University of Groningen

Solving the Cultural Paradox of LonelinessHeu, Luzia

DOI:10.33612/diss.156121537

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2021

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Heu, L. (2021). Solving the Cultural Paradox of Loneliness. University of Groningen.https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.156121537

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 30-03-2022

Genera l D i scuss ion

224

Stronger collectivism tends to make individuals more embedded in social relationships, and

thus less socially isolated. Why is it, then, that loneliness is, on average, reported as higher in

more collectivistic than in more individualistic countries? The main aim of this thesis was to

resolve this contradiction - this cultural paradox of loneliness - by examining implications of

different cultural norms about social relationships (e.g., in individualism-collectivism; IC) for

loneliness and its risk factors. That is, different from previous research that mostly focused on

microsystem explanations for loneliness (i.e., characteristics of individuals’ immediate social

environments such as their personal relationships), we studied loneliness in the macrosystem

(i.e., as result of the cultural context that individuals live in; Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

To that end, we conducted multiple quantitative studies at both individual (Chapters 2-4 and

6) and cultural levels (Chapter 6), as well as a qualitative study (Chapter 5), for which we

collected 18 samples from 13 different nations, and for which we analysed data from 30

different nations in total (ranging from the Netherlands or Austria to Egypt or India). We

examined different cultural norms (IC, RMn, RSn, heritage relational mobility) as predictors of

loneliness (Chapters 2-4) and as influences on what can put at risk for or protect from

loneliness (Chapters 5-6). We validated our cross-cultural research in a qualitative examination

of whether experiences of loneliness are comparable across different cultures (Chapter 5) and

developed a novel theoretical framework (the culture-loneliness framework; Chapter 6). With

our qualitative data, we additionally filled our quantitative findings and theorizing with real-

life meaning and identified aspects of loneliness that had been less considered in previous

research. These can serve as relevant starting points for future research about cultural norms

and loneliness.

Across the board, and as summarised in the culture-loneliness framework, we found that

cultural norms about social relationships (as macrosystem predictors of loneliness;

Bronfenbrenner, 1979) often imply both risks and protective factors for loneliness (Chapters

2-3 and Chapter 6). Due to different cultural norms, individuals in different cultures therefore

feel lonely for different dominant reasons (Chapter 6). For instance, a Dutch city dweller may

feel lonely because he lives alone, does not have a partner, and only rarely sees his family or

friends. During weekends, he mostly encounters other human beings when running errands.

By contrast, an Indian villager may feel lonely because he cannot talk about his financial

problems to anyone, because he often argues with his wife who does not understand him,

and because his father has just passed away. Despite being constantly surrounded by others,

he feels lonely. Indeed, in cultures with more restrictive norms about social relationships,

individuals will hardly end up entirely alone or socially isolated (an explanation of loneliness

that is often used to understand loneliness in more individualistic contexts, Hansen &

Slagsvold, 2015; Hawkley et al., 2008; Snell, 2017), yet individuals may not fulfil cultural norms

225

about social relationships (e.g., those who cannot have children in cultures where having

children is culturally demanded) or feel left alone with their problems or experiences (e.g., if

they cannot select rewarding relationships or are restricted in what they are allowed to share

with others). More restrictive and more socially embedded cultures (e.g., more collectivistic

cultures) may therefore contain different predominant risks (e.g., more emotional and

perceived isolation, but less physical isolation) for loneliness than less restrictive and less

socially embedded cultures (e.g., more individualistic cultures). This may help explain the

paradox that people, on average, report higher loneliness in collectivistic than in

individualistic cultures (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Swader, 2019; cf. Barreto et al.,

2020).

As such, this also suggests that none of these cultures can protect all its members from

loneliness, but cultural norms can be relevant to better understand why people in a certain

cultural context predominantly feel lonely and who may be at a particularly high risk for

loneliness. Since loneliness is a relevant risk factor for impaired mental and physical health

(Cacioppo, Grippo, London, Goossens, & Cacioppo, 2015), this is not only of theoretical, but

also of practical importance: Among others, our findings suggest that there is no one-size-

fits-all intervention against loneliness, but that interventions need to be tailored to the specific

risks that specific cultural norms about social relationships imply (i.e., physical, emotional, and

perceived isolation). For instance, interventions that aim to reduce social isolation through

telephone hotlines or community meals may be particularly useful in less socially embedded

cultures (where the risk of physical isolation is higher), but less so in more socially embedded

cultures (where risks of emotional and perceived isolation are higher).

In this general discussion chapter, we will discuss the main findings of this thesis and their

theoretical and practical implications. We will also evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the

diverse set of studies reported in this thesis, and outline key questions and issues for future

research to further develop a cultural psychology of loneliness.

Overview of Main Findings We used a multi-method and multi-country approach to promote understanding of how

cultural norms can affect loneliness (i.e., to study loneliness in the macrosystem;

Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Specifically, we (1) examined risk factors for loneliness that are implied

by specific cultural norms about social relationships, and we (2) theoretically integrated

findings about cultural norms and loneliness in a novel cultural-psychological framework.

226

Quantitative Findings

The cultural paradox of loneliness has mostly emerged in studies that revolve around

individualism-collectivism (IC), while most of these studies were conducted at the cultural level

and did not directly measure IC. In Chapter 2, we hence examined whether different facets

of IC may put at risk for loneliness at the individual level. Based on our intersubjective

approach to culture, we focused, among others, on individuals’ perceptions of norms that are

implied by IC. Whereas collectivism usually relates to higher loneliness at the country-level

(e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014), the key finding of Chapter 2 was that most indicators of

higher collectivism related to lower loneliness at the individual level - that is, in our survey

among 1,099 individuals within five European countries that varied in their overall level of IC

(the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, and Austria). This suggests that the cultural paradox

of loneliness may only emerge at the cultural, but not at the individual level – at least in more

individualistic and less socially embedded contexts. Nevertheless, our findings further

suggested that both individualism and collectivism may entail risks for loneliness: higher

individualism was related to lower social embeddedness, but higher collectivism was related

to higher ideals about social embeddedness, and these were associated with larger

discrepancies between actual and ideal social embeddedness. As such, higher individualism

may put at risk for lower social embeddedness, but higher collectivism may decrease

relationship satisfaction. Across the board, however, the risk factors implied by individualism

seemed stronger at the individual level.

In Chapter 3, we zoomed in on cultural norms that are more specific than IC, yet that relate

to the extent to which individuals can freely choose whom they relate to as one core aspect

of IC (Swader, 2019). Specifically, we aimed to resolve what we call the cultural loneliness

paradox of choice - that more choice may reduce the risk for loneliness by allowing to seek

responsive relationships, but that it may also increase the risk for loneliness by reducing

relationship stability. To that end, we differentiated cultural norms implied by relational

mobility (RMn; cultural norms about meeting new others and individual choice of whom to

relate to; Yuki & Schug, 2012) and relational stability (RSn; norms about whether to hold on

to established social relationships) as two different sources of more or less freedom to choose

social relationships: We suggested that more individual choice regarding relationships may

put at risk for loneliness when resulting from lower RSn (because that might undermine the

stability of existing relationships and imply more social isolation), yet that it would protect

from it when resulting from higher RMn (because that might allow to expand one’s network

by new, high-quality relationships). Although both higher RMn and lower RSn entail more

individual choice of social relationships, we found that higher RMn was related to lower

loneliness, and lower RSn to higher loneliness - that is, in our survey among 982 individuals

227

in four European countries that should differ in their overall levels of RMn and RSn (Finland,

Portugal, Austria, and Poland). This offers one explanation for the cultural loneliness paradox

of choice: Cultural norms that provide more individual freedom to choose social relationships

may protect from loneliness if related to more opportunities to meet new people, but may

put at risk for loneliness if related to lower stability of established social relationships. In line

with Chapter 2, this finding underlines the double-edged nature of broader cultural norms

regarding loneliness. Just as norms implied by IC, norms that allow for more or less

relationship choice seem to have both the potential to put at risk for, and to protect from

loneliness.

In Chapter 4, we again focused on relational mobility as a potential cultural antecedent of

loneliness, but, different from Chapters 2-3, as characteristic of migrants’ heritage culture (i.e.,

the culture that migrants grew up in, and that they should have internalized to some extent)

rather than as cultural norms in individuals’ current social environment. Indeed, migrants are

a high-risk group for loneliness because of their social isolation directly after migration, which

makes it particularly relevant to better understand what can put this group at risk for or protect

from loneliness. We hypothesized that higher heritage relational mobility would promote skills

that are necessary to form new relationships, and would hence make migrants less susceptible

to loneliness after migration – at least in host cultures of higher relational mobility (because

these also offer cultural opportunities to establish new relationships). Among 426 student

migrants from two different cultural contexts (i.e., German and Chinese students, who form

two of the largest groups of student migrants in the Dutch city of Groningen) in a host culture

that is particularly high in relational mobility (i.e., a Dutch university town), higher heritage

relational mobility was, in line with predictions, related to lower loneliness. This suggests that

having grown up in a cultural context that offers opportunities to meet new people and

choose one’s relationships may help to get socially embedded after migration (at least when

moving to a cultural context that also offers such opportunities). More broadly, these findings

are in line with the idea that cultural norms about social relationships from past cultural

environments may, as internalized tendencies, protect individuals from, or put them at risk for

loneliness - even if they are currently removed from that context. Also, these findings are in

line with what we observed in Chapters 2 and 3: that cultural norms that allow individuals

more freedom to choose their social relationships can protect from loneliness.

Qualitative Findings

In the three quantitative chapters of this thesis, we took an etic approach (i.e., we conducted

research from the perspective of an outside observer, presupposing the comparability of

psychological processes across cultures): we assumed that the phenomenon of loneliness is

228

comparable across different cultural samples. In Chapter 5, we challenged this assumption by

conducting in-depth interviews about loneliness experiences in cultures with different levels

of social embeddedness (i.e., how embedded individuals are in stable social networks) as one

observable aspect of cultural norms about social relationships. Indeed, psychological research

tends to focus on cultures of lower social embeddedness (such as more individualistic

cultures; see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), where loneliness is often viewed as

inherently intertwined with social isolation (Hendrix, 2018; Leahy, 2017; Whitley, 2017).

Individuals in more embedded cultures are, however, rarely alone or without social bonds,

and still report loneliness. This suggests that the phenomenon of loneliness (i.e., its definition,

perceived causes and remedies) in these cultures may deviate from what we know from less

socially embedded cultures.

Our thematic analysis of 42 in-depth interviews from Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Egypt and India,

however, suggests that influential conceptualisations of loneliness in the research literature

(from less socially embedded cultures) quite accurately describe loneliness experiences across

cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. As such, our findings in this chapter

support the validity of cross-cultural studies about loneliness because they indicate that the

phenomenon of loneliness is comparable across different cultures. Additionally, our

qualitative data also add real-life meaning to the quantitative findings from Chapters 2-4, and

reveal (culture-specific) aspects of loneliness experiences that may provide starting points for

future research in a cross-cultural psychology of loneliness. Specifically, we could identify

aspects of loneliness experiences that had been considered less in previous literature: For

one, that loneliness often seems to occur despite fulfilling social relationships (e.g., due to

non-relational problems or important decisions). Second, that solitude or higher

independence (instead of more social contacts or relationships) seem to be important

remedies for loneliness. Furthermore, although we did not find fundamental qualitative

differences in loneliness experiences, we observed a number of potential cultural differences

in how relevant certain aspects of loneliness experiences were, and in how they were

manifested in culture-specific situations (e.g., that solitude seemed to be more commonly

viewed as solution for loneliness in more than in less socially embedded samples). 52

52 To also communicate results of this research to a lay audience rather than to a scientific audience only, we compiled interview recordings into a series of film clips about loneliness experiences. The aim was to demonstrate that most individuals have already experienced loneliness themselves, irrespective of how socially embedded they are and what their personal and cultural background is. This should reduce stigmatization of loneliness. Furthermore, such clips should help to directly alleviate loneliness, because loneliness often emerges from the notion of being different from others or alone with one’s experiences.

229

Theoretical Integration

The cultural paradox of loneliness suggests that those in cultures where individuals are more

socially embedded (e.g., more collectivistic cultures) are more, rather than less, likely to feel

lonely. Contributions of the four empirical chapters with an eye to resolving this paradox were

hence, for one, to provide insight into the risks that are implied by cultural norms that foster

more social embeddedness in stable social networks (e.g., higher collectivism, higher RSn,

lower RMn). Chapter 5 also established that loneliness experiences can be compared across

cultures with different levels of social embeddedness, and filled our findings from Chapters

2-4 with real-life meaning. In Chapter 6, we integrated findings from this thesis and the

loneliness literature into the novel culture-loneliness framework, which we subsequently

evaluated with an analysis of European Social Survey data (with 47,099 participants from 25

countries). We focused on cultural restrictiveness (i.e., the extent to which cultural norms

about social relationships restrict individuals in their freedom to relate to others in individually

desired ways) as a characteristic of cultural norms about social relationships that can be

related to all sets of cultural norms that we studied in Chapters 2-5 (i.e., higher restrictiveness

relates to higher collectivism, lower RMn, higher RSn, and higher social embeddedness).

Specifically, we connect higher individual freedom to choose one’s relationships to a higher

risk of physical isolation (i.e., being actually alone or lacking social relationships), and lower

such freedom to higher risks of emotional (i.e., a lack of understanding by others) and

perceived isolation (i.e., perceiving that one’s relationships cannot live up to relationship

ideals), which should all put at risk for loneliness. That is, we suggest that individuals in less

restrictive cultures may be more likely to neglect or leave relationships because of a higher

freedom to do so, whereas individuals in more restrictive cultures may be more likely to be

bound to relationships that do not suit their needs, to individually experience their

relationships as unfulfilling, or to be socially sanctioned because of a narrower range of

acceptable relationships. The cultural paradox of loneliness can then be explained if the risks

that we identified for higher restrictiveness (e.g., for more collectivistic norms) outweigh its

benefits (i.e., higher social embeddedness).

