Person. mditid. Drfl Vol. IO. No. 4. pp. 467172. 1989 0191-8869 S9 53.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Bntain. All rights reserved Copyright 6 1989 Pcrgamon Press plc

PERSONALITY PREDICTORS OF LONELINESS*

D. H. SAKLOFSKE and R. A. YACKULIC

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada S7N OWO

(Receked 24 June 1988)

Summary-This study explored the relationship of Eysenck’s major personality dimensions with measures
of general, social and emotional loneliness and coping strategies. Correlational and ANOVA results
suggested that general and social loneliness were inversely related to Extraversion, but positively to
Neuroticism along with emotional loneliness. Problem solving was more often employed by high E and
low N Ss. The three EPQ measures explained 45 and 37% of the variation in UCLA Loneliness Scale
scores for males and females respectively. Further improvements are required in the more recently
developed loneliness scales.

INTRODUCTION

Loneliness is a relational deficit reflecting interpersonal and social relationships that the individual
evaluates as qualitatively inadequate or too few in number (e.g. Peplau and Perlman, 1979; Russell,
Peplau and Cutrona, 1980; Schmidt and Sermat, 1983; Weiss, 1973). Current clinical and research
work acknowledges that loneliness is a serious social concern and it has been associated with
physical and mental health problems such as depression, suicide, substance abuse, low self esteem,
boredom, restlessness and unhappiness. However, Sadava and Matejcic (1987) state that loneliness
is a “distinctive psychological condition” which is related, but not identical, to depression or need
for affiliation.
Several notable developments have been observed in recent research investigations of loneliness.
The multifaceted nature of loneliness is now recognized in the definition and descriptions of this
concept. Weiss (1969) formulated the ‘specificity of function’ hypothesis which suggests that certain
functions and needs are met by particular relationships which cannot be fulfilled by other kinds
of relationships. There is some indication that the primary relationships may be more critical in
the prevention of loneliness than secondary group or community ties (Wood, 1976). Sadler and
Johnson (1980) argue that the impact of loneliness and the difficulty of overcoming it is greater
as relational deficits occur in an increasing number of areas. Studies of the affective, cognitive and
behavioral components of loneliness have resulted in measures that extend beyond earlier ones,
such as the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980), and instead focus on the various
areas and sources of relationships that may result in the perception and experience of loneliness.
Sadava and Matejcic (1987) have described general and specific loneliness in marriage while
Schmidt and Sermat (1983) identified four types of relationships (i.e. romantic-sexual, friendships,
family, larger group and community) in which loneliness can occur. Following from the work of
Weiss (1973) on social and emotional loneliness, DiTommaso and Spinner (1986) have developed
a scale which measures social, family and romantic loneliness.
Another contemporary development is the examination of strategies for coping with loneliness
(e.g. Revenson, 1981). There have been some promising efforts directed at developing coping scales
(e.g. Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis and Gruen, 1986; Lazarus, 1981) which have
given direction to the examination of strategies employed to cope with or manage loneliness. As
an example, Grant (1986) has described three types of coping strategies including problem focused
coping, wishful thinking and denial.
Individual differences, including gender and personality, have been considered as relevant factors
in the study of loneliness. Although sex differences have not been consistently found in studies of

*An earlier version of part of this article was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association
in Montreal, Canada, June 1988.

467
468 D. H. SAKLOFSKE and R. A. YACKLLIC

loneliness, Borys and Perlman (1985) contend that one explanation for gender differences may be
some underlying third factor. Saklofske (1986) and Saklofske, Yackulic and Kelly (1986) suggested
that Eysencks’s (Eysenck, 1970; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985) personality dimensions of Extra-
version (E), Neuroticism (N) and Psychoticism (P) are important factors in a description of
loneliness just as Costa and McCrae (1980, 1984) argued that E and N influence our sense of well
being. Saklofske et al. reported that males and females may not differ in self reported loneliness
but that E and N are differentially related to loneliness for each sex.
Schmidt and Sermat (1983) state that the complexity of loneliness requires a recognition that
individuals have different qualitative and quantitative needs for relationships in various social and
interpersonal spheres. Furthermore, individuals will employ varying methods for coping with these
relational deficits and their feelings of loneliness.
The present study further explored the relationship between loneliness and Eysenck’s personality
dimensions. This investigation extended the earlier work reported by Saklofske et al. (1986) by
including measures of general, social and emotional loneliness as well as coping strategies. Another
purpose was to investigate the psychometric characteristics of two more recently constructed
loneliness scales.

