Do not overlook lonely children

Abstract

The present article investigated the longitudinal influence of loneliness on peer acceptance in school through two longitudinal studies; specifically, we hypothesized a bidirectional view on the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance. In Study 1, a total of 383 Japanese elementary school students in fourth and fifth grades (207 boys and 176 girls, aged 9–11) at three public schools in Japan participated in an 18-month longitudinal study. Through a comparison of hypothetical models, the accepted model showed a ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance. Subsequently, in Study 2, a total of 506 Japanese elementary school students in fourth to sixth grades (253 boys and 253 girls, aged 9–12) at two public schools in Japan participated in a 6-month longitudinal study. The statistically accepted cross-lagged model indicated a bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance. These findings indicate a strong link between loneliness and peer acceptance from a longitudinal bidirectional perspective and suggest the importance of early educational practices for lonely children to prevent them from entering this vicious cycle.

Keywords

Children cross-lagged model loneliness longitudinal study peer acceptance structural equation modeling

Loneliness is an emotional tendency described as sadness or pain, which is caused by an absence of connection with others (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1999). It has been recognized as a potential indicator of threats to subjective well-being among children (UNICEF, 2007). Several studies on loneliness in children have revealed that loneliness caused by social deficits predicts other social risks in the future such as low self-esteem, low peer acceptance (Sletta, Valas, Skaalvik, & Sobstad, 1996), high depression (Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003; Witvliet, Brendgen, Van Lier, Koot, & Vitaro, 2010), externalizing behaviors (Jones, Schinka, Van Dulmen, Bossarte, & Swahn, 2011), and suicidal behavior (Schinka, VanDulmen, Bossarte, & Swahn, 2012).

Given the nature of loneliness and the fact that its associated social risk factors are also potential triggers of future loneliness, the negative influences and chronicity of loneliness are expected to become more pervasive over time, which we call “the ripple effect” in this article. More specifically, the ripple effect refers to the chain of effects initiating from a specific set of psychological factors, and how their effects on other factors broaden and repeat overtime. Additionally, these influences are considered bidirectional. This “bidirectional influence” is defined as the mutual influence of psychological factors over the long-term. Previous studies have provided the evidence supporting the ripple effect and bidirectional influence in the relationship between loneliness and negative outcomes; in these studies, however, most of the authors hypothesized a unidirectional perspective from loneliness to negative outcomes or from negative outcomes to loneliness. Our primary interest of this article was the long-term bidirectional relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance, which have been found to make distinct contributions to children’s social development (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003). As described later on, peer acceptance is a psychological factor that has attracted the interest of many researchers in focusing on loneliness. In this article, we investigated the harmful influence of loneliness on peer acceptance through two longitudinal studies with hypothesizing the ripple effect and bidirectional view.

Loneliness in children

Research on loneliness in children began 10 years after the initiation of research on loneliness in adults (Anderson & Harvey, 1988), because some authorities (e.g., Sullivan, 1953; Weiss, 1973) originally did not believe that children experienced loneliness. However, researchers have since recognized that children are able to discern their social relationships and do feel loneliness. Cassidy and Asher (1992) showed that 11.8% of children (5 to 7 years old) reported experiencing loneliness, whereas Asher, Hymel, and Renshaw (1984) reported that at least 15% of elementary school students from the third to sixth grade felt loneliness either always or most of the time. Currently, the premise that children experience loneliness has become generally accepted (Rotenberg, 1999).

Research on children’s loneliness is important because loneliness deprives them of the opportunity to develop and maintain positive social relationships (Qualter et al., 2013) as well as learn appropriate social behaviors. Experiences during childhood have important implications in terms of fostering social functioning and reducing the risk of problems in adulthood (Huston & Ripke, 2006); furthermore, activities with peers and classmate encounters have an important bearing on emotional adjustment, including feelings of loneliness (Burgess, Ladd, Kochenderfer, Lambert, & Birch, 1999). Thus, loneliness in children has received much attention, especially from the clinical and developmental perspectives (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Jones et al., 2011).

