UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Adolescent loneliness and dimensions of self concept Harward, Kathy Nancy 1989-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A8 H37.pdf [ 4.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0056013.json
JSON-LD: 1.0056013+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0056013.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0056013+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0056013+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0056013+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0056013 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0056013.txt
Citation
1.0056013.ris

Full Text

ADOLESCENT LONELINESS AND DIMENSIONS OF SELF CONCEPT by KATHY NANCY HARWARD B. Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h  Columbia, 1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  (Department o f C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g y )  We a c c e p t  this  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1989 © K a t h y N. Harward, 1989  In  presenting  degree freely  this  at the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  of  University  of  British  Columbia,  I agree  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and study. scholarly  or for  her  I further  purposes  representatives.  of  Counselling  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  D a t e  DE-6 (2/88)  September  19, 1989  Psychology  requirements that  agree  may  be  It  is  financial gain shall not  permission.  Department  the  that  the  Library  an  advanced  shall make it  permission for  granted  by  understood be  for  allowed  the that  without  head  extensive of  my  copying  or  my  written  ii  ABSTRACT  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s of  loneliness  with the  and i d e n t i f y  degree of  experiences.  s t u d y was t o  This  that  Areas i n v e s t i g a t e d  relationships concept,  factors  loneliness  loneliness prevalent  examine  i n the  that an  were g r a d e  i n v o l v e d 166  10 s t u d e n t s  scheduled  school  The i n s t r u m e n t s  extent  of  and f a c e t s  of  self  secondary  Subjects schools  in  Surrey, B r i t i s h Columbia.  The  during regularly  hours.  employed i n t h i s  Loneliness  loneliness  s t u d y were t h e  Scale measuring the  experienced;  III  g a t h e r i n g d a t a on age, and p a r e n t s '  of  m e a s u r i n g 12 f a c e t s  a sociogram q u e s t i o n n a i r e  surveyed c l a s s ;  degree  Revised  a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n of the  Description Questionaire  parents,  adolescent  and the  s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d i n c l a s s u n i t s  i n the  correlated  adolescents.  attending  Surrey School D i s t r i c t ,  concept;  were  f r i e n d s h i p and b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n .  survey study  U.C.L.A.  experience  were t h e  sample,  between l o n e l i n e s s  the  examining  and a s u b j e c t gender,  occupational  of  sheet  number o f  prestige.  self  friendships  information  language,  Self  The  a n a l y s i s o f data included  d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s of  each v a r i a b l e , and i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s o f independent v a r i a b l e s t o the dependent v a r i a b l e Following  loneliness.  t h i s was a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the p r e l i m i n a r y  s e l f concept v a r i a b l e s r e s u l t i n g i n four f a c t o r F i n a l l y four r e g r e s s i o n  socres.  models o f the l o n e l i n e s s  scores  were run. Each model was loaded with d i f f e r e n t combinations o f p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s of s e l f concept and background  information.  There were f i v e key f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study. seventeen percent of the sample reported "sometimes" t o " o f t e n " l o n e l y .  One,  feeling  Two, negative s o c i a l  s e l f concept was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r o f l o n e l i n e s s , while academic s e l f concept was not. female subjects  Three, male and  scored v i r t u a l l y the same on l o n e l i n e s s ,  however when s e l f concept scores were c o n t r o l l e d , males were l o n e l i e r than females g i v e n a s i m i l a r family structure.  Four, subjects  l i v i n g i n s i n g l e parent  households were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n e l i e r than t h e i r peers l i v i n g i n two parent households.  F i v e , though not  s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e r e was a strong t r e n d f o r subjects report  f o r whom E n g l i s h was a second language t o  s u b s t a n t i a l l y greater  f o r whom E n g l i s h was a f i r s t  l o n e l i n e s s than t h e i r peers language.  iv  Table o f Contents  Page ABSTRACT  i  T A B L E OF CONTENTS LIST  OF T A B L E S  DEDICATION C H A P T E R ONE:  v  i i  v  v  i  i  i  i  i  INTRODUCTION  Statement  of the Problem  Dependent  and Independent  Objectives  1 5 Variables  6  o f t h e Study  7  Research Questions CHAPTER TWO:  7  REVIEW OF R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E  9  Background Attachment Cognitive  9 Theory Theory  10 15  Adolescence and L o n e l i n e s s  I  Self  Concept  20  Self  Concept  Interpersonal Disclosing  and Gender Relationships  Loneliness  7  22 24 27  Summary  31  Research Questions  34  V  CHAPTER  THREE:  METHODOLOGY  35  Questions  36  Research  CHAPTER  Description  o f Sample  37  Definitions  o f Key t e r m s  40  Instruments  42  Procedure  50  Data A n a l y s i s  51  FOUR:  55  RESULTS  Descriptive Analysis  55  Regression Analysis  64  Analysis CHAPTER  FIVE:  of Research  Questions  71  DISCUSSION  75  Summary Discussion  75 of Results  76  Limitations Implications  85 f o r Teachers  and C o u n s e l l o r s . . . .  88  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research  90  Conclusion  93  REFERENCES  94  A P P E N D I X A:  CONSENT TO P A R T I C I P A T E FORM  A P P E N D I X B:  WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS  A P P E N D I X C:  SUBJECT  A P P E N D I X D:  S E L F DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE  APPENDIX E:  LONELINESS SCALE  118  A P P E N D I X F:  SOCIOGRAM Q U E S T I O N N A I R E  121  INFORMATION  101  TO P A R T I C I P A N T S .. 104 SHEET  107 I I I ....  H I  vi .  A P P E N D I X G:  LONELINESS SCALE RESPONSE P R O F I L E  A P P E N D I X H:  CORRELATION  C O E F F I C I E N T S OF BACKGROUND  V A R I A B L E S WITH L O N E L I N E S S APPENDIX  I:  P R O F I L E OF P A R E N T S ' AND  124  OCCUPATIONAL  MEAN L O N E L I N E S S SCORE  12 6 PRESTIGE 128  vii  LIST OF TABLES  Table  Page  4.1  T-Test: Mean L o n e l i n e s s Score, Standard D e v i a t i o n T-Value and D i f f e r e n c e E x p r e s s e d as a F r a c t i o n o f the Pooled Standard D e v i a t i o n f o r Gender, L a n g u a g e a n d Number o f P a r e n t s 57  4.2  Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s of t h e Twelve S e l f Concept V a r i a b l e s and t h e i r C o r r e l a t i o n s with Loneliness  61  Mean S c o r e s a n d S t a n d a r d Deviations of Friendship V a r i a b l e s and Correlation Coefficients of Each V a r i a b l e w i t h Loneliness  64  P r i n c i p a l Components Factor Analysis  66  Parameter E s t i m a t e s and Standard E r r o r s f o r Four Regression Models o f Loneliness  69  4.3  4.4  4.5  viii.  Dedicated  i n memory o f my l o v i n g c a n i n e Merrynook Bermuda Cedar.  T o g e t h e r we s t a r t e d t h i s a s h e may, he was u n a b l e  companion  journey, but u n f o r t u n a t e l y t r y t o see our j o u r n e y t o i t s end.  1.  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION Some needs change as l i f e progresses. L o n e l i n e s s i s f e l t i n t h e i n f a n t as a need f o r contact; i n the child, as a need f o r a d u l t participation i n a c t i v i t i e s ; and i n t h e juvenile, as a need f o r compeers and acceptance. But i n the adolescent, l o n e l i n e s s i s f e l t as a need f o r i n t i m a t e exchange w i t h a f e l l o w human b e i n g . L o n e l i n e s s i s so t e r r i b l e an e x p e r i e n c e t h a t i t w i l l d r i v e a p e r s o n t o f a c e a n x i e t y i n o r d e r t o make c o n t a c t w i t h a fellow being. ( S u l l i v a n , 1953, p.310) The  above  loneliness  quotation  during  describes  adolescence.  Since  statement  loneliness research  knowledge  about i t more e x t e n s i v e .  in  the current  understanding and Perlman describe  Secondly,  (1982) p r e s e n t themes.  provide  i n a person's  the time of  Several clarity  common  synonymous w i t h  can  be  alone  without  statements  and themes  that  loneliness results  from  social relationships.  objective social being  this  Peplau  l o n e l i n e s s i s a subjective experience,  not  of  t o our  of loneliness.  three  First,  pain  h a s become p r e v a l e n t ,  of the experience  these  deficiencies  literature  the emotional  isolation.  lonely, or lonely i n a  i tis People crowd.  2. Finally,  loneliness  desired  (p.  following  list  subjective feel  and Shaver of feelings  description depressed,  -  Sorry  -  My a c t i o n s f e e l  drowsy,  I  sort  feel  really  The  apart  o u t , unwanted.  I'm i n t h e w a y .  or disintegrating;  like  Aloneness  differs  from  aloneness  " i s the objective state of  from other people" Being  and o f t e n people  ( S e a r s , Freedman & alone  c a n be a  an i n t r o s p e c t i v e such  1982).  believed to  our p s y c h o l o g i c a l energy t o t u r n inward  expressive communications,  from  1985; Suedfeld,  i straditionally  i n both  positive  c h o o s e t o be a p a r t  (Sears, Freedman & P e p l a u ,  creativity  maybe  (p. 209)  of loneliness  1985; p. 2 0 5 ) .  encourage in  a  inside.  exist,  s t a t e of aloneness  allow  that portray  down.  experience  experience, others  identified the  and b e l i e f s  as though  o f empty  s e v e r a l ways.  Peplau,  (1982)  clumsy and i n a p p r o p r i a t e .  I'm e v a p o r a t i n g  don't  being  others  of loneliness:  left  I feel  Bored,  The in  connectedness with  f o rmyself; sad.  Physically,  Like  between  2).  Rubenstein  I  when a d i s c r e p a n c y  and a t t a i n e d emotional  exists  I  results  as a r t and  and sense and literature  3.  (Sears, Freedman & P e p l a u , In  1985; S u e d f e l d ,  contrast to the objective  loneliness  i s a subjective  people close to  also  feelings  feel  t o them.  objectively  Peplau  around  of loneliness.  lonely  of aloneness,  experience.  may n o t h a v e o t h e r s p h y s i c a l l y enhance t h e i r  state  1982).  Lonely  people  them, w h i c h However,  may  some  e v e n when o t h e r s a r e p h y s i c a l l y and Perlman  (1982) p o i n t o u t t h a t  e v a l u a t e an i n d i v i d u a l  as "not l o n e l y "  because they  a r e amongst o t h e r s does n o t a d d r e s s t h e  individual's  subjective  Peplau as  & Caldwell,  the emotional  feelings  1978).  of loneliness  (1982;  " L o n e l i n e s s " can be d e f i n e d  d i s c o m f o r t e x p e r i e n c e d by  individuals  when t h e r e i s a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e i r d e s i r e d interpersonal  connectedness  t o o t h e r s and t h e i r  interpersonal  connectedness  t o others  Peplau  & Perlman,  discomfort Almost point  However, or  can range everyone  i n their  experience  1 9 8 2 ; Wood,  life  experiences  & Perlman,  loneliness  feelings  emotional  a t some  1982).  This  d e t r i m e n t a l (May, 1 9 8 3 ; P e p l a u ,  c a n become a d e t r i m e n t  1979).  1982;  pain.  loneliness  (Peplau & Perlman,  maintains d i f f i c u l t i e s  (Gerson  This  from m i l d t o severe  i s n o t always  loneliness  1978).  (Brennan,  attained  i n emotional  development  The i n t e n s i t y  determine  i fi t creates  and d u r a t i o n o f  the severity  of the  4.  experience This  (Peplau study  by  adolescents.  it  i s necessary  that  occur  period  & Perlman  examines l o n e l i n e s s  time shift  emotional,  t h e i r primary  (Brennan,  relationships  w i t h peers  This transition toward  i s interwoven  This  adolescents  i s a  begin t o  from a strong  t o more i n t e r p e r s o n a l  (Brennan,  1982; Kegan 1982) .  i s a growth towards  an i n d i v i d u a l  with  1982;  1984; Kegan 1982).  d e p e n d e n c y on p a r e n t s  relationships  i s a  p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  of loneliness  & Larson  changes  Because adolescence  when a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o c c u r s :  emotional  drive  time.  components o f development  Csikszentmihalyi  loneliness,  t o be aware o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  growth, t h e experience these  as i t i s e x p e r i e n c e d  When c o n s i d e r i n g a d o l e s c e n t  during this  of rapid  1982).  autonomy; t h a t  identity.  Along  with  i s , a  this  g r o w t h towards autonomy i s a need f o r t h e development o f interpersonal  skills  interpersonal  relationships  Brennan,  1982).  interpersonal  and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  I f there  skills  with others  loneliness  and awareness,  (Brennan,  From an e x i s t e n t i a l loneliness  (Kegan, 1 9 8 2 ;  i s a lack of these  c o n n e c t e d n e s s w i t h o t h e r s may of  t o promote  a lack of  result,  creating feelings  1982) . perspective, the feeling of  c a n come f r o m a n a w a r e n e s s t h a t we a r e  5.  ultimately  separate  adolescents, parents create  this  others  realization  and peers, feelings  from  Wood a n d H a n n e l  Anderson intense maintain  (1977)  t h e  and e a r l y  that people  their  feelings  that behaviours  who  dropping  suicide.  of this  be  able t o identify  with  feelings  those  and Knowles  abuse,  out o f school, and study  i s t o examine t h e  and i d e n t i f y  experiences. With  that  to loneliness  factors  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e degree of l o n e l i n e s s adolescent  experience  McDowell,  and a l c o h o l  delinquent behaviour,  adulthood.  of loneliness.  related  w i t h drug  experience of loneliness  can  showed t h a t l o n e l i n e s s i s  (1986) a n d F r a n c e ,  The p u r p o s e  both  P r o b l e m  often react with behaviours  or intensify  involvement  from  (May, 1 9 5 3 / 1 9 8 3 ) .  during adolescence  loneliness  (1984) f o u n d include  o f  (1985b) c o n c l u d e d  Bronfenbrenner  of separateness  of loneliness  extensively  For  while seeking individuality,  S t a t e m e n t  felt  (May, 1 9 8 3 ) .  this  that are  t h a t an  understanding,  we  may  a d o l e s c e n t s who a r e s t r u g g l i n g  of loneliness,  with associated d i f f i c u l t i e s .  and a s s i s t  them i n d e a l i n g  6.  Dependent and Independent  The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e Acknowledging that  loneliness  adolescent development, by  i n this  this  Loneliness  Cutrona,  This  1980).  responses: lonely  "never"  and " o f t e n "  study.  groups  background information, The i n s t r u m e n t  self perception social  of self  12 s u b s c a l e s  gender, parents'  Also  study  age, language, occupational  The t h i r d  "rarely"  a  "sometimes"  of independent v a r i a b l e s i n components o f s e l f  concept  concept,  variables.  employed i n t h i s  which consider  the  subject's  t o b o t h academic and  included  as  independent  are s i x background number o f p a r e n t s ,  variables: and b o t h  prestige.  group o f independent v a r i a b l e s  within  &  a range o f  lonely,  measured by t h e sociogram q u e s t i o n n a i r e . friendships  by t h e  measure i n c l u d e s  each with  as i t r e l a t e s  i n this  measured  (Russell, Peplau  and f r i e n d s h i p  circumstances.  variables  Scale  These i n c l u d e :  study contains  be  lonely.  There a r e three this  will  of normal  as i n t e r p r e t e d  items,  lonely,  i s loneliness.  may b e a p a r t  loneliness  number o f L i k e r t - t y p e  study  variable  degree o f t h e experience,  R e v i s e d U.C.L.A.  Variables  are those  These  include  t h e s u r v e y e d c l a s s r o o m a n d mean  7.  closeness  of these  friendships.  There a r e a l s o study. grade  F i r s t , that 10 s t u d e n t .  enrolled District,  two constant v a r i a b l e s each  Surrey,  s u b j e c t who t o o k p a r t w a s a  And second,  i na secondary  British  1.  objectives  that  every  school i nSurrey  Ob-iectives  The  i n this  of this  s t u d e n t was School  Columbia.  of  the  Study  study are:  To e x a m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f l o n e l i n e s s i n adolescence.  2.  To i n v e s t i g a t e loneliness self  during adolescence  concept,  parents,  t h erelationships  age,gender,  parents  in the classroom  between  a n d components o f  language,  number o f  occupational prestige,  friendships  a n d t h e mean c l o s e n e s s o f t h e s e  friendships.  Research  In t h i s  Questions  study t h edependent v a r i a b l e  and t h e independent  variables  i s loneliness  a r e components  of self  8.  concept,  friendship  and background  research questions of this  1.  To w h a t of  2.  extent  G r a d e 10  i s loneliness  Do  these variables  classroom  friendships  prevalent i n a  sample  adolescents?  ( e x c l u d i n g t h e two  3.  The  study are:  Which of t h e independent of  information.  best predict friendship  friendships have  variables  combination  loneliness?  variables).  and t h e c l o s e n e s s o f  a significant  degree of l o n e l i n e s s  or  these  relationship to the  experienced?  9.  C H A P T E R TWO  REVIEW  The  topic  literature last  OF  RELATED  ofloneliness  f o r many y e a r s ,  decade.  The r e v i e w  LITERATURE  hasbeen present i n  t h o u g h m o r e common i n t h e  ofrelated  literature  here includes descriptions  ofcurrent  theories  t oloneliness  this  andr e l a t e d  study.  discussion theory.  This  discussion, addition,  section  begins  with a brief  background  and E x i s t e n t i a l  relationships  chapter  i nthis  and C o g n i t i v e theory.  andl o n e l i n e s s ,  ofloneliness  investigated  relevant t o  be f o l l o w e d by t h e main focus o f  adolescence  i n this  loneliness  psychodynamic views  Attachment theory  interpersonal disclosure  review  o fearly  This w i l l  areas  presented  self  andloneliness,  are discussed. presents  In  concept, and t h e  The l a s t  the research  questions  study.  Background  Historically,  t h e psychodynamic model emphasized an  individual's personality experiences.  traits  and childhood  L o n e l i n e s s was n o t s e e n a s a p o s i t i v e  10 .  experience.  Most evidence  from c l i e n t s i n c l i n i c a l that  loneliness  Reichman, In theory  was p a t h o l o g i c a l  contrast considers  task  loneliness  (May, 1 9 8 3 ) .  i n nature  (Fromm-  a p o s i t i v e a n d common  May  (1983) b e l i e v e s  o f i n d i v i d u a l s i s t o become  a w a r e n e s s we a c c e p t Because l o n e l i n e s s development, important.  problem,  generating the b e l i e f  t o psychodynamic b e l i e f s , e x i s t e n t i a l  accept t h e i r ultimate  natural  settings,  was g a t h e r e d  1959).  experience life  f o r t h i s theory  aloneness.  our self  inborn  a natural  (1963) d e s c r i b e s  the resolution  this  responsibility for life.  i s considered  condition  aware o f , a n d  For with  antecedents t o loneliness Frankl  a major  of l i f e . lies  part  of  do n o t seem  loneliness  as a  When l o n e l i n e s s  within  i sa  the individual.  Attachment Theory  A primary that  there  transitory  a r e two d i s t i n c t and chronic  contributing distinct  theme i n a t t a c h m e n t types  (Hojat,  theory  i sthe belief  of loneliness;  1987).  Because t h e  causes o f t r a n s i t o r y l o n e l i n e s s a r e  from c h r o n i c  loneliness,  frameworks and i n t e r v e n t i o n s .  so a r e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  Hojat  (1987)  suggests  that  11.  transitory as  l o n e l i n e s s i s due t o e x t e r n a l o c c u r a n c e s  the loss of a significant  relationship, schooling.  other,  or changing places  Clarifying  the ending o f a  of residence  or  and acknowledging f e e l i n g s o f  loss  are a l i k e l y  this  i s acknowledging the l o s s o f a s i g n i f i c a n t  and  goal  o f i n t e r v e n t i o n . An e x a m p l e o f  working through the stages  loneliness  Chronic loneliness  primary the  loneliness differs  as i t i s c o n s i d e r e d attachments  primary  (Hojat,  from  t o have r o o t s  There a r e two  can occur:  one b e i n g  i n t e r r u p t e d , s u c h a s when a  dies;  experience  1987,  contact,  intimacy  and s o c i a l  As a d u l t s , these  detached  from others  of being  r e j e c t e d and anxiety  intimacy  with  others  (Hojat,  unhealthly  c a r e g i v e r and the child  "unsatisfactory fulfillment  p. 9 4 ) .  emotionally  when  primary  s e c o n d when a n e m o t i o n a l l y  e x i s t s between t h e primary  for  i n early  1987).  