Social and emotional loneliness: A re-examination of weiss' typology of loneliness

Person. individ. DW: Vol. 22. No. 3, pp. 411421,

Pergamon

SO191-8869(96)00204-S

1997 Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191-8869/97 $17.00+0.00

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LONELINESS: A REEXAMINATION OF WEISS’ TYPOLOGY OF LONELINESS Enrico DiTommaso’* and Barry Spinner’ ‘Department

N.B., Canada

of Psychology, The University of New Brunswick At Saint John, Saint John, E2L 4L5 and *Department of Psychology, The University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 6E4

(Received 14 December 1995; receivedfor publication 16 September 1996) Summary-The present study examined Weiss’ (1973) typology of social and emotional loneliness. The main purpose of this study was to assess Weiss’ proposed links among relational needs, social and emotional loneliness, and mental health. A total of 241 university students responded to a measure of social and emotional loneliness, the social provisions scale and several indices of mental health. Evidence from this study suggests that social and emotional loneliness are distinct experiences. Moreover, emotional loneliness can be broken down into two aspects: romantic emotional loneliness and family emotional loneliness. The latter findings lend support to a multidimensional construct of loneliness. Results also indicated that, although both social and emotional loneliness were negatively correlated with the social provisions, each had a unique association with specific social provisions. These relationships were consistent with Weiss’ predictions. On the other hand, his predictions regarding the consequences of relational deficits and loneliness received less support. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

In considering the experience of loneliness, Weiss (1973) made a distinction between the loneliness of social isolation and that of emotional isolation. The loneliness of social isolation, according to Weiss, results from the absence of an engaging social network that can only be remedied by access to a satisfying social network. In contrast, the loneliness of emotional isolation stems from the absence or loss of a close attachment relationship. This type of loneliness, Weiss postulates, can only be alleviated by the instalment of a satisfactory attachment relationship where one is absent, or by the reinstatement or replacement of one that has been lost. Underlying Weiss’ (1973, 1974) theoretical examination of loneliness has been his focus on what people get from relationships with others. He argued that “. . . different types of relationships make different provisions, all of which may be required by individuals, at least under some conditions” (p. 21, Weiss, 1974). Weiss identified six social provisions: attachment, social integration, reliable alliance, guidance, reassurance of worth and opportunity for nurturance. Since each provision has a difference underlying assumption, he postulated that relationships must be specialized in their provisions. Therefore, no single relationship can meet all the needs, although intimate relationships (e.g. spousal relationships) can satisfy a multiplicity of these needs. Weiss (1974) emphasized that individuals have requirements (needs) for well-being that can only be met by relationships, and therefore must maintain a number of different specialized relationships to stay healthy. Weiss (1973) theorized that loneliness is a response to the absence of a particular social provision or a constellation of them. Thus, he proposed that underlying the loneliness of emotional isolation (emotional loneliness) is the social provision of attachment, whereas underlying the loneliness of social isolation (social loneliness) is the social provision of social integration. He speculated that all resulting loneliness syndromes are characterized by a yearning for relationships that motivate the individual to attain the missing provisions. The social provisions are distinct from loneliness in that they reflect specific relational needs emanating from relationships. On the other hand, loneliness reflects the subjective evaluation of actual and desired levels of satisfaction with one’s relationships. Loneliness is a global evaluation of relationships across all relational needs. Weiss (1973) further postulated different symptomatological patterns that accompany each type

*To whom all correspondence

should be addressed. 417

418

Enrico DiTommaso and Barry Spinner Table

I

Social provisions

that have predicted

Predictor(s) Study

emotional

Russell PI ol. Cutrona Vaux

(1984)

e, Ul. (1984)

(1988) er u/. (1993)

and social loneliness

of

in previous

Predictor(s)

loneliness

of

of

Attachment

Reassurance

Single item

Attachment

None

Attachment

Social

of worth

Single item integration

Three

Items

of worth

Attachment

Attachment Social

Emotional-romantic

Emotional-family

Attachment

Attachment

Social

Single item

integration

Reassurance

& Byers ( t 986)

Measure loneliness

Nurturance

Spinner

research

social loneliness

Reassurance Kraus

emotional

of worth

integration

SELSA

guidance &ir.