Theoretical Implications The main aim of this thesis was to provide an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness

through multi-method research and novel theory building about how cultural norms about

social relationships relate to loneliness. As such, this thesis makes distinct contributions to the

literatures on loneliness and cultural psychology. We discuss each in turn below.

230

Implications for Loneliness Research

Our research highlights the relevance of studying loneliness in the macrosystem

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and considering cultural norms when aiming for a better

understanding of loneliness. Past research has mostly focused on causes of loneliness that

can be located in the microsystem - such as personal (e.g., introversion; Buecker et al., 2020)

or relational characteristics (e.g., relationship quality; Hawkley et al., 2008; Shiovitz-Ezra &

Leitsch, 2010). This thesis suggests that cultural norms (as macrosystem variables;

Bronfenbrenner, 1979) can, for one, protect from, or put at risk for loneliness (Chapters 2-4),

and, second, influence which risk factors dominate in a culture (Chapters 5 and 6). It may thus

be useful to consider cultural variables as predictors and moderators (or boundary conditions)

in models explaining loneliness.

As an important prerequisite for such a cross-cultural psychology of loneliness (i.e., an etic

approach, rather than an emic approach with separate analyses of loneliness within specific

cultural contexts), Chapter 5 suggests that the phenomenon of loneliness may be comparable

across different cultures. It hence seems likely that we can validly examine whether insights

regarding loneliness that are generated in one cultural context are also applicable in other

cultural contexts. This implies that we may learn from different culturally engrained knowledge

and may practically use research findings (e.g., in interventions) across different cultures.

Importantly, this does, however, not mean that we should look for one-size-fits-all

interventions to combat loneliness across cultures, but that we are likely to study and

counteract the same phenomenon.

This point is supported by the observation that there are many cross-cultural consistencies in

loneliness drivers: For one, across culturally quite different European countries (e.g., Finland,

Austria, and Portugal), our findings concur with the notion that loneliness can be caused by a

lack of social embeddedness (Chapters 2, 5, and 6; e.g., Adamczyk, 2015; Çeçen, 2007; De

Jong Gierveld, Keating, & Fast, 2014; Lee & Ko, 2018; Snell, 2017; von Soest, Luhmann,

Hansen, & Gerstorf, 2020), a lack of emotionally satisfying relationships (Chapters 5 and 6;

Erozkan, 2011; Givertz, Woszidlo, Segrin, & Knutson, 2013; Hawkley et al., 2008; Weiss, 1973),

or low satisfaction with existing relationships (Chapters 2, 3, and 5; Johnson & Mullins, 1987;

Perlman & Peplau, 1981). It hence seems that, across quite different cultures, loneliness can

be caused by factors and mechanisms that have been described in previous theorizing from

less socially embedded cultures (i.e., actual characteristics of social relationships or a

mismatch between actual and normative characteristics; Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman &

Peplau, 1981).

231

However, we do not suggest that it is sufficient to only conduct research in less socially

embedded cultures and “copy-and-paste” it to more socially embedded cultures (as has

mostly been done in psychological research; Henrich et al., 2010; Chapter 5). Since the

cultures in which individuals – including researchers – are socialized shape their ideas and

thoughts (Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi, Shteynberg, & Wan, 2010), one-directional transfers

imply the risk that certain aspects are overlooked. For instance, we observed that the insight

that loneliness can flow from sources that do not bear a direct relation with social relationships

(e.g., individuals can feel lonely when confronted with a non-social stressor such as financial

issues, decisions, or novelty) was much more explicitly communicated by lay people in more

than in less socially embedded cultures. Although apparently cross-culturally relevant, these

aspects were hence particularly clearly identifiable in less socially embedded samples.

Therefore, it is important to also make use of knowledge about loneliness in more socially

embedded cultures, which may then be transferred to less socially embedded cultures to

inspire novel theorizing and interventions against loneliness.

Implications for a Cultural Psychology of Loneliness

Our findings also have implications for advancing cultural-psychological research about

loneliness. For one, they suggest that examining different and specific cultural norms can

yield more focused and nuanced conclusions than basing conclusions on a single cultural

dimension only (cf. Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; Swader, 2019). Indeed, we differentiated

multiple related yet distinct sets of cultural norms about social relationships, such as norms

implied by IC, RMn, and RSn, social embeddedness, or restrictiveness. This is why, in Chapter

6, we can draw the more general conclusion that cultural norms about social relationships

tend to imply both risk and protective factors for loneliness. Based on this insight, we can,

then, provide an explanation for why collectivism was often related to higher loneliness in

past culture-level research.53 As such, it seems useful for a cultural psychology of loneliness

to empirically assess multiple related cultural norms for more nuanced conclusions across

similar norms (in line with Vignoles et al., 2016).

53 We started this thesis with the cultural paradox of loneliness at the cultural level, focused on the individual level in the empirical Chapters 2-5, and integrated our findings in culture-level theorizing in Chapter 6. Although this shifting between levels may be unintuitive, this was the process we went through in this project, as we reasoned that a better understanding of how cultural norms impact on loneliness at the level where it occurs (i.e., the individual level, which is the main focus of a cultural-psychological analysis) could also help to explain associations at the culture-level.

232

Related to this, our findings underline the importance of considering that even a single set of

cultural norms (e.g., norms implied by IC) can have different associations with a psychological

outcome like loneliness, depending on how it is operationalised – that is, through which

characteristics (e.g., as internalized norms versus perceived norms) or at which levels (i.e.,

individual versus cultural level) it is measured. This can help to identify the “active

ingredients” in often broad cultural constructs for an outcome like loneliness. For instance,

perceiving oneself or others in one’s city or village as more collectivistic was related to lower

loneliness in our study of IC and loneliness in multiple European countries, but perceiving

others to hold more demanding norms about social relationships (which should be one aspect

of stronger collectivism) was often unrelated to, or even related to higher loneliness (Chapter

2). This points to the need to assess different manifestations of cultural norms for more

nuanced conclusions about how cultural norms relate to loneliness. This is essential to provide

precise starting points for interventions: For instance, our findings from Chapter 2 suggest

that loneliness may be counteracted by addressing two relevant aspects of higher

collectivism: by increasing individuals’ embeddedness in social relationships or by creating

the perception that others in one’s social environment are considerate and caring (e.g., in line

with findings that lonely individuals tend to perceive social situations more negatively;

Cacioppo, Cacioppo, & Boomsma, 2014; Lodder, Scholte, Goossens, & Verhagen, 2015).

However, telling participants that others their age believe that one should frequently see

one’s family or friends (e.g., using injunctive norms implied by higher collectivism) – for

instance, to create perceptions of stronger collectivism in one’s social surroundings or to

increase embeddedness - may be ineffective to reduce loneliness.

Practical Implications Since loneliness has been identified as a risk factor for multiple negative mental and physical

health outcomes (including increased depression; higher blood pressure; Cacioppo et al.,

2015), it is important to design therapy and interventions that prevent or decrease severe or

chronic forms of loneliness.54 One important practical implication of this thesis is that both

members of cultures with low, and with high social embeddedness (e.g., higher individualism

and higher collectivism) may require interventions against loneliness. Indeed, contrary to

popular belief (e.g., Hansen, 2018; Leahy, 2017), there is no scientific reason to primarily

target individuals in cultures of lower social embeddedness (e.g., more individualistic

cultures). After all, loneliness seems to be lower in larger collectives (e.g., countries) where

individuals tend to be more socially embedded (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; cf. Barreto

54 We note that certain forms of loneliness (e.g., short-lived instances of loneliness that may be restricted to specific situations) may not require treatment.

233

et al., 2020; Chapter 6). As such, we suggest that most, if not all, cultural norms seem to imply

some risks and some protective factors for loneliness, making loneliness a universal

phenomenon that requires prevention and treatment across different cultures.55

Nevertheless, findings from this thesis may help to identify individuals and groups that need

to be specifically targeted in interventions: After all, we find that specific cultural norms or

characteristics may indeed put at an overall higher risk for loneliness (e.g., perceiving one’s

surroundings as more collectivistic or being individually less socially embedded – at least in

more individualistic cultures; Chapter 2; being a student migrant who has been socialized in

cultures with lower relational mobility – at least in host cultures with higher relational mobility;

Chapter 4).

Furthermore, this thesis may provide starting points to counteract loneliness in culture-

sensitive ways. Although interventions may, to some extent, be transferable from one culture

to another (Chapter 5), Chapter 6 suggests that interventions should be adjusted to dominant

cultural norms: The specific tools that need to be applied first or more frequently will depend

on the dominant risks for loneliness in that culture. For instance, cultures of lower social

embeddedness may afford interventions that predominantly aim to prevent physical isolation,

which is already the main focus of many large-scale interventions in western countries (i.e.,

cultures with lower social embeddedness). This includes, for instance, community events like

shared meals, or public transport to facilitate social contact. By contrast, such interventions

may be less useful in cultures of higher social embeddedness, where most individuals live

together in families, and usually spend only little time alone (Chapter 6).56 In these cultures,

interventions should rather address risks such as emotional isolation, high or rigid

expectations from social relationships, or stigmatization of uncommon ways of relating to

others (e.g., not getting married).

55 Notably, our findings do not tell us much about differences in health outcomes of loneliness yet. Indeed, the loneliness that flows from having too few relationships or spending too much time alone (i.e., physical isolation) may have quite different consequences for well-being than not feeling understood (i.e., emotional isolation), perceiving to have the wrong social relationships, or being stigmatized for not adhering to the norm (i.e., perceived isolation; Chapter 5). Different cultures may thus imply similar levels of loneliness, but the consequences of such loneliness may be more or less severe, depending on predominant risks for loneliness. 56 We note that even in these cultures, certain groups are at risk for physical isolation (e.g., homemakers), yet usually less severely or systematically so than in more socially embedded cultures.

234

Strengths and Limitations A strength of the set of studies in this thesis is that they offer consistent findings that were

obtained with both quantitative and qualitative methods (thus avoiding mono-method bias),

and that are mostly based on non-student samples from a variety of cultural contexts (thus

avoiding a strong WEIRD bias; Henrich et al., 2010). In fact, we conducted cross-sectional

studies at the individual level with samples from nine different countries and a cross-sectional

multi-level analysis with samples from 25 European countries. We complemented these

quantitative studies by a qualitative analysis with samples from both within (Bulgaria, Austria)

and outside Europe (Israel, Egypt, India). To increase generalizability of our findings (Yarkoni,

2019), we assessed not only IC, but different related sets of cultural norms (e.g., RMn or RSn),

and measured them through their different manifestations (e.g., as internalized characteristics,

subjective perceptions of cultural norms, or manifestations in relationship characteristics; in

scenario versus more abstract self-report measures; at individual and country-level). Together,

our findings therefore offer insight into how different cultural norms relate to loneliness across

a large variety of different samples, and across multiple manifestations of different, yet

related, sets of cultural norms.

Against this backdrop, it is important to note that, like any specific study, method or design,

the studies in this thesis are not without shortcomings. However, these shortcomings do not

necessarily affect all studies in this thesis, precisely because of the diversity we achieved in

terms of methods, designs, measures, and samples. In the following, we discuss shortcomings

that may impair internal, construct, and external validity of the conclusions that can be drawn

from this thesis as a whole.

Internal Validity

Although our theorizing contains causal propositions, our empirical results do not (and were

not meant to) allow for sound conclusions about causality. This is because all the quantitative

studies in this thesis had cross-sectional designs, rather than experimental (or longitudinal)

designs. For example, in Chapters 2-3, we find that higher collectivism at the individual level,

higher RMn and higher RSn relate to lower loneliness. Based on theorizing in the literature

(e.g., Chiu et al., 2010; Kito, Yuki, & Thomson, 2017; Triandis, 1995), we interpret these as

characteristics of cultural environments that influence how individuals act in, and evaluate

their social relationships, and that can hence impact on their loneliness. However, it is possible

that individuals who feel lonelier would also describe their social relationships by less

favourable properties (e.g., they might perceive others as less socially oriented; Chapter 2;

perceive social relationships to be less stable; Chapter 3; or perceive less opportunities to

235

meet new others; Chapters 3 and 4) than less lonely individuals (in line with Cacioppo et al.,

2014; Lodder et al., 2015). This may explain part of the correlations in our studies.

One of the reasons for why we did not use experiments is that, although they may be more

suited to test causal directions than survey studies, they are difficult to implement with the

variables we studied in this thesis. For one, inducing loneliness would be ethically

questionable, particularly given existing insights into its negative health consequences

(Cacioppo et al., 2015). Additionally, we believe that an experiment may not be sufficient to

simulate or model the real-life interplay between cultural norms, their manifestations in actual

relationships, personal expectations from relationships, and social consequences that we

expected to influence loneliness throughout different chapters of this thesis (e.g., for how IC,

RMn, RSn or heritage relational mobility relate to loneliness; Chapters 2-4). Consequently,

longitudinal studies with their higher ecological validity may be better suited to examine the

causal pathways we suggest.

Indeed, although no longitudinal data about cultural norms and loneliness in particular is

available yet, some longitudinal studies already provide support for the assumption that

cultural characteristics can, as socialized and internalized tendencies (see Chapter 4), affect

psychological outcomes. For instance, collectivistic orientation among Chinese mothers was,

over time, related to lower subsequent aggression among their adolescent children (Shuster,

Li, & Shi, 2012). This suggests that the causal direction of our predictions is, in principle,

plausible. Since the correlations we find in the different studies of this thesis also fit with our

theoretical predictions, our cross-sectional studies can hence be viewed as first evidence for

our propositions. Nevertheless, our findings will, of course, need to be bolstered by data from

longitudinal studies in future research.