METHOD

Ss were 258 university undergraduate students including 93 males and 165 females selected on
the basis of obtaining EPQ Lie scores of 10 or less. This selection criterion was employed to
minimize the possible effects of dissimulation on questionnaire responses, and the resulting small
correlations between N and L support this decision. All Ss completed the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975), the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (UCLA;
Russell et al., 1980), the Social and Emotional Loneliness scale for Adults (SEL: DiTommaso and
Spinner, 1986), and the Coping With Loneliness scale (CWL; Grant, 1986).
The EPQ measures the three major personality dimensions of E, N, and P. A Lie scale is included
to detect faking and possibly ‘social naivete’. The UCLA measure has 20 items that are responded
to on a 4-point scale. The item content focuses on the quality of interpersonal relationships and
the intensity of perceived loneliness. The SEL contains 3 scales with a total of 27 items. A yes-no
format was used by Ss in this study to respond to the romantic (SELR), family (SELF) and social
(SELS) loneliness items. Each of the 25 items of the CWL scale was also answered as yes or no.
The CWL instrument measures problem focused coping (CWLP), wishful thinking (CWLW) and
denial (CWLD).

RESULTS

Since measurement issues have been a key concern of loneliness research (Borys and Perlman,
1985; Schmidt and Sermat, 1983), the psychometric characteristics of all questionnaires were
assessed for males and females separately. As shown in Table 1, the EPQ and UCLA measures
proved reasonably satisfactory. The three SEL subscales of social, family, and romantic loneliness
had acceptable internal consistency indices but the score distributions of the first two scales were

Table I. Means SDS and 2 reliabilities

Males (N = 93) Female (N = 165)
Cronbach’s
Scales a R SD R SD
E 0.83 14.15 4.84 14.98 4.01
N 0.85 10.63 4.91 13.52 4.91
P 0.62 4.88 2.85 2.81 2.16
t 0.74 5.28 2.83 5.16 2.56
UCLA 0.89 37.91 9.75 36.00 8.60
SELR 0.92 4.13 4.23 4.95 4.25
SELF 0.77 0.68 1.35 0.52 1.33
SELS 0.83 I.91 2.56 I.10 2.07
CWLP 0.72 8.55 3.17 8.89 3.00
CWLD 0.63 3.05 1.54 2.81 1.57
CWLW 0.46 3.61 1.40 3.75 I.45
 Personality predictors of loneliness 469

Table 2. Correlations between personality and loneliness measures

E P N L UCLA SR SF SS CP CW CD
M&S
EXTRA
PSYCH -28 07 14 20 13 -I? -05 II
NEUR
LIE
UCLA -50 09 49 -21 27 07
SELR
SELF -05 03 21
SELS -33 I6 31
CWLP 33 -08 -19 03 -35 01
CWLW -I2 18 45
CWLD 09 05 -IS -08 -08 03
Females