Social measured

provisions

in the table are those found

by the Soc!al Provisions

Scale (Russell

to be significant & Cutrona.

m multiple

regression

analyses.

in all studies,

the social provisions

were

1984).

of loneliness. Emotional loneliness was expected to produce a sense of utter aloneness, anxiety, hyperalertness, oversensitivity to minimal cues, constant focusing on potential solutions to the problem, feeling of abandonment, vigilance to threat, nameless fear and constant appraisal. He speculated social loneliness would be associated with boredom, depression, aimlessness, marginality, meaninglessness and a drive to search and move among people, along with behavioral deviations such as self-talk and alcoholism. Additionally, Weiss proposed that both types of loneliness share a common core of symptoms including poor concentration, distress, tension, disturbed sleep and disengagement, along with restless depression and amorphous, unfocused dissatisfaction. Empiricaf

e.~a#~inati~n of Weiss’ typology o~~o~eli~ess

Weiss’ (1974) six social provisions have been operationalized by Russell and Cutrona (1984) and have been used in a number of studies to examine different aspects of Weiss’ mode1 (e.g. Cutrona, Russell & Rose, 1984; Kraus, Davis, Bazzini, Church & Kirchman, 1993; Mancini & Blieszner, 1992; Mullins & Dugan, 1991; Russell, Cutrona, Rose & Yurko, 1984; Spinner & Byers, 1986; Vaux, 1988). Table 1 summarizes the results of five studies that have examined the relationship between the social provisions and loneliness. Attachment is a consistent predictor of emotional loneliness across all five studies, and social integration predicts social loneliness in three of the five studies. However, there are also some inconsistencies across the studies. One possible reason for the difference in findings may be the use of different measures of loneliness (all of the studies used the Social Provisions Scale to assess Weiss’ social provisions). Both Weiss (1987) and Marangoni and Ickes (1989) have noted the need for theoretically derived measurement instruments to assess the multidimensional nature of loneliness. As indicated in Table 1, only the study by Spinner and Byers (1986) used the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA; DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993) a reliable and valid measure of loneliness that distinguishes between the forms of loneliness that Weiss proposed. Three of the remaining studies (Cutrona et al., 1984; Kraus et al., 1993; Russell et al., 1984) used a single item to assess each of social and emotional loneliness yielding results that were not completely in agreement. Loneliness

and mental health

Considering the many proposed definitions of loneliness that depict it as a rather aversive and distressing state (Sullivan, 1953; Weiss, 1973), it is not surprising that it has been linked to mental health problems. Loneliness has been closely associated with depression and similar mood state disruptions (e.g. Hojat, 1983; Horowitz, DeSales-French & Anderson, 1982; Pepiau, Perlman & Heim, 1979; Rook, 1984; Weeks, Michela, Peplau & Bragg, 1980) with correlations ranging from 0.40 to 0.71 in mostly college age samples (Young, 1982). Loneliness has also been associated with various other behavioral and mental health problems. Loneliness has been linked to greater anxiety (Hojat, 1983; Russell et al., 1984; Russell, Peplau & Cutrona, 1980), greater neuroticism (Hojat, 1983; Safloske & Yackulic, 1989), lower self-esteem (e.g. Hojat, 1983; Safloske & Yackulic, 1989) and higher potential for suicide on Zung’s Clinical index (Diamant & Windholz, 1981). Loneliness

Social and emotional loneliness

419

has also been linked to a number of psychosomatic symptoms (e.g. headaches, poor appetite, fatigue) and poor physical health (Baum, 1982; Lynch, 1977; 1985; Lynch & Convey, 1979; Rubenstein & Shaver, 1980). However, previous research relating loneliness to mental health has either not distinguished between emotional and social loneliness, or has used measures of unknown reliability and validity. The purposes of the present study were: (1) to examine Weiss’ (1973) model linking the social provisions to his typology of loneliness using a reliable and valid multidimensional measure of loneliness; and (2) to examine the mental health symptomatology associated with social and emotional loneliness and relational provisions. Based on the preceding discussion, it is hypothesized that: 1. Individuals who receive low levels of the social provision of attachment will experience high levels of emotional loneliness. 2. Individuals who receive low levels of the social provision of social integration will experience high levels of social loneliness. 3. High levels of depression will be associated with high social loneliness. 4. High levels of anxiety will be associated with high levels of emotional loneliness. 5. High levels of overall frequency and severity of mental health problems will be associated with both high levels of emotional and social loneliness. Since previous research has often indicated gender differences in depression (e.g. Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990) and is inconclusive with regard to such differences in loneliness (e.g. Borys & Perlman, 1985). the present study also examined gender effects on the various measures. METHOD Overview and design

Participants attended two sessions during which they responded to a series of questionnaires assessing (a) the degree to which they receive each social provision, (b) social and emotional loneliness and (c) several indices of mental health. Analyses assessed the association of gender and the social provisions to measures of loneliness. In addition, they examined the relationship of the mental health indices to gender, the social provisions and loneliness. Session 1