Previous research on loneliness: Relations with social relationships and health

An initial interest regarding loneliness in children was the relationship between loneliness and social status in school classes; several empirical studies have showed that children with high loneliness had low social status or experienced rejection in their group (e.g., Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984; Asher & Wheeler, 1985). Afterward, other studies have shown that children lacking peer relationships or having problems with others experienced a greater sense of loneliness. Low peer acceptance (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Coleman, 1997; Qualter et al., 2013), low social competence (Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990), withdrawal behavior (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Jobe-Shields, Cohen, & Parra, 2011), aggression (Chen et al., 2004), shyness (Chen et al., 2004), poor friendships (Parker & Asher, 1993; Rotenberg et al., 2004), less friendship-forming behavior (Paker & Seal, 1996), and experiences of victimization (Ladd et al., 1997; Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Wardrop, 2001) were found to be social triggers of loneliness. On the other hand, loneliness caused by social deficits predicts subsequent negative outcomes. For example, loneliness in children was positively associated with low self-esteem, diminished peer acceptance (Sletta et al., 1996), and high depression (Nangle et al., 2003; Qualter, Brown, Munn, & Rotenberg, 2010; Witvliet et al., 2010) in the future. Furthermore, increasing loneliness during middle childhood and adolescence was found to predict risk of self-harm behaviors and suicidal thoughts via the mediating effects of depression and externalizing behavior problems in adolescence (Jones et al., 2011). Moreover, several longitudinal studies (e.g., Bartels, Cacioppo, Hudziak, & Boomsma, 2008; Ladd et al., 1997; Renshaw & Brown, 1993; Vanhalst et al., 2012) reported that loneliness is a relatively stable phenomenon for school-aged children and adolescents. These previous studies together indicate that early loneliness experience in children predicts future health problems and harmful behaviors, and they continue to be exposed to these kinds of risks.

At the same time, empirical research regarding loneliness in children has generally only hypothesized a unidirectional influence, such as from loneliness to negative outcomes or from negative outcomes to loneliness. As already described, loneliness is caused by deficits in social relationships (Rotenberg, 1999), particularly peer relationships for elementary school students; furthermore, loneliness leads to negative outcomes in a school setting (e.g., low peer acceptance, high depression, and behavioral problems). However, little research has examined the ripple effect of loneliness, such that high loneliness leads to negative outcomes and these negative outcomes in turn predict high loneliness in the future. Although not conducted with children, several studies (e.g., Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2010; Lasgaard, Coossens, & Elklit, 2011) have already investigated the ripple effect and bidirectional influence between loneliness and depression. In other words, such a bidirectional view has been a recent trend in research on loneliness, and unidirectional studies are not sufficient.

Loneliness and peer acceptance: A bidirectional view

Considerable research has focused on loneliness in children, as reviewed above; one of the topics that attracted interest among researchers was the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance. The sociometric approach, which involves measuring group members’ ratings or nomination of liked and disliked others, has indicated a strong connection between low peer acceptance and high loneliness (e.g., Asher et al., 1984; Parker & Asher, 1993). Another method of measuring peer acceptance is self-report assessment (i.e., perceived peer acceptance), which has also been used in children’s research (e.g., Bouman et al., 2012). However, the longitudinal bidirectional influence between loneliness and perceived peer acceptance has yet to be empirically tested.

In general, researchers in this field have emphasized that poor relationships among peers lead to loneliness. Meanwhile, the inverse relationship has received attention in the clinical field: the symptoms-driven model explains that negative emotional symptoms (e.g., depression) tend to precede the development of poor peer relationships (Kochel, Ladd, & Rudolph, 2012). Applying this model, loneliness might contribute to peer difficulties, which in turn lead to low peer acceptance because lonely children would exhibit social difficulties (Cassidy & Asher, 1992) and consult important others less (Vernberg, Ewell, Beery, Freeman, & Abwender, 1995). Additionally, lonely people usually hesitate to access supportive social relationships (S. Cohen, 2004), and their characteristic behavioral styles (e.g., withdrawal and being alone) are unpopular among peers (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002), making them targets for victimization (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Perren & Alsaker, 2006). According to this view, negative feelings such as loneliness and poor relationships would be bidirectional across time (Kochel et al., 2012).

