Personality traits,loneliness,and attitudes toward aloneness in adolescence

Abstract

Within a dual-level model of personality, loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness can be regarded as phase-specific adaptations that are influenced by personality traits. Therefore, we examined the associations between personality traits (i.e., the Big Five, sociotropy, and autonomy), loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness in two samples of late adolescents (N = 1388 and N = 419). A specific pattern of associations was found that replicated across samples. Lower scores on agreeableness and stronger concerns about independence (i.e., greater autonomy) were positive predictors of both peer-related and parent-related loneliness. Extraversion was a predictor of lower affinity for and greater aversion to aloneness. The other personality traits were predictors of a particular type of loneliness or a specific attitude toward aloneness.

Keywords

Adolescence attitudes toward aloneness autonomy Big Five loneliness sociotropy

Adolescents are confronted with important developmental tasks as their social relationships change and they increasingly spent time on their own (Goossens, 2006). Success or failure in dealing with these developmental tasks can be assessed by measuring relational satisfaction or lack thereof (i.e., feelings of loneliness) in adolescents’ key relationships and their characteristic attitude toward aloneness, which can be a positive or a negative one. Adolescents’ loneliness and their attitude toward aloneness are thought to reflect phase-specific concerns or adaptations. These adaptations, in turn, are thought to be linked to personality traits (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1996, 1999). In the present study, personality traits were based on two theoretical frameworks (i.e., the Big Five and the cognitive-personality styles of sociotropy and autonomy). The associations between these traits and the characteristic adaptations (i.e., relationship-specific types of loneliness and attitudes toward aloneness) were examined in two different samples of adolescents to test the replicability of these associations.

Changes in relationships and defining one’s toward aloneness: The developmental challenges of adolescence

Adolescence is a period characterized by a redefinition of the social network. Adolescents have to move away from their emotional dependence on parents toward more autonomous adult-like functioning. At the same time, they have to achieve greater intimacy in their relationships with peers. Failure in dealing with these tasks may lead to feelings of loneliness. Loneliness, which is defined as the negative emotional outcome of a perceived discrepancy between desired and achieved levels of social contact (Peplau & Perlman, 1982), can take on a different form in the relationships with parents and peers, respectively. Although relationships with peers attain special prominence in the social life of adolescents, relationships with parents continue to be important as well. Relationships with peers and parents each provide unique forms of support and socialization and contribute uniquely to adolescent adjustment (e.g., Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Peer-related and family-related loneliness are also associated with different forms of psychopathology (Lasgaard, Goossens, Bramsen, Trillingsgaard, & Elklit, 2011). Research on the antecedents of adolescent loneliness, therefore, should differentiate between parent-related and peer-related loneliness.

In addition, adolescence is thought to be the stage of life when time spent alone begins to have conscious and deliberate functions (Larson, 1990). Children rarely strive to be alone and often find it hard to make constructive use of time spent alone. In adolescence, however, time spent alone is used to deal with the important developmental tasks of individuation and identity formation (i.e., to take greater psychological distance from one’s parents and to contemplate plans for the future in an attempt to form a sense of identity; Goossens, 2006; Larson, 1990). As a result, successful negotiation of these important developmental tasks in adolescence is reflected in the fact that adolescents come to appreciate the benefits of being alone or feel less negative about being alone.

Several researchers have developed measures of adolescents’ success or failure in dealing with the developmental challenges of adolescence or aspects thereof. Some authors created measures of relationship-specific types of loneliness (e.g., DiTommaso & Spinner, 1993). Others developed measures of people’s preference for being alone (e.g., Burger, 1995; Nestler, Back, & Egloff, 2011) or their inability to be alone (e.g., Schwab, 1997). A comprehensive assessment was also devised, which includes subscales that measure parent-related loneliness, peer-related loneliness, affinity for aloneness, and aversion to aloneness (Marcoen, Goossens, & Caes, 1987). Using this comprehensive measure, a low correlation was found between the two attitudes toward aloneness, which indicates that affinity for and aversion to aloneness are distinct constructs (Marcoen & Goossens, 1993). Within contemporary models of personality, these four constructs are expected to be linked with personality traits.

A dual-level model of personality

In several contemporary theories of personality (McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1996, 1999), two levels of individual differences in behavioral consistency are distinguished. At the first level, referred to as dispositional traits or core characteristics of personality (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003), one can find relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish one person from another and that persists over time and situations, such as introversion or interpersonal dominance. At the second level, referred to as characteristic adaptations or surface characteristics of personality (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003), one can find less stable and more situation-specific and changeable ways in which people adapt to their roles and environments, such as self-concept or the affective evaluation of one’s social relationships (i.e., loneliness). These patterns of behavior “reflect the enduring psychological core of the individual” (which is why they are called characteristic) and “help the individual fit into the ever-changing social environment” (which is why they are called adaptations; McCrae & Costa, 1999, p. 144). Therefore, because feelings of social disconnection can change in accord with shifting developmental demands and maturation, loneliness can be defined as a characteristic adaptation. Furthermore, attitudes toward aloneness are also important characteristic adaptations because adolescents typically have goals related to intimacy, relationships, and individuation.

