interpersonal relatedness and self definition in the experience of loneliness during the ttransition...

Personal Relutionships, 4 (1 997), 285-299. Printed in the IJnited States ol America Copyright 0 1997 ISSPR. 1350-4126197 $7.50 + .10

Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in the experience of loneliness during the transition to university

HADAS WISEMAN University of Haifi?

Abstract Blatt's (1 900) theory on the two primary dimensions in pcrsonality-intcrpcrsonal relatedness and

studcnts (84 males and 92 females) who completcd the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ) at the beginning o f Eirst-year university (time I ) and the UCLA Loneliness S q l c (trait and state vcrsions) at the beginning and at the middle of first-year university (time 2). A subsample of students (n = 74) also completed Sharabany's Intimacy Scale at time 2. Trait loncliness was accounted for by higher lcvcls of Sell-Criticism (SC) and lower levels of Efficacy (E). Change in state loneliness from time t to time 2 (i.e,, overcoming state loncliness) was predicted by lower Self-Criticism and higher Efficacy. In the relationship with an intimate partner, Self-Criticism negativcly predicted frankness, sensitivity, and trust, whereas Dependency positively predicted attachment, giving, and trust. The centrality ol self-criticism in vulnerability to loncliness and in lack of intimacy is discussed, and directions for future research on loneliness and'personality styles are suggested.

pplicd to the study of loneliness during the transition to university. Participants were 176

Two fundamental dimensions in personality development-interpersonal relatedness and self-definition-have recently been the focus of major theoretical and empirical work (e.g., Bakan, 1966; Blatt 1974, 1990; Bowlby, 1973; Gilligan, 1982; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Josselson, 1992;

This rcscarch was supported by a grant from the Israel Foundations Trustces. I gratcl'ully acknowledge the contribution of Amia Lieblich to the initial stages of developing this project; Orli Bar-Shalom-Lavon for her efficient work as research co-ordinator; and Ayelet Rack, Dodo Frenkal, and Miri Sarid for their assis- tance with this research. 1 am indebted to the Devel- opmental Group of the University of Haifa for helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, and to Susan Sprecher and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of the article.

Correspondence should be addressed to Hadas Wiseman, School of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Hail'a 31905, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

McAdams, 198s). The purpose of the prcsent research was to study the relationship between these two dimensions of personality development, and the experience of loneliness in young adults during the transition to university. It is argued that previous studies on personality and loneliness (e.g., Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana, 1985; Schmitt & Kurdek, 1985; Stokes, 198.5) have, for the most part, suffered from a lack of a theoretical model for relating personality variables to loneliness. Following the first stage of justifying the concept of loneliness, and the second stage of demonstrating its similarities to and differences from other phenomena, research on loneliness has moved toward the third stage of for- mulating theories on loneliness (Perlman, 1987). The present study sought to contrib- ute to these efforts by applying Blatt's (1990) model of personality development to the study of loneliness.

285

286 H. Wiseman

Blatt’s Model of Personality Development terized by guilt, inferiority, and worthless- ness, and the sense of failure to livc up to expcctations and standards. Blatt ( I 990) proposed a theoretical model

that considers personality devclopmcnt as ‘I’he Dcpressive Experiences Question- mire (DEQ), developed by Blatt and his proceeding through a complex transaction

colleagucs (Blatt, D’Afllitti, & Quinlan, between two fundamental dcvelopnicntal

1976), assesses these two types of depres- lines: (1) the “interpcrsonal relatedness”

rneasurcs of dcpression, which focus on the capacity to establish increasingly mature, reciprocal, a n d satisfying interpersonal symptoms of the clinical disorder of dcpres- rclationships; and (2) the “sclT-definition” the DEQ was developed to permit the line involving thc devclopmcnt of a con- study of the continuities between solidated, realistic, essentially positive, in- and psychopathological forms of deprcs- creasingly diffcrentiated and integrated Factor analysis of the DEQ i n a sam- self-definition or identity. Personality de- ple of and collxe students velopment, according to Blatt, is the result ( ~ l ~ t t et al . , 1976) identified thre’c @,-tors, o f a complex dialcctical proccss between labeled Dependency, self-criticism, and

line involving thc development of the sive personality sty]es. In contrast to most

these two lines, whercby the devclopmcnt Of COnCCpts of the Self depends On estab-

Efficacy. while the first alld second factors refer to the two types of dysphoria indi-

lishing satisfactory relationships, and the catcd above (i.c., dependency or inter- development of satisfying relationships de- personal dysphoria and self-cKiticism pends the of more mature dysphoria), the third factor, Efficacy, con- concepts of the self. In normal personality sists of itenis jndicatiIlg a of confi- development, these two ProcessCs evolve in dence about one’s res(1urces and capacities, an interactive, reciprocally balanced, mutu- themes high standards and personal ally facilitating fashion throughout the life goals, a of responsibility, inner

ally, normality can be defined as an integra- and satisfaction in one’s accomplishments tion of intcrpersonal relatedness and self- definition. Within the normal range, Although the DEQ was originally devel- however, individuals place relatively oped to the two types of depression greater ctnphasis on one dcvelopmental in normal and clinical samples, research hnc Ovcr the other. Hence, the basic as- enlploying the DEQ has referred to D ~ - sumption underlying Watt’s theory is that a pendellcy and Self-criticism as personality relative emphasis on cither interpersonal variables (Zuroff, 1994), which correspond relatedness Or SCIf-definitiotl defines two to the two primary personality dimen- broad character or personality types, which sions-interpersonal relatedness and self- in the extreme define two broad COnfigLIra- definition. Moreover, given the high test-re- tions of psychopathology (Hlatt, 1990). test reliabilities of Dependency and

‘rhc distinction between individuals who Self-criticism, it was suggested that the place a n emphasis on interpersonal related- scales measure vulnerabilities to experi- ness and thosc who place an emphasis on ence the two types of dysphoria, rather than sclf-definition has emerged initially from measure the intensity of momentary mood Blatl’s (1 974) proposed distinction betwecn states (Zuroff, Moskowitz, Wielgus, Powers, two types or depression: ( I ) an “anaclitic,” & Franko, 1983). dependcnt type of depression, charac- The interpersonal relationships of de- terized by feelings or helplessness and pendent and self-critical individuals have weakness, by fears of abandonment, and by recently begun to be subject to research, intense needs to obtain love, protection and especially with female college students (re- nuturance; and (2) an “introjective,” self- vicwed in Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). It was critical type of depression, which is charac- found that women high on DEQ Depend-

Cycle (Blatt, 1 990; Blatt & B h S , 19%). Ide- personal independence, and p;ide

& Zuroff, 1992).