Loneliness and low peer acceptance have been shown to be similar but not completely equivalent concepts; indeed, they can be statistically distinct. For example, Bagner, Storch, and Roberti (2004) revealed that a widely used scale for assessing loneliness that comprised nonreverse-worded items assessing feelings of loneliness directly and reverse-worded items assessing social satisfaction or social competence (which is conceptually close to acceptance in peer relationship) showed a better fit to a two-factor structure than to a one-factor structure. Furthermore, Terrell-Deutsch (1999) noted the theoretical problem that loneliness and low social satisfaction have been viewed as similar psychological concepts in loneliness research. Above all, Asher and Paquette (2003) admitted that directly assessing feelings of loneliness provided a robust assessment of “pure loneliness”. Altogether, these implications support our perspective to regard loneliness and low perceived peer acceptance as separate concepts.

Overview of the present article

The present article comprised two longitudinal studies of Japanese elementary school students that examined the ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance (Study 1) and the bidirectional influences between these concepts (Study 2). Although researchers have extensively theorized on the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance, there is actually rather little empirical research on this relationship that uses a longitudinal design. As mentioned previously, sense of acceptance in peer relationships differs from merely the reverse psychological concept of loneliness (Bagner, Storch, & Roberti, 2004; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1999). Given that there may also be an influence of peer acceptance on loneliness, the models proposed in this study incorporating the ripple effect and the bidirectional influence between these concepts are logically valid.

In this article, the definition of peer acceptance is a subjective sense of being accepted by peers (i.e., perceived peer acceptance). As described later, the elementary schools involving in this survey reorganize the class members each year; thus, we opted for a self-report assessment to minimize any disadvantage caused by changes in class members. However, we should be mindful on the agreement that subjective loneliness would be more strongly related with perceived peer acceptance than objective assessment because of the nature of subjectivity (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006).

Study 1 was an 18-month longitudinal survey conducted 4 times with half-year intervals to investigate the ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance. The ripple effect would be present if loneliness at Time 1 (T1) had a negative effect on peer acceptance after 18 months (Time 4 [T4]) mediated by peer acceptance after 6 months (Time 2 [T2]), and loneliness after 12 months (Time 3 [T3]). Study 1 also investigated the correlation coefficients between loneliness at T1 and other variables to match the methodology of previous studies. The other aim of Study 1 was to confirm the precondition of the ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance.

Subsequently, Study 2 was a 6-month longitudinal survey with two waves to investigate the presumed bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance with an autoregressive cross-lagged model. The role of Study 2 was to confirm the bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance and to compensate for the limitations of Study 1, which could express the ripple effect but not in a true bidirectional view of these concepts. The autoregressive cross-lagged model could provide more reliable evidence of the bidirectional view.

In both studies, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to confirm that the hypothesized model was statistically valid. Additionally, through rejecting other potential models after constraining several paths to 0, we demonstrated that each hypothesized path in the model was critically important. This procedure was highly recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). More details are described in the method sections of Studies 1 and 2.

Study 1

Method

Participants

A total of 383 Japanese elementary school students in fourth and fifth grades (207 boys and 176 girls; rate of participants was 97.4%) at three public schools in Japan participated in this 18-month longitudinal study; they responded to our questionnaire a total of 4 times. All participants were Japanese. Their ages were between 9 and 11 at the first survey (M _age = 9.66, SD = 0.59). Members of the participants’ homeroom classes changed between T2 and T3. As a result of these changes, approximately 50% of each student’s classmates changed members. The socioeconomic status of the participants was estimated to be lower to upper middle class based on demographic information. The sample was highly homogeneous with regard to ethnic and cultural back ground.

Measures

Loneliness

Participants completed the Five-item Loneliness Scale for Children (Five-LSC; Nishimura, Murakami, & Sakurai, 2015; items are shown in Table 1). The scale consisted of 5 items with direct expressions assessing sense of loneliness (i.e., nonreverse words) based on recommendation by Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1999) and Ebesutani et al. (2012). The scale demonstrated sufficient validity based on teachers’ observational assessments and correlations with social competence, social skills, and withdrawal behaviors (Nishimura et al., 2015). Items were rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Participants responded to the Five-LSC once at the beginning of the first year (T1) and again a year later (T3). The internal consistency of the scale in this study, as measured by Cronbach’s coefficient α, was .86 at T1 and .89 at T3.