Within this dual-level model, dispositional traits are assumed to be related to the characteristic adaptations in such a way that the latter result from a dynamic interaction between dispositional traits and external influences (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; McCrae & Costa, 1996). Such a dual-level model, with personality traits at one level and loneliness at another level, is compatible with characterological theories of loneliness that assume that certain personal characteristics, such as greater shyness (Cheek & Busch, 1981), make individuals prone to feeling lonely. Conversely, situational theories assume that everyone, regardless of their personality, will feel lonely in certain situations (e.g., living in isolation, death of a partner or best friend, or leaving home to go to college; Weiss, 1973).

Adherents of characterological theories of loneliness assume that certain personality traits directly affect the formation and maintenance of social relationships by (a) reducing one’s social attractiveness or desirability, (b) influencing one’s own interactional behavior, and (c) affecting one’s reactions to actual changes in social relations and one’s effectiveness in avoiding and alleviating loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Yet, other adherents posit that certain personality traits act as cognitive vulnerability factors for increased loneliness due to their inherent association with pessimistic cognitive biases, such as unrealistic relationship standards, dysfunctional attribution styles, or maladaptive coping styles (Levin & Stokes, 1986). The latter view is more consistent with the cognitive perspective on loneliness (Dykstra & Fokkema, 2007). This perspective, as reflected in the definition of loneliness referred to earlier on, assumes that loneliness results from feelings of dissatisfaction with the existing relationships rather than actual deficits in one’s social network. The associations between personality traits and loneliness and, by extension, between personality traits and attitudes toward aloneness will depend on the theoretical view of personality at the dispositional level.

Personality traits: Big Five and two cognitive-personality styles

In the present study, two types of personality dispositions or traits were used: the Big Five and two cognitive-personality styles. The Big Five framework (McCrae & Costa, 1987) has emerged as a robust model of personality structure, to which many other conceptualizations of personality traits can be related. The Big Five personality traits are extraversion (a tendency to experience positive moods, being active, and having a preference for social interaction), emotional stability (opposed to neuroticism; a capacity to deal effectively with negative emotions), agreeableness (a tendency to engage in behaviors that facilitate the gaining and maintaining of positive and reciprocal relations with others), conscientiousness (systematic, organized, and responsible behavioral tendencies), and openness to experience (curiosity, intellect, and creativity). The Big Five offers a comprehensive system for organizing basic tendencies that evoke consequential differences in social life, such as the quality of social relationships (e.g., Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998).

The two cognitive-personality styles of sociotropy and autonomy (Beck, Epstein, Harrison, & Emery, 1983) can also be viewed as dispositional traits that apply to one’s interpersonal behavior and one’s expectations, goals, and interpretations related to social relationships. Sociotropy (i.e., dependency in the model of Blatt, 1974) refers to an overly high need for close interpersonal relationships. Sociotropic individuals are strongly concerned about the approval and acceptance of others, such that they fear rejection and are extremely dependent on others. The interpersonal style of sociotropic individuals is characterized by nonassertive, overly accommodating, and self-sacrificing behavior (Blatt, 2004). In contrast to sociotropy, autonomy (i.e., self-criticism in the model of Blatt, 1974) refers to excessive concerns about independence and autonomous achievement. Autonomous individuals hold high standards for themselves, dislike relying on others for help, and need high levels of freedom in their lives (e.g., Beck et al., 1983). The interpersonal style of autonomous individuals is characterized by hostile-submissive, vindictive, cold, and socially inhibited behavior (Blatt, 2004).

Empirical evidence of the links between personality, loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness

Earlier research has suggested specific patterns of associations between the personality traits in the two models selected, on the one hand, and adolescents’ loneliness in their relationships with parents and peers and their attitude toward aloneness, on the other hand. These findings, therefore, suggest that the link between dispositional traits and characteristic adaptations takes on a different form for the two developmental challenges of adolescence mentioned before, that is, redefining one’s social network and one’s attitude toward aloneness (Goossens, 2006).

Big Five personality traits and loneliness

A number of studies have shown that the Big Five traits extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness show significant negative associations with loneliness (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2006; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). However, no distinction between relationship-specific types of loneliness was made in these studies. Research on the association between the Big Five personality traits and both peer-related and parent-related loneliness is scarce. A recent study by Vanhalst et al. (2012) considered peer-related loneliness and found negative correlations with extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness to experience. However, empirical research clearly showed that personality traits affect the quality of the existing social relationships in both family and peer relationships. As feelings of loneliness are strongly influenced by qualitative characteristics (e.g., perceived social acceptance and support) of social relationships (De Jong Gierveld, 1998), findings on the association between relationship-specific quality and Big Five traits allow us to formulate some specific hypotheses about the link between Big Five traits and the two relationship-specific forms of loneliness.

With respect to peer relations, extraversion was positively associated with peer acceptance (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), number of reciprocated friends (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002), and perceived support from peers (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). Agreeable adolescents evoked less interpersonal conflict (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998), used more effective conflict-resolution tactics (Jensen-Campbell, Gleason, Adams, & Malcolm, 2003), and were less likely to become victimized by their peers (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). Adolescents with low levels of emotional stability were moody, anxious, and easily frustrated, which frequently led to greater social difficulties, such as being victimized (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Finally, higher levels of conscientiousness were associated with higher levels of peer acceptance, more reciprocated friendships, and less victimization (Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2007). Based on these findings, one may expect that adolescents with lower levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability are more likely to report feelings of peer-related loneliness. We did not anticipate that conscientiousness would be a negative predictor of peer-related loneliness even though conscientious adolescents report higher-quality friendships (Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2007). A recent study on peer-related loneliness found no significant correlation with conscientiousness (Vanhalst et al., 2012).