Participants

and procedure

Participants were 354 (119 male and 235 female) introductory psychology student volunteers. They earned 1 credit point towards their course grade for participation. Participants entering the experimental room were greeted by a female researcher. She directed participants to listen to an audio-taped recording of the instructions and to follow along on their written instructions. She then introduced a male researcher who was ostensibly looking for participants for another study. He gave a brief synopsis of his study (actually session 2 of the current study) and solicited their participation. In session 1, participants were asked to complete a demographics questionnaire, the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA), as well as other measures of loneliness for an unrelated study. The demographics questionnaire was always presented first. The various loneliness questionnaires were presented in a counterbalanced order. Measures Demographics questionnaire. This questionnaire assessed general descriptive information, such as age, gender, marital status, dating frequency, level of education and living arrangements. Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. SELSA (DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993) is a 37item, multidimensional measure of loneliness. It assesses two domains of emotional loneliness (romantic and family), as well as social loneliness. The three scales have been shown to have excellent internal reliabilities (Cronbach alphas range from 0.89 to 0.93) (DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993;

Enrico DiTommaso and Barry Spinner

420 Table

2. Intercorrelations

among

gender, Fam

the six social provisions, Sot

Dep

Anx

three loneliness GSI

Att

measures and three indices of mental Slnt

Worth

Allis

health

Guida

Nurt

Gender

Londinm Romantic Famdy Social Mrllrul

0.93

(Fan) (Sot)

Depression

(Dep)

(Anx)

General

severity

0.21

0.12

0.18

-0.63

-0.19

-0.21

-0.28

-0.33

-0.39

-0.13

0.22

0.10

0.20

-0.30

-0.29

-0.32

-0.36

-0.41

-0.23

-0.06

0.92

0.42

0.20

0.37

-0.61

-0.68

-0.50

-0.63

-0.68

-0.39

-0.12

0.89

0.75

0.89

-0.34

-0.31

-0.36

-0.31

-0.38

-0.14

0.08

0.83

0.86

-0.19

-0.15

-0.17

-0.18

-0.19

-0.02

0.06

0.97

-0.33

-0.28

-0.33

-0.30

-0.33

-0.08

0.05

index (GSI)

protisions

Attachment Soaal Reliable

(Slnt)

of worth

alhance

Guidance

0.76

(Att)

integration

Reassurance

(Worth)

(Allia)

0.53

0.44

0.56

0.63

0.60

0.25

0.75

0.55

0.64

0.57

0.36

0.03

0.52

0.53

0.53

0.40

0.63

0.67

0.74

0.38

0.16

0.80

0.41

0.19

0.72

0.24

(Guida)

Opportunity Nore.

0.22 0.38

h
Anxiety Swiul

0.26 0.91

for nurturance

(Nurt)

N = 241; rs > 0.15 are significant

at P < 0.01 (two-tailed);

rs > 0.20, are significant

at P < 0.001 (two-tailed).

Cronbach’s

alpha

on the

diagonal.

Safloske & Yackulic, 1989). The sales have also been shown to have good concurrent, discriminant and convergent validity (DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993; Fevens, Spinner & DiTommaso, 1994; Spinner & Byers, 1986). DiTommaso and Spinner (1993) reported correlations of 0.79, 0.40 and 0.37 between the UCLA-Revised Loneliness Scale and the Social, Romantic and Family scales of the SELSA, respectively. Items on the SELSA are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The following are sample items from each of the SELSA scales: “I do not feel satisfied with the friends that I have”, “I feel part of a group of friends” (Social Scale), “I have a romantic partner to whose happiness I contribute”, “I have someone who fulfills my emotional needs” (Romantic Scale), and “I feel alone when I’m with my family”, “I feel close to my family” (Family Scale). Session 2 Participants

and procedure

Participants were 254 (79 male and 175 female) introductory psychology students who had also participated in session 1 7-10 days earlier. They were not informed of the connection between session 1 and session 2. General instructions were presented in writing and on an audio-tape. Participants then responded to the Social Provisions Scale and the SCL-90. The order of presentation of these two questionnaires was counterbalanced. Measures Sociaf Provisions Scale. (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). This scale is a 24-item instrument that assesses the degree to which social relationships are fulfilling each of the six social provisions identified by Weiss (1974). It has been shown to have adequate internal consistency, and in the current study reliability coefficients range from 0.63 (Reassurance of Worth) to 0.80 (Guidance), with a mean of 0.72 (see Table 2). Test-retest reliability coefficients range from 0.37 to 0.66 over a 6-month period, and good construct and concurrent validity have also been reported (Cutrona, 1982; Russell & Cutrona, 1984). The following are sample items from each of the social provisions scales: “There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it” (Reliable Alliance), “No one needs me to care for them” (Opportunity for Nurturance), and “I have relationships where my competence and skills are recognized” (Reassurance of Worth), “I have close relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional security and well-being” (Attachment), “There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life” (Guidance), and “There are people who enjoy the same social activities I do” (Social Integration). Symptom Check-List 90 (SCL-90) (Derogatis, Rickels & Rock, 1976). The SCL-90 is a self-report, 90-item, nine-factor measure of clinical symptomatology. It has been found to have good construct and concurrent validity, and good reliability (Derogatis, et al., 1976; Derogatis, et al., 1978). Only depression, anxiety and general severity index (GSI) were examined for this study.