highly skewed. An examination of the DiTommaso and Spinner (1986) data indicate lower mean
scores and standard deviations for these same two scales. This could suggest that family and social
loneliness, compared to romantic loneliness, are less of a problem for university students thereby
accounting for the skewed data distributions found in both investigations. The problem solving
and denial subscales of the CWL demonstrated acceptable reliabilities while the a coefficient for
the wishful thinking scale was not adequate. The reliabilities of these latter two scales were 0.61
and 0.69 respectively in Grant’s (1986) study of recently widowed women.
Of particular interest was the relationship between the personality measures and loneliness
displayed in Table 2. E was negatively correlated with the UCLA and social loneliness scales and
positively related to problem solving for males and females. N was positively correlated with the
UCLA, social and emotional loneliness scales for both sexes. Wishful thinking also showed a
moderate correlation with N, although the low a coefficient for the former scale requires that this
finding be viewed with caution. Small or negligible correlations were noted between P and the set
of loneliness measures.
The correlations between loneliness and E and N for males were considerably higher in this study
compared with the Saklofske et al. (1986) findings. Alternatively, a slight decrease was observed
in these same correlations for females over the two investigations although they remained
moderately strong.
A multiple regression analysis was next performed to explore the theoretical relationships
between the personality variables and general loneliness. As shown in Table 3, the three EPQ
measures, entered simultaneously, explained 45 and 37% of the variation in self-reported loneliness
(UCLA) for males and females respectively. Once again, these results departed somewhat from our
earlier findings where 17 and 51% of the variance in self-reported loneliness was explained by the
E, N, P and L factors for males and females respectively. The addition of L in the regression
equation in that study had little, if any, effect on the R values since the correlation between L and
loneliness was essentially zero.
Finally, those loneliness measures with acceptable reliability indices and score distributions
(SELF and CWLW were omitted) were examined in an E x N x Sex ANOVA and the results are
given in Tables 4 and 5. Since there are presently no EPQ norms for Canadian adults, high, low,
and intermediate E and N Ss were determined by selecting the top and bottom 27% and the middle
46% of scores for the total sample. Thus, low E Ss earned EPQ scores of 11 or less (2 = 8.34,
SD = 2.60), intermediate E Ss had scores of 12-18 (2 = 15.28, SD = 2.02) and high E Ss had scores
of 19 or greater 2 = 19.55, SD = 0.70). N scores of 8 or less, 9-16 and 17 or greater defined the
low (2 = 5.43, SD = 1.81), intermediate (2 = 12.43, SD = 2.30) and high (2 = 19.39, SD = 1.90)
N groups respectively.

Table 3. Loneliness (UCLA) predicted by the EPQ

scales: ,9 weights
E N P R*
Males -0.451 0.439 0.181 0.45
Females -0.396 0.324 0.127 0.37
470 D. H. SAKLOFSKEand R. A. YACKL’LIC

Table 4. Loneliness means and SDS for low, intermediate and high E and N scores, males and females
Variable EL E, EH N, N, NH M F
UCLA R 43.68 35.82 31.83 31.60 35.93 43.51 3791 36 l-m
SD 10.44 7.42 6.87 5.70 8.18 9.76 9.74 8.60
SELR K 5.41 4.79 4.53 3.07 4.94 6.49 4.73 4.95
SD 4.63 4.16 4.00 3.54 4.28 4.10 4.23 4.25
SELS R 3.05 0.99 0.68 0.60 I .23 2.61 I.91 1.10
SD 3.21 1.74 I.51 I.1 I 2.07 3.12 2.56 2.07
CWLP R 7.44 8.97 9.60 9.22 9.06 7.63 8.55 a.89
SD 3.30 2.86 2.84 2.75 2.90 3.42 3.17 3.Oll
CWLD X 2.78 2.95 2.89 3.14 2.89 2.66 3.05 2.81
SD I.55 1.61 I .49 I .56 I .58 I .52 1.54 1.57

UCLA and social loneliness scores increased with decreases in E and increases in N. Males
reported small but significantly higher loneliness scores on these two measures. Romantic loneliness
tended to increase with increases in N. Extraverts, compared with introverts, and low N scorers
more often employed problem-focused coping strategies. No other main effects or any of the
interactions reached statistical significance.

DISCUSSION

The present results add further support to the importance of the E and N personality dimensions
in the study of loneliness. It would seem that sociable, easy-going, people-oriented extraverts, with
their greater need for stimulation due to a lower level of cortical arousal, manifest the very
behaviors that increase the kind and extent of social and interpersonal contact which, in turn,
reduces the likelihood of experiencing loneliness. Saklofske et al. (1986) suggested that extraverts
are active and outgoing in seeking out others which then ‘pulls’ for similar behavior from others.
For the extravert, loneliness may occur when limitations are placed on the opportunity to interact
with others on a regular basis. Extraversion was negatively correlated with social loneliness which
results from the lack of an engaging social network, and which can be remedied by access to a
satisfying one.
Although these results might suggest that high E persons are more likely to experience loneliness
when there is a deficit in the size of their social network, Sadava and Matejcic (1987) have observed
that loneliness can exist among those who are not social isolates. Thus, while extraverts reported
less social loneliness than introverts, there was no difference between them on the romantic
loneliness scale. In contrast, the more withdrawn, reserved, ‘bookish’ behavior of introverts may
limit their opportunities to form small, but intimate interpersonal relationships with others, thereby
leading to dissatisfaction with the quality of their networks. Studies of psychological well being
(see Wortman and Loftus, 1988) indicated that extraversion seems to increase morale, happiness
and pleasure by the very outgoing behaviors it encourages. This would be enhanced further if