With respect to adolescent–parent relations, adolescents’ conscientiousness predicted support from father (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003) and perceptions of higher parental warmth and understanding (Zhong-Hui, Hui-Lan, & Jian-Xin, 2006). Adolescents’ agreeableness also predicted perceptions of higher parental warmth in the parent–adolescent relationship (e.g., Zhong-Hui et al., 2006). Based on these findings, adolescents with lower levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness may be expected to report greater feelings of parent-related loneliness.

Cognitive-personality styles and loneliness

Regarding the cognitive-personality styles of sociotropy and autonomy, previous studies have found that autonomy was positively associated with loneliness (e.g., Besser, Flett, & Davis, 2003). With respect to sociotropy, Blatt (1974) suggested that loneliness is linked with this dependent orientation because loneliness reflects a desire to have closer contact with others. Nevertheless, some studies found a positive association between dependency and loneliness (e.g., Overholser, 1996), whereas other studies found no significant association (e.g., Besser et al., 2003). Again, these studies used loneliness measures that did not make a distinction between loneliness in relationships with peers and parents. To the best of our knowledge, research on the associations between the two cognitive-personality styles and the two relationship-specific types of loneliness is lacking. However, Mongrain (1998) found that autonomy was associated with pervasive, negative expectations about interactions with parents, whereas sociotropy was related to negative parental expectations in hostile interactions only. Furthermore, autonomous individuals were less likely to request peer support than sociotropic individuals. Therefore, one may expect that autonomy is more strongly associated with both parent-related and peer-related loneliness than sociotropy is.

Big Five traits and attitudes toward aloneness

The association between one’s personality and one’s attitude toward aloneness has received scant attention. With respect to the positive attitude, some studies found negative associations with extraversion and emotional stability (e.g., Burger, 1995; Nestler et al., 2011). The anxiety of emotionally unstable individuals about negative evaluations from others may explain the negative correlation between the positive attitude and emotional stability (Burger, 1995). A recent study on preference for solitude (Nestler et al., 2011) also found a positive correlation with conscientiousness and openness to experience and a negative correlation with agreeableness. With respect to the negative attitude, positive associations were found with depression and anxiety (Schwab, 1997), which reflect low emotional stability (McCrae & Costa, 1987). The general tendency of emotionally unstable individuals to experience negative emotions may explain these associations. Taken together, one may expect extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability to be negatively associated with affinity for aloneness and conscientiousness and openness to experience to be positively associated with that same affinity. Furthermore, emotional stability is also expected to be negatively associated with aversion to aloneness.

Cognitive-personality styles and attitudes toward aloneness

Research on the link between the two cognitive-personality styles and attitudes toward aloneness is nonexistent. However, highly autonomous individuals are individualistic and can feel constrained by external demands and the interference of others. These latter feelings may lead to social avoidance and a preference for solitary activities. By contrast, highly sociotropic individuals are overly dependent on others (Clark & Beck, 1991). Therefore, one may expect that autonomy is positively associated with affinity for aloneness, whereas sociotropy is positively associated with aversion to aloneness.

The present study

In the current study, we tested the following set of hypotheses on the links between personality traits, feelings of loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness.

With regard to loneliness, we hypothesized that higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability would be related to lower levels of peer-related loneliness. We expected that higher levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness would be related to lower levels of parent-related loneliness. Finally, we hypothesized that autonomy would be more strongly associated with both parent-related and peer-related loneliness than sociotropy would be.

With regard to the attitudes toward aloneness, we hypothesized that higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability would be related to lower levels of affinity for aloneness, whereas higher levels of conscientiousness and openness would be related to higher levels of affinity for aloneness. We also expected that higher levels of emotional stability would be related to lower levels of aversion to aloneness. Finally, we hypothesized that autonomy would be positively related to affinity for aloneness, whereas sociotropy would be positively related to aversion to aloneness.

In the present study, we tested all the hypotheses simultaneously using structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to investigate the unique effects of the personality traits on the two relationship-specific types of loneliness and the two attitudes toward aloneness. We also examined possible gender and age effects. If such effects were found, we controlled these variables in the SEM analyses. It is reasonable to expect such effects, as previous research has found gender and age effects on loneliness (e.g., Vanhalst et al., 2012).

Method

Participants and procedure

Sample 1 consisted of 1388 students (64% girls) from two high schools in Belgium. Participants were aged between 14 and 18 years (M = 15.72 years, SD = 1.19) and virtually all participants were Caucasian. Prior to initiating the study, we obtained permission from the school principals to administer questionnaires during class time. Informed consent from the adolescents and their parents was obtained. Questionnaires were completed at the participants’ own high school, during regular class periods. Verbal and written instructions were offered and participants were guaranteed that all the information they provided would be treated in a confidential manner.

Sample 2 consisted of 419 Caucasian freshman students (85% girls) from a large university in Belgium. Mean age was 18.26 years (SD = 0.91), and participants’ age ranged from 17 to 23 years. Participants signed an informed consent form and they received course credit for attending the 1-hour group testing sessions.

