CROSS CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN LONELINESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MARKETING

Shekhar Misra, California State University, Chico

Abstract

Loneliness is a discrepancy between a person’s desired and achieved level of social interaction. This paper introduces the idea that some of the strategies used by individuals in coping with loneliness may have implications for consumer behavior and marketing. Measurement and cross-cultural issues are discussed. Individualism is proposed as a mediating variable.

Introduction

Very few humans have escaped the distressing experience of loneliness. As we grow up, social relationships start, change, and end. Although there are cross-cultural differences in how people respond to loneliness, the experience itself appears to be universal. Perhaps it starts in babyhood, when we first experience the painful anxiety of separation from parents, even if it is for very short periods of time. And experiences as we grow up may add to that. Interestingly, the area of loneliness did not receive very much attention from researchers until relatively recently. A 1979 conference at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is generally credited with having provided the impetus for a concerted research program related to loneliness (Peplau and Perlman, 1982).. Surprisingly, the marketing literature has ignored this important aspect of consumer behavior. This paper attempts to introduce this potentially significant variable to the study of cross-cultural consumer behavior.

What is Loneliness?

Most people have an intuitive sense of what loneliness means. There are many formal definitions. Peplau and Perlman (1980) report one dozen definitions of loneliness developed by researchers (p. 4) There are three important common themes in all these definitions. First, loneliness is the result of a deficiency in an individuals social interactions. Second, it is a subjective and not an objective experience. For example, one may be alone without being lonely, and feel lonely in a crowd. Third, the feeling of loneliness is not pleasant and can be bothersome. Finally, scholars distinguish it from solitude in that loneliness results from an expectation of a higher level of social interaction.

Estimates of the pervasiveness of loneliness are difficult to come by. Thirty years ago, it was reported that 25% of the U.S. population felt intensely lonely during the previous two weeks (Bradburn, 1969). It is reasonable to expect that after all the societal changes of the last three decades, the number would be at least as much as it was in 1969.

Measuring Loneliness

As may be expected for a construct like loneliness, there are numerous scales to measure it. Conceptually, there have been two different approaches to measuring loneliness. The unidimensional approach views it as a single phenomenon that varies by experienced intensity. In contrast, the multi-dimensional approach conceptualizes loneliness as a multifaceted phenomenon. This approach assumes there are differences among the many hypothesized types or manifestations of loneliness. Russell (1982) provides a good discussion of this issue, along with reliability and validity data for the two types of scales.

The revised UCLA (R-UCLA) scale is a unidimensional scale of loneliness, made up of 20 Likert-type items reflecting satisfaction and dissatisfaction with life and social relationships (Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona 1980; see Appendix I for the scale items.) It has been found to have satisfactory psychometric properties. It has emerged as the most widely accepted scale, used to assess loneliness in a wide variety of studies with various populations (e.g., Hojat, 1989). “Other scales have been developed for measuring loneliness, but the UCLA scale seems to be the only one that is used by investigators other than its authors.” (Weiss, 1989, p.5) Some studies, however, have challenged the unidimesionality of the scale. For example, McWhirter (1990) found three distinct factors.

The psychometric properties of the scale have also been validated in other cultures. For example, it has been translated into Persian and found to be sound (Hojat, 1982.) It has also been successfully tested with college students in South Africa (Pretorius, 1993), and in Puerto Rico (Jones, Carpenter, and Quintana, 1985).

Loneliness and Consumer Behavior

Individuals use various strategies to cope with loneliness (Rokach and Brock , 1998; West, Kellner, and Moore-West, 1986). Most of the published research has focused on mental health issues like depression, substance abuse, suicide, and so forth, but not on marketing or consumer behavior related issues. Only one known, and unpublished, study recently examined the impact of loneliness on the behavior on U.S. college students (Misra, 1999). It examined behaviors like shopping, television viewing, Internet usage, alcohol consumption, brand switching, and so forth. It concluded that the degree of loneliness does indeed impact consumer behavior significantly. It is possible that people attempt to alleviate the feeling of loneliness by indulging in certain behaviors.

Cross Cultural Variations in Loneliness

Culture is important as it deals with the way people live and approach problem solving in the social context. Thus, intuitively, it reasonable to expect that the degree of loneliness felt in different cultures would vary as well as how people respond to it. This has been substantiated by empirical research. There has been no single study examining loneliness in several cultures. Most have focused on one or two cultures. As always, findings from different studies should be compared very carefully.

Pretorius (1993) found that loneliness among college students in South Africa was slightly higher than that reported for North American college students, but lower than that reported for students in Iran and Puerto Rico (Hojat, 1982; Jones, Carpenter, and Quintana, 1985).

In a two country study, loneliness as well as life satisfaction were measured in Australia and Japan (Schumaker and Shea, 1993). The study used R-UCLA and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et. al, 1983). It was found that loneliness in Japan was significantly higher than in Australia, and life satisfaction was lower in Japan than in Australia. In Australia there was a strong negative correlation between loneliness and life satisfaction. Interestingly, the correlation was very small in Japan, indicating that loneliness does not automatically translate into dissatisfaction with life. Most likely, how people respond to loneliness is influenced by cultural variables.

Individualism and Loneliness

There is a dearth of cross cultural studies examining loneliness, and it would be useful to establish frameworks that can guide future research. Western culture emphasizes individual achievement, competitiveness, and relatively impersonal social relations (Ostrov and Offer, 1980). That might contribute to how people respond to loneliness. As discussed, the (negative) correlation between loneliness and life satisfaction was much higher in Australia than in Japan. It is noteworthy that Australia is much higher on individualism, with a score of 90, than Japan, with a score of 46 (Hofstede, 1980).