Table 1.
Item list of Five-item Loneliness Scale for children.

1. Do you feel that you are alone?

2. Do you think there is nobody to play with?

3. Do you feel that you are left behind by people around you?

4. Do you think that no one would help you if you were in trouble?

5. Do you feel lonely?

Peer acceptance

Participants also completed the scale of subjective peer acceptance consisting of 3 items at T2 and T4. This scale is standardized and published by the Toshobunka Company in Japan. In particular, clinical validity of this scale has been established, such that peer victimization and failure to attend school are predicted when scores are low. Items were rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s coefficient α of peer acceptance in this study was .71 at T1 and .73 at T2.

Procedure

The longitudinal survey was conducted 2 times at half-year intervals. Questionnaires were administered in a group setting by the homeroom teacher. The top sheet of the questionnaire contained 4 items that were read aloud by the homeroom teacher: (1) there was no relation between the survey and grade evaluations, (2) the privacy of those taking the survey would be protected, (3) participating in the survey was not mandatory, and (4) responding to the questionnaire was recognized as agreement to participate in the survey. In addition, demographic data, such as grade, class, sex, and student number, were required on the last page of the questionnaire to link data from different collection times with the permission of the school principal. The need for parental consent was waived by the schools and institutional review board (IRB) at the authors’ university. Instead of this, we gave individual feedback to homeroom teachers to maximize the benefit to the children.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed using R 3.1.0 and M-plus Version 7.11. The arithmetic mean of each scale score was used as the observed variable. The number of students who participated in all four surveys was 359 (196 boys and 163 girls), and 24 participants had missing data. The number of participants with complete data was 383 at T1, 375 at T2, 366 at T3, and 367 at T4. Missing data were addressed using the full information maximum-likelihood method.

Model fit was examined using a combination of chi-square (χ²), Tucker–Lewis index, comparative fit index, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). When comparing potential models, we also referred to the Bayesian information criteria (BIC) and the results of a χ² difference test. As the BIC was developed as an approximation of the log marginal likelihood of the model, the difference between the two BIC estimates is a good approximation of the natural log of the Bayes factor (Kass & Wasserman, 1995); therefore, choosing the model with the smallest BIC is equivalent to selecting the model with the maximum posterior probability (Posada & Buckley, 2004). Hence, accepting the model with the smallest BIC is recommended. In addition, the χ² difference test can provide the basis for comparing competing models. If the χ² difference exceeds the critical value, one can reject the corresponding base model and accept the alternative model (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

The model comparison procedure was recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) for not only investigating whether a hypothesized model is supported while searching for the best fitting model but also demonstrating that each hypothesized path is significant. Figure 1 presents the overall hypothetical model in Study 1. We hypothesized four types of models on the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance. Model 1 is a parallel model, indicating that there is no relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance (paths a, b, c, and f are constrained to zero in Figure 1), which means that there is no ripple effect. Model 2 is a series model, with a hypothesized linear relation between loneliness and peer acceptance at the four time points (paths d, e, and f are constrained to zero in Figure 1). Model 3 supposes an autoregression on Model 2 (path f is constrained to zero in Figure 1). Finally, Model 4 is an unconstrained model with a hypothesized direct effect of loneliness at T1 on peer acceptance at T4 for Model 3 (no constrained paths in Figure 1). Within the potential models, Model 2, 3, or 4 was expected to be accepted. As shown in Figure 1, Models 1, 2, and 3 are nested in Model 4.

Figure 1.
Hypothetical model in Study 1.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for all measures as well as correlations among all variables. The mean score for loneliness was 1.42 at T1 and 1.40 at T3, while that for peer acceptance was 3.35 at T2 and 3.38 at T4. There were no significant differences between loneliness at T1 and T3 (t = 0.53, p = .596) and between peer acceptance at T2 and T4 (t = −0.19, p = .851). The correlation analysis demonstrated a moderately high positive relationship between loneliness at T1 and T3 (r = .35, p < .001) and peer acceptance at T2 and T4 (r = .58, p < .001). In addition, moderately high negative relationships were found between loneliness and peer acceptance in the first year (r = −.44, p < .001; relationship between loneliness at T1 and peer acceptance at T2) and the second year (r = −.55, p < .001; relationship between loneliness at T3 and peer acceptance at T4). An analysis of the comparison of correlation coefficients of dependent samples for the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance at the first and second year showed a significant difference (z = 2.17, p = .030).