Measures

Loneliness

The two relationship-specific types of loneliness and the two attitudes toward aloneness were assessed with the subscales of the loneliness and aloneness scale for children and adolescents (LACA; Marcoen et al., 1987). The LACA is a multidimensional measure consisting of four subscales: parent-related loneliness, peer-related loneliness, affinity for aloneness, and aversion to aloneness. Exploratory factor analysis found support for the hypothesized internal structure of this questionnaire (Marcoen et al., 1987). Additionally, construct validity of the four scales was established (Goossens et al., 2009). Each scale contains 12 items that are responded using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). Sample items are “I feel left out by my parents” (parent-related loneliness), “I feel sad because I have no friends” (peer-related loneliness), “Being alone makes me take up my courage again” (affinity for aloneness), and “When I am alone, I feel bad” (aversion to aloneness). Cronbach’s α values were .90, .87, .82, and .80 in Sample 1 and .93, .89, .84, and .83 in Sample 2, respectively.

Personality

Big Five personality traits were measured using the shortened Dutch version of Goldberg’s (1992) Big Five questionnaire. This questionnaire is reliable and has good construct validity, such as convergent and divergent validity (e.g., Vermulst & Gerris, 2005). Participants rated themselves on the 30 adjectives using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely untrue) to 7 (completely true). Each personality trait was assessed with six items. Sample items read “withdrawn” (extraversion; reverse scored), “careful” (conscientiousness), “sympathetic” (agreeableness), “nervous” (emotional stability; reverse scored), and “creative” (openness to experience). Cronbach’s α values were .87, .88, .80, .82, and .68 in Sample 1 and .92, .93, .82, .84, and .73 in Sample 2, respectively.

Sociotropy and autonomy were assessed by means of a Dutch version of the personal style inventory (PSI-II; Robins et al., 1994). Participants answered 24 sociotropy items and 24 autonomy items on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Sample items are “I try to please other individuals too much” (sociotropy) and “I tend to keep other people at a distance” (autonomy). The PSI has been shown to have adequate factor structure, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability (Robins et al., 1994). Cronbach’s α values for sociotropy and autonomy were .84 and .83 in Sample 1 and .89 and .84 in Sample 2, respectively.

Results

Preliminary mean-level and correlational analyses

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant multivariate effect of gender in both the samples (Wilks’ λ = .80; F(11, 1378) = 32.39, p < .001; η ² _p = .21 in Sample 1 and Wilks’ λ = .83; F(11, 398) = 7.289, p < .001; η ² _p = .17 in Sample 2, respectively). Results of follow-up univariate analyses of variance are presented in Table 1. Findings that were replicated in both the samples are represented in bold. When only those findings are considered, analyses indicated that girls had a more negative attitude toward aloneness, were more conscientious, and showed higher levels of sociotropy than boys. Boys were more emotionally stable and open to experience than girls. It should be noted that the effect sizes of these differences were small.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and mean gender differences.

	Sample 1					Sample 2
	Full sample	Boys	Girls			Full sample	Boys	Girls
Scale	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F ^a	η ² _p	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F ^b	η ² _p
LACA
Parent-related loneliness	1.74 (0.54)	1.74 (0.51)	1.74 (0.56)	0.10	0.01	1.59 (0.56)	1.74 (0.60)	1.57 (0.55)	5.07*	0.01
Peer-related loneliness	1.58 (0.48)	1.52 (0.46)	1.61 (0.49)	10.12**	0.01	1.82 (0.56)	1.77 (0.46)	1.83 (0.57)	0.51	0.01
Affinity for aloneness	2.43 (0.47)	2.40 (0.47)	2.45 (0.48)	3.85*	0.01	2.74 (0.44)	2.84 (0.51)	2.73 (0.42)	3.35	0.01
Aversion to aloneness	2.47 (0.45)	2.34 (0.45)	2.55 (0.43)	72.61***	0.05	2.62 (0.46)	2.44 (0.56)	2.65 (0.43)	11.62**	0.03
Big Five
Emotional stability	3.89 (1.07)	4.32 (1.02)	3.65 (1.03)	142.46***	0.09	3.65 (1.10)	4.12 (1.14)	3.57 (1.08)	13.70***	0.03
Extraversion	4.82 (1.14)	4.86 (1.12)	4.80 (1.16)	0.61	0.01	4.61 (1.27)	4.45 (1.35)	4.64 (1.25)	1.27	0.01
Openness to experience	4.63 (0.89)	4.75 (0.91)	4.56 (0.88)	12.98***	0.01	4.66 (0.90)	4.90 (0.99)	4.62 (0.88)	5.05*	0.01
Agreeableness	5.54 (0.66)	5.50 (0.67)	5.57 (0.66)	4.52*	0.01	5.62 (0.64)	5.48 (0.84)	5.64 (0.59)	3.46	0.01
Conscientiousness	4.00 (1.19)	3.62 (1.16)	4.20 (1.15)	86.83***	0.06	4.22 (1.34)	3.59 (1.43)	4.33 (1.30)	16.79***	0.04
PSI
Sociotropy	3.83 (0.60)	3.64 (0.59)	3.94 (0.58)	89.62***	0.06	4.01 (0.65)	3.59 (0.72)	4.08 (0.61)	31.36***	0.07
Autonomy	3.54 (0.57)	3.54 (0.59)	3.54 (0.56)	0.01	0.01	3.49 (0.57)	3.61 (0.53)	3.47 (0.58)	2.98	0.01

LACA: loneliness and aloneness scale for children and adolescents; PSI: personal style inventory; dfn: degrees of freedom nominator; dfd: degrees of freedom denominator.

Note. Significant replicated findings across samples are represented in bold.

^a dfn = 1 and dfd varies between 409 and 415.

^b dfn = 1 and dfd varies between 1393 and 1414.

* p < .05. ** p< .01. *** p < .001.