The individualism versus collectivism construct is one that is fundamental to cultural differences, especially in the context of social behaviors (Triandis, 1995). Although it is now accepted that that this is not necessarily a bipolar construct, individualism, or the lack thereof, remains a very important dimension of culture. The more individualistic a culture is the more likely it is that a person blames themselves for their loneliness. Further, social support networks are likely to be weaker than in collectivist cultures. Therefore, it is proposed that the degree of individualism mediates how satisfied one is with the situation, which in turn will influence how one responds and copes with it.

FIGURE 1

Conclusion

In developed countries increasing numbers of people live alone or in smaller households. In developing countries migration from villages to urban areas continues. Each of these factors is likely to result in an increase in loneliness worldwide. Yet, this issue has not been researched adequately. The consumer behavior and marketing implications are potentially huge. The incorporation of individualism as a variable should provide us with a richer understanding of this important construct.

APPENDIX I

1. I feel in tune with the people around me

2. I lack companionship

3. There is no one I can turn to

4. I do not feel alone

5. I feel a part of a group of friends

6. I have a lot in common with the people around me

7. I am no longer close to anyone

8. My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me

9. I am an outgoing person

10. There are people I feel close to

11. I feel left out

12. My social relationships are superficial

13. No on really knows me well

14. I feel isolated from others

15. I can find companionship when I want it

16. There are people who really understand me

17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn

18. People are around me but not with me

19. There are people I can talk to

20. There are people I can turn to

REFERENCES

Bradburn, N. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well Being, Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Diener, E., R. Emmons, R. Larsen, and S. Griffin (1983), “The Satisfaction With Life Scale,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Higbee, Katherine R. and Robert E. Roberts (1994), “Reliability and Validity of a Brief Measure of Loneliness With Anglo-American and Mexican American Adolescents,” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16 (4), 459-475.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hojat, Mohammadrez (1982), “Psychometric Characteristics of the UCLA Loneliness Scale,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 917-925.

Hojat, Mohammadreza and Rick Crandall (1989), Loneliness: Theory, Research, and Applications, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jones, Warren H., Bruce N. Carpenter, and Diane Quintana (1985), “Personality and Interpersonal Predictors of Loneliness in Two Cultures,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1503-1511.

Kiefer, Christie W. (1980), “Loneliness and Japanese Social Structure,” in The Anatomy of Loneliness, eds. Joseph Hartog, J. Ralph Audy, and Yehudi A. Cohen, New York: International Universities Press, 425-450.

McWhirter, Benedict T. (1990), “Factor Analysis of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale,” Current Psychology, 9 (1), Spring, 56-68.

Mead, Margaret (1980), Loneliness, Autonomy, and Interdependence in Cultural Context,” in The Anatomy of Loneliness, eds. Joseph Hartog, J. Ralph Audy, and Yehudi A. Cohen, New York: International Universities Press, 394-405.

Misra, Shekhar (1999), “The Impact of Loneliness on College Student Behavior,” Working paper, California State University, Chico.

Ostrov, Eric and Daniel Offer (1980), “Loneliness and the Adolescent,” in The Anatomy of Loneliness, eds. Joseph Hartog, J. Ralph Audy, and Yehudi A. Cohen, New York: International Universities Press, 170-185.

Parks, Craig D. and Anh D. Vu (1994), “Social Dilemma Behavior of Individuals from Highly Individualistic and Collectivist Cultures,” Journal of Conflict Resolution , 38 (4), 708-717.

Peplau, Letitia A. and Daniel Perlman (1980), Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy, editors, New York, NY: John Wiley.

Peplau, Letitia A., Daniel Russel, and M. Hein (1979), “The Experience of Loneliness,” in New Approaches to Social Problems, eds. I.H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, and J.S. Caroll, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 53-78.

Pretorius, T. Brian (1993), “The Metric Equivalence of the UCLA Loneliness Scale for a Sample of South African Students,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53 (1), 233-239.

Rokach, Ami and Heather Brock (1998), “Coping With Loneliness,” Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 192 (1), January, 107-127.

Russell, Daniel (1982), “The Measurement of Loneliness,” in Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy, eds. Letitia A. Peplau and Daniel Perlman, New York: John Wiley, 81-104.

Russel, Daniel, Letitia Peplau, and C. E. Cutrona (1980), “The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and Discriminant Validity Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (3), 472-480.

Schumaker, John F. and John D. Shea (1993), “Loneliness and Life Satisfaction in Japan and Australia,” Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 127 (1), 65-71.

Segrin, Chris (1998), “Interpersonal Problems Associated with Depression and Loneliness,” in Handbook of Communication and Emotion, editors Peter A. Andersen and Laura K. Guerrero, New York: Academic Press, 216-245.

Singelis, Theodore M., Michael H. Bond, William F. Sharkey, and Chris Siu Yiu Lai, “Unpackaging Culture’s Influence on Self-Esteem and Embarrassability,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 (3), 325-331.

Suedfeld, Peter (1989), “Past the Reflection and Looking Through the Looking Glass: Extending Loneliness Research,” in Loneliness: Theory, Research, and Applications, eds. Mohammadreza Hojat and Rick Crandall, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 51-56.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Weiss, Robert S. (1989), “Reflections on the Present State of Loneliness Research,” in Loneliness: Theory, Research, and Applications, editors Mohammadreza Hojat and Rick Crandall, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

West, P.A., R. Kellner, and M. Moore-West (1986), “The Effects of Loneliness: A Review of the Literature,” Comprehensive Psychiatry, 27, 352-363.