Construct Validity

A different general limitation of the studies in this thesis is that they were based on self-report

(either through survey or interview methods). The use of self-report assumes that individuals

have conscious access to their loneliness experiences and to their perception of cultural norms

about social relationships. Although our interviews suggested that individuals across different

cultures had little difficulty accessing their loneliness experiences (Chapter 5), individuals may

not be able to always or accurately access and report their experiences or perceptions –

particularly when it comes to cultural norms, which tend to be perceived as realities or natural

givens and which are hence often not consciously available or reflected upon.

The measurement of loneliness or cultural norms through self-reports can also be confounded

with, for instance, more or less general optimism, memory biases, response styles, and

236

different reference points because of different expectations from relationships or personal

knowledge about cultural differences (e.g., Peng, Nisbett, & Wong, 1997; Stone, Bachrach,

Jobe, Kurtzman, & Cain, 2000). For instance, individuals may perceive social norms in their

villages as more collectivistic if they compare to their knowledge about more individualistic

city life, yet as less collectivistic if they compare to their potentially more collectivistic

individual desires. This should be particularly pronounced for measures with abstract anchors

(e.g., “not at all” to “very much”) that do not reflect some concrete objective reality (e.g., the

number of evenings spent alone; Kitayama, 2002), yet which are quite common for most

scales that assess cultural characteristics such as IC or RMn (e.g., Fischer et al., 2009; Thomson

et al., 2018; Yuki et al., 2007).

Nevertheless, we believe that self-reports are, for one, the most direct way to assess

loneliness because loneliness is an internal, subjective experience that can occur in solitude

or company, and that may or may not be visible from the outside. As such, deducing

loneliness from outside realities (e.g., changed behaviour) seems more prone to bias than

asking individuals about their own experiences. Indeed, individuals across cultures seem to

know themselves when they feel lonely, even though they may have difficulty describing what

exactly defines that feeling (Chapter 5). Additionally, the validity of self-reports for loneliness

was supported by our finding that individual subjective evaluations of loneliness (on a four-

point Likert scale in a written questionnaire) widely converged with independent evaluations

by a single rater (i.e., the principal investigator in Chapter 5; based on how individuals talked

about their personal experiences with loneliness in interviews). For these ratings by a single

rater, confounds such as response style, desirability bias, or other personal or situational

characteristics (e.g., general level of optimism) should be more or less constant. Finally, direct

(e.g., “How lonely do you feel in general?”) and indirect measures of loneliness (i.e., short

versions of the UCLA scale; Hays & DiMatteo, 1987; Neto, 2014) in online written

questionnaires usually correlated highly enough to be combined into a single measure. This

indicates that participants’ personal understanding and reporting of their loneliness was quite

aligned with how they reported experiences that should be strongly related to loneliness

according to theoretical conceptualisations in the literature (i.e., the UCLA loneliness scale,

Russell, 1996). Convergence between different types of ratings with their different limitations

thus suggests that there is good reason to assume adequate construct validity of quantitative

self-reports about loneliness.

Moreover, self-reports should be suitable to assess cultural norms about social relationships

because many such norms can only or most directly be measured through individuals’

perceptions. After all, cultural norms are often not manifested in observable behaviour (e.g.,

average number of evenings spent alone; Chapter 2) or cultural products (e.g., partnership

237

ideals in movies or books; Garlen & Sandlin, 2017).57 Additionally, we were particularly

interested in the subjective perceptions of cultural norms due to our cultural-psychological

focus: Indeed, individuals’ internal depictions of a cultural reality should steer how they

evaluate their relationships and relate to others. They should hence influence loneliness

irrespective of whether these internal depictions reflect an actual reality or not (e.g., Chiu et

al., 2010; Katz & Allport, 1931; Chapters 2 and 4). This renders some potential threats to the

validity of self-report measures (e.g., confounds such as an optimistic perspective; more or

less knowledge as standard of comparison) less problematic in our studies than in research

that exclusively aims to assess more objective cultural realities.

Finally, a lack of measurement invariance is yet another threat to construct validity that is,

however, not unique to the studies in this thesis, but rather seems to permeate the entire field

of cross-cultural psychology. This means that questionnaires that are developed in one

cultural context often do not assess the same construct in a different cultural sample (e.g.,

factor structures underlying a scale or factor loadings of items differ across cultural samples),

implying that statistical results such as means or correlations cannot be compared across

different cultural samples (e.g., Chapters 2-4). However, since measurement invariance seems

to be quite a demanding standard in a field like cross-cultural psychology (Vignoles, 2018),

we decided to cautiously compare results from different countries nevertheless - that is, we

did not compare strengths of effects, but interpreted whether results pointed into similar

directions, implying similar conclusions. This is also consistent with the directional (rather than

size-based) nature of our theorizing. We also note that, in neither of the studies from Chapters

2-4, it was our main aim to directly statistically compare means or correlations between

different cultural samples. Rather, we examined whether the individual-level effects we

studied replicated in different cultural environments. We hence believe that this certainly

suggests a need for more research into culturally comparable quantitative measures of

loneliness, but does not severely threaten the construct validity of our findings.

External Validity

Compared to the common focus on western samples in psychological research (Henrich et

al., 2010), the diversity of our samples makes the external validity of our findings more of a

strength than a limitation of this thesis. After all, we sampled from countries all around the

world for our qualitative study (Chapter 5), we replicated each of our quantitative individual-

57 Self-reports also allow to more precisely capture cultural norms in individuals’ immediate social environment (e.g., among peers in their city or village; Chapters 2-3) than broader indicators that are often used in cross-cultural research (e.g., Hofstede values for individualism-collectivism; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).

238

analyses in at least two (Chapter 4), but usually four samples (Chapters 2 and 3), and we

compared these findings to an analysis of survey data from 25 countries (Chapter 6).

Furthermore, except for Chapter 4, we did not collect any student samples (e.g., Sears, 1986;

Henrich et al., 2010), but aimed to gain diverse comparable samples (e.g., we used quota

sampling for age, education level, or residence in cities or villages). In the following, we will

nevertheless discuss potential threats to external validity, which may need to be kept in mind

when interpreting and applying our results.

For one, all quantitative studies in this thesis were conducted in European countries, which

should, on average, have a lower level of restrictiveness, lower social embeddedness, and

higher individualism than most other countries in the world (e.g., African, South American, or

Asian countries). Individual-level associations might hence be quite different in more

restrictive or more socially embedded cultures. For instance, in Chapter 2, we found that the

paradox of loneliness hardly emerged at the individual level (i.e., higher collectivism at the

individual level was not related to higher loneliness; in line with studies by Jylhä & Jokela,

1990, or Swader, 2019, which were also conducted in European countries).58

However, individual-level norms and the three types of isolation we identified in Chapter 6

may sometimes manifest themselves differently in less versus more restrictive cultures – with

different implications for loneliness. For instance, emotional loneliness may more often refer

to situationally feeling distant from others in less socially embedded cultures, yet more often

to not having anyone to open up to at all in more socially embedded cultures. After all, unlike

individuals in more restrictive cultures, individuals in less restrictive (e.g., European) countries

can usually choose not to maintain dissatisfying relationships (even family relationships) and

to establish relationships that suit them better. Emotional isolation may therefore more

strongly relate to loneliness in more than in less restrictive cultures. In turn, more restrictive

individual-level norms may, then, also relate to higher loneliness if the type of emotional

isolation they entail indeed more strongly puts at risk for loneliness. As such, the cultural

paradox of loneliness might emerge at the individual level after all, yet only in more socially

embedded cultures. More generally, this suggests that individual-level findings from our

quantitative studies are likely to be generalizable to other cultural contexts with lower

restrictiveness and lower social embeddedness (e.g., other European countries, Canada, the

58 Notably, similar individual-level results were found in a Puerto Rican sample (Triandis et al.,1988), which should be more collectivistic than European countries (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), yet still have rather unrestrictive cultural norms (e.g., a high level of relational mobility; Thomson et al., 2018). As higher emotional and perceived isolation are arguably mainly driven by higher restrictiveness, this can hence also not tell us much about individual-level results in more restrictive cultures yet (e.g., North African or most Asian countries; Thomson et al., 2018).

239

US), but potentially less so to countries with more restrictive or more socially embedded

cultures.

Furthermore, in all our studies (except for the ESS analysis) we used convenience sampling,

rather than representative or random sampling. For instance, participants were recruited

through online sample providers (i.e., Qualtrics, ResearchNow) in Chapters 2 and 3, in public

spaces or through personal contact of bachelor thesis students in Chapter 4, and through

contact persons and snowballing in Chapter 5. Participants in Chapters 4 and 5 might

therefore have been less socially isolated on average, and more extraverted than those whom

we did not reach, while participants in Chapters 2 and 3 may have been more socially isolated

and more introverted.59 Additionally, since participants were informed that they would

participate in a study about social relationships and well-being (Chapters 2-4), or even about

loneliness (Chapter 5)60, lonely individuals or those with troubled relationships might have

been particularly attracted or deterred (e.g., if they viewed their loneliness as shameful; if they

coped with their loneliness through conversation).61 We also may have reached different

groups within different countries (e.g., depending on the relative financial benefit of study

participation). In sum, this suggests that our findings may not be representative of the

populations in the countries we sampled from, but rather of those who were more (Chapters

4 and 5) or less extraverted (Chapters 2 and 3), more willing to share emotional experiences,

and willing to participate given the benefits of study participation in their specific contexts.

Against this backdrop, it is reassuring that our results from Chapters 2-5 converge with

findings from Chapter 6 and past literature. After all, Chapter 6 involves a multi-level analysis

of data from the European Social Survey, which is not explicitly framed as a survey about

social relationships or loneliness. Moreover, in our qualitative study, we obtained similar

results as in comparable studies by Rokach (1988, 1989, 1990), in which data was collected

anonymously. As such, our findings may not be strongly affected by the use of convenience

sampling and might also apply to broader populations than those that we sampled from.

Nevertheless, we recommend future research to replicate our findings in random or more

representative samples.

59 After all, online surveys may attract individuals who prefer solitary ways of spending time or earning money. At the same time, responding to surveys as professional occupation may predispose for social isolation and loneliness. 60 In Chapter 5, we disclosed that the study was about loneliness for ethical reasons: Interviews in this study were video-recorded and revolved entirely around personal experiences with loneliness. 61 Indeed, many individuals declined participation in interviews, which is why we eventually did not sample in the Netherlands in the qualitative study of Chapter 5.

240

Future Directions Our findings as well as the limitations we discuss above suggest a number of important

directions for future research. For one, we recommend to examine relations between key

variables in this thesis in a multi-level analysis that also includes countries from outside Europe

(i.e., with higher levels of restrictiveness, higher social embeddedness, and higher

collectivism). This is important to test the generalizability of our individual-level findings by

examining whether they replicate only in European countries, only in less restrictive and less

embedded countries (e.g., the US, Canada), or across cultures. Furthermore, we recommend

to include measures of perceived, emotional, and physical isolation (see Chapter 6) into such

a multilevel design. This would allow to compare strengths of different pathways through

which we suggest restrictiveness to relate to loneliness, and to hence empirically test the

culture-loneliness framework’s explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness (i.e., that the

higher risks of perceived and emotional isolation outweigh the lower risk of physical isolation

in more restrictive cultures).

Future research should also more clearly distinguish subjective perceptions of cultural norms

from cultural norms as objective realities. After all, objective social realities may elicit more

pervasive or longer-lasting loneliness than subjectively perceived or internalized norms: For

instance, whereas deviating from an objectively shared norm to get married may entail

loneliness through stigmatization or a lack of actual access to social provisions, deviating from

the internalized (i.e., “I should get married”) or subjectively perceived (but not actually shared)

norm to get married (“Everyone around me is married” or “Everyone believes I should get

married”) may “only” entail loneliness through a cognitive evaluation of one’s relationships

as insufficient (see Chapter 6). The former may also be more difficult to escape. Indeed, it is

easier to change the subjective standard or perception that it is important to be in a

partnership (e.g., through individual therapy), than to change what others perceive as

important (e.g., relatives may still be disappointed if one does not marry; emotional closeness

may still predominantly be derived from partnerships rather than friendships).

Notably, differences in how changeable versus rigid subjective versus objective cultural norms

about social relationships are may provide yet another explanation for why the cultural

paradox of loneliness emerges mostly at the cultural level. Culture-level indicators (e.g.,

averaged self-reports about social norms, expert ratings, portrayals of social norms in cultural

products such as books, institutional characteristics) are more likely to describe objective

social realities than indicators at the individual level and may therefore entail risks for

loneliness that are more pervasive and difficult to escape (e.g., stigmatization, social

exclusion). Different implications of more objective versus more subjectively perceived norms

241

about social relationships will hence need to be tested in study designs with simultaneous

assessments of both – for instance, by combining self-report measures with assessments of

objective cultural norms through external observation or through averaged perceptions of

multiple members of one cultural group.

Third, we recommend the use of longitudinal study designs in future research. This is relevant

to better test the causal propositions in this thesis, and to provide a better basis for practical

recommendations. After all, the ultimate aim of a cultural psychology of loneliness is to inform

interventions against loneliness, but the associations across individuals that we assessed may

be quite different from the intrapersonal associations that are typically relevant in loneliness

interventions. Although this thesis can thus provide starting points for culture-sensitive

interventions against loneliness (e.g., by identifying groups that are at risk for loneliness

because of their cultural norms, or by identifying which risks are particularly prevalent in

certain cultures), we do not know yet whether changes to the cultural norms we examined can

reduce loneliness. For instance, individuals who have been socialized into cultures with little

individual freedom to choose their social relationships may feel overwhelmed or left alone

and hence lonelier (Chapter 5) if they suddenly need to decide themselves whom to relate

to. Future research therefore needs to carefully evaluate how changes to cultural norms about

social relationships affect loneliness - for example in intervention studies.