Social and emotional loneliness

421

RESULTS Overview of analysis

Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the relationships among gender, social provisions, loneliness and three indices of mental health. Two sets of analyses were conducted. The first used gender, and the six social provisions to predict family, romantic, and social loneliness in a multivariate analysis. The second used gender, the six social provisions, and the three SELSA scales to predict anxiety, depression and the GSI. Alpha was set at 0.05 for each of the two multivariate analyses. Significant multivariate analyses were followed up by univariate regression analyses. To protect against inflation of the type I error rate, alpha was equally split among the separate regression analyses performed within each multivariate set so that each analysis used an alpha of 0.017 (0.05/3). A protected test approach (leaving alpha at 0.017 per test) was used in a follow-up examination of partial statistics within significant regression equations (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Sample size andmissing data. Of the 254 participants, 13 (nine female and four male) were dropped from all analyses. Six participants were deleted as outliers on age (i.e. 33 to 46 years) and seven were deleted due to missing data. Correlations

within sets of measures

The intercorrelations among the measures included in this study are presented in Table 2. Gender was moderately correlated with three of the social provisions, with female indicating higher levels of attachment, nurturance and guidance. The six social provisions are moderately to highly intercorrelated, with rs ranging from 0.38 to 0.74, and on average share 27% of their variance. This is consistent with past research (e.g. Russell et al., 1984; Vaux, 1988) and with Weiss’ proposal that interpersonal relations can provide more than one social provision. However, the high intercorrelations may also indicate poor discriminant validity between the six scales and may pose problems in identifying the unique effects of specific provisions. The three loneliness measures are not highly intercorrelated, and each appears to be assessing a unique aspect of loneliness (mean r = 0.29). The intercorrelations among the nine mental health indices show that they are moderately to highly intercorrelated, with rs ranging from 0.42 to 0.77 and a mean r of 0.61. Further examination indicates that the General Severity Index (GSI) is a good single measure of symptomatic distress as it correlates highly with all nine factors, with rs ranging from 0.69 to 0.90. Descriptive statistics for these measures are presented in Table 3. Gender and social provisions predicting

loneliness

One purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the six social provisions and the three types of loneliness. Gender differences in loneliness were also investigated. Table

3. Descriptive

statistics

for

mental

the social

health

provisions.

loneliness

and

measures

MeLWIres

MCd”

SD

13.4

2.4

13.7

2.0

12.9

1.9

Social protisi0n.r' Attachment Social

integration

Reassurance Reliable

of worth

alliance

Guidance Opportunity

for nurturance

14.6

1.6

14.5

2.1

12.4

2.3

Lonrl;nvss Romantic”

42.5

20.9

Family’

20.2

I I.0

SociaV

30.6

13.6

MLvl tui l1l~ulrh’ Depression

I.1

0.7

Anxiety

0.8

0.6

GSI’

0.9

0.5

Note.N = 241.

Higher

scores indicate

higher

levels

on the particular

12-84;

‘Possible

“ICas”re. ,‘Possible

range:

“Possible

424:

range:

“Possible 14-98;

range:

‘Possible

range: f&4; ‘General

range:

I l-77:

severity

index.

422

Enrico DiTommaso Table

4. Semi-partial

correlations

and Barry Spinner

between the six social provisions

and romantic,

family

and social loneliness

Lonelmess Romantic Social

provisions

ST’%

Opportuntty for nurtuTance Social integration Reassurance Guidance

-0.02

of worth

Reliable Multiple Now.

R correlation:

*P

ST 0.02

-0.01

-0.25*

0.01

-0.09

-0.05

0.03

-0.16*

-0.16’

-0.01

-0.13:

-0.04

-0.06

0.66

N = 241; “Semi-partial

Social

-0.02

0.002

alliance

ST

0.14’

-0.50’

Attachment

Family

0.44

0.79

< 0.017.