Table 2.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables in Study 1.

M SD 95%CI 1 2 3 4

1. Loneliness (T1) 1.42 0.62 [1.36, 1.49] – −.44* .35* −.37*

2. Peer acceptance (T2) 3.35 0.65 [3.29, 3.42] −.53* – −.36* .58*

3. Loneliness (T3) 1.40 0.59 [1.34, 1.46] .40* −.45* – −.55*

4. Peer acceptance (T4) 3.38 0.57 [3.32, 3.43] −.48* .78* −.67* –

Note. Correlations among observed variables are presented above the diagonal, and correlations among latent variables are presented below the diagonal. CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation.

p < .001.

Comparison of four hypothetical models: Does the ripple effect exist?

Analyses of the ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance were performed, using SEM with the maximum-likelihood method and following the four hypothetical models. The model fit indices are shown in Table 3. The fit indices for Models 3 and 4 were acceptable, while those for Models 1 and 2 were not, particularly in terms of the RMSEA, its 90% confidence interval (CI), and the SRMR. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between Models 3 and 4 according to the χ² difference test; however, the BIC was smaller for Model 3 than for Model 4. Thus, we ultimately accepted Model 3 as the best fitting model to the data.

Table 3.
Model fit indicators of four hypothetical models in Study 1.

Model df χ² CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI for RMSEA SRMR BIC Models compared df ▵ χ² Paths constrained

1 102 385.858 .879 .897 .085 [.076,.094] .186 10,882.664 1 vs. 3 3 182.035 a, b, c, f

2 101 297.529 .929 .916 .071 [.062,.081] .080 10,797.090 2 vs. 3 2 93.706*** d, e, f

3 99 203.823 .962 .954 .053 [.042,.063] .035 10,708.934 f

4 98 203.821 .962 .953 .053 [.043,.063] .035 10,711.708 4 vs. 3 1 0.002 n.s. none

Note. The values of BIC were adjusted by sample size. CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; BIC = Bayesian information criteria.

p <.001.

Figure 2 presents the results of the accepted model. Overall, this model shows that loneliness at T1 had an indirect negative effect on peer acceptance at T4, which was mediated by peer acceptance at T2 and loneliness at T3. The total standardized effect of loneliness at T1 on peer acceptance at T4 was −.48 (p < .001). In addition, this model indicates that loneliness at T1 had a direct effect on loneliness at T3 and an indirect effect mediated by peer acceptance at T2. This model also reveals that peer acceptance at T2 had a direct effect on peer acceptance at T4, and an indirect effect mediated by loneliness at T3.

Figure 2.
Accepted model (Model 3). Values in brackets represent 95% confidence interval. p < .001; p < .01.

Testing the significance levels of indirect effects

Finally, we used the bootstrap method with bias correction by forming 1,000 bootstrap samples with M-plus Version 7.11 to examine the three mediating effects as described previously: (a) peer acceptance at T2 mediating the relationship between loneliness at T1 and T3, (b) loneliness at T3 mediating the relationship between peer acceptance at T2 and T4, and (c) peer acceptance at T2 and loneliness at T3 mediating the relationship between loneliness at T1 and peer acceptance at T4.

The results shown in Table 4 indicate that the 95% CI for all indirect effects did not contain zero, indicating that all of the indirect effects were statistically significant. These results indicated the presence of a ripple effect of loneliness and peer acceptance: higher loneliness leads to lower peer acceptance after 6 months, higher loneliness again after a year, and lower peer acceptance again after 18 months. Moreover, the direct effect of loneliness at T1 on peer acceptance at T4 was rejected in the model comparison procedure. This result suggests that the longitudinal negative influence of loneliness is completely mediated by peer acceptance. In addition, the direct path from loneliness at T1 to loneliness at T3 was significant; therefore, this relationship was partially mediated by peer acceptance at T2. Similarly, the significant direct path from peer acceptance at T2 to peer acceptance at T4 indicated that this relationship was partially mediated by loneliness at T3.