Interpersonul relutednc,ss Lind self-de,finition 287

ency value emotional closeness and invest in interpersonal relations, whereas women high on DEQ Self-Criticism are impaired in their ability to develop satisfying interpersonal relations (Zuroff & de Lorimier, 1989). In clinical samples, Dependency in patients was associated with fears of abandonment and feelings of loneliness. Self- criticism in patients was associated with social isolation, and these patients consider themselves to bc personal and social fail- ures, and are intensely and critically involved in work rather than in relationships (Blatt, Quinlan, Cbcvron, McDonald, & Zurolf, 1982). Thus, it appears that loneliness is an issuc relevant to both types of individuals: Thc Dependent preoccupied with interpersonal relatedness concerns would be motivated to avoid feelings of loneliness, yet despite the tendency to invest in relations the Dependent will be at risk ol cxperiencing loneliness; the Self- Critic preoccupied with self-definition concerns would be at risk of social isolation and fcelings of dissatisfaction with his or her interpersonal relationships.

Loneliness in the Transition to University

In the last fiftecn years there has been a growing interest in the study of loneliness, with special emphasis on the relationship between loneliness and mental health, the identification of high-risk groups, and the development of prevention and intervention program (Archibald, Bartholomew, & Marx, 1995;Hojat & Crandall, 1987; Maran- goni & William, 1989; McWhirter, 1990; Pe- plau & Perlman, 1982; Rook, 1988; Weiss, 1987). Loneliness often appears following the disruption of relationships. For young people in transition to adulthood, such dis- ruptions are inescapable as they face the developmental task of establishing adult social relationships (Erikson, 1968). Indeed, late adolescence and early adulthood were found to be times of especially high risk of loneliness (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982). Specifically, during the transition to college, the young adult is faced with the stress of living away from his or her family and of

lacking his or her previous social support system. At such a time the student is called upon to create new relationships, decide whether and how to maintain contact with old network members, and cope with feelings of loss and loneliness (Shaver, Furman, & Buhrmester, 1985).

Employing a longitudinal design to study changes in loneliness throughout the first year of college, Cutrona (1982) found that the freshmen in her sample tended to be lonely in the autumn, but most of them recovered by the end of the year because of the formation of new friendship networks. Howkver, one-fifth of her UCLA sample remained Lonely throughout their first year of college. Shaver et al. (1985) argued that the students who remain lonely all year “seem to want something more or something special from their relationships that they are rarely able to obtain, and this is true even in the absence of external reasons for relationship dissatisfaction” (p. 213). But what lies behind these unsatisfied nceds? Why do these students find it diffi- cult to adapt .to the new social situation, in comparison with their counterparts who adapt successfully to the transition to university life? It is suggested that some an- swers might be provided in the present research by applying Blatt’s (1990) model of personality development to the study of loneliness.

Dissatisfaction with the quality of friendships (Cutrona, 1982; Jones et al., 1985; Wiseman, in press) and lack of intimacy (Wheeler, Reis, & Nezlek, 1983; Wise- man & Lieblich, 1989) have been shown to be linked to loneliness. This consistent picture from previous research with college students led to including in the present investigation an examination of the degree of intimacy that students enjoyed. The purpose was twofold: First, treating intimacy as the other side of the coin of loneliness, it is of interest to shed further light on the quality of intimate relationships that individuals form as a function of their personality style; and second, treating intimacy as a mediat- ing variable, the possibility that intimacy

288 H. Wiseman

might mediate between the personality dimensions and loneliness will be tested.

oping intimate relationships and an autono- mous self-identity are both a t their peak. ‘I’his is particularly cvident i n the context of t hc transition to university, where young men and women are concurrently dealing with a ncw social environment and with a new arena for defining their capabilities and consolidating self-identity. Therefore, the transition to college is suggested as a Ixirticularly suitable context for studying the relation between interpersonal rclated- ness and sell-definition, and the experience of lonclincss.

111 young adulthood, the tasks of devel-

The need l o rlislinguish slate vs. trail loneliness

’The focus of the present research on aspects of personality as they relate to thc cxperience o f loneliness has direct rele- vance to the issue of whether loneliness is a state or a trait. As Russell (1982) has con- tended, loneliness can have both charac- teristics. Hence, researchers have argued lor the need to distinguish bctwecn tcnipo- rary and chronic loneliness, or “state” vs. ‘‘trait” loneliness (Hojat Kr Crandall, 1987; Marangoni Kr William, 1989; Rook, 1988). State loneliness results from immediate interpersonal deficits in D given situation, such as the transition to college, and is usu- itlly tcmporary as it dissipates with changes in the situation and the passage of time. In contrast, trait loneliness is viewed as a rela- lively stable fcalure of personality that results l‘roni chronic interpersonal failure (Ioncs, 1987). The failure to consider the state-trait distinction is particularly prob- lematic in studying college students, as the proportion of the sample suffering from state or trait loneliness is likely to be a rc- llcction of the time lrom the start of the academic year. Studies conducted in the fall term are more likely to include the statc- lonely, whereas studies conducted in the spring probably pick up the trait-lonely, because most of the state-lonely students will have recovered (Rook, 1988; Shaver et a].,

1985). ’Thus, in the present study on the experience o f loneliness during the transition to university, it was crucial to differentiate between state and trait loneliness.

The Present Study

To investigate the relationship between interpersonal relatedness and self-delinition and the cxperience of loneliness during the tran4lion lo university, a longitudinal design was employed in which both state and trait loneliness were assessed at two points in time: the point of transition (at the beginning of the acadcmic year), and aftcr a period ot time that allows for adjustment (at the middle of the academic year). Speciti- cally, the hypothcses were as follows:

H I : Trait 1on.eliness (at the heginning 01 the year) will be associated with the subjects’ L l E Q scores; both Dependency ( U ) and &([-Criticism (SC) will he positively related to trait loneliness, whereas .Efficacy ( E ) (i.e., well-being) will he negalively related to trait loneliness.

H2: The change in slate loneliness wiii’ he predicted by the subjects’ D E Q S C O Y ~ S on I>ependency (D) , Self-Criticism (SC), and F;[ficac:y (I?}. Although, bolh I) and SC should he positively related to slaie loneliness, in terms of change in state loneliness it is hypothesized that the SC aspect of personality, which mosl likely involves a high investment in the academic adjustment to university demands f o r achieve- ment at the expense of lhe social adjustment to the university as a social environment, will be particularly predictive of less change in state loneliness The B aspect, which indicates well-being, will he a positive prediclor o[ change in state loneliness.