Gender, attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, guidance, reliable alliance and opportunity for nurturance were used as predictors of family, romantic and social loneliness. Multivariate results indicated that romantic, social and family loneliness were significantly associated with all six social provisions (x2(21) = 23.68, P < 0.001). Social prooisions predicting

loneliness

Three multiple regression analyses using a simultaneous solution were conducted to follow-up the multivariate relation of the six social provisions to social, romantic and family loneliness. Gender was dropped as a predictor since canonical correlation analysis indicated that it did not contribute to the significant composites. Social provisions predicting romantic loneliness. The six social provisions yielded a statistically significant R of 0.66, accounting for 44% of the variance in romantic loneliness scores (F(6,234) = 30.44, P < 0.001). Examination of partial statistics (see Table 4) revealed that lower levels of attachment were associated with greater romantic loneliness (F’( 1,234) = 102.80, P < O.OOl), uniquely accounting for 24.7% of the total variance in romantic loneliness. Social integration uniquely accounted for only 1.9% of the total variance in romantic loneliness scores functioning as a suppressor variable. Although the other social provisions had significant zero-order correlations with romantic loneliness, they did not significantly add to prediction. Thus, although all the social provisions were related to romantic loneliness, only attachment made a substantial unique contribution to its prediction. Social protlisions predictingfbmily loneliness. The six social provisions yielded a significant R of 0.44, in predicting family loneliness (F(6.235) = 9.33, P < 0.001) (see Table 4). Although all the social provisions were significantly correlated with family loneliness, only guidance uniquely contributed to its prediction. Individuals receiving greater guidance reported lower levels of family loneliness than those receiving less guidance. Social provisions predicting social loneliness. The six social provisions yielded a significant R of 0.79 (F(6,236) = 63.96, P < O.OOl), with social integration, guidance and attachment making a unique contribution of prediction of social loneliness (see Table 4). Individuals who were less well socially integrated, who received less guidance, and who were less attached were more socially lonely. Although the other social provisions were significantly correlated with social loneliness, they did not significantly add to prediction in the regression analysis. Gender, social procisions

and loneliness predicting

mental health

A second purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship of gender, the social provisions, and loneliness with mental health, specifically depression, anxiety and general severity of symptoms. Multivariate results indicated that two canonical roots were significant. All the indices of mental health were significantly associated with the social provisions, and loneliness on the first root (x2(90) = 2.41, P < 0.001). The second root indicated a significant association between several indices of mental health, gender and loneliness (x2(72) = 1.53, P < 0.003). Predicting depression. Results of the regression analysis are reported in Table 5. No gender difference was found on this measure. The three loneliness measures as a set significantly predicted depression scores, accounting for 22% of the variance over and above gender (F(3,235) = 22.44, P < 0.0001). Consistent with hypothesis four, only social loneliness made a significant

Social and emotional loneliness Table

5. Summary

of regression

analysis

of gender,

depression.

anxiety

and general

SELSA severity

Depression

423

subscales

and social

provisions

on

index (GSI) Anxiety

GSI

sr”

ST

ST

0.09

0.08

0.06

Social

0.37’

0.18*

0.33*

Romantic

0.12

0.07

0.09

Family

0.05

0.02

0.06

0.22*

0.05*

0.17f

stepI Gender SW/J 2 SELSA

R’ change after s&p

step

3

Social

provisions 0.09

Nurturance Reassurance

alliance

0.02

integration

0.03

Reliable Social

-0.12

of worth

0.16 -0.13

-0.03

-0.02

0.01

0.01

Guidance

-0.08

-0.05

-0.04

Attachment

-0.06

-0.10

-0.1

R’ change after step Total multiple R Norc.

0.15 -0.05

N = 240; *P < 0.017;

“Semi-partial

I

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.52*

0.31*

0.48*

correlation

addition to the prediction of depression scores (r* change = 0.14, F( 1,235) = 41 .Ol , P < 0.0001). More socially lonely individuals reported greater depression than those less socially lonely. Although, four of the social provisions had significant simple correlations with depression, contrary to hypothesis four, the six social provisions as a set did not add significantly to the prediction scores over and above gender and the loneliness measures (R2 change = 0.04, F(6,229) = 1.89, P = 0.084). Predicting anxiety. Results of the regression analysis are reported in Table 5. No gender differences were found on this measure. The three loneliness measures as a set significantly predicted anxiety scores accounting for 5% of the variance over and above gender (F(4,236) = 4.61, P < 0.004). Contrary to the fifth hypothesis, only social loneliness made a significant addition to the prediction of anxiety scores (r2 change = 0.03, F(1,236) = 7.89, P < 0.005). More socially lonely individuals reported greater anxiety than those less socially lonely. Also contrary to hypothesis five, the six social provisions had weak correlations with anxiety and as a set did not add significantly to the prediction of anxiety scores over and above gender and the loneliness measures (R” change = 0.04,~(10,230) = 1.49, P = 0.181). Predicting the general severity index (GSI). Results of the regression analysis are reported in Table 5. No gender difference was found on GSI scores. The three loneliness measures as a set significantly predicted GSI scores, accounting for 17% of the variance over and above the gender predictor (F(3,232) = 15.89, P < 0.0001). Partial statistics revealed oniy social loneliness to be significantly related to GSI scores over and above gender and the other measures of loneliness, (R* change = 0.10, F( 1,235) = 28.42, P < 0.001). More socially lonely individuals reported greater severity of mental health problems than those less socially lonely. The set of six social provisions did not significantly add to the prediction of the GSI (R2 change = 0.05, F(6,229) = 2.47, P = 0.025). DISCUSSION This study had two main aims. The first was to examine the relationship proposed by Weiss (1973) between the social provisions and loneliness. The second aim was to investigate the association of the social provisions and loneliness with several indices of mental health. Loneliness and the social provisions

