THE ROLE OF GENDER, ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS,
AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT IN LONELINESS
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
AYL N DEM RL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
JULY 2007
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
______________________
Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science.
______________________
Prof. Dr. Ali Yıldırım
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.
______________________
Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demir
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demir
(METU, EDS)
______________________
Prof. Dr. Esin Tezer
(METU, EDS)
______________________
Assist. Prof. Dr. Seher Sevim
(AU, ESF)
______________________
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Aylin DEM RL
Signature
iii
:
ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF GENDER, ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS,
AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT IN LONELINESS
Demirli, Aylin
M.S., Department of Educational Sciences
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demir
July, 2007, 108 pages
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate predictive value of
gender, attachment dimensions, and family environment in determining students’
loneliness level. For this purpose, firstly, the effect of gender, attachment types and
family environment on loneliness level was investigated.
The participants of the study were 473 (281 females and 192 males) students
from different departments of Ankara University. Participants were administered
UCLA Loneliness Scale, Family Environment Assessment Scale, and Experiences in
Close Relationships Questionnaire.
Data analysis were carried out by three-way ANOVA (2 gender X 2 Family
Environment X 4 Attachment Type) to investigate the effect of gender, attachment
types and family environment on loneliness level and Stepwise Multiple Regression
Analysis to investigate predictive value of gender, attachment dimensions, and
family environment in determining students’ loneliness level.
The results of three-way ANOVA yielded that while main effects were
significant, interaction effects were not significant. Post-hoc analysis revealed that
male students were lonelier than females; Families with low coherence scores were
lonelier than families with high coherence scores and individuals with fearful pattern
of attachment were lonelier than individuals with secure, dismissing, and
iv
preoccupied patterns of attachment. Stepwise multiple regression analysis also
showed that, attachment types, family environment and gender together explained
the 19 % of variance in loneliness.
Key Words: Loneliness, Attachment, Family Environment, Gender, University
students.
v
ÖZ
C NS YET N, BA LANMA T P N N VE A LE YAPISININ ÜN VERS TE
Ö RENC LER N N YALNIZLIK DÜZEY ÜZER NDEK ROLÜ
Demirli, Aylin
Yüksek Lisans, E itim Bilimleri
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demir
Temmuz, 2007, 108 Sayfa
Bu çalı manın temel amacı, ba lanma boyutları, cinsiyet ve aile yapısının,
yalnızlı ı ne derecede yordadı ını ara tırmaktır. Bu do rultuda, öncelikle, ba lanma
türleri, cinsiyet ve aile yapısının yalnızlık üzerindeki etkisine bakılmı tır.
Çalı maya, Ankara Üniversitesi’nde de i ik bölümlerinde okumakta olan 473
(281 kız ve 192 erkek) ö renci katılmı tır. Katılımcıların yalnızlık düzeyleri UCLA
Yalnızlık Ölçe i, aile yapıları, Aile Yapısını De erlendirme Aracı, ba lanma türleri
Yakın li ki Ya antıları Envanteri-(Yenilenmi ) ile saptanmı tır.
Ba lanma türleri, cinsiyet ve aile yapısının yalnızlık üzerindeki etkisine Üç
Yönlü ANOVA (2 Cinsiyet X 2 Aile yapısı X 4 Ba lanma) Analizi kullanılarak ve
ba lanma boyutları, cinsiyet ve aile yapısının, yalnızlı ı ne derecede yordadı ını ise
(Stepwise) Çoklu Do rusal Regresyon Analizi kullanılarak bakılmı tır.
Üç Yönlü ANOVA sonuçları temel etkiler anlamlı oldu u halde ve etkile im
etkilerinin anlamlı olmadı ını göstermi tir. Ayrıca post hoc analizi sonuçları,
erkeklerin kızlardan, dü ük uyum gösteren ailelere sahip olanların yüksek uyumlu
ailelerden, korkulu kaçınan ba lanma türüne sahip olanların güvenli, kayıtsız kaçınan
ve saplantılı ba lanma türüne sahip olan bireylerden daha fazla yalnızlık düzeyine
sahip oldu unu göstermi tir. Çoklu regresyon analizi sonuçları, ba lanma boyutu,
aile yapısı ve cinsiyetin bir arada yalnızlı ın % 19’ unu açıklamı tır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Yalnızlık, Ba lanma, Aile Yapısı, Cinsiyet, Üniversite
ö rencileri
vi
To my grandmother,
For her unbelievable sacrifice,
Rest in peace
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people were instrumental to my completion of this valuable study.
First, I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Ayhan Demir for his supervision and
guidance in this study. I would also like to express my appreciation for his
encouragement, tolerance, and support. He was very generous in providing me with
information about the area, as well as sharing his experience in the field.
I must also thank to my other committee members, Prof. Dr. Esin Tezer and
Assist. Prof. Dr. Seher Sevim for their kind support, constructive feedback, and
invaluable contributions.
As always, deepest thanks you to my parents, ükran and Ahmet Demirli for
your sacrifice, love throughout the life and owe my existence. You have been there,
all the time, support and believe in me; that is why I am here. I would also like to
express my thanks to my sister, Aynur, for her help and caring throughout the study.
You are a truly generous person who has the ability to bring fun and energy into my
life.
I am also grateful to Bülent Bakır and Mustafa Türkmen for their help with
statistical analysis, ideas, and revisions about the study. You have been a constant
source of encouragement and support.
I also thank to my dear friends,
irin Yatkın, Ayten Bakır, and Rabia
Türkmen for their support.
Last but certainly not least, I owe special thanks to my husband, Ömer Ediz
Yoraz. He provided support, warmth, courage, and inspiration during the whole
process. He was truly a model of patience, sympathy, and wit for me. He has
supported me in every possible way and he has made endless sacrifices for my
graduate education. He was near by my side whenever I needed. This thesis would
never finish without him.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION.......................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 3
1.2. Problem ........................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Definition of Terms......................................................................................... 3
1.4. Limitations of Study ....................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the Study................................................................................ 4
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1. Loneliness ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1. Definition of Loneliness....................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Gender Difference in Loneliness ....................................................... 13
2.1.3. Loneliness and Family Environment ................................................. 14
2.1.4. Loneliness and Attachment ................................................................ 20
2.1.5. Correlates of Loneliness,
Family Environment, and Attachment Styles .................................... 31
3. METHOD
3.1. Overall Design of Study................................................................................ 33
3.2. Sample........................................................................................................... 33
3.3. Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................ 34
3.4. Instruments.................................................................................................... 34
ix
3.4.1. Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 34
3.4.2. University of California Los Angeles
Loneliness Scale (UCLA) .................................................................. 35
3.4.3. Family Environment Assessment Scale (FEAS) ............................... 35
3.4.4. Experiences in Close Relationships- Revised (ECR-R)..................... 36
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure............................................................................... 38
3.6. Determination of Attachment Types by
Non-Hierarchic Cluster Analysis ................................................................... 39
4. RESULTS
4.1. Results Concerning the Differences of Three-Way ANOVA....................... 40
4.2. Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis........................................................ 45
5. DISCUSSION
5.1. Discussion .................................................................................................... 53
5.1.1. The Effect of Gender, Attachment Dimension,
and Family Environment on Loneliness ............................................ 53
5.1.2. Prediction of Loneliness by Family Environment,
Attachment Dimension, and Gender .................................................. 57
5.2. Implications................................................................................................... 60
5.3. Recommendations......................................................................................... 61
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES
A. Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 90
B. University Of California Los Angles Loneliness Scale (UCLA)................... 91
C. Experiences In Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) ................................. 93
D. Family Environment Assessment Scale (FEAS) ........................................... 95
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 4.1. Means and Standard Deviations of Loneliness Scores Regard
to Gender, Attachment Dimensions,
and Family Environment.. ................................................................. 41
Table 4.2. The Results of Three-Way ANOVA
Depend on Loneliness Scores ............................................................ 42
Table 4.3. Results of Multiple Comparisons........................................................ 44
Table 4.4. Means and Standard Deviations of Loneliness, Gender,
Attachment Dimensions, and Family Environment ........................... 47
Table 4.5. Correlations Among Loneliness, Attachment Dimensions
and Family Environment.................................................................... 47
Table 4.6. Model Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis ............. 48
Table 4.7. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations
and the Significance Levels of ß ........................................................ 49
Table 4.8. Coefficient Correlations of Independent Variables ............................ 51
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 4.1. Means of Attachment Groups.............................................................45
Figure 4.2. Normal P- P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual....................52
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Loneliness is a universal phenomenon (Peplau & Perlman, 1982), it visits
every human soul at some time in every culture, race, class, age, and at all times in
human history. It is inescapable, and has been expressed through music, literature,
and art for ages. Feelings of loneliness make us understand that we are somehow
fundamentally separated from each other, doomed to speak and yet never fully
understood by which we join the rest of humanity in acknowledging that (Peplau &
Perlman, 1982; Peplau & Goldston, 1984). Loneliness is not only so pervasive, but
also associated with a variety of different emotions. People who feel loneliness
describe it as painful, and it is associated very strongly with feelings of depression,
suicide, low self-esteem, and aggression (Pilkonis, 1988).
Many authors (e.g., Hymel et al., 1990; McWhirter, 1990; Medora and
Woodward, 1986; Peplau & Perlman, 1982; Rotenberg, 1999), have proposed that
loneliness is one of the basic unpleasant facts and thus is experienced at different
levels by everyone at some point in their lives. Wood (1986) has even suggested,
“Failure to experience loneliness appropriately calls into question one's very nature
as a social being” (p. 184). Loneliness has no age, gender, race, marital status,
socioeconomic status, or health status limits (Medora & Woodward, 1986; Neto &
Barros, 2000). Thus, loneliness is a universal experience, a consequence of the
universal human need for belonging (Rotenberg, 1999).
From needs perspective, loneliness is caused by the absence of a needed
relationship or set of relationships, which may not be necessarily intimate or
confidential in nature, but rather meet one's inherent social needs, such as
attachment, social integration, nurturance, reassurance of worth, reliance alliance,
and guidance (Weiss, 1987). This perspective draws heavily on Bowlby's attachment
theory (Weiss, 1987). According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969), children
become attached to their parents which give them a sense of warmth, intimacy, and
1
security during infancy. When separated from attachment figures, children show
signs of separation anxiety, such as restlessness, stress, discomfort, and social
withdrawal (Stokes, 1987). Bowlby (1969) has suggested that secure early
attachments are necessary for developing the capacity for warm and close
relationships later in life. Moreover, during the transition period from childhood to
adolescence and young adulthood, in which parents are replaced with peers such as
friends and romantic partners as primary attachment figures, loss or absence of
attachment figures causes distress in the individual, irrespective of his or her age
(Weiss, 1987). Besides, the quality of adult attachment has some influence on social
functioning. The fearfully attached group is mostly found to be the loneliest, and
followed by preoccupied and dismissing types successively. Secure group seems to
be the least lonely (Man & Hamid, 1998). Furthermore, securely attached individuals
are socially skilled and report lower levels of loneliness (DiTommaso, McNulthy,
Ross, & Burgess, 2003).
Family environment has a great impact on the development of individuals’
attachment patterns (Vasta, Miller, & Ellis, 2004). Interactions within a family
influence one’s psychological and socio-emotional functioning which includes
secure attachment cognitions and their close relationships with others apart from the
family members, such as friendships or romantic relationships (Collins & Read,
1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990).
Furthermore, individuals who report that their parents have not spared
enough time for them, nor understood them, or that they have not seek help of their
parents are more likely to experience loneliness (Hojat, 1982).
Low family cohesion is associated with various personality and social
difficulties including loneliness, depression, aggression, and subsequent poor social
adjustment (Cummings et al., 1994; Harold & Conger, 1997; Johnson, LaVoie, &
Mahoney, 2001; Perry, Perry, & Kennedy, 1992; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996). There
are many studies, which investigated the relation of different aspects of loneliness
and family. These studies displayed a strong relation between loneliness and family
environment.
Loneliness and family cohesion were found to be correlated for both males
and females. Low family cohesion was related to higher loneliness for females, and
2
males. On the other hand, individuals, who have high coherent families reported
lower levels of loneliness (Cummings et al., 1994; Harold & Conger, 1997; Johnson,
LaVoie, & Mahoney, 2001; Perry, Perry, & Kennedy, 1992).
Loneliness is a life- span phenomenon with which all people have to cope
with at one time or another. The quality of adult attachment and percieved family
environment has some influence on social functioning and loneliness. The purpose of
this study is to shed light on the influence and prediction of gender, attachment
dimensions and family environment on loneliness level.
1.1.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the present study was to investigate predictive value of
gender, attachment dimensions, and family environment in determining students’
loneliness level. For this purpose, firstly, the effect of gender, attachment types and
family environment on loneliness level was investigated.
1.2.
Problem
The following questions were sought to be answered.
What are the possible differences among the loneliness level of the
participants by gender, attachment type, and family environment?
To what extent loneliness is predicted from gender, attachment styles, and
family envionment?
1.3.
Definition of Terms
Loneliness: It is an unpleasant feeling that is experienced when a person’s
of social networks are significantly deficient in either quality or quantity (Peplau &
Perlman, 1982).
Attachment Styles: These are cognitive representations acquired early in
life. The terms attachment, attachment style, attachment orientation, and attachment
3
status are used interchangeably (Bowlby, 1973).
Family Environment: It includes expectations, secrets, perceptions on
environment, emotional bond among family members. It involves the unity and
interaction among the members (Gülerce, 1996).
1.4.
Limitations of the Study
Some limitations of the study should be mentioned. First, family
environment and attachment types were investigated as predictors of loneliness. Yet,
other possible factors, which may affect loneliness level, were not taken into
consideration.
Second, the sample was chosen from Ankara University Cebeci Campus,
which limits the generalizability of the results. Findings could be generalized in
terms of institutional similarities to Ankara University Cebeci Campus.
Another limitation of the study is the instruments used to assess loneliness
level, family environment and attachment styles. Results are based on data gathered
by UCLA Loneliness Scale, Family Environment Assessment Scale and Experiences
in Close Relationship–Revised which are all self-report scales. The limitations of
self- report measures should be kept in mind before interpreting the results of this
study. Some potential problems are fakebility and social desirability.
Socio-economic status, cultural, and educational background of the
individuals were not controlled. In addition to this, instruments’ validity and
reliability analyses which were done in the study were not re-examined.
1.5.
Significance of the Study
Social relationships have an important place in human life. Individuals as
social beings are in interaction with environment. This interaction, which begins
immediately after the birth, continues whole life. Loneliness is one of the results of
social patterns that are established right after birth with the establishment of
relationship with caregiver.
4
Attachment styles have their roots in the family environment; as a result,
these concepts have importance on young adults’ personality and relationships in
different ways. The results of this study may show the possible interactions of
attachment styles and family environment in university students. Findings of the
present study may also help counselors gain greater insight into parent-child
interactions and understand influences of parent- child interactions on relationship
patterns in the adulthood.
Also, close inspection of all related research results seem to indicate that,
the role of family environment, and attachment dimensions in predicting loneliness
cannot be ignored. So it may be meaningful to inform parents or prospective parents
about this relationship and the environment that may be prepared for the child’s
healthy emotional and social development. Findings of this study can enable parents
and counselors to help children grow into adults with healthy social relationships.
The present study is considered important because research conducted on
family environment, attachment dimension and loneliness in Türkiye appears rather
limited.
Moreover, this research may also have implications for school counselors,
teachers, and school administrators. That is, they may need to become aware of
symptoms of loneliness, its predictors in adolescents’ lives. This awareness may help
them figure out some solutions to avoid loneliness and the consequences of
loneliness. Loneliness related drug abuse, dropouts, academic failure, and violence
can be prevented.
Finally, results of this study can give light to further research. It is hoped that
this study may encourage other researchers to investigate the other correlates and
predictors of loneliness in Turkish culture.
5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Loneliness
2.1.1. Definition of Loneliness
In the literature, loneliness has been defined in numerous ways. Sullivan
(1953) described loneliness as a powerful response which is experienced when the
basic human need for interpersonal intimacy is not fulfilled. Medora and Wodward
(1986) stated that loneliness reflects an individual’s subjective perception of
deficiencies in his or her network of social relationships.
The most common definition of loneliness is the one that Peplau and
Perlman (1984) have made. They describe loneliness as an unpleasant experience
that occurs when a person’s social relationship network is significantly deficient
either qualitatively or quantitatively. Many other scholars share three points of view
of this definition. First, loneliness results from a deficiency in a person’s social
relationships. It sometimes occurs when a person’s actual social relations and his or
her desires and needs are inharmonious. In addition to this, loneliness can stem from
a shift in an individual’s social needs rather than from a change in their actual level
of social contact. Second point of agreement is that loneliness is a subjective
experience. That means people can be alone in the crowd too. Third, the experience
of loneliness is an aversive one. It is unpleasant and distressing even though it may
give way to personal growth. In other words, loneliness can be described as a
situation experienced by the individual when there is an unpleasant or inadmissible
lack of quality of certain social relationships.
Loneliness was found to be related with the manner of the person who
6
perceives, experiences, and evaluates his or her isolation and lack of communication
with other people. (Peplau & Perlman, 1984; Weiss, 1984; Williams, 1983).
Loneliness is generally associated with negative feelings about problems in
social relationships (Russel, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). According to Williams (1983,
p. 52), loneliness involves human need for intimacy in interpersonal relationships
and results from the painful awareness of feelings that are not actually related with
desired close relationships with others. Williams (1983) has indicated that loneliness
is strongly related to the perception of and satisfaction with one’s relationship rather
than to objective or quantitative characteristic of relationship.
Loneliness is usually an aversive experience. It is generally associated with
negative feelings such as anxiety, anger, boredom, sadness, and feelings of
marginality (Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981). Moreover, loneliness causes
feelings of hopelessness, emptiness, worthlessness and failure, and the desire to deny
one’s loneliness (Gordon, 1976). Buchholz and Catton (1999) has defined loneliness
as an aversive state arising from a sense of yearning for another person(s), and
associated with negative feelings such as sadness and hopelessness.