Correlations among all study variables are presented in Table 2. Correlations that proved significant in both samples are represented in bold. Correlations among the personality traits, that is, the Big Five, sociotropy, and autonomy, were relatively low. The only exceptions were the relatively large negative correlations between emotional stability, on the one hand, and sociotropy and autonomy, on the other hand. With respect to age, we found positive correlations with parent-related loneliness and autonomy in both samples.

Table 2.

Correlations among study variables.

Variable	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Age (sample 1)	.06*	.08**	.11***	.03	−.08**	−.04	.08**	.02	.03	.01	.06*
2. Age (sample 2)	.12*	−.01	−.02	−.06	−.01	−.04	.05	−.10	−.08	−.08	.17**
LACA
3. Parent-related loneliness	__	.24***	.10*	−.01	−.07	−.18***	.02	−.20***	−.15**	−.02	.23***
4. Peer-related loneliness	.21***	–	.22***	.21***	−.38***	−.51***	−.02	−.27***	.08	.34***	.46***
5. Affinity for aloneness	.12***	.39***	–	−.26***	−.17**	−.34***	.10	−.07	.14**	.08	.32***
6. Aversion to aloneness	.10***	.17***	.07*	–	−.15**	.04	−.02	−.02	−.13*	.38***	.13**
Big Five
7. Emotional stability	−.05	−.36***	−.27***	−.22***	–	.35***	.05	.03	−.25***	−.55***	−.33***
8. Extraversion	−.06*	−.49***	−.35***	−.02	.40***	–	.10*	.34***	−.14**	−.26***	−.39***
9. Openness to experience	−.06*	−.04	.08**	.01	.04	.14***	–	.28***	−.06	.01	.13*
10. Agreeableness	−.19***	−.20***	−.07*	−.01	.02	.22***	.31***	–	.13**	.20**	−.13**
11. Conscientiousness	−.15***	.07**	.08**	−.08**	−.15***	−.14***	.06*	.19***	–	.18***	−.01
PSI
12. Sociotropy	.08**	.34***	.20***	.40***	−.54***	−.23***	.01	.12***	.10***	–	.40***
13. Autonomy	.27***	.37***	.38***	.13***	−.35***	−.27***	.07*	−.13***	.03	.44***	–

LACA: loneliness and aloneness scale for children and adolescents; PSI: personal style inventory.

Note. Correlations for sample 1 appear below the diagonal and those for sample 2 above the diagonal. Significant replicated findings across samples are represented in bold.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; all two-tailed.

The pattern of correlations between personality traits and the two relationship-specific types of loneliness was largely similar in both the samples. In particular, peer-related loneliness was negatively correlated with extraversion, emotional stability, and agreeableness. Parent-related loneliness was negatively correlated with conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. Furthermore, sociotropy was positively correlated with peer-related loneliness, whereas autonomy was positively correlated with both peer-related and parent-related loneliness.

Regarding the correlations between personality traits and the two attitudes toward aloneness, we again found a largely similar pattern of results in both the samples. Emotional stability and extraversion were negatively correlated with affinity for aloneness, whereas conscientiousness was positively correlated with that same affinity. Aversion to aloneness was negatively associated with emotional stability and conscientiousness. Furthermore, sociotropy was positively correlated with aversion to aloneness, whereas autonomy was positively correlated with both aversion to and affinity for aloneness.

SEM analyses

Multigroup SEM was used to examine which personality traits predict adolescents’ parent-related loneliness, peer-related loneliness, affinity for aloneness, and aversion to aloneness. By employing SEM, all hypotheses were tested simultaneously at a latent-variable level in order to assess the relationships with minimized measurement error. The multigroup structural model with the two samples as groups was conducted in Mplus version 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010). This model tested whether the associations between personality traits and the loneliness-related constructs were similar across the two samples. The Big Five traits and the two cognitive-personality styles were the predictor variables, whereas the two relationship-specific types of loneliness and the two attitudes toward aloneness were the criterion variables. Associations among predictor variables, among criterion variables, and predictive paths from predictor to criterion variables were all estimated. The latent predictor and criterion variables were indicated by three parcels. The technique of item parceling has been adopted in empirical studies to reduce model complexity. We used the well-established item-to-construct balance parceling method to create three 2-item parcels for each Big Five trait, three 8-item parcels for each cognitive-personality style, and three 4-item parcels for each loneliness-related construct. Because of the gender and age effects found in the preliminary analyses, we controlled these variables in our model.

The fit of the model in which the personality effects on loneliness-related constructs were constrained to be equal for the two samples was compared with the model in which such constraints were not added. Adding constraints was deemed justified if a chi-square (χ ²) difference test was nonsignificant (Satorra & Bentler, 2001). As this test was nonsignificant (p > .05), we present the more parsimonious constrained model.

With a large sample size, the use of the χ ²-test statistic to assess model fit is known to reject the model in any formal test of significance. Based on this limitation, we employed two other measures of model fit: (a) the comparative fit index (CFI), with values greater than .90 indicating reasonable fit and (b) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), with values less than .08 indicating reasonable fit. The final multigroup model had an acceptable fit (χ ²(1018) = 3502.898 (p < .001), CFI = .921, RMSEA = .052 (90% confidence interval = .050 –.053)). Table 3 presents the standardized coefficients that were obtained, with significant coefficients represented in bold. It should be noted that standardized estimates for the two samples were still slightly different despite equality constraints on the unstandardized estimates.

Table 3.