Consistent with Weiss’ (1973) conceptual model and the findings of Russell et al. (1984), Kraus et al. (1993) and Vaux (1988), lower levels of attachment were associated with higher levels of emotional loneliness. Attachment was found to be the best predictor of romantic loneliness. This finding is also consistent with previous research that indicated that romantic lonefiness is related to dating frequency, romantic involvement and dyadic adjustment (DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993;

424

Enrico DiTommaso and Barry Spinner

Fevens ef al., 1994; Kraus et al., 1993; Spinner & Byers, 1986; Vaux, 1988), as these all are aspects of attachment relationships. Although all six social provisions were correlated with this aspect of emotional loneliness, for this college population the five other social provisions are relevant to romantic loneliness only to the extent they “go along with” having a romantic attachment relationship. However, this does not necessarily imply that the other social provisions are obtained in a romantic relationship, although it is likely that at least some of them are. It may be, for example that those who are better able to obtain attachment from a romantic relationship are also better able to obtain the other social provisions from that and other (e.g. social) relationships. Social integration was also a significant predictor of romantic loneliness, although its contribution was small and it functions in prediction as a suppressor variable. This relationship may be understood when considering that romantic loneliness is best predicted by the social provision of attachment; presumably that aspect of attachment that is provided by a romantic partner, as opposed to the rest of one’s social network. Removing (partialling out) from the measure of attachment those feelings of attachment received from one’s social network make the former a better or ‘purer’ predictor of romantic loneliness For family loneliness, the second aspect of emotional loneliness, guidance emerged as the best predictor. This suggests that for people in their early university years, the defining feature of their family relationship is having family members to whom they can turn for guidance and advice. Those who indicated that little guidance is available or perhaps who feel the guidance available is inappropriate, are the students who expressed the greatest family loneliness. These results point to the critical role of attachment and guidance in these two aspects ofemotional loneliness. This is consistent with the speculations of Bowlby (1973, 1980) and those of Rubenstein and Shaver (1982). They postulated that good adjustment was dependent on early consistent and secure attachment relationships between a child and his/her caretaker, followed by a gradual physical separation from the initial attachment in favour of guided exploration of the environment and the establishment of social ties. Sullivan (1953) invoked similar notions, in proposing differing intimacy needs that were required to be met at each of five developmental stages. He further stressed the importance of intimate closeness with the caregiver during infancy and childhood. One may speculate that the association of attachment and guidance with emotional loneliness in adulthood may be a reorientation towards a romantic partner of the childhood attachment bonds. This is consistent with research and theory suggesting attachment styles are relatively stable over the life span (Bowlby, 1973, 1980; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1993; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994). The hypothesis that lower social integration would be associated with higher social loneliness was also confirmed. Results indicated that feeling integrated with a social network is the best predictor of lower levels of social loneliness. However, independent of the degree of social integration, those who reported receiving more guidance and attachment from others also reported less social loneliness. One implication of these results is that closer friends may be more relevant to reduced levels of social loneliness than are casual acquaintances. In addition to the social integration that both friends and acquaintances provide, having closer friends who provide feelings of attachment, and who can be turned to for advice are associated with less social loneliness. Thus having a network made up only of casual acquaintances may not be as effective in preventing social loneliness as would a network that also contains close friends. These findings reflect that although the three types of loneliness are conceptually distinct in that they apply to separate domains of life, they nevertheless share a common core. This commonality is not only reflected by a subjective global emotional experience but, is also highlighted by the common skills required for successfully engaging in both intimate and social relationships. This also applies to the social provisions, which are aIso ConceptualIy distinct. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that individuals who are able to satisfy one social provision, are also likely to obtain the others (e.g. attachment and social integration). These results provide support for Weiss’ model, but are not consistent with other studies of the issues, as summarized in Table 1. As mentioned earlier, one possible reason for the difference in findings may be the use of different measures of loneliness. A second reason for the difference in results could be the moderate to high intercorrelations between the social provisions that were found in all six studies. The high intercorrelations between the social provisions would result in less stable beta weights and could have produced the differences in regression results between the six studies (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). These high correlations between the social provisions may reflect the reality