Table 4.
Results of Bootstrap analysis, magnitude, and statistical significance of indirect effects.

Independent variable Mediator variable Dependent variable β standardized indirect effect 95% CI mean indirect effect (lower and upper)

Loneliness (T1) → Peer acceptance (T2) → Loneliness (T3) .18* [.08, .28]

Peer acceptance (T2) → Loneliness (T3) → Peer acceptance (T4) .13 [.04, .22]

Loneliness (T1) → Peer acceptance (T2) → Peer acceptance (T4) −.32* [−.44, −.19]

Loneliness (T1) → Loneliness (T3) → Peer acceptance (T4) −.09* [−.17, −.01]

Loneliness (T1) → Peer acceptance (T2) → loneliness (T3) → Peer acceptance (T4) −.07 [−.12, −.03]

^aLoneliness (T1) → Peer acceptance (T2), loneliness (T3) → Peer acceptance (T4) −.48* [−.58, −.37]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

^aTotal standardized indirect effect from loneliness (T1) to peer acceptance (T4).

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

Brief Discussion of Study 1

The results of Study 1 indicated that loneliness was negatively correlated with peer acceptance after 18 months and that this relationship was mediated by peer acceptance after 6 months and loneliness after 12 months. These findings are consistent with previous research reporting a negative influence of loneliness on social relationships (e.g., Sletta et al., 1996) and an influence of social relationship on loneliness (e.g., Hymel et al., 1990; Parker & Seal, 1996). Thus, sense of higher loneliness in children negatively affects sense of peer acceptance, which in turn generates loneliness again, and in turn lower peer acceptance once again.

Study 2

Method

Participants

A total of 506 Japanese elementary school students in fourth to sixth grades (253 boys and 253 girls; rate of participation was 96.9%) at two public schools in Japan participated in a 6-month longitudinal study; they responded to the questionnaire twice. This sample was completely independent from Study 1. All participants were Japanese. Their ages were between 9 and 12 at the first survey (M _age = 10.26, SD = 0.91). The socioeconomic status of the participants was estimated to be lower to upper middle class. The sample was highly homogeneous with regard to ethnic and cultural background.

Measures

Study 2 assessed loneliness and peer acceptance as with Study 1. Participants responded to the Five-LSC once at the beginning of the year (T1) and again after 6 months (T2). Reliability of the scale in this study, as measured by Cronbach’s coefficient α, was .88 at T1 and .89 at T2. Participants also completed the scale of subjective peer acceptance at T1 and T2. Cronbach’s coefficient α of the scale was .71 at T1 and .73 at T2.

Procedure

The longitudinal survey was conducted 2 times at half-year intervals. The other procedures were the same as those in Study 1.

Statistical analyses

Analyses were performed using R 3.1.0 and M-plus Version 7.11. The arithmetic mean was used for each observed variable as the scale score. The number of students who participated in both research with complete response was 486 (239 boys and 247 girls) and 20 participants had missing data. The number of participants with complete data was 495 at T1 and 495 at T2 (2 students had missing data at both measurement points). Missing data were addressed using the full information maximum-likelihood method.

Figure 3 presents the overall hypothetical model in Study 2. We hypothesized four types of potential models. Model 5 is a parallel model, indicating that there is no bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance (paths h and g are constrained to zero in Figure 3), which means that the bidirectional influence is rejected. Model 6 hypothesizes only an effect of loneliness at T1 on peer acceptance at T2 with autoregression paths (path h is constrained to zero in Figure 3). Model 7 hypothesizes only an effect of peer acceptance at T1 on loneliness at T2 with autoregression paths (path g is constrained to zero in Figure 3). Finally, Model 8 is an unconstrained model (i.e., cross-lagged model; no constrained paths in Figure 3) and was expected to be the best fitting model. As shown in Figure 3, Models 5, 6, and 7 are nested in Model 8.

