Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 292 – 295International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011) Social-Emotional Loneliness and Life Satisfaction Azimeh Salimia a Department of Educational psychology,University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran Abstract The intent of this study was to examine the effects of social and emotional loneliness on life satisfaction. Gender differences in loneliness is examined, too. A sample of 396 (172 male , 224 female) university students were selected from Shiraz University. The short version of Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults(SELSA-S); the Satisfaction with Life Scale(SWLS); and Demographic Information Form. Results of the independent t-test revealed that gender has an effect on loneliness levels of the students and male students reported significantly greater emotional loneliness than female students. In addition, the results of stepwise regression, indicated that social and emotional loneliness were significant negative predictors of the life satisfaction, however emotional loneliness was stronger predictor, rather than social loneliness. © Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under under CC BY-NC-ND © 2011 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review responsibilitylicense. of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Cognitive – Counselling, Selection peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari. Research &and/or Conference Services C-crcs. Keywords: Social Loneliness, Emotional Loneliness,Life Satisfaction, Gender Differences. 1. Introduction Loneliness is a basic fact of life and thus experienced to differing extents by everyone at some stage in their life. Loneliness has been defined as the unpleasant experience that occurs when a person's network of social relationships is significantly deficient in either quality or quantity' (Perlman & Peplau, 1984). Inparticular, the discrepancy that exists between the interpersonal relationships one wishes to have, and those that one perceives they currently have, makes the individual to experience loneliness. Loneliness is also a multidimensional phenomenon, varying in intensity, and across causes and circumstances. For example, the loneliness of a child who has lost their mother is experienced differently to the loneliness of a child who has no playmates(Heinrich & Gullone, 2006). In order to discover this multidimensional nature of loneliness, Weiss (1973), distinguished between "emotional loneliness" that is an absence of close or intimate relationships, whereas "social loneliness" that is a lack of social networks. Despite loneliness is experienced by both males and females, some demographic variables such as gender, has been shown to be related to individual differences in severity of loneliness. Nonetheless, gender differences that have reported in adult loneliness are not consistent together. Some studies have shown males tended to be lonelier Corresponding author. Tel: +98-711-2245545-50; fax: +98-711-2245543. E-mail address:
[email protected] 1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.241 Bugay. & Perlman.53 23. The life satisfaction depends on one’s cognitive and subjective evaluation. 1983). 2007.55 4. Guttfreundb.79 1. friend etc according to his/her criteria (Diener.short form (SELSA-S) The SELSA-S developed by DiTomasso.92. 1993. Validity of the measures investigated by factor analysis method. (2) whether there would be a significant relationship between students' loneliness and life satisfaction.72 8.45 SD 9. 3. & Moore. 4.1. Kim.77 and . Validity of the measure investigated by factor analysis method. 2.2008.89 11.S . 2007. Borys. Moore & Schultz.1. On the other hand..35 10. 2. Tornstam. Tümkaya.94 3.1.. 2001.Measures 2.3. but little research focuses on the distinction between emotional and social loneliness.30 .83.92 female SD 9.1.97 t Sig. In the literature. Cook.52 1. from Shiraz University (medicine. Alpha coefficient for romantic. Larsen & Griffin.000 N. gender.1."Family" and "social" loneliness.82. Methods Data were obtained from 396(172 male ..77 4. independent t-test was used in order to whether the scores for loneliness and life satisfaction would vary according to student’s gender(Table 1).02 M 35.293 Azimeh Salimi / Procedia . This article provides insight into these overlooked dimensions of loneliness and their relationships with life satisfaction in order to find out (1) whether the loneliness and life satisfaction vary in accordance with gender of students.1985.g. 224 female) university students that selected through multi-stages cluster random sampling. 1986). The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) The SWLS (Diener. & Griffin. Comparison of girls and boys participants in study variables Variable Loneliness Social Loneliness Emotional Loneliness Life Satisfaction male M 39. 1995. . & Cole. Table 1. the life satisfaction is one’s global evaluation of some aspects of the quality of his/her life such as family. Iran. Neto. Goodwin. 2. family and social loneliness were . Page. 1991). Results Concering the first aim of the study.08 27... The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. loneliness is one important indicator and vulnerability factor for life satisfaction. Demographic Information Form A Demographic information form was used to obtain detailed information such as age.g.81 3.60 15.engineering and human sciences). Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults.g. The SELSA-S is a 15-item multidimensional measure of loneliness and comprises three subscales: "Romantic". (3) which one of the loneliness dimensions (social loneliness or emotional loneliness) is the stronger predictor of the life satisfaction. Brannen and Best (2004) and adapted to Persian by Jowkar and Salimi (2009). Schultz. Numerous studies. grade. have proved that lonely people report lower rates of life-satisfaction (e. school. et cetera.52 14. 2.15 7. or no significant difference (e. Alpha coefficient for life satisfaction was .S . Emmons. 1985). Wiseman.g.Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 292 – 295 than females(e.000 N. 1992).2.27 3. respectively. & Yung. Aybek & Çelik . 1997. & Luriec. The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. Swami et al. Emmons. 1985) is a 5-item scale that measures global life satisfaction. In other words. "Emotional loneliness" comes out of adding of romantic and family loneliness scores. Larsen. Whereas several studies show females are lonelier than males ( e. p<0. loneliness levels of the students were determined by using SELSA-S and Male students’ loneliness (M=39.For this reason.. SD= 8. 2008) have emphasized that males keep their feelings under control.001). p <0. Another possible explanation is that the social support networks.70 . a stepwise regression analysis was used to determine the more predictive variable for life satisfaction(Table 3). Emotional Loneliness 4. .g.58** 0. developing close relationships require self-disclosure.38** 1 ** p<0.77) than females(M= 23. Wiseman et al. p <0.17 6. Regarding to Dindia and Allen (1992) women disclosed themselves slightly more than men. so they experience the lower level of loneliness. 2008.40 0. There is a considerable negetive correlation between loneliness and life satisfaction(r=-0. male loneliness score (M= 39.25** -0.15 -0. p<0. p <0.20 -0.05 1 1 0. 1983)..17 ȕ -0. Social Loneliness 3.44** 2 3 4 1 0. and they do not cry in comparison with females.Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 292 – 295 As shown in Table 1.000 . Moore & Schultz. Furthermore the correlation between emotional loneliness and life satisfaction(r=-0. Correlation matrix of social-emotional loneliness and life satisfaction Variable 1.52. A strong possible explanation is that females talk about feelings males and share their feelings with the friends more openly than males.37 t 7.13 B -0. On the other hand.89.44. Table 3.31 -0. In addition. the quality of social relationships is better and intimacy in relationships is deeper than males.37 R2 0.27.38. This specific finding of the study is consistent with some previous findings( e. Loneliness 2. Further analysis showed that this distinction is only in the emotional loneliness and males reported significantly greater emotional loneliness (M= 27.001). Life Satisfaction * p<0. but emotional loneliness is the stronger negative predictor of the life satisfaction. It seemes that.001 For the third research question. 1995. hence males and females only have significant difference in emotional loneliness.27** 1 -0.. SD= 9.93** -0. in females.35). stepwise regression analysis results in predicting the life satisfaction Steps 1 Prediction Variables Emotional Loneliness R 0. So the social loneliness level in males and females is not significantly different..81) is significantly higher than female students (M=35.001). According to weiss (1973) Emotional loneliness results from the lack of a close. there is no difference in quantity and expance of social relationship of males and females.60. Enochs and Roland (2006.000 4. Tümkaya et al. further analyses showed that this gender difference is only observed in emotional loneliness. SD=9. As shown in Table 2. Table 2. developing close and . intimate attachment to another person. The second aim of the study was to investigate the association between loneliness and life satisfaction.89) was higher than females(M=35.94)(t= 4.89 Sig.35. nowadays in big cities. The stepwise results revealed that social loneliness and emotional loneliness have a considerable contribution in predicting the life satisfaction.001).000 2 Emotional Loneliness Social Loneliness 0.16 -0. As already mentioned.60 3. such as family or peer are likely to be stronger for females than males in Iranian culture.52.27)(t= 1.294 Azimeh Salimi / Procedia .001) is stronger than the correlation between social loneliness and life satisfaction (r= -0. Pearson correlation coefficient was computed(Table 2). SD= 7.30. So the emotional loneliness of females is lower than males. cited in Tümkaya et al. whereas social loneliness results from the lack of a network of social relationships in which the person is part of a group of friends who share common interests and activities. So that they have experience loneliness less. Discussion In this study. Similarly. T. D. 49(1). Personal Relationships. & Peplau. 64(1). 11.. emotional loneliness) is more painful than the absence of social friendships(i. Goodwin. 