When s u c h a " d i s t u r b e d t i e " e x i s t s , to  transitory  c a r e g i v e r / i n f a n t bond i s broken o r  significantly  tie  Transitory  task.  means b y w h i c h t h i s  caregiver  of grief.  other,  i s a l s o viewed as a n a t u r a l p a r t o f  development o r l i f e  childhood  such  child. i s likely  o f t h e needs  stimulation" i n d i v i d u a l s may  (Hojat, feel  because of t h e i r  with 1987).  forming  fear  emotional  12 .  The  attachment theory  important The  of  i n terms of treatment  emphasis of treatment  involved The  internalized  within  the  further  the  client-therapist  to  to  (p.  others" Recent  identified  "reconstruct  significantly These a r e :  relationship.  by  affects  a new  Schultz  the  s e l f image i n  and  Moore  parent  and  (1987)  relation  show l o v e  These r e s e a r c h e r s  child  relationship  i s exhibited  these  two  an  patterns  thus creating  as  emotionally  "the for  referring to  their  "the  c h i l d autonomy  suggest that  f o r the  relationship.  respect  (Schultz et  38).  which  child  and  allow their  freedom i n t h e i r behaviour"  (1987)  referring to  permissive-restrictive  degree to which parents  circumstances  Hojat  include c l a r i f y i n g  d i s t i n c t parental patterns  degree t o which parents  exists,  intimacy,  cognitive-behavioral  acceptance-rejection  and  through  98).  research two  1987) .  needs surrounding  d i f f e r e n t i t a t i o n and  techniques  become  (Hojat,  t o work  suggests that t h i s process  self-object  child",  opportunity  loneliness.  c l i e n t to  relationship  f e a r s and  is particularly  for chronic  i s f o r the  in a therapeutic  c l i e n t i s given  their  loneliness  a l . , 1987;  i f the  an  parent  e x t r e m e i n any  unhealthy  c h i l d or  encouraging emotional  p. and of  relationship  adolescent  distance  and  or  disconnectedness Attachment shifted of  others.  r e s e a r c h by o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s  t h e f o c u s away  infant/child  and  from  Wall  attachment.  (1978)  infant/child  from p a r e n t a l  identified  attachment  attachment  primary to  the infants  styles:  Anxious/ infants  available  pattern  emotional state  attachment  pattern  generally  (Shaver & Hazan,  of "protest".  1987, p. 1 1 0 ) . i n a self  "detachment"  (Bowlby,  Hazan  found that  (1987)  being  1987,  p.110).  The  -  third  whose p r i m a r y c a r e g i v e r i s  unresponsive i fnot outright  p l a c e s t h e baby  needs,  of avoidant attachment " i s  of infants  (Shaver & Hazan,  of  anxious and  p l a c e s t h e baby i n a s e l f  protective  characteristic  and r e s p o n s i v e  and r e s p o n s i v e b u t at o t h e r t i m e s  or intrusive"  attachment  whose  1987, p . 110) .  i s also  out o f sync w i t h t h e i n f a n t s  unavailable  attachment.  " i s characteristic  whose p r i m a r y c a r e g i v e r  sometimes a v a i l a b l e  Waters  attachment,  of infants  (Shaver & Hazan,  ambivalent attachment  seemingly  This  secure  and avoidant  i s generally  needs"  styles  three patterns of  " i s characteristic  caregiver  patterns to  Ainsworth, Blehar,  anxious ambivalent attachment Secure  has  rejecting"  This third  protective  pattern  emotional state of  1969, 1 9 7 3 , 1980) . S h a v e r individuals  and  who d e v e l o p e d t h e  14.  later  two attachment  s t y l e s and t h e i r  protective  s t a t e s were more l i k e l y  loneliness  as a d u l t s .  Attachment  part  1987).  This  (Kegan,  1982).  As d i s c u s s e d  preadolescent. this  Sullivan a  period  lives true  asserted  experience  powerful  i n later  that  with  intimacy  need f o rt h e  of a close  friendship  t o be so i m p o r t a n t  that  a p e r s o n who d i d n o t h a v e  another person during  t o maintain  life  development  b y S u l l i v a n (1953)  i s considered  was n e v e r a b l e  with peers  of emotional  The e x p e r i e n c e  (1953)  fortunate  period  makeup,  our adult  i s particularly  part  a f r i e n d becomes a v e r y  during  childhood  a d o l e s c e n c e when i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h  p e e r s become a p r e v a l e n t  with  self  experience  of our psychological  our attachments throughout  (Shaver & Hazan, during  to  styles established during  become a s i g n i f i c a n t effecting  accompanying  this  good r e l a t i o n s h i p s  or to feel  a t ease  among  strangers. The  e f f e c t of attachment  relationships  s t y l e s on i n t e r p e r s o n a l  i s o u t l i n e d by Shaver  terms o f a c y c l e  of l i f e  goals.  segment o f a c y c l e w h i c h i n c l u d e s caregiving,  sexual  Shaver & Hazan,  and Hazan  Attachment  i s one  exploration,  mating and a f f i l i a t i o n  1987)..  (1987) i n  (Bowlby, 1973;  The c o m p o n e n t o f a t t a c h m e n t  15.  occurs  f i r s t , therefore  the  strengths  and  attachment have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of  the  remaining  Hazan,  1987).  then the sexual  on  weaknesses  the  components i n t h i s c y c l e  I f the  following  m a t i n g and  attachment  systems of  development (Shaver  component i s  exploration,  affiliation  will  i n turn  of  &  threatened  caregiving, be  adversely  affected.  C o g n i t i v e Theory  The  cognitive  experience is  of  v i e w e d as  loneliness  due  to  influence the  posited  of  or  early  as  the  experience  does not  .  an  childhood  loneliness  are  The  recognized,  thought processes Brennan  connection with  Therefore,  s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n does not  unless the  individual desires  those  Wood who  and  others.  create  a higher  are  (1982) and  i n d i v i d u a l s are  can  personal  a discrepancy between t h e i r d e s i r e d  interpersonal  life  both these.  experiences  main i n f l u e n c e .  of  individual's of  the  loneliness  experience  Antecedents to  a combination  lonely  consider  p o s i t i v e , but  natural  individual's cognitive  (1978) s u g g e s t t h a t  attained  1982)  be  s i t u a t i o n a l events,  characteristics,  but  to  a n o r m a l and  (Peplau & Perlman, be  perspective  loneliness  l e v e l of  social  16.  interaction.  Being physically  o t h e r s does not (1978),  found  equal  loneliness.  situation lowered  or alone  Peplau  some s o c i a l l y - i s o l a t e d  needs f o r c o n t a c t w i t h others realistically  apart  with their  people  i n order to  situations.  Caldwell adopt  deal  limited,  expectations for contact.  In  observations are  basis  (Peplau, M i c e l i  Morasch,  1982).  individual  Cognitive beliefs  are what d e t e r m i n e s  and  their  they  the  cognitive perspective, external for evaluating loneliness  their  I f they were i n a  w h e r e c o n t a c t w i t h o t h e r s was  their  and  from  not  a  &  desires of  experience  the  of  loneliness. A key of  facet  loneliness  Arnoult  key  theory.  t h a t an  in relation  to understanding  "depressed,  the  cognitive  individual's  t o o t h e r s and  lonely,  A n d e r s o n and lonely  successes  and  and  Attributional  shy p e o p l e  failures  t h e y have a m a l a d a p t i v e  shy,  Arnoult  cognitive the  events  may  style"  that  express  i n a self-defeating (p.  were f o u n d  reactions to  be  depressed  consistently  attributional  affective  and  and  (1985b) s u g g e s t  p a t t e r n s of i n d i v i d u a l s  "influence their  process  Anderson  cognitive processing of l i f e  individuals.  their  suggest  of s e l f  individual's the  i s attribution  (1985a),  perception  i n understanding  way; 17). to  loneliness,  17 .  their  self  Perlman,  esteem and t h e i r  1982/ p. 1 2 ) .  dysfunctional  opportunities Arnoult, with  As a r e s u l t  attribution  evasive toward  social  coping behaviour"  style,  situations  This  lack  &  of their  lonely which  individuals are would  f o r interpersonal rapport  1985a).  (Peplau  allow  (Anderson  and  of interpersonal connection  others, serves to maintain the cycle of  loneliness.  Adoleaeence and L o n e l i n e s s  The f o c u s  of this  study  i s loneliness  e x p e r i e n c e d by a d o l e s c e n t s .  Thus,  to  changes which  explore the developmental  adolescence this  i t seems a p p r o p r i a t e  loneliness  society,  of social  roles,  during  during  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s  e x p e c t a t i o n s from with peers  become p a r t o f t h e c o m p l e x d e v e l o p m e n t adolescence  (Brennan,  Csikszentmihalyi intensified parents, 1983/  occur  time. Aspects  and  i n order t o understand  as i t i s  & Larson,  transition  the peer  Brennan,  1982/ Kegan, 1984).  parents  during  1982/ Because of t h e  o f i n d e p e n d e n c e and autonomy  e n v i r o n m e n t becomes  1982).  and  parents  important.  Developmentally,  there  from  (Kegan,  i s a  18.  transition  from  (Imperial  Stage)  interpersonal Stage)  a role-oriented  increased  of relating  1982).  belonging mainly interpersonal  of behaviour  t o t h a t o f a more i n t i m a t e  style  (Kegan,  focus  t o others (Interpersonal  Adolescents progress  t o a group o f f r i e n d s  relationships  interpersonal  t o add  individual  w i t h o t h e r s , which  skills  and understanding  t r a n s i t i o n between t h e I m p e r i a l and I n t e r p e r s o n a l  and t r o u b l e d .  their  interpersonal  peers  may  that  Adolescents  loneliness  A d o l e s c e n t s who  role-oriented  stage  i s interpersonally  transition  c a n be e x p e r i e n c e d who d o n o t  as f r i e n d s  o t h e r s who a r e m a i n t a i n i n g  relationships.  time  as  away  experience  feelings  of loneliness.  relation  t o p a r e n t s , as t h e r e i s a need f o r t h e  from  a  and d i s c o n n e c t e d , r e s u l t i n g i n  and p a r e n t  relationship  their  a r e between t h e two s t a g e s .  feel  communicating  their  t o one  T h e y may  adolescent  as  interpersonal  interaction  f o c u s e d may  times  develop  shift  are shifting  of social  when t h e y  lost  that  a w a r e n e s s a t t h e same r a t e  experience  focus towards  the  development  suggests  self  of  difficult  (1982)  of  relation  of emotional  Kegan  requires  in  stages  to others.  from  A transition  t o expand t h e i r  w i t h each  other.  The  also  occurs i n  ways o f  parent/child  i s r e c o n s t r u c t e d t o one o f more  equality  19.  and  reciprocity  (Kegan,  1982).  If this  transition,  the  parents  lead to loneliness.  may  Hojat of  of  a d u l t s who and  felt  were at This  found that  important  had  emotionally  m i s u n d e r s t o o d by risk  loneliness.  A  relationships during  Hojat  their  share t h e i r greater  link  was  reported  In that  as c h i l d r e n ,  l o n e l i n e s s as those  who  adults.  did  not  f e e l i n g s with peers  risk  of  as  experiencing  e s t a b l i s h e d between  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with peers and  loneliness.  (1982)  parents  also found that  were at  children,  from  distant relationships with,  for experiencing  communicate and children  smooth  disconnectedness  i n f l u e n c e on  college subjects,  same s t u d y  distant  and  were an  survey  a  (1982) i n v e s t i g a t e d c h i l d h o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p s  lonely adults  childhood a  sense of emotional  i s not  emotionally  or parents,  loneliness experienced  as  as  adults  (Hojat,  1982) . Findings the  s u c h as  importance of and  s t a t e two  reasons to  link  by  adolescence.  Goswick  adolescent  (1982)  and  demonstrate during  Jones  (1982)  further loneliness research  developmental periods. adult  Hojat  investigating loneliness  childhood  these  those  First,  the  results  during to  loneliness with  difficult  childhood  relationships.  Secondly,  l o n e l i n e s s has  date  and been  20.  identified age  a s m o r e common d u r i n g  adolescence than  other  group. Because s t y l e s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication a r e  learned  i n o u r f a m i l y homes, a d o l e s c e n c e  time t o c l a r i f y relationships Jones,  difficulties  and introduce  with  i s a  crucial  interpersonal  interventions  (Goswick  &  1982) .  Self  Concept  T h e r e a r e s e v e r a l w a y s b y w h i c h we d e v e l o p o u r concept o f s e l f . introspection to  (Gergen & Gergen,  know o u r s e l v e s ,  formulate major part  One i m p o r t a n t  taking time  our values, of forming  who we a r e i n r e l a t i o n  beliefs a self  part  of this  process i s  1981, 1986). to think  a n d f e e l i n g s . The concept  to others.  i s when we  This  our  view and r e a c t  begin  about and  includes  a w a r e n e s s o f how we a r e d i f f e r e n t f r o m o t h e r s . others  We  second explore an How  t o us i n f l u e n c e s t h e f o r m a t i o n  concept o f s e l f .  T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s o i n a d o l e s c e n c e when the main need i s f o r i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s w i t h others. In these r e l a t i o n s the adolescent's s e l f - s y s t e m i s open t o a p p r a i s a l s from t h e o t h e r p e r s o n t h a t may w e l l b e d i f f e r e n t f r o m  of  21.  the s e l f - a p p r a i s a l s r e c e i v e d from parents earlier in life. T h u s , many d i s t o r t e d v i e w s t h e c h i l d might have o f h i m s e l f a r e open t o c o r r e c t i o n by t h e v i e w s o f p e e r s . From t h i s s t a g e onward t h e g r o w i n g p e r s o n i s open t o e x p e r i e n c e l o n e l i n e s s . L o n e l i n e s s i s even more d i s t r e s s i n g an e x p e r i e n c e t h a n a n x i e t y , s o t h e p e r s o n may b e d r i v e n t o c l o s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r s , and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a change i n h i s s e l f - system i n s p i t e o f the a n x i e t y such a change b r i n g s w i t h i t . ( S u l l i v a n , 1953, p. 953.)  As  c h i l d r e n grow t h r o u g h a d o l e s c e n c e ,  transformation concept  i s radically  emotional,  adolescence  changed  (Brennan,  of self  emotional,  and  1982;  defines  associated concept  social  concept  The  concepts of  self,  become d e f i c i e n t  Rappaport,  1972).  during As  a  of reformulating  changes which (Brennan,  (Gergen  i f the  self  concept  exists  self  concept  can be  occur during  1982;  associate with  their  self  part  1972) .  concept  1986).  I f the  a positive self  f e e l i n g s are negative,  (Gergen  this  Rappaport,  our  & Gergen,  f e e l i n g s are p o s i t i v e ,  exists;  1982).  self  t o accommodate t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l ,  f e e l i n g s we that  social  have the t a s k  developmental period. The  (Brennan,  early childhood,  adolescents  concept  a u t o n o m y o f t e n means t h e i r  p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  molded d u r i n g  result  towards  the  & Gergen,  1986).  of a c y c l e which  a  negative  Negative  creates  and  22.  maintains  loneliness  and  (1981)  Jones  (Goswick  found that  reported being lonely contact  self  interpersonal suggest  college  1981).  h a d a s much o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l  that  lonely  concept  individuals i ntheir  relationships. individuals  "phenomenological  attempts  Goswick and Jones  (p.238).  relation  t o others, then t h e i n d i v i d u a l involvement.  f o u n d t o be f o c u s e d on t h e i r  from  of self,  I ft h i s  a n e g a t i v e concept  self,  to initiate (1981)  a c taccording t o t h e i r  reality"  interpersonal  lonely,  may b e i n h i b i t e d b y a  includes  risk  Goswick  s t u d e n t s who  a s s t u d e n t s who r e p o r t e d n o t b e i n g  suggesting that negative  & Jones,  reality  and s e l f i n hesitates t o  L o n e l y s u b j e c t s were  negative perception of  a n d t h e r e f o r e n o t open t o more p o s i t i v e  feedback  others.  Self  Social concept Perlman,  Concept  and  Gender  e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e a major  of self  (Anderson  1979; R u b i n ,  1985; Brennan,  1982) .  search f o r an i n d i v i d u a l  influence  1972; P e p l a u &  During adolescence t h e  identity  i sheightened  one's awareness o f m a s c u l i n e / f e m i n i n e r o l e s . strong influence  upon o u r  o f gender s t e r e o t y p i n g  as i s  There  i n North  i sa  23.  American  society.  through the  Often  media,  i d e a l images are  school  system,  presented  parental  and  societal  expectations. The in  strength  research  research  of  social  which r e l i e s  does.  In the  d i f f e r e n c e s were not (Russell, Perlman  Peplau  on  39  loneliness,  although there  studies  in studies  was  of  were c o n d u c t e d and lonely,  related to  influence  gender d i f f e r e n c e s feelings  loneliness than  (Borys & Perlman,  .  in  reported  males.  not  reported  Revised  & Cutrona,  U.C.L.A. 1980)  reveals  is  males  females.  disclosure 1985)  trends  l o n e l i n e s s but  is a significant  i n the  reported  was  instruments which g e n e r a l l y  reporting greater  in  format  The  (Russell, Peplau  and  subjects  than  a c t u a l l y l o n e l y , males females.  in  females  one  Social  loneliness  were i d e n t i f i a b l e  Scale  the  gender  i n which a questionnaire  loneliness than  loneliness  loneliness,  Loneliness of  as  gender d i f f e r e n c e s  asked questions  apparent  However, B o r y s  l o n e l i n e s s more f r e q u e n t l y  subject  greater  1980).  l a b e l t h e m s e l v e s as  used that the  no  where i n t e r v i e w s  However,  if  significant  & Cutrona,  were o f t e n  heightened  reports,  found i n reported  which there  asked to  self  past  (1985) r e v i e w e d  studies  i n f l u e n c e becomes  of  contributor loneliness  They suggest  our  to  as  24.  social  structure i sless  acknowledge t h e i r responses sex  role  loneliness.  o f m a l e s who  Fearing the negative  o f s o c i e t y , males conform t o e x p e c t a t i o n s o f sterotypes  males t o express 73).  accepting  dictating  emotional  In a related  study  " i t i s unacceptable f o r  weakness o r d i s t r e s s " (p.  Berg  & Peplau  (1982) f o u n d  that  "psychological m a s c u l i n i t y and f e m i n i t y " influenced loneliness  (p. 6 2 4 ) . S u b j e c t s  psychologically masculine feel  adrogynous,  and feminine  who w e r e c l a s s i f e d a s  "scoring high  traits"  on b o t h  were t h e " l e a s t  likely to  l o n l e y " ( p . 62 6 ) .  Interpersonal  Solano control  (1987)  years,  i n t e g r a t e d measures o f locus o f  and a t t r i b u t i o n  relationship with data  students. persons  Relationships  style  to investigate their  loneliness.  were c o l l e c t e d The g e n e r a l  see s o c i a l  on 2,143 f i r s t - y e a r  results  success  Over a p e r i o d o f n i n e  indicated that  and f a i l u r e  influence (Solano,  others,  thedifficulty  o f chance,  the actions of  of the task, the  and unchangeable aspects  1987, p. 2 1 0 ) . L o n e l y  "lonely  as being  associated with u n c o n t r o l l a b l e sources, powerful  college  subjects  of self"  are described  as n o t s e e i n g t h e m s e l v e s be  i n control  attributes  i n control  i n interpersonal  gender d i f f e r e n c e s  role  expectations.  have  low need  Lonely  f o r control  relationships. they had c o n t r o l  relationships.  Solano  i n t h e study t o gender  female only  L o n e l y male  and not w a n t i n g t o  subjects  i n romantic  subjects  nor d i d they  tended t o  d i d not  want c o n t r o l  believe  i n social  situations. Williams delinquents inclusion from of  (1983)  investigated  as a measure  and c o n t r o l .  12 t o 18 y e a r s .  control  of needs  loneliness i n for affection,  T h e 98 s u b j e c t s Williams  i n interpersonal  related to loneliness.  (1983)  others,  or to control  related  t o the degree o f l o n e l i n e s s  others  issues  significantly  t o be c o n t r o l l e d  i n social  s u b j e c t was a s s e s s e d a s h a v i n g control  found that  r e l a t i o n s were  The d e s i r e others  r a n g e d i n age  interaction,  experienced.  by was  If a  a medium t o h i g h n e e d t o  o r t o be c o n t r o l l e d  by others,  n e e d was u n f u l f i l l e d ,  t h e n more l o n e l i n e s s  occur than those with  low needs  and  this  was l i k e l y  to  i n the dimension of  control. Williams' Solano's be  (1987)  findings  (1983)  are i n contrast  i n regards t o desires  c o n t r o l l e d by others  to  for control  i n interpersonal  or to  relationships.  26.  T h e r e may  be  findings. students old  s e v e r a l explanations f o r these  First,  the  while Williams  adolescents.  substantial study  Solano  study  1  Secondly,  involved college  i n v o l v e d 12  Solano's  numbers o f each g e n d e r ,  included a total  male.  study  of  98  to  study  18  and  whereas  gender  year-  included Williams  s u b j e c t s , of which  These d i f f e r e n c e s i n age  p a r t i c i p a n t s may  different  78  were  of  have c o n t r i b u t e d t o the c o n t r a s t i n g  results. In  a slightly  interpersonal French  different  approach  d e s i r e s of lonely  people,  (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d a s p e c t s  university  students.  