Weiss (1984) concludes that loneliness is widely common and severely
distressing. Weiss (1984) has also stated that loneliness consists of two separate
dimensions; emotional isolation and social isolation. While social isolation is the
absence of a place in an accepting community or the lack of a recognized social role,
emotional isolation is the absence of a loved one.
Different researchers make various definitions of different dimensions types
of loneliness. According to Weiss (1984), people experience two types of loneliness:
emotional and social loneliness. Emotional loneliness is felt when one does not
closely, intimately attached to another person. Individuals who have experienced life
chances such as divorce or separation may feel emotional loneliness. Social
loneliness, on the other hand, is felt in lack of social relationships in which the
person is part of a group of friends who share common interests and activities
(Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yurko, 1984)
Jong-Gierveld (1987) has also distinguished three dimensions of loneliness.
7
The first one is associated with the absence of an intimate attachment, feelings of
emptiness or abandonment. This so-called deprivation component was considered as
the core of the concept of loneliness. The second one refers to time perspective, and
the third involves emotional aspects (Jong-Gierveld, 1987).
Archibald and Bartholomew (1995) have described loneliness from two
perspectives; social needs perspective and cognitive discrepancy model. The social
needs perspective of loneliness stresses actual level of contact. This perspective
proposes that people experience loneliness when people’s demands are not met
because of the absence or loss of interpersonal relationships. On the other hand,
cognitive discrepancy model emphasizes the perceived discrepancy between actual
and desired level of contact and suggests that actual level of loneliness is important
to the extent that it differs from desired level.
Peplau and Goldston (1984) have classified loneliness as transient, chronic,
severe, and persistent. Transient feelings of loneliness are both common and
relatively harmless. However, severe and persistent feelings of loneliness are
extremely painful experiences that may cause psychological dysfunction and mental
disorder.
Young’s (1982) classification of loneliness is similar to Peplau and
Goldson’s (1984): transient, situational, and chronic loneliness. Transient loneliness
is experienced everyday and includes brief and occasional lonely moods. Situational
loneliness is valid for people who had satisfying relations until some specific change
occurred in life. Finally, chronic loneliness appears when people lack satisfactory
social relations for two or more years.
Major attributes of a lonely person are clustered in three categories by
Horowitz, French, and Anderson (1982). First cluster includes feelings and thoughts
of being different, isolated, and separate from others. The second covers negative
feelings of depression, sadness, anger, and even paranoia. The last one involves
actions, such as avoiding social contacts or working long hours.
Another
categorization
discriminate
two
types
of
loneliness:
unidimensional or multidimensional phenomenon (Schmidt & Sermat, 1983).
8
Unidimensional conceptualization of loneliness displays it as a unit, global
phenomenon while multidimensional conceptualization of loneliness suggests that
this experience has various manifestations. Multidimensional conceptualization of
loneliness does not cover all areas of individual’s experience, unlike unidimensional
perspective.
Loneliness
is
correlated
with
different
dimensions
of
personal
characteristics, social relations, and social skills.
Loneliness is associated with a perceived lack of interpersonal intimacy and
negatively related to willingness to self- disclosure (Chelune, Sultan, Williams,
1980). Lonely individuals tend to score high on negative intrapersonal traits like
pessimism (Davis, Hanson, Edson, & Ziegler, 1992; Ernst & Cacioppo, 1998).
Loneliness has also strong negative correlation with happiness (Booth, Bartlett, &
Bohansock, 1992) and life satisfaction (Riggio, Watring, & Throckmorton, 1993).
Loneliness was also found to be positively correlated with low peer
acceptance (Sletta, Valas, Skaalvik, & Sobstad, 1996), and peer rejection (Cassidy &
Asher, 1992; Rotenberg & Bartley, 1997).
Medora and Woodward (1986) reported a relationship between loneliness
and ease of making friends. Participants who stated that they were “very happy”
were significantly less lonely than those who said that they were “very unhappy”. It
was also found that the attentional and perceptional building blocks of socially
skilled behavior remained intact, and perhaps enhanced in lonely individuals
(Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, & Knowles, 2005).
Russell, Cutrona, Rose and Yurko (1984) indicated that depression was best
predicted by emotional loneliness and anxiety was associated with social loneliness.
The study of Ruchkin, Eisemann, and Hagglöf (1999) investigated possible
interrelations among hopelessness, loneliness, self- esteem, and personality in a
sample of delinquent adolescents by using UCLA Loneliness Scale, Beck’s
Hopelessness Scale, Rosenberg’s Self- Esteem Scale, and Claninger’s Temperament
and Character Inventory and showed that loneliness and hopelessness scales were
highly interrelated. Moreover, they were correlated with the temperament dimension
9
of harm avoidance and negatively correlated with the character dimension of selfdirectedness. Self- esteem appeared to be exclusively related with self- directedness
(Ruchkin, Eisemann, & Hagglöf, 1999).
Personality and social network factors were also found to be related to the
feelings of emotional and social loneliness. (vanBaarsen, Snijders, Smit, & vanDuijn;
2001).
Moreover, children’s experiences of loneliness were predicted by a
combination of personal factors such as children’s sense of coherence; interpersonal
factors such as peer reciprocal acceptance (friendship) and peer reciprocal rejection
(enemies) (Margalit, Tur-Kaspa, & Most, 1999). Studies have found that children
and adolescents who report higher levels of overall sense of community in both their
neighborhood (Chipuer et al., 1999) and at school (Chipuer, 1999; Goodenow, 1993)
report lower perceptions of loneliness and better psychological health.
Demir and Fı ılo lu (1999) investigated the relationship between loneliness
and marital adjustment in Turkish couples. The results have shown that there is a
negative relationship between loneliness and marital adjustment. A low level of
loneliness seems to be associated with good marital adjustment.
In their studies, Kara and Mirici (2004) tried to identify differences among
Turkish patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their spouses on
loneliness, depression, and social support. Levels of loneliness, depression, and
perceived social support from family and friends were similar for patients and
spouses. Loneliness and depression were positively related, but both loneliness and
depression seemed to increase with law perceived social support from family and
friends for both patients and their spouses (Kara & Mirici, 2004).
Lonely people were found to perceive themselves in a negative and selfdepreciating manner, believing that they were inferior, worthless, unattractive,
unlovable, and socially incompetent individuals (Horowitz et al., 1982; Jones,
Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Jones & Moore, 1987; Jones et al., 1983).
Moreover, lonely people have negative perceptions not only about
themselves but also about others (e.g., Henwood, & Solano, 1994; Jones et al., 1981;
10
Wittenberg & Reis, 1986). Compared to nonlonely people, lonely people perceive
others as less trustworthy (Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999; Rotenberg, 1994), less
supportive (Vaux, 1988), less communicatively competent (Jones et al., 1981), as
well as less attractive and socially desirable (Jones et al., 1981; Jones et al., 1983).
Lonely individuals are also more cynical, less accepting of others, and more likely to
expect (as well as fear) negative evaluations from others (Jones et al., 1981; Jones et
al., 1983). These negative attitudes also appear to be generalized to the social world,
which is expressed as misanthropy (Hojat, 1982), social alienation, hostility, and as
fewer ‘just world’ beliefs (Jones et al., 1981).
Loneliness is a life- long phenomenon with which all people have to cope at
one time or another. Rokach (2001) investigated influences of age and gender on
coping with loneliness. Adolescents (13-18 years old), young adults (19-30 years
old), adults (31-58 years old) and seniors (60-80 years old) were compared on the
bases of age and gender. Results have revealed that adult group deals with loneliness
more effectively and that women appear to cope with loneliness better than men do
(Rokach, 2001).
Schultz and Moore (1988) have found that high school students are lonelier
than college students, although loneliness seems to be widespread during the initial
college transition (Brennan, Clark, & Schaver, 1988; Cutrona, 1982). Indeed, Culp,
Clyman, and Culp (1995) have shown that 66% of high school students consider
loneliness as a problem they experienced last year. In a review study, Perlman and
Landolt (1999) concluded that prevalence of loneliness appeared to peak during
adolescence, drop between young adulthood and middle age, and then perhaps rise
slightly in old age.
People in different age groups experience loneliness differently. Medora
and Woodward (1986) reported the incidence of loneliness among various
populations, but adolescents in general are at high risk for loneliness. John- Gierveld
(1987) has proposed that age and loneliness are largely independent. Woodward and
Frank (1998) reported that age and loneliness were widespread and especially intense
during adolescence. Davis (1990) and Euphemia (1988) suggested that loneliness
11
was especially a painful experience during adulthood years.
A curve depicting the ratio of different age groups reporting loneliness
displays a shallow `u’ shape. And adolescents report loneliness to a somewhat higher
extent than adults and young-old retirees (Andersson, 1982; 1993; Peplau et al.,
1982). Although there are not many findings, it seems that there is an increase of
loneliness in the oldest age group whose ages approximately over 75. It should be
noted that even when the loneliness levels are the same, the contents of the feeling of
loneliness might differ for different age groups (Perlman & Peplau, 1984).
Loneliness experiences differ during adolescence. Brage, Meredith, and
Woodward (1993) found that older adolescents were lonelier than younger
adolescents. It has been suggested that loneliness is experienced and is a major
problem among late adolescents (Roscoe & Skomski, 1989; Russell et al., 1980;
Schultz, & Moore, 1986).
Schimitt and Kurdek (1985) showed that college women expressed more
dissatisfaction with large group relationships when compared with elderly women,
whereas elderly women expressed more dissatisfaction with their romantic/ sexual
relationships. This indicates the possibility that loneliness is evaluated according to
different criteria at different stages of life. The study conducted by Logo and
Schatten-Jones (2000) examined social network correlates of social and emotional
loneliness in order to demonstrate that social and emotional loneliness are different
constructs. Secondly, researchers investigated the possibility of age differences in the
relationship between loneliness and social characteristics. Results showed that social
and emotional loneliness were moderately correlated with one another and had
different network correlates for both young and older adults. Similarly;, emotional
loneliness was related to the presence of a romantic partner in the network for both
age groups, though, this relationship was stronger for older adults. Correlates of
social loneliness also differed between young and older adults. The presence of an
intimate person and size of the network predicted social loneliness for young adults,
whereas average closeness of the network predicted social loneliness for older adults
(Logo & Schatten-Jones, 2000).
12
2.1.2. Gender Differences in Loneliness
Research findings about loneliness are contradictory for gender. Although
most studies show that women report loneliness to a higher extent than men do, some
studies report no gender differences (Andersson, 1982; Peplau et al., 1982; Qureshi
& Walker, 1989).
Many of the studies have revealed that males are lonelier than females
(Roscoe & Skomsky, 1989; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980; Schultz & Moore,
1986). Wiseman and Guttfreund (1995) found that among those who seek counseling
in a sample of university students, males were lonelier than females. Norman and
DeWayne (1986) reported that males within a sample of undergraduate university
students were significantly scored higher than females. Wittenberg and Reis (1985)
also stated that individuals high in femininity and masculinity were less lonely. In a
study, Toivonen, Salmela-Aro, and Eronen (1997) investigated the strength of the
association of loneliness with cognitive and attribution strategies people adopt in
social situations. It was found that a pessimistic avoidance strategy was associated
with subsequent feelings of loneliness, even after the level of self-esteem was
controlled. Both optimistic planning strategy and self-serving attribution bias were
negatively associated with feelings of loneliness among men but not among women.
On the other hand, some researchers suggests that females have reported
substantially higher loneliness scores than males (Medora & Woodward, 1986;
Sundberg, 1988; Woodward & Frank, 1988). Medora and Woodward (1991), also,
reported that female alcoholics’ loneliness level was significantly higher than men
alcoholics’. Page and Cole’s (1991) study supports this finding. They indicated that,
loneliness increases alcoholism risk among late adolescent females, but does not
influence alcoholism risk among males of the same age.
Terrell, Terrell, and Von Drashek (2000), found that females who had been
taught to distrust strangers experienced more loneliness than their male counterparts
did as well as females and males who were not taught to distrust strangers.
Moreover, some of the studies indicate no gender differences with regard to
13
loneliness (Kalliopuska & Laitinen, 1991; Jackson & Cochran, 1990; Jones,
Freeman, & Goswick, 1981; Moraldo, 1981). Medora and Woodward (1986) found
that females reported significantly higher loneliness scores than males. Peplau and
Perlman (1982) reported no gender differences when UCLA Loneliness Scale was
administered but women tended to describe themselves lonelier than men when
respondents were asked to respond to direct questions on their loneliness. The study
conducted by Logo and Schatten-Jones (2000) yielded no gender differences with
regard to loneliness. Christensen and Kashy (1998) found no gender difference for
loneliness which was aaessed by UCLA Loneliness Scale. Koenig, Isaacs, and
Schwartz (1994) showed that higher levels of depression were associated with
greater loneliness for both boys and girls.
2.1.3. Loneliness and Family Environment
The family, in many ways, is the birthplace of society. It is the most basic
economic, political, and social unit. It is within the family that individuals first learn
the value of work and the worth of their possessions, first experience authority,
cooperation, and governance. Families teach individuals how to relate to and treat
one another. Families provide an appropriate space for nurturing, growth, and
education. They are truly schools where social and emotional skills are acquired and
attachment styles are formed (Batgos & Leadbeater, 1994). As given above;
attachment refers to the emotional and physical bond between infant, and primary
caregiver (Ülku, 2001). Infant needs a safe, dependable, nurturing environment to
grow (Adams & Gullota, 1989). Through repeated interaction with the primary
caregiver, a child develops an internal working model of this care giving relationship
(Batgos & Leadbeater, 1994).
Family cohesion (i.e., the emotional bonding among family members and
the feeling of closeness) is expressed by feelings of belongingness and acceptance
within the family system (McKeown et al., 1997).
14
It is believed that these childhood experiences have an important effect on
relationships later in life (Bowlby, 1969; Herzberg & Hammen, 1999). Bowlby
(1969) proposes that in order to be able to predict and manage their world,
individuals need an inner model of their environment and a model of their own skills,
and potentialities.
In this respect, quality of interactions between family members, supportive
behaviors of parents towards their children, coherence, communication, intimacy,
closeness, and feeling of security in the environment have inevitable significance
(Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O’Conner, 1994; Barnes & Olson, 1985).
Family environment has a great impact on the development of individuals’
attachment styles. Interactions in a family influence the individuals’ psychological
and socio-emotional functioning which include secure attachment cognitions and
their close relationships with others outside the family environment, such as peer or
romantic relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990). Inner
working models are thought to develop out of child’s relationship history, as the
child explores his or her relationships by demanding attention and comfort.
Similarly, Bretherton (1992) emphasizes that the caregivers’ sensitivity to
individuals’ attention, comfort, or encouragement requests is crucial for the
development of inner working models in childhood and adulthood. Bowlby (1988)
argues that a secure relationship between an infant and his or her attachment figure is
related to each partner’s ability to engage in emotionally open, fluent, and coherent
communication (Freeney & Nooley, 1996).
Attachment theory and research suggest that developing positive
relationships with consistently available and responsive alternative adults can help
ameliorate the effects of parental loss or problems, whereas instability in the caregiving situation does not. (Howes, 1999; Stovall & Dozier, 1998). When parents are
supportive and cooperative in their interactions with their children, the children are
likely to develop secure inner working models which enable them to have positive
relationships with others, as well as to explore the environment with a sense of
confidence and mastery (Freeney & Noller, 1990). In addition, it is believed that
15
attachment to parents has an effective function of providing emotional well- being,
social competency, and security in their relationships (Kobak & Sceery, 1988).
Kobak and Sceery (1988) also stated that, secure adolescents tended to see their
parents as loving and available during distressing events. In other words, attachment
styles have their roots in the family environment; as a result, these concepts have
importance for young adults’ personality and relationships in different ways.
Green and Goldwyn indicate that disorganized attachments are associated
with specific forms of distorted parenting, which are distinct from general parental
insensitivity and associated with unresolved loss or trauma in the caregiver. There
are also links with neurovulnerability aspects of the child. Attachment
disorganization is a powerful predictor of a range of later social and cognitive
difficulties and psychopathology (Green & Goldwyn, 2002). Dismissing adolescents
who experienced rejection and lack of love from parents had difficulty in recalling
distressing events in childhood. Preoccupied adolescents recalled distressing events
in a confused or incoherent manner. Secure adolescents’ representations were related
with family environment, lack of idealization and good recall of attachment
experiences. In contrast, dismissing and preoccupied adolescents experienced lack of
coherence (Green & Goldwyn, 2002).
Research findings generally indicate that cohesive family environment help
individuals develop secure attachment style. Attachment relationships provide the
context for the development of mental representations of self and others (Bowlby,
1973; 1982; Bretherton, 1990; 1993) that guide an individual’s behavioral and
emotional reactions and provide a lens for interpreting future interactions, thus
reflect developmental trajectories leading toward interpersonal competence or
incompetence (Bowlby, 1982; Bretherton, 1996; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999;
Milan & Pinderhughes, 2000). Bretherton (1990) also states that secure attachment of
a child is associated with open, fluent, and coherent communication with the early
attachment figures. According to Bretherton (1990), an open communication is
observed between a securely attached child and his or her parent. In contrast,
16
avoidant children and their parents resist closeness. Anxious/ ambivalent children, on
the other hand, display ambivalent feelings towards parents when they are together.
The attachment literature highlights the importance of emotionally open
communication in relationships (e.g., Bretherton, 1990; 1995; Bretherton & Page,
2004). Telling children about difficult situations in honest, sensitive, and
developmentally appropriate ways affirms their trust in caregivers. In contrast, when
information is hidden, distorted in a manner that contradicts the child’s experience,
or includes details that frighten the child, distrust or mental health problems may
ensue (Bowlby, 1973). Santrock (1997) declared that family cohesiveness is a
mediating factor for adolescents to have secure relationships with their parents.
Harvey and Byrad (2000) display similar findings. They reported that adolescent
who perceived their families as cohesive had secure attachment style and consider
themselves active in dealing with problems. They also had social support and help
when needed in this coherent environment. Furthermore, secure attachment was
closely correlated with a sense of organisms because they have a working model for
problem solving as comprehensible and manageable and were more active in solving
problems than those both with avoidant and anxious/ ambivalent attachment style
who experienced high levels of conflict.
