed to determine whether hopelessness scores differed according to grade level, gender, or school size. A two-way ANOVA test was also computed to test the main and interacting effects of hopelessness category and gender on loneliness. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between hopelessness, and health/lifestyle variables.
RESULTS In this sample, the number of females (n = 630) and males (n = 654) was fairly equivalent (13 did not report their gender). The average age of a respondent was 15.3 (SD = 2.98) and approximately 90% were
192
RANDY
M. PAGE
TABLE 1 VARIABLES SELECTEDAS DISCRIMINATINGBETWEEN VERY-HOPELESS,HOPELESS,AND NOTHOPELESSAWLE~CENTS Variable Loneliness Cigarette smoking Weight satisfaction/ dissatisfaction Watching television
Partial R
F statistic
p value
.2421 JO87
113.47 3.12
.ooo1 .0248
3080 a067
2.86 2.39
.0353 4661
white. The modal grade level was the junior class level which made up nearly half of the sample (48.1%). Freshmen made up 14.9% of the sample, sophomores 21.7%, and seniors 15.3%. Students from large schools made up 42.6% of the sample. Those from medium and small schools comprised 34.8% and 22.7% of the sample, respectively. Stepwise discriminant analysis revealed that loneliness discriminated between the four hopelessness groups (high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, and not-hopeless) more than any of the health and lifestyle variables included in the study. Loneliness accounted for 24.21% of the variance between these four groups. Smoking cigarettes, weight satisfaction, and watching television also significantly discriminated the groups but collectively only contributed an additional 2.34% to the variance between groups. Therefore, loneliness and these variables combined to explain 26.55% of the variance between the four groups. Drinking alcohol, getting TABLE 2 MEAN SCORESFOR VERY-HOPELESS,HOPELESS,AND NOT-HOPELESSAWLE~CENI’S Variable Loneliness Getting drunk Watching television Weight satisfaction/ dissatisfaction Exercise Cigarette smoking Drink alcohol Using illicit drugs Body mass index
High hopeless
Low hopeless
Not-
Hopeless
50.87 1.59 3.36
41.11 1.03 2.61
54.46 1.03 2.53
34.93 0.54 2.29”
2.48 2.51 2.34 2.34 1.25 21.75
2.94 3.11 0.93 1.93 2.03 21.45
3.08 3.50 1.07 1.94 1.45 21.34
3.19 3.58 0.72 1.25 0.52 20.94
Nore. This analysis included 72 high-hopeless, 277 hopeless, 614 low-hopeless, 248 nothopeless adolescents. a Discriminating variables selected in stepwise discriminant analysis.
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
193
drunk, illicit substance use, and body mass index did not discriminate the groups. Table 1 lists the significant discriminating variables and associated partial R2 and F statistics. Table 2 lists means scores for each of the independent variables by hopelessness group category. While there were no significant grade level or school size main effects on hopelessness, there was a significant gender main effect, F(1, 1198) = 4.15, p = .0419. Males scored significantly higher on hopelessness (M = 3.20) than females (M = 2.78). Grade level, school size, and gender did not produce significant interaction effects. Also, the hopelessness category did not interact with gender on loneliness. Hopelessness significantly (p < .05) correlated positively with loneliness (I = .50), watching television (r = .12), getting drunk (r = .06), smoking cigarettes (r = .05), and negatively with weight satisfaction (I = - .16) and exercise (r = - .14). DISCUSSION This study clearly shows that loneliness is highly and positively related to hopelessness among adolescents. Young people who scored high on the Hopelessness Scale were correspondingly likely to score high on loneliness when compared to those who scored lower on hopelessness. Loneliness explained almost one-quarter (24.2%) of the variance between the four groups. Variables measuring the frequency of smoking cigarettes, satisfaction with weight, and viewing television significantly discriminated between the groups; however, the contribution of these variables was minimal in comparison to loneliness in explaining adolescent hopelessness. The cognitions of hopeless adolescents are permeated with negative expectancies such as “my future seems dark to me,” “all I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness” and “there is no use in really trying to get something I want because I probably won’t get it.” Hopeless adolescents view problems, situations, and events which create distress as insoluble and having a low probability of changing for the better. Because of the cross-sectional and correlational nature of this study, it should not be assumed that loneliness (or any other variable which significantly discriminated groups) causes hopelessness. It is also plausible. that the causal nature of this relationship may alternatively be such that hopelessness causes loneliness. Or perhaps, a third variable, not accounted for in this study, may be responsible for the covariance of loneliness and hopelessness. Future research efforts must strive to delineate the causal nature and direction of this relationship among adolescents. Most studies of hopelessness have been conducted almost exclusively with adults. Therefore, empirical data and normative distributions of hopelessness in the general population of adolescents are generally lacking (Kashani, Reid, & Rosenberg, 1989). Also. little is known about the
194
RANDY
M. PAGE