Horowitz  measure, w i t h a l i s t required  the  problems  from  indicated  of  subject to the  least  100 sort  and  t o most  lonely  and  not-lonely subjects differed  sociability.  control.  subjects  non-lonely  of  Lonely of On  the  experienced  while non-lonely  with being  that  i n t e r p e r s o n a l problem  and  lonely  479  results  friendliness  friendly,  of c o n t r o l ,  The  dimensions  of f r i e n d l i n e s s ,  dimension  list  two  dimension  difficulty  the  on  sociability;  in  loneliness  familiar.  is inhibited  inhibited  experienced  of s o c i a l i z i n g  arrange  the  and  i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems  for  problems with being  Horwitz  employed a  t h a t t h e most f r e q u e n t individuals  to clarifying  hostile. individuals  On  subjects the  had  27 .  difficulty  controlling situations,  i n d i v i d u a l s had The  s t u d y by  findings  of  medium t o others, their  difficulty  Horowitz Williams  et  not  al.  needs s u r r o u n d i n g  to  situations.  (1979) t e n d s t o  control  were most l i k e l y  lonely  controlling  ( 1 9 8 3 ) who  h i g h need to  while  found or  to  subjects, be  experience  control  support  the  with  a  controlled  by  loneliness,  i f  were not  met.  Disclosing- L o n e l i n e s s  In  their article  P e r l m a n and  Joshi  explanations feelings  of  of  why  of  feelings.  or  understanding of  hesitate  to  s h o u l d be  the  respond to  them  Loneliness,"  separate  disclose the  their  negative  d i s c o u r a g e s the lack  Thirdly,  loneliness,  Fourthly,  of  self  social disclosure  awareness  phenomenon i n o r d e r t o  loneliness.  that  not  p e o p l e may  s e l f s u f f i c i e n t and  pessimistic  the  Secondly,  four  Firstly,  loneliness  disclose  emotionally.  that  p e o p l e may  loneliness.  as  Revelation  (1987) d i s c u s s  stigma surrounding  experience  "The  not  p e o p l e may  label  many p e o p l e  may  because they f e e l d e p e n d on  f e e l discouraged  emotional pain  of  1987)  loneliness  well  as  or  to  . They p o i n t as  they  others  o t h e r p e o p l e w o u l d c a r e enough (Perlman & J o s h i ,  the  out  personal  beliefs  that there  encourage d i s c l o s u r e of factors  that  include:  1)  feelings,  2)  are  who  others  who  we  are  strangers  others  who  can  loneliness feelings.  i n f l u e n c e the others  are  experiencing  are  similar  trustworthy,  and  e i t h e r intimately connected to, to  Common  r e v e l a t i o n of l o n e l i n e s s  are  who  help,  3)  others  or those  us.  When i n v e s t i g a t i n g c h i l d r e n , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e loneliness  i s an  researchers. external need of  observations  consideration  i s s u b s t a n t i a l dependency  indication  of  social  the  social  knowledge t h a t  contacts  loneliness in adults  when c o n s i d e r i n g  adolescents,  i s not  (Peplau  l o n e l i n e s s of  a &  the reliable  Perlman,  children  and  measurement can  be  a problem.  whether e x t e r n a l observation  of  children requiring  intervention according and  to the  Renshaw  three  to  measure,  with  six.  child's  r e l a t i o n s h i p s was  s t u d i e d 522  subjects study  r e p o r t measure of peer  and  To  clarify  appropriate  s u b j e c t i v e view, Asher,  Employed i n t h i s  a self  satisfaction,  social  (1984)  on  to determine which c h i l d r e n are  Considering  f r i e n d s or  of  for  i n t e r v e n t i o n i n regards to t h e i r  number o f  1982)  important  Often there  relationships.  who  from  was  grades  a loneliness  relations  a s o c i o m e t r i c measure.  Hymer  Results  in  29.  indicated peers  those  or scored  t h o s e who and  that  children  low i n s o c i o m e t r i c  observations  Thus,  of children  with  of  assessment.  to  give the impression  s o c i a l stigma  for  adults  social  relations.  classes  was t h e i n f l u e n c e  et a l .  that  this  second  factor  low i n classroom  peer relations relationship further  social  (1985)  may e x p l a i n  social status  feelings  Also i n other  et a l .  subjects  (1984)  f o r t h i s modest  felt  why t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and l o n e l i n e s s .  explanation  found low  d i d not report  among t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  of  stronger  t o admit  o r i n t h e i r home n e i g h b o u r h o o d s , w h i c h Asher  do  Adults  may b e  of friendships  depended on f o r c o m p a n i o n s h i p .  ability  The i n f l u e n c e  loneliness  were r e l u c t a n t  means  when t h e y  s o c i a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and l o n e l i n e s s .  identified  as  inclusion  Asher  and  are legitimate  s a t i s f i e d with  surrounding  children  external  dissatisfied.  than c h i l d r e n .  status  dissatisfaction  do n o t have t h e  of social  at looking  feeling  the  of  status  f e e l s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r peer  while  i n fact  social difficulties,  Perhaps c h i l d r e n  may b e m o r e a s t u t e  accepted by  measures were  i t appears that  s o c i o m e t r i c measures o f peer  relations  least  r e p o r t e d more p e e r r e l a t i o n s  loneliness.  not  who w e r e  more The  were modest. relationship,  was n o t d i s c u s s e d b y A s h e r e t a l . ( 1 9 8 4 ) ,  A which  i s the role of  30 .  fantasy  and  imaginal and us  imaginary  Watkins  others p e r s i s t throughout  b e c o m i n g more s o p h i s t i c a t e d to  assimilate  reality.  unpopular,  lonely,  situations  t h e y may  imaginal  others.  disarray  by  reconstructing  nurturing give  also  of  their  an  living  fantasy  others  daydreams and  Hymel and  identified  a distinction  peers.  a later  neglected  that  or  the not  Watkins  their  able (1986)  dialogue  anger In  as  a  towards regards  friendships  dialogue  in  emotionally  parents are  and  with  g r o w up  provide  1986).  imaginery  and  rejected ratings  rejected  Renshaw  to  would  without  of  peers, of  status  (1984)  risking  study  between neglected  study, Asher  clarification  involved the  lives  peers.  Asher,  pursued the  distressed  cope  retrobution.  adolescents to practice  In  who  f e e l i n g s of  loneliness,  study  parents  helping  socially  their  may  changing  needs,  c h i l d r e n who  & Dwinell,  imaginal  our  enriching  alcoholic parent  others without  The  do  alcoholic family  working through  r e j e c t i o n by  as  suggests  lifetime  i n emotionally  example,  significant  allow  our  (1986)  I f c h i l d r e n are  c o p e by  (Middleton-Moz  identifies  means o f  or  For  the  to  friends.  and  the as  Wheeler  soical  rejected  (1985)  status  of  separate groups.  attained... g r o u p was  and  also  Results  Their  indicated  significantly  more  lonely  than  themselves peers  other groups. in a social  were more l i k e l y  C h i l d r e n who  context but to feel  were n e g l e c t e d s o c i a l l y , interact  d i d not  Neglected  peers  i s o l a t e d but  but  experience may  not  be  not  than  attempting  rejection  by  report dissatisfaction don't  t h e r e f o r e escape the  risk  by  those,  who  to  peers.  o b e c t i v e l y r a t e d as  r e l a t i o n s h i p s because they contact,  were r e j e c t e d  lonely  by  extended  socially  with  initiating  emotional  pain  of  rejection.  Summary  Theoretical conditions  of l o n e l i n e s s  cognitive/social theory.  self  experience  each theory  which  and  i n c l u d e psychodynamic  l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s and  Although  common t h r e a d s early  constructs of the  attachment  is distinct  run through  views,  them.  there  As  an  are  example,  childhood p a t t e r n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s concept,  significant loneliness  attachment,  effect we  Current  on  the  bonding degree  and and  intimacy have extent  a  of  experience. r e s e a r c h has  between t r a n s i t o r y  and  recognized the  chronic loneliness.  distinction Transitory  32 .  loneliness or  the  i s often the  l o s s of  more d e e p l y  rooted  i n the  an  environmental  Chronic  concept  of  relationship styles  chronic  intervene  of  a relationship.  interpersonal result,  result  loneliness is  self  with  and  others.  l o n e l i n e s s i s more d i f f i c u l t  i n , and  thus  a significant  loss,  focus  As  a  to  of  current  research. The  developmental  significant group.  role  self,  changes are research  later  and  experiences  of  this  and  of  impact  maintain  (Hojat,  the  emotionally  self  age  physical Current during  importance 1987). concept,  and  individual's ability intimate  relationships. Studies identified  of  relationships, being with  gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n l o n e l i n e s s  issues  of c o n t r o l i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l  and  styles  gender d i f f e r e n t . l o n e l i n e s s was  of The  shown t o  disclosing social  a  heightened  attachment  control, on  a  period.  of p a r t i c u l a r  loneliness  issues with  c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a v e an  awareness,  autonomy, and  during  adolescence are  adolescence have  loneliness with this  found that patterns  and  initiate  on  growth towards  Interpersonally,  to  skills  predominant  has  childhood to  i n research  Interpersonal  sense of  changes d u r i n g  loneliness  stigma  as  associated  influence patterns  of  33.  disclosure.  Current  research  r e l i e s heavily  report  measures, which can be g r e a t l y  social  stigma surrounding  In  research with  external  observations  assessing  children  interaction children  children  But a f u r t h e r  d i s t i n c t i o n between  who a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g  not included  s o c i a l l y by peers a r e  experience  social  T h o s e who d o n o t r i s k r e j e c t i o n b y  themselves s o c i a l l y are not l i k e l y difficulty  i n a social  o r n e g l e c t e d by p e e r s i s  f o u n d t o be l o n e l i e s t when t h e y rejection.  (grades three t o s i x ) ,  intervention  necessary t o i d e n t i f y children Children  with  by t h e  a r e a n a c c e p t a b l e means o f  who a r e r e j e c t e d  loneliness.  effected  loneliness.  requiring  context.  on s e l f  loneliness  extending  t o have a s much  feelings.  34.  Research  This following  1. of  2. of  To  review of  literature  research  questions:  what e x t e n t  G r a d e 10  i s loneliness  the  those variables  best predict include  scores derived  background information parents,  occupational  3.  Do  the  closeness  of  rise  to  prevalent  independent v a r i a b l e s  independent v a r i a b l e s  of  gives  the  in a  sample  adolescents?  Which of  factors  Questions  mothers'  subscales  age,  combination  loneliness?  from the of  or  of  original gender,  occupational  These self  concept,  subscales,  language,  prestige  and  number  fathers'  prestige.  variables these  relationship to  the  classroom  friendships, degree of  friendships have a  loneliness  and  and  significant experienced?  35.  CHAPTER THREE  METHODOLOGY The purpose of t h i s study was to examine the experience of l o n e l i n e s s and i d e n t i f y f a c t o r s t h a t are c o r r e l a t e d with the degree of l o n e l i n e s s that an adolescent experiences.  The f a c t o r s i n v e s t i g a t e d f o r  t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o l o n e l i n e s s were f a c e t s of s e l f concept, background information  and classroom  friendships. The attending  subjects  i n t h i s study were adolescents  Grade 10 c l a s s e s i n Surrey School D i s t r i c t .  Formal w r i t t e n permission t o conduct the study i n t h i s school d i s t r i c t was r e c e i v e d p r i o r t o i n i t i a t i n g the study. A c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l survey design was chosen because the primary goal was t o i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f psychological  v a r i a b l e s already  manipulation of these v a r i a b l e s .  i n existence The survey  three a t t i t u d e s c a l e s and a q u e s t i o n n a i r e background information  without any included  pertaining to  of the s u b j e c t s . A l o n e l i n e s s  s c a l e was employed t o measure the degree of l o n e l i n e s s  36.  e x p r e s s e d by  each  self  was  concept  concept.  subject. also  A third  relationships The  selection,  i n c l u d e d t o m e a s u r e 12  instrument gathered data  with classroom  statement  description  A m u l t i - f a c e t e d measure  of the  i n s t r u m e n t s , and  and  analysis  o f key  dependent v a r i a b l e variables:  mothers'  appearance s e l f concept,  ability  self  concept, relations  terms,  are presented i n t h i s  problem concept,  relations  f o r data processing chapter.  i s loneliness gender,  math s e l f  concept,  academic  solving  self  relations  self  and  the  number o f p a r e n t s ,  self  fathers' physical  concept,  concept,  physical  concept,  self  honesty  emotional s t a b i l i t y  self  concept,  self  scores d e r i v e d from  factor  analysis  o f an  factor  concept,  adaption of the  concept,  general  S.D.Q.  self  self  concept,  concept  verbal  w i t h same s e x p e e r s  w i t h o p p o s i t e sex peers  with parents  of  Questions  age,  concept,  for i t s  a description  occupational prestige,  occupational prestige,  self  the procedure  the procedures  Research  language,  describing  peers.  sample and  definitions  independent  self  of the research questions, a  the  The  areas  of  a  I l l ,  self  37.  classroom  friendships  friendships. 1.  andthe  closeness o f these  The r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s o f t h i s  To w h a t e x t e n t i s l o n e l i n e s s of  2.  Grade  independent  these variables  (excluding the  3.  Do c l a s s r o o m friendships  variables  friendship  loneliness?  and the  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  closeness o f these  relationship  experienced?  of  Sample  hundred and s i x t y - s i x  secondary  grade  schools i nSurrey  v o l u n t e e r e d t o t a k e p a r t i nt h i s  10 s t u d e n t s  School study.  area  school.  school areas  The s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  were based  from  District Included  h i g h , one medium, a n d o n e l o w s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  (SES)  to the  Selection  One  one  o r combination  variables).  friendships  Description  three  p r e v a l e n t i na sample  best predict  degree o f l o n e l i n e s s  Sample  are:  10 a d o l e s c e n t s ?  Which o f t h e of  study  were status  status of the  on i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from t h e  School D i s t r i c t ' s P l a n n i n g Department.  Their source o f  38. data  was t h e 1 9 8 1 C a n a d a C e n s u s .  classes  from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t  A total  secondary  schools  chosen t o strengthen t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i i t y The p r i n c i p a l s  o f each  school  given  were asked  f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o have t h e study  school.  principal  After  asked  instruction  The t o t a l The regular  was  classroom  participate guardian consent  informed  SES a r e a  The  school  o f 54 s u b j e c t s .  166.  i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e students by teacher.  At t h a t time,  of introduction  or guardian.  A l l who w i s h e d  were r e q u i r e d t o h a v e t h e i r  form s i g n e d by themselves Included i n the l e t t e r the potential  participant  their  the students  t o be t a k e n  read t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y l e t t e r  guardian.  s c h o o l , two  with a total  number o f s u b j e c t s was  parents  classroom  school contributed three classes  were g i v e n a l e t t e r their  i n  each  T h e s e i n c l u d e d 40 s u b j e c t s .  four classes,  study  and  conducted  t o v o l u n t e e r some  72 s u b j e c t s , a n d t h e h i g h  contributed  of the study,  I n t h e l o w SES a r e a  c l a s s e s were s u r v e y e d .  totalling  were  deciding t o allow the survey,  f o r teachers  time.  m e d i u m SES a r e a  description  were  of the results.  contacted,  their  a brief  secondary  of nine  home t o  to  parent  or  and r e t u r n t h e  and t h e i r parent was a s t a t e m e n t of their  right  or that to  r e f u s e t o take p a r t o r answer any q u e s t i o n , and t h e  39.  o p t i o n t o w i t h d r a w a t any Only the  students  signed permission Because of the surveyed  who  slip  design  in a class  was  which took  without  repercussions.  c o m p l e t e d and  returned  a  were a l l o w e d t o t a k e p a r t . of the  unit.  take p a r t worked q u i e t l y survey  time  study,  the  students  T h o s e s t u d e n t s who and  completed.  The  part i n the  study  independently  percentage  of  were  did  while  not the  participants  i s discussed in  chapter  Five.  Sample D e s c r i p t i o n  All  participants  Surrey  School  Surrey  i s an  (birth  - 18  The  total  District  in this  District,  study  Surrey,  incorporated city years)  i n 1988  second l a r g e s t  British  was  35,537.  Columbia.  Surrey  Vancouver,  and  School  i s the  province of  i s located approximately  i n c l u d e s a mix  1988.  i n Surrey  This d i s t r i c t  i n population i n the  population  57,815 i n  enrolled  in  Columbia.  w i t h a youth  of approximately  number o f s t u d e n t s  were s t u d e n t s  20  British  miles  o f h i g h d e n s i t y and  from rural  residents. Of and  the  166  s u b j e c t s who  66 w e r e m a l e .  took  E n g l i s h was  p a r t , 100  were  female,  t h e most f r e q u e n t l y  40.  spoken language while  i n t h e homes o f 1 5 1 o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  a language other  t h a n E n g l i s h was m o s t  s p o k e n i n 12 o f t h e h o m e s .  M o t h e r s were p r e s e n t  o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' homes w h i l e 125 o f t h e homes. reported  two p a r e n t s  one p a r e n t  study  percent  reported  months  nine  having  i n their  percent  with  in  reported  (14.8 y e a r s )  a standard  in  of the subjects i n  brothers.  sisters, Age o f  while  s a m p l e was  deviation of  58  subjects  t o 222.0 months  The m e a n a g e f o r t h e t o t a l (16 y e a r s )  home, 52  one o r more  one o r more  r a n g e f r o m 177 m o n t h s years).  f a t h e r s were p r e s e n t  G r a n d p a r e n t s were a l s o p r e s e n t  Forty  reported  i n 151  hundred and fourteen p a r t i c i p a n t s  present  present.  15 o f t h e h o m e s . this  One  frequently  (18.5  192.0 6.24  months.  D e f i n i t i o n s o f Key Terms  Loneliness  Loneliness discomfort discrepancy  c a n be d e f i n e d  experienced  as t h e  by an i n d i v i d u a l  between t h e i r  emotional when t h e r e  i s a  desired interpersonal  connectedness t o others  and t h e i r  attained interpersonal  connectedness t o others  (Brennan,  1982; P e p l a u  &  41.  Perlman,  1 9 8 2 / Wood, 1 9 7 8 ) .  suggest that t h i s just people: roots, the been  i t may b e d i s c o n n e c t e d n e s s f r o m  (1980) than  community,  o f c o n n e c t i o n may b e o r never  having  formed.  study, t h e degree  the subjects  U.C.L.A. 1980;  This lack  o f t h e bond b e i n g broken,  In t h i s by  and Johnson  d i s c o n n e c t e d n e s s c a n be from more  o r one's s e l f .  result  Salder  of loneliness experienced  was d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e u s e o f t h e R e v i s e d  Loneliness  Scale  (Russell,  Peplau & Cutrona,  Appendix E ) .  S e l f Concept  Self  concept  perception (Shavelson,  can be d e s c r i b e d  of self Hubner,  i n relationship  self  interprets  and reasons t h e i r  and environment,  concept  i s strongly  an  family,  education.  I n an a t t e m p t t o  individual  of self.  This formation  i n f l u e n c e d by  components o f a p e r s o n ' s environment extended  environment  experiences of the world  around them t o form a concept self  to their  & S t a n t o n , 1976) .  assimilate  of  as t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  significant  such as p a r e n t s ,  p e e r s , community and l e v e l o f  C o n s i d e r i n g t h e many f a c e t s  of environment  42.  and  i t s influences,  (Marsh  & Shavelson,  version  concept  of self  i smulti-dimensional  1985).  In this  study  a modified  of the Self Description Questionnaire I I I  (Charlton,  1987) was u s e d t o m e a s u r e s e l f  concept.  Adolescent An  adolescent  i sdefined i nthis  study  as an  i n d i v i d u a l b e t w e e n t h e a g e s o f 13 a n d 19 who i s l e g a l l y a minor. from  In this  177.0 months  sample t h e a d o l e s c e n t s v a r i e d (14.8) t o 222.0 months  i n age  (18.5 y e a r s ) .  