Conclusion The aim of this thesis was to gain a better understanding of how cultural norms about social

relationships affect loneliness within and across cultures. This should, among others, provide

an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness - that loneliness tends to be higher in

collectivistic countries, where individuals are generally more embedded in social relationships

and hence less socially isolated than in individualistic countries. We conducted quantitative

and qualitative studies with 18 samples from 13 different countries (and analysis of data from

altogether 30 different countries), based on which we developed the novel culture-loneliness

framework. This theoretical framework integrates previous literature as well as our own

findings, and provides an explanation for the cultural paradox of loneliness: Through less

demanding or less strict norms about social relationships, individuals in individualistic cultures

may feel lonely because they are more likely to lack social relationships or spend too much

time alone. However, individuals in more collectivistic cultures may, on average, feel even

lonelier because stricter and more demanding norms about social relationships in these

cultures should reduce opportunities to relate to others in individually fulfilling ways and make

individuals more likely not to meet cultural expectations about their relationships (leading to

242

dissatisfaction, deprivation of social provisions, and/or social sanctions). This implies that

loneliness can affect individuals across the globe, yet that dominant reasons vary with

different cultural norms about social relationships. As such, cultural norms need to be more

strongly considered in theorizing and research about loneliness, and loneliness interventions

should target culturally dominant risks for loneliness rather than be one-size-fits-all. This may

then, in the future, help to ease the seemingly universal human experience of loneliness in

culture-sensitive ways.

Ref e rences

246

Adam, E. K., Hawkley, L. C., Kudielka, B. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2006). Day-to-day dynamics

of experience–cortisol associations in a population-based sample of older adults.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 17058–17063.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0605053103

Adamczyk, K. (2016). An investigation of loneliness and perceived social support among

single and partnered young adults. Current Psychology, 35(4), 674-689. doi:

10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7

Adams, G., Anderson, S. L., & Adonu, J. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and

intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy

(pp. 321-339). London, UK; Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Adams, G., Estrada-Villalta, S., Sullivan, D., & Markus, H. R. (2019). The psychology of

neoliberalism and the neoliberalism of psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1),

189-216. doi:10.1111/josi.12305

Adams, G., & Kurtiş, T. (2012). Context in Person, Person in Context. In Deaux, K. & Snyder,

M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (p. 161-187).

New York, US: Oxford University Press.

Adams, G., Kurtiş, T., Salter, P. S., & Anderson, S. L. (2012). A cultural psychology of

relationship: Decolonizing science and practice. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A.

Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and

sociocultural approaches (pp. 49-70). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Ajrouch, K. J. (2008). Social isolation and loneliness among Arab American elders: cultural,

social, and personal factors. Research in Human Development, 5(1), 44-59.

doi:10.1080/15427600701853798

Anderson, C. A. (1999). Attributional style, depression, and loneliness: A cross-cultural

comparison of American and Chinese students. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 25(4), 482-499. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004007

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural

variations in relationship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 21(1-4), 287-

315. doi:10.1080/00207598608247591

Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2020).

Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness.

Personality and Individual Differences. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066

247

Bartolini, S., Bilancini, E., & Pugno, M. (2013). Did the decline in social connections depress

Americans’ happiness? Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1033-1059.

doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9971-x

Bartolini, S., & Sarracino, F. (2014). Happy for how long? How social capital and economic

growth relate to happiness over time. Ecological Economics, 108, 242-256.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.004

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beck, A. T., & Young, J. E. (1978). College blues. Psychology Today, 12(4), 80–95.

Bejanyan, K., Marshall, T. C., & Ferenczi, N. (2014). Romantic ideals, mate preferences, and

anticipation of future difficulties in marital life: a comparative study of young adults

in India and America. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1355.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01355

Bender, M., van Osch, Y., Sleegers, W., & Ye, M. (2019). Social support benefits

psychological adjustment of international students: Evidence from a meta-analysis.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(7), 827-847. doi:10.31219/osf.io/whv93

Berry, J. W. (1979). A cultural ecology of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology, vol. 12 (pp. 177–206). New York: Academic Press.

Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for

two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608-628.

doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5

Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2001). Between individualism and collectivism: the case of a middle

class neighbourhood in Israel. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,

21(11/12), 1-25. doi:10.1108/01443330110789673

Birman, D., Trickett, E. J., & Vinokurov, A. (2002). Acculturation and adaptation of Soviet

Jewish refugee adolescents: Predictors of adjustment across life domains.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 585-607.

doi:10.1023/A:1016323213871

Brasor, P. (2011, January 16). Japan’s tribe of lonely people continues to grow. Retrieved

from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/01/16/national/media-

national/japans-tribe-of-lonely-people-continues-to-grow/#.W4ZedcJ9iUk

248

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Buecker, S., Maes, M., Denissen, J. J., & Luhmann, M. (2020). Loneliness and the big five

personality traits: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8-28.

doi:10.1002/per.2229

Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Boomsma, D. I. (2014). Evolutionary mechanisms for

loneliness. Cognition & Emotion, 28(1), 3-21. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.837379

Cacioppo, S., Grippo, A. J., London, S., Goossens, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015). Loneliness:

Clinical import and interventions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2),

238-249. doi:10.1177/1745691615570616

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447-454. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Crawford, L. E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., Kowalewski, R.

B., ... & Berntson, G. G. (2002). Loneliness and health: Potential mechanisms.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(3), 407-417.

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., Berntson, G. G., Nouriani, B.,

& Spiegel, D. (2006). Loneliness with a nomological net: An evolutionary

perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1054-1085.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2010). Perceived social isolation makes me

sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in

the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Psychology and Aging,

25(2), 453–463. doi:10.1037/a0017216

Caldera Sánchez, A. & Andrews, D. (2011). Residential mobility and public policy in OECD

countries. OECD Journal: Economic Studies, 2011(1), 1-22.

doi:10.1787/eco_studies-2011-5kg0vswqt240

Cassidy, J., Lichtenstein-Phelps, J., Sibrava, N. J., Thomas Jr, C. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (2009).

Generalized anxiety disorder: Connections with self-reported attachment. Behavior

Therapy, 40(1), 23-38. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2007.12.004

Çeçen, A. R. (2007). The Turkish short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale

for Adults (SELSA-S): Initial development and validation. Social Behavior and

249

Personality: An International Journal, 35(6), 717-734.

doi:10.2224/sbp.2007.35.6.717

Chavajay, P., & Skowronek, J. (2008). Aspects of acculturation stress among international

students attending a university in the USA. Psychological Reports, 103(3), 827–835.

doi:10.2466/pr0.103.3.827-835

Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of

making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005-1018. doi:10.1037/a0013193

Chiu, C. Y., Gelfand, M. J., Yamagishi, T., Shteynberg, G., & Wan, C. (2010). Intersubjective

culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 482-493.

doi:10.1177/1745691610375562

Chiu, C. Y., Leung, A. K. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (2011). Cultural processes: An overview. In A. K.

Y. Leung, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Cultural processes: A social psychological

perspective (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A

theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201 –

34). New York, US: Academic Press.

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64(3), 194-204.

doi:10.1037/a0015308

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Coyle, C. E., & Dugan, E. (2012). Social isolation, loneliness and health among older adults.

Journal of Aging and Health, 24(8), 1346–1363. doi:10.1177/0898264312460275

De Jong Gierveld, J. (1987). Developing and testing a model of loneliness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 119-128. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.53.1.119

De Jong Gierveld, J. (2009). Living arrangements, family bonds and the regional context

affecting social integration of older adults in Europe. In How generations and

gender shape demographic change: towards policies based on better knowledge

(pp. 107–126). Geneva, Switzerland and New York, NY: United Nations.

250

De Jong Gierveld, J., Keating, N., & Fast, J. E. (2015). Determinants of loneliness among

older adults in Canada. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du

vieillissement, 34(2), 125-136. doi:10.1017/S0714980815000070

De Jong Gierveld, J. & Raadschelders, J. (1982). Types of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau and D.

Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy

(pp. 105–119). New York, US: Wiley-Interscience.

De Jong Gierveld, J., & Tesch-Römer, C. (2012). Loneliness in old age in Eastern and

Western European societies: Theoretical perspectives. European Journal of

Ageing, 9(4), 285-295. doi:10.1007/s10433-012-0248-2

De Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (1995). Social relationships, integration, and

loneliness. In C. P. M. Knipscheer, J. de Jong Gierveld, T. G. van Tilburg, & P. A.

Dykstra (Eds.), Living arrangements and social networks of older adults (pp. 155-

172). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: VU University Press.

De Jong Gierveld, J., Van Tilburg, T., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Loneliness and social isolation.

In D. Perlman & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal

relationships (pp. 485-500). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (2005). Culture and relationships: The downside of self-contained

individualism. In R. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Culture and

social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 10, pp. 77-94). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Dykstra, P. A. (2009). Older adult loneliness: Myths and realities. European Journal of

Ageing, 6(2), 91-100. doi:10.1007/s10433-009-0110-3

Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on

loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8(1), 1-22. doi:10.1016/S0962-

1849(99)80008-0

Erozkan, A. (2011). The attachment styles bases of loneliness and depression. International

Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 3(9), 186-193. doi:10.5897/IJPC11.032

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using

G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research

Methods, 41, 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Fischer, R., Ferreira, M. C., Assmar, E., Redford, P., Harb, C., Glazer, S., ... & Kärtner, J.

(2009). Individualism-collectivism as descriptive norms. Development of a

251

subjective norm approach to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 40(2), 187-213. doi:10.1177/0022022109332738

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of

social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723. doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.99.4.689

Fokkema, T., De Jong Gierveld, J., & Dykstra, P. A. (2012). Cross-national differences in

older adult loneliness. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,

146(1-2), 201-228. doi:10.1080/00223980.2011.631612

Freeman, M. A. (1997). Demographic correlates of individualism and collectivism. A study of

social values in Sri Lanka. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 321-341.

doi:10.1177/0022022197283007

Fuligni, A. J., & Zhang, W. (2004). Attitudes toward family obligation among adolescents in

contemporary urban and rural China. Child Development, 75(1), 180-192.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00662.x

Gareis, E., Merkin, R., & Goldman, J. (2011). Intercultural friendship: Linking communication

variables and friendship success. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research,

40(2), 153-171. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.581034

Garlen, J. C., & Sandlin, J. A. (2017). Happily (n) ever after: The cruel optimism of Disney’s

romantic ideal. Feminist Media Studies, 17(6), 957-971.

doi:10.1080/14680777.2017.1338305

Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural

tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225-1244.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225

Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece from collectivist to individualist.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(1), 80-91.

doi:10.1177/0022022189201005

Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., Van de Vijver, F. J., Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2006).

Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Georgas, J., Christakopoulou, S., Poortinga, Y. H., Angleitner, A., Goodwin, R., &

Charalambous, N. (1997). The Relationship of Family Bonds to Family Structure and

Function Across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 303–320.

doi:10.1177/0022022197283006

252

Gheorghiu, M. A., Vignoles, V. L., & Smith, P. B. (2009). Beyond the United States and

Japan: Testing Yamagishi's emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), 365-383. doi: 10.1177/019027250907200408

Givertz, M., Woszidlo, A., Segrin, C., & Knutson, K. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of

attachment orientation on relationship quality and loneliness in married couples.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1096-1120.

doi:10.1177/0265407513482445

Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some

arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 10(10), 535-549. doi:10.1111/spc3.12267

Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. (2014). Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New

York, US: Guilford Publications.

Hansen, B. (2018, July 18). 10 More Ideas to Help With Loneliness. Retrieved from

https://psychcentral.com/blog/10-more-ideas-to-help-with-loneliness/

Hansen, T., & Slagsvold, B. (2015). Late-life loneliness in 11 European countries: Results

from the generations and gender survey. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 445-

464. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1111-6

Hawkley, L. C., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Masi, C. M., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T.

(2008). From social structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and

loneliness: the Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. The Journals of

Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(6), 375-384.

doi:10.1093/geronb/63.6.S375

Hawkley, L. C., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). Loneliness predicts reduced physical

activity: Cross-sectional & longitudinal analyses. Health Psychology, 28(3), 354-363.

doi:10.1037/a0014400

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd edition). New York, US: Guilford Press.

Hays, R. D., & DiMatteo, M. R. (1987). A short-form measure of loneliness. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 51(1), 69-81. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6

Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D., & Aune, R. K. (2011). An analysis of friendship networks, social

connectedness, homesickness, and satisfaction levels of international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 281-295.

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.08.001

253

Hendrix, M. (2018, March 29). Lonely America. Retrieved from

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/lonely-america/

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Henriksen, J., Larsen, E. R., Mattisson, C., & Andersson, N. W. (2019). Loneliness, health and

mortality. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 28(2), 234-239.

doi:10.1017/S2045796017000580

Heravi-Karimooi, M., Anoosheh, M., Foroughan, M., Sheykhi, M. T., & Hajizadeh, E. (2010).

Understanding loneliness in the lived experiences of Iranian elders. Scandinavian

Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(2), 274-280. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2009.00717.x

Heu, L. C., Hansen, N., & van Zomeren, M. (2019). Resolving the cultural loneliness paradox

of choice: The role of cultural norms about individual choice regarding

relationships in explaining loneliness in four European countries. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Heu, L. C., Hansen, N., van Zomeren, M., Levy, A., Ivanova, T. T., Gangadhar, A., & Radwan,

M. (2020). Loneliness across countries with different levels of social

embeddedness: A qualitative study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N. (2019). Lonely alone or lonely together? A

cultural-psychological examination of individualism-collectivism and loneliness in

five European countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 780-793.

doi:10.1177/0146167218796793

Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N. (in press). Does loneliness thrive in relational

freedom or restriction? The Culture-Loneliness Framework. Review of General

Psychology.

Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N. (2020). Far away from home and (not) lonely:

Relational mobility in migrants’ heritage culture as a potential protection from

loneliness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 77, 140-150. doi:

10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.05.005

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of

the Mind (3rd Edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Höllinger, F., & Haller, M. (1990). Kinship and social networks in modern societies: A cross-

cultural comparison among seven nations. European Sociological Review, 6(2),

103-124. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036553

254

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and

social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237. doi:10.1177/1745691614568352

Hortulanus, R., Machielse, A., & Meeuwesen, L. (2006). Social isolation in modern society.

Abingdon, UK; New York, NY: Routledge.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,

leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Imamoğlu, E. O., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2006). Actual, ideal, and expected relatedness

with parents across and within cultures. European Journal of Social Psychology,

36(5), 721-745. doi:10.1002/ejsp.313

Imamoğlu, E. O., Küller, R., Imamoğlu, V., & Küller, M. (1993). The social psychological

worlds of Swedes and Turks in and around retirement. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 24(1), 26-41. doi:10.1177/0022022193241002

Johnson, D. P., & Mullins, L. C. (1987). Growing old and lonely in different societies: toward

a comparative perspective. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 2, 257-275.

doi:10.1007/BF00160684

Jones, P. S., Lee, J. W., & Zhang, X. E. (2011). Clarifying and measuring filial concepts

across five cultural groups. Research in Nursing & Health, 34(4), 310-326.

doi:10.1002/nur.20444

Jones, W. H., Carpenter, B. N., & Quintana, D. (1985). Personality and interpersonal

predictors of loneliness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48(6), 1503-1511. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1503

Jylhä, M., & Jokela, J. (1990). Individual experiences as cultural. A cross-cultural study on

loneliness among the elderly. Ageing and Society, 10(03), 295-315.

doi:10.1017/S0144686X00008308

Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2006). Theoretical perspectives on family change. In J. Georgas, J. W. Berry,

F. J. R. van de Vijver, Ç. Kağitçibaşi, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Families across

cultures: A 30-nation psychological study (p. 72–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E. S., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., & Macrae, K. (2004).

Culture and self: Are there within-culture differences in self between metropolitan

255

areas and regional cities? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(7), 816-

823. doi:10.1177/0146167203261997

Katz, D., & Allport, F. (1931). Students' Attitudes: A Report of the Syracuse University

Research Study. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman.

Kiefer, C. W. (1980). Loneliness and Japanese social structure. In J. Hartog, J. R. Audy, & Y.

A. Cohen (Eds.), The Anatomy of Loneliness (pp. 425-450). New York, NY:

International Universities Press, Inc.

Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes - Toward a system view of

culture: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 89-96.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.89

Kito, M., Yuki, M., & Thomson, R. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A

socioecological approach to explain cross-cultural differences. Personal

Relationships, 24(1), 114-130. doi:10.1111/pere.12174

König, C., Steinmetz, H., Frese, M., Rauch, A., & Wang, Z. M. (2007). Scenario-based scales

measuring cultural orientations of business owners. Journal of Evolutionary

Economics, 17(2), 211-239. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0047-z

Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions.

Papers. Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University, 47(1),

viii, 223.

Kuo, B. C., & Roysircar, G. (2006). An exploratory study of cross-cultural adaptation of

adolescent Taiwanese unaccompanied sojourners in Canada. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 159-183. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.007

Lau, S., & Gruen, G. E. (1992). The social stigma of loneliness: Effect of target person's and

perceiver's sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 182-189.

doi:10.1177/0146167292182009

Leahy, H. L. (2017, February 9). Living with Loneliness. Seven steps to freeing yourself from

being lonely. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anxiety-

files/201702/living-loneliness

Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual

differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. doi:10.1037/a0022151

256

Leung, C. (2001). The psychological adaptation of overseas and migrant students in

Australia. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 251-259.

doi:10.1080/00207590143000018

Levin, Y. (2016). The Fractured Republic: Renewing America's Social Contract in the Age of

Individualism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lewis, L. (2018, June 7). Japan’s literature of loneliness depicts solitude as a noble state.

Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/e4d15154-6a31-11e8-b6eb-

4acfcfb08c11

Li, H. Z., Bhatt, G., Zhang, Z., Pahal, J., & Cui, Y. (2006). Defining relationships: Comparing

Canadians, Chinese and Indians. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9(3), 242-248.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00203.x

Local Government Association. (2016). Combating loneliness. A guide for local authorities.

London, UK: Local Government Association. Retrieved from

https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s86113/Combating%20Loneliness%20A

%20Guide%20for%20Local%20Authorities%20-%20LGA.pdf

Luhmann, M., & Hawkley, L. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence

to oldest old age. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 943–959.

doi:10.1037/dev0000117

Lykes, V. A., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference

between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-

Cultural Psychology, 45(3), 468-490. doi:10.1177/0022022113509881

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,

emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.98.2.224

Masi, C. M., Chen, H.-Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). A meta-analysis of

interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15,

219–266. doi:10.1177/1088868310377394

Matthews, T., Danese, A., Wertz, J., Odgers, C. L., Ambler, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault,

L. (2016). Social isolation, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: a eal

genetic analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(3), 339-348.

doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1178-7

McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable communities.

Gabriola Island, CA: New Society Publishers.

257

Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2007). Integrating system approaches to culture and

personality. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Psychology,

(pp. 175-195). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mijuskovic, B. (1977). Loneliness: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Psychiatry, 40(2), 113-132.

doi:10.1080/00332747.1977.11023926

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and

change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations. In U. Kim,

H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kâğitçibaşi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Cross-cultural research

and methodology series, Vol. 18. Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method,

and applications (pp. 225-238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Monbiot, G. (2016, October 12). Neoliberalism is creating loneliness. That’s what’s

wrenching society apart. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/12/neoliberalism-creating-

loneliness-wrenching-society-apart

Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside the head: A meta-analysis

of individualism-collectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 12(3), 199-221. doi:10.1177/1088868308318260

Neto, F. (2014). Psychometric analysis of the short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-6) in

older adults. European Journal of Ageing, 11(4), 313-319. doi:10.1007/s10433-

014-0312-1

Norwegian Centre for Research Data. (2012). ESS Round 6: European Social Survey (Round

6 Data) [Data file edition 2.3. NSD]. Retrieved from

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org

Norwegian Centre for Research Data. (2014). ESS Round 7: European Social Survey (Round

7 Data) [Data file edition 2.1. NSD]. Retrieved from

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org

Oei, T. P., & Notowidjojo, F. (1990). Depression and loneliness in overseas students.

International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 36(2), 121-130.

doi:10.1177/002076409003600205

Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., Miao, F. F., Talhelm, T., Endo, Y., Uchida, Y., ... & Norasakkunkit, V.

(2013). Residential mobility increases motivation to expand social network: But

258

why? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 217-223.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.008

Oishi, S., Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Axt, J. (2015). The psychology of residential and relational

mobilities. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of Advances

in Culture and Psychology 5 (pp. 221–272). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Orr, G. (2014, June 26). Britain has been voted the loneliness capital of Europe - so how did

we become so isolated? Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/life-

style/health-and-families/features/britain-has-been-voted-the-loneliness-capital-of-

europe-so-how-did-we-become-so-isolated-9566617.html

Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (February 2020). Loneliness and Social Connections. Retrieved

from: https://ourworldindata.org/social-connections-and-loneliness

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.

Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wang, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across

cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329–344.

doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.329

Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour,

& S. Duck (Eds.), Personal Relationships: 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31-56).

London, UK: Academic Press.

Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). Loneliness research: A survey of empirical findings. In L.

A. Peplau & S. Goldston (Eds.), Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and

persistent loneliness (pp. 13-46). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Pöhlmann, C., Carranza, E., Hannover, B., & Iyengar, S. S. (2007). Repercussions of self–

construal for self–relevant and other–relevant choice. Social Cognition, 25(2), 284-

305. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.2.284

Preacher, K. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new

developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825-852. doi:10.1146/annurev-

psych-010814-015258

Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and

reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research.

Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

259

Rajesh, T., & Rangaiah, B. (2019). The influence of personality traits among ordinary,

problematic and addicted Facebook users. A study on university students in India.

PsyArXiv Preprints. doi:10.31234/osf.io/kymsq

Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67-71.

doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

Richard, A., Rohrmann, S., Vandeleur, C. L., Schmid, M., Barth, J., & Eichholzer, M. (2017).

Loneliness is adversely associated with physical and mental health and lifestyle

factors: Results from a Swiss national survey. PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0181442.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181442

Richard, A., Rohrmann, S., Vandeleur, C. L., Schmid, M., & Eichholzer, M. (2016). Loneliness

is adversely associated with lifestyle and physical and mental health. European

Psychiatry, 33, S82-S83. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.033

Rokach, A. (1988). The experience of loneliness: A tri-level model. The Journal of

Psychology, 122(6), 531-544. doi:10.1080/00223980.1988.9915528

Rokach, A. (1989). Antecedents of loneliness: A factorial analysis. The Journal of Psychology,

123(4), 369-384. doi:10.1080/00223980.1989.10542992

Rokach, A. (1990). Surviving and coping with loneliness. The Journal of Psychology, 124(1),

39-54. doi:10.1080/00223980.1990.10543204

Rokach, A. (2004). Loneliness then and now: Reflections on social and emotional alienation

in everyday life. Current Psychology, 23(1), 24-40. doi:10.1007/s12144-004-1006-1

Rokach, A., & Bacanli, H. (2001). Perceived causes of loneliness: A cross-cultural

comparison. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(2), 169-

182. doi:10.2224/sbp.2001.29.2.145

Rokach, A., Bacanli, H., & Ramberan, G. (2000). Coping with loneliness: A cross-cultural

comparison. European Psychologist, 5(4), 302-311. doi:10.1027//1016-

9040.5.4.302

Rokach, A., Orzeck, T., Cripps, J., Lackovic-Grgin, K., & Penezic, Z. (2001). The effects of

culture on the meaning of loneliness. Social Indicators Research, 53(1), 17-31.

doi:10.1023/A:1007183101458

Rokach, A., & Sharma, M. (1996). The loneliness experience in a cultural context. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 827-839.

260

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the

investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor

structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-

78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Sanders, P. (n. d.). Does Individualism Make You Lonely? Retrieved from

https://getthefriendsyouwant.com/individualism-make-you-lonely/

Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and

international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 12(2), 148-180. doi:10.1177/1028315307299699

Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-

culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21,

1471–1478. doi:10.1177/0956797610382786

Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist,

55(1), 79-88. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.79

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 25, 1–63. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of

values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kağıtçıbaşı, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),

Individualism and Collectivism (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations

(Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, pp. 259-290). European

Social Survey.

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodology/core_ess_questionnaire/

ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications.

Comparative Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182. doi: 10.1163/156913306778667357

261

Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base

on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51(3), 515 –530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515

Seepersad, S., Choi, M. K., & Shin, N. (2008). How does culture influence the degree of

romantic loneliness and closeness? The Journal of Psychology, 142(2), 209-220.

doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.2.209-220

Shiovitz-Ezra, S., & Leitsch, S. A. (2010). The role of social relationships in predicting

loneliness: The national social life, health, and aging project. Social Work Research,

34(3), 157-167. doi:10.1093/swr/34.3.157

Shuster, M. M., Li, Y., & Shi, J. (2012). Maternal cultural values and parenting practices:

Longitudinal associations with Chinese adolescents’ aggression. Journal of

Adolescence, 35(2), 345-355. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.006

Simmons, L., Jones, T., & Bradley, E. (2017). Reducing mental health stigma: The

relationship between knowledge and attitude change. European Journal of Mental

Health, 1(12), 25-40. doi:10.5708/EJMH.12.2017.1.2

Smith, H. M., & Betz, N. E. (2000). Development and validation of a scale of perceived social

self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 8(3), 283-301.

doi:10.1177/106907270000800306

Smith, K. J., & Victor, C. (2018). Typologies of loneliness, living alone and social isolation,

and their associations with physical and mental health. Ageing & Society, 39(8),

1709-1730. doi:10.1017/S0144686X18000132

Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kağıtçıbaşı, C. (2006). Understanding social psychology across

cultures: Living and working in a changing world. London, UK: Sage.

Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of

international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699-

713. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.08.004

Snell, K. D. M. (2017). The rise of living alone and loneliness in history. Social History, 42(1),

2-28. doi:10.1080/03071022.2017.1256093

Special Eurobarometer 283 (2007). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved

from https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S657_67_3_EBS283

Stickley, A., Koyanagi, A., Roberts, B., Richardson, E., Abbott, P., Tumanov, S., & McKee, M.

(2013). Loneliness: its correlates and association with health behaviours and

262

outcomes in nine countries of the former Soviet Union. PloS One, 8(7). doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0067978

Stokes, J. P. (1985). The relation of social network and individual difference variables to

loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 981-990.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.981

Stokes, J. P., & Levin, I. (1986). Gender differences in predicting loneliness from social

network characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1069-

1074. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1069

Stone, A. A., Bachrach, C. A., Jobe, J. B., Kurtzman, H. S., & Cain, V. S. (2000). The science

of self-report: Implications for research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Sundström, G., Fransson, E., Malmberg, B., & Davey, A. (2009). Loneliness among older

Europeans. European Journal of Ageing, 6(4), 267. doi:10.1007/s10433-009-0134-

8

Swader, C. S. (2019). Loneliness in Europe: personal and societal individualism-collectivism

and their connection to social isolation. Social Forces, 97(3), 1307-1336.

doi:10.1093/sf/soy088

Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., ... & Ferreira, C. M.

(2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to

historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

115(29), 7521-7526. doi:10.1073/pnas.1713191115

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative

research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357.

doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Leipzig, Germany: Fues’s Verlag (R.

Reisland).