H3: Trait loneliness will not change as a function o f the D E Q scores, and will remain relatively stable f r o m the beginning to th.e middle o,f the academic year.

H4: The degree of opposite-sex intimacy (assessed ut mid-year) will he predicted hy the D EQ scores (assessed at the beginning of the year). Dependency will he a positive

Interpersonal r~1irtetlncs.r and .self-definition 280

predictor oj’ the intimacy dimensions, whereas Self-criticism w i l l he a negative predictor of the intimacy dimensions N o specilic hypotheses weye formulated fo r the CJicucy factov, and the relution hetween E and intimacy w i l l he explored.

HS: There w i l l he a negative relutionship hetween intimacy an(1 state loneliness (meas- ured in mid-year), and the possihility that intimacy w i l l mediate the association hetween the pcrsonality aspects of the D E Q und loneliness w i l l be tested.

F’urticipants

The sample included 176 (84 males and 92 females) first-year univcrsity students attending the Iiniversily of Haifa. Because of attrition from the first to the second administration of the qucstionnaire booklet, thc data of both administrations included IS2 respondents (72 males and 80 females). To be included in the sample, students had to he single a n d of Jewish origin (the social adjustment o f Israeli-Arab students to the university is a separate issue meriting special attention). ‘I‘he mean age of the sample was 23.00 (Sf) = 2.47) tor the males and 21.74 ( S D = 1.74) lor the l‘emales. Students were taking one of three majors: Psychol- ogy, Economics, or Political Science. In terms of students’ living arrangements, 44% were living away from homc (10% in resi- dence on-campus and 34% in apartments off-campus), and 56% werc living at home with their parcnts during the first administration (Haila University is both a commuter and a noncommuter university). The t-tests on the loneliness scores (by living arrangement) showed that the differences in loncliness between these two groups of students did not reach significance. Hence, students were treated as one group, regard- less of living arrangements.

Two commcnts on the nature of the transition to univcrsity in Israel need to be made: (a) Thc typical course of events for Israeli youth is to serve in compulsory military scrvicc straight after high school for 2

to 4 years, and then to attcnd university. During their national service, Israelis do not leave home for the entire period, and the norm is to come home to their family almost evcry weekend (scc Lieblich, 1989). Similarly, once attending university, given the short distances in Israel, even thosc not living at home tend to have frequent contact with their family. Moreover, thosc living at home may bc doing so after a pcriod of being away from home during their military servicc, which might also rcquire a re- adjustment (it is rather common to go back home for economic reasons during the first year d university). Thus, it is less surprising not to find diffcrcnces in loneliness according to living arrangements. In fact, Stokes (19%) found higher loneliness scores among students attending a commuter university in the lJnited Statcs. (b) Owing to the years of national service, Israeli students making the transition to university are faced with both the task of adjusting to a new social environment diffcrcnt from that of the military, a s well as t h c lask of adjusting to the new academic clcrnands of the university,given that, in the interval that has passed since graduating from high school, they have been involvcd with very different assignments from the academic ones.

I n strunzen ts

Participants completed a booklet of questionnaires (in Hebrew) containing the following instruments.

U C l A 1,oneliness Scale. Thc UCLA scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1080) is a 20- item self-report measure that yields a single loneliness score. The response format is a Likert type, and respondents are asked to rate how frequently they feel as described, from “never” to “often” o n a 4-point scale. The scale has been shown to be internally and temporally reliable and frcc oC the response bias of social desirability. There is evidence for the concurrent validity of the scale, and its discriminant validity has been established, demonstrating that although

200 H. Wiseman

loncliness is correlated with measures of negative affect, social risk taking, and affili- ative tendencies, it is nevertheless a distinct psychological experience (Russell et al., 1980). The UCLA Loneliness Scale was cmployed with an Israeli first-year university sample in an earlier study by Wiseman and Lieblich (1989). In the prcsent study, participants completed the UCLA scale under both state (i.e., “during the last two weeks”), and trait (ie., “during your life until today”) conditions (see Russell, 1982, p. YS), in that order. Both versions showed high internal consistency, with the alpha coefficients of .89 and .91 (in both administrations) for the state and trait versions, re- spectively.

Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. The DEQ is a 66-item questionnaire dcsigned to assess aspects of feelings about the self and general interpersonal relations thought to be relevant to depression but not direct manifest symptoms of depression in thein- selves (Blatt et al., 1976; Blatt, D’Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1979). Respondents are asked to rate the items on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Blatt el al. (1976) identified three highly stable factors: Dependency (D), Self- Criticism (SC), and Efficacy (E). The item with the highest factor loading for cach of the three factors was: for Dependency, “ I often think of the danger of losing someone who is close to me”; for Self-criticism, “There is considerable difference between how I am now and how I would like to be”; and for Efficacy, “I have many inner re- sources (abilities, strengths).” The split-half reliability of the factors is high, for D, 39; for SC, .83; and for E, .91 (Blatt et al., 1979). The validity of the scale has been demon- strated in studies with both nonclinical and clinical samples (e.g., Blatt et al., 1982; Zuroff, Quinlan, & Blatt, 1990). Evidence for the DEQ’s reliability and validity in Is- raeli samples of university students was provided by Sadeh (1987) and Goldberg (1993).

In the present study, two items (DEQ21, DEQ46) were omitted owing to a technical

problem. However, a comparison of the means of the present sample for males and females with those of the normative college sample (Zuroff et al., 1990) showed only one significant difference. In the present Is- raeli sample, males obtained lower D scores than did males in the American normative sample, which appears consistent with the traditionally masculine self-image of young Israeli men (e.g., Lieblich, 1983). The internal consistencies for the three scales that were obtained in the present study were .SO for D, .82 for SC, and .67 for E, which are similar to those reported in the manual (Blatt et al., 1979) and in a h o r e recent study (Zuroff et al., 1990).