Table 5. Summarv of ANOVA

Variable Factor* d.f. F P
UCLA E 2,240 19.50 0.001
N 2.240 26.42 0.001
Se.X 1.240 8.82 0.003
SELR E 2.240 0.00 NS
N 2,240 9.40 0.001
Sex 1,240 0.34 NS
SELS E 2,240 14.06 0.001
N 2.240 10.88 0.00 I
Sex 1,240 Il.69 0.001
CWLP E 2.240 5.02 0.007
N 2.240 3.37 0.04
Sex 1.240 0.29 NS
CWLD E 2,240 0.19 NS
N 2.240 0.8 I NS
Sex 1,240 0.93 NS
‘No significant interactions were obtained for any of the
analyses.
 Personaiity predictors of loneliness 171

extraverts also attempt to cope with their loneliness through ‘problem solving’ rather than other
less effective or more defensive techniques.
The relationship between N and loneliness was again confirmed here. Neuroticism was positively
correlated with the UCLA and SEL scales, and slightly more so for males. Of interest is that high
compared with low N scorers less often employed problem solving as a coping technique. Saklofske
et al. (1986) have previously suggested that the overly emotional, moody, anxious and worrying
high N scorer may be more susceptible and sensitive to relational deficits or may have a limited
capacity to enjoy satisfying relationships. While it is possible that high N individuals may reject
or even repel others who could provide satisfying interpersonal relationships, it may also be that
the amount of interaction they experience is adequate but less meaningful. High N persons, with
their hypothesized lower threshold for visceral arousal, seem to have both personal and inter-
personal difficulties which increase the probability of loneliness and further increases psychological
impairment (Saklofske et al., 1986). Costa and McCrae (1980) contend that the various traits that
comprise the N dimension are the ones that contribute to human discontent.
Martin (1985) states that N influences an individual’s responsiveness to emotional stimuli.
Thus, it is possible that high N persons have a “tendency toward a form of cognitive activity
which renders them unusually susceptible to the debilitating effects of adverse life events”.
A characteristic of high N individuals is a preoccupation with things that might go wrong together
with a strong emotional reaction of anxiety. Their heightened attention to, and cognitive processing
of self-related information could lead to an evaluation of being a failure or undesirable in
interpersonal situations; this could further exacerbate the perceived loneliness and accompanying
anxiety.
Although the interactions between E and N on loneliness did not reach significance, it is
interesting to note that the stable extraverts obtained a UCLA mean score of 29.56 vs a mean of
48.67 for high N, low E Ss. Costa and McCrae (1980) have commented that high E and low N
individuals have the greatest potential for happiness compared to the opposite personality
combination which has greater potential for ‘misery’. The view that close, personal relationships
and friendships are critical factors in the prevention of lonelines may suggest why the unstable
introvert is more likely to experience loneliness and at more intense levels.
As reported in our earlier paper, P contributed only minimally to the prediction of UCLA
loneliness scores. Only very small correlations were observed between P and the various loneliness
scales used in this study. These findings fit with the description of the high P person as isolated,
solitary, and uncaring to the point of being hostile and aggressive toward others. This indifference
to interpersonal contact suggests that high P persons are not especially prone to experiencing
loneliness.
Lastly, males reported small but significantly higher levels of loneliness on the UCLA and SELS
scales. While these results are not dramatic in comparison with the personality-loneliness
differences, some support is offered for Borys and Perlman’s (1985) contention that males tend to
score higher on scales which reflect the quality of relationships (i.e. UCLA scale) whereas females
have a greater tendency to label themselves as lonely. Saklofske et al. (1986) suggested that the
perception of loneliness and labeling oneself as lonely may be due as much to personality as to
sex role differences. Borys and Perlman (1985) describe several possible reasons for sex differences
in loneliness. Males have been found to report more somatic complaints in response to stress while
females more often describe mood and affective difficulties. As well, women may place greater
importance on interpersonal relationships. In contrast, men are stereotyped as less emotionally
expressive and interpersonally sensitive, and may elicit negative responses for expressing loneliness.
Consequently, it is recommended that attention should be directed toward exploring possible
gender differences in the ‘expression’ of loneliness. The interaction between differences in
emotionality, reflected by the N personality dimension, extraversion, socially prescribed sex roles
and socialization processes could result in differences both in the expression and felt intensity of
loneliness.
In summary, further research is required to confirm the role that personality factors such as E
and N play in a description of loneliness, including the methods employed to buffer or eliminate
the experience of loneliness. Continued effort is necessary to refine and improve the questionnaires
and other methods for assessing various types of loneliness and coping strategies.
472 D. H. SAKLOFSKE and R. A. YACKULIC