Instruments R e v i s e d U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s  The  dependent v a r i a b l e  loneliness.  The d e g r e e  Scale  i nthis  s t u d y was  of loneliness  e a c h s u b j e c t was d e t e r m i n e d  experienced by  b y t h e U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s  Scale. The Peplau  R e v i s e d U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s S c a l e  & Cutrona,  validity  with  feeling  isolated,  1 9 8 0 ) was c h o s e n b e c a u s e o f i t s h i g h  and r e l i a b i l i t y .  scores of t h i s  (Russell,  instrument  abandoned,  Russell  to "correlate  depressed,  and s e l f - c l o s e d ,  (1980) f o u n d t h e significantly  empty,  hopeless,  and with not feeling s o c i a b l e  43.  or  satisfied"  Loneliness anxiety  (p. 4 7 5 ) . A l t h o u g h t h e R e v i s e d  Scale  was f o u n d t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h  and self-esteem,  established  Russell,  the discriminant  The R e v i s e d U.C.L.A.  more h i g h l y  c o r r e l a t e d t o an i n d e x  loneliness  following:  validity  Loneliness  Scale  was  of self-reported  "loneliness  was a l s o  scores  r e l a t e d t o t h e amount o f t i m e  friends,  of this  (r=.71) t h a n m e a s u r e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y a n d  mood. D i s c r i m i n a n t  frequency  depression,  e t a l (1980)  validity  instrument.  U.C.L.A.  of eating  dinner  i n d i c a t e d by t h e  were s t i l l spent  alone,  and t h e p e r s o n ' s m a r i t a l  significantly  alone each day, t h e  t h e number o f c l o s e or dating  status",  e v e n a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r mood a n d p e r s o n a l i t y variables  (Russell, Peplau & Cutrona,  reliability .94  scale  was e s t a b l i s h e d  forinternal  consists  p o s i t i v e l y worded,  Subjects a  scale  coefficient alpha This  are  of this  1980, p. 9 5 ) . by a  The  recorded  consistency.  o f 20 s t a t e m e n t s ,  a n d 10 n e g a t i v e l y  10 o f w h i c h  worded.  a r e a s k e d t o respond t o each statement b a s e d on  four-point  scale  ranging  from Never  (1) t o O f t e n  (4) .  r  This  scale  was d e v e l o p e d b y R u s s e l  e t a l . t o measure t h e  degree o f l o n e l i n e s s experienced by i n d i v i d u a l s . Although widely scale  used with  the adult  population,  this  has a l s o been s u c c e s s f u l l y employed t o measure  44 .  loneliness  among a d o l e s c e n t s  Goswick & Jones, instrument  1982).  (Franzoi & Davis, 1985;  For a presentation of this  and t h e i n d i c a t e d  reverse polarity  items  see  A p p e n d i x E. The the  scoring of this  responses  total  score  loneliness  instrument  t o t h e 10 r e v e r s e p o l a r i t y  on t h i s  instrument  variable.  High  h i g h degree o f l o n e l i n e s s loneliness. Revised  responses item,  A profile  items.  loneliness while  scores  low scores  indicated  i n d i c a t e d low  o f t h e sample's responses  This p r o f i l e  t o each item,  The  was u s e d a s t h e  U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s S c a l e  A p p e n d i x G.  began w i t h r e v e r s i n g  to the  i s provided i n  includes the choice of  the average  a n d t h e mean a n d s t a n d a r d  response  of each  deviation of the t o t a l  test.  S e l f D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire I I I (S.D.Q. I l l )  this  Several  independent v a r i a b l e s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n  study.  Included  each considered appearance,  a r e 12 s u b - s c a l e s  an i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .  of self  concept,  Math, p h y s i c a l  academic, v e r b a l , problem s o l v i n g , p h y s i c a l  ability,  relations  opposite  sex peers,  w i t h same s e x p e e r s , relations  relations  with parents,  with  honesty,  45.  emotional The of  self  stability  and general  instrument concept  concept.  used t o measure these  1984;  Appendix D).  c o n s i s t s o f 13 s u b - s c a l e s  ability,  same s e x p e e r s , relations  of:  of t h i s  relations  Subjects  instrument  from d e f i n i t e l y scores  p h y s i c a l appearance,  with parents,  stability.  dimensions  with  religion,  a r e asked  with  sex peers,  and emotional  t o respond  based on an 8-point  false  solving,  relations  opposite  honesty,  I l l  The o r i g i n a l  academic, g e n e r a l , v e r b a l , math, problem physical  12  w a s a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f t h e S.D.Q.  (Marsh & O ' N e i l l , instrument  self  t o t h e items  scale which  (1) t o d e f i n i t e l y  true  range  (8).  High  a r e i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h e s u b j e c t h a s a  positive  self  concept  and low scores  a negative  self  concept. The  theoretical  foundation  o f t h e S.D.Q. I l l i s  b a s e d on Marsh a n d S h a v e l s o n ' s  (1985) m u l t i - f a c e t e d ,  hierarchical  concept.  that  self  framework o f s e l f  concept  cannot be e v a l u a t e d  They b e l i e v e  effectively  unless  a m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l approach i s employed. M a r s h a n d O ' N e i l l (1984) p r o v i d e reliability S.D.Q. I I I .  and v a l i d i t y They found  f a c t o r s were v e r y  high  evidence  o f t h e 13 d i m e n s i o n s t h e "the  reliabilities  (median a l p h a  = 0.89)  of the of the o f t h e 13 and  46.  correlations  among t h e f a c t o r s  (Marsh & O ' N e i l l ,  1984,p. 153).  established the substantial S.D.Q. I l l a n d o t h e r the  Tennessee S e l f  validity  were l o w (median  self  Concept  Their study  r=0.09)"  also  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e  concept  measures,  Scale  (Fitts,  including  1965).  The  o f t h e S.D.Q. I l l w a s a l s o c o n f i r m e d b y  analyzing  results  observations  o f t h e measurement t o e x t e r n a l  ratings  (Marsh & O ' N e i l l ,  1984).  A m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f t h e S.D.Q. I l l w a s e m p l o y e d in  this  this  A previous  and reduced 6 items  honesty  by Charlton  sub-scales  instrument half  t h e remaining  12 s u b - s c a l e s  each with t h e exception  changes reduced  one  study  (1987)  used  modified v e r s i o n which d e l e t e d t h e r e l i g i o n sub-  scale only  study.  which contained  thetotal  o f t h e statements  o f t h e general and  8 items  number o f items  t o 76 f r o m a n o r i g i n a l  each.  These  on t h e  136.  are scored  t o include  Approximately  i n reverse  polarity. There were s e v e r a l reasons version  o f t h e S.D.Q. I l l m e a s u r e f o r t h i s  discussed by Marsh to  (1987),  s u b j e c t s 16 y e a r s  understanding points  f o r using the shortened study.  t h e S.D.Q. I l l i s b e s t  o r o l d e r who h a v e a  o f t h e E n g l i s h language.  outthat considering these  As suited  fluent  He f u r t h e r  two f a c t o r s ,  subjects  47 .  may  r e q u i r e 30 m i n u t e s  measurement. not  In  study  t h e r e was  the t h r e a t t h a t subjects would not  t o complete  this  measurement  as w e l l  t h r e e other measures i n v o l v e d i n t h e a l l o t t e d order t o ensure  shortened  was  f o r E n g l i s h f l u e n c y o r age o f s u b j e c t .  have enough t i m e the  the  The p o p u l a t i o n i n c l u d e d i n t h i s  controlled  Therefore  o r more t o c o m p l e t e  completion  n u m b e r o f 76 i t e m s  as  time.  of a l l questionnaires, the from  t h e S.D.Q. I l l w e r e  employed. To s c o r e t h i s their  responses  addressed their  instrument,  then  t h e raw d a t a  appropriate sub-scale.  included  which  t o be r e v e r s e d i n p o l a r i t y  first,  totalled.  items  were  were grouped  into  E a c h s u b - s c a l e was  Because t h e s u b - s c a l e s 8 i n s t e a d o f 6 items  required  then  o f g e n e r a l and  as d i d t h e o t h e r  honesty  10  subscales,  t h e means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r e a c h  item  scale  (general and honesty)  This  a l l o w e d a common c o m p a r i s o n  statistics The  o f t h e 12 s u b - s c a l e s  instrument  presented  were m u l t i p l i e d of the of self  and t h e r e v e r s e p o l a r i t y  i n Appendix  D.  by  8  .75.  descriptive concept items  measure.  are  48.  Sociogram Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  A second to  group  of independent  components o f f r i e n d s h i p .  subject's total class data  number o f f r i e n d s h i p s  f o r these variables  pertained  These v a r i a b l e s  a n d mean c l o s e n e s s o f t h o s e  Questionnaire  variables  were  each  i n the surveyed  friendships.  The  were g a t h e r e d by t h e Sociogram  developed f o r t h i s  study  (Harward,  1988;  Appendix F ) . As p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h r e v e a l e d , accompanied by an i n d i v i d u a l ' s interpersonal attainment Perlman,  connectedness  of that  1982) .  become p r e v a l e n t creation  the  a  o t h e r s but a low a c t u a l (Brennan, issues  connectedness  adolescence  o f t h e s o c i o g r a m was b a s e d  concepts. with  with  The d e v e l o p m e n t a l  during  The s o c i o g r a m  i s often  high desire f o r  connectedness  awareness and i n t e r p e r s o n a l  loneliness  Peplau & of  social  t o others  (Kegan, on t h e s e  1985).  The  theoretical  was c o n s t r u c t e d t o p r o v i d e u s  sample o f t h e number o f c l a s s r o o m f r i e n d s h i p s  subjects  intensity  of those  Several questionaire. classroom  and t h e i r  subjective  evaluation  of the  relationships.  strategies  were employed t o s c o r e  F o r t h e number o f f r i e n d s  subjects  of  could  list  0 - 9  this  i n the surveyed  friends.  Only  those  49.  names t h a t were v e r i f i e d included  i n the data.  of t h e surveyed  as b e i n g  Listed  classroom  subject's  list.  classroom  friends.  classmates  friends  w h i c h were  T h e s c o r i n g o f t h e mean c l o s e n e s s  from not c l o s e  The s u b j e c t ' s s c a l e r a t i n g final  step of t h i s  closeness  score  number o f  variable  The s u b j e c t s h a d a c h o i c e  on a s c a l e r a n g i n g  outside  were e l i m i n a t e d from t h e  The s c o r e was t h e t o t a l  straightforward.  were  of 4 points  as raw d a t a .  was d e t e r m i n i n g  f o reach subject  very  (1) t o v e r y c l o s e ( 4 ) .  was u s e d  variable  was  i n relation  The  t h e mean to their  friends.  Subject Information Sheet Six background v a r i a b l e s : number o f p a r e n t s , fathers' of  mothers'  age, gender,  o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e and  occupational p r e s t i g e comprised  independent v a r i a b l e s .  were g a t h e r e d  The d a t a  by t h e Subject  C) w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f f i v e  language,  g e n d e r a n d number o f p a r e n t s  group  f o rthese v a r i a b l e s  Information  questions.  the third  Sheet  (Appendix  The v a r i a b l e s a g e ,  were p o s e d as d i r e c t  questions. The v a r i a b l e  language,  was i n t e r p r e t e d f r o m t h e  50.  subject information sheet by determining whether E n g l i s h or another  language was  adolescent's home.  most f r e q u e n t l y spoken i n the  Parents' o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e  was  determined by having each subject s e l e c t a job category that best d e s c r i b e d t h e i r mother's and/or f a t h e r ' s occupation.  These c a t e g o r i e s were then i n t e r p r e t e d  according to "The. 1981 Occupations (1987).  Socio-Economic Index f o r  i n Canada" by B l i s h e n , C a r r o l l and Moore  Each category presented  occupation question was  i n the  parent's  assigned a s c a l e d score  c a l c u l a t e d by averaging the p r e s t i g e values of a l l occupations category  of the B l i s h e n Scale  (1987) w i t h i n each  (Willms, p e r s o n a l communication, December 5,  1988) .  Procedure  The  four q u e s t i o n n a i r e s used i n t h i s study were  presented to the s u b j e c t s i n a s t a p l e d booklet form. Each booklet presented the Subject (Appendix C) f i r s t , (Appendix D). scale  The  Information  Sheet  followed by the s e l f concept l a s t two  instruments,  measure  the l o n e l i n e s s  (Appendix E) and the f r i e n d s h i p measure  (Sociogram  Questionnaire; Appendix F) were i n c l u d e d i n mixed order.  51.  Some booklets contained the l o n e l i n e s s s c a l e f o l l o w e d by the f r i e n d s h i p measure, other booklets presented  the  f r i e n d s h i p measure f i r s t and the l o n e l i n e s s s c a l e l a s t . I n s t r u c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s were presented i n a standardized format to each c l a s s . for  Written  instructions  each q u e s t i o n n a i r e were i n c l u d e d i n the booklet of  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were provided by the a d m i n i s t r a t o r to ensure the measures were completed i n the c o r r e c t manner (see Appendix B). The survey was  conducted  i n c l a s s groups.  Each  c l a s s ' survey booklets were completed w i t h i n a one hour p e r i o d i n c l u d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to s u b j e c t s and d e b r i e f i n g a f t e r a l l booklets were completed. completed anonymously.  The surveys were  Each c l a s s t h a t took p a r t  surveyed w i t h i n a two week p e r i o d , beginning the week of May  1988  was last  and ending the f i r s t week of June  1988.  Data A n a l y s i s  Processing Each completed survey b o o k l e t was  assigned a unique  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n code based on the school, c l a s s ,  and  randomly assigned subject number w i t h i n c l a s s .  The  data  c o u l d be compiled as a sample t o t a l or according to an  52.  individual  school or class.  identification  After  c o d e was e n t e r e d ,  each i n d i v i d u a l  t h e s u b j e c t ' s raw  were e n t e r e d d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e computer. in  the self  concept  and l o n e l i n e s s  The  statements  measures which  were  r e v e r s e p o l a r i t y were i d e n t i f i e d and t h e response changed a c c o r d i n g l y .  The s e l f  concept  g r o u p e d i n t o t h e 12 i n d i v i d u a l s e l f  d a t a were  concept  data  value then  subscales.  Analysis The d a t a study  from  the four instruments  were a n a l y z e d u s i n g t h e LERTAP  SPSS-X  (Nelson,  1974) a n d  ( L a i , 1986) p r o g r a m s on t h e U n i v e r s i t y  Columbia mainframe computer. included  descriptive  inferential  analyses  t o t h i s study  The d e s c r i p t i v e  British  analysis  variables  The f i n a l  was t h e r e g r e s s i o n independent  analysis  of  o f each v a r i a b l e ,  o f independent  loneliness.  on t h e r e l e v a n t  (Nelson,  The s t e p s o f  statistics  statistics  dependent v a r i a b l e  scores  employed i n t h i s  then  with the  and key of  loneliness  variables.  u s e d t h e LERTAP  program  1974) t o e x a m i n e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e  dependent and independent  variables.  mean a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n  The d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  of a l l variables  estimated.  T-test calculations  differences  i n loneliness  were  forsignificant  were t h e n  calculated  f o rthe  demographic  variables  o f gender,  language  and number  of  parents. Correlation variable also  coefficients  loneliness  estimated.  the  12  The  (Lai, self  step  A  There  factor  analysis  First,  the large  variables  of analysis  included  variables.  was  the regression  of the  12  a r e two 12  reasons self  concept variables  cause  collinearity  1977).  would  the  of inference  strength  Price,  1977).  produced and  a new  therefore  second  (Chatterjee  I f c o l i n e a r i t y exists, the  coefficients  The  have l a r g e  of the data  factor analysis  eliminates  reason f o r the f a c t o r  parsimony  are  & Price,  reducing &  variables uncorrelated,  of c o l i n e a r i t y .  analysis  among t h e v a r i a b l e s .  could  (Chatterjee  of the  that  the r i s k  may  regression  standard errors,  set of variables  this  variables.  are i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d , which  with  of  regression  f o r performing  concept  number o f s e l f  sub-scales  mean t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a problem  of  t h e SPSS-X R e g r e s s i o n p r o g r a m  performed p r i o r to the  of the  were  concept, the s i x background  factor analysis  c o n c e p t was  dependent  variables  friendship  scores using  1986).  analysis.  of self  and t h e two  final  loneliness  the independent  These independent  sub-scales  variables,  and  between the  The  was  factor  to  The  increase  analysis  54.  reduced  t h e s e t o f 12 v a r i a b l e s  t o a set of  four  factors. After regression  completion of the factor models were r u n .  combinations The self  concept  factor  variables  the derived  was  an o r i g i n a l  four  predictors.  self  since  12  concept  variables.  The  i n the the  friendship  instrument i t s r e l i a b i l i t y  v a l i d i t y were unknown; s e c o n d l y , t h e  variables  were c o n s i d e r e d outcome r a t h e r  variables  of  loneliness.  different  as  were n o t i n c l u d e d First,  four  were t h e o r i g i n a l  background  f o r two r e a s o n s .  questionnaire  variables  included  and t h e f i v e  two f r i e n d s h i p  and  variables  variables,  scores,  regression  These i n c l u d e d  of the independent  independent  analysis,  friendship than  predictor  55.  CHAPTER  FOUR  RESULTS  This chapter presents research questions are presented regression  the results  s t a t e d i n Chapter  i n three  analysis  sections:  that address t h e  Two.  These  descriptive  results  analyses,  and d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h  questions.  D e s c r i p t i v e Analyses  An the  important  aspect  extent of loneliness  adolescents. (Russell,  of this  Peplau  & Cutrona,  l o w e s t p o s s i b l e s c o r e on t h i s  from  deviation  In this  experienced  study's  by each s u b j e c t .  s c a l e i s 20, t h e  sample t h e t o t a l  scores  21 t o 67, w i t h a mean o f 38.34 a n d s t a n d a r d  o f 10.49.  distribution  Scale  1 9 8 0 ) was u s e d t o m e a s u r e  The  80.  determine  sample o f  The R e v i s e d U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s  degree o f l o n e l i n e s s  ranged  was t o  r e p o r t e d by t h i s  the  highest,  study  The 2 5 t h  percentile  of the  was 3 0 ; t h e 5 0 t h  percentile  was 3 6 ; t h e  75th p e r c e n t i l e average response  was 44.  For a profile  t o each item  o f t h e samples  of the loneliness  scale;  56.  see Appendix  G.  Background V a r i a b l e s  The gender,  background v a r i a b l e s  l a n g u a g e , number o f p a r e n t s ,  occupational and  age.  p r e s t i g e , mothers'  T-tests  loneliness  scores  f o rv a r i o u s  significant  differences  of parents. reported  significant  fathers'  t o c o m p a r e t h e mean  and T-tests  f o rgender,  l a n g u a g e a n d number  no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e male  who s p o k e E n g l i s h m o s t f r e q u e n t l y a language other  difference  i n mean l o n e l i n e s s s c o r e s  categories  of loneliness i s substantial.  number o f s u b j e c t s  most  f o r these two However, t h e  significant  who s p o k e a  t h a n E n g l i s h most f r e q u e n t l y The  a t home, a n d  A s T a b l e 4.1 i n d i c a t e s , t h e  d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y the small  between  than English  a t home.  other  and female  i n l o n e l i n e s s scores  frequently  of  of  m e a s u r e was p e r f o r m e d t o t e s t f o r  differences  t h o s e who s p o k e  prestige  mean s c o r e s  T h e r e was v i r t u a l l y  A T-test  were:  subsamples.  mean l o n e l i n e s s b e t w e e n  subjects.  study  occupational  were c o n d u c t e d  T a b l e 4.1 p r e s e n t s  subjects  i n this  a t home  because  language (n=12).  n u m b e r o f p a r e n t s a t home was c o l l a p s e d  into  57 .  two c a t e g o r i e s : households,  those adolescents  and t h o s e l i v i n g  households.  A t-test  living  in single  experience peers  living  parent  p e r f o r m e d between t h e s e  subsamples p r o v e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t , adolescents  in single  parent  i n two p a r e n t  two  indicating that households  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l o n e l i n e s s  living  i n two p a r e n t  than t h e i r  households.  Table 4.1 T - Test Mean Loneliness Score, Standard Deviation, T-Value and Difference Expressed as a Fraction of the Pooled Standard Deviation f o r Gender, Language and Number of Parents  Variable  N  Loneliness Mean  Standard T Deviation Value  Difference Expressed as a Fraction of the Pooled Standard Deviation  Gender male female  65 100  38.12 38.33  11.12 10.03  0.13  .02  151 12  38.02 41.71  10.63 8.16  1.17  .35  114 52  37.56 40.06  10.11 11.19  1.43*  .24  Language English other Number o f Parents two one  *  £ < .05  58.  