Sharuhany ’.s Intimacy Scale. The Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1974,1994) consists of 32 items, four items tor each of eight dimensions of intimacy with a best friend. The eight dimensions are: (a) frankness and spontancity ( e g , “1 feel free to talk with him/her about almost cverything”); (b) sensitivity and knowing (e.g., “ I can tell when he/she is worried about something”).;. (c) attachment ( e.g., “I tcel close to him/her”); (d) exclusiveness (e.g., “It bothers me to have others come around and join in when the two of us are doing something to- gether”); (e) giving and sharing (e.g., “IT he/she wants something I let him have it even if I want it too”); (f) imposition (‘‘I can bc sure hc/shc’ll help me whenever I ask for it”); (8) common activities (e.g., “I like doing things with him/her”); and (h) trust and loyalty (e.g., “ t know that whatever I tell him/her is kept secret between us”). The split-half reliability for the total scale score has been found to range from .90 to .94 (Sharabany, 1974). Sharabany, Gershoni, and Hofman (1981) reported correlations ranging from 33 to .7 1 (median S2) among the eight dimensions, providing justification for the use of the total intimacy score, with dimension scores representing distinct though interrelated facets of intimacy.

In the present study, students responded to an opposite-sex version of Sharabany’s Intimacy Scale, for which the instructions for responding to the items were: “Think of

Interpersonal reliitcdness and self-dgfinition 291

your best fricnd of the opposite-scx or your partner.” Although students were referring typically to a boyfriend/girlfriend, it should be noted that the intimacy scale focuscs on the “intimacy” component (ix., closcness and connectedness) in a lovc rclationship, rather than on the coniponcnts of “passion” and “commitment” (Sternbcrg, 1986). Also in the present study, an alpha coefficient of .9.5 was obtained for the total scale scores, and the alpha coefficients tor each of the eight intimacy dimensions (sec Tablc 4) ranged from .63 to .83 (median .76). For a recent rcvicw ol the psychometric propcr- ties and construct validity of the scale, see Sharabany ( I 994).

Information sheet. Participants completed an information sheet consisting of items asking for personal information such as re- spondent’s sex, age, marital status, religion, living arrangements, and major.

Procedurt>

Students wcrc administered the DEQ and the UCLA Loneliness Scale (statc and trait versions) at the beginning of the academic year (2 to 3 weeks after arrival). For the second administration, students were con- tacted in their classes at the middle of the academic year (2.5 months after the first administration). The questionnaire booklet in the second administration contained the UCLA Loneliness Scale statc and trait versions and the information sheet. Shara- bany’s Intimacy Scale was included in the booklet for the second administration for only half the samplc due to practical limitations. ‘This subsamplc of students (n = 74) did not differ significantly from the rest of the sample on any of the variables. Special codes werc assigned lo identify the subjects’ corresponding questionnaires from both administrations. No differences were found in state and trait scores between those who completed the study and those who dropped out. The recruitment proce- dure involved research assistants who came to first-year introductory courses in one of three departments (Psychology, Economics,

and Political Science), having rcceived per- mission from the course instructor ahead of time, in order to recruit subjects to the study. The psychology students received course credit for participating, and the economics and political scicnce students received thc cquivalent of $12 upon returning the yuestionnaircs of thc second administration. These incentives facilitated the participation in the study of the majority of students in these courscs.

Kesults

Descriptive ytatistics

The mean UCLA loneliness scores were computed for males and €emales separately and were compared with the normative loneliness data reported by Russell et al. (1980; p: 477). Referring to the state loneliness scores at mid-year (which seemed most appropriate for the purposc of this comparison), the mean loneliness scores of the current Israeli sample were similar to those of Russell et al.’s (1980) university sample for both males (Israeli: M = 38.74, SD = 9.30; Russell: M = 37.06, SD = 10.91; z = 1.09, N S ) and femalcs (Israeli: M =

36.39, S D = 8.87; Russell: M = 36.06, SD =

10. I1 ; z = .25, NS) . In addition, as in Russell et al.’s normative samplc, no gender differences were found in the present sample in either state or trait loneliness at either time 1 or time 2.

With regard to gendcr differences on the DEQ, it was found that on the Dependency factor the difference was statistically significant [t (172) = - 6 . 1 1 ; ~ <.0011, with the mean scores of females ( M = -.23, S D = .72) higher than males ( M = p.99, S D =

.92). On the Self-criticism factor (males: M = -.()I, S1> = .90; females: M = -.19, S D = .79) and on the Efficacy factor (males: M = .14, S D = 1.07; females: M = .13, SD = 39) there were no significant gender differences. The higher levels of Dependency in females are consistent with previous studies (Zuroff et a]., 1990), while the lack of gender differences in Self- Criticism was also found in a study with

202 H. Wiseman

adolescents (Blatt, Hart, Quinlan, Lead- beater, & Aucrbach, 1993) and in two other independcnt Israeli samples of university studcnts (Goldberg, 1993; Sadeh, 1987). No gendcr differences were found in opposite- scx intimacy, which i s consistent with a previous study with students in their early twenties, which showed that while same-sex intimacy was higher in females than in malcs, there were no gcnder differences in oppositc-scx intimacy (Sharabany & Wise-

Intercorrelations between the loneliness assessments and scores on the three DEQ factors are shown in Table 1.

man, 1993).

S t u l r and trait lone lines^

A tcst of the stability of thc state and the trait scores showed that the stability of trait lonelincss scores from time 1 to time 2 (Y = .72) was higher than the stability of the state loneliness scores ( Y = 52) . The significant difference found between these correlations ( z = 2 . 8 7 , ~ < . O l ) lends support to the state-trait distinction obtained with these scales. In addition, the correlations between the state and trait scores at time 1 and time 2 were computed separately. As can be seen in Table 1, the association between state and trait loneliness scores at the bcginning of the year ( r = .46) was weaker than at the middlc of the year (r = .66). The dil lcrence betwccn these two correlations was statistically significant ( z = 2.54, p < . ( ) I ) . 'I'his finding suggests that, at the point of transition, both state and trait loneliness

are more differentiated than at mid-year. That is, at the point of transition, students make more of a distinction between the way they feel in their new situation (state) and their general feelings until today (trait).

Trait loneliness

To test the first hypothesis that there would be a relationship between the DEQ factors and trait loneliness, a stepwise Multiple Re- gression Analysis (MRA) was conducted, regressing trait loneliness on the three DEQ factors. Of the three DEQYactors that were entered stepwise, SC was e n t e r 4 first (explaining 18% of the variance), E was entered second (explaining 15%), and D did not enter the equation. As can be seen by the beta weights in Table 2, higher trait loneliness scores were predicted by high Self- Criticism and by low Efficacy. This model accounted for 33% of the variance in trait loneliness scores at time 1. Thus, the first hypothesis was confirmed with regard to two of the three DEQ factors, namely,SC and E, but not with regard to D.