Standardized coefficients obtained in structural equation modeling of loneliness and aloneness dimensions regressed on Big Five and two cognitive-personality styles.

Personality	Loneliness dimensions				Aloneness dimensions
	Peer-related loneliness		Parent-related loneliness		Affinity for aloneness		Aversion to aloneness
	Sample 1	Sample 2	Sample 1	Sample 2	Sample 1	Sample 2	Sample 1	Sample 2
Big Five personality traits
Emotional stability	−.04	−.03	.03	.03	−.09*	−.09*	.01	.01
Extraversion	−.39***	−.37***	.03	.03	−.25***	−.26***	.11**	.11**
Openness to experience	.08**	.07**	−.04	−.04	.14***	.12***	.05	.04
Agreeableness	−.15***	−.13**	−.12***	−.11***	.03	.03	−.14***	−.13**
Conscientiousness	−.01	−.01	−.12***	−.14***	.03	.03	−.16***	−.18**
Cognitive-personality styles
Sociotropy	.22***	.20***	−.01	−.01	−.08*	−.08*	.53***	.49***
Autonomy	.17***	.14***	.36***	.31***	.38***	.33***	−.09*	−.08*

Note. Significant path coefficients are represented in bold.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

With respect to peer-related loneliness, extraversion and agreeableness were negative predictors, whereas openness to experience, sociotropy, and autonomy were positive predictors. With respect to parent-related loneliness, conscientiousness and agreeableness were negative predictors, whereas autonomy was a positive predictor. With respect to affinity for aloneness, emotional stability, extraversion, and sociotropy were negative predictors, whereas openness and autonomy were positive predictors. Finally, with respect to aversion to aloneness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and autonomy were negative predictors, whereas extraversion and sociotropy were positive predictors.

Discussion

The present study has significantly advanced our understanding of adolescents’ loneliness in the relationships with parents and peers and their attitudes toward aloneness. These characteristic adaptations were considered to emerge in accordance with the developmental challenges of adolescence and were thought to be influenced by personality traits (McAdams & Pals, 2006; McCrae & Costa, 1996, 1999). A specific pattern of associations with these personality traits was expected to occur for each of the four constructs examined (i.e., parent-related loneliness, peer-related loneliness, affinity for aloneness, and aversion to aloneness). The actual pattern of results obtained, though somewhat different from our initial expectations, sheds additional light on the dispositions underlying less successful adaptations to normative changes in adolescents’ social networks (i.e., relationship-specific types of loneliness) and their basic attitude toward an emergent aspect of their social life (i.e., time spent alone).

Associations with Big Five traits and sociotropy/autonomy

Generally speaking, the present findings showed that across two samples of adolescents some personality traits were related to both types of loneliness and to both attitudes toward aloneness, whereas other personality traits were associated with a specific type of loneliness or a specific attitude toward aloneness. Specifically, the Big Five trait of agreeableness and the cognitive-personality style of autonomy were important predictors of the two types of loneliness in adolescence. In line with our hypotheses, less agreeable adolescents experienced greater loneliness in their relationships with both peers and parents than more agreeable adolescents. Possibly, highly agreeable adolescents are more likely to become selected as potential friends because of their social competence and altruistic behavior. As they are more likely to cooperate and minimize interpersonal conflict (e.g., Jensen-Campbell et al., 2003), they are also more likely to have positive parent–adolescent relationships and, as a result, less likely to feel lonely in the relationship with their parents. The finding that adolescents with stronger concerns about independence (i.e., with high scores on autonomy) also experienced greater loneliness in both relationships was in line with our expectation that autonomy would be more strongly associated with both relationship-specific types of loneliness than sociotropy would be. The negative interpersonal style of highly autonomous individuals can lead to a variety of interpersonal problems (e.g., Whiffen, Aube, Thompson, & Campbell, 2000), which may cause feelings of loneliness. Furthermore, due to their tendency to strive for absolute standards of perfection, highly autonomous individuals show feelings of inferiority and diminished self-worth (Beck et al., 1983). These negative self-feelings may make them less sociable and less likely to evaluate their relationships with parents and peers as satisfying.

By contrast, the Big Five traits of extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness and the cognitive-personality style of sociotropy were important predictors of one relationship-specific form of loneliness only. Adolescents who were less extraverted, who showed greater openness to experience, and had stronger concerns about dependence (i.e., sociotropy) experienced greater loneliness in the relationship with their peers, but not in the relationship with their parents. Less conscientious adolescents experienced greater loneliness in the relationship with their parents, but not in the relationship with their peers. Extraverted adolescents may show less feelings of peer-related loneliness as they are more socially competent. As peer relationships have to be actively constructed, the abilities of extraverted adolescents to develop and maintain satisfying relationships may preclude feelings of peer-related loneliness. Another possibility may be that the positive emotions experienced by highly extraverted adolescents may predispose them to evaluate their peer relationships more positively than less extraverted adolescents. Contrary to our prediction, adolescents with higher levels of openness were also more likely to experience peer-related loneliness than adolescents with lower levels of openness. This finding calls for additional research. The finding that highly sociotropic adolescents experience more peer-related loneliness than less sociotropic adolescents may be due to their overly high need for close relationships, which can enlarge the gap between their actual and desired social network. In addition, their nonassertive and overly accommodating interpersonal style may make them less attractive as potential friends because being too generous and submissive is related to rejection from peers (e.g., Parkhurst & Asher, 1992). The finding that highly conscientious adolescents experienced less feelings of parent-related loneliness may be caused by their tendency to stick to agreements, to attend to household tasks (Branje, van Lieshout, & van Aken, 2004), and to be more successful in academia (e.g., Poropat, 2009). These characteristics may facilitate positive parent–adolescent relationships and, as a result, lead to less feelings of parent-related loneliness.