The  b a c k g r o u n d v a r i a b l e , a g e , was r e p o r t e d  interval study  scale.  The age o f s u b j e c t s  r a n g e d f r o m 177.0 months  months years)  (18.5 y e a r s ) . with  and f a t h e r s ' o c c u p a t i o n a l  occupations.  To g a t h e r  described  Each category  assigned  described  an o c c u p a t i o n a l  averaging  the prestige values  scale  mean o c c u p a t i o n a l  occupation  a standard  prestige score  a mean o f 4 1 . 6 5 w i t h significant  -.097;  for this  As  was c a l c u l a t e d b y of the  category.  p r e s t i g e score  f o r mothers  d e v i a t i o n o f 12.79.  The  f o r f a t h e r s was f o u n d t o h a v e  a standard  d e v i a t i o n o f 9.70.  No  r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n e i t h e r  occupational  p r e s t i g e and l o n e l i n e s s (mother r=  f a t h e r r= -.088).  occupational  score  parents'  of a l l occupations  (1987) w i t h i n e a c h  35.40 w i t h  parents'  were  i n the question  prestige score.  i n Chapter Three, t h i s  was  data  each o f t h e i r  explained  The  prestige  s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d t o c h o o s e o n e o f 15  categories that best  Blishen  No  .483) .  on an o r d i n a l s c a l e .  variable,  t o 222.0  d e v i a t i o n o f 6.24 m o n t h s .  ( r = .0034, p =  Mothers'  was  (14.8 years)  i n this  r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o u n d b e t w e e n a g e a n d  loneliness  reported  taking part  T h e mean a g e w a s 1 9 2 . 0 m o n t h s ( 1 6  a standard  significant  as an  categories  F o r more d e t a i l s  on  f o rmother and f a t h e r , t h e  59.  average p r e s t i g e score, each occupational  and average  category  loneliness score f o r  see Appendix I .  The C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h e s i x b a c k g r o u n d variables Negative  with  loneliness are presented  H.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s were f o u n d between l o n e l i n e s s and  number o f p a r e n t s , fathers'  i n Appendix  mothers'  occupational  occupational  prestige.  p r e s t i g e and  Of t h e s e  number o f p a r e n t s  was  three  relationships  only  significant.  The r e m a i n i n g  b a c k g r o u n d v a r i a b l e s o f age, gender  and  l a n g u a g e were f o u n d t o have p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o loneliness,  b u t none o f t h e s e  significant  a t t h e .05  Self  r e l a t i o n s h i p s were  level.  Concept  As e x p l a i n e d  i n Chapter  o f t h e S.D.Q. I l l  self  polarity  concept  subscales adjusted  concept.  scores  questions  sub-scales,  dividing  contained  as d e s c r i b e d  a modified study  The p r o c e s s  items  appropriate The t w o  6 items  previously to allow  c o m p a r i s o n among t h e s u b s c a l e s .  reverse  scores.  8 rather than  12  of evaluating  into their  sub-scale  version  t o measure  included adjusting  and t o t a l l i n g  that  Three,  was u s e d i n t h i s  dimensions of s e l f the  three  were  f o r a common  60 .  The h i g h e s t m e a n s w e r e r e p o r t e d concept v a r i a b l e s same s e x p e e r s , and  honesty.  variables  of physical  general,  ability,  verbal,  The s i x l o w e s t  of relations  with  solving,  math, academic,  physical  appearance.  f o rthe self relations  relations  opposite  emotional  sex, problem  stability  and  4.2  (following  page) t h e  and  correlation  In Table  standard deviation  coefficient  o f each s e l f concept v a r i a b l e  All  relationship  with  loneliness,  statistically  significant.  correlations,  relations  with  sex peers  four  and r e l a t i o n s  remaining  relationship  with  solving  loneliness.  relations  emotional  s e l f concept,  with parents'  concept  with  appearance  s e l f concept v a r i a b l e s  academic and problem  self  s e l f concept,  s e l f concept,  ability  were  significant  relationship  s e l f concept, p h y s i c a l  concept, p h y s i c a l  o f which  same s e x p e e r s  f o l l o w e d by g e n e r a l  with opposite  concept,  eight  had a negative  Of t h e e i g h t  p r o v e d t o have t h e s t r o n g e s t  stability  with  i s presented.  t h e s e l f concept v a r i a b l e s  loneliness  parents,  r e p o r t e d means w e r e f o r t h e  mean s c o r e ,  loneliness  with  with  self  verbal  self  s e l f concept. o f math,  The  honesty,  d i d n o t have a s i g n i f i c a n t  61.  Table  4.2  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f t h e Twelve S e l f Concept V a r i a b l e s and t h e i r C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h L o n e l i n e s s  S e l f Concept V a r i a b l e Male  Mean Female  Total  Standard Deviation for Mean Total  Correlation with Loneliness  Appearance  30.66  27.60  28.74  5.95  -.433**  Stability  30.24  28.09  28.89  7.40  -.463**  Academic  29.83  28.86  29.24  8.72  -.071  Math  31.72  28.38  29.59  11.17  -.050  Problem Solving  32.59  30.27  31.13  5.39  -.070  Relations with Opposite Sex Peers  32.49  31.41  31.80  9.33  -.553**  Honesty'  31.69  32.72  32.28  4.89  -.096  R e l a t i o n s with Parents  32.65  32.00  32.35  8.82  -.134*  Verbal  34.30  32.62  33.28  7.21  -.228**  General*  39.00  32.91  35.29  8.55  -.617**  R e l a t i o n s with Same Sex Peers  36.12  35.43  36.62  5.95  -.627**  Physical  39.60  35.76  37.18  9.65  -.345**  Physical Emotional  Ability  These subscales i n c l u d e d 8 items each. T h e i r means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s were a d j u s t e d t o allow comparison o f a l l 12 v a r i a b l e s . *E < -05  **B <.01  62 .  Friendship Findings  The d a t a gathered consist  concerning  aspects  of friendship  by t h e sociogram  questionnaire.  o f two components:  friendships  surveyed  classroom  were  These  data  within the  and average c l o s e n e s s o f these  friendships. As d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter variable  of friendships  gathered  by h a v i n g  within data,  the surveyed  Three,  within  class.  t o ensure  out of classroom  for  within  The  mean c l o s e n e s s outlined  friendships.  closeness  on t h e f o l l o w i n g  Close  considered from t h e  classroom  variable  data  o f 4.51  o f 2.57.  friendships.  f o rthis  S u b j e c t s were  variable  ratings asked  4 point scale  (1), casual acquaintance  score  a n a l y z e d was t h e  by t h e s u b j e c t ' s closeness  classroom  were  r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d a mean  rating of the listed Three,  of  of classmates.  and excluded  the surveyed  friendship  i n Chapter  determined  list  with a standard deviation  second  friends  a record of classroom  class  friendships  The s t u d y  friendships  from  t h e names w e r e t h o s e  data analysis. friendships  their  was  Later during the analysis  T h o s e names n o t o n t h e m a s t e r as  f o r the  the classroom  the subjects l i s t  t h e names w e r e c h e c k e d  students  data  As was  of their  to rate the  including:  ( 2 ) , c_l£S_e_ ( 3 ) , a n d  not m  y  63.  Close  (4) .  The with  r e p o r t e d mean c l o s e n e s s o f f r i e n d s h i p s  a standard deviation  indicate  that  o f .73. These  casual t o close  displays,  both  significant  weak.  with  sample.  variables  The r e l a t i o n s h i p s variables  had s t a t i s t i c a l l y with  between t h e two  and l o n e l i n e s s  Both variables  classroom  A s T a b l e 4.3  (p< . 0 5 ) n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s  loneliness. friendship  friendship  findings  friendships  p e e r s was m o s t common among t h i s  was 2.23  were  relatively  were a p p r o x i m a t e l y r= -.20.  Table  4.3  Mean Scores and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f F r i e n d s h i p V a r i a b l e s and C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s o f Each V a r i a b l e with L o n e l i n e s s .  Variable  N  Friends i n Class  166  4.50  Mean Closeness  166  2 .23  Note:  ** £ <.01  Mean  Standard Deviation  Correlation Coefficients  2.60  -.193**  .73  -.210**  64.  Regression  Analysis  Before beginning the regresssion scores a preliminary self  concept  variables  components f a c t o r employed, which critical and  step of factor  analysis  produced  four  self  which  with  same s e x p e e r s  stability  self  concept,  relations  and p h y s i c a l  with  ability  would suggest t h a t to  are presented i n Table "social"  of self  F a c t o r 2 was r e l a b e l l e d  verbal  concept  self  These v a r i a b l e s reasoning  and problem  were themes  These  factor  self self  concept  variables i n relation  score. self  factor solving  that  esteem,  emotional  and s e l f  "verbal"  to this  would suggest  ability  concept,  appearance  concept.  o t h e r s was t h e t h e m e o f t h i s  contributors  concept.  s c o r e were  opposite sex peers  concept  Significant  self  factor  self  physical  self  was  breakdown  i s a measure o f s e l f  relations  concept,  rotation  The v a r i a b l e  contributors to this concept  principal  orthogonal factors (the  factor  F a c t o r 1 was r e l a b e l l e d  general  A  w i t h varimax  e i g e n v a l u e was 1 . 0 ) .  Significant  a n a l y z i n g t h e 12  was p e r f o r m e d .  e i g e n v a l u e f o r each  4.4.  of loneliness  concept.  s c o r e were self  verbal  concept.  skills  of this  factor  "honesty"  self  and  (Marsh,  1987) . Factor  3 was r e l a b e l l e d  concept.  65.  The s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t o r s self  concept  and r e l a t i o n s h i p  These v a r i a b l e s trustworthy  of t h i s  would  suggest  parents s e l f  that  b e i n g r e l i a b l e and  and h a v i n g p o s i t i v e  Significant  4 was  relabelled  contributors  concept  and academic  suggest  that  relationships  of  this  factor  (Marsh,  factor  s e l f concept.  being a successful  concept.  with  1987).  self  concept.  were math  These v a r i a b l e s  reasoning ability  academic  1987) .  (Marsh,  "academic"  to this  mathematical  are honesty  with  p a r e n t s were themes o f t h i s f a c t o r Factor  factor  and  self would  feelings  s t u d e n t a r e themes o f  Table  4.4  P r i n c i p a l Components F a c t o r A n a l y s i s  Variables  Factor 2  General  .78 9*  .251  .108  .074  P h y s i c a l App.  .7 65*  .186  -.037  -.090  Opposite Sex  .683*  .017  -.167  -.323  Same Sex  .637*  -.062  .052  .294  Physical A b i l i t y  .636*  -.333  -.026  .325  Emotion  .599*  .112  .398  -.044  Verbal  .142  .811*  .139  .028  Problem S o l v i n g  .069  .759*  -.047  .318  Parent  .062  .045  .812*  .073  Math  .058  .190  .085  .879*  Academic  -.042  .483  .384  .624*  Honesty  -.017  0.548  .814*  .123  Eigenvalue  3.24365  2.35162  1.29231  1.01912  27.0  19.6  10.8  8.5  27.0  46.6  57.4  65.9  Percent Cum. Note:  of V a r i a n c e  Percent Significant  F a c t o r Loading *sf>.55  Factor 3  Factor 4  Factor 1  The involved  regression analysis  of  fitting  four separate regression  the  data to  models u s i n g o r d i n a r y l e a s t the  analysis  was  and  The  remaining  centred around t h e i r scaling  intercept  average i n every  way,  the  and  represent effect  "Age"  student  Four  score  i s 0.01  different  a different  M o d e l 1 was  of  As  were  standardized.  i s then  the zero, who  expressed  as  is  fractions  outcome v a r i a b l e .  t h a t f o r each month  a  combination  For for  a  h i s or  her  standard d e v i a t i o n lower.  of predictor involving  Table  were s i g n i f i c a n t  of the background v a r i a b l e s with the  not  sample average,  a r e g r e s s i o n run  variables  variables  r e g r e s s i o n models were r u n ,  background v a r i a b l e s . these  were a l s o  regression coefficient  would suggest the  1.0.  unstandardized regression  the  of the  i s older than  loneliness  using  estimate  o f -0.01  to  f o r a student  sizes,  a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n on an  outcome v a r i a b l e  regression equation score  example,  first  i n t e p r e t a t i o n because  expected  of  in  predictor  representing the  weights  step  sample means, b u t  facilitates  f o r the  The  scores  a standard d e v i a t i o n of  self-concept variables  standardized.  This  squares.  to standardize the  h a v e a mean o f z e r o Each of the  loneliness  4.5  only  each  variables. the  i n d i c a t e s none  at the  .05  level.  of A l l  were n e g a t i v e p r e d i c t o r s  exception of language.  The  model  1 regression  68 . accounts  for only  The  4.4  regression  background  percent outlined  variables  variables  as  variables  gender,  relations  with  and  the  predictors.  sex  variables  loneliness.  regression  The  This  indicated  and  social  verbal  predictor parents (p<.01).  concept,  this  the  level.  A l l 4  of of  67.5  variables  four self  (p<.01) a n d  loneliness.  scores  concept, The  regression  These t h r e e v a r i a b l e s  regression  3 were t h e  factor  concept.  in this  (p<.05), gender  i n Model  had As  model a c c o u n t e d  five of  honesty  only  self  significant  were number  social  self  of  concept  negative indicated for  60.6  in  Table  percent  of  variance. The  fourth  model i n c l u d e s  were s i g n i f i c a n t Fifty was  self  model accounted f o r  the  academic s e l f  relationships with 4.5  the  peers,  general  .05  4.5  were n e g a t i v e p r e d i c t o r s  variables  background v a r i a b l e s  c o n c e p t and  and  the  concept  i n Table  same s e x  peers, at  self  the  variance.  predictor  self  variance.  original  relations with  opposite  the  12  As  these s i g n i f i c a n t  of  the  i n Model 2 involved  concept were a l l s i g n i f i c a n t  percent  of  seven p o i n t  accounted f o r  predictors four  of  only  those v a r i a b l e s  loneliness  (57.4) p e r c e n t  i n model  4.  of  i n model the  that 3.  variance  69.  Table  4.5  Parameter Estimates and Standard E r r o r s f o r Four R e g r e s s i o n Models of L o n e l i n e s s Independent Variables  Model 1 b S.E.  Constant .000 Age -.0 07 Gender -.031 Language .2 69 Number Parents -.319 Mom Occup. Prest. -.008 Dad Occup. Prest. -.008 Math General Honesty Opposite Sex Verbal Parent Academic Emotion ProblemSolving P h y s i c a l Appear. Same Sex Physical Ability Factor 1 ( S o c i a l S.C.) Factor 2 (Verbal S.C.) Factor 3 (Honesty S.C.) Factor 4  Model 2 b S.E.  Model 3 b S.E.  Model 4 b S.E. .000  .078' .015 .190 .356  .000 .014 .375* .321  .048 .010 .132 .232  .000 .051 .011 .010 .460**.132 .286 .242  .190  .166  .121  .248* .124  .010  .001  .006  .000  .007  .007  .004 .001 .081 .002 . 309**.092 .070 .012 .325** . 076 .076 .090 .067 .056 .090 .000 .072 .109 .072 .011 .081 .024 .325** .071 .072 .043  .006  .005  .768**.062 .120  .063  .103  .061  .028  .063  .051  -.423**.129  -.270*  .120  .770**.063  (Academic S.C.) R  2  S.E. Significant Note:  F  .044  .676  .606  .574  1.000  .618  . 655  . 661  .000  .000  .000  .513  Significant  T v a l u e *p<.05  **o<.01  70.  In model parents  was  subjects of  living  the  taking  i n two  of the  This  variables  self-concept The  and  77  the  loneliness  self  concepts  scale,  tended  to  greater  levels  self  Subjects  This  subjects  The  high  on  the  strong  concept  and  of s e l f  who  on  had  the  low  concept social  loneliness  loneliness.  parameter estimates  of  concept  level.  d e v i a t i o n lower  significance  score  other  therefore,  self  .01  scale  standard deviation  ceteris paribus.  loneliness.  indicating  The  structure.  self-concept scale,  emphasizes the  predicting  study,  at the  percent  of the  family  "social"  42  loneliness  for "social"  after  model.  scored  comparable  of a standard  r e l a t i o n s h i p between loneliness  the  scale  -.423  given  for every  percent  families,  in this  significant  social  scale,  parent  on  27  loneliness  females  Males  a similar  percent  scored  t a k i n g account  females,  indicates that on  the  of  indicates that  f o r g e n d e r was  after  model.  w h i c h was  increase  in  i n one  parameter estimate  -.770  on  d e v i a t i o n lower  than  finding  families  indicates that  i n the  were l o n e l i e r  scored  parent  f o r number  other v a r i a b l e s i n the  t h e i r male peers  finding  This  parameter estimate  a standard  was  (p<.05).  d e v i a t i o n lower  account  (p<.01).  than  parameter estimate  subjects l i v i n g  The  of  -.270  a standard  than  4 the  of model 4 are the  key  71.  findings predictor social  of this  study.  variables  self  This  regression  included  o f number o f p a r e n t s ,  concept,  accounting  the  gender and  f o r 57.4 p e r c e n t  of the  variance.  Analysis  1.  of  To w h a t e x t e n t o f G r a d e 10  In  Questions  prevalent  sample  totals  ranged  mean  of  the loneliness from  of  loneliness  17  indicating "often"  and  10.49.  standard Eight-three  adolescents  had  score  indicating  they  to  "rarely"  percent they  feel  had  score  lonely.  variables  best  predict  t h e two f r i e n d s h i p  table  lonely  "sometimes" t o  Which o f t h e independent v a r i a b l e s  As  a  the  "never"  while  (excluding  sample  score  21 t o 67, w i t h  38.34 of  percent  of these  i n a  adolescents?  this  felt  Research  i s loneliness  deviation  2.  the  4.5  indicates,  or  combination  loneliness variables)?  4 different  regression  models  scores  run.  were  of t h i s in  study  this  parents  social  self  concept.  (p<.05),  concept regression  classroom  friendships  model  gender  was  -  -.423  "social"  self This  for  57.4  and t h e closeness  have a s i g n i f i c a n t  Table very -.193  variables  significant  had  (p<.05)  relationships However, 4.3, weak: and  both  as  mean  with indicated  relationships  friends  of  these  relationship to the  experienced?  friendship  loneliness.  r=  parameter  accounts  friendships  negative  were  1  of the variance.  statistically  in  factor  (p<.01).  degree of l o n e l i n e s s  Both  the  gender,  of parents  f o r  -.770  of  The  f o r  and  Included  and  f o r number  (p<.01),  finding  were  variables  of  percent  final  was m o d e l 4.  number  .270  Do  The  loneliness  regression  prediction  estimate  of  in  class  closeness  of  these  friendships  r= -.210.  Summary  In t h i s with  a  study the  standard deviation  background variables with  loneliness,  significant.  of  significant  the  verbal,  twelve  self  physical  were f o u n d t o  regression the  sex  of  predictor  analysis  original  12  though  of  four  self  self  emotional  ability,  Both variables  of  negative  loneliness  scores  s e p a r a t e models, of  variables  were the  had  (p<.05).  a different combination The  trend  general  peers,  h a v e weak  analysis  examination  variables.  be  loneliness.  peers,  parent.  loneliness  regression  involving  found to  variables  appearance, p h y s i c a l  friendships  an  correlation  loneliness,  with  same s e x  opposite  relations with  involved  was  six  have a strong  concept  correlations  and  The  parents  38.34  significant.  negative  correlations with  the,  for their  correlation with  relations with  stability,  s c o r e was  Of  found to  These were r e l a t i o n s w i t h concept,  10.49.  number o f  L a n g u a g e was  statistically Eight  of  investigated  only  towards a negative not  mean l o n e l i n e s s  each  predictor involved  s i x background  concept v a r i a b l e s ,  plus  in  the  variables, four  factor  74 .  scores of self analysis key  concept which were a r e s u l t  of the original  finding of this  T h i s m o d e l was  percent  self of the  s t u d y was  loaded with  number o f p a r e n t s "social"  self  regression  the predictor  (p<.01),  variance.  factor  concept variables.  (p<.05), g e n d e r  concept  of a  (p<.01)  accounting  model  The four.  variables  of  and f a c t o r f o r 57.4  1  75.  Chapter Five DISCUSSION  In result the  Chapter Five  a summary a n d d i s c u s s i o n  of the study w i l l  study,  implications  considerations  be p r e s e n t e d .  Limitations  of the results,  f o rfurther  of the of  and  research w i l l  also  be  included.  Summary  The  purpose o f t h i s  experience  of loneliness  correlated  with  experience. its  An data.  and a subject  subjects  by  exploring  concept,  was e m p l o y e d t o c o l l e c t  i n t h e s u r v e y was a l o n e l i n e s s self  concept measure, information  w a s 16 y e a r s .  w e r e G r a d e 10 s t u d e n t s  were  variables.  anonymous s u r v e y d e s i g n  measure,  of self  that  adolescents  was i n v e s t i g a t e d  and background  multi-dimensional  factors  t h e degree o f l o n e l i n e s s  Loneliness  Included  was t o e x a m i n e t h e  and i d e n t i f y  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o dimensions  friendship  of  study  a  a  friendship  sheet.  The mean a g e  The 166 v o l u n t e e r  enrolled  scale,  at secondary  subjects schools i n  76. Surrey  School  District.  There were t h r e e this  study.  