Changes in state loneliness

To test the second hypothesis on the prediction of change in state loneliness by the DEQ, state loneliness at time 2 was re- gressed on the DEQ predictors, while controlling for state loneliness at time 1. The results of this stepwise MRA are summa- rized in Table 3. The student's state loneli-

Table 1. 1iztercovrelafion.s hetween loneliness and the DEQ

State t l Trait t l State t2 Trait t2 D sc 1. State timc I (State 11) 2. ' h i t time 1 (Trait t l ) ,464'4':;" -

-

3. State timc 2 (State t2) .52*:*:k f,L";** -

4. 'Tw i t time 2 ( ' h i t t2) 33444; 72%;"" &j*:k* -

- 5. Dcpcndency (D) .04 - .09 - .01 .04 6. Self-Criticism (SC) 32"** 43"** ,31*** 32""" .09 - 7. Efficacy (E) -.274:4:4: - 304::;"" - 21 9 , - .20* .13 .18*

Note: For lonelincss at time 1 and thc DEQ, n = 176; for loneliness at time 2, n = 152. " p < .05, :':$:[I < .o I , *:':"[I < ,001.

Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition 293

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis o,f trait loneliness on the D EQ

Step R2 change F change Beta

1. Se1-T-Criticism (SC) .18 38.49""" .5()""" 2. Efiicacy (E) .15 37.45" " " - 39"""

Note: n = 112, R2 = 3 3 . * p < .05, **p < .01, ***I> < ,001.

ness at time 1, which was entered in the first block, explained 27% of the variance. Of the three DEQ factors (which were entered stepwise in the second block), SC was entered first, adding a small but significant 2.7% of the variance, and E was entered second, also adding a significant amount (2.5%). This MRA showed that SC and E were significant predictors of the change in the student's state loneliness from the beginning to the middle of the year. However, as can be seen in Table 3, although SC was a positive predictor, E was a negative predictor of change in state loneliness. That is, after controlling for the student's initial level (i.e., baseline) of state loneliness, the higher the student's Self-Criticism and the lower his or her Efficacy, the higher the student's state loneliness at mid-year. In other words, high Self-criticism and low Ef- ficacy are predictive of state loneliness in mid-year (i.e., high SC and low E students are the ones who remain lonely). Hence, the second hypothesis was confirmed for SC and E, but again not for D.

With regard to trait loneliness at time 2, repeating the above MRA for trait loneliness confirmed the third hypothesis that trait loneliness will not change as a function of the DEQ factors. The only significant predictor of trait loneliness at time 2 was

the student's initial level of trait loneliness (53% of the variance), and none of the DEQ factors contributed to the variance in the change in trait loneliness scores, consistent with the strong association obtained between trait loneliness at time 1 and at time 2 Bee correlations reported earlier).

To sum up, the results of the analysis of trait and state loneliness scores indicated that (a) trait loneliness (at time 1) was accounted for by high Self-criticism, low Ef- ficacy; hnd (b) state loneliness at mid-year, while controlling for state loneliness at the transition point, was predicted by high Self- Criticism and low Efficacy.

Intimacy with the opposite sex

To test the effects of the DEQ factors (assessed at time 1) on the prediction of intimacy with an opposite-sex friend or partner (at time 2), a MRA was conducted for each of the eight intimacy subscales (see Table 4). Self-criticism emerged as a negative predictor of frankness and spontaneity, and of sensitivity and knowing, and as a positive predictor of exclusiveness. Dependency emerged as a positive predictor of attachment and of giving and sharing, and Effi- cacy was a positive predictor of imposition and common activities. -Interestingly, all

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis of state loneliness at time 2 on the DEQ

Step R2 change F change Beta

1. UCLA-State1 2. Self-criticism (SC) 3. Efficacy (E)

.27 54.96"""

.03 5.62"

.03 5.35" -

Note: n = 151, R2 = .33. * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < ,001.

294 H. Wiseman

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of DEQ factors on the intimacy subscales

Intimacy Subscales Predictor R2 change F change Beta

1. Frankness and spontaneity

2 Sensitivity and knowing

3. Attachment

4. Exclusiveness

5. Giving and sharing

6. Imposing and taking

7. Common activities

8. Trust and loyality

( a = 33)

(a = 3 0 )

(a = 31)

( a = .76)

( a = .76)

(a = .70)

( a = .63)

( a = 57)

sc sc D

sc D

E

E

sc D

.09

.0Y

.08

.os

.t2

.06

.06

.ll

.12

6.65"

7.35""

6.32"

4.06"

9.73""

4.74%

4.64"

8.97""

10.84""

- .29"

-.31*"

.29"

.23"

.3S"

.25"

.25*

-.43"""

.33""

'x

E .05 4.91" .24"

Notc: n = 14. " / I < .05, :""p < .0t, ""*"p<.001.

three DEQ factors explained 28% of the variance in trust and loyalty, with D and E being positive predictors and SC being a negative predictor.

Personality, intimacy with the opposite sex, und loneliness

First, examining the relationship between intimacy and loneliness, a trend was found for a negative correlation between the total intimacy scores and state loneliness at time 2 ( r = -.21, p < .08), but no association betwcen intimacy and trait loneliness. To test the possibility that intimacy might mediate the association between the personality dimensions and loneliness, a MRA of state loneliness at time 2 was conducted in which the total intimacy scores obtained at time 2 were entered first, and the DEQ factors (assessed at time 1) were entered second. It was found that, while the intimacy scores explained only 4.3% (as indicated by the simple Y above), the DEQ scores as a block predicted 15% of the variance in state loneliness at time 2 [F (4,68) = 4 . 0 8 , ~ < .01], above and beyond the intimacy scores. This finding indicates that the

relation that was found between personality and state loneliness was not mediated by the degree of intimacy with the opposite sex that the student reported at mid-year.

Discussion

The present research has adopted Blatt's conceptualization of the two primary dimensions in personality development-interpersonal relatedness and self-definition (Blatt & Blass, 1992)-to study loneliness among young adults in the context of the transition to first-year university. Employ- ing the DEQ to assess aspects of personality, it was found that, among first-year university students, the trait-lonely were individuals characterized by high levels of self-criticism and low levels of efficacy. It appears that individuals who perceive themselves as socially isolated are those who report experiences of self-criticism-that is, they "engage in constant and harsh self-scrutiny and evaluation and have a chronic fear of being disapproved and criticized, and of losing approval and accep- tance of significant others" (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992; p. 528). Further, these trait-lonely in-

Interpersonal relatedness and self-de,finition 295

dividuals’ lower cfficacy scores indicate a lowcr sense of confidence about their capacities, inner strength and personal independence, and point to dissatisfaction with their accomplishments (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992). This picture of the trait-lonely fits the prototype of the lonely individual, which consists of a negative self-concept, and thoughts such as “other people don’t like me” and “something is wrong with me” (Horowitz, French, & Anderson, 1982, p. 188). Previous studies have also shown lonely individuals to have lower self-esteem (Jones, Freeman, & Goswick, 1981) and a generally negative view of themselves and the world (Perlman & Peplau, 1981).