REFERENCES

Borys S. and Perlman D. (1985) Gender differences in loneliness. Person. sot. Psychol. Bull. 11, 63-74.
Costa P. T. and McCrae R. R. (1980) Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well being. J. Person. SOC.
Psychol. 38, 668-678.
Costa P. T. and McCrae R. R. (1984) Personality as a lifelong determinant of well being. In Emorion in Adult Dewlopmenr
(Edited by Malatesta C. Z. and Izard C. E.). Sage, Beverly Hills.
DiTommaso E. and Spinner B. (1986) The development and validation of a measure of social and emotional loneliness.
Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Forty-Sevenrh Annual Convention.
Eysenck H. J. (1970) The Sfrucfure of Human Personality. Methuen, London.
Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck M. W. (1985) Personality and Individual D@rences: A Natural Science Approach. Plenum Press,
New York.
Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual of rhe Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Folkman S., Lr Jrus R., Dunkel-Schetter C., DeLongis A. and Gruen R. J. (1986) Dynamics of a stressful encounter:
cognitive appraisals, coping and encounter outcomes. J. Person. sot. Psychol. SO, 992-1003.
Grant P. R. (1986) Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of three coping with loneliness scales. Paper presented
at the Canadian Psychological Association Forty-Seventh Annual Convention.
Lazarus R. (1981) The stress and coping paradigm. In Models for Clinical Psychopathology (Edited by Eisdorfer C., Cohen
D., Kleinman A. and Maxim P.). Spectrum, New York.
Martin M. (1985) Neuroticism as predisposition toward depression: a cognitive mechanism. Person. individ. 013 6.353-366.
Peplau L. A. and Perlman D. (1979) Blueprint for a social psychological theory of loneliness. In Loue and Attraction (Edited
by Cook M. and Wilson S.). Pergamon Press, New York.
Revenson T. (1981) Coping with loneliness: the impact of causal attributions. Person SOC. Psychol. Bull. 7, 565-571.
Russsell D., Peplau L. A. and Cutrona C. F. (1980) The Revised UCLA loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant
validity evidence. 1. Person. sot. Psychol. 39, 472480.
Sadava S. W. and Matejcic C. (1987) Generalized and specific loneliness. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 19, 5&66.
Sadler W. A. and Johnson T. B. (1980) From loneliness to anomie. In The Anafomy of Loneliness (Edited by Hartog J.,
Audy J. R. and Cohen Y. A.). International Universities Press, New York.
Saklofske D. H. (1986) Relationships between loneliness, gender, and personality. Paper presented at the Canadian
Psychological Association Forty-Seventh Annual Convention.
Saklofske D. H., Yackulic R. A. and Kelly I. W. (1986) Personality and loneliness. Person indiv. Diff. 7, 899-901.
Schmidt N. and Sermat V. (1983) Measuring loneliness in different relationships. J. Person. sot. Psycho/. 4.4, 1038-1047.
Weiss R. S. (1969) The fund of sociability. Trans-Acrion 36-43.
Weiss R. S. (1973) Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolarion. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Wood L. (1976) Social structure and loneliness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, York University, Canada.
Wortman C. B. and Loftus E. F. (1988) Psychology, 3rd edn. Knopf, New York.