Herzberg and Hammen, (1999) reported that insecurely attached dyads
were characterized with impaired communication of feelings between mother and
child in the past. In this regard, young adults with insecure working models described
their relationships as emotionally nonsupportive. On the contrary, secure attachment
style in young adults was associated with higher levels of perceived and active
support.
Thus, family environment and family relationships are significant issues to
be concerned. Early family environment appears to have a strong effect on future
intimate relationships of both adolescents and adults. Put it differently, attachment
relationships occur within the context of the family (Donley, 1993) and early
attachment experiences are connected to later relational behavior (Herzberg &
Hammen, 1999).
17
As mentioned above, people need a safe, dependable, nurturing
environment in which they can grow (Adams & Gullota, 1989). Generally, it is
known that homeless and bad-housed children and adolescents suffer all
developmental, health, and nutritional risks that others living in poverty do (Adams
& Gullota, 1989).
Farrell and White (1998) have studied aspects of family life qualitatively
and found that the meaning attributed to parent-child interactions is an important
determinant of the observable activity of children’s drug use. They argue that the
importance of parental involvement in teenagers’ lives frequently overlooked. In
their study of peer influences and drug use among urban adolescents, Farrell and
White (1998) found that an adolescent’s relationship with his or her father was a
significant resiliency factor which determines the likelihood of an adolescent’s drug
abuse.
Interestingly, Robertson (1999) has observed that delinquency becomes a
satisfactory choice for youth who are trying to meet their need for social connection
and the healthy sense of self it provides when their families, especially fathers, are
unavailable to meet children’s requirements for recreational activities.
Weingarten (1998), based on her qualitative studies on mother-daughter
relationships, argues that mothers remain an important resource for the overall health
of their older children.
Wentzel and Feldman (1996) and McKeown et al. (1997) have found that
adolescents’ perceptions of low cohesion within their families were associated with
heightened feelings of depression and reduced social acceptance. In another study it
was suggested that low cohesion, expressed by feelings of disbelonging, is associated
with children’s and adolescents’ feelings and behaviors reflecting their family
environment (i.e., loneliness) (Reinherz, Stewart-Berghauer, Pakiz, Frost, &
Moeykens, 1989). However, Wentzel and Feldman (1996) noted that levels of
cohesion reported by male and female adolescents had different implications for their
personal and social adjustment. Lower levels of family cohesion were associated
18
with female reports of feeling excluded and depressed, whereas there was no such
association for males.
Also, low family cohesion is associated with various personality and social
difficulties including depression, loneliness, aggression, and subsequent poor social
adjustment (Cummings et al., 1994; Harold & Conger, 1997; Johnson, LaVoie, &
Mahoney, 2001; Perry, Perry, & Kennedy, 1992; Wentzel & Feldman, 1996).
There are so many studies, which has investigated the relation of different
aspects of loneliness and family. These studies displayed a strong relation between
loneliness and family environment.
Solano (1994) investigated the relationship among family members
regarding to the level of loneliness and tried to determine the predictors of loneliness
for each family member. Results indicated that loneliness of children was
significantly correlated with their mothers’ levels of loneliness of, but not with their
fathers’. For family relations as a whole, loneliness was associated with using fewer
relationship- enhancing strategies. For children and mothers, negative attitudes
toward others were associated with greater loneliness.
Hojat (1982) tested the hypothesis that those who report unsatisfactory
relationships with their parents were likely to experience loneliness in adulthood.
Results confirmed the hypotheses. Participants who reported that their parents had
not devoted enough time to them, nor understood them, that they had not gone to
their parents for help were found to be more likely to experience loneliness.
The study conducted by Johnson, La Voie and Mahoney (2001) addressed
the proposed notion that late adolescents’ perceptions of their family environment are
associated with their reports of loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. They
suggested that interpersonal conflict and family cohesion were positively associated
with adolescents’ feeling of loneliness. In addition, gender was expected to moderate
the association between adolescents’. Reports of loneliness and perceptions of
interparental conflict and family cohesion were correlated with scores on a measure
of loneliness for both males and females. Low family cohesion and interparental
conflict were related to reported loneliness for females, demonstrating a strong
19
family environment component, whereas only interparental conflict was found to
predict reported loneliness in males.
Terrell, Terrell, and Von Drashek (2000) investigated the feelings of
loneliness and fear of intimacy among adolescents regarding whether they were
taught not to trust strangers during childhood. They used UCLA Loneliness Scale
and Fear of Intimacy Scale. Researchers found that, participants whose parents had
taught them not to trust strangers in their childhood had great fear of intimacy.
Moreover, females who had been taught to distrust strangers also experienced more
loneliness than did their male counterparts as well as females and males who were
not taught to distrust strangers.
Lastly, in Turkey, Uruk and Demir (2003) investigated the relative
contribution of three groups of predictors: family environment, peer relationships,
and demographic variables on the loneliness levels of adolescents. Results indicated
that the most significant predictor of loneliness was peer relations. Moreover, results
yielded that there was a negative relationship between loneliness and willingness to
self- disclosure to peers, indeed, greater willingness to self- disclosure to peers
resulted in feeling less lonely.
2.1.4. Loneliness and Attachment
The central importance of parent-child attachment in Freud’s theory of
personality is perhaps best captured in his characterization of the infant-mother
relationship - without parallel, established unalterably for lifetime as the first and
strongest love object and as the prototype of all love relationships. (Freud, 1958)
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982; 1988) is principally concerned with the
nature of close, enduring emotional bonds or attachments, and how these unique
relationships affect the life course. Attachment refers to the emotional and physical
bond between infant, and primary caregiver (Gezer, 2001). Infant needs a safe,
dependable, nurturing environment to grow (Adams & Gullota, 1989). Through
repeated interaction with the primary caregiver, a child develops an internal working
model of this care giving relationship (Batgos & Leadbeater, 1994). First attachments
20
are usually formed within 7 months, only to a few persons, and virtually all infants
become attached (Akister, 1998). The internal models developed through relationship
with primary caregiver, can be considered as mental representations of the self in
relation to others (Batgos & Leadbeater, 1994). In other words; feelings of warmth,
trust, and security that infants derive from healthy attachments with their caregiver
are the basis for adaptive psychological functioning later in life (Bowlby, 1973).
From the vantage point of attachment theory (Ainsworth, 1973; Ainsworth et al.,
1978; Bowlby, 1969), maternal behaviors during an infant’s first year of life are
critical to the formation of a secure attachment relationship.
Bowlby developed attachment theory in the 1950s and 1960s as an
extension of psychoanalytic theory (Peluso, Peluso, White, & Kern, 2004). Bowlby’s
theory is based on the assumption that the attachment system is wired- in
evolutionary survival system. Seeking and maintaining contact with the caregiver are
primary motivations in human beings and innate survival mechanisms providing the
individual with a secure base in a potentially dangerous world (Pines, 2004). Main
and Bowlby have described different styles of attachment both in childhood and
more recently in adulthood relationships. Four categories were established for infant
attachment. First one is secure / B type. When separated from the parent, infant
shows signs of distress, seeks proximity on reunion, and then returns to play. Second
type is called avoidant/ A and an infant with an avoidant attachment shows little or
no distress upon separation and ignores and avoids the parent on reunion.
Ambivalent/ C is the third type. Ambivalent infant is greatly distressed and highly
focused on the parent, cannot be settled easily by the parent and may seek proximity
and display anger in quick succession. Disorganized/ D is the last type. For infants
with disorganized attachment pattern, the attachment figure itself is also a source of
alarm and is unpredictable (Akister; 1998).
Therefore, Bowlby describes attachment behavior as “any form of behavior
that results in a person attaining or retaining proximity to some other differentiated
and preferred individual, usually conceived as stronger and/ or wiser.” (Bowlby
1973, p. 292).
21
Ainsworth et al. (1978) did the first detailed study on individual differences
in attachment. As a result, three types of attachment patterns identified depending on
internal working models and responsiveness of the primary caregiver. Bowlby’s
attachment theory and Ainsworth’s assessment technique dealt primarily with the
infant and caregivers relationship. According to Bowlby, two sets of stimuli trigger
fear for infant: presence of clues to danger or the absence of an attachment figure.
Therefore, separation is the leading cause of anxiety and then comes the strange
situation depending on the separation and reunion episodes (Bowlby, 1973).
Bowlby (1973) stated that there is a sensitive period during when sense of
confidence is developed. This confidence can be defined as the availability of an
attachment figure whenever one desires it. The sensitive periods are immature years,
infancy, childhood, and adolescence. According to Weiss (1982), central features of
infant-mother attachment should also be fulfilled by adult relationships. However, of
course the attachment in immature years and attachment in adults are not exactly the
same. For later years, one’s primary attachment figure is the romantic partner and it
serves different functions. In particular, romantic love is defined as reciprocal care
giving in which partners provide support for each other.
According to Bowlby (1973) experiences with one’s caregiver are
internalized through internal working models of his or her own self worth,
expectations of care and support from others. Bowlby suggests that early healthy
attachments enable later positive relationships, while frustrated attachments produce
defensive detachment or extreme anxiety. (Hecht & Baum, 1984) Furthermore,
attachment relationships are internalized by the child, and the expectations of self
and others become generalized to form the blueprint for future interactions with
others outside the primary attachment relationship (Peluso, Peluso, White, & Kern,
2004).
Adult attachment styles define peoples’ comfort and confidence in close
relationships, their fear of rejection and yearning for intimacy, and their preference
for self- sufficiency or interpersonal distance. Attachment styles are formed in
response to real- life experiences with caregivers and other people, and they reflect
22
mental representations: (Internal working models) of others, of oneself in relations to
others, and of relationships in general (Meyer, 2001).
Hazan and Shaver (1987) state that childhood attachment representations
are translated into later dyadic relationships. In Hazan and Shaver’s study (1987),
anxious ambivalent strategy was associated with inconsistent responsiveness, and
anxious/ambivalent individuals see their parents as unfair. Therefore, they develop a
strategy to spend much of the time and effort to keep others close. In addition, it is
marked by a chronic fear of interpersonal rejection and abandonment. People
displaying an avoidant or resistant adult attachment orientation, have internalized
negative expectations about their personal competence and lovability, the
availability, and responsiveness of intimate others in their social worlds, or both sets
of expectations. In this regard, young adults with insecure working models describe
their relationships as emotionally non-supportive interactions (Peluso, Peluso, White,
& Kern, 2004). In romantic attachment, anxious ambivalent strategy is associated
with obsessive preoccupation, falling in love frequently, being extremely jealous,
having low self-esteem and experiencing high rate of indiscriminant self disclosure.
Avoidant
attachment
strategy
is
associated
with
consistent
unresponsiveness and avoidant individuals describe their mothers as cold, and
rejecting. This strategy can be characterized by maintaining self- security by
escaping from intimate social contact, especially in stressful circumstances. In adult
romantic attachment, avoidancy is expressed in fear of intimacy and close
relationship and the pessimistic views of relationship (Peluso, Peluso, White, &
Kern, 2004).
On the other hand, secure attachment is believed to result from consistent
responsiveness. Secure attachment is characterized by intense feelings of intimacy,
emotional security, and physical safety (Peluso, Peluso, White, & Kern, 2004). Those
people reported warmer relationships with their parents, held positive mental
representations of self and others, were more self- confident and interested in
establishing and maintaining relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
Based on three-category measure, Hazan and Shaver found that the
23
distribution of categories was similar to that observed in infancy. In other words,
about 60% of adults classified themselves as secure, about 20% as avoidant, and
about 20% as anxious-resistant.
On the contrary, people with secure adult attachment orientation are
presumed to experience low levels of anxiety and avoidance. (Lopez, 2002) As a
result, this type of attachment is associated with higher levels of perceived and
enacted support (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
Attachment, which is formed in infancy, influences one’s future life
(Ainsworth, 1972). Nevertheless, the tendency to establish attachment continues
throughout life. The point is that; in different stages of life, individuals develop
alternative attachment relationships (Collins & Read, 1990). While the caregiver is
the attachment figure in infancy, this situation changes in adolescence and Peers
become primary attachment figures (O’Koon, 1997). Since adolescents have greater
opportunities for independence from parents and have greater capacity to see
themselves as part of a larger community, new relationships begin (O’ Koon, 1997).
In adolescence, secure attachment is positively linked to several inter- and
intrapersonal outcomes ranging from peer popularity to higher self- esteem and
negatively related to others like depression and delinquency. (Allen, Moore,
Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble, 1991; von Ljendoern, &
Bakermans-Kronenburg, 1996). Furthermore, female adolescents’ and their infants’
attachment patterns suggest an intergenerational continuity (Ward & Carlson, 1995).
While research on childhood attachment styles refers to how infants
organize their attachment behavior with respect to a particular caregiver (Ainsworth,
1989; Ainsworth et al., 1978), Hazan and Shaver (1987) define adult attachment
either in terms of internal representations or models that guide interpersonal behavior
and information processing or in terms of characteristic strategies that individuals use
to maintain “felt security”. As in the research on attachment style in infancy
(Ainsworth et al., 1978), Hazan and Shaver (1987) have adopted a tripartite typology
of secure, avoidant, anxious- avoidant, anxious- ambivalent attachment styles for
classifying adults.
24
In adulthood, the attachment feelings are directed towards someone with
whom adult life may be shared (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
There is now an increasing amount of research which suggests that adult
romantic relationships function in the same ways as infant-caregiver relationships do,
with some noteworthy exceptions, of course. Naturalistic research on adults
separating from their partners at an airport demonstrated that behaviors indicative of
attachment-related protest and care giving were evident, and that the regulation of
these behaviors was associated with attachment styles (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).
Hazan and Shaver (1987) conducted a study to determine the parallelisms
between childhood attachment experiences and adulthood romantic relations. They
found that tree attachment styles, which are anxious / ambivalent, secure, and
avoidant, were as common in adulthood as they are in infancy, in fact they become
different. (Shaven, Hazan, & Bradshow, 1988). Hazan and Shaver’s study was
followed by different studies examining the quality of adult romantic relationships
and other relevant variables such as loneliness. Children and adults’ proportions
fallen under each attachment category show similarities; and proportions for adults
are as follows: 55% secure, 20% anxious/ambivalent, and 25% avoidant in
adulthood.
However, attachment researchers who use Ainsworth’s typology note crosscultural differences in attachment style distributions. In collectivistic cultures,
percentage of insecure anxious/ ambivalent strategy is higher than that of insecure
avoidant strategy which is contrary to individualistic cultures (Hazan and Shaver,
1987).
Bartholomew (1990) systematized Bowlby’s conceptions of internal
working models in order to explain adult attachment by combining model of self
with others. Both models are dichotomized as positive and negative. Model of self
describes whether self is deemed as worthy of love and support or not, and model of
others reflects whether others are seen as trustworthy, and available or unreliable and
rejecting. Through this combination, a four- category model is achieved.
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991), four-category model differs from
Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) tree-category model. In the four-category model,
25
avoidant category is split into two patterns: fearful avoidance and dismissing
avoidance. The differences in the self-model are supported by empirical evidence,
which consistently report higher self-esteem and lower actual/ideal self-discrepancies
among dismissing individuals rather than fearful individuals.
Griffin and Batholomew (1994) also argued that these four types could be
embedded into two dimensional space in terms of two underlying dimensions mental
model of self (anxiety) and mental model of other (avoidance) dimensions. However,
Bartholomew’s (1994) assessment procedure does not directly measure these two
underlying measures. Rather, they are derived from the combinations of four
prototype ratings, and these two dimensions are not independent.
In recent studies, underlying dimensions of attachment were reconceptualized and some investigators attempt to capture the two dimensions that
stand out in the analysis referred to above. In a recent study, Brennan, Clark, and
Shaver (1998) conducted a large sample factor analytic study in which all of the selfreport measures were included. Further factor analysis with these factors yielded, two
global factors. In other words, intersection of anxiety and avoidance dimensions
gives Bartholomew’s four category. Results indicated that the anxiety dimension
consists of need for approval, and preoccupation with relationships. It is similar to
Bartholomew’s model of self. Fear of being abandoned and avoidance dimensions
which consist of discomfort with intimacy and closeness factors were obtained
clearly and this dimension is similar to model of other dimension in Bartholomew’s
approach. Dimensional measure of Brennan, Clark and Shaver’s Experience of Close
Relationships (ECR) instrument gives two- dimensional scores for anxiety and
avoidance. This measure provided the highest scores for internal validity among all
dimensional measures. Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) demonstrated that four
categories that were obtained by this new scale on the basis of anxiety and avoidance
dimensions explained more variance on touch and sex subscales than Bartholomew’s
measure. Moreover, these emotional scores can easily be converted to the fourcategory model.
Research has found that attachment quality is effective throughout human
26
life.
Clegg and Sheard (2002) suggested that early attachment relationships were
highly predictive of later relationships: secure infants are most likely to become
secure adults, while insecure and disorganized relationships create distinct but
predictable developmental pathways. Students without such problems were
significantly less likely to exhibit rebellious behaviors, while those with problems
were significantly more likely to leave home.
Also, in middle childhood, children with secure maternal attachments report
lower levels of loneliness than children with insecure maternal attachments (Kerns,
1996).
According to the intergenerational transmission hypothesis, the offspring of
parents who are not available and responsive to their needs are likely to experience
later difficulties in developing stable couple relationships and in serving as a secure
base for their own children (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).
A quantitative study which examined the association among family
environment, attachment, and identity formation partially supported the hypothesis
and revealed that unresolved spouse conflict was associated with low levels of
attachment in adolescents; and attachment to father was linked to identity achieved
and the diffused identity. Besides, parental coalition was negatively correlated with
moratorium and diffused identity statuses. These findings support the link between
parent/adolescent relationships and the identity formation process (Faber, Edwards,
Bauer, & Wetchler; 2003).
The study of Caldera, and Hart (2004) investigated whether quantity of
child care exposure and maternal sensitivity predicted attachment style. They
depicted that mothers with higher levels of education placed their infants in child
care for more hours per week. Maternal sensitivity was positively and significantly
related to involvement. Maternal involvement was negatively related to fussy
temperament. Maternal sensitivity and involvement were positively related to
attachment security. Mothers who were rated high on these two measures assigned
their toddlers higher scores on attachment security. Finally, temperament was
27
negatively related to attachment security. Children with more difficult temperaments
were rated as having lower security scores (Caldera & Hart, 2004).