Social and emotional loneliness

425

that individuals who have satisfying relationships will tend to receive most or all of the social provisions, making it difficult to reliably identify the unique characteristics of each. The social provisions,

loneliness and mental health

The hypothesis that high levels of depression would be associated with high social loneliness and low social integration, was partially confirmed. Social loneliness was the best predictor of depression. While the provision of social integration was also associated with depression it did not add to prediction once levels of social loneliness were taken into account. From these results we speculate that the effect of social integration on depression, if any, is an indirect one: having low levels of social integration resulting in the experience of social loneliness, and the experience of greater social loneliness is associated with reports of greater depression. Contrary to predictions and Weiss’ model, anxiety was not associated with emotional loneliness, but with social loneliness. The link of social loneliness to anxiety is, however, consistent with the former’s association with the GSI. These results indicate the importance of social loneliness in the prediction of mental health for this sample. It appears that for young adults at least, social loneliness may be a critical factor in the experience of mental health difficulties. This is consistent with Cutrona’s (I 982) finding that college freshmen most value social integration above all the other social provisions. One may posit that given the high value put on this provision by college age individuals, subsequent feelings of social loneliness may translate into mental health problems in various areas. This in turn could cause further alienation and more loneliness. Friends are also the first resource most individuals turn to in order to appease loneliness feelings triggered by a crisis in other relationships (Schmidt & Sermat, 1983; Sermat, 1980). One may suggest that the absence of such friendships will eliminate a relational buffer and/or may be reflective of one’s inability to effectively and satisfyingly relate to others. The absence of this buffer may be the component that is associated with mental health difficulties. These findings may also explain the lack of independent association of romantic and family loneliness to the mental health measures. Friendships appear to have a particularly important value, and may also reflect a person’s consistent ability to relate to others in a rewarding and mutually satisfying manner. In contrast, family and romantic relationships may require factors other than positively valued personality attributes and interpersonal skills (Schmidt & Sermat, 1983). Thus, the inability to form stable and lasting social, as opposed to romantic or family relationships, may be a better predictor of both loneliness and mental health problems for this age group. Although limited to the mental health indices measured in this study and a college population, these findings appear to contradict Weiss’ (1973) notion that emotional loneliness has more serious effects associated with it than does social loneliness.

CONCLUSION

The social provisions of attachment and guidance were found to be the best unique predictors of romantic and family loneliness, respectively, while social integration was most associated with social loneliness. However, all the social provisions were found to relate to the three forms of loneliness, suggesting that intimate relationships and those afforded by one’s social network each may provide many or all of the social provisions. Social loneliness was found to be a critical and consistent predictor of mental health disturbance bearing out several of Weiss’ (1973) notions. However, more work needs to be done to fully assess the validity of his predictions which link relational deficits, loneliness and mental health. The current literature on loneliness and relational needs suggests that there may be variations among different age groups and in different social contexts (e.g. Cutrona, 1984; Russell et al. 1984; Vaux, 1988). Considering the restricted age range and social characteristics (i.e. university students) of the sample employed in this study, it may be of particular interest to conduct developmental and longitudinal studies examining the connection of relational deficits to Weiss’ typology of loneliness. This could provide a clearer view of the dynamics of loneliness, and how it may be affected by and effect developmental and socialization processes. Acknoll,/edgen?ents-The authors are grateful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

to Lynda

Ross. Kirdn Pure, Cindy Letts and Amanda

Fevens for their helpful

Enrico DiTommaso and Barry Spinner

426

REFERENCES Baum. S. K. (1982). Loneliness in elderly persons: A preliminary study. Psychological Reports, 50, I3 17-l 318. Borys, S. & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender differences in loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. I I, 63374. Bowlby. J. (1973). Affectional bonds: Their nature and origin. In R. S. Weiss (Ed.), Loneliness: The experience ofemotional and social iso/a/ion (pp. 38-52). Cambridge: MIT Press. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. Ill. Loss: sadness and depression. London: Hogarth Press. Cohen. J. C. & Cohen, P. C. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis,for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to College: Loneliness and the Process of Social Adjustment. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds), Loneliness: A sourcebook ofcurrent theory. research and therapy (pp. 291-309). New York: Wiley. Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social support and stress in the transition to parenthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93(4). 378-390.

Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. & Rose, J. (1984). Psychosocial,factors andphysical and mental health among the elderly. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S. & Covi, L. (1978). SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale-Preliminary report. Psychopharmacology

Bulletin, 9, 13-28.

Derogatis, L. R., Rickels, K. & Rock, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 28C-289. Diamant, L. & Windholdz, G. (198 1). Loneliness in college students: Some therapeutic considerations. Student

Personnel,

of a new self-report Journal

of College

22, 5 15-522.