Figure 3.
Hypothetical model in Study 2.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations for all measures, and correlations among all observed and latent variables. The mean score for loneliness was 1.50 at T1 and 1.40 at T2, and for peer acceptance was 3.46 at T1 and 3.30 at T2. There were significant differences between loneliness at T1 and T2 (t = 3.81, p < .001), and peer acceptance at T1 and T2 (t = 6.19, p < .001). Correlation analysis for observed variables demonstrated a high positive relationship between loneliness at T1 and T2 (r = .54, p < .001) and peer acceptance at T1 and T2 (r = .50, p < .001). In addition, the analysis showed a negative relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance at T1 (r = −.40, p < .001) and T2 (r = −.51, p < .001). The correlation coefficients for the relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance at T1 and T2 were significantly different between the dependent samples (z = 2.45, p = .014).

Table 5.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables in Study 2.

M SD 95%CI 1 2 3 4

1. Loneliness (T1) 1.50 0.64 [1.43, 1.56] — −.40* .54* −.42*

2. Peer acceptance (T1) 3.46 0.51 [3.41, 3.50] −.47* — −.33* .50*

3. Loneliness (T2) 1.40 0.62 [1.35, 1.45] .61* −.39* — −.51*

4. Peer acceptance (T2) 3.30 0.59 [3.25, 3.35] −.50* .62* −.60* —

Note. Correlations among observed variables are presented above the diagonal, and correlations among latent variables are presented below the diagonal. CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation.

p <.001.

Comparison of four hypothetical models: Is the cross-lagged model best fitting?

Analyses of the bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance were performed, using SEM with the maximum-likelihood method and following the four hypothetical models. The model fit indices are shown in Table 6. The fit indices in all models were statistically acceptable; however, the χ² difference test and BIC endorses to select Model 8. Thus, we accepted Model 8 as showing the most adaptable model to the data.

Table 6.
Model fit indicators of four hypothetical models in Study 2.

Model df χ² CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI for RMSEA SRMR BIC Models compared df ▵χ² Paths constrained

5 100 282.103 .954 .945 .060 [.052,.068] .058 13,859.698 5 vs. 8 2 31.962 h, g

6 99 255.869 .960 .952 .056 [.048,.064] .042 13,671.462 6 vs. 8 1 5.728* h

7 99 271.702 .956 .947 .059 [.050,.067] .050 13,687.295 7 vs. 8 1 21.561*** g

8 98 250.141 .962 .953 .055 [.047,.064] .037 13,668.787 none

Note. The values of BIC were adjusted by sample size. CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; BIC = Bayesian information criteria.

p < .05; p < .001.

Figure 4 presents the results of Model 8: the accepted cross-lagged model. This model supports the bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance; that is, loneliness at T1 had a negative effect on peer acceptance at T2 (β = −.27, p < .001), while peer acceptance at T1 had a negative effect on loneliness at T2 (β = −.13, p = .013) under the condition that autoregressive effects were significant (loneliness: β = .55, p < .001; peer acceptance: β = .50, p < .001)

Figure 4.
Accepted model (Model 8: cross-lagged model). Values in brackets represent 95% confidence interval. p < .001; p < .05.

Brief Discussion of Study 2

In Study 2, the result of the cross-lagged model revealed a bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance: loneliness at T1 was negatively correlated with peer acceptance at T2 and, simultaneously, peer acceptance at T1 was negatively correlated with loneliness at T2. These correlations were valuable because the both autoregressive paths were significant. Thus, overall, as previous studies have implied, both loneliness and peer acceptance negatively influence each other.

General discussion

The present article examined the harmful influence of loneliness on peer acceptance, supposing a ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance (Study 1) and a bidirectional view between these variables (Study 2). The accepted model of Study 1 revealed a ripple effect of loneliness on peer acceptance: if children feel a sense of loneliness, it can lead to a lower sense of peer acceptance and a higher sense of loneliness in the future. Given that loneliness was negatively correlated with peer acceptance after 18 months, these findings also indicate that the influence of loneliness remains powerful over time. Meanwhile, the cross-lagged model in Study 2 showed a bidirectional influence between loneliness and peer acceptance. These results indicate a relatively strong connection between the two variables in the long-term.