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-Collectivism and Personality. Journal of Personality, 69,

907–924. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and

collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323

263

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences in young

adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045-1062. doi:10.1037/a0027408

Twenge, J. M., Gentile, B., DeWall, C. N., Ma, D., Lacefield, K., & Schurtz, D. R. (2010). Birth

cohort increases in psychopathology among young Americans, 1938–2007: A

cross-temporal meta-analysis of the MMPI. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 145-

154. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.005

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2019a). Retrieved from

https://migrationdataportal.org/data?i=stock_abs_&t=2019

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019b).

Database on Household Size and Composition 2019. Retrieved from

https://population.un.org/Household/index.html#/countries/356

UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. (2017). Retrieved from

http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=172# (August 5, 2019)

van den Broek, T., & Grundy, E. (2017). Loneliness among Polish migrants in the

Netherlands: The impact of presence and location of partners and offspring.

Demographic Research, 37, 727-742. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.23

Van der Geest, S. (2004). “They don't come to listen”: The experience of loneliness among

older people in Kwahu, Ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 19(2), 77-

96. doi:10.1023/B:JCCG.0000027846.67305.f0

van Staden, W. C., & Coetzee, K. (2010). Conceptual relations between loneliness and

culture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23(6), 524-529.

doi:10.1097/YCO.0b013e32833f2ff9

van Tilburg, M. A. L., & Vingerhoets, A. (2007). Psychological aspects of geographical

moves: Homesickness and acculturation stress. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

Amsterdam University Press.

van Tilburg, T. G. (1990). The size of the supportive network in association with the degree

of loneliness. In C. P. M. Knipscheer & T. C. Antonucci (Eds.), Social network

research: Substantive issues and methodological questions (pp. 137-150). Lisse,

The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

van Tilburg, T. G., De Jong Gierveld, J., Lecchini, L., & Marsiglia, D. (1998). Social

integration and loneliness: A comparative study among older adults in the

264

Netherlands and Tuscany, Italy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6),

740-754. doi:10.1177/0265407598156002

van Tilburg, T. G., Havens, B., & De Jong Gierveld, J. (2004). Loneliness among older adults

in the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada: A multifaceted comparison. Canadian

Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 23(2), 169-180.

doi:10.1353/cja.2004.0026

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement

invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for

organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.

doi:10.1177/109442810031002

VanderWeele, T. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). On the reciprocal association

between loneliness and subjective well-being. American Journal of Epidemiology,

176(9), 777-784. doi:10.1093/aje/kws173

van Zomeren, M. (2016). From self to social relationships: An essentially relational

perspective on social motivation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Varnum, M. E., Grossmann, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Kitayama, S. (2008). Holism in a European

cultural context: Differences in cognitive style between Central and East Europeans

and Westerners. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8(3), 321-333.

doi:10.1163/156853708X358209

Victor, C. R., Scambler, S. J., Shah, S., Cook, D. G., Harris, T., Rink, E., & De Wilde, S. (2002).

Has loneliness amongst older people increased? An investigation into variations

between cohorts. Ageing & Society, 22(5), 585-597.

doi:10.1017/S0144686X02008784

Vignoles, V. L. (2018). The “common view”, the “cultural binary”, and how to move forward.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(4), 336-345. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12346

Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., . . . Bond,

M. H. (2016). Beyond the “East-West” dichotomy: Global variation in cultural

models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 966-1000.

doi:10.1037/xge0000175

von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., Hansen, T., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Development of loneliness in

midlife and old age: Its nature and correlates. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 118(2), 388–406. doi:10.1037/pspp0000219

265

Walker, A. (1993). Age and attitudes: Main results from a Eurobarometer survey. Brussels,

Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_069_en.pdf

Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The

acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8,

98-104. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021

Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-

disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students: A

longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 602-614.

doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.602

Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto

others: joining, molding, conforming, helping, loving (pp.17-26). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., Greenwald, S., Hsu, H., Ouellette, R., Robins, L. N., ...

& Canino, G. (1992). The changing rate of major depression: Cross-national

comparisons. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268(21), 3098-3105.

doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490210080039

Whitley, R. (2017, July 28). Is an increase in individualism damaging our mental health?

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-

men/201707/is-increase-in-individualism-damaging-our-mental-health

Wilson, R. S., Krueger, K. R., Arnold, S. E., Schneider, J. A., Kelly, J. F., Barnes, L. L., ...

Bennett, D. A. (2007). Loneliness and risk of Alzheimer disease. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 64, 234–240. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.64.2.23

World Values Survey Association. (2016). WORLD VALUES SURVEY (Wave 6 2010-2014)

[OFFICIAL AGGREGATE v.20150418]. Retrieved from www.worldvaluessurvey.org

Yang, K., & Victor, C. (2011). Age and loneliness in 25 European nations. Ageing & Society,

31(8), 1368-1388. doi:10.1017/S0144686X1000139X

Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal

relationships. In O. Gillath, G. E. Adams, & A. D. Kunkel (Eds.), New directions in

close relationships: Integrating across disciplines and theoretical approaches (pp.

266

137-151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

doi:10.1037/13489-007

Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K., & Kamaya, K. (2007).

Development of a Scale to Measure Perceptions of Relational Mobility in Society

(Working Paper No. 75, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences,

Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan). Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/3872326/Development_of_a_scale_to_measure_perce

ptions_of_relational_mobility_in_society

Zhang, R., & Li, L. M. W. (2014). The acculturation of relational mobility: An investigation of

Asian Canadians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1390-1410.

doi:10.1177/0022022114542850

Zoutewelle-Terovan, M., & Liefbroer, A. C. (2017). Swimming against the stream: Non-

normative family transitions and loneliness in later life across 12 nations. The

Gerontologist, 58(6), 1096-1108. doi:10.1093/geront/gnx184

D utch Sum m a ry

270

Eenzaamheid is een onaangename ervaring (bijv. Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988) met

negatieve gevolgen voor de mentale en fysieke gezondheid (bijv. meer depressie, hogere

bloeddruk; Cacioppo, Grippo, Londen, Goossens & Cacioppo, 2015). Het is daarom van

belang om de oorzaken van eenzaamheid (d.w.z., de subjectieve ervaring van geïsoleerd zijn

van anderen; VanderWeele, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2012) beter te begrijpen. Een populair

idee is dat eenzaamheid bijzonder urgent is in moderne en geïndividualiseerde

samenlevingen, omdat die gericht zijn op individueel succes en bevorderen dat steeds meer

mensen alleen leven of gescheiden zijn, afstand nemen van familie, of in verzorgingshuizen

wonen (in plaats van door hun familieleden te worden verzorgd). Eenzaamheid lijkt inderdaad

vaker voor te komen bij degenen die alleen wonen dan bij degenen die met anderen wonen

(Snell, 2017; Swader, 2019), bij ouderen die zonder hun familie wonen of die minder hechte

banden hebben met hun buren (Jylhä & Jokela, 1990), en onder degenen die zichzelf als

individualistisch omschrijven (Triandis et al., 1988).

Desalniettemin blijkt uit onderzoek dat eenzaamheid niet vaker voorkomt in

individualistischere samenlevingen, maar in collectivistischere samenlevingen (bijv. Jylhä &

Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; cf. Barreto et al., 2020). Op basis van bestaande

kennis kan deze culturele paradox van eenzaamheid eigenlijk niet verklaard worden, wat

aangeeft hoe weinig we nog weten over de invloed van cultuur op eenzaamheid. Een beter

begrip hiervan zou belangrijke aanknopingspunten kunnen bieden voor cultuurspecifieke

interventies tegen eenzaamheid.

Op basis van een intersubjectieve definitie van cultuur (d.w.z. cultuur als gezamenlijke ideeën

zoals normen, overtuigingen, of waarden; Chiu et al., 2010; Chiu, Leung, & Hong, 2011)

richten we ons in dit proefschrift op de invloed van culturele normen (over sociale relaties) op

eenzaamheid. Dergelijke normen kunnen twee belangrijke determinanten van eenzaamheid

beïnvloeden (Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981): ze beïnvloeden welke

relaties mensen opbouwen (bijv. of ze over hun zorgen en emoties met vrienden of alleen

met hun familie of partner kunnen praten; Chiu et al., 2010; Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1990)

en wat ze van hun relaties verwachten (bijv. of partnerschappen vooral op basis van

romantische liefde worden aangegaan). Culturele normen over sociale relaties kunnen

eenzaamheid zodoende verhogen door (1) te bevorderen dat mensen relaties opbouwen die

hun relationele behoeften niet kunnen bevredigen; (2) te bevorderen dat mensen hun relaties

als niet bevredigend ervaren (bijv. normen die suggereren dat het normaal of belangrijk is

om relaties te hebben die eigenlijk moeilijk te bereiken zijn). Culturele normen kunnen verder

(3) sociale realiteiten creëren waarin bepaalde mensen vanwege hun eigenschappen of

voorkeuren minder mogelijkheden hebben om bevredigende relaties op te bouwen.

271

Culturele normen zouden zo het type risicofactor, het belang van elke risicofactor en de

prevalentie van risicofactoren voor eenzaamheid kunnen beïnvloeden.

In dit proefschrift onderzoeken we specifiek hoe verschillende culturele normen (zoals

waargenomen door individuen) eenzaamheid kunnen beïnvloeden. We hanteren daarmee

een cultureel-psychologisch perspectief en gebruiken een combinatie van kwantitatief

(Hoofdstukken 2-4) en kwalitatief onderzoek (Hoofdstuk 5) met steekproeven uit in totaal 30

verschillende landen. We (1) identificeren risicofactoren voor eenzaamheid die door

specifieke culturele normen over sociale relaties beïnvloed worden, en (2) integreren deze en

eerdere bevindingen over culturele normen en eenzaamheid in een nieuw theoretisch kader

(culture-loneliness framework; Hoofdstuk 6). Deze integratie biedt een verklaring voor de

culturele paradox van eenzaamheid.

Hoofdstuk 2 De meeste studies die relevant zijn voor de culturele paradox van eenzaamheid hebben de

samenhang tussen eenzaamheid en individualisme-collectivisme (IC) onderzocht. Vaak zijn

deze studies uitgevoerd op cultureel niveau en meten zulke culturele normen niet direct. In

Hoofdstuk 2 onderzoeken we daarom of op individueel niveau verschillende facetten van IC

het risico op eenzaamheid kunnen verhogen. Vanwege onze intersubjectieve definitie van

cultuur richten we ons op individuele percepties van normen die samengevat zijn in IC.

Hoewel eenzaamheid gemiddeld hoger is in collectivistischere dan in individualistischere

landen (bijv. Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014) vonden we dat de meeste indicatoren van hoger

collectivisme op individueel niveau gerelateerd waren aan minder eenzaamheid (onder 1099

mensen in vijf Europese landen met verschillende gemiddelde niveaus van IC; Nederland,

Zweden, Italië, Portugal en Oostenrijk). Dit suggereert dat de culturele paradox van

eenzaamheid mogelijk alleen op cultureel, maar niet op individueel niveau bestaat - althans

in individualistischere en minder sociaal ingebedde contexten (d.w.z., hoe ingebed mensen

zijn in stabiele sociale netwerken). Desalniettemin lijken zowel individualisme als collectivisme

risico's voor eenzaamheid te kunnen betekenen: hoger individualisme was gerelateerd aan

een lagere sociale inbedding, maar hoger collectivisme was gerelateerd aan hogere idealen

over sociale inbedding, en deze waren weer gerelateerd aan grotere verschillen tussen

feitelijke sociale inbedding en idealen erover. Hoger individualisme kan dus tot meer sociale

isolatie, en hoger collectivisme tot minder relatietevredenheid, leiden. De risicofactoren van

hoger individualisme op individueel niveau leken echter sterker te zijn dan degene van hoger

collectivisme.

272

Hoofdstuk 3 In Hoofdstuk 3 kijken we naar culturele normen over hoe vrij mensen hun relaties kunnen

kiezen (een kernaspect van IC; Swader, 2019). In het bijzonder wilden we een oplossing

vinden voor de “culturele eenzaamheids-paradox van keuze”: dat meer keuze het risico op

eenzaamheid zowel kan verkleinen als vergroten. Dit betekent dat meer keuze het zoeken

naar responsievere relaties mogelijk maakt, maar het kan om diezelfde reden ook juist de

stabiliteit van bestaande relaties verminderen. Om deze paradox op te lossen

onderscheidden we culturele normen over relationele mobiliteit (RMn; culturele normen over

het ontmoeten van nieuwe mensen en de daaruit voortkomende keuzes m.b.t. relaties; Yuki

& Schug, 2012) en relationele stabiliteit (RSn; normen over hoe belangrijk het is om vast te

houden aan bestaande relaties) als twee verschillende bronnen van meer of minder vrijheid

om sociale relaties zelf te kiezen. We stelden dat meer keuze het risico op eenzaamheid kan

verhogen als het voortkomt uit een lagere RSn (door minder stabiliteit van bestaande relaties

en dus meer isolatie), maar dat het er ook tegen kan beschermen als het voortkomt uit een

hogere RMn (door meer mogelijkheden om nieuwe, hoogwaardige relaties aan te gaan).

Zowel een hogere RMn als een lagere RSn zijn sterk gerelateerd aan meer keuze m.b.t. sociale

relaties, maar hogere RMn correleerde met minder eenzaamheid en een lagere RSn juist met

meer eenzaamheid (onder 982 personen in vier Europese landen met verschillende

gemiddelde niveaus van RMn en RSn; Finland, Portugal, Oostenrijk en Polen). Dit biedt een

verklaring voor de culturele eenzaamheids-paradox van keuze: Aan de ene kant blijken

normen die relatiekeuze bevorderen te kunnen beschermen tegen eenzaamheid, namelijk als

ze leiden tot meer mogelijkheden om nieuwe mensen te ontmoeten. Tegelijkertijd kunnen ze

het risico op eenzaamheid verhogen, namelijk als ze leiden tot een lagere stabiliteit van

gevestigde sociale relaties. Dit ondersteunt onze bevinding van Hoofdstuk 2 dat culturele

normen een tweesnijdend zwaard zijn: Vergelijkbaar met normen in IC lijken normen die meer

of minder relatiekeuze mogelijk maken het risico op eenzaamheid zowel te kunnen verlagen

als verhogen.