Gezer (2001) tested differences among four attachment styles of male and
female students as a function of being raised in high and low coherent families.
Research findings showed that individuals who were raised in low coherent family
atmosphere had either fearful, preoccupied, or dismissing attachment styles while
students who were brought up in highly coherent families had secure attachment
style.
Caldera and Hart (2004) investigated whether security of attachment is
differentiated by quality of parenting and quantity of exposure to childcare. The
scores that less sensitive mothers assign their toddlers is higher when their children
are in child care for more hours per week; whereas the scores that more sensitive
mothers assign their toddlers is lower when their children are in child care for more
hours per week. These contrasting patterns suggest that the effects of parenting style
on attachment security are moderated by quantity of exposure to childcare.
Neal and Frick-Horbury (1993) examined the idea that parental behavior
characteristic of authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles seem to
parallel the parental behavior connected with secure, avoidant, and ambivalent
attachment styles. Since it has been demonstrated that attachment styles result in an
internal working model that guides intimate relationships as an adult, it is
hypothesized that parenting styles which mirror the attachment pattern will also
predict relationship abilities as an adult. Results show that although 92% of the
students with authoritative parenting styles are also securely attached, that only
attachment styles predict intimacy patterns. Those students who were securely
attached to their parents scored significantly higher on tests of personal intimacy and
belief in other’s abilities to be intimate as opposed to those students with
authoritarian or permissive parents (Neal & Frick- Horbury, 1993).
Research has found that attachment quality has effect on completely human
life. Such as, adult attachment influences marital quality even in midlife (Hollist and
Miller, 2005). Their results indicated that secure attachment styles and behaviors
28
have less influence on marital quality in relationships that are least 10 years in
duration while insecurely attached individuals are vulnerable to the effects of
contextual stressors.
Pines (2004) also found a negative correlation between secure attachment
style and burnout and a positive correlation between burnout and insecure attachment
styles, i.e, avoidant and anxious/ ambivalent. These results support the hypothesis
that a history of secure attachment in childhood helps people positively appraise
burnout- causing situations, while avoidant or anxious ambivalent attachment styles
in childhood is likely to lead to poor coping and burnout.
Hortaçsu, Cesur, & Oral (1993) aimed to test two predictions derived from
attachment theory on a sample of Turkish children. First, institution-reared children
who were separated from their parents at an early age are less likely to have secure
attachment schemata than those children from two- parent families. Second,
depressive schemata are positively related to insecure attachment schemata and
negatively related to secure attachment schemata. The results supported both
predictions.
Research also indicated that development of secure attachment is closely
associated with resiliency in high-risk children and adolescents (Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998). Relationships between 43 high-risk adolescents and their
caregivers were examined qualitatively by Ungar (2004). Parents and other formal
and informal caregivers such as youth workers and foster parents were found to exert
a large influence on the behaviors that bolster mental health among high-risk youth
marginalized by poverty, social stigma, personal and physical characteristics,
ethnicity, and poor social or academic performance. Participants’ accounts of their
intergenerational relationships with caregivers showed that teenagers seek close
relationships with adults in order to negotiate for powerful self-constructions as
resilient. High-risk teens say they want adults in their lives to serve as an audience in
front of whom they can perform the identities they construct both inside and outside
their homes. This pattern was evident even among youth who showed that they were
more peer-than family-oriented (Ungar, 2004).
29
Tamara (2004) indicated that men who sexually abused children were
significantly more likely to have insecure attachment than men who only victimized
adults.
Fonagy et al., (1996) applied individual and group psychoanalytic therapy
to all patients diagnosed with mood disorders and with severe personality disorders
with an average duration of more than 9 months. Although securely attached patients
tended to function better than others both at the time of admission and discharge,
those, who classified as dismissive, exhibited the greatest amount of relative
improvement over the course of treatment.
Pilkonis et al., (1988) also examined attachment styles as predictors of
treatment response. Attachment dimensions of 149 patients at a psychiatric hospital
were assessed by a semi structured psychosocial interview and consensus ratings of
several attachment prototypes. Secure attachment predicted relative improvement in
the next 6 months which was assessed by a global rating of psychosocial functioning.
However, other attachment types were unrelated to outcome.
In Lopez’s (2002) study, it was hypothesized that observed cognitive,
affective, and interpersonal correlates of insecure attachment orientations would
reflect aspects of a broader self-organizing capacity through which adult attachment
orientations would predict outcomes of distress. The results of distress can be
conceptualized as the product of a pattern of cognitive- affective dysregulation that is
indicative of problematic self-organization. Insecure adult attachment orientations
dispose persons to either overreact or under react to problem situations while
concurrently experiencing and expressing a less stable and less authentic selfstructure. Since this pattern exacerbates the risk of symptomatic behavior, it is
assumed to mediate the relationship between adult attachment orientations and
distress. As a result; with a few exceptions, the measures of adult attachment
orientations were generally and significantly related to the self-organization and
distress indexes. Especially these results revealed that attachment anxiety was
robustly associated with problem coping, and that both attachment anxiety and
30
avoidance scores were prominently related to less coherent and less authentic selfstructures (Lopez, 2002).
Yih-LAN (2003) investigated how attachment styles were linked to coping
strategies in a sample of Taiwan adolescents, and thereby was associated with
adolescent psychological adjustment and external behavior. Results indicated that,
attachment styles predicted coping strategies. Secure attachment was positively
associated with rational coping and support seeking. On the contrary, insecure
attachment predicted more negative coping strategies.
2.1.5. Correlates of Loneliness, Family Environment and Attachment Styles
Deniz, Hamarta, and Arı (2005) investigated the effects of attachment styles
and gender of university students on their social skills and loneliness levels. They
assumed that there was a relationship between social skills and loneliness and that
securely attached students’ social skill levels were higher than insecurely attached
students’ social skills levels. Besides they predicted that loneliness levels of students
who have no romantic relationships would be significantly higher than the loneliness
levels of others. Results yielded that attachment styles had a significant effect on
loneliness. It was also found that emotional expressivity, social sensitivity, and social
control could be explained by attachment styles. Loneliness was positively correlated
to fearful, dismissing, and preoccupied attachment styles, while it was negatively
correlated to the secure attachment style. These findings imply that people who have
secure attachment styles are less lonely than the others. They have positive view of
themselves and others (Deniz, Hamarta, & Arı, 2005).
Although Bowlby has not explicitly linked attachment and loneliness, it has
been suggested that the theory can be used to examine the familial antecedents of
childhood loneliness (Berlin et. al., 1995). Hect and Baum (1984) have demonstrated
how early attachment patterns affect later development of loneliness in a collage
sample. The hypothesis has been supported by results and more to this it is consistent
with Bowly’s notion of attachment and separation (Hecht & Baum, 1984).
31
Kobak and Sceery (1988) declared that insecurely attached late adolescents
had significantly higher hostility scores and reported more loneliness, anxiety, and
depression. This group also rated their families less supportive than securely attached
adolescents. Brage and Meredith (1994) found that family strengths and parentadolescent communication affected the loneliness of adolescents.
Hojat (1982) reported that individuals who had lacked meaningful peer
relationships in childhood were likely to experience loneliness. Subjects who
reported that they could not get along with others and did not share their feelings
with their peers in childhood tend to feel lonely in adulthood.
Moreover, loneliness was found to be correlated with early attachment.
Although reported level of loneliness was high for insecure- avoidant children and
moderate for secure children (Berlin et al., 1995), it is argued that if more selfdisclosure is related to feeling of loneliness (Stokes, 1987), then less loneliness will
be found in secure individuals.
Greater attachment, social integration, and reassurance of worth were
associated with social loneliness (Kraus, Davis, Bazzini, Church, & Kirchman,
1993). Emotional loneliness was associated with decreased attachment, and less
strongly with decreased opportunity for nurturance. Both social and emotional
loneliness found to be related with attachment.
The quality of adult attachment has some influence on social functioning. In
a study, it was found that fearful group was the loneliest which was followed by the
preoccupied dismissing group successively. Secure group was the least lonely (Man
& Hamid, 1998). Securely attached individuals seem to be socially skilled and tend
to feel lower loneliness (DiTommaso, McNulthy, Ross &, Burgess, 2003).
32
CHAPTER III
METHOD
This chapter is devoted to the overall design of the study, presentation of
the sample, data collection procedure, instrumentation, and data analysis procedures.
3.1.Overall Design of the Study
This study investigated the influence and prediction of gender, attachment
dimensions, and family environment of students’ loneliness level.
Four instruments, named, UCLA Loneliness Scale (Peplau & Perlman,
1984); Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Scale; Family Environment
Instrument (Gülerce, 1987), and a demographic questionnaire used to collect data.
The instruments were given to 473 (281 females, 192 males) students who
volunteered to participate in study at Ankara University Cebeci Campus.
3.2.
Sample
The participants of this study were 473 university students, 281 of them
(59.4 %) were female, and 192 of them (40.6 %) were male. The mean age was 21.1
(SD = 2.46).
Regarding the faculties they are enrolled, 166 of participants (35.1%) were
at Educational Sciences Faculty; 132 of them (27 %) were at Faculty of Law; 123 of
participants (26 %) were at Communication Faculty; and 52 of participants (11 %)
were at Political Sciences Faculty.
Of the students, 109 (23 %) were freshmen, 123 (26 %) were sophomores.
102 of students (21.6 %) were juniors, and 138 of students (29.2 %) were seniors.
33
With respect to the place of residence, 200 (42 %) stated that they live with
their family during enrolled at university; 9 of students (1.9 %) stated that they live
with their relatives; 20 of participants (4.2 %) stated, that they live alone at home;
120 of participants (25.4 %) mentioned that they live with their friends; and 124 of
participants (26.2 %) reported that they live in dormitories and university dormitory.
3.3. Data Collection Procedure
The instruments were administered in the classroom by the researcher. The
participants completed the instruments during the class hour. Both verbal and written
standard instructions were given to the all students. Specifically, students were asked
to be honest when responding to the instrument items and informed about the
confidentiality of the collected data. The whole administration of the instruments
took approximately half an hour in each classroom.
3.4. Instruments
Four instruments were used in the present study to collect data. A
questionnaire about demographic variables; UCLA Loneliness Scale to investigate
the loneliness level of participants. Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
Scale to know the attachment styles of participants and Family Environment
Instrument, which was used to determine the perceived family environment of the
students.
3.4.1. The Questionnaire
A questionnaire about demographic information includes questions about
age, gender, faculty, grade, age, residence in Ankara.
34
3.4.2. University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (UCLA)
The UCLA Loneliness Scale has been widely used in loneliness research.
Scores are based on 20 items with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 'Never' to
'Often' . The scale consists of 10 positively worded statements (1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15,
16, 19, 20) reflecting satisfaction with social relationships and 10 negatively worded
statements (2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18) reflecting dissatisfaction with social
relationships. The total scores range from 20 to 80, with higher scores indicating
greater loneliness. Reported alpha for the UCLA was .94; test-retest reliability over
two months was .73; concurrent validity in the form of correlations with the Beck
Depression Inventory (r = .62); with the Costello-Comrey Anxiety (r = .32) and
Depression (r = .55) (Russell et al., 1980). In the present study the Turkish version
of the UCLA (Demir, 1989) was used. The reported results of Demir’s (1989)
reliability and validity study were as follows: the test-re-test reliability over 5 weeks
was found to be .94. The alpha coefficient obtained was .96. Concurrent validity was
demonstrated with a lonely versus nonlonely person’s self-report of behavior and
feelings. Correlation between the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the Beck Depression
Inventory was found to be .77. The UCLA Loneliness Scale and Social Introversion
Sub-scale of the Multiscore Depression Inventory were highly correlated .82.
3.4.3. Family Environment Assessment Scale (FEAS)
Family Environment Assessment Scale was developed by Gülerce (1992) to
asses the coherence and the functioning patterns within the family environment. The
scale developed according to the axis of the Transformational Model of Human
Systems. Communication (items 1 to 9), marital/family unity (items 10 to 18),
management/organizational control (items 19 to 26), family competency (items 27 to
31), and emotional context (items 32 to 36) are the subscales of FEAS that measure
different aspects of family’s psychological functioning. In addition to the five
subscales peoples’ own perceptions of their families’ psychological functioning
35
(FEAS-Individual) and the whole family members’ perceptions of marriage (FEASMarriage) can be assessed by FEAS (Gülerce, 1996).
Family Environment Assessment Scale is a 36-item instrument with 10point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 10 (strongly disagree)
although the points in- between the extremes are unnamed and actually coincide 5
values. By this way the participants are expected to locate freely the point in their
minds as they want to according to the semantic distance from the extreme points.
The maximum score is “5” and the minimum score is “1” for each item. The lowest
possible score is 36 and the highest possible score is 180 for the total test. The higher
FEAS score one receives, the “better” and “healthier” the adjustment/ coherence are.
The criterion-related validity evidence was obtained by correlating the
scores of the instrument with those of Beavers-Timberlawn Family Assessment
Scale. The result revealed a correlation coefficient of .78 (p < .001). The t test
comparison between families with no clinical symptoms and families with clinical
symptoms revealed that the scale significantly discriminated the two groups (t =
3.74; SD = .40; p< .001). The scale also had a satisfactory level of internal
consistency ( = .70), stability (r = .79) and split- half reliability (.83) (Gülerce,
1996).
FEAS- Individual score was used in the present study to assess participants’
own perceptions of their families psychological functioning.
3.4.4. Experiences in Close Relationships- Revised (ECR-R)
The Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire was developed by
Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000). The Experiences in Close Relationships
Questionnaire (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) is a 36- item 7-point Likert
type self-report measure of adult attachment. More specifically, it measures adult
attachment within the context of romantic relationships. 18-item subscale measures
anxiety and avoidance dimensions. Coded items are reversed. Mean of the items
with odd numbers and mean of the items with even numbers give the anxiety and
36
avoidance scores, respectively. The anxiety subscales measures one’s self reported
degree of anxiety in romantic adult relationships, whereas avoidance assesses the
extent of avoidance of intimacy in such relationships.
The ECR-R differs from the majority measures of attachment in that it does
not specify attachment types. It rather places individuals’ attachment orientations on
a continuum of these two dimensions. The security of attachment is conceptually
placed at lower level of these two dimensions. The scores on these two dimensions
can be converted to place respondents into three or four categories.
Fraley et al. (2000) used the item response theory analysis of self-report
measures of adult attachment in revising the ECR. The item response theory models
are designed to represent relations between an individual’s item response and an
underlying latent trait (Fraley et al., 2000). Thus, they obtained median Beta 1 values
of –1.67 and –1.86 for Anxiety and Avoidance respectively. The items with low Beta
1 values also tended to have low discrimination values. The correlation between
alpha and Beta 1 was .59 for Anxiety and .68 for Avoidance. Therefore, Fraley et al.
(2000) selected items with highest discrimination values and came up with 18 items
for each of the two factors. Thirteen of anxiety (72 %) and 7 of avoidance (39 %)
scale items were from the original ECR. Due to this overlap of the items, they refer
to the new instrument as Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R).
Finally, Fraley et al. (2000) examined reliability coefficients of the ECR-R
in comparison with the Adult Attachment Scale-AAS, (Collins & Read, 1990); the
Relationship Style Questionnaire-RSQ, (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994); the
Experiences in Close Relationships- ECR, (Brennan et al., 1998). The ECR-R had
higher test re-test reliability coefficients ranging from .93 to .95 then the other
measures.
Selçuk, Günaydın, Sümer, and Uysal (2005) adopted the ECR- R into
Turkish. In this study, the items are loaded in two factors as did in the original study.
The internal consistencies of attachment avoidance and anxiety subscales were
found to be satisfactory (.90 and .86, respectively). Selçuk et al. (2005) also found
37
that the ECR- R Turkish version has high test- retest reliability. Coefficients were .81
for avoidance subscale and .82 for anxiety subscale.
In the present study, both avoidance and anxiety dimensions and attachment
types yielded by these dimensions are used. Nonhierarchical cluster analysis were
used to assign participants in to attachment patterns by using two underlying
attachment dimensions; anxiety and avoidance.
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure
The data were analyzed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS
13.0).
To prepare the data for analysis, the negative items of UCLA Loneliness
Scale were reversed. A loneliness score was calculated for each participant summing
up the reversed and positive scores gained from UCLA Loneliness Scale.
FEAS scores of each participant were calculated by obtaining the sum of
the items. A total FEAS score was obtained. A cut-off point was accepted as M =
125.62 based on norm score given by Gülerce (1996) for family environment. The
score above norm mean score was accepted as the indicator of high family coherence
(> 125.62) while the score below the mean score (< 125.62) was accepted as the
indicator of low family coherence.
ECR-R yields two subscale scores. The higher scores obtained for avoidant
or anxiety attachment dimensions and security of attachment is placed at lower levels
of these two dimensions. Non-hierarchic cluster analysis was used to assign
participants into four-attachment patterns by using two underlying attachment
dimensions; anxiety and avoidance.
Three-way ANOVA was applied to display the effect of independent
variables on loneliness. Stepwise Multiple regression analysis was applied to
investigate predictive effect of gender, attachment dimensions, and family
environment on loneliness level of individuals.
38
3.6. Determination of Attachment Types by Non-Hierarchic Cluster Analysis
Non-hierarchic cluster analysis was used to assign participants into
attachment patterns by using two underlying attachment dimensions; anxiety and
avoidance. Participants in the ‘secure’ category were expected to be scored low on
both anxiety and avoidance dimension. As expected, secures were scored low on
both anxiety (M = 2.57) and avoidance (M = 1.96) dimensions in contrast to the
fearful individuals who were scored highest on both anxiety (M = 4.54) and
avoidance (M= 4.08) dimensions. Moreover, dismissing individuals showed the
higher anxiety (M = 2.97) and avoidance (M = 3.50) than secure attachment. On the
other hand, preoccupied individuals were expected to be scored high on anxiety and
low on avoidance. The cluster that corresponds to this group had a mean score of
4.04 for anxiety and 2.32 for avoidance.