DiTommaso. E. & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of a measure of social and emotional loneliness (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14/l). 127-134. Fevens, A., Spinner, B. & DiTommaso, E. (1994). Adult attachment style and mental health. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association. Penticton, B.C., Canada. Hojat, M. (1983). Comparison of transitory and chronic loners on selected personality variables. British Journal ofPsychology, 74, 199-202. Horowitz, L. M., DeSales-French, R. & Anderson, C. A. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds). Loneliness: A sourcebook ofcurrent theory, research and therapy (pp. 183-205). New York: Wiley. Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Hazan, C. (1993). Attachment styles and close relationship: A four-year prospective study. Unpublished manuscript, College of William and Mary and Cornell University. Kraus, L. A.. Davis, M. H., Bazzini, D. G., Church, M. & Kirchman, C. M. (1993). Personal and social influences on loneliness: The mediating effect of social provisions. Socia/ Psychology Quarterly, 56(f), 37-53. Lynch, J. J. (1977). The broken heart and the medical consequences ofloneliness. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, J. J. (1985). The language ofthe heart. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, J. J. & Convey, W. H. (1979). Loneliness, disease and death: Alternative approach. Psychosomarics. 20(10), 7022 708.

Mancini,

J. & Blieszner,

of Gerontology,

Marangoni,

Relationships,

L. C. & Dugan,

in adulthood:

Concept

and measurement

Journal

in close relationships,

1420.

C. & Ickes, W. (1989). Loneliness:

and Personal

Mullins,

R. (1992). Social provisions

47/l),

A Theoretical

review with implications

ofSocial

Journal

for measurement.

6. 93-128.

E. (1991). Elderly social relationships

with adult children

and close friends and depression.

Journal

of Social Behaviour

and Personality,, 6(2), 315-328. S. (1990). Se.v differences in depression.

Nolen-Hoeksema, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Peplau, L. A., Perlman, D. & Heim, M. (1979). The experience of loneliness, In 1. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal & J. S. Carroll (Eds), Nen approaches to social problems: Applications qf attribution theory (pp. 53-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rook, K. S. (1984). Interventions for loneliness: A review and analysis. In L. A. Peplau & S. E. Goldstein (Eds), Precenting the harmful consequences of severe andpersistent loneliness (pp. 4749). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rubenstein, C. & Shaver, P. R. (1980). Loneliness in two northeastern cities, In J. Hartog, J. R. Audy & Y. A. Cohen (Eds), The anatomy of loneliness (pp. 319-337). New York: International University Press. Rubenstein, C. & Shaver, P. R. (1982). The experience of loneliness, In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds), Loneliness: A sourcebook ofcurrent theory, research and therapy (pp. 206223). New York: Wiley. Russell, D. & Cutrona, C. E. (1984). The provisions qf social relationships and adaptation to siress. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, Toronto, Canada. Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J. & Yurko. K. (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An exploration of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6): I3 13-l 32 I. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A. & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality, and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472480. Saklofske, D. H. & Yackulic, R. A. (1989). Personality predictors of loneliness. Personality and Indiriduul Dtfferences, 10, 467472.

Scharfe,

E. & Bartholomew,

K. (1994). Reliability

and stability

of adult attachment

patterns.

Personal

Relationships,

I, 23-

43.

Schmidt, 44(5),

Sermat,

N. & Sermat, V. (1983). Measuring

loneliness in different relationships,

JournalofPersona/ityandSocia/

Psychology,

1038-1047.

V. (1980). Some situational

and personality

correlates

of loneliness,

In J. Hartog,

ofloneliness. New York: International Universities Press. B. & Byers. E. S. (1986). Loneliness and social support in married and unmarried

J. R. Audy & Y. A. Cohen (Eds),

The unaiomy

Spinner, convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory ofpsychiatry. New York: Norton. Vaux, A. (1988). Social and emotional loneliness: The role of social and personal Psychology

Bulletin,

14/4).

individuals. Presented

characteristics.

at the annual

Persona/i/y,

and Social

722-734.

Weeks, D. G.. Michela, J. L., Peplau, L. A. & Bragg, M. E. (1980). Relationship between structural analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 39(6/. 1238-1244.

loneliness

and depression:

A

Social and emotional loneliness Weiss, R. Weiss, R. Weiss, R. 16. Young, J. (Eds),

421

S. (1973). The e.uperience qf emotional and social isolation. Cambridge: MIT Press. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto o/hers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. S. (1987). Reflections on the present state of loneliness research. Journal of Social Behr+our and Persona/it.v, 2, IE. (1982). Loneliness, depression and cognitive therapy: Theory and application. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman Loneliness: A sourcebook qf current theory, research and therapy (pp. 379405). New York: Wiley.