The Big Five trait of extraversion was an important predictor of the two attitudes toward aloneness, albeit in the opposite direction. More extraverted adolescents showed lower affinity for and greater aversion to being alone. This finding is in line with the theoretical assumption that extraversion can be considered as social predisposition, such that extraverted individuals experience positive effect during social interaction and have a preference for social interaction (McCrae & Costa, 1987). By contrast, all of the other Big Five traits were significant predictors of a single attitude toward aloneness. Adolescents who were less emotionally stable and showed greater openness to experience showed greater affinity for being alone. It may be that less emotionally stable adolescents are more anxious about negative evaluations from others (Burger, 1995). For individuals with high levels of openness, solitude may create a medium to support their creativity and to explore their interests. More agreeable and more conscientious adolescents showed lower aversion to being alone. Highly agreeable adolescents are more likely to be securely attached (e.g., Noftle & Shaver, 2006), which may suggest that they feel less anxious when being alone. Highly conscientious adolescents, on the other hand, may hold a less negative attitude toward aloneness, as they are more likely to benefit from time spent alone for the purpose of self-actualization and self-reflection (Larson, 1990).

Finally, the two cognitive-personality styles were associated with both attitudes toward aloneness. However, as expected, autonomy showed a more pronounced association with affinity for aloneness and sociotropy showed a more pronounced association with aversion to aloneness. These findings can be explained by the individualistic tendency and preference for solitary activities of highly autonomous individuals, on the one hand, and the tendency of highly sociotropic individuals to be overly dependent on others and to feel uneasy when lacking the company of others, on the other hand.

Many, but not all, of these associations were in line with our initial expectations. One should keep in mind, however, that our expectations were based on earlier studies that relied on zero-order correlations and no previous study had entered both the Big Five traits and sociotropy/autonomy in one and the same regression equation. The fact that emotional stability did not show up as a unique predictor of peer-related loneliness, as had been anticipated, may reflect the particular pattern of correlations among the personality traits in our samples. A similar line of reasoning may be developed for the fact that conscientiousness did not emerge as a unique predictor of affinity for aloneness and that emotional stability also failed to do so for aversion to aloneness. To conclude, the overall pattern of associations obtained in the present samples is in need of replication.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

There are some limitations of the present study that warrant attention. First, all data were self-reported. Accordingly, some of the covariance among the constructs may reflect common method variance. This issue could be addressed in future research by examining some behavioral and cognitive aspects of the constructs more directly or by relying on multiple informants. However, loneliness is a subjective internal experience, which is most appropriately assessed with self-report questionnaires. With respect to personality traits, other reported measures are available. However, these measures might be as informative about the raters’ own personality traits as they are about the personality traits of the person being rated (Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010).

Second, our cross-sectional design did not allow us to examine directionality in the associations obtained. The SEM model used assumes that the broader level (i.e., the personality traits) predicts the more specific level (i.e., the phase-specific adaptations of loneliness and attitudes toward aloneness). However, longitudinal research is recommended to examine how loneliness, attitudes toward aloneness, and personality traits influence each other over time.

Third, once directionality of effects is established, attention should be paid to possible mediators (i.e., underlying mechanisms) of the links between personality traits, adolescent loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness. In dual-level models of personality, such mediators represent dynamic processes that link personality traits and characteristic adaptations (McCrae & Costa, 1999). Future research on relationship-specific loneliness in adolescence should also examine in greater detail how and which personality traits influence actual relationships, desired relationships, and the cognitive processes underlying the evaluation of both desired and actual relationships.

Finally, we should be careful to generalize the current findings beyond the particular distribution according to gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status found in the present samples. Similarly, the findings cannot be generalized to other developmental periods or cultures. For instance, there was a disproportionate gender distribution in our university sample with the majority of the students being female. In addition, the current study only included Caucasian middle class adolescents. Although this is a common limitation in psychological research, it is nonetheless important to conduct studies in other cultural and socioeconomic groups to ensure the generalizability of the results. Studies on developmental periods other than adolescence could reveal a different pattern of associations between personality traits, loneliness, and attitudes toward aloneness because the latter adaptations are likely to shift in accord with different sets of developmental challenges.

Conclusion

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the present findings hold important implications for the study of individual differences in adolescents’ relation-specific types of loneliness and attitudes toward aloneness. Specifically, the present study suggested that these characteristic adaptations in adolescence are predicted by different personality traits based on two theoretical frameworks. Furthermore, although the present study included two samples of adolescents living in different social contexts (i.e., high school context versus university context), the personality profiles of peer-related loneliness, parent-related loneliness, affinity for aloneness, and aversion to aloneness were consistently replicated. The present findings, therefore, can be used to develop interventions aimed at reducing feelings of loneliness and improving young people’s attitude toward aloneness by focusing on those adolescents with the most vulnerable personality profiles.

Footnotes

Funding

Funding for the study was provided through Grant G.0502.09 of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO).

References

Asendorpf

J. B.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2003). Personality-relationship transaction in adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality, 71, 629–666.

Asendorpf

J. B.

Wilpers

(1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.