The fearful attachment style was reported to be the most frequently
observed style while the dismissing attachment style was less frequent one.
It was expected that the number of participants with preoccupied
attachment style would be significantly larger than that of students with other
insecure attachment styles due to cultural influences. However, the distribution of
participants with different attachment styles was not consistent with precious studies
conducted in Turkey (Sümer & Günger, 1999).
The participants of this study, categorized by using cluster analysis as
follows; ‘secure’ attached ones were 128 (27.1 %), ’dismissing’ ones were 94 (19.9
%), ‘preoccupation’ is 118 (24.9 %) and fearful attached participants were 133 (28
%) of the total group.
39
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results obtained from the statistical analysis. First,
in order to investigate the effect of gender, attachment types, and family environment
on loneliness, a 2 (female - male) × 4 (secure - dismissing- preoccupied - fearful) × 2
(low - high family coherence) three way ANOVA was employed.
Second, the Stepwise Multiple regression analysis, applied to investigate
predictive effect of gender, attachment dimensions, and family environment on
loneliness level.
The significance level is set as
= .05 in the study.
4.1. Results Concerning the Differences of Three-Way ANOVA
For the purpose of investigating the possible differences among the
loneliness level of the participants by attachment type, family coherence and gender,
a 2 (female - male) × 4 (secure - dismissing- preoccupied- fearful) × 2 (low - high
family coherence) ANOVA was conducted. Non-hierarchic cluster analysis was used
to assign participants into four-attachment patterns, namely, secure attachment,
dismissing attachment, fearful attachment and preoccupied attachment. A cut-off
point was accepted as M = 125.62 based on norm score given by Gülerce (1996) for
family environment.
The means and standard deviations of the loneliness scores with regard to
their attachment types, and gender were presented in Table 4.1.
40
Table 4.1. The Means and Standard Deviations of The Loneliness Scores Regard to
Gender, Attachment Types, and Family Environment
Family
Type
Environment
Preoccupation
Fearful
Dismissing
Secure
Attachment
Standard
Gender
Mean
Female
29.46
8.10
52
High
Male
30.28
7.83
38
Coherence
Total
29.81
7.95
90
Female
31.37
8.49
24
Low
Male
34.57
9.02
14
Coherence
Total
32.55
8.71
38
Female
30.92
8.24
42
High
Male
33.47
8.43
17
Coherence
Total
31.66
8.30
59
Female
33.95
7.24
21
Low
Male
40.07
13.83
14
Coherence
Total
36.40
10.64
35
Female
33.29
7.18
47
High
Male
37.90
10.18
20
Coherence
Total
34.67
8.38
67
Female
33.95
11.41
30
Low
Male
40.07
9.50
36
Coherence
Total
36.40
10.37
66
Female
31.77
7.79
44
High
Male
30.55
8.22
34
Coherence
Total
31.24
7.95
78
Female
33.33
8.27
21
Low
Male
32.95
10.37
19
Coherence
Total
33.15
9.20
40
Deviation
N
As presented in Table 4.1, from high coherent families; securely attached
41
male participants (M = 29.46, and SD = 8.1) reported higher mean of loneliness
score than securely attached female participants (M = 30.28, SD = 7.83). Also,
dismissed attached male participants M = 33.47, (SD = 8.43) reported higher mean of
loneliness score than dismissed attached female participants M= 30.92, (SD = 33.47).
On the other hand, preoccupied attached female participants M = 31.77, (SD = 7.79)
reported higher mean than preoccupied attached males M = 30.55, (SD = 8.22).
Moreover, fearfully attached male participants M = 37.9, (SD = 10.18) reported
higher mean than fearfully attached female participants M = 33,29, (SD = 7.18)
Of participants from low coherent families; securely attached males
reported M = 34.57, (SD = 9.02) higher mean of loneliness score than securely
attached females M = 31.3, (SD = 8.49). Dismissed attached male participants M =
40.07, (SD = 13.83) reported higher mean than dismissed attached female
participants M = 33.95, (SD = 7.24). On the other hand, preoccupied attached female
participants M = 33.33, (SD = 8.27) reported higher mean than preoccupied attached
male participants M = 32.95, (SD = 10.37). Fearfully attached male M = 42.02, (SD
= 10.37) and female participants M = 40.16, (SD = 11.41) reported highest means.
The results of three-way ANOVA applied to the loneliness scores are
presented at Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. The results of Three-way ANOVA Depend on Loneliness Scores
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Attachment Type
3305.85
3
1101.95
14.29
.00
Family Environment
1467.27
1
1467.27
19.03
.00
477.38
1
477.38
6.19
.01
207.00
3
69.01
0.89
.44
358.30
3
119.434
1.55
.20
Gender
Attachment Type *
Family Environment
Attachment Type *
Gender
42
Table 4.2. (Continued) The results of Three-way ANOVA Depend on Loneliness
Scores
Sum of
Source
Squares
Attachment Type *
1
25.20
148.13
3
49.38
35225.19
457
Attachment Type *
Family Environment* Gender
574446.0
Total
0
Corrected Total
42247.36
F
Square
25.20
Gender
Error
Mean
df
77.08
Sig.
0.33
.57
0.64
.59
473
472
A Computed using alpha =. 05
B R Squared =. 166 (Adjusted R Squared =. 139)
The results of the three-way ANOVA employed to the loneliness scores of
the university students yielded a significant main effect of attachment types (F (457, 3)
= 14.29, p = .00). Similarly; main effect of family environment (F (457,1) = 19.03, p =
.001) and gender (F (457, 1) = 6.19, p = .01) was significant.
On the other hand; the interaction between attachment type and family
environment were not significant (F
(457,3)
= 0.89, p = .44). The interaction between
attachment type and gender is also not significant (F
(457, 3)
= 1.55, p = 0.2).
Similarly; the interaction of gender and family environment is not significant (F
1)
(457,
= .33, p = .57). Finally; interaction effect of attachment type, family environment,
and gender on loneliness is also not significant (F (457, 3) = .64, p= 59).
According to results of Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances F
11)
(36,
= .942, p= .51 non-equality of variances were not significant. Post- hoc
comparisons of interaction effect with equal sample size performed by Scheffe as
43
described by Kalaycı (2006). The mean significant at .05 levels. Results of post- hoc
comparisons are given at Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. Results of Multiple Comparisons
(I)
Attachment
Group
Security
(J)
Mean
Attachment
Difference
Group
(I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
-2.80
1.19
.14
-7.28 *
1.09
.00
Preoccupation
-1.26
1.12
.73
Security
2.80
1.19
.14
Fearful
-4.48 *
1.18
.00
1.53
1.21
.66
Security
7.28 *
1.09
.00
Dismissing
4.48 *
1.18
.00
Preoccupation
6.00 *
1.11
.00
Security
1.26
1.12
.73
Dismissing
-1.53
1.21
.66
-6.00 *
1.11
.00
Dismissing
Fearful
Dismissing
Preoccupation
Fearful
Preoccupation
Fearful
Results displayed that fearful attachment type is significantly differentiated
from secure, preoccupied, and dismissing types. In addition, means of attachment
types depend on means of loneliness level is presented on the Figure 4.1.
44
Mean of Loneliness
38,00
36,00
34,00
32,00
30,00
security
dismissing
fearful
preoccupation
Attachment Groups
Figure 4.1. Means of Attachment Groups
As seen at the figure 4.1, fearful attachment type is separated from other
three-attachment type depend on mean of loneliness. In addition, not as much as
fearful but dismissing attachment type is also separated from secure and preoccupied
attachment types.
4.2. Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
In the present study, Stepwise Regression analysis was conducted to predict
the effect of the independent variables, which are gender, attachment dimensions
45
measured as anxiety and avoidance, and family environment on dependent variable,
loneliness. Gender was entered Stepwise Multiple regression analysis as a dummy
variable.
Before conducting the analysis, major assumptions of the multiple
regression analysis were checked out. In order to test normality, descriptive statistics
including mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and histograms were
conducted. Results of these statistics demonstrated that normality was not violated.
In addition, multicollinearity was tested. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggested that
a bivariete correlation of .70 or more indicates multicollinearity. Related with this,
correlations
among
independent
variables
were
checked
and
found
no
intercorrelation above .70. Additionally, tolerance and VIF values were used for
indicators of multicollinearity. With the criteria of tolerance should not be less than
.20 and VIF should not be higher than 4, multicollinearity was not detected for the
present data. In addition, autocorrelation of variables were tested by Durbin- Watson
test. Scores between 1.5-2.5 are suggested an autocorrelation of variables
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Related with this, autocorrelations of independent
variables were checked and found no auto correlation.
Stepwise Regression analysis preferred in the present study. Because
Stepwise Regression is typically used to develop a subset of independent variables
that is useful in predicting the dependent variable, and to eliminate those independent
variables that do not provide additional prediction to the independent variables
already in the equation. (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In Stepwise Regression entry
of variables is based solely on statistical criteria. As an exploratory technique, it may
useful for such purposes as eliminating variables that are clearly superfluous in order
to tighten up future research (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Descriptive statistics of variables and Coefficient Correlations are
computed. Means and standard deviations of variables are given at Table 4.4.
Coefficient Correlations of variables are yielded at Table 4.5.
46
Table 4.4. Means and Standard Deviations of Loneliness, Gender, Attachment
Dimensions, and Family Environment.
Variables
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Loneliness
473
33.54
9.46
Attachment
Anxiety
473
3.56
1.02
Dimensions
Avoidance
473
2.95
1.04
High Coherence
294
31.67
8.28
Low Coherence
179
36.62
10.45
Total Score
473
129.75
21.52
473
.59
.49
Family Environment
Gender
As seen in Table 4.4, mean of the participants loneliness scores is 33.54
(SD = 9.46). Participants reported attachment anxiety (M = 3.56) and attachment
avoidance (M = 2.95); with standard deviation (SD = 1.02), and (SD = 1.04). Of
participants, mean of family coherence for total group is 129.75 (SD = 21.52). Mean
of participants who have low coherence family environment is 36.62 (SD = 10.45),
and mean of participants have high family coherence is 31.67 (SD = 8.28). Mean of
gender ,s 0.59 (SD = 0.49)
In order to examine the relationship between variables used in the study,
correlation Coefficient was computed. Correlations among the variables are
presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. Correlations Among Loneliness, Attachment Dimensions, and Family
Environment
Loneliness
Loneliness
Attachment
Family
Dimensions
Coherence
Anxiety Avoidance
Gender
-
.28 **
.33 **
-.27**
-.12**
Attachment
Anxiety
.28 **
-
.41**
-.15**
-.01**
Dimensions
Avoidance
.33 **
.41**
-
-.10 *
.07**
47
Table 4.5. (Continued) Correlations Among Loneliness, Attachment Dimensions,
and Family Environment
Family Coherence
-.27 **
-.15**
-.10 *
-
.09**
Gender
-.12**
-.01**
.07**
.09**
-
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As seen in Table 4.5, avoidance and anxiety subscales are correlated with
each other; r (471) = .41, p <.001. Loneliness is correlated with anxiety dimension r
(471) = .28, p <.001, and with avoidant dimension r (471) = .33, p <.001. There is
negative correlation with loneliness and family coherence obtained by FEAS, is r
(471) = -.27, p <.001. In addition, results displayed negative correlation with anxiety
r (471) = -.15, p <.001 and avoidance r (471) = -.10, p <.005 dimensions of
attachment with family correlation. Lastly, gender is negatively correlated with
loneliness r (471) = -.12, p < .001 and anxiety r (471) = -.01, p < .001. Also,
positively correlated with avoidance r (471) = .07, p < .001 and family coherence r
(471) = .09, p < .001.
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted to predict loneliness.
Results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis yielded at Table 4.6.
Model
Table 4.6. Model Summary of Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis
R
R2
Adj.
Std.
2
Err. of
R
the Est.
Change Statistics
R2
F
Change
Change
df1
df2
DurbinSig. F
Change
1
.33(a)
.11
.10
8.95
.11
56.37
1 471
.00
2
.36(b)
.14
.13
8.83
.027
13.94
1 470
.00
3
.42(c)
.18
.17
8.59
.05
27.22
1 469
.00
4
.44(d)
.19
.19
8.53
.01
7.50
1 468
.00
1 Predictors: (Constant). Avoidance
48
Watson
2.01
2 Predictors: (Constant), Avoidance. Anxiety
3 Predictors: (Constant), Avoidance, Anxiety, Family Environment
4 Predictors: (Constant), Avoidance, Anxiety, Family Environment, Gender
Dependent Variable: Loneliness
Avoidant attachment dimension was significantly predicted loneliness. R2 =
.11 adjusted R2 =.10, F (1, 471) = 56.37, p =.00. The regression equation with the
avoidance and anxiety dimensions together was also significant, R2 = .14, adjusted R2
= .13, F (1, 470) = 13.94, p =.00.
In addition. The regression equation of family environment and attachment
dimensions. Included anxiety and avoidance was significant. R2 =. 18. adjusted R2 =
.17, F (1, 469) = 27.22, p =.00.
Finally, the regression equation of avoidance and anxiety dimensions of
attachment. Family environment and gender was significant R2 = .19, adjusted R2 =
.19, F (1, 468) = 7.5, p =.00. It is indicating that 19 percent of the variance in
loneliness is explained by all factors operating jointly.
Standardized regression coefficients (Beta), t values, Partial correlation
coefficients, Zero- Order correlation coefficints and part correlation coefficients of
the models presented at Table 4.7.
Table 4.7. The Bivariate and Partial Correlations and the Significance Levels of ß
Model
Sig.
Standard
t Sig. Zero- Partial
Coefficients
Part
Order
Beta
1
2
(Consant)
.00
Avoidance
.00
(Consant)
.00
Avoidance
.00
Anxiety
.00
19.94
.00
7.51
.00
12.86
.00
.25
5.43
.18
3.73
.33
49
.33
.33
.33
.00
.33
.24
.23
.00
.28
.17
.16
Table 4.7. (Continued) The Bivariate and Partial Correlations and the Significance Levels
of ß
3
11.22
.00
(Consent) .00
4
Avoidance
.00
.24
5.33
.00
.33
.24
.22
Anxiety
.00
.15
3.18
.00
.28
.14
.13
Family Env.
.00
-.22
-5.22
.00
.27
.24
.22
(Consant)
.00
11.45
.00
Avoidance
.00
.25
5.58
.00
.33
.25
.23
Anxiety
.00
.14
3.11
.00
.28
.14
.13
Family Env.
.00
-.21
-4.96
.00
.27
.22
.21
Gender
.00
-.11
-2.74
.00
.12
.13
.11
It was seen that in the overall model, Avoidance, Anxiety, Family Cohesion
and Gender positively predicted Loneliness with Beta values of ß = .25, p<.001. ß =
14, p< .001, ß = -.21, p< .001, ß = -.11, p< 001 respectively.
Partial and zero- order bivariete correlations are reported for each of the
individual variables in attachment dimensions, family environment, and gender. This
was done to understand the unique contribution of each variable to the prediction of
loneliness.
Of these variables, avoidance and anxiety dimensions were the most
strongly related to the loneliness. Partialling out of the effects of other predictors, all
variables, namely, avoidance dimension, anxiety dimension and family environment,
and gender are significantly correlated with loneliness. Of these variables, avoidance
dimension was the most strongly related to loneliness. Supporting this conclusion is
the strength of the partial correlation between avoidance and loneliness, which was,
.33, p= .00, and partial correlation of anxiety and loneliness, which was, .23, p= .00,
Moreover, coefficient correlations of independent variables are displayed in Tale 4.
8.
50
Table 4.8. Coefficient Correlations of Independent Variables
1
2
Model
Avoidance
Correlations
Avoidance
-
Covariances
Avoidance
.16
Correlations
Avoidance
-
-.41
Anxiety
-.41
-
Avoidance
.18
-.08
Anxiety
-.08
.19
Avoidance
-
-.40
.04
Anxiety
-.40
-
.12
Family Env.
.04
.12
-
Avoidance
.17
-.07
.00
Anxiety
-.07
.19
.00
Family Env.
.00
.00
.00
Avoidance
-
-.40
.05
.08
Anxiety
-.40
-
.12
-.03
Family Env.
.05
.12
-
.10
Gender
.08
-.03
.10
-
Avoidance
.17
-.07
.00
.03
Anxiety
-.07
.18
.00
-.01
Family Env.
.00
.00
.00
.00
Gender
.03
-.01
.00
.65
Covariances
3
Correlations
Covariances
4
Correlations
Covariances
Anxiety
Family Env.
Gender
In sum, stepwise multiple regression analysis demonstrated that Avoidance,
Anxiety, Family Environment, and Gender appeared as significant predictors
explaining 19 percent of the total variance of the Loneliness scores of the students.
This means that students who scored higher on avoidance, anxiety tended to score
high on loneliness, students who scored lower on family environment tended to score
high on loneliness and males are also tended to score higher on Loneliness.
51
Lastly, the figure of Normal P- P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
is yielded.
The figure is clearly indicated the correlation of independent variables with
loneliness. As indicated at the figure, observed cumulative probability of loneliness
with independent variables is concordant with expected cumulative probability.
Dependent Variable: Loneliness
1,0
Expected Cumulative
Probability
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Observed Cumulative Probability
Figure 4.2. Normal P- P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual.
52
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This chapter includes discussion, implications and the recommendations
sections
5.1. Discussion
In this study, the following questions were sought to be answered. (1)What
are the possible differences among the loneliness level of the participants by gender,
attachment type, and family environment? (2) To what extent loneliness is predicted
from gender, attachment styles, and family envionment?
Discussion part of study includes effects of gender, attachment types, and
family environment on loneliness, and prediction of loneliness via gender,
attachment dimension, and family environment. Results of study discussed and
compared with the literature under each title.
5.1.1. The Effect of Gender, Attachment Dimension, and Family
Environment on Loneliness
Responses on attachment style showed that there was a significant main
effect of attachment style on loneliness level. Similarly, family environment and
gender also had significant main effects on loneliness level.