Hoofdstuk 4 In Hoofdstuk 4 richten we ons opnieuw op relationele mobiliteit als een potentiële culturele

invloed op eenzaamheid. Anders dan in eerdere studies onderzoeken we relationele

mobiliteit hier niet als culturele normen in de sociale omgeving van mensen, maar als

eigenschap van de cultuur van herkomst van migranten (d.w.z. de cultuur waarin migranten

opgegroeid zijn en die ze meer of minder hebben geïnternaliseerd). Migranten vormen een

risicogroep m.b.t. eenzaamheid omdat ze direct na hun migratie het risico lopen om sociaal

geïsoleerd te zijn. Vandaar is het bijzonder relevant om te onderzoeken hoe eenzaamheid in

273

deze groep verminderd zou kunnen worden. We stelden dat relationele mobiliteit in de

cultuur van herkomst vaardigheden zou bevorderen die nodig zijn om nieuwe relaties op te

bouwen, en daardoor het risico van eenzaamheid na migratie te verlagen, in ieder geval als

het gaat om gastculturen met een hogere relationele mobiliteit (omdat deze ook

mogelijkheden bieden om nieuwe relaties aan te gaan). Onder 426 studenten-migranten uit

twee verschillende culturele contexten (Duitse en Chinese studenten, als twee van de

grootste groepen studenten-migranten in Groningen) in een gastcultuur met een hoge

relationele mobiliteit (een Nederlandse universiteitsstad) bleek dat relationele mobiliteit

m.b.t. de cultuur van herkomst gerelateerd was aan minder eenzaamheid. Deze bevinding

ondersteunt onze voorspellingen en suggereert dat mensen na migratie makkelijker sociaal

ingebed kunnen raken als ze opgegroeid zijn in een cultuur die mogelijkheden biedt om

nieuwe mensen te ontmoeten en relaties zelf te kiezen (in ieder geval bij het verhuizen naar

een cultuur die ook dergelijke kansen biedt). Dit komt overeen met het idee dat culturele

normen over sociale relaties als geïnternaliseerde tendensen kunnen beschermen tegen

eenzaamheid, zelfs als ze in eerdere culturele omgevingen ontstaan zijn en mensen inmiddels

in een andere culturele context leven. Deze bevindingen komen ook overeen met wat we in

Hoofdstukken 2 en 3 hebben opgemerkt: dat culturele normen die individuen meer vrijheid

geven om hun sociale relaties te kiezen kunnen beschermen tegen eenzaamheid.

Hoofdstuk 5 In de drie kwantitatieve hoofdstukken van dit proefschrift namen we aan dat de ervaring van

eenzaamheid vergelijkbaar is over verschillende culturen heen. In Hoofdstuk 5 testen we deze

veronderstelling via diepte-interviews met mensen over hun ervaring met eenzaamheid in

culturen met verschillende niveaus van sociale inbedding. Over het algemeen richt

psychologisch onderzoek zich meestal op mensen in culturen met een relatief lage sociale

inbedding (zoals individualistischere culturen; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), waar

eenzaamheid en sociaal isolement vaak door elkaar worden gehaald (Hendrix, 2018; Leahy,

2017; Whitley, 2017). Mensen in sterker ingebedde culturen zijn echter zelden alleen of

zonder sociale banden, maar geven toch aan zich eenzaam te voelen. Het fenomeen van

eenzaamheid (d.w.z. de definitie van eenzaamheid, de waargenomen oorzaken en

oplossingen) in deze culturen zou dus kunnen afwijken van wat we weten vanuit sociaal minder

ingebedde culturen.

Onze thematische analyse van 42 diepte-interviews uit Oostenrijk, Bulgarije, Israël, Egypte en

India suggereert dat invloedrijke conceptualisaties van eenzaamheid in de

onderzoeksliteratuur (vaak gericht op minder sociaal ingebedde culturen) de ervaring van

eenzaamheid in culturen met verschillende niveaus van sociale inbedding vrij nauwkeurig

274

beschrijven. Onze bevindingen in dit hoofdstuk ondersteunen daarmee de validiteit van

culturele studies over eenzaamheid, omdat ze aangeven dat het fenomeen eenzaamheid over

verschillende culturen heen vergelijkbaar is.

Bovendien vullen de kwalitatieve bevindingen in dit hoofdstuk onze kwantitatieve

bevindingen uit de Hoofdstukken 2-4 aan met betekenisvolle verhalen en voorbeelden, en

onthullen ze ook (cultuurspecifieke) aspecten van eenzaamheid die in het verleden weinig

benoemd zijn. Zo zeiden mensen zich vaak eenzaam te voelen ondanks bevredigende sociale

relaties (bijv. als ze financiële of werk-gerelateerde problemen hebben, of als ze belangrijke

beslissingen moeten nemen). Verder werden alleen-zijn en onafhankelijkheid (in plaats van

meer sociaal contact) vaak als belangrijke oplossingen voor eenzaamheid genoemd. Hoewel

er geen fundamentele kwalitatieve verschillen in ervaringen van eenzaamheid bleken te zijn,

merkten we verder wel potentiële culturele verschillen op m.b.t. hoe relevant bepaalde

aspecten van eenzaamheid waren, en in hoe deze tot uiting kwamen in cultuurspecifieke

situaties (zo werd alleen-zijn bijvoorbeeld vaker als oplossing voor eenzaamheid gezien in

meer dan in minder sociaal ingebedde culturen). Deze aspecten kunnen aanknopingspunten

bieden voor toekomstig onderzoek in een culturele psychologie van eenzaamheid.

Hoofdstuk 6 De culturele paradox van eenzaamheid is dat mensen in culturen waar mensen sterker sociaal

ingebed zijn (bijv. collectivistischere culturen) zich, vergeleken met mensen uit culturen waar

mensen minder sociaal ingebed zijn, toch eenzamer voelen. Een belangrijk doel van de eerste

vier empirische hoofdstukken was dus om inzicht te geven in de risico’s die zulke culturele

normen (bijv. hoger collectivisme, hoger RSn, lager RMn) voor eenzaamheid inhouden. Uit

Hoofdstuk 5 blijkt verder dat eenzaamheid over verschillende culturen heen vergeleken kan

worden. In Hoofdstuk 6 integreren we de bevindingen van dit proefschrift en de

eenzaamheidsliteratuur in het nieuwe culture-loneliness framework, dat we vervolgens testen

met een analyse van European Social Survey data (met 47.099 deelnemers uit 25 landen).

Specifiek kijken we naar hoe meer of minder restrictieve normen over sociale relaties (d.w.z.

in hoeverre culturele normen de vrijheid van mensen beperken om zelf vorm te geven aan

hun relaties) samenhangen met verschillende risico’s op eenzaamheid. Hoe restrictief zulke

normen zijn is een culturele eigenschap die gerelateerd kan worden aan alle normen die we

in de Hoofdstukken 2-5 onderzocht hebben: Restrictievere normen hangen samen met hoger

collectivisme, lagere RMn, hogere RSn, en een hogere sociale inbedding.

Specifiek verbinden we meer individuele vrijheid om zelf vorm te geven aan de eigen relaties

met een hoger risico van fysiek isolement (d.w.z. alleen zijn of geen sociale relaties hebben).

Tegelijkertijd stellen we dat minder vrijheid tot hogere risico’s van emotioneel (d.w.z. te

275

weinig begrip of steun van anderen; geen of te weinig bevredigende relaties) en

waargenomen isolement (d.w.z. de waarneming dat de eigen relaties niet kunnen voldoen

aan idealen) kan leiden. Elk soort isolement verhoogt daarmee het risico van eenzaamheid.

Met andere woorden, we stellen dat mensen in minder restrictievere culturen eerder hun

relaties verwaarlozen of zelfs opgeven. Tegelijkertijd zijn mensen in restrictievere culturen

vaak meer gebonden aan relaties die niet aan hun behoeften voldoen, ervaren ze hun relaties

als onvoldoende, of worden ze sociaal gestraft als ze niet aan culturele idealen voldoen. De

culturele paradox van eenzaamheid kan dus worden verklaard doordat risico's van

restrictievere normen (bijv. collectivistischere normen) zwaarder wegen dan de sterkere

sociale inbedding die ze ook impliceren.

Theoretische implicaties Ons onderzoek benadrukt het belang van culturele normen over sociale relaties om

eenzaamheid beter te begrijpen. Eerder onderzoek was vooral gericht op oorzaken van

eenzaamheid in de micro- en meso-systemen (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), zoals persoonlijke (bijv.

introversie; Buecker et al., 2020) of relationele eigenschappen (bijv. relatiekwaliteit; Hawkley

et al., 2008; Shiovitz-Ezra & Leitsch, 2010). Dit proefschrift stelt voor dat culturele normen (als

variabelen op macroniveau) bescherming kunnen bieden tegen eenzaamheid, of juist een

risico kunnen inhouden (Hoofdstukken 2-4). Verder kunnen ze beïnvloeden welke

risicofactoren in een cultuur domineren (Hoofdstukken 5 en 6). Culturele variabelen kunnen

daarmee fungeren als voorspellers en moderatoren (en randvoorwaarden) binnen modellen

over eenzaamheid.

Als een belangrijke voorwaarde voor een dergelijke cross-culturele psychologie van

eenzaamheid suggereert Hoofdstuk 5 dat het fenomeen eenzaamheid over verschillende

culturen heen vergelijkbaar is. Dit impliceert dat we waarschijnlijk op valide wijze cultureel

onderzoek naar eenzaamheid kunnen doen en daardoor kunnen testen of inzichten vanuit

één culturele context (bijvoorbeeld m.b.t. interventies) toepasbaar zijn in andere culturele

contexten. Dit betekent niet dat we eenzaamheid in verschillende culturen met one-size-fits-

all interventies moeten willen bestrijden, maar dat we in ieder geval hetzelfde fenomeen

onderzoeken en proberen tegen te gaan.

Praktische implicaties Een belangrijke praktische implicatie van dit proefschrift is dat zowel mensen binnen culturen

met een lagere als met een hogere sociale inbedding (bijv. in zowel individualistischere als

collectivistischere culturen) baat kunnen hebben bij interventies tegen eenzaamheid. Hoewel

sommige leden van culturen waar mensen minder sociaal ingebed zijn een hoger risico op

276

fysiek isolement kunnen lopen (Hoofdstuk 2), lijkt de slechte reputatie van individualisme op

dit gebied (bijv. Hansen, 2018; Leahy, 2017) niet volledig gerechtvaardigd te zijn, althans op

cultureel niveau. In plaats daarvan lijkt eenzaamheid een universeel fenomeen te zijn dat in

verschillende culturen preventie en behandeling vereist.

Dit proefschrift biedt zodoende aanknopingspunten om eenzaamheid op cultuurspecifieke

manieren tegen te gaan, bijvoorbeeld door interventies aan te passen aan bestaande

culturele normen. Culturen met een lagere sociale inbedding kunnen bijvoorbeeld

interventies vereisen die voornamelijk gericht zijn op het voorkomen van fysiek isolement. Dit

is vaak al de focus van interventies in westerse landen. Deze interventies omvatten

bijvoorbeeld gezamenlijke maaltijden of openbaar vervoer om sociaal contact te bevorderen.

Daarentegen zijn dergelijke interventies misschien minder effectief in culturen met een

hogere sociale inbedding, waar de meeste mensen maar weinig tijd alleen doorbrengen

(Hoofdstuk 6). In deze culturen zouden interventies zich eerder op risico's moeten richten

zoals emotioneel isolement, en hoge of starre verwachtingen van sociale relaties en de daaruit

voortkomende stigmatisering van afwijkingen van normen (bijv. niet te gaan trouwen).

Conclusie Via multi-method onderzoek en nieuwe theorievorming (d.w.z., het culture-loneliness

framework) biedt dit proefschrift een nieuwe verklaring voor de culturele paradox van

eenzaamheid (dat mensen in collectivistischere landen aangeven zich eenzamer te voelen dan

mensen in individualistischere landen). We stellen dat eenzaamheid mensen over de hele

wereld kan treffen, maar om verschillende redenen. Mensen in culturen met minder

restrictieve normen over sociale relaties kunnen zich eenzaam voelen omdat ze meer kans

lopen om fysiek geïsoleerd te zijn. Tegelijkertijd kunnen mensen in culturen met restrictievere

normen zich zelfs eenzamer voelen omdat ze minder mogelijkheden hebben om

bevredigende relaties op te bouwen, en vanwege minder cultureel aanvaardbare relaties. Het

is dus van groot belang om in onderzoek naar eenzaamheid rekening te houden met culturele

normen m.b.t. sociale relaties. Dit zal helpen om cultuurspecifieke interventies tegen

eenzaamheid te ontwikkelen, en eenzaamheid in verschillende culturele groepen te kunnen

verlichten.

Ackno wled g em ents (a nd O ther Re leva ntNotes )

280

Whenever I tell people that my research revolves around loneliness, their first reaction is: “Oh,

what a sad topic!” They laugh awkwardly because they feel awkward talking about the deeply

personal (and, to them, somewhat shameful) topic of loneliness. They look at me pitifully, as

if my participants’ loneliness had certainly infected me, too.62

Others put on their face of “I’m sure you haven’t considered that one” and ask me in their

smartest voice: “Well, do you examine loneliness or being alone? Because I’m often alone,

but then I’m not necessarily lonely”. Yes, dear people – lesson number one in loneliness

research is: loneliness and being alone are not the same. You can feel perfectly connected

when you are alone and you can feel terribly lonely around people, and even around those

you love.