Beck

A. T.

Epstein

Harrison

R. P.

Emery

(1983). Development of the sociotropy-autonomy scale: A measure of personality factors in psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, Philadelphia, PA: Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania Medical School.

Besser

Flett

G. L.

Davis

R. A.

(2003). Self-criticism, dependency, silencing the self, and loneliness: A test of a mediational model. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1735–1752.

Blatt

S. J.

(1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 24, 107–157.

Blatt

S. J.

(2004). Experiences of depression: Theoretical, clinical, and research perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Branje

S. J. T.

van Lieshout

C. F. M.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2004). Relations between Big Five personality characteristics and perceived support in adolescents’ families. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 615–628.

Burger

J. M.

(1995). Individual differences in preference for solitude. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 85–108.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hawkley

L. C.

Ernst

J. M.

Burleson

Berntson

G. G.

Nouriani

Spiegel

(2006). Loneliness within a nomological net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1054–1085.

10.

Cheek

J. M.

Busch

C. M.

(1981). The influence of shyness on loneliness in a new situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 572–577.

11.

Clark

D. A.

Beck

A. T.

(1991). Personality factors in dysphoria: A psychometric refinement of beck's sociotropy-autonomy scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 369–388.

12.

Collins

W. A.

Steinberg

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, socioemotional processes (6th ed., pp. 1003–1067). New York, NY: Wiley.

13.

De Jong Gierveld

(1998). A review of loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8, 73–80.

14.

DiTommaso

Spinner

(1993). The development and initial validation of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 127–134.

15.

Dykstra

P. A.

Fokkema

(2007). Social and emotional loneliness among divorced and married men and women: Comparing the deficit and cognitive perspectives. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1–12.

16.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Guthrie

I. K.

Reiser

(2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136–157.

17.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

18.

Goossens

(2006). Affect, emotion, and loneliness in adolescence. In Jackson

Goossens

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent development (pp. 51–70). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

19.

Goossens

Lasgaard

Luyckx

Vanhalst

Mathias

Masy

(2009). Loneliness and solitude in adolescence: A confirmatory factor analysis of alternative models. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 890–894.

20.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Adams

Perry

D. G.

Workman

K. A.

Furdella

J. Q.

Egan

S. K.

(2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224–251.

21.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Gleason

K. A.

Adams

Malcolm

K. T.

(2003). Interpersonal conflict, agreeableness, and personality development. Journal of Personality, 71, 1059–1085.

22.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Malcolm

K. T.

(2007). The importance of conscientiousness in adolescent interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 368–383.

23.

Larson

R. W.

(1990). The solitary side of life: An examination of the time people spend alone from childhood to old age. Developmental Review, 10, 155–183.

24.

Lasgaard

Goossens

Bramsen

R. H.

Trillingsgaard

Elklit

(2011). Different sources of loneliness are associated with different forms of psychopathology in adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 233–237.

25.

Levin

Stokes

J. P.

(1986). An examination of the relation of individual difference variables to loneliness. Journal of Personality, 54, 717–733.

26.

Marcoen

Goossens

(1993). Loneliness, attitude towards aloneness, and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. In Jackson

Rodriguez-Tomé

(Eds.), Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. 197–227). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

27.

Marcoen

Goossens

Caes

(1987). Loneliness in pre- through late adolescence: Exploring the contributions of a multidimensional approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 561–577.

28.

McAdams

D. P.

Pals

J. L.

(2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.

29.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

30.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In Wiggins

J. S.

(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

31.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1999). A five-factor model of personality. In Pervin

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Mongrain

(1998). Parental representations and support-seeking behaviors related to dependency and self-criticism. Journal of Personality, 66, 151–173.

33.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

34.

Nestler

Back

M. D.

Egloff

(2011). Psychometric properties of the two scales for assessing individual differences in preference for solitude. Diagnostica, 57, 57–67.

35.

Noftle

E. E.

Shaver

P. R.

(2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.

36.

Overholser

J. C.

(1996). The dependent personality and interpersonal problems. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 184, 8–16.

37.

Parkhurst

J. T.

Asher

S. R.

(1992). Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28, 231–241.

38.

Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Wiley.

39.

Poropat

A. E.

(2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.

40.

Robins

C. J.

Ladd

Welkowitz

Blaney

P. H.

Diaz

Kutcher

(1994). The personal style inventory: Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300.

41.

Russell

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.

42.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.

43.

Schwab

(1997). Einsamkeit: Grundlagen für die klinisch-psychologische Diagnostik und Intervention [Loneliness: The foundation of clinical assessment and intervention]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

44.

Vanhalst

Klimstra

T. A.

Luyckx

Scholte

R. H. J.

Engels

Goossens

(2012). The interplay of loneliness and depressive symptoms across adolescence: Exploring the role of personality traits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 776–787.

45.

Vermulst

A. A.

Gerris

J. R. M.

(2005). QBF: Quick Big Five persoonlijkheidstest handleiding [Quick Big Five personality test manual]. Leeuwarden, The Netherlands: LDC Publications.

46.

Weiss

R. S.

(1973). The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.

47.

Whiffen

V. E.

Aube

J. A.

Thompson

J. M.

Campbell

T. L.

(2000). Attachment beliefs and interpersonal contexts associated with dependency and self-criticism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 184–205.

48.

Wood

Harms

Vazire

(2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–190.

49.

Zhong-Hui

Hui-Lan

Jian-Xin

(2006). The relationship between parental rearing and adolescent personality traits. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 315–317.