research questions  One, t o w h a t e x t e n t  will  explored i n  loneliness  prevalent  i n t h e sample?  variables  or combination of these variables  loneliness (excluding Three,  closeness  of these  Two, w h i c h o f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t  t h e two f r i e n d s h i p  do t h e v a r i a b l e s  of classroom  friendships  analysis  A preliminary derive  analysis  the descriptive  involved  a factor  concept variables four  of data  have a  involved  analysis  First, that  17 p e r c e n t  indicated  Second, negative predictor  felt  social  Third,  self involving  variables.  Results  major f i n d i n g s  of loneliness  c o n c e p t was n o t .  of  of this  study.  had loneliness  "sometimes" t o "often" self  concept  while  to  component  of loneliness  of the subjects  they  components.  a l l variables  d i f f e r e n t combinations of predictor  T h e r e were f i v e  experienced?  o f t h e 12 o r i g i n a l  Discussion  and t h e  significant  The s e c o n d  and regression  predict  variables)?  two major  investigated analysis.  best  friendships  r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e degree o f l o n e l i n e s s The  be  was a  negative  scores lonely.  significant  academic  male and female s u b j e c t s  self scored  77 .  virtually concept  s c o r e s were c o n t r o l l e d ,  lonelier Four,  t h e same o n l o n e l i n e s s ,  than  subjects l i v i n g  significantly parent a  females,  second  language  i n single than  Five,  Past  average  family  structure.  households  peers  living  i n two  s u b j e c t s f o r whom E n g l i s h w a s than  language,  their  peers f o r  though not  experience during adolescence 1979; R u b e n s t e i n  f i n d i n g was g e n e r a l l y study.  loneliness  standard deviation  (Brennan, 1982;  & Shaver,  w i t h a mean s c o r e o f 38.34 a n d  o f 10.49.  "sometimes" t o " o f t e n "  Approximately  lonely.  of t h e subjects had t o t a l  the  results  of this  17 p e r c e n t  "never" study  do  loneliness  identify  The r e m a i n i n g  loneliness  indicate  loneliness  as a problem  83 p e r c e n t  lonely.  Because  t h a t o n l y 17 p e r c e n t  lonely,  i s widespread.  feel  scores that  t o "rarely"  of t h e subjects reported f e e l i n g indicate  1982).  skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  of t h e subjects had scores t h a t i n d i c a t e d they  feel  i sa  n o t supported by t h e r e s u l t s  A positively  was f o u n d  indicated they  were  lonelier.  Brennand & Auslander,  of t h i s  self  research has i n d i c a t e d that loneliness  widespread  This  parent  their  were l o n e l i e r  whom E n g l i s h w a s a f i r s t significantly  males were on  given a similar  lonelier  households.  h o w e v e r when  t h e y do n o t  However t h e r e s u l t s which  needs t o be  78.  addressed  for a substantial  amount o f t h e a d o l e s c e n t  population. The  results  loneliness variables  scores found t o be  equation  of the regression several  significant.  (model  4)  was  of s o c i a l  .423)  number o f p a r e n t s  accounted The  f o r 57.4  with  social  Significant  The  factor  the r e s u l t  variables  concept  social  to  which  of  on t h e  a self  this is a  relations  with  same s e x  peers  emotional s t a b i l i t y  self  concept,  physical  appearance  self  peers  concept  self  12  low  to experience  contributors  s c o r e were g e n e r a l s e l f  concept,  concept  the 2 other  s t u d y was  of the o r i g i n a l  esteem,  self  adolescent with a  of loneliness.  created i n this  variables  strongest relationship  feelings  measure o f s e l f self  An  These  (b=-  variance.  i n combination with  concept measure. factor  the  regression predictor  (b=-.270).  i s more l i k e l y  analysis  predictor  final  estimate of s o c i a l had  of  (b=-.770) g e n d e r  concept  concept  factor  concept  i n the equation.  self  heightened  self  variable  loneliness  variables  self  this  The  percent of the  parameter  indicates  of the  loaded with the  variables and  analysis  These v a r i a b l e s  concept, and  would  relations  physical suggest  with  ability  that  opposite self  concept  sex  concept.  of s e l f ,  and  79.  self  in relation  score.  This  perception  cognitive theory  self  p.  & Morasch, the  influence  of  (Peplau, (1987)  understanding low  loneliness  so  concept  loneliness.  influenced 1987).  others"  by  (p.  Morasch, that  for  & Morasch,  1982,  p.  the  past  of  of the  i s c i t e d by  theory  to  attachment  with  chronic  r e s u l t of attachment  a  client's  negative  experiences  techniques  Hojat  of  145) .  attachment  important  Cognitive  "low  impair  risk  s e c o n d a r y component o f  loneliness  *  at  In terms of  t o be  encourage r e c o n s t r u c t i o n  important  people  as  &  "subjective  behaviours that  esteem a s s o c i a t e d  (Shaver & Hazan,  to  put  Miceli  is believed  concept  and  to  i n t e r r e l a t e d set  in his discussion  self  self  Miceli  embedded i n an  self  1982).  theorists believe  cognitions  factor  (Perlman  Cognitive  identifies  The  loneliness  137) .  Hojat  relation  l o n e l i n e s s tends  "(Peplau,  loneliness"  self  on  this  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  standards  competence and  theory,  theme o f  and  self-defeating  also  centres  esteem i s o f t e n  social  the  of  Peplau, M i c e l i  theory  perceptions 1982,  was  i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to  1982;  Cognitive  others  f i n d i n g i n d i c a t i n g the  support the Peplau,  to  which  "self  image  (1987) as  intervention  in  an  for  98).  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  social  self  concept would  also  80.  lend  support  during  t o the importance  adolescence.  both view  adolescence  relationships adolescents peers  Brennan  o f peer (1982)  a r e s h i f t i n g from  a role  awareness o f s e l f and u n d e r s t a n d i n g Brennan  emotional  findings  low  and p h y s i c a l  support  these  others w i l l  views.  concepts.  Goswick and Jones  predictors  of loneliness  t h e i r peers  predictors  and  attitudes.  almost  as a p e r i o d  who  4,  h a v e more  (1982)  a and  positive  identified six  during i n adolescence.  inferiority  social  Positive  feelings  predictors  and n e g a t i v e  Once a g a i n t h e themes o f s e l f  equal  The  significantly greater  were s o c i a l f a c i l i t y ,  social relationships Of  (Kegan,  A d o l e s c e n t s who h a v e  and s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n .  were a l i e n a t i o n , school  of others  r e g r e s s i o n model  experience  than  acceptance  greater  of s e l f i n r e l a t i o n t o peers  loneliness  Negative  (Kegan,  transitions occurring.  loneliness  o r negative concept  significant  generate  with  i s p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e because of  of the f i n a l  generally  orientation  (1982) p e r c e i v e s a d o l e s c e n c e  when s e l f c o n c e p t the  peer  relationships  Interpersonal relationships  1983).  (1983)  Developmentally  t o a focus of interpersonal  1983) .  and Kegan  a s a p e r i o d when  are highlighted.  relationships  are  esteem  highlighted.  interest t o these  significant  81.  findings  are the results i d e n t i f y i n g variables not  significantly concept belief  related to loneliness.  variables that  self  and problem  self  (indicating the subject's  t h e y a r e an honest,  math, academic, there  were h o n e s t y  These  trustworthy person),  solving.  This would  suggest  i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between v a r i a b l e s concept  r e l a t e d t o academic  work and l o n e l i n e s s .  Further t o this finding after the factor preliminary concept  self  concept  of  variables,  analysis  "academic"  of the  self  w h i c h was l o a d e d p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e m a t h a n d  academic  self  significant  concept  predictor  ( f a c t o r 4) v a r i a b l e s variable  was n o t a  i n the regression  of  loneliness. The  second  regression of  suggests that,  greater loneliness  controlled and  e q u a t i o n was g e n d e r .  this variable  reported  strongest variable  Cutrona  forself (1982)  between t h e genders adults.  The p a r a m e t e r  factors  estimate  i n t h i s sample,  Previously  f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t  males  Russell,  (1977)  also  i n a study of loneliness  i n these studies,  though  when  Peplau  differences  i n reported loneliness  among  f o u n d no  young  gender  i n adolesence'.  However m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l measure o f s e l f not  final  then t h e i r female peers  concept.  Wood a n d H a n n e l l  differences  i n t h i s study's  concept  Wood &  Hannel  were  82 .  (1977) d i d i n c l u d e the  finding that  controlled rather  Perlman  males a r e l o n e l i e r  forself  than  In  a measure o f s e l f  concept  esteem. than  females  i s additional  contradictory.  a review (1985)  differences  o f 39 c u r r e n t  studies,  Borys and  found t h e method o f l o n e l i n e s s  i n loneliness.  males t o report  greater  w r i t t e n measures w i t h participants  self  to self  to this,  labelling  collection greater  loneliness The  l a b e l themselves  studies  social  using  as l o n e l y .  interviews  In  requiring  a s a means o f d a t a to find  influence  females  reporting  Borys and Perlman  (1985)  i s a significant  t o these gender d i f f e r e n e s  i n disclosure of  feelings.  r e v i s e d U.C.L.A. L o n e l i n e s s 1980) u s e d i n t h i s  Borys and Perlman  show r e s u l t s o f m a l e s females.  f e m a l e s on  i n d i r e c t questions not requiring  of loneliness  Peplau & Curona, by  l o n e l i n e s s than  l o n e l i n e s s than males.  suggest that  gender  T h e r e was a t e n d e n c y f o r  were more l i k e l y  contributor  when  information  measurement t o have an e f f e c t on r e p o r t e d  contrast  Therefore,  In t h i s  were on a v e r a g e  Scale  (Russell,  s t u d y was  (1985) a s a n i n s t r u m e n t indicating greater  identified likely  loneliness  study the r e s u l t s indicated that  lonelier  than  females given  to than males  comparable  83.  levels based  of self  and f a m i l y  the identified  i n the expected Another  adolescents  gender d i f f e r e n c e s  key f i n d i n g living  of t h i s  in  households.  direction live  level  expected  a s we  i n households  This  loneliness.  However t h e s e  findings  was  (Brennan,  f i n d i n g was  contradictory  study  family  a  In a no  of parents i n  to  readers  expected  1982). reason f o r  f i n d i n g s t o t h e Brennan and  Perhaps  t o number  subtle  (Brennan  & Auslander,  a viable  explanation.  of parents  cultural  e x p e c t a t i o n s and r o l e s  relationship  feel  found  researchers cautioned  a contradiction  (1979) i n r e g a r d s  loneliness.  i n the  parent.  (1979)  o f number  living  adolescents  There does n o t appear t o be an o b v i o u s the  reported  than t h e i r peers  study Brennan and A u s l a n d e r  felt this  i n loneliness  households  w i t h t h e absent  i n the influence  they  Perlman  w i t h o n l y o n e p a r e n t may  differences  as  and  i s that  can assume t h o s e  of disconnectedness  previous  study  i n single parent  greater loneliness  two p a r e n t  Therefore  direction.  significantly  who  structure.  on t h e p r e v i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s o f B o r y s  (1985), was  concept  and  differences i n  between the American  1979) a n d t h i s The i m p o r t a n c e  w i t h p a r e n t s was  Auslander  clearly  Canadian  study  study are  of the adolescents established i n  84.  this  study.  parents  The s e l f  was i d e n t i f i e d  relationship of  to loneliness.  this  to loneliness  variable  as having  t h e number o f p a r e n t s  relation in  concept  experienced  significant,  a heightened  level  i nthis  s t u d y was t h e  a second  heightened  t o be  may b e m o r e s u b j e c t t o l o n e l i n e s s emotional social  adjustments  culture.  that English  likely  These as they  t o an u n f a m i l i a r  We m i g h t e x p e c t  (n=12), t h e  statistically  language adolescents w i l l of loneliness.  The surveyed  number o f f r i e n d s h i p s class  were found  experience  adolescents experience  and d i f f e r e n t  transitory  b e m o r e common among E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d  adolescents experiencing this  language t o  Because o f t h e  category  However, i t s h o u l d be n o t e d  feelings  Though  t h e r e was a t r e n d f o r  of loneliness.  s c o r e s were n o t found  significant.  to  i s a c o n s i s t e n t theme  and l o n e l i n e s s .  s m a l l number o f s u b j e c t s i n t h i s  as  the significance  s u b j e c t s f o r whom E n g l i s h w a s a s e c o n d  higher  significant  sample.  statistically  report  with  i n t h e adolescents household i n  r e l a t i o n s h i p between language  those  a negative  Therefore  A strong trend identified  not  of relations  loneliness language  transition. each subject had i n t h e  and t h e closeness  t o h a v e weak, n e g a t i v e  of these  friendships  correlations  with  loneliness. direction,  These r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s we  can  assume t h o s e  even c a s u a l f r i e n d s h i p s  in class  greater  those  loneliness  Examining  than  o n l y one  class,  was  a d m i n i s t e r e d , as  social  connection to peers example.  connectedness of  the  Close  to  adolescents  negative  a  can  life,  expected  adolescents would  with  without  experience  friendships. class  i n which  the  sample of the s u b j e c t s '  c o u l d be  expected  friendships  others  i n the  that i s the  survey  limited  are  exist  which  t o be  providing emotional  i n many o t h e r  may  a  aspects  h a v e shown a  relationship to loneliness  stronger  i f examined.  Limitations  Four the  use  proven  limit  findings  of t h i s  of only r e g u l a r program students  and  the  use  reliability  This  study  was  of a sociogram or  study:  and  d e p e n d on  conducted  the  r e s u l t s may disclose  honesty be  are  as  the  questionaire without  a survey  open t o  of response.  biased i n the  loneliness  in  validity.  r e p o r t e d measures which  to  the  of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g measures, v o l u n t a r y s u b j e c t s ,  inclusion sample,  factors  with  self  misinterpretation I t i s expected  that  subjects unwillingness  or negative  feelings  about  86.  themselves. social  a  validity  can  second  limitation  concerns  i n that students  their  classmates  who  felt  would not  Because of the design  of t h i s  units.  students  enrolled  i n each of the  represented the  total  emerged.  An  SES  area  s c h o o l o n l y 55  study.  The  of  surveyed  different  low  part.  and  99 medium  In the  high  of possible p a r t i c i p a n t s  two  and  m e d i u m SES  t e a c h e r s who about t h e  student  represented the  high  area  We  can  had  a  two  time  teacher  SES  appeared  by  schools,  positive  The  school  be  assume  participation. area  schools  spending  of p a r t i c p a n t s i n these of the teachers  enthusiasm  appeared t o  study,  students to participate.  enthusiasm on  were  number  average of  i n f l u e n c e of teacher  low  enthusiastic  high percentage  influence  percent  i s the  were r e p r e s e n t e d by  the  part.  A p o s s i b l e explanation f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s  participation  encouraging  may  students  classes  i n the  schools volunteered to take  genuinely  bias  disconnected  voluntary,  area  about the  or  the  nine  was  of p o s s i b l e participants  volunteered.  sample  the t o t a l  SES  that  by  number o f p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  percent  lonely  Therefore  However, because p a r t i c i p a t i o n levels  The  study,  in class  the  weakened  volunteer to take  surveyed  in  be  the p o t e n t i a l  sample of v o l u n t a r y s u b j e c t s .  biased from  internal  desirability.  The of  The  who  87.  considerably can  assume by  influenced influence study  the  low  student could  participation.  could  w o u l d be  study,  which  we  number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s , n e g a t i v e l y  weaken t h e  b e c a u s e one  volunteers to  l e s s e n t h u s i a s t i c about the  This  type  of  external validity  of  expect that,  on  the  l e s s l o n e l y than those  the  average, who  declined  participate. The  bias  third  of the  regular  classroom  those  regular  s p e c i a l needs s t u d e n t s  study  represented  This  study  must be  did  integrated  This  considered  the not  therefore into  S p e c i a l needs  unrepresented.  validity  limitation  students in  when g e n e r a l i z i n g  results. fourth limitation  Questionnaire Because t h i s this  are  unproven.  study,  enhanced the conclusions  the  original  Sociogram  friendship findings.  validity from t h i s  f i n d i n g s but  drawn from t h i s  with the  instrument  construct  Data gathered study  caution.  deals  which measured the i s an  for  with  only.  c l a s s e s were i n c l u d e d .  external  The  population  subjects  i n c l u d e a s p e c i a l needs c l a s s ,  were b a s i c a l l y  the  a l s o concerns the p o t e n t i a l  sample i n t h a t the  specifically only  limitation  constructed and  only  reliability  questionnaire  inferences  measure should  and be  considered  Implications  The public  research  for  Teachers  f o rthis  study  school system of B r i t i s h  each of the f i v e implications potentially  major  First,  adolescents  17 p e r c e n t  likely  setting,  was c o n d u c t e d Columbia.  and counselors  i n a  Therefore,  study  have  working  o f t h e sample r e p o r t e d  i n a class  that approximately  with  within the school  "sometimes" t o " o f t e n " l o n e l y . classroom  Counsellors  findings of this  f o rteachers lonely  and  feeling  In t h e context o f 30 s t u d e n t s ,  system.  of a i t i s  5 o f t h e 30 s t u d e n t s  would  probably  b e e x p e r i e n c i n g some d e g r e e o f l o n e l i n e s s .  Previous  resarch has i d e n t i f i e d  delinquent behaviour,  dropping  suicide  related  as behaviours  adolescence Knowles, is  (Bronfenbrenner,  1984).  These  The self  concept  relation  finding  academic  to self  t o loneliness 1986; France,  during  as a s i g n i f i c a n t  while negative  out o f school, and during McDowell and there  t o be aware o f t h e e x t e n t and  of loneliness second major  and a l c o h o l abuse,  f i n d i n g s would imply that  a need f o rt e a c h e r s  dimensions  drug  concept  self  adolescence.  was t h a t n e g a t i v e indicator concept  the social  social  of loneliness  was n o t . aspects  In  of school  89.  are  stronger  aspects. social  indicators  of loneliness  Creating classroom  inclusion  feelings  those  who  adolescents  emotionally others  are likely  The  third  subjects  Therefore,  finding  scored  when s e l f  males were l o n e l i e r that  adolescent  experience  from peers  virtually  However, females  of loneliness.  lower  concept than  i n self  females.  loneliness  This  female  further  imply  scores.  controlled, finding  than  when s e l f  a n d home s t r u c t u r e a r e e q u a l .  among  and  concept.  were  factors  there  isolated  i n loneliness  scores  likely  loneliness.  m a l e s a r e more l i k e l y  heightened  would  In turn,  was m a l e a n d  equal  encourage  and s i g n i f i c a n t  t o be e x p e r i e n c i n g  major  scored  w i t h peers  appear t o be s o c i a l l y  disconnected  academic  atmospheres which  and i n t e r a c t i o n  help t o alleviate  than  This  implies  females  to  concept would  a r e gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n l o n e l i n e s s  adolescents. The  living  f o u r t h major  finding  i n single parent  lonelier  than  their  was t h a t  households were  peers  households.  This  factors  as number o f p a r e n t s  such  household loneliness  finding  living  are reliable  implies that  indicators  i n adolescents.  i n two  adolescents significantly parent situational  i n the adolescents of increased r i s k f o r  90.  The  fifth  adolescents score  major  finding  was t h e s t r o n g t r e n d f o r  f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a s e c o n d l a n g u a g e t o  considerably g r e a t e r i n l o n e l i n e s s than  whom E n g l i s h i s a f i r s t from t h i s  finding  inclusion  and emotional  difficult.  language.  that these  Therefore,  loneliness  with peers  I t c o u l d be assumed  adolescents  find  social  connectedness with peers as w i t h  social  atmospheres t h a t encourage s o c i a l interaction  peers f o r  self  concept,  inclusion  would be c r u c i a l  among E n g l i s h a s a s e c o n d  more  and p o s i t i v e  i n alleviating  language  adolescents.  Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h  Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h possible modification of this for  c u r r e n t study  self  concept  t o modify  this  considerably  longer  used i n t h i s  study.  beneficial order  study's  i n items  I I I (Marsh,  than  t o employ t h e o r i g i n a l  t o extract greater detail  full  f o c u s on  The o r i g i n a l 1984)  the modified  In future research  results.  design  and f r i e n d s h i p measures.  Self Description Questionnaire  in  and areas  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a s s o c i a t e d t o t h e study Suggestions  the  include  i s  version  i t may b e length  instrument  of the subjects'  self  91.  concept. original the  In regards instrument  to the  sociogram  c o u l d be  i m p r o v e d upon by  component o f number o f c o n t a c t s w i t h  Because t h i s  was  an  open ended response  were a l a r g e number o f e x t r e m e skewed t h e be  distribution.  beneficial  open ended. c o u l d be  reliably  understanding  of  study,  concept  aspect  a study  results  of t h i s  social study  the  concept.  indicating  the  self  strong  concept  and  w o u l d be  appropriate.  However,  a  employing necessary  the  negative adolescent  that interventions  constructs i n lonely  w o u l d be  positive  Because of  improve these  1979)  would  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  aimed at encouraging self  self  interest  aimed t o  intervention  our  research associated to  particular  i t w o u l d seem l o g i c a l  (Cook & C a m p b e l l ,  others  f u r t h e r enhance  i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l  Of  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l loneliness  relationships with  o f new  the  a focus.  investigating  esteem and  of  response  loneliness.  intervention techniques self  there  greatly  l e a v i n g the  m e a s u r e d i t may  e x p a n d i n g on  c o u l d be  question  subjects with a representative  In reference to areas this  reworking  f u t u r e research i t would  to rather than  If this  this  friends.  scores, which  For  to provide  range t o respond  be  questionnaire  "true"  adolescents  experiment  strategies  to establish  of their  92.  effectiveness. Future  research involving  w o u l d a l s o be the  lives  of  interest.  an  important  developing policies segregation relation  issues.  to self  more i m p o r t a n t  are  students  loneliness plays i n  segregated  examined.  from  peers  emotional  This type  of  data  consideration f o r schools  towards student As  the  concept,  than  role  needs  psychological or  d i f f e r e n c e s n e e d s t o be w o u l d be  The  o f a d o l e s c e n t s who  because of p h y s i c a l ,  special  study  social  academic  integration  results aspects  aspects.  versus  indicate  in  of school  The  are  emotional  impact  of s e g r e g a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o academic a b i l i t y  likely  t o have a n e g a t i v e  Another loneliness different  interesting  w o u l d be types  the type  type  approach  a study  and  c o u l d be  effectiveness.  concept.  for future research  There  are  strategies.  on  between  distinctions  chronic loneliness,  in intervention  of loneliness,  self  that distinguishes  of l o n e l i n e s s .  between t r a n s i t o r y differences  i n f l u e n c e on  is  By  and  therefore  identifying  interventions specific  employed a c c o r d i n g l y t o e s t a b l i s h  to  each  their  Conclusion  B a s e d on  the  results  of t h i s  g e n d e r , number o f p a r e n t s related  to loneliness.  factors  are  working  with lonely  further  clarifying  and  important  and  The  social self  ethnicity  results  are  suggest  concept,  variables that  these  considerations for counsellors  adolescents. the  these variables,  intervention  study  Future  relationship  and  strategies,  their  between  importance  w o u l d be  research loneliness  i n regards  beneficial.  to  94.  REFERENCES  A i n s w o r t h , M.D.S., B l e h a r , M.C., W a t e r s , E. & W a l l , S. (1978) . Patterns of attachment. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Anderson, C A . & A r n o u l t , L.H. (1985a) . Attribution models o f d e p r e s s i o n , l o n e l i n e s s and shyness. In J . H a r v e y & G. W e a r y (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : Basic i s s u e s and a p p l i c a t i o n s (pp. 2 3 5 - 2 7 9 ) . Orlando: Academic P r e s s . Anderson, C A . & A r n o u l t , L.M. (1985b) . Attributional s t y l e and everyday p r o b l e m s i n l i v i n g : Depression, l o n e l i n e s s and shyness. S o c i a l C o g n i t i o n . JL, 1 6 - 3 5 . A s h e r , S.R., H y m e l , A. & R e n s h a w , P.D. (1984). Loneliness i n children. C h i l d h o o d Development. 1456-1464.  5_5_,  A s h e r , S.R. & W h e e l e r , V.A. (1985). C h i l d r e n ' s loneliness: A c o m p a r i s o n o f r e j e c t e d and n e g l e c t e d peer s t a t u s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5.1 ( 4 ) , 5 0 0 - 5 0 5 . B e r g , J . H. & P e p l a u , L. A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Loneliness: The r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and adrogyny. P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 8. ( 4 ) , 6 2 4 - 6 3 0 . B l i s h e n , B.R. C a r r o l l , W.K. & M o o r e , C. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . The 1981 s o c i o - e c o n o m i c i n d e x f o r o c c u p a t i o n s i n C a n a d a . Canadian Review o f S o c i o l o g y and A n t h r o p o l o g y . 2A, (4), 465-488. B o r y s , S. & P e r l m a n , D. (1985). l o n e l i n e s s . P e r s o n a l i t y and B u l l e t i n . 2 ( l ) , 63-74.  Gender d i f f e r e n c e s Social Psychology  Bowlby, J . (1969). A t t a c h m e n t and l o s s . V o l . I . Attachment. New Y o r k : B a s i c Books.  in  95.  Bowlby, J . (1973). Attachment and l o s s . V o l . I I . Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J . (1980). Attachment and l o s s . V o l . I I I . Loss: Sadness and d e p r e s s i o n . New York: Basic Books. Brennan, T. (1982) . L o n e l i n e s s at adolescence. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.) . L o n e l i n e s s : A source book of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 269 - 290). New York: John Wiley and Son. Brennan, T. & Auslander, N. (1979) . Adolescent loneliness; An e x p l o r a t o r y study of s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e - d i s p o s i t i o n s and theory (Vol. I ) . Prepared f o r the N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of Mental Health, J u v e n i l e Problems D i v i s i o n (Grant No. ROI-MH 289 12-01). Boulder, Colorado: B e h a v i o r a l Research Institute. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). A l i e n a t i o n and the four worlds of childhood. P h i D e l t a Kappan, £1, 430-436. Charlton, J . (1987). S e l f concept and locus of c o n t r o l : A study of intermediate and secondary students with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Unpublished Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. C h a t t e r j e e , S. & P r i c e , B. by example. New York:  (1977). Regression a n a l y s i s John Wiley & Son.  Cook, & Campbell, D.T. (1979) . Ouasi-Experi mentation. New York: Rand McNally. C z i k s z e n t m i h a l y i , M. & Larson, R. (1984) . Being adolescent: C o n f l i c t and growth i n the teenage years. New York: Basic Books.  96.  France, M.H., McDowell, C. & Knowles, D. (1984) . Understanding and coping with l o n e l i n e s s . School Counselor, l i , 11-17. F r a n k l , V.E. (1963) . Man's search f o r meaning. York: Washington Square P r e s s .  New  F r a n z o i , S. & Davis, M. (1985). Adolescent s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and l o n e l i n e s s : P r i v a t e s e l f consciousness and p a r e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. ASL, 768-780. F i t t s , W.H. (1965) . Tennessee S e l f Concept S c a l e . N a s h v i l l e , Tennessee: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Fromm-Reichman, F. 1-15.  (1959).  Loneliness.  Psychiatry, 2 2 ,  Gergen, K.J. & Gergen, M.M. (1981) . S o c i a l psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanich, Inc. Gergen, K.J. & Gergen, M.M. (1986) . S o c i a l psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Springer V e r l a g Inc. Gerson, A.C. & Perlman, D. (1979) . Loneliness and expressive communication. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology M , 258-261. f  Goswick, R.A. & Jones, W.H. concept and adjustment. 237-240.  (1981) . Loneliness, s e l f J o u r n a l of Psychology, iQ_l,  Goswick, R.A. & Jones, W.H. (1982) . Components of l o n e l i n e s d u r i n g adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, i i , (5), 373-383. Hojat, M. (1982) . L o n e l i n e s s as a f u n c t i o n of parentc h i l d and peer r e l a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Psychology, 112 129-133. f  97 .  H o j a t , M. (1987). A psychodynamic view o f l o n e l i n e s s . I n M. H o j a t & R. C r a n d a l l ( E d s . ) , L o n e l i n e s s : Theory, research and a p p l i c a t i o n s . [Special issue]. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l B e h a v i o r a n d P e r s o n a l i t y , 2, (2, p a r t 2 ) , 89-104. H o r o w i t z , L.M. & F r e n c h , R. (1979). Interpersonal p r o b l e m s o f p e o p l e who d e s c r i b e t h e m s e l v e s a s lonely. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 17, ( 4 ) , 762-764. H o r o w i t z , L.M., F r e n c h , R. & A n d e r s o n , C. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person. I n L . A . P e p l a u & D. P e r l m a n , (Eds.) L o n e l i n e s s : A sourcebook o f current theory, research and therapy (pp.183-205). New York: John W i l e y and Son. K e g a n , R. (1982) . T h e e v o l v i n g s e l f : Problem a n d p r o c e s s i n human d e v e l o p m e n t . C a m b r i d g e , MA: Harvard University Press. Lai,  C. (1986). UBC S P S S X : S t a t i s t i c a l package f o r t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s e x t e n d e d v e r s i o n r e l e a s e 2.Q ( u n d e r MTS) . V a n c o u v e r : University of B r i t i s h Columbia.  M a r s h , H.W. (1987) . T h e s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SDQ) I I I : A t h e o r e t i c a l a n d e m p e r j c a l b a s i s f o r t h e measurement o f m u l t i p l e d i m e n s i o n s o f l a t e adolescent s e l f concept: An i n t e r m t e s t m a n u a l a n d a r e s e a r c h monograph. Preliminary draft submitted for publication. M a r s h , M. & O ' N e i l l , R. (1984) . S e l f d e s c r i p t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I : The c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y o f m u l t i dimensional self-concept r a t i n g s by l a t e adolescents. J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, 21, ( 2 ) , 153-164.  98 . Middleton-Moz, J . & Dwinell, L . (1986) . A f t e r the teats; R e c l a i m i n g the p e r s o n a l l o s s e s of c h i l d h o o d . Pompano B e a c h , F l o r i d a : H e a l t h Communications, Inc. Nelson, L . R . (1974). G u i d e t o LERTAP use and interpretation. D u n e d i n , New Z e a l a n d : University of Otago. Peplau, L . A . & Caldwell, M.A. (1978) . Loneliness: cognitive analysis. E s s e n c e , Z, (4), 2 0 7 - 2 2 0 .  A  P e p l a u , L . A . , M i c e l i , M . & M o r a s c h , B . (1982). L o n e l i n e s s and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . In L . A . P e p l a u & D . Perlman ( E d s . ) , L o n e l i n e s s : A s o u r c e book o f c u r r e n t t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and t h e r a p y (pp. 1 3 5 - 1 5 1 ) . New Y o r k : John W i l e y and S o n . P e p l a u , L . A . & Perlman, D. (1979). Blueprint for s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory of l o n e l i n e s s . In M . Cook & G . W i l s o n ( E d s . ) L o v e and a t t r a c t i o n . Oxford, England: Pergamon P r e s s . Perlman, D. & J o s h i , P . (1987). R e v e l a t i o n of loneliness. In M . H o j a t & R. C r a n d a l l ( E d s . ) , Loneliness: T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and a p p l i c a t i o n s [Special E d i t i o n ] . J o u r n a l o f s o c i a l B e h a v i o r and P e r s o n a l i t y , ?, (2, p a r t 2 ) , 6 3 - 7 6 . Perlman, D. & P e p l a u , L . A . (1982) . Theoretical approaches to l o n e l i n e s s . In L . A . P e p l a u & D . Perlman ( E d s . ) , L o n e l i n e s s : A sourcebook o f c u r r e n t t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and t h e r a p y (pp. 1 2 3 - 1 3 4 ) . New York: John W i l e y and S o n . R a p p a p o r t , L . (1972) . P e r s o n a l i t y development: TJas. chronology of experience. Illinois: Scott, Foresman. Rook, K . S . (1984). Promoting s o c i a l Strategies for helping the l o n e l y  bonding: and s o c i a l l y  99. isolated.  American P s y c h o l o g i s t .  39,  1389-1407.  Rubenstein, C M . & Shaver, P. (1982). The e x p e r i n e c e of l o n e l i n e s s . In L . A . P e p l a u & D. P e r l m a n , ( E d s . ) Loneliness: A sourcebook o f c u r r e n t t h e o r y r e s e a r c h and t h e r a p y (pp.206-223). New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Son. r  Rubin, Z. (1982). C h i l d r e n without f r i e n d s . In L . A . Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.) Loneliness: A sourcebook o f c u r r e n t t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and t h e r a p y (pp.123-134). New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y and S o n . Russell, D . , Peplau, L . A . & Cutrona, C E . (1980). The revised U . C . L . A . Loneliness Scale: C o n c u r r e n t and discriminant v a l i d i t y evident. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 21 (3), 472-480. S a d l e r , W.A. & Johnson, T . B . (1980). From l o n e l i n e s s anomia. In J . H a r t o g , J . R . Andy & Y . A . Cohen (Eds.). The anatomy o f l o n e l i n e s s (pp. 3 4 - 6 5 ) . New Y o r k : International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press.  to  S c h u l t z , N . R . & Moore, D . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Further reflections on l o n e l i n e s s r e s e a r c h : Commentary on W e i s s ' s assessment o f l o n e l i n e s s r e s e a r c h . In M. H o j a t & R. Crandall (Eds.), Loneliness: T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and applications. [Special i s s u e ] . Journal of S o c i a l B e h a v i o r and P e r s o n a l i t y . 2, (2, p a r t 2) 3 7 - 4 0 . S e a r s , D . O . , Freedman, J . L . & P e p l a u , L . A . (1985). Social Psychology. I n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice H a l l , Inc. S h a r e l s o n , R . J . , Hubner, J . J . & S t a n t o n , G . C . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . V a l i d a t i o n of construct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Review o f Educational Research, M , 407-441. Shaver, P. love:  & Hazan, C . (1987). Being lonely, f a l l i n g i n P e r s p e c t i v e s from a t t a c h m e n t t h e o r y . In M .  100 .  H o j a t & R. C r a n d a l l ( E d s . ) , L o n e l i n e s s : Theory, research and a p p l i c a t i o n s . [Special edition]. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l B e h a v i o r a n d P e r s o n a l i t y . 2 , (2, p a r t 2) 1 0 5 - 1 2 4 . S o l a n o , C H . (1987) . L o n e l i n e s s a n d p e r c e p t i o n s o f control: General t r a i t s versus s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t i o n s . I n M. H o j a t & R. C r a n d a l l ( E d s . ) , Loneliness: Theory, r e s e a r c h and a p p l i c a t i o n s . [Special edition]. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l B e h a v i o r and P e r s o n a l i t y , 2 , (2, p a r t 2 ) , 201-214. S u e d f e l d , P. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Aloneness as a h e a l i n g experience. I n L . A . P e p l a u & D. P e r l m a n (Eds), L o n e l i n e s s : A sourcebook o f c u r r e n t t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h and t h e r a p y (pp. 5 4 - 8 0 ) . New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Son. S u l l i v a n , H. S. psychiatry.  (1953). The i n t e r p e r s o n a l t h e o r y o f New Y o r k : W.W. N o r t o n a n d Company.  W a t k i n s , M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I n v i s i b l e g u e s t s : The d e v e l o p m e n t o f i m a a i n a l d i a l o g u e s . H i l l s d a l e , New J e r s e y : A n a l y t i c P r e s s , Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s I n c . W i l l i a m s , E.G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) , A d o l e s c e n t A d o l e s c e n c e , 1&, ( 6 9 ) , 5 1 - 6 6 . W i l l m s , J.D. 1988).  loneliness.  (Personal communication,  D e c e m b e r 5,  Wood, L . A . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . L o n e l i n e s s , s o c i a l i d e n t i t y a n d s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . E s s e n c e , Z, 2 5 9 - 2 7 0 . Wood, L . A . & H a n n e l , L . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . L o n e l i n e s s i n adolescence. Unpublished manuscript. University of Guelph, O n t a r i o , Canada.  APPENDIX CONSENT TO  A  PARTICIPATE  FORM  102 .  Kathy Harward Graduate Student (Master of A r t s ) U n i v e r s i t y of B.C.  Dear  Re:  Dr. R i c h a r d Young Dept. of C o u n s e l l i n g  Psychology  University  Columbia  of B r i t i s h  Parent/Guardian:  Survey Study of "Adolescent L o n e l i n e s s "  This l e t t e r i s a request f o r permission to allow your son/daughter to take part i n a s o c i a l sciences research s t u d y on a d o l e s c e n t l o n e l i n e s s , a t s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s i n Surrey. This study of adolescent l o n e l i n e s s i s being conducted by Dr. R i c h a r d Young and K a t h y H a r w a r d , g r a d u a t e student, from the department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. We f e e l t h e r e i s a n e e d f o r r e s e a r c h e r s , c o u n s e l l o r s , and t e a c h e r s t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d a d o l e s c e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e o f loneliness. Taking part i n t h i s study w i l l a l s o a s s i s t the a d o l e s c e n t s t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e m s e l v e s and t h e i r f e e l i n g s of l o n e l i n e s s . The s t u d y c o n s i s t s o f c o m p l e t i n g f o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w h i c h w i l l r e q u i r e one h o u r o f y o u r s o n ' s / d a u g h t e r ' s classroom time. A f t e r completion of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , t i m e w i l l a l s o be p r o v i d e d f o r y o u r s o n / d a u g h t e r t o ask questions or to discuss the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s with the researcher. The f o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o f t h e s t u d y c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y of a subject i n f o r m a t i o n sheet, a self-concept questionnaire, a loneliness questionnaire, and a c l a s s r o o m sociogram q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h asks students to describe t h e i r classroom f r i e n d s h i p s . T h i s s t u d y i s b e i n g c o n d u c t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l by and permission from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia E t h i c s Committee, Surrey School D i s t r i c t , you s o n ' s / d a u g h t e r ' s s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l , as w e l l as t h e  APPENDIX WRITTEN  INSTRUCTIONS  B TO  PARTICIPANTS  105 .  Kathy Harward UBC G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s  Re:  DR. UBC  R i c h a r d Young Supervisor  "Adolescent L o n e l i n e s s "  The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e p a r t o f a s u r v e y study o f a d o l e s c e n t l o n e l i n e s s . P a s t r e s e a r c h has f o u n d t h a t l o n e l i n e s s i s more i n t e n s e d u r i n g a d o l e s c e n c e and e a r l y a d u l t h o o d t h a n a t any o t h e r t i m e i n o u r l i v e s . There a r e two m a j o r p u r p o s e s t o t h i s s t u d y . The f i r s t i s t o c l a r i f y our u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e e x p e r i e n c e of l o n e l i n e s s f o r a d o l e s c e n t s , and t h e second i s t o gather i n f o r m a t i o n so t h a t c o u n s e l l o r s can p r o v i d e h e l p f u l guidance for adolescents experiencing d i f f i c u l t i e s with loneliness. T h e r e a r e a t o t a l o f f o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o be c o m p l e t e d by e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e s t u d y . The first q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s a subject i n f o r m a t i o n sheet which covers background information of a l l subjects t a k i n g p a r t i n the study. The s e c o n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s a s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n questionnaire to i n v e s t i g a t e your f e e l i n g s about y o u r s e l f and your r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r s . The t h i r d questionnaire i s a l o n e l i n e s s scale which surveys y o u r f e e l i n g s o f a l o n e n e s s a n d l o n e l i n e s s . The f i n a l questionnaire i s a classroom sociogram which gathers i n f o r m a t i o n about your f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h other students in your class. I t i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t you r e s p o n d t o t h e questions and s t a t e m e n t s on a l l f o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y and h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e . P l e a s e don't be t e m p t e d t o a n s w e r a c c o r d i n g t o what you t h i n k i s a d e s i r e d response; honesty of response i s very important. The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s confidential. Y o u r names a r e t h e r e f o r e , the of t h i s survey  n o t t o be u s e d on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ; i n f o r m a t i o n i s anonymous. The i n t e n t i o n i s to gather i n f o r m a t i o n to determine a  106.  