influence of hopelessness upon emotional and mental health development of children and adolescents. The fact that hopelessness is an indicator of suicide potential in adults raises the plausibility that hopelessness may also be predictive of adolescent suicides, suicide attempts, and/or suicidal ideations. However, whether there is such a link between hopelessness and suicidal potential in adolescents is not presently known, As such, future research efforts are certainly needed to determine the consequences of hopelessness upon adolescents. In the meantime, it is evident that loneliness represents an important indicator or risk factor of adolescent hopelessness. Therefore, it may follow that interventions which focus upon reducing or preventing loneliness may effectively alleviate feelings of hopelessness and its consequences (possibly even suicidal behavior) in some adolescents. The systematic and comprehensive approach for understanding loneliness by Young (1982) provides a model for treating lonely adolescents. He defines loneliness as the absence or perceived absence of satisfying social relationships, accompanied by symptoms of psychological distress that are related to the actual or perceived absence. This approach emphasizes the importance of cognition, behavior, and emotion in defining and treating loneliness. Particular behaviors and emotions that accompany loneliness are often a function of the lonely person’s thoughts, attributions, and assumptions. Accurately assessing how lonely individuals view their relationships and themselves can provide understanding into why they act and feel the way they do. Having gained this understanding, mental health professionals can apply cognitive behavioral techniques to reduce or alleviate loneliness. Researchers should also examine forces and factors which contribute to an adolescents’ sense of hopefulness. Such study will “hopefully” lead to interventions which effectively enable adolescents to develop “learned hopefulness.” Learned hopefulness may be viewed as the process whereby individuals learn and utilize problem-solving skills and the achievement of perceived or actual control (Zimmerman, 1990). This achievement theoretically can lead to improvements and enhancements of one’s psychological empowerment (sense of mastery and control over the environment). Zimmerman suggests that acquired problem-solving skills “may increase one’s repertoire of personal coping strategies and social support, and help inoculate individuals against the debilitating consequences of life distress.” Therefore, learned hopefulness theory has potential for reducing or preventing hopelessness and loneliness in adolescents and other groups of people and thereby deserves further study and attention. In conclusion, this study has determined that there is a strong relationship between adolescent hopelessness and loneliness (explaining about one-fourth of the variance in hopelessness). While loneliness was a major
ADOLESCENT
HOPELESSNESS
19.5
discriminator between hopeless and not hopeless adolescents, only a few lifestyle variables significantly discriminated between groups (smoking cigarettes, watching television, and satisfaction with weight). However, these variables only minimally contributed to the variance between hopelessness categories (high hopeless, hopeless, low hopeless, not-hopeless). Illicit drug use, getting drunk, exercise, drinking alcohol, and body mass index did not discriminate significantly between groups. These findings suggest that loneliness may play an important role in determining adolescent hopelessness. However, given the cross-sectional nature of this research, problems with directionality and additional effects of confounding variables cannot be ruled out. In addition, the loneliness and hopelessness measures used in the study were developed with older populations. Further research is needed to confirm the applicability of using these measures with younger populations. REFERENCES
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting Beck, A. T. (1986). Hopelessness as a predictor M. Stanley (Eds.), Psychobiology of suicidal Academy of sciences. Berman, A. L., & Schwartz, R. H. (1990). Suicide American
Journal
of Diseases
of Children,
L. (1974). Measurement of pessimism: Psychology, 42, 861-865. of eventual suicide. In J. .I. Mann & behavior. New York: The New York and Clinical
attempts among adolescent drug users.
144,310-314.
Holden, R. R. (1987). The Hopelessness Scale. In R. C. Sweetland & D. J. Keyser (Eds.), ‘Pest critiques (Vol. 5). Kansas City: Test Corporation of America. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, C. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the Hopelessness Scale and its items in a university population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 40-43. Kashani, J. H., Reid, .I. C., & Rosenburg, T. K. (1989). Levels of hopelessness in children and adolescents: A developmental perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
57, 496-499.
Petrie, K., & Chamberlain, K. (1985). The predictive validity of the Zung Index of Potential Suicide. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 11-102. Russell, D. (1982). The measurement of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: WileyInterscience. Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weeks. D. G., Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A., & Bragg, M. E. (1980). The relation between loneliness and depression: A structural equation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1238-1244. Williams, E. G. (1983). Adolescent loneliness. Adolescence, 18, 51-66. Young, J. E. (1982). Loneliness, depression, and cognitive therapy. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model analysis of participation and empowerment. Journal of Research in Personality, 24,7186.