There were significant gender differences in loneliness scores. Findings of
the study are consistent with several other studies (Brage and Meredith, 1994; Demir,
1990; Norman & DeWayne, 1986; Schimitt and Kurdek, 1985; Schultz & Moore,
1986; & Wiseman and Guttfreund, 1995). Males were found to be lonelier than
females. This may be because females generally report more friend and family
53
support than males (Selçuk, 1989; Stokes & Levin, 1986). Also, the fact that boys
relative inability to express their feelings to others (Ponzetti & Cate, 1981) may be
the reason of higher loneliness level of males. Besides, females were found to be
more in touch with their feelings and they find this quality to be more acceptable
than males do. Moreover, girls reported greater emotional intimacy with their
friends, showed greater loyalty and trust, more dependence on their friends (Franzoi
& Davis, 1985; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Medora & Woodward, 1986).
Especially in Turkish society, child-rearing practices are playing an
important role. Females are expected to be more relation-oriented, dependent and
supportive. On the other hand, males are expected to be more independent and
assertive. They are less willing to ask for help, to seek support, and disclose
themselves to others because they do not want to be perceived as weak and
dependent (Ünsal & Kapçı, 2005).
On the contrary, some researchers yielded that females had reported higher
loneliness scores than males (Medore & Woodward, 1986; Page & Cole, 1991;
Sundberg, 1988; Terrel, Terrel, & Von Drashek, 2000; Woodward & Frank, 1988)
and, some others found no gender difference with regard to loneliness (Kalliopuska
& Laitinen, 1991; Jackson & Cochran, 1990; Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981;
Moraldo, 1981). Researches who found that men were less lonely claim that it is
related to men’s greater reluctance to disclose socially undesirable feelings rather
than a result from actual gender difference (Jong-Gierveld, 1987).
Family environment, also, found to be related with loneliness. Results have
shown that loneliness is negatively correlated with family environment. In other
words, loneliness levels of participants increase as the family environment levels of
participants decrease.
In our cultural context, families have greater influence on the development
of identity than they do in Western cultures (Uruk, 2001; Uruk & Demir, 2003).
These results are consistent with theoretical literature which has revealed that
individuals who are raised in highly coherent families have secure attachment style.
According to theory, children in supportive and cooperative family environments
54
develop secure inner working models that lead them to establish positive relations
with others in a secure and confident manner (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney &
Noller, 1990; Herzberg & Hammen, 1999).
Family cohesion seemed significantly correlated with loneliness in the
study. Individuals who reported low family coherence are significantly lonelier than
individuals who reported high family coherence.
These results were consistent with the theoretical literature yielding the
importance of family environment in the development of loneliness. Jones,
Carpenter, and Quintina (1985) noted that families had a critical role in the
development of loneliness.
Brage, Meredith and Woodward (1994) stressed the importance of
establishing close relationships with others.
Johnson, La Voie and Mahoney (2001) also stressed that family
environment was associated with their reports of loneliness. They proposed that
interpersonal conflict and family cohesion are positively associated with adolescents’
feelings of loneliness.
Uruk and Demir (2003) stated that; although, cohesion, unity, emotional
bonding, and power were no significantly correlated with loneliness; they had
indirect effects on loneliness levels of adolescents.
Authors seem to agree that problems in the family may lead to lack of
social support and negative self-perception; and that these factors cause low selfesteem, depression, and hopelessness. Then they may contribute to suicide ideation
and behavior (Roberts et al., 1998). Besides, loneliness is usually associated with
negative feelings such as anxiety, anger, boredom, sadness, hopelessness, and
emptiness (Gordon, 1976; Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981).
Loneliness is also related with attachment styles. Participants were assigned
to either anxious or avoidant attachment style with cluster analysis. The analysis
yielded expected results. Participants who scored low on both anxiety and avoidance
dimension fell under secure category. Participants who scored highest on both
anxiety and avoidance fell under fearful category. Moreover, dismissing individuals
55
showed higher anxiety and avoidance than individuals under secure attachment
category. Lastly, individuals who scored high on anxiety and low on avoidance
classified under preoccupied attachment type.
Loneliness was found to be significantly high in fearfully attached
individuals. Although not significant, loneliness level of dismissing attachment type
was found relatively high. The negative views of individuals who have fearful and
dismissing attachment styles diminish their skills of establishing and maintaining
relationships. Preoccupied attachment type also displayed higher loneliness level
than secure attachment type, but the difference was not significant. Preoccupied
types seemed to have negative self-concepts and positive concept of others. These
individuals were characterized by high-level dependencies. They tried to earn others’
respect and tended to control their interpersonal style. (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Karakurt, 2001).
Securely attached individuals display lowest level of loneliness. These
findings have implied that securely attached people have a positive concept of self
and others. Compared to nonlonely people, lonely ones perceive others less
trustworthy (Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999; Rotenberg, 1994), less supportive (Vaux,
1988), less communicatively competent (Jones et al., 1981), as well as less attractive
and socially desirable (Jones et al., 1981, Jones et al., 1983). Lonely individuals are
also more cynical, less accepting of others, and more likely to expect (as well as fear)
negative evaluations from others (Jones et al., 1981; Jones et al., 1983). This
prevents them from easily establishing and maintaining relationships and escaping
from loneliness.
There are several studies, which indicate that lonely individuals are
classified as insecure. The study by Deniz, Hamarta, and Arı (2005) showed that
fearful, preoccupied and dismissing individuals reported higher levels of loneliness.
Kobak and Sceery (1988) found that late adolescents who were insecurely attached
scored significantly high on measures of hostility and reported more loneliness,
anxiety, and depression. This group also rated their families less supportive than
56
security attached adolescents did. Hecht, and Baum (1984) found that insecurely
attached individuals felt lonelier than securely attached ones.
Female participants, who are securely attached and have high coherent
family environment, were the less lonely group of the study while the males fearfully
attached from low coherent families were the loneliest group.
On the other hand, the interactions between attachment type and family
environment, attachment type and gender and gender and family environment were
not significant. Also, interaction effect of attachment type, family environment, and
gender on loneliness was not significant.
Despite the insignificant interaction effects, main effects were significant
and revealed strong relationships. To strengthen the investigation Stepwise Multiple
regression analysis were applied.
5.1.2. Prediction of Loneliness by Gender, Attachment Dimension,
and Family Environment
The general findings of present study about loneliness level of the subjects
are consistent with other studies findings (Uruk, 2001; Güngör, 1996). As Güngör
(1996) stated the similarity between the degrees of loneliness can be due to the fact
that this study was performed with students at a large university in a big city, Ankara.
On the other hand; German, Czech, Canadian, and Chinese participants
who were living in USA, and American students scored significantly higher than
Turkish students of similar age do (Adams, Sadors, & Auth, 2004; Hsu, Hailey, &
Range, 2001; Lamm & Stephan, 1987; Levin & Stokes, 1986; Rokach & Bauer,
2004). Bhogle (1991) asserted that being independent and self-reliant in cultures with
typical collectivistic and familial values and with large, close-knit families is much
less valued than in the North American culture.
Consequently, in their attempts to adjust to the more individualistically
oriented North American or Europian culture, people experience more interpersonal
isolation and a sense of social inadequacy.
57
Mean scores of anxious and avoidant attachment are similar as expected
with other studies conducted in Turkey (Löker, 1999) and international (Hazan &
Shaver, 1994; Morrison et al., 1997).
Loneliness is positively correlated with both anxious and avoidant
attachment. In other words, whenever levels of anxious and/ or avoidant attachment
increase, so does loneliness level.
Another important finding on attachment dimensions is that, participants
reported higher levels of anxious attachment than avoidant attachment. Besides;
these two subscales were significantly correlated with each other.
As mentioned before, it was hypothesized that family environment,
attachment dimensions and gender would be significant predictors of loneliness level
in this study. Findings of the study have revealed that avoidant attachment accounted
for 11%; avoidant and anxious attachment 14%; all attachment dimensions and
family environment %18 and all variables together; namely attachment dimensions,
family environment, and gender 19% of variance in loneliness.
In a study examining the effect of attachment style and gender on university
students’ level of loneliness, it was found that attachment styles had a significant
effect on loneliness. Loneliness was found to be positively correlated to fearful,
dismissing, and preoccupied attachment styles (Arı, Deniz, & Hamarta, 2005).
Hecht and Baum (1984) studied how early attachment patterns affected
later development of loneliness in a collage sample. The results indicate that
attachment types are predictors of loneliness.
Kobak and Sceery (1988) examined the attachment type and loneliness and
found that insecurely attached individuals were lonelier than securely attached ones.
They also reported more anxiety and depression in insecurely attached individuals.
Moreover, insecurely attached group also rated their families as less supportive than
securely attached individuals did.
Oral, Hortaçsu and Cesur (1993) investigated the relationship between
Turkish children’s attachment styles and their primary attachment figures. They
found that depression in children was highly correlated with avoidant attachment.
58
Another study of Hortaçsu and Oral (1990) showed that relationship with parents had
an effect on the relationships of adolescents.
Cohesion is one of the basic functions of the family. It is the emotional,
intellectual, and physical closeness among family members. Families teach
individuals how to relate to and treat each another (Gezer, 2001). Besides, families
provide an appropriate setting for nurturing, growth, and education. Family
environment is a school for children where they acquire social and emotional skills
and form first attachment bonds. Especially in Turkish society, as stated before,
family influence in the regulation of social conduct and the development of identity
is greater than it is in Western cultures (Altun, 2001).
In addition, results have shown negative correlation between anxious and
avoidant attachment styles with family cohesion. In other words, high insecure
attachment scores indicate an incoherent family structure.
Family environment was found to be the second predictor of loneliness for
participants of the study. Relevant literature generally supports the idea that cohesive
family environment help individuals develop secure attachment style. Many
researchers have suggested that secure attachment of children is linked with highly
cohesive family environment. On the contrary, avoidant children and their parents
have rather detached relationships (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990;
Gezer, 2001).
Family has great influence on individual’s life. Family effects not only the
development of attachment style, but also the acquisition of social capabilities and
coping strategies.
Johnson, LaVoie, and Mahoney (2001) reported that adolescents’
perceptions of their family were associated with their reports of loneliness. social
anxiety, and social avoidance. They proposed that interpersonal conflict and family
cohesion were positively correlated with adolescedents’ feeling of loneliness, Terrell,
Terrell, and Von Drashek (2000) informed that low family cohesion and interparental
conflict were related with reported loneliness of individuals. This result is consistent
with the findings of Hojat (1982), who found that adolescents who were having
59
problems with their parents were more likely to experience loneliness.
There is no study that examines the relation of loneliness with family
environment, attachment dimensions, and gender, together. Ones that investigate
predictors of loneliness did not cover all of them.
5.2. Implications
All human beings may feel loneliness at some time of their lives.
Counselors have to be aware of reasons and consequences of loneliness. Being aware
of loneliness has significant implications for counselors in educational settings.
Counselors may be more helpful, and supportive if they understand the importance of
family environment on the development of loneliness.
School counselors should be educated in order to prevent loneliness turning
into more serious problems such as depression, suicide and drug abuse.
Family environment and attachment style are influential on individuals’
lives. It is crucial for counselors to be more concerned with individual’s family
environment and attachment styles. Counselors may provide coping skill strategies
for the individuals from low- coherent family environment and who developed an
insecure attachment style.
Counselors should help students as well as parents to develop healthy
relationships within their family. Families should also be included in intervention
programs. Family members are crucial figures in facilitating healthy psychological
development of children. They should cooperate with school counselors and
educators. School counselors and educators should be aware that family environment
contributes to an individual’s loneliness level.
Consistent with this view, findings of the study may have important
implications for both research and practice, particularly for the counselors in
educational settings and parents. Counselors in those settings can guide parents
toward establishing coherent family environment.
In order to help parents dealing with such problems, counselors themselves
60
should be knowledgeable about these problems as well as about attachment
dimensions, development of attachment, effects of family environment and gender
differences on feelings of loneliness.
The findings of this study also support the view that securely attached
individuals are less lonely than insecurely attached individuals. If an individual is not
securely attached, then counselors should encourage clients to develop supportive
relationships within the school settings to eliminate loneliness. As a result, secure
attachment may be provided by the cooperation among counselors, family members,
peers and others.
In addition, seminars for both individuals and their families will provide a
better understanding of the importance of healthy attachment in relationships.
Being informed about individuals’ attachment styles is an advantage for
counselors. It will enable the counselor to determine the appropriate counseling
strategies during the sessions, and to develop functional programs. For example,
cognitive- behavioral intervention programs may be effective in changing the
working models about themselves and others (Gezer, 2001).
Another point is the effect of gender difference in feelings of loneliness.
Research has revealed that males are lonelier than females. Thus, counselors should
pay attention to gender difference while determining an individual’s loneliness level.
5.3. Recommendations
The results of the present study indicate that counselors, school staff, and
families should seriously consider attachment dimensions, family environment, and
gender difference while developing prevention and intervention programs for the
psychological well- being of individuals
Other family variables, such as, socio-economic status, cultural and
educational backgrounds of the parents were not controlled in this study. Especially
cultural and emotional background may be influential on adolescents’ attachment
experiences and should be included in future studies.
61
Moreover, several other social and relational variables were not examined
in the study. Peer relations, social support mechanisms, and other social variables
may also be important factors that should be investigated.
Finally, personality characteristics, such as coping- mechanisms, social
skills, shyness, assertiveness are also needed to be investigated to determine the
reasons and consequences of loneliness in the future.
Several hypotheses have been formulated regarding the correlates of
loneliness. It seems that development of loneliness is a complex process. Possible
effects of background such as attachment, family environment, past experiences,
affect the feeling of loneliness. In addition, personality characteristics such as selfesteem or social anxiety and shyness create difficulties for the person who is trying
to establish or to maintain satisfactory relationships, as a result, increase the
loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1981). Moreover, the number of available
relationships, the nature of achieved relationships, marital status, age, employment
status and housing conditions affect the level of loneliness (Jong-Gierveld, 1987).
Much of these hypotheses have not been investigated in Turkish culture, yet.
Researches should pay attention to these possible correlates of loneliness.
62
REFERENCES
Adams, G. R., & Gullota. T. (1989). Adolescent life experiences. New York: Brooks/
Cloe Publishing Company.
Adams, K. B., Sadors, S.,& Auth, E. A. (2004). Loneliness and depression in
independent living retirement communities: risk and resilience factors.
Aging & Mental Health, 8(6), 475- 485.
Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G.,& Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent
psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406- 1419.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal
assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent- family interactions
as predictors of adolescent ego development and self- esteem. ChildDevelopment, 65, 179- 194.
Allen, J. P., McElhoney, K. B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. W., O’
Beirne- Kelly, H., Kilmer, S. L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence:
Markers of attachment security in the mother- adolescent relationship.
Child Development, 74 (1), 292- 307.
Altun, E. (2001). The relationship between family environment and gender- role
identity across male and female adolescents. Unpublished Master Thesis,
METU.
Ainsworth, M. S. D. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In J. L.
Gewirtz (Eds.), Attachment and dependency. Washington D. C.: V. H.
Winston & Sons.
63
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In
Caldwell, B. M., Ricciuti, H. (Eds). Review of Child Development
Research, Vol. 3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Belhar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment. A Psychological study of the strange situation. Hilldale NJ:
Erlbaum.
Akister, J. (1998). Attachment theory and systemic practice: Research update.
Journal of Family Therapy, 20(4), 353- 367.
Ainsworth, M. D. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44,
709- 716.
Andersson, L. (1982). Interdisciplinary study of loneliness- with evaluation of social
contacts as a means towards improving competence in old/age. Acta
Sociologica, 25, 75-80.
Andersson, L. (1993). Loneliness. In R. Kastenbaum (Ed.), The encyclopedia of
adult development (pp. 282- 285). Phoenix: The Oryx Press.
Archibald, F. S., & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Loneliness in early adolescence: A test
of the cognitive discrepancy model of loneliness. Personality & Social
Psychology, 21(3), 296- 302.
Ashby, J. S., & Rice, K. G. (2002). Perfectionism, dysfunctional attitudes, and selfesteem: A structural Equations Analysis. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 80, 197- 203.
64
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. (1985). Parent- adolescent communication and the
circumflex model. Child Development, 56, 438- 477.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147- 178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(2), 226- 244.
Bartholomew, K. (1994). Assessment of individual differences in adult attachment.
Psychological Injury, 5, 23- 64.
Batgos, J., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1994). Parental attachment, peer relations, and
dysphoria in adolescence. In M. B. Sperling and W. H. Berman (Eds.),
Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives. The
Guilford Pres: New York, London.
Berlin, L. J., Cassidy. J., & Belsky, J. (1995). Loneliness in young children and
infant- mother attachment: A longitudinal study. Merril- Palmer Quarterly,
41, 91- 103.
Bluigte, S. (1991). Perception ot loneliness as an index of culture and age.
Psychological Studies. 36, 174-179.
Blankstein, K.R., Flett, G. L., Hewit, P. L., & Eng, A. (1993). Personality and
Individual Differences, 15, 323-328.
65
Booth, R., Bartlet, D., Bohansock, J. (1992). An examination of the relationship
between happiness, loneliness, and shy men in college students. Journal of
Collage Student Development, 33,157- 162.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books, New York
.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent- child attachments and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books
Brage, D., Meredith, W., & Woodward, J. (1993). Correlates of loneliness among
Midwestern adolescents. Adolescence, 28, 685- 693.
Brage, D., Meredith, W., & Woodward, J. (1994). A causal of adolescent depression.
Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, 128(4), 455- 469.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measures of adult
attachment. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.). Attachment theory
and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: The Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect
regulation and romantic relationships functioning. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.
66
Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role
in the development of attachment relationships. In R. Thompson (Ed.).
Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 36 (pp. 59 – 113). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28 (5), 759- 775.
Bretherton, I. (1993). From dialogue to internal working models: The co-construction
of self in relationships. In C. A. Nelson (Ed.), Memory and affect in
development. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 26 (pp. 237–
263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bretherton, I. (1995). A communication perspective on attachment relationships and
internal working models. In E. Waters, B. E. Vaughn, G. Posada, & K.
Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Caregiving, cultural, and cognitive perspectives on
secure-base behavior and working models (pp. 310 – 329). Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (Serial No, 209).
Bretherton, I. (1996). Internal working models of attachment relationships as related
to resilient coping. In G. G. Noam & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development
and vulnerability in close relationships (pp. 3–27), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.).
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.
89 – 111). New York: Guilford.
67
Bretherton, I., & Page, T. F. (2004). Shared or conflicting working models?
Relationships in post divorce families seen through the eyes of mothers and
their preschool children. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 551 – 575.
Buchholz, E. S., & Catton, R. (1999). Adolescents' perceptions of aloneness and
loneliness. Adolescence, 34, 203–213.
Caldera, Y. M. & Hart, S. (2004). Exposure to childcare, parenting style and
attachment security. Infant and Child Development, 13, 21- 33.
Cassidy, J., Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children.
Child Development, 63, 350- 365.
Chelune, G. J., Sultan, F. E., & Williams. C. L. (1980). Loneliness, self- disclosure,
and interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(5),
462- 468.
Chipuer, H. M., Pretty, G. H., Delorey, E., Miller, M., Powers, T., Rum stein, O.,
Barnes, A., Cord sic, N., & Laurent, L. (1999). The neibourhood youth
inventory: Development and validation. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 9, 355-368.
Christensen, P. N., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Perceptions of and by lonely people in
initial social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3),
322- 340.
Clegg, J., & Sheard, C. (2002). Challenging behavior and insecure attachment.
Journal of Disability Research, 46(6), 503- 506.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachments, working models, and
68
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 58(4), 644- 663.
Culp, A. M., Clyman, M. M., & Culp, R. E. (1995). Adolescent depressed mood,
reports of suicide attempts, and asking for help. Adolescence, 30, 827–837.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Simpson, K. S. (1994). Marital conflict, gender,
and children’s appraisals and coping efficacy as mediators of child
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 141-149.
Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social
adjustment. In L. A. Peplau and D. Perlman. Editors, Loneliness: A
sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. Wiley, New York ,
291–309.
Davis, B. D. (1990). Loneliness in children and adolescents, Issues in
Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 13, 59- 69.
Davis, S. F., Hanson, H., Edson, R., & Ziegler, C. (1992). The relationship between
optimism, loneliness, and levels of self- esteem in college students. College
Students Journal, 26, 244- 247.
Demir, A. (1989). UCLA Yalnızlık ölçe inin geçerlik ve güvenirli i. Psikoloji
Dergisi, 6(22), 1- 6.
Demir, A. (1990). Universite ögrencilerinin yalnizlik düzeylerini etkileyen bazı
etmenler, [some factors that influence the loneliness level of college
student]. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Hacettepe University.
69
Demir, A., & Fı ılo lu, H. (1999). Loneliness and marital adjustment of Turkish
couples. The Journal of Psychology, 133(2), 230-240.
Deniz, M. E., Hamarta, E., & Arı, R. (2005). An investigation of social skills and
loneliness levels of university students with respect to their attachment
styles in a sample of Turkish students. Social Behavior and Personality,
33(1), 19-32.
Dimitrovsky, L., Levy- Shiff, R., & Schattner- Zanony, I. (2002). Dimensions of
depression and perfectionism in pregnant and non- pregnant women: Their
levels and interrelationships and their relationship to marital satisfaction.
The Journal of Psychology, 136(6), 631- 646.
Di Tommaso, E., McNulthy, C. B., Ross, L., & Burgess, M. (2003). Attachment
styles, social skills and loneliness in young adults. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 303- 312.
Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D. C., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self- critical
perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on
stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1),
234- 252.
Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. L. (1998). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on
loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 1- 22.
Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1999). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on
loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10, 1–22.
Euphemia, G. W. (1988). Adolescent loneliness. Adolescence, 18, 51- 66.
70
Faber, A. J., Edwards, A. E., Bauer, K. S., Wetchler, J. L. (2003). Family structure:
Its effects on adolescent attachment and identity formation. The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 243- 255.
Farrell, A. D., & White, K. S. (1998). Peer influences and drug use among urban
adolescents: Family structure and parent-adolescent relationships as
protective factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2),
248–258.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 140(2), 258261.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Shapiro, B., & Rayman, J. (2001). Perfectionism, beliefs,
and
adjustment
in
dating
relationships.
Current
Psychology:
Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20(4), 289- 311.
Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kennedy, R., Matton, G., Target, M., &
Geiber, A. (1996). The relation of attachment status, psychiatric
classification, and response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 22-31.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
developments, emerging controversions, and unanswered questions. Review
of General Psychology, 4, 132- 154.
Fraley, C. R. (2003). Information on the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
(ECR-R): Adult Attachment Questionnaire, [On- line]. Available:
http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Efraley/measures/ecrr.htm
71
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory
analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.
Franzci, S. L., & Davis, M. H. (1985). Adolescent self- disclosure and loneliness:
Private self- consciousness and parental influences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48, 768- 780.
Franzoi, S. L., & Davis, M. H. (1985). Adolescent self- disclosure and loneliness:
Private self- consciousness and parental influences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(3), 768-780.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.
Freud, S. (1958) Adolescence: Psychoanalytic study of the child. New York:
International Universities Press
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal
relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 10161024.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside
looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1549- 1560.
Gezer, Z. Ü. (2001). The relationship between attachment atyles of adolescents and
their family environments. Unpublished Master Thesis, METU.
Gordon, S. (1976). Lonely in America. New York: Simon- Schuster.
72
Goodenow, C. (1993). The psychological sense of school membership among
adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in
the School, 30, 79- 90.
Green, L., Richardson, D. S., Lago. T., & Schatten- Jones, E. C. (2000). Network
correlates of social and emotional loneliness in young and older adults.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1313-1321.
Gren, J., & Goldwyn, R. (2002). Annotation: Attachment disorganization and
psychopathology: new findings in attachment research and their potential
implications for developmental psychopathology in childhood. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 835- 846.
Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Machintosh:
Analyzing and Understanding Data (Third Edition). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundemental
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430- 445.
Gülerce, A. (1980). Psychological patterns of families in Turkey. XXXVI. National
Congres of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences. zmir (Cited in : Altun,
E. (2001). The relationship between family environment and gender- role
identity across male and female adolescents. Unpublished dissertation,
METU, Ankara.)
Gülerce, A. (1987). Transformational epistemology: A methodological synthesis of
psychoanalyses and family systems thinking. A Doctoral Thesis. University
73
of Denver. (Cited in : Altun, E. (2001). The relationship between family
environment and gender- role identity across male and female adolescents.
Unpublished dissertation, METU, Ankara.)
Gülerce, A. (1996). Türkiyede ailelerin psikolojik örüntüleri. stanbul: Bo aziçi
Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Güngör, D. (1996). Turkish university students’ relationships with their friends and
families: Social support, satisfaction and loneliness. Unpublished master
thesis, METU.
Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The
role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333-350.
Harvey, B., & Byrad, M. (2000). Relationships between adolescents’ attachment
styles and family functioning. Adolescence, 138(35), 345-357.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511- 524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for
research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Hecht, D. T., & Baum, S. K. (1984). Loneliness and attachment patterns in young
adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40(1), 290-296.
Henwood, P. G. & Solano, C. H. (1994). Loneliness in young children and their
parents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 35–45.
74
Herzberg, D. S. & Hammen, C. (1999). Attachment cognitions predict perceived and
enacted social support during late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 14, 387-405.
Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and
depression: A test of vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 58-65.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Ediger, E. (1996). Perfectionism and depression
longitudinal assessment of vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 105, 276-280.
Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism and interpersonal
problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(1), 81-103.
Hojat, M. (1982). Loneliness as a function of parent- child and peer relations. The
Journal of Psychology, 112, 129-133.
Hollist, C. S., & Miller, R. B. (2005). Perceptions of attachment style and marital
quality in midlife marriage. Family Relations, 54, 46-57.
Horowitz, L. M., French, R. S., & Anderson, C. A. (1982). The Prototype of a lonely
person. In Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research and therapy, pp. 183-205, New York: WileyInterscience.
Hortaçsu, N., Oral, A., & Gültekin- Yasak, Y. (1990). Factors affecting relationships
of Turkish adolescents with parents and same- sex friends. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 131(3), 413-426.
75
Hortaçsu, N., Cesur, S., & Oral, A. (1993). Relationships between depression and
attachment styles in parent- and institution- reared Turkish children. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(3), 329-337.
Howes, C. (1999). Attachment relationships in the context of Stepwise Multiple
caregivers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). Handbook of attachment:
Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 671-687). New York:
Guilford.
Hsu, L. R., Hailey, B. J.,& Range, L. M. (2001). Cultural and emotional components
of loneliness and depression. The Journal of Psychology, 121(1), 61-70.
Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children's peer
relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing
problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004–
2021.
Jackson, J., & Cochran, S. D. (1990). Loneliness and psychological distress. The
Journal of Psychology, 125, 257-262.
Johnson, H. D., La Voie, J. C., & Mahoney, M. (2001). Interparental conflict and
family cohesion. Predictors of loneliness, social anxiety, and social
avoidance in late adolescent. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(3), 304318.
Jong-Gierveld, J. (1987). Developing and testing a model of loneliness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 119- 128.
Jones, W. J., Carpenter, B. N.,& Quintina, D. (1985). Personality and interpersonal
predictors of loneliness in two culters. Journal of Personality and Social
76
Psychology, 48, 1503- 1511.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. E., & Goswick, R. A. (1981). The persistence of
loneliness: Self and other determinants. Journal of Personality, 49, 27-48.
Jones, W. H., & Moore, T. L. (1987). Loneliness and social support. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 2 (2), 145–156.
Jones, W. H., Sansone, C., & Helm, B. (1983). Loneliness and interpersonal
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 437- 441.
Kalaycı, . (2006). SPSS uygulamalı çok de i kenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil Yayın
Da ıtım Ltd/ ST.
Kara, M., & Mirici, A. (2004). Loneliness, depression, and social support of Turkish
patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their spouses.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(4), 331- 336.
Karakurt, G. (2001). Adult attachment types effect on romantic jealousy.
Unpublished Master Thesis, METU.
Kalliopuska, M., & Laitinen, M. (1991). Testing loneliness on differential loneliness
scale. Psychological Reports, 69, 27-34.
Kerns, K. A. (1996). Individual differences in friendship quality: Links to childmother attachment. In Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.)
The Company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence, (pp.
137- 157.) New York: Cambridge University Pres.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working
77
models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child
Development, 59, 135-146.
Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive
symptoms during adolescence: A development pathways analysis.
Development & Psychopathology, 3, 461-474.
Koenig, L. J., Isaacs, A. M., & Scwartz, J. A. (1994). Sex differences in adolescent
depression and loneliness: Why are boys lonelier if girls are more
depressed? Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 27-43.
Kraus, L. A., Davis, M. H., Bazzini, D., Church, M., & Kirchman, C. M. (1993).
Personal and social influences on loneliness: The mediating effect of social
provision. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(1), 37- 53.
Lamm, H., & Stephan, E. (1987). Loneliness among German university students:
Some correlates. Social Behaviour and Personality, 15(2), 161- 164.
Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1986). An examination of the relation of individual
differene variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality, 54(4), 717-733.
Lopez, F. G. (2002). Adult attachment orientations and collage student distress: test
of a mediation model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 460-467
Löker, Ö. (1999). Differential effects of parent and peer attachment on social and
emotional loneliness among adolescents. Unpublished master thesis,
METU.
78
Man, K., & Hamid, N. (1998). The relationship between attachment prototypes, selfesteem, loneliness, and causal attributions in Chinese trainee teachers.
Personality & Individual Differences, 24(3), pp. 357- 371.
Margalit, M., Tur- Kaspa, H., & Most, T. (1999). Reciprocal nominations, reciprocal
rejections, and loneliness among students with learning disorders.
Educational Psychology, 19(1), 79-101.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in
favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on
successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205 –220.
McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature, with
implications for counseling and research. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 68, 417–422.
McKeown, R. E., Garrison, C. Z., Jackson, K. L., Cuffe, S. P., Addy, C. L., &
Waller, J. L. (1997). Family structure and cohesion, and depressive
symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 267-282.
Medora, N., & Woodward, J. C. (1986). Loneliness among adolescent college
students at a Midwestern university. Adolescence, 21(82), 391- 402.
Medora, N., & Woodward, J. C. (1991). Factors associated with loneliness among
adolescent collage students at Midwestern University. Adolescence, 21,
391- 402.
Milan, S. E., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2000). Factors influencing maltreated children’s
early adjustment in foster care. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 6381.
79
Moraldo, G. K. (1981). Shyness and loneliness among college men and women.
Psychological Reports, 48, 885-886.
Morrison, T. L., Goodlin-Jones, B. L., & Urquiza, A. J. (1997). Attachment and the
representation of intimate relationships in adulthood. Journal of
Psychology, 131, 57-71.
Neal, J., & Frick- Horbury, D. (1993). The effects of parenting styles and childhood
attachment patterns on intimate relationships. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 28(3), 180-184.
Norman, R. S., & DeWayne, M. (1986). The loneliness experience of collage
students: Sex difference. Psychology Bulletin, 1, 111-119.
Neto, F., & Barros, J. (2000). Psychosocial concomitants of loneliness among
students of Cape Verde and Portugal. Journal of Psychology, 134, 503–514.
O’ Koon, J. (1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their
relationship with self- image. Adolescence, 32(126), 471- 482.
Page, R. M. & Brooks- Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent- child relationships change during
puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 47- 66.
Page, R. M. & Cole, G. E. (1991). Loneliness and alcoholism risk in late
adolescence: A comparative study of adults and adolescents. Adolescence,
26, 925– 930.
80
Patt, E. M., Telch, C. F., Labouvie, E. W., Wilson, G. T., & Agras, W. S. (2001).
Perfectionism in women with binge eating disorder. International Journal
of Eating Disorders, 29, 177-186.
Peluso, P. R., Peluso, J. P., White, F., & Kern, R. M. (2004). A comparision of
attachment theory and individual psychology: A review of the literature.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 139- 145.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). (Eds.), Loneliness: A source book of current
theory, research, and therapy. New York: Wiley- Interscience.
Peplau, L. A., Bikson, I., Rook, K., & Goodshilds, J. (1982). Being old and living
alone. In L. A. Peplau, D. Perlman (Eds.). Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research, and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In Peplau, L. A. &
Perlman, D. (Eds.). Loneliness: A source book of current theory, research,
and therapy. New York: Wiley- Interscience.
Peplau, L. A., & Goldston, S. E. (1984). Preventing the harmful consequences of
severe and persistent loneliness. Rockville Maryland: National Institute of
Mental Health.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1984). Loneliness research: A survey of empirical
findings. In L. A. Peplau, , S. E. Goldston, (Eds.), Preventing the Harmful
Consequences of Severe and Persistent Loneliness, ( pp. 13- 47). Rockville
Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health.
Perlman, D., & Landolt, M. A. (1999). Examination of loneliness in children–
adolescents and in adults: Two solitudes or a unified enterprise? In: K. J.
81
Rotenberg and S. Hymel. Editors. Loneliness in childhood and adolescence.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England. 325–347.
Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict and the development of
antisocial behavior. In C. U. Shantz, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.). Conflict in
child and adolescent development (pp, 301-329). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1988). Personality prototypes among depressives: Themes of
dependency and autonomy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2, 18-34.
Pines, A. M. (2004). Adult attachment styles and their relationship to burnout: A
preliminary, cross- cultural investigation. Work & Stress, 18(1), 66-80.
Ponzetti, J. J., & Cate, R. M. (1981). Sex differences in the relations between
loneliness and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 48, 758- 769.
Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representations of attachment relationships in children of in
carcerated mothers. Child Development, 766(3), 679- 696.
Qureshi, H. & Walker, A. (1989). The caring relationship. Elderly people and their
families. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Regan, A. R., Gurung, B. R., Sarason, K. D., Keeker. K., & Sarason, I. G. (1992).
Family environments, specific relationships, and general perceptions of
adjustment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association.
Reinherz, M. Z., Stewart-Berghauer, G., Pakiz. B., Frost, A. K., & Moeykens, B. A.
(1989). The relationship of early risk and current mediators to depressive
82
symptomology in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 134-142.
Riggio, R. E., Watring, K. P., & Throckmorton, B. (1993). Social skills, social
support, and psychological adjustment. Personality and Individual
Differences, 15, 275- 308.
Roberts, R. E., Roberts, C. R., & Chen, Y. R. (1998). Suicidal thinking among
adolescents with a history of attempted suicide. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 1294-1306.
Robertson, B. J. (1999). Leisure and family: Perspectives of male adolescents who
engage in delinquent activity as leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(4),
335–358.
Rokach, A. (1989). Antecedents of loneliness: A factorial analysis. Journal of
Psychology, 123, 369–384.
Rokach, A. (2001). Strategies of coping with loneliness throughout the lifespan.
Current Psychology, 20(1), 3- 18.
Rokach, A., & Bauer, N. (2004). Age, culture, and loneliness among Czechs and
Canadians, Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality,
Social. 23(1), 3- 23.
Roscoe, B., & Skomsky, G. G. (1989). Loneliness among late adolescents.
Adolescence, 24, 945- 955.
Rotenberg, K. J. (1994). Loneliness and interpersonal trust. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 13, 152–173.
83
Rotenberg, K. J., Bartley, J. L. (1997). Children’s stigmatization of chronic
loneliness in peers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 12, 577584.
Rotenberg, K. J. (1999). Childhood and adolescent loneliness: An introduction. In:
K. J. Rotenberg and S. Hymel. (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and
adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–8.
Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M., & Hagglöf, B. (1999). Hopelessness, loneliness, selfesteem, and personality in Russian male delinquent adolescents versus
controls. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(4), 466- 477.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of
loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290- 294.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness
Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472- 480.
Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K. (1984). Social and emotional
loneliness: An examination of Weiss’s typology of loneliness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472- 480.
Santrock, J. W. (1997). Life- span development. New York: McGraw- Hill
Companies.Inc.
Schaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: the
integration of three behavioral systems. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes
(Eds.), The psychology of love, (pp. 68- 99). New Haven. CT: Yale
University Press.
84
Schmidt, N., & Sermat, V. (1983). Measuring loneliness in different relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1038- 1047.
Schimitt, J. P., & Kurdek, L. A. (1985). Age and gender differences in and
personality correlates of loneliness in different relationships. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49(5), 485- 497.
Schultz, N. R., & Moore, D. (1986). The loneliness experienced of college students.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 111- 119.
Schultz, N. R. & Moore, D. (1988). Loneliness: Differences across three age levels.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 275–284.
Selçuk, E., Günaydın, G., Sümer, N.,& Uysal, A. (2005). Yeti kin ba lanma
boyutları için yeni bir ölçüm: Yakın ili kilerde ya antılar envanteri- II’nin
Türk örnekleminde psikometrik açıdan de erlendirilmesi, Türk Psikoloji
Yayınları, 8(16), 1- 11.
Selçuk, Z. (1989). Üniversite ö rencilerinin kendini açma davranı ları. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Selı ık, Z. E. (2003). The dimensions of perfectionism and their relations to helpless
explanatory style. Unpublished master thesis, METU.
Solano, C. H., Batten, P. G., & Parish, E. A. (1982). Loneliness and patterns of selfdisclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 524- 531.
Stokes, J. P. (1985). The relation of social network and individual difference
variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
981–990.
85
Stokes, J. P., & Levin, I. (1986). Gender differences in predicting loneliness from
social network characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 981-990.
Stokes, J. P. (1987). The relation of loneliness and self-disclosure. In V. J. Derlaga &
J. H. Berg (Ed.) Self- disclosure (pp. 175- 202).
Stovall, K. C., & Dozier, M. (1998). Infants in foster care: An attachment theory
perspective. Adoption Quarterly, 2, 55 – 85.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Sundberg, C. P. (1988). Loneliness: Sexual and racial differences in college
freshmen. Journal of Collage Student Development, 29, 298- 305.
Sümer, N., & Güngör, D. (1999). Yeti kin ba lanma stilleri ölçeklerinin Türk
örneklemi üzerinde de erlendirilmesi ve kültürlerarası bir kar ıla tırma.
Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14, 71- 106.
Tamara, S. L. (2004). Adult attachment and sexual offender status. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 74(2), 56-88.
Toivonen, S., Salmela –Aro, K., & Eronen, S. (1997). Social strategies and
loneliness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 764-117.
Terrell, F., Terrell, I. S., & Von Drashek, S. R. (2000). Loneliness and fear of
intimacy among adolescents who were taught not to trust strangers during
childhood. Adolescence, 35(140), 611- 617.
Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the resilience of
high- risk adolescents. Family Process, 43(1), 21- 43.
86
Uruk, A. (2001). The role of peers and families in predicting the loneliness level of
adolescents. Unpublished masther thesis, METU.
Uruk, C. A., & Demir, A. (2003), The role of peers and families in predicting the
loneliness level of adolescents. The Journal of Psychology, 137(2), 179193.
Ünsal- Terzi, S., & Kapçı, E. G. (2005). Risk factors for suicidal behavior:
Psychosocial risk models with Turkish adolescents. Social Behavior and
Personality, 33(6), 593- 608.
vanBaarsen, S., T. A., Smit, J. H., & vanDuijn, M. A. J. (2001). Lonely but not
alone: Emotional isolation and social isolation as two distinct dimensions of
loneliness in order people. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
61(1), 119- 135.
Vasta, R., Miller, S. A., & Ellis, S. (2004). Child Psychology. (4th Ed.).New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Vaux, A. (1988). Social and emotional loneliness: The role of social and personal
characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 722–734.
von Ljzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans- Kronenburg, M. J. (1996). Attachment
representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: A
meta- analytic search for normative data. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology, 64, 8- 21.
Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment
representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant- mother attachment in a
sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 66, 69- 79.
87
Weingarten, K. (1998). Sidelined no more: Promoting mothers of adolescents as a
resource for their growth and development. In C.G. Coll, J. L. Surrey, & K.
Weingarten (Eds.). Mothering against the odds: Diverse voices of
contemporary mothers (pp. 15–336). New York: The Guilford Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in Adult Life. The Place of Attachment Behavior,
171- 184. New York: Basic Books.
Weiss, R. S. (1984). Loneliness: What we know about it and what we might about it.
In L. A. Peplau, , S. E. Goldston, (Eds.). Preventing the harmful
consequences of severe and persistent loneliness, (pp. 3-13). Rockville,
Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health.
Weiss, R. S. (1987). Reflections on the present state of loneliness research. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality, 2 (2), 1–16.
Wentzel, K. R., & Feldman, S. S. (1996). Relations of cohesion and power in family
dyads to social and emotional adjustment during early adolescence. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 2, 225-244.
Williams, E. G. (1983). Adolescents’ loneliness. Adolescence, 18, 51- 66.
Wiseman, H., & Guttfreund, D. G. (1995). Gender differences in loneliness and
depression of university students seeking counseling. British Journal of
Guidance and Counseling, 23(2), 231- 245.
Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1985). Loneliness, social skills, and social
perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 121- 130.
88
Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1986). Loneliness, social skills, and social
perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 121–130.
Wood, L. A. (1986). Loneliness. In R. Harré. (Eds.), The social construction of
emotions. Oxford: Blackwell, 184–208.
Woodward, J., & Frank, B. D. (1988). Rural adolescent loneliness and coping
strategies. Adolescence, 23, 459- 565.
Yih- L. E. (2003). Attachment, coping, and adjustment among adolescents in
Taiwan. National Tsing- Hua University.
Young, J. E. (1982). Loneliness, depression, and cognitive therapy: Theory and
Application. In Peplau, L. A., Perlman, D. (Eds.), Loneliness of current
theory, research and therapy. New York: Wily- Interscience.
89
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
(Students Opinion Questionnaire)
Sevgili Ö renci;
Üniversite ö rencilerin yalnızlık düzeylerini etkileyen bazı de i kenlerin
ara tırıldı ı bu çalı mada, size ve ili kilerinize yönelik bilgi edinmeyi amaçlayan form
ve ölçekler yer almaktadır. Sizden istenilen bu ölçekleri dikkatli ve içten olarak
yanıtlamanızdır. Sorulara eksiksiz ve içten yanıtlar vermeniz ara tırmanın amacına
ula abilmesini sa layacaktır.
Ara tırmada sonuçlara gruplar halinde bakılaca ından, kimli inizle ilgili
herhangi bir bilgi gerekmemektedir.
Katkılarınızdan dolayı imdiden te ekkür ederim.
Bu çalı ma ile ilgili sorularınızı, a a ıdaki adres ve telefon yardımıyla
payla abilirsiniz.
Ara . Gör. Aylin Demirli
Orta Do u Teknik Üniversitesi
Ankara Üniversitesi E itim Fakültesi
E itim Bilimleri Bölümü
E itim Bilimleri Bölümü
Yüksek Lisans Ö rencisi
Tel: 363 33 50
K
SEL B LG FORMU
Ya ınız :
Cinsiyetiniz :
K( )
E( )
Fakülteniz:...........................................................................................................
Bölümünüz:.........................................................................................................
Sınıfınız:..............................................................................................................
u Anda Ya adı ınız Yer:
Ailemle ( )
Akraba Yanında ( )
Evde- Yalnız ( )
Evde- Arkada la ( )
Yurt ( )
Di er………………………………………………............................................
90
APPENDIX B
UCLA Loneliness Scale
A a ıda çe itli duygu ve dü ünceleri içeren ifadeler verilmektedir. Sizden istenilen her ifade
de tanımlanan duygu ve dü ünceyi ne sıklıkta hissetti inizi ve dü ündü ünüzü her biri için tek bir
rakamı daire içine alarak belirtmenizdir.
1. Kendimi
hissediyorum.
çevremdeki
insanlarla
uyum
içinde
Ben bu
Ben bu
Ben bu
Ben bu
durumu
durumu
durumu
durumu
HÇ
NAD REN
BAZEN
SIK SIK
ya amam
Ya arım
Ya arım
Ya arım
1
2
3
4
2. Arkada ım yok.
1
2
3
4
3. Ba vurabilece im hiç kimsem yok.
1
2
3
4
4. Kendimi tek ba ınaymı ım gibi hissetmiyorum.
1
2
3
4
5. Kendimi bir arkada
hissediyorum.
1
2
3
4
6. Çevremdeki insanlarla bir çok ortak yönüm var.
1
2
3
4
7. Artık hiç kimseyle samimi de ilim.
1
2
3
4
8. lgilerim ve fikirlerim payla ılmıyor.
1
2
3
4
9. Dı a dönük bir insanım.
1
2
3
4
10. Kendimi yakın hissetti im insanlar var.
1
2
3
4
11. Kendimi grubun dı ına itilmi hissediyorum.
1
2
3
4
12. Sosyal ili kilerim yüzeyseldir.
1
2
3
4
13. Hiç kimse gerçekten beni iyi tanımıyor.
1
2
3
4
14. Kendimi di er insanlardan soyutlanmı hissediyorum.
1
2
3
4
15. stedi im zaman arkada bulabilirim.
1
2
3
4
grubunun bir parçası olarak
91
16. Beni gerçekten anlayan insanlar var.
1
2
3
4
17. Bu derece içime kapanmı olmaktan dolayı mutsuzum,
çevremdekilerce
1
2
3
4
18. Çevremde insanlar var ama benimle de iller.
1
2
3
4
19. Konu abilece im insanlar var.
1
2
3
4
20. Derdimi anlatabilece im insanlar var.
1
2
3
4
92
APPENDIX C
Experiences in Close Relationships- Revised
A a ıdaki maddeler romantik ili kilerinizde hissetti iniz duygularla ilgilidir. Bu ara tırmada
sizin
ili kinizde yalnızca u anda de il, genel olarak neler oldu uyla ya da neler ya adı ınızla ilgilenmekteyiz.
Maddelerde sözü geçen "birlikte oldu um ki i" ifadesi ile romantik ili kide bulundu unuz ki i kastedilmektedir.
E er halihazırda bir romantik ili ki içerisinde de ilseniz, a a ıdaki maddeleri bir ili ki içinde oldu unuzu
varsayarak cevaplandırınız. Her bir maddenin ili kilerinizdeki duygu ve dü üncelerinizi ne oranda yansıttı ını
kar ılarındaki 7 aralıklı ölçek üzerinde, ilgili rakam üzerine çarpı (X) koyarak gösteriniz.
1-------------------2---------------------3---------------------4----------------------5----------------------6--------------------7
Hiç
katılmıyorum
Kararsızım/
Tamamen
fikrim yok
katılıyorum
1. Birlikte oldu um ki inin sevgisini kaybetmekten korkarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Gerçekte ne hissetti imi birlikte oldu um ki iye göstermemeyi tercih ederim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. Sıklıkla, birlikte oldu um ki inin artık benimle olmak istemeyece i korkusuna
kapılırım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. Özel duygu ve dü üncelerimi birlikte oldu um ki iyle payla mak konusunda
kendimi rahat hissederim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. Sıklıkla, birlikte oldu um ki inin beni gerçekten sevmedi i kaygısına kapılırım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere güvenip inanmak konusunda kendimi rahat
bırakmakta zorlanırım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilerin beni, benim onları önemsedi im kadar
önemsemeyeceklerinden endi e duyarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere yakın olma konusunda çok rahatımdır.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9. Sıklıkla, birlikte oldu um ki inin bana duydu u hislerin benim ona duydu um
hisler kadar güçlü olmasını isterim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere açılma konusunda kendimi rahat hissetmem.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11. li kilerimi kafama çok takarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere fazla yakın olmamayı tercih ederim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. Benden uzakta oldu unda, birlikte oldu um ki inin ba ka birine ilgi
duyabilece i korkusuna kapılırım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki i benimle çok yakın olmak istedi inde rahatsızlık
duyarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere duygularımı gösterdi imde, onların benim
için aynı eyleri hissetmeyece inden korkarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
93
16. Birlikte oldu um ki iyle kolayca yakınla abilirim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17. Birlikte oldu um ki inin beni terk edece inden pek endi e duymam.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18. Birlikte oldu um ki iyle yakınla mak bana zor gelmez.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki i kendimden üphe etmeme neden olur.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
21. Terk edilmekten pek korkmam.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22. Zor zamanlarımda, romantik ili kide oldu um ki iden yardım istemek bana iyi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23. Birlikte oldu um ki inin, bana benim istedi im kadar yakınla mak istemedi ini
dü ünürüm.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24. Birlikte oldu um ki iye hemen hemen her eyi anlatırım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki iler bazen bana olan duygularını sebepsiz yere
de i tirirler.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26. Ba ımdan geçenleri birlikte oldu um ki iyle konu urum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27. Çok yakın olma arzum bazen insanları korkutup uzakla tırır.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28. Birlikte oldu um ki iler benimle çok yakınla tı ında gergin hissederim.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29. Romantik ili kide oldu um bir ki i beni yakından tanıdıkça, “gerçek ben”den
ho lanmayaca ından korkarım.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
30. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki ilere güvenip inanma konusunda rahatımdır.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
31. Birlikte oldu um ki iden ihtiyaç duydu um efkat ve deste i görememek beni
öfkelendirir.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
32. Romantik ili kide oldu um ki iye güvenip inanmak benim için kolaydır.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33. Ba ka insanlara denk olamamaktan endi e duyarım
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
34. Birlikte oldu um ki iye efkat göstermek benim için kolaydır.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
35. Birlikte oldu um ki i beni sadece kızgın oldu umda önemser.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
36. Birlikte oldu um ki i beni ve ihtiyaçlarımı gerçekten anlar.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20. Genellikle, birlikte oldu um ki iyle sorunlarımı ve kaygılarımı tartı ırım.
gelir.
94
APPENDIX D
Family Environment Assessment Scale
Lütfen a a ıdaki bütün sorulan ve anladı ınız biçimde, sizin gerçe inizi yansıtma derecesini
basamaklara uygun olanını i aretleyerek yanıtlayınız.
TAMAMEN AYNI
TAM TERS
1. Ailemizde her türlü konu ve fikir açıkça konu ulur.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
2. Evimizde birisi bir ey söyledi i zaman, di erleri aynı eyi anlarlar.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
gibi yollarla yeni eyler ö renmeye ve dünyada olup bitenlere çok ilgi 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
15. Ailem, benim pek çok arkada ımla tanı ırlar.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
16. Ailemizde, dayanı ma ve birlik duygusu çok güçlüdür.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
3. Bizim evde, olaylar kar ısındaki dü ünce ve duygular konu maktan çok
davranı larla ifade edilir.
4. Bizim evde, sözlerle söylenenler, davranı larla anlatılanları tutmaz.
5. Evdekilerle çatı maktansa susmayı veya ba kalarıyla konu mayı
ye lerim.
6. Bizim evde, konu ulmayacak konular bence çok fazladır.
7. Beni korkutan, ba aramayaca ımı sandı ım ve üzüldü üm eyleri
anne-babama rahatlıkla söylerim.
8. Beni sevindiren, aklımdan geçen ve komik
eyleri anne-babama
rahatlıkla söylerim.
9. Ailemizdeki ileti imi son derece doyurucu bulurum.
10. Birimizin i te, okulda veya arkada ından ö rendi i bir ey evde
genellikle ilgi görür, tartı ılır ve be enilirse uygulanır.
11. Ailem, ba kalarından gelen ele tiri yada önerilere tamamen kapalıdır.
12. Evimizde, TV, radyo, gazete, dergi, kitap, konferans, sinema, tiyatro
duyulur.
13. Bizim evde, i , okul ve ev dı ında da bir çok u ra (hobiler, özel
ilgiler, spor faaliyetleri vb.) vardır.
14. Do rusu ailemden daha çok ba lı oldu um bir insan (arkada ,
terapist, kendi ailem, akraba, vb) var.
95
17. Annem-babamın evde kendi ba ıma geçirmek istedi im zamana
(çalı ırken, oyun oynarken, TV seyrederken, vb.) kar ı tavrı çok 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
29. Ailem, geçmi te kar ıla tı ı zor durumların üstesinden geldi.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
30. Gerekti inde, ailem çevresinden yeterince destek alabilir.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
31. Ailemden son derece gurur ve haz duyuyorum.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
32. Bizim ailede, herkesin birbirini de i tirmeye çalı tı ı çok belirgindir.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
33. Bizim evde, kimsenin ele tiriye tahammülü yoktur.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
35. Bence; ailemizde de i mesi mümkün olamayacak tavırlar çoktur.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
36. Birbirimize yeterince sevgi ve efkat gösteririz.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
10
anlayı lıdır, beni rahat bırakır.
18. Birbirimizle çok iyi geçiniriz.
19. Bizim aileyi ilgilendiren kararlarda, evdeki herkesin fikri alınır veya
çıkarı gözetilir.
20. Bizde aileyle ilgili sorumlulukların da ılımı hakça olur.
21. Bizim evde, birisi di erlerinden daha önemlidir; yani daha çok sevilir,
kayrılır ve dedi ini yaptırır.
22. Ailemizde i bölümü, herkese dü en görevler ve di er kurallar açık
seçik belirgindir.
23. Bizim evde, kar ıla ılan aksamalar ve çıkan çatı malar mutlaka
çözümlenir.
24. Bizim aileyi ilgilendiren kararlarda, ev içinden söz sahibi olanlar,
dı arıdan karı anlardan her zaman çoktur.
25. Evimizde, görevini aksatan veya bu kararlara uymayan(lar), iddetle
kınanır.
26. Evde yapmam gereken eyler için her zaman yeterli zamanım olur.
27. Genel olarak, bizim sa lıklı, huzurlu ve iyi bir aile oldu umuzu
dü ünürüm.
28. Ailem, büyük bir sa lık ve para sorunu dı ında bir problemle
kar ıla tı ında bunu kendi ba ına halledebilir.
34. Bizim ailede, her çe it duygunun (üzüntü, mutluluk, co ku, kızgınlık,
korku vb.), hissetti imiz gibi ya anması ola andır.
96
Aylin Demirli Yıldız