The longitudinal design of the present study enabled us to go beyond the above picture of trait loneliness and to focus on the relationship between the personality dimensions and changeablity of state loneliness. One can cxpect the DEQ to account for loneliness as a trait, but what about a state assessment of loneliness, and change in situational loneliness over time? Al- though, as can be expected, the baseline level of state loneliness was most predictive of later state loneliness in mid-year ( k , the higher the loneliness at time 1 the higher the state loneliness at time 2), the SC and E scores each added a small but significant portion of the variance to the prediction of change in state loneliness (i.e., prediction of loneliness at time 2 after controlling for loneliness at time 1). Those who remained lonely at the middle of the year, not overcoming the situational loneliness of the beginning of the year, were those individuals who were more self-critical and less satis- fied with themselves. Cutrona (1982) found that those who recovered from loneliness during the school year were less likely to attribute their loneliness to undesirable, un- changeable aspects o€ their own personali- ties than were those who remained lonely.

In contrast to the self-definition dimension (i.e., predisposition to self-critical dysphoria), interpersonal relatedness was unrelated to loneliness (either positively or negatively). This is contrary to what one might expect, that being vulnerable to in-

terpersonal dysphoria would be related to feelings of loneliness. It is possible that, in nonclinical samples, the interpersonal relatedness dimension is unrelatcd to loneliness, because these individuals invest in relationships (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992), and in avoid- ing social isolation. Perhaps, unlike thc normative transition to university, under a specific stressful event such as the experience of rejection from a romantic partner (Blatt & Zuroff, 1992), the D dimension would be linked to loneliness feelings. Moreover, the significant positive correlation, in both men and women, that Zuroff (1994) found between the Self-Criticism scale of the DEQ and the Sociotropy scale of the Personal Style Inventory (Robins, Ladd, Welkowitz, Blaney, Diaz, & Kutcher, 1994) indicates that SC overlaps with So- ciotropy in that “both imply needs to be approved asd admired by others” (Zuroff, 1994, p. 455). In this respect it is not surprising that the self-critics, who according to Blatt are ambivalent rather than indifferent or dismissive toward others (Zuroff, 1994), are the ones whose loneliness is less apt to change. That ii’although these individuals overemphasize self-definition issues, their negative feelings about themselves and about their relationships with others are not an indication that they are disinterested in interpersonal relatedness issues.

As indicated earlier, Shaver et a]. (1985) suggested that chronically lonely individuals feel dissatisfied even when objective features of their relationships are about the same as everyone else’s, wanting something from relationships that they cannot obtain. The present findings suggest that the needs for approval and recognition that charac- terize self-critical individuals .are perhaps the “something more” that is frustrated in those who remain lonely.

The findings on the DEQ and intimacy scales shed further light on the quality of the intimate relationships that individuals form as a function of their personality style. Self-criticism was predictive of lower levels of frankness and spontaneity, sensitivity and knowing, and trust and loyalty in the relationship with the opposite-sex

296 H. Wiseman

partner. This picture of distrust and the avoidance of self-disclosure is consistent with the fears of self-critics that others will control, reject, or criticize them (Blatt Bi Zuroff, 1992). Self-criticism was a positive predictor of exclusiveness in the relationship, perhaps indicating a tendency to view the relationship itself as another arena for sclf-definition concerns. The present findings on the dimensions of intimacy that were predicted positively by Dependency underscore the positive aspects of Depend- ency, whereby those individuals who focus on the interpersonal relatedness line ap- pear to perceive the romantic relationship a s providing them with the attachment, sharing, and trust that they value so highly. The dimensions that Efficacy predicted positively seem to involve elements of ac- tivity, a sense of being relatively free of preoccupation with the possibility of de- manding too much, and of being betrayed by the partner.

With regard to the relationship between intimacy and loneliness, the present findings seem to suggest that the degree of intimacy that the individual is capable of achieving is influenced by personality, but that for first-year university students intimacy does not mediate the relationship between personality and loneliness. Reis and Franks (1994) have shown that the effects of intimacy on health and well-being were mediated by social support, but that social support was not mediated by intimacy. This may partly explain the nonsignificant correlation between intimacy and loneliness that was obtained in this study, and suggests the need to study further the effects of personality on related constructs in the area of personal relationships, such as intimacy, social support, and loneliness, as well as the nature of the relationship between these constructs.

Limitations and future divections

A limitation of the present study is that it is based on self-report measures, both in terms of the assessment of the personality styles and of the dependent measures of

loneliness and intimacy. Nevertheless, a strength is the longitudinal design of this study, which made it possible to test the extent to which the DEQ personality style at the beginning of first-year university predicted both change in state loneliness from the beginning to the middlc of the academic year, as well as intimacy with a partner assessed at the middle of the academic year. In future studies, however, it would be use- lul to include other methods ol assessment such as interview data (Bartholomew Bi Horowitz, 1991; Wiseman, 1995), and rat- ings of objective and subjective indicators of actual social interaction (Wheeler et al., 1983). Moreover, the findings of thapresent study, which were obtained with an Israeli sample, need to be replicated with samples from other countries and cultures.

Another methodological consideration is that we had only two points of rneasure- ment for loneliness and lacked a point of baseline before the point of transition. Such a baseline point would enable us to test the assumption underlying this study, that the students indeed experienced a disruptiqn of their existing social support system. In future studies, obtaining assessments of social adjustment pre-college, and of loneliness at later points throughout the college years, would enable further investigation of the variables studied in the present research. In addition, the relationship between the personality dimensions and intimacy needs to be studied further.

Among the different typologies of loneliness, the present study focused on the distinction between state versus trait loneliness, which seems most relevant to the study of the transition to college. Employ- ing other more multidimensional ap- proaches to the measurement of loneliness may lead to finding that the interpersonal relatedness aspect of personality is related to a certain subtype of loneliness not assessed by the UCLA Loneliness Scale.