p a t t e r n o f response, not t o s i n g l e out or examine individual taking part. In t o t a l , the four q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l r e q u i r e one h o u r o r l e s s t o complete.  any  A l l s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r i n g t a k i n g p a r t i n t h i s study have t h e r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o t a k e p a r t a t any t i m e , o r r e f u s e t o answer any q u e s t i o n on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n or n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study will h a v e n o c o n s e q u e n c e o n y o u r c l a s s s t a n d i n g i n a n y way. I t w i l l be assumed t h a t c o n s e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e study i s g i v e n upon c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Sincerely,  Kathy Harward  APPENDIX SUBJECT  C  INFORMATION  SHEET  108 .  The q u e s t i o n s o n t h i s s h e e t a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e B a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n on s t u d e n t s t a k i n g p a r t i n t h i s survey. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r t o work out averages. T h e r e f o r e , no one p e r s o n w i l l be s i n g l e d out or i d e n t i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . P l e a s e answer e a c h q u e s t i o n s as h o n e s t l y and a c c u r a t e l y as p o s s i b l e .  1. 2. 3.  Age: Years Gender: Male W h i c h l a n g u a g e do  4.  Which of the h o u s e h o l d as  you  Months: . Female: . most o f t e n speak at  following people live your? (Mark a l l t h a t  i n t h e same apply.)  Yes Mother Other female quardian (step/ f o s t e r mother) Father Other Male quardian (step/foster father) S i s t e r (s) ( s t e p s i s t e r ( s ) / h a l f s i s t e r (s) ) Brothers(s) (stepbrother(s)/ half-brother(s) ) Grandparent(s) Other adults  home  No  109.  5.  I t would be h e l p f u l t o get some i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e jobs most r e c e n t l y h e l d by y o u r mother and father (parents, guardians or step-parents with whom you l i v e ) . P l e a s e choose a category below t h a t best d e s c r i b e s t h e i r most recent jobs. (Mark ONE f o r EACH p a r e n t . ) MOTHER  CLERICAL, such as bank t e l l e r , bookkeeper secretary, t y p i s t , mail c a r r i e r  CRAFTSMAN, such as automobile mechanic m a c h i n i s t , p a i n t e r , plumber, c a r p e n t e r FARMER, FARM MANAGER LABOURER, such as c o n s t r u c t i o n car washer, farm l a b o u r e r  worker,  MANAGER, ADMINISTRATOR, such as o f f i c e / r e s t a u r a n t / s a l e s manager, s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r , buyer, government o f f i c i a l MILITARY, such as c a r e e r o f f i c e r , l i s t e d man o r waman i n the Armed F o r c e s OPERATIVE, such as meat c u t t e r , machine operator, welder, t a x i / b u s / t r u c k d r i v e r PROFESSIONAL, such as accountant, a r t i s t r e g i s t e r e d nurse, engineer, l i b r a r i a n , w r i t e r , s o c i a l worker, a c t o r / a c t r e s s , athlete, p o l i t i c i a n , school teacher PROFESSIONAL, such as clergyman, d e n t i s t , p h y s i c i a n , lawyer, s c i e n t i s t , c o l l e g e teacher PROPRIETOR OR OWNER, such as owner o f a small business, contractor PROTECTIVE SERVICE, such as d e t e c t i v e , p o l i c y o f f i c e r o r guard, s h e r i f f , f i r e fighter  FATHE.R  110 .  MOTHER  SALES, such as s a l e s p e r s o n , a d v e r t i s i n g o r insurance agent, r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r SERVICE, such as barber, b e a u t i c i a n , p r a c t i c a l nurse, j a n i t o r , w a i t e r / w a i t r e s s TECHNICAL, such as draftsman, m e d i c a l o r d e n t a l t e c h n i c i a n , computer programmer NEVER WORKED NOT LIVING AT HOME DON'T KNOW OTHER (write i n )  FATHER  Ill.  APPENDIX SELF  DESCRIPTION  D  QUESTIONNAIRE  III  112 .  This questionnaire i s made up of a number of a number of statements about the way people f e e l about themselves. Each represents a commonly h e l d opionion, and there are no r i g h t or wrong answers. Please read each statement c a r e f u l l y and c i r c l e the number of the response which i s c l o s e s t to how t r u e or how f a l s e the statement i s f o r you p e r s o n a l l y . NOTE; A s t e r i s k * i n d i c a t e s r e v e r s e  polarity.  d e f i n i t e l y false/mostly false/mostly t r u e / d e f i n i t e l y true 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! SAMPLE a  1.  2.  I l i k e summer h o l i d a y s . 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  I f i n d many mathematical problems i n t e r e s t i n g and challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  O v e r a l l , I have a l o t o f r e s p e c t f o r myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6  8  7  3.  I often t e l l 1 2 3  4.  I get a l o t of a t t e n t i o n from members o f the opposite sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  5.  I have t r o u b l e e x p r e s s i n g myself when t r y i n g t o w r i t e something. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I am u s u a l l y p r e t t y calm and r e l a x e d . 1 2 3 4 5  8  6.  7.  8.  s m a l l l i e s t o a v o i d embarrassing s i t u a t i o n s . 4 5 6 7 8  6  7  I h a r d l y ever saw t h i n g s t h e same way as my parents was growing up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I enjoy doing work f o r most academic s u b j e c t s .  when I 8  113.  d e f i n i t e l y false/mostly 1 2 3 4  false/mostly t r u e / d e f i n i t e l y true 5 6 7 8  9.  I am never able t o t h i n k up answers t o problems t h a t haven't a l r e a d y been f i g u r e d out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  10.  I have a p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e body. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  8  11.  I have few f r i e n d s o f the same sex who I can r e a l l y count on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  12.  I am a good a t h l e t e . 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  13.  I have h e s i t a t e d t o take courses t h a t i n v o l v e mathematics.  14.  Overall, I lack 1 2 3  15.  16.  17.  18.  self-confidence. 4 5  People can always r e l y on me. 1 2 3 4 I find i t difficult I like. 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  6  7  8  t o meet members o f the opposite  sex whom  5  6  7  8  I can w r i t e e f f e c t i v e l y . 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  I worry a l o t . 1 2 3  5  6  7  8  4  19.  I would l i k e t o b r i n g up c h i l d r e n o f my own ( i f I have any) as my parents r a i s e d me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  20.  I hate studying 1 2 3  21.  f o r many academic s u b j e c t s . 4 5 6  I am good at combining ideas tried. 1 2 3 4  7  8  i n ways t h a t others have not 5  6  7  8  114 .  d e f i n i t e l y false/mostly false/mostly t r u e / d e f i n i t e l y true 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 22.  I am u g l y . 1 2  3  4  5  6  7  23.  I am comfortable t a l k i n g t o members o f t h e same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  24.  I am awkward and p o o r l y c o - o r d i n a t e d a t most s p o r t s and physical a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  25.  I have g e n e r a l l y done b e t t e r i n mathematics courses other c o u r s e s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  26.  O v e r a l l , I am p r e t t y a c c e p t i n g o f myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6  27.  Being honest  i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y  important  28.  1 have l o t s o f f r i e n d s of the o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6  than  7 t o me.  7  29.  R e l a t i v e t o most people, my v e r b a l s k i l l s are q u i t e good.  30.  I am happy most of the time. 1 2 3 4  31.  32.  33.  34.  35.  5  6  7  8  I s t i l l have many u n r e s o l v e d c o n f l i c t s with my p a r e n t s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I l i k e most academic s u b j e c t s . 1 2 3 4  8  5  6  7  I wish I had more i m a g i n a t i o n and o r i g i n a l i t y . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I have a good body b u i l d . 1 2 3 4  8  5  6  7  I don't get along very w e l l w i t h o t h e r members o f the same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  115.  d e f i n i t e l y false/mostly false/mostly t r u e / d e f i n i t e l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * 36.  * 37.  * 38.  39.  * 40.  * 41.  * 42.  * 43.  * 44.  45.  * 46.  47.  I hate sports and p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 5 I have t r o u b l e understanding a n y t h i n g mathematics. 1 2 3 4 5 O v e r a l l , I don't have much r e s p e c t 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  8  7  8  f o r myself. 6 7  8  Most of my f r i e n d s a r e more c o m f o r t a b l e o p p o s i t e sex than I am. 1 2 3 4 5  6  6  7  8  with members o f the 6  7  8  I o f t e n have t o read t h i n g s s e v e r a l times before them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  5  !  t h a t i s based upon  I n e a r l y always t e l l the t r u t h . 1 2 3 4 5  I am anxious much of the time. 1 2 3 4  true  6  I understand 8  ' 7  My parents have u s u a l l y been unhappy o r d i s a p p o i n t e d what I do and have done. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have t r o u b l e with most academic s u b j e c t s . 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  I enjoy working out new ways o f s o l v i n g problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8 with 8  8  8  There are l o t s o f t h i n g s about t h e way I look t h a t I would l i k e t o change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I make f r i e n d s e a s i l y with members of t h e same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  48.  I have a high energy l e v e l i n s p o r t s and p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  49.  I am q u i t e good at mathematics.  116.  definitely false/mostly false/mostly true/definitely true 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 50.  51.  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  O v e r a l l , I have a l o t o f s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . 1 2 3 4 5 6  7  8  I sometimes take t h i n g s t h a t do not belong t o me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  52.  I am comfortable t a l k i n g t o members o f the o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  53.  I am good at e x p r e s s i n g myself. 1 2 3 4 5  6  7  8  I h a r d l y ever f e e l 1 2 3 4  6  7  8  My values are s i m i l a r t o those o f my p a r e n t s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I'm good a t most academic s u b j e c t s . 1 2 3 4 5  8  54.  55.  56.  depressed. 5  6  57.  Im not much good a t p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g .  58.  My body weight skinny) 1 2  59. *  61.  62.  right  3  4  ( n e i t h e r too f a t not t o o 5  6  1  Other members o f t h e same sex f i n d me b o r i n g . 2 3 4 5 6  1  I am poor at most s p o r t s and p h y s i c a l 2 3 4 5  60. *  i s about  7  7  activities. 6 7  I have always done w e l l i n mathematics c l a s s e s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 O v e r a l l , n o t h i n g t h a t I do i s v e r y  7  important.  7  117 .  d e f i n i t e l y false/mostly false/mostly t r u e / d e f i n i t e l y true 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ! 63.  64.  65.  66.  67.  I never cheat. 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  I am q u i t e shy with members o f the o p p o s i t e sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  In s c h o o l , I had more t r o u b l e l e a r n i n g t o read than most other students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I tend t o be h i g h - s t r u n g , tense and r e s t l e s s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I l i k e my p a r e n t s . 1 2 3  4  5  6  7  8  68.  I'm not p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n most academic s u b j e c t s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  69.  I am an i m a g i n a t i v e 1 2 3 4  70.  71.  72.  73.  74.  person.  I d i s l i k e the way I l o o k . 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  8  5  6  7  8  I share l o t s o f a c t i v i t i e s with members of the same sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I enjoy s p o r t s and p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . 1 2 3 4 5  8  6  7  O v e r a l l , I have p r e t t y n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s about myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  I am a very honest 1 2 3 4  8  person. 5  6  7  75.  I would f e e l OK about c h e a t i n g on a t e s t as long as I d i d not get caught. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  76.  O v e r a l l , I have p r e t t y p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  8  APPENDIX LONELINESS  E SCALE  119.  Directions: I n d i c a t e how o f t e n you f e e l the way d e s c r i b e d i n each of the f o l l o w i n g statements. C i r c l e one number f o r each. Never ESialy. Sometimes Often 1.  I f e e l i n tune w i t h the people around me.  1  2  3  2.  I l a c k companionship.  1  2  3  *  3.  There i s no one I can t u r n t o .  1  *  4.  I do not f e e l a l o n e .  1  2  3  5.  I f e e l p a r t of a group of f r i e n d s .  1  2  3  6.  I have a l o t i n common with the people around me.  1  2  3  7.  I am no longer c l o s e t o anyone.  1  2  3  8.  My  *  2  3  i n t e r e s t s and ideas are not  shared by those around me.  1  I am an outgoing person.  1  2  3  10.  There are people I f e e l c l o s e t o .  1  2  3  11.  I f e e l l e f t out.  1  2  3  My s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p are superficial.  1  2  3  No one r e a l l y knows me w e l l .  1  2  3  I feel isolated  1  2  3  9.  * 12 . ,  *  13. *14.  from o t h e r s .  Note: A s t e r i s k * marks r e v e r s e p o l a r i t y * 15. I can f i n d companionship when I want i t .  2  3  questions. 1  2  3  120 .  Never RarelySometimes 16.  There are people who understand me.  Often  really 1  2  3  4  I am unhappy b e i n g so withdrawn.  1  2  3  4  People are around me but not with me.  1  2  3  4  19.  There are people I can t a l k t o .  1  2  3  4  20.  There are people I can t u r n t o .  1  3  4  17. *18.  2  APPENDIX SOCIOGRAM  F  QUESTIONNAIRE  122 .  I n t h e l e f t - h a n d c o l u m n b e l o w , l i s t t h e names o f p e o p l e i n t h i s c l a s s whom y o u f e e l c o n n e c t e d t o o n a p e r s o n a l l e v e l , o r whom y o u c o n s i d e r a s f r i e n d s . They may b e p e o p l e y o u m e e t w i t h a f t e r s c h o o l , f r i e n d s y o u t a l k t o , people you play sports with, o r study w i t h , o r other similar a c t i v i t i e s . Y o u may l i s t a n y n u m b e r o f p e o p l e you wish, up t o a l i m i t o f t e n . P l e a s e u s e o n l y t h e i r f i r s t name a n d l a s t i n i t i a l o n t h e l i s t . A f t e r y o u h a v e l i s t e d t h e i r names i n t h e l e f t - h a n d c o l u m n , t h e n d e c i d e how c l o s e y o u f e e l t o e a c h p e r s o n , u s i n g t h e numbers i n t h e m i d d l e column. Based on t h e f o u r - p o i n t s c a l e , ranging from 1 (not close) t o 4 (very c l o s e ) , c i r c l e t h e n u m b e r b e s i d e e a c h p e r s o n ' s name w h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e s how c l o s e y o u f e e l t o t h a t p e r s o n . F i n a l l y , i n t h e t h i r d column, t h i n k about t h e n u m b e r o f t i m e o v e r t h e p a s t s e v e n days t h a t y o u h a v e spent time with each person you've l i s t e d . I f y o u know t h e e x a c t number o f t i m e s , t h a t ' s f i n e ; b u t , i f n o t , g i v e a n a p p r o x i m a t e number ( e s t i m a t e — p l e a s e b e a s honest and accurate as p o s s i b l e ) . The t i m e s p e n t t o g e t h e r would i n c l u d e doing a c t i v i t i e s such as those l i s t e d i n t h e f i r s t paragraph (e.g., t a l k i n g , p l a y i n g sports, studying, meeting with, etc.) .  123. Example.; a.  Martha  1 2  1 = not c l o s e 2 = casual 4 = very c l o s e  N  a  m  e  3  4  times  acquaintance  Closeness  a  3 = close  Time Spent Together During Past 7 Days  . —  __ . . ___  —  .  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  1  2  3  4  times  '  times  APPENDIX LONELINESS  SCALE  G  RESPONSE  PROFILE  125 .  Loneliness Scale Statement  Response Mean  Number of Responses to Statement N«v«r(l)  Rar«ly(2) Son»tim«s(3)  Often(4)  3  10  74  78  3.41  2. I l a c k companionship.  39  65  42  19  2.29  3. There i s no one I can turn to.  79  42  25  20  1.92  26  38  44  57  2.84  103  3.49  I f e e l i n tune with the people around me.  I do not f e e l alone. I f e e l part of a group o f f r i e n d s .  15  I have alot i n common with the people me. 7. I am no longer close t o anyone.  5  18  60  83  3.33  84  38  25  18  1.90  42  56  47  21  2.28  15  60  82  3.34  10  40  112  3.57  S. My i n t e r e s t and ideas are not shared by those around me. 9. I am an outgoing person. 10. There are people I f e e l close to. 11. I f e e l l e f t out.  43  57  49  17  2.24  12. My s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p are s u p e r f i c i a l .  31  67  50  18  2.33  13. No one r e a l l y knows me w e l l .  35  62  44  25  2.36  14. I f e e l i s o l a t e d from o t h e r s .  62  40  51  13  2.09  9  15  57  85  3.13  16. There are people who r e a l l y understand me.  13  20  56  77  3.19  17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn.  60  40  42  22  2.24  18. People are around me but not with me.  31  64  50  21  2.37  19. There are people I can t a l k t o .  4  10  31  121  3.62  20. There are people I can turn to.  6  9  31  120  3.60  15. I can f i n d companionship when I want i t .  T o t a l Sample Mean 38.34 Standard D e v i a t i o n 10.49  APPENDIX CORRELATION  H  COEFFICIENTS  VARIABLES  WITH  OF BACKGROUND  LONELINESS  Correlation Coefficients of Background V a r i a b l e s w i t h L o n e l i n e s s  Age  Loneliness  Gender  Language  .0034  .0098  .0921  -.0968  (165)  (165)  (163)  (147)  p=.483  *  Significance £  <  p=.450  .05  p=.121  Mother's Father's Occupational Occupational Prestige Prestige  p=.122  -.0783 (141) p=.178  Number of Parents  -.1482* (165) p=.029  APPENDIX PROFILE  OF  PARENT'S  I  OCCUPATIONAL  AND MEAN L O N E L I N E S S  PRESTIGE  SCORES  129 .  P a r e n t 3 Occupational Category  N  Occupational Prestige Score  3 17 1 23 17 1 2 12 11 4 10 19 4 12 4  22 .08 28 .82 39 .97 34 .90 36 .35 37 .27 37 .57 38 .62 44 .34 44 .62 45 .72 50 .88 51 .94 58 .18 62 .63  50 .67 36 .41 47 .00 38 .52 37 .32 30 .00 40 .00 41 .13 40 .50 36 .75 35 .20 32 .95 27 .25 39 .00 44 .00  — 7 .07 10 .69 12 .32 12 .31 8 .22 9 .08 2 .99 9 .15 23 .22  56 2 2 0 5 14 23 5 3 5 4 7 0 16 3  22 .08 28 .82 31 .97 34 .90 36 .35 37 .27 37 .57 38 .62 44 .34 44 .62 45 .72 50 .88 51 .94 58 .18 62 .23  39,.34 44..00 28..50  11 .79 15,.56 .71  — 31..60 41..00 40..44 35..00 38..67 37..80 26..25 36..43  — 5,.27 9,.47 11,.49 6,.49 12,.22 12,.32 2,.87 11,.39  — 39..06 33..67  — 8,.33 11,.02  1  Loneliness Score Mean S.D.  Father Homemaker/Housewife Labourer Farm/Farm Manager Craftsman Proprietor/Owner Service Clerical Operative Protective Service Sales Technical Manager/Administrator Military P r o f e s s i o n a l (1) P r o f e s s i o n a l (2)  6 .51 7 .19 — 9 .82 10 .94  Mother Homemaker/Housewife Labourer Farm/Farm Manager Craftsman Proprietor/Owner Service Clerical Operative Protective Service Sales Technical Manager/Administrator Military P r o f e s s i o n a l (1) P r o f e s s i o n a l (2)  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 12 1
China 7 11
Slovenia 6 0
Pakistan 4 0
Japan 2 0
Nigeria 1 0
Philippines 1 1
Canada 1 0
Denmark 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 11 8
Ashburn 8 0
Beijing 4 0
Islamabad 3 0
Shenzhen 3 11
Tokyo 2 0
Mountain View 1 0
Plano 1 0
Odense 1 0
Clifton 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0056013/manifest

Comment

Related Items