Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No
2, 1990, pp 214-220
H.JONES
ot Tulsa
University
of recent research
on
generally
(this issue)
draw
This article,
along
& Solomon,
Pyszcznski,
integrative
toward
1986), may be
theories constructed
case
seen as
on
in social
broader,
more
inclusive
psychology, particularly
in
proponents
enlightening.
Beyond
genuine
behavior
more
social- psychological
Address
correspondence
to Warren H.
214
215
emphasize only
the
of those processes,
others were merely
which
if the need to
and
and to be
one
the need
and
situation-specific features
responsive to
belong
proximal, time-bound,
as
experiences.
ture and
interdependence
is
that
one
of the
major
theory
JONES
216
self
crystallize
recognition
and
not
contributor to
marital status
defined
as
the
strongly
related to
adjustment
and
well-being
(Sarason
&
are
better
more
LONELINESS PHENOMENON
expect, therefore,
on
loneliness
217
experience and,
theory,
is
example,
tend to have the least social contact and the smallest social
networks among various age cohorts, and yet they report the lowest
levels of loneliness. College students, by contrast, report large and diverse
interpersonal networks and spend more of their tirre with others, and
yet college students and young adults in general tend to be lonelier than
other groups (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). More strongly predictive of
loneliness than
"objective" environmental
qualitative aspects of relationships, such
factors
as
QUESTIONS
isolated
as
are
variables
satisfaction
to derive not
it does from
relationships
one
assessing
(e.g., Jones et
being
so
much
dissatisfied
does have.
JONES
218
confirm these
rated
as
negative expectations.
"liking
themselves less"
At the worst,
or as
lonely persons
"more difficult to
get
are
to know."
Furthermore, research
whether
relationship
nominations
across
on
exists. Studies
even
as
many
friends and members of social networks
named
as
do not
name
the informant
as one
social network
comparing
as
by primary
informants
or
close
friends (Antonucci & Israel, 1986; Fischer, 1982). In other words, it may
often be what a person perceives or believes rather than what the members
of the social network
actually
experience
anxiety and loneliness. Also, research on romantic rela
tionships suggests that the person with whom one falls in love is, in a
of
psychological
as
anxiety)
than envisioned
by
interpersonal
environment to
greater degree
to consider
the
fully
inevitability
and
complexity
example, social exclusion may occur
various
and
these
dimensions themselves may be in
dimensions,
along
conflict. The acquisition of power in relationships and social groups often
results in decreases in
intimacy
and
liking,
whereas
being accepted
and
well liked
(Hogan,
or inclusion in one
group or relationship entails automatic
exclusion from another group or relationship. To illustrate, marrying
one
person obviates other romantic opportunities, at least in principle,
acceptance
and
becoming
Republican
means
that
one
cannot
be,
at
the
same
time,
Democrat. Thus, the central issue in anxiety and loneliness may not
be exclusion itself but rather how one copes with or responds to it.
a
more
thorough
con
ability
perceived or real rejection. Baumeister and Tice focus
largely on transitory instances of social incompetence, deviance, and
unattractiveness. It may be that everyone is subject to
anxiety and lone
liness following social exclusions, but not everyone is
equally likely to
be excluded or to perceive exclusion in the normal uncertainties of social
interaction. For example, there is evidence that trait
shyness (which is
highly correlated with both loneliness and anxiety) has a genetic component
(Plomin & Daniels, 1986), is quite stable over time (Morris, Soroker, &
and reactions to
219
poorly
& Smith,
to believe that
actually
the
one
case
is
performing
(Jones, Briggs,
1986).
REFERENCES
Antonucci, T. C, & Israel, B. A. (1986). Veridicality of social support: A comparison of
principal and network members' responses, journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
54, 432-437.
Athay, M.,
&
Darley, J.
N. Cantor &
J.
M.
F. Kihlstrom
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being Chicago: Aldine.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social support in community mental health.
In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, R, & Solomon, S. (1986) Rhe causes and consequences of
self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public and private
self.
New York:
Springer-Verlag.
psychology.
In B. R. Schlenker
(Ed.),
The
self
and social
life.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Jones,
predictors
B.
of loneliness in
two
cultures,
fournal of Personality
and Social
Psychology,
48, 1503-1511.
W. H
& Carver, M. D. (in press). Rhe experience of loneliness: Adjustment and
coping implications. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and
clinical psychology: Tlie health perspective. New York: Pergamon.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. E., & Goswick, R. A. (1981). Rhe persistence of loneliness: Self
and other determinants, journal of Personality, 49, 27-48.
Jones, W. H., Sansone, C, & Helm, B. (1983). Loneliness and interpersonal judgments.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 437-441.
Jones,
JONES
220
Larson, R.,
in daily experience:
A sourcebook
Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Lonelinessresearch, theory, and therapy (pp. 40-53). New York. Wiley-Interscience.
Soroker, E., & Burrus, G. (1954). Follow-up studies of shy, withdrawn
1. Evaluation of later adjustment. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24,
Csikszentmihalyi,
Loneliness
of
current
Moms, L. W.,
children:
or
renewal. In L. A.
743-754.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current research,
theory, and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1986). Genetics and shyness. In W. H. Jones, J M. Cheek, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 63-80). New
York: Plenum
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (Eds.). (1985). Socio/ support: Theory, research and applications.
Boston: Martinus Nijhof.
Sternberg, R. (1987). Explorations of love. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.),
in
personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 171-196). Greenwich, CR: JAI Press.
Advances
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.