Something I cannot agree with, however, comes from a dear family member who will remain

unnamed and who asked me at the start of my PhD: “Why would one need to do research

about loneliness? You feel lonely if you don’t have friends, that’s it.” Well… Whether or not

we need research about loneliness is debatable, but based on my research, I can tell you that

not having friends is usually not the reason.

I know that the above are not really acknowledgements, but I have a slight tendency to be

off-topic (Heu, 2004 or so; failing part of a high school exam for writing a fictive interview with

the wrong person), and this is the only place in my dissertation where I can write without

adhering to logic, scientific standards, and formatting rules – which is true freedom after

seriously considering and re-considering thousands of well-placed academic sentences.

Additionally, the hopefully numerous offline attendees of my defence need something to do

while I am talking in difficult-to-understand academic English (which, according to some other

family members, is merely “bad English”). So, let me defend in bad English and continue

reading.

The Real Thank You Section I can only agree with Yasin when he says “Work is my secure base.” Additionally, however,

there are many human beings who have gone through the last years or even my entire life

with me, and who I would like to mention because they directly or indirectly supported the

development of this work. Indeed, many of these people have made me realize in practice

how important good relationships are for one’s well-being – and much more so than a

scientific product like the one you’re currently holding in your hands (or reading on your

62 Indeed, loneliness spreads in networks, but I believe that I rather feel less lonely when people share their loneliness experiences with me.

281

screen). As you will see, my gratefulness is so great that even this section had to be longer

than usual.

Martijn and Nina

The first paragraph of an acknowledgements section should be dedicated to one’s

supervisors. Deservedly so, I believe – and not only given the length of this thesis (Martijn,

was it you who said that I was challenging to supervise?). But what do supervisors typically

do? They look at the beautiful construction you have just constructed, and throw it all over.

An unrewarding job (unless one has some sadistic tendencies), given that it makes supervisors

the targets of quite some undeserved frustration and despair. Notwithstanding (those who

know will know why this is in italics), I am not lying when I say that Martijn and Nina have

provided me with the most beautiful construction materials and were very gentle in their

destruction. That is (same here), Nina was particularly good at admiring my – admittedly

sometimes overly complex – construction works while Martijn was particularly skilled at gently

(so many italics, just to acknowledge my supervisor!) throwing them over by Socratically

dialoguing them until I would throw them over myself.

More seriously now: I mean it when I write that I could not have wished for better supervision.

I have gone through less easy times in my PhD, but I never regretted staying in Groningen

exactly because you supervised me. You provided space for new ideas, unconventionality,

and creativity, room to grow scientifically and personally, to cry at your offices (I believe that

I managed to cry at Nina’s office, Martijn’s old as well as Martijn’s new office – and not just

because loneliness is such a sad topic), emotional support, and numerous fun and enjoyable

discussions. I am incredibly grateful for the secure professional base that you’ve provided me

with, and really hope for collaborations in the future.

My Work and Beyond Friends

Next, I want to acknowledge my dear colleagues and work-related friends. You have made

the first year of my PhD and the year before we all vanished into lockdown and corona

biedermeyer two of the best of my life.

Justin and Babet, although we could only share Das Büro for a way too short time, we

managed to create a good home for Franz-Josef (the scholarly duck), engage in loads of

illegal tea brewing and fritzle out all kinds of things – even without Palatschinken, but with

quite some Apfelstrudel. Bussi Baba (but hopefully not for too long).

Frank, my English per-nun-cee-ation teacher (please pronounce otorhinolaryngologist),

reliable lunch and Minnaar buddy, and extremely appreciated daily walk partner during

lockdown. Thank you for being so loyal, reliable, and for all the more or less irrelevant bits

282

and pieces of information you’ve provided me with (e.g., about the screams of distressed

grass).

Gonneke, the good soul of events and initiatives, care-taker of everyone’s emotional well-

being, best (pre-COVID) hugger of the department, evening walk partner, and more than

highly esteemed co-dancer (to be continued post-COVIDly).

Chantal, my incredibly good-hearted and open spiritual partner-in-crime, most reliable coffee

place co-worker in the COVID-break summer, and co-traveller through way too many layers

of space.

Felix, my favourite - sometimes vanishing - onion, who tends to bring larger-volume but less-

heavy lunch boxes than me, who made Tatort-without-Tatort happen, and who made me

laugh so much that I could not stop coughing at lunch breaks.

Josefine, the most stylish and generous host I know – irrespective of whether at the different

Groningen apartments I got to visit you in or on Schiermonnikoog. How many kilometres may

we have walked throughout both your and my PhD combined? They were filled with so many

engaging conversations that I would not know and that we always needed to do extra-turns

to round them off.

Marloes, my South-Asian research trip co-survivor, Dutch teacher, and incredibly kind and

caring office mate (whenever we finally managed to align our office working hours). Thank

you for being a great listener, for doing me the honour of making me your paranymph, and

for a beautiful post-conference white-village weekend in Spain.

Daniel and Elliot, thank you for countless jamming, wrap (not rap, unfortunately, because only

my music taste is more urban than one might expect - but, on a different note, Daniel, why

did we add beetroot to the wraps again?) and/or tea sessions (with milk), and dinners, which

made Groningen feel like home in the first PhD year. For being wonderful conversation

partners (in quite different ways), and for our trip to Exeter (and beyond) – which was one of

the most enjoyable holidays of my life.

Chris, for taking the effort of writing an Engerl-Bengerl rap (not wrap!) poem for me, for being

the probably only person at the department who shares my music taste, and who I can

exchange hiphop moves with.

Finally, Aharon, my not-so random go-to person on the other side of the world. My

collaborator and highly mysterious friend, whom I do not always understand (because of too

much mysteriousness), but whose way of being I just deeply appreciated right from being

assigned Portuguese nationality to the first and only city tour that had exactly the right pace

for me.

283

And, last but totally not least, the dear people who have introduced me to their cultures and

who have been wonderful hosts in my qualitative research and film project: Particularly my

friends Mahmoud and Tsveti, as well as Aiswarya, and all their lovely, warm-hearted,

welcoming families. You made this project an incredible experience.

The Department

Next, I am extremely grateful for having had the chance to work in an environment that is as

open, sociable and caring as the social psychology group in Groningen. Our shared lunches

and Minnaar evenings made for countless enjoyable moments, a sense of reality, and of

community.

I want to particularly thank Sabine for bringing me to the department by pointing out that er

gaat niets boven Groningen, for initially being my PhD co-promotor, and for generally being

an incredibly nice and impressive person.

I also want to mention Kai, Katherine, Catia, and Toon, who have been meaningful colleagues

and important members of the department for me. I truly appreciate your engagement,

reliability, integrity, authenticity, humanity, and sense of humour.

And Beyond

Even though this dissertation may suggest otherwise, there is a social life outside work. The

different people who have been assigned to me or who I found along the way are the invisible

basis of this thesis. They have made my life, education, functionality, and ideas only possible.

First things first. Mama und Papa, who have brought me into this world and taught me to be

critical and think out of the box. Thank you for being available when I was going through less

easy times.

Mama, who has challenged my premature linguistic brain with professional medical

vocabulary, cared for, and suffered with me, toughened me up with pictures of injuries,

surgeries, and eczema on the kitchen table, with who-knows-better arguments, but softened

me with back massages. And who I can have great discussions that jump from family history

to feminism, from Jesus to Sufism to Jewish traditions, from Van der Bellens to unloved

Austrian (vice) chancellors etc. etc.

Papa, who has financed my studies despite predicting a career as a taxi driver after studying

psychology (luckily, you also helped me finance my driver’s license, but also luckily, I do not

need it often [yet]). Whose opinion and advice I take very seriously, who is often wonderfully

rational, and who cares and supports me in his own way. Thank you for encouraging me to

write a pop-science loneliness book.

284

Clau, my partial soulmate, mentor, friend, colleague, and aunt. Sometimes words cannot

capture the preciousness of a relationship, but this world seems so much more open and safer

with you.

Noemi, Jan - the two people whose existence provides me with a true sense of belonging.

Noemi, who knows me like no other, and who I can most fully be myself with. Jan, who has

become this taller-than-me, thoughtful, responsible, fun person, who helps me better

understand gender topics and who really inspires me with his integrity.

Oma, who I’ve spent hours and hours on the phone with, discussing theology, the purpose

of life, politics, history, stomach inflammations, and so forth. Thank you for lighting candles in

churches for me and always following me with your good thoughts; for providing the most

stable, structured, and serene place of my life (although you coquettishly consider your

admiration of beautiful items frivolous), and for imposing historical facts on me until I

remember at least some of them.

Leo, my most important and special Groningen friend, who made me learn so much about

different ways of expressing friendship, and who allows me to call things by their name. Who

inadvertently and/or advertently thinks out of the box like no one else, and who is generally

so beautifully distinctive. Frau Kriegel, bevor der Tod uns scheidet pilgern wir aber jetzt

wirklich mal mit dem Nachtzug nach Lissabon.

Carlijn, who has been my best conference company and Guelph doppelgänger, but has

become a very important and close friend, my host during dancing Amsterdam weekends,

and most appreciated when it comes to talking about relationships and spirituality.

Aoife, my best plane acquaintance on a rainy flight from London Southend (with temporary

power cuts before take-off) to Groningen Eelde in an otherwise empty plane (I believe we

were only seated next to each other after weight re-distribution?). Thank you for all the

inspiring conversations about pretty much anything, your courage to take different

perspectives and fight for them, and for assigning me a badass identity.

Gijs, who has adopted me as his sister through part of my PhD time. Who has shared his

Hilversum apartment (including Ohropax) and walks with me. Thank you for your kindness,

attentiveness and empathy.

Julius, who has made me feel so much stronger for a while, supported me in my imagination

and dreams, made me learn more about partnership – despite the distance.

Hannah and Regina, who were the absolutely best lockdown housemates I could have wished

for – simply those who were truly in da house.

285

Stephan and Nikos, who I have been to the cinema with more often than with anyone else.

Thank you for sharing my independent movie taste, for engaging cinematic discussions and

other discussions, barbecues, dinners and beers.

Flora, Hannah, Franziska, Lucia, who have gone through so many years or even my entire life

with me.

Fenni, who cares so openly, has added her wonderful taste, appreciation of colour, design,

order, and physiotherapist hands to my life. Thank you for all your efforts, affection, and for

believing in, and supporting me and particularly my creative side.

Juliane and Mitch, who have provided refuge in their temporary Berlin villa apartment, with

enough freedom, lovely concern about suitable meals, and many enjoyable more or less

scholarly conversations.

Sibylle, my caring and concerned aunt. Thank you for Waldviertel invitations including

delicious garden food and walks, and for inspiring me with your patterns, colours, and style.

Helmut, who I had a particularly insightful conversation about loneliness with. Thank you for

offering musical support for the loneliness exhibition website.

Fritzi and Alex, who are so very enthusiastic and warm-hearted. Fritzi, thank you for taking

part in any research project I approach you with.

The dancing people and all the others I have met and who have hidden in the corners of my

forgetfulness while I was writing this Acknowledgements section.

And Jeremy, who called me a filmmaker. (You’re being missed.)

Finally, I want to thank my body and mind for being so persistent despite ill-beings. Their

patience has allowed me to make this very small 300+100 page contribution to the world. I

hope that others can follow.

Curriculum Vitae

288

Luzia Cassis Heu was born and raised in Vienna, Austria, to a partly Austrian, partly German,

partly Catholic, partly Protestant, partly originally Jewish, partly atheist, partly spiritual, quite

urban, partly originally mountain village, patchwork family. School time was highly successful

yet dark and will be omitted in this brief overview.

After much indecisiveness about whether to study film, graphic design, mathematics,

logopedics, or something entirely different, and a year of undergraduate studies in urban

planning at the Technical University of Vienna (2010-2011), she inadvertently passed the

entrance exam to study psychology. In 2011, she hence enrolled at the University of Vienna

to explore the mysteries of human mind and behavior (with a minor in sociology and

population studies) and, well, to study law (because in her cultural surroundings at that time,

studying psychology was considered a hobby rather than something to get a job with).

However, law soon became less than priority when she discovered her interest in

psychological research. This distinguished her from the large majority of those who aspired

to heal and support people. Her (compared to peers) slightly abnormal interest in statistics

and research methods combined with this - what could be considered asocial or at least un-

social - tendency allowed her to pursue a research internship with dr. Birgitta Gatersleben at

the University of Surrey (2012), a student research assistantship with prof. Arnd Florack at the

University of Vienna (2013-2014), and to gain multiple scholarships for excellent students

(2011-2014).

Kind words by prof. Sabine Otten and the pointer that “Er gaat niets boven Groningen”

(especially not a competing university town far South that we’ll for now leave unnamed) then

brought her to the University of Groningen. Between 2014 and 2016, she pursued a research

master’s programme in Behavioural and Social Sciences in the track social psychology (with

some excursions into population studies/demography), where she immediately fell in love

with cultural psychology, and has been loyal ever since.

As such, she was supervised by dr. Nina Hansen on an adventurous research trip to Sri Lanka

(with a scholarship for research master students from the Marco Polo fund and a scholarship

for excellent students from the Groningen University Fund; 2015) and by prof. Martijn van

Zomeren for her master thesis about individualism-collectivism and loneliness (for which they

received the Groninger Alumnivereniging Psychologie Master Thesis Prize; 2016). For the

study year 2015/2016, she was elected the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Science’s winner

of the GUF-100 Prize by the Foundation Groningen University Fund.

It is no secret that it was particularly good supervision that then made her stay in Groningen

for her PhD research about cultural norms and loneliness (for more information, see previous

pages).

289

Next to her research activities, she makes films, writes poetry, paints, takes pictures, dances,

occasionally sings, and does most of the other things that human beings tend to do (e.g.,

grocery shopping, sometimes feeling lonely).