Recently, Bowlby's attachment theory (196911982) has been one of the key thrusts of the growing interest and investigation of individual differences relevant to relationships in the field of personal relationships

Interpersonal relatednrss and self-definition 207

research (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). The extension of attachment theory to adolescents and adults has also had an impact on shifting the study of loneliness from amain- strcam social-psychological perspective to viewing attachment theory as the basis for research on both loneliness and love (Shaver, 1095). From the attachment theory perspective it has been suggested that the root of chronic social dissatisfaction, or vulnerability to loneliness, lies in the individual’s attachment history (Shaver & Hazan, I987 j. Preliminary findings have shown that securely attached individuals were the least trait-lonely, whereas the insecurely attached scorcd higher in trait loneliness. Regarding state loneliness during the first year of collegc, securely attached individuals felt lonelier during the transition (fall), but by the spring they returned to baseline (summer) level. Ambivalent individuals showed a de- crease from the summer to the fall, but an in- crease in the spring, ending up lonelier than they had been in the summer before college. The loneliness scores of the avoidants dropped slightly between the fall and spring (Hazan and Hutt, in press). Research inter- secting the two types of depression with attachment patterns has begun only recently. Theoretically speaking, Diamond and Blatt (1994) suggested that interpersonal dysphoria corresponds to the ambivalent pattern and that self-criticism dysphoria corresponds to the avoidant pattern. l n ado- lescent girls it has been found that arnbiva- lent attachment is linked to interpersonal dysphoria, but that both ambivalent and avoidant attachment styles are linked to self-critical dysphoria (Batgos & Lead- beater, 1994). According to Bartholomew’s

References

Archibald, FS., Bartholotnew, I<., & Marx, R. (1995). Loneliness in early adolescence: A test of the cog- nitivc discrcpancy modcl of loneliness. Per~sonality and Social P,~ychology Bulletin, 21,296-301.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality ofhuman existence. Chi- cago: Rand McNally.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An atlachinent perspective. .Journal of Social and Per- sonul Relationships, 7, 147-1 78.

formulation, the ambivalent and fearful avoidant attachment styles are the two attachment styles that hold a negative image of the self (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). This seems consistent with the present €indings on the role of self-criticism in predicting both loneliness and certain dimensions of intimacy. Thus, it is suggested that a promis- ing direction for future research on loneliness would involve converging Blatt’s theory and the attachment theory.

Conclusions

The present study set out to apply Blatt’s theory on the two major personality dimensions-interpersonal relatedness and self-definition-to the study of loneliness. The €indings point to the identification of those who are preoccupied with self-definition concerns, namely self-critical individuals, as a group at especially high risk for loneliness during the transition to u n - versity, This information could servc as a basis for designing prevention programs in the absorption of students, particularly aimed at this group at risk, as well as providing important input for the development of intervention programs (e.g., Young, 1982) for those students who are vulnerable to loneliness. A better understanding of the relationship between different personality styles and loneliness has direct implications for differential treatment rec- ommendations. Moreover, Blatt’s theory seems to offer a fruitful theoretical basis for further pursuing the study of personality and loneliness.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowilz, L. M. (1991). Attach- ment styles among young adults: A test of a model. .lournu1 of Personality d; Social P,ychology, 61, 226-244.

Batgos, J., & Lcadbeater, B.J. (1994). Parental attachment, peer relations, and dysphoria in adolescence. In M.B. Sperling & W.H. Berman (Eds.), Attuch- ment in Adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 155-178). New York: Guiliord Prcss.

298 H. Wiseman

Blatt. S..I. (1974). Levels o f object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psyclzoloanu- lytic Sticdy ofthc) Child, 29, 107-1 57.

.J. (1990). Interpersonal rclatcdness and self iition: Two personality configurations and

their implication for FSYC therapy. In J. Singer (Ed.) rion: 1nzplic~ution.s for pe puthology and h r d h (pp. 299-335). Chicago:

.sity of Chicagu Press. & Blass, R.B. (1992). Relatedness and self ion: Two primary dimensions in personality pmciit, psychology and psychopathology

(pp. 30042X). I n .I. Barron, M. Eagle, & D. Wolitsky (Eds.), f.sychounaIy,sts tznd psychology: An. A PA crnfmniuf vo/unzp. Washington DC: American Psy-

Quinlan, D.M. (1976). Ex- periences 01 dcprcasion in normal young adults. .Jorirnul ( > / A hnormul P.\yc,hology, 85,383-389.

Blatt, S.J., D'Afflitti, J.P., & Quinlan, D.M. (1979). De- prrssive Experiences Qciestionnaire. Unpublished rescarch manual, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Blatt. S.J., Hart, B., Quinlan, D.M., Leadbcatcr, B.J., & Aucrhach, J. ( 1 993). Interpersonal and self-critical dysphoria and problem behaviors in adolcs- cents. .loLirnal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 253-269.

Blatt, S.J., Quinlan, D.M., Chevron, E.S., McDonald, C., & Zuroff, D. (1982). Dependency and sclf-criticism: Psychological dimensions of depression. .Ionmu1 of Consulting und Clinical Psychology, 50, 1 13-1 24.

Blatt, S.D., 62 Zuroff, D.C. (1992). Interpersonal rclatcdness and self-del'inition: Two prototypes €or depression. Clinicirl Psychology Review, 12, S277S62.

Bowlby, J. (l009/1982). Attuchmcnt and loss: Vol. I . Attachmwzt. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separa- tiow, rnixic~ty, trnd anger. New York: Basic Books.

Cutrona C.E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In L.A. Pe- plau & D. Pertinan (Eds.), Loneliness: A source- hoolc (>/ currwzt theory, rcwarch and therapy (pp.

York: Wiley-Intcrscicncc. Blatt , S.J. (1994). Internal working c rcprcsentational world in attach-

ment and psychoanalytic theories. In M.B. Sperling & W.H. Rerman (Eds.), Attuchnzent in adults: Clini- ctrl rind dcvelopmentirl perspectives (pp. 72-97). New York: Guilford Press.

Erikson, E.H. ( Ic)68). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Gilligan, C. ( 1 982). In ( I different voice: P~sychologicul iheory and women'r d~velopnzent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldhcrg, A. (1 993). ' /he relcrtion hetween the predisposition EO clqmwion tmci lonelintm during trunsi- tkm to univcr.sity. Ilnpublished master's thesis, He- brew [Jnivcrsity of Jerusalem, Israel.