The negative relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance in the second year became stronger than in the first year in Study 1. Additionally, the negative relationship between loneliness and peer acceptance became stronger in the second assessment compared to the first assessment in Study 2. As Levitt, Guacci-Franco, and Levitt (1993) stated, the importance of relationships in middle childhood shifts year by year from family to peers; ultimately, the primary relationships change from parents to expanded social networks with peers (Collins & Laursen, 2004). Therefore, social activities with peers become increasingly important as time advances. As the importance of peer relationships grows, sense of peer acceptance may increasingly explain the variance in loneliness.

Not only Study 1, but also Study 2 showed a significant positive relationship between loneliness at the first and second assessment, in accordance with previous research (e.g., Ladd et al., 1997; Renshaw & Brown, 1993; Rotenberg et al., 2004; Vanhalst et al., 2012). According to J. Cohen (1992), the correlation coefficients were more than a middle effect size. This means that loneliness is a moderately unchanging psychological factor. In particular, in Study 1, although there was a change of homeroom classmates between T2 and T3, there were positive relationships between loneliness at T1 and T3 as well as peer acceptance at T2 and T4 over the year. These results indicate that children who felt loneliness in the first year experienced loneliness in the second year. Similarly, children who felt peer acceptance in the first year also felt peer acceptance in the second year. As Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, and LeMare (1990) reported, these results suggest that social status and one’s role among classmates might be fixed to some extent, even when classmates are shuffled over the year.

These results seem reasonable given that lonely children sometime select maladaptive behaviors such as solitary play and sad passivity (Besevegis & Galanaki, 2010), which do not provide a solution for improving their peer relationships when they feel lonely. Furthermore, these children tend to have difficulty maintaining friendship relations (Paker & Seal, 1996). As a result, children with high loneliness are more likely to experience a sense of loneliness in the future. Experience of loneliness causes children to be less social and to have difficulty accessing opportunities to feel a sense of peer acceptance. Thus, a significant implication of the present article is to recognize the potential risk of loneliness: Children with a sense of loneliness cannot break away from the vicious cycle of low acceptance in peer relationships followed by further sense of loneliness.

Low mean scores for loneliness among children have been consistently shown in previous research (e.g., Ladd et al., 1997) and the present article was no exception. Children may have a tendency to underestimate their sense of loneliness (Terrell-Deutsch, 1999). In addition, even if children feel lonely when they are excluded or have trouble with classmates, they may opt not to disclose to or consult anyone regarding this (Vernberg et al., 1995). As such, schoolteachers should be aware of not only lonely children who are hesitant to ask for help but also children with social deficits who are likely to underestimate their feelings.

Limitations

The present article had the following limitations. Only five public elementary schools in Japan were included in the survey. In addition, other psychological factors may have influenced sense of peer acceptance and loneliness, such as friendship goals, social behaviors, and relationships with family or teachers. Future research should investigate the possible generalization of these results to larger and various samples while controlling the impact of these psychological factors. In particular, the generalizability of the findings in this study should be demonstrated in countries outside Japan. Moreover, given the fact that we used subjective ratings in both studies, inflated covariance between subjective loneliness and perceived peer acceptance was probably reflected on the accepted models. To avoid this problem, future studies should consider objective assessments. In the case of peer acceptance and its relations, researchers have used both objective (e.g., sociometric methods) and subjective assessments (e.g., Bouman et al., 2012; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). On the other hand, the objective assessment of loneliness remains controversial because loneliness is an inherently subjective experience (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006); objective assessments typically focus on social isolation, which is not equivalent to loneliness (see de Jong Gierveld, van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006). Thus, regarding the assessment of loneliness, the use of multiple informants would be beneficial and could contribute to robust investigations (Goossens & Beyers, 2002) while recognizing that we are not measuring pure loneliness per se by objective assessment. Furthermore, in terms of the developmental model, we must confirm an autoregressive cross-lagged model involving more than three time points. Such a model would be worthy of investigation because it can also simultaneously investigate the ripple effect and bidirectional influence from a developmental perspective. In future research, large and more diverse samples, cross-cultural studies with multiple