68.. (1993). E. & Schultz. Loneliness: A predictor of health peceptions among older Korean immigrants. Gilmour (Eds. Allen M. Persian Journal of Shahed University.A.71-75.php?id=2]. M. & Peplau. C. Loneliness and life satisfaction among three cultural groups. 8. the results of this study revealed that life satisfaction negatively correlated with loneliness. both. J. Kim.. E. having a good career and establishing good job relationships.... Journal of Youth and Adolescence. A. 112(1). 81. 22( 2). According to Tümkaya et al. Journal of Psychology. however social friendships are much easier to achieve than close friendships. As would expect Social friendships are almost the source of close friendships. 1981). Moore. (1984) Loneliness research: survey of empirical findings. Hence the absence of close relationships (i. (1997). General health mediates the relationship between loneliness. Jowkar. W. Larsen. References Borys.. The analyses have not pointed out a meaningful difference between the life satisfaction and the gender. Personal relationships in disorder (pp. [http://www. (2004). influence the likelihood of their forming satisfying relationships. measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults.. 1992. R. R. (1981). Chamorro-Premuzic.E. A. F.ac. finding a job. Kannan. 2001.g. According to the Previous studies lonely individuals have generally negative view of themselves and the world(Perlman & Peplau. Moore & Schultz. E. Bugay. 591-594.Demographic predictors of self reported loneliness in adults.. Educational and Psychological Measurement. D. social loneliness). Sinniah. J. attributions and coping. Shea. E. 65-71. 63–74. Brannen. & Best. Duck B R.& Salimi.. D.. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. M. Cook. Gullone. life satisfaction and depression. Loneliness in Marriage. D.salford.. 225-230.ece..). A.Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 292 – 295 295 intimate relationships require self-disclosure and self-disclosure is easier for females.. R. & Marnat. (1993).Azimeh Salimi / Procedia .. DiTommasso. Loneliness and Life Satisfaction of Turkish University Students. so females have less emotional loneliness than males.. US Government Printing Office). Diener. & Perlman. L. both males and females carry equal responsibilities regarding the life and they. in: L. struggle with the similar daily life concerns such as finishing the school. O. Swami. (1985). Personal relationships: Vol. V. L. (2001). (1991). as well as how they interpret interpersonal situations (Murphy & Kupshik. (1992). DC. (2007). (2007). cited in Heinrich. The life satisfaction depends on one’s cognitive and subjective evaluation of life.. Another purpose of the study was relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction that was examined by some researchers who have stressed that there is a significant negative association between life satisfaction and loneliness( e. Therefore emotional loneliness is a stronger negative predictor for life satisfaction.(2). Additionally a person's thoughts about themselves and others. Shea & Marnat. 3 1-56). 127. . The results of the present study showed also that emotional loneliness is stronger negative predictor of life satisfaction rather than social loneliness. S. Loneliness at adolescence: Correlates. & Griffin. 939-945.26(6). Loneliness and life satisfaction in Japan and Australia. (1992). because these cognitions impact on how they interact. (2).. Peplau & S. Stanistreet. 9. Maniam. Evaluation of the Psychometric Characteristics of the Persian short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. London: Academic Press. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review.. 695-718. J. 125134. Satisfaction with life scale: Psychometrics properties in an adolescent sample. & Yung. Dindia K. (2009). L. G. S. A. T.A. 3. Schumaker. 1997. In S. A. D. & Furnham.. Schumaker.. Y. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology .. 197-217. G.. O. L. The satifaction with life scale. Heinrich. R. 12. R. Perlman. 1983).(1985). Psychological Reports.A. Kim. 42. 16(81). being successful at exams. & Gullone.e. So that these negative subjective evaluations of these people from life lead to life dissatisfaction. N. Tornstam. & Cole.1993. Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis... 7PND\D6$\EHN%dHOLN0 . Page. Goldston (Eds) Preventing the Harmful Consequences of Severe and Persistent Loneliness(Washington. K. 99-119.. Gender differences in loneliness. D. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.uk/proceedings/theme2. L. Clinical Psychology Review. (2008) in our century. Emmons. Perlman.106-24. B. 2. 2006). Goodwin et al. (1983).. Journal of Personality Assessment.e. í Neto. Psychological Reports. Toward a social psychology of lonclincss. Psychol Bull. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.. 161-166. . Available: http://www. Guttfreundb. & Luriec. R. International Journal of Human Sciences [Online]. The mit Press Wisemana.$QLQYHVWLJDWLRQRIVWXGHQWV¶OLIHVDWLVIDFWLRQDQGORQHOLQHVVOHYHOLQDVDPSOHRf Turkish students. 23(2). I. H. . Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation.. S. (1995). (1973). British Journal of Guidance & Counselling.com. Gender differences in loneliness and depression of university students seeking counselling. D.G. Mass. Cambridge. Weiss.insanbilimleri. 5:1. 231-243.