Guisingcr, S., B Blatt, S.J. (1994). Individuality and rclatcdncss: Evolution or a fundamental dialectic. Americun Psychologist, 49, 104-1 1 1.

Hazan, C., & Hutt, M. (in press). Patterns of adapta- tion: Attachment differences in psychosocial func- tioning during the first year of college. Child Devel- opment.

Hojat, M., & Crandall, R. (Eds.). (1987). Lonelin Theory, research and applications. Journul o,f So Behavior and fersonality, 2, Part 2.

Horowitz, L.M., French, R.S., & Anderson, C. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person. I n L.A. Peplau & D. Pcrlman (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcehook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 183-205). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Jones, W.H. (1 987). Research and theory on loneliness: A response to Weiss's rcflcctions. Journal o/Social Behavior and l'ersonulity, 2, 27-30.

Jones, W.H., Carpenter, B.N., & Quintana, D. (1985). Pcrsonality and interpersonal predictors of loncliness in two cultures. Journul of Pervonali~y di Social Psychology, 48,1503- I5 1 1 .

Jones, W.H., Freeman, J.E.,& Goswick, R.A. (1981). The persislencc o l lonclincss: Self and other deter- minants. Journal of Personality, 49,27-48.

Jossclson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions o f human relationships. San Fran- cisco: Jossey Bass.

Kirkpatrick, L. A,, & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and closc rclationships: A four-year prospcc- tive study. Personul Relationships, I , 123- 142.

Licblich, A. ( 1983). Between strength and toughness. In S. Breznitz (Ed.), Stress in Israel (pp. 39-64). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lieblich, A. (1989). Transition to adulthobd during military service: The Draeli case. Albany: State Uni- versity of New York Press.

theoretical review with implications for measurement. .lournu1 o/Social and Personal Relutionships, 6,93-128.

McAdams, D.P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and tke life story; fer.sonologica1 in yuiriu into identity. Home- wood, I L Dorsey Press.

McWhirtcr, B.T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of' current literature, with implications for counseling and research. Journal of Counseling & Develop- ment, 68,417422,

Peplau, L.A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L.A. Pcplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1-18). New York: Wilcy- Intcrscicnce.

Pcrlman, D. (1987). Furthcr reflections on the present state of loneliness research. .Journal of Social Br- huvior and Personality, 2, 17-26.

Perlman, D., & Peplau, L.A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of lonclincss. In S. W. Duck B R. Gil- mour (Eds.), Personal relationships: Vol. 3. Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 3 1-56). London: Aca- demic Press.

Reis, H. T., B Franks, P. (1994). The rolc of intimacy and social support in heallh outcomes: Two proc- esses or one? Perwnal Relationships, I , 185-1 97.

Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P.H., Diaz, R.,& Kutcher,G. (1994).Tie Personal Style Invcn- tory: Preliminary validation studies o f new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psy- chopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277-300.

Rook, K.S. (1988). Toward a more difkrcntiated view of loneliness. In S.W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook ofper- sonul relationships (pp. 571-58Y).New York: Wiley.

Rubenstein, C.M., Br Shaver, P. (1982). The experience of loneliness. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.),

Marangoni, C., & William, L. (1989). Lonclin

Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition 299

Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp.206-223). New York: Wiley- Intcrscience.

Russell, D. (3982). Thc measurement of loneliness. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A Sourcehook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 81-104). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., & Cutrona, C.E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. .Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 3, 472480.

Sadch, A. (1987). Object relation, object representation and the experiences of depression among students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Haifa, Israel.

Schmitt, J. P., & Kurdek, L.A. (1985). Age and gender differences and personality correlates of loneliness in different relationships. .Journal ofPersonality As- sessment, 49, 485496.

Sharabany R. (1974). Intimate friendship among kibbutz and city children and its measurement. Disser- tation Abstracts International, 35, 1M8B. (Univer- sity Microfilms No. 74-17,682)

Sharabany R. (1 994). Intimate friendship scale: Con- ceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity. Journal o f Social and Per- sonal Relationships, 1 I , 449469.

Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J.E. (1981). Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800-808.

Sharabany, R., & Wiseman, H. (1993). Close relationships in adolescence: The case of the kibbutz. Jour- nal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 671-695.

Shaver, P. (1995, February). Psychodynamic and repre- sentational aspects of adult attachment. Invited Ad- dress, Bar Tlan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Tran- sition to collegc: Network changes, social skills, and loneliness. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Under- standing personal relationships: An interdiscipli- nary approach (pp. 193-219). London: Sage.

Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1987). Being lonely, falling in love: Persoectives from attachment theorv. Journal

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Stokes, J.P. (1985). The relation of social nctwork and individual difference variables to loneliness. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 981-990.

Weiss, R.S. (1987). Reflections on thc present statc of loneliness research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 1-16.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T., & Nezlck, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 45, 943-953.

Wiseman, H. (1995). The quest for connectedness: Loneliness as process in the narratives of lonely university students. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), The narrative study of lives: Interpreting experience, 3, 116-152.

Wiseman, H. (1997). Far away from home: The loneliness experience of overseas students. Journal of‘ Social & Chica l Psychology, 16,l-22.

Wiseman, H., & Lieblich, A. (1989). Intimacy and loneliness in the transition to adulthood. Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Israeli Psycho- logical Association, Haifa.

Young, J.E. (1982). Loneliness, deprcssion and cogni- tive therapy: Theory and application. In L A . Pc- plau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcehook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 379405). New York: Wiley-Intcrscience. --.

Zuroff, D. C. (1994). Depressive personality styles and the fivc-factor model of personality. Journal of Per- sonality Assessment, 63, 453472.

Zuroff, D.C., & de Lorimier, S. (1989). Ideal and actual romantic partners of women varying in dependency and self-criticism: Journal of Personality, 57, 825-846.

Zuroff, D.C., Moskowitz, D.S., Wielgus, M.S., Powers, T.A., & Franko, D.L. (1983). Construct validation of the dependency and self-criticism scales of thc Depressive Expericnces Questionnaire. Journal uf Research in Personality, 17, 226-241.

Zuroff, D.C., Quinlan, D.M., & Blatt, S.J. (1990). Psy- chometric properties of the Depressive Experi- ences Ouestionnaire in a collerrc DoDulation. Jour-

- 1 1

of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 105-124. nal of Personality Assessment, 55, 65-72.

interpersonal relatedness and self definition in the experience of loneliness during the ttransition...

Documents

state loneliness

experience of loneliness

study of loneliness

university of haifa

ucla loneliness s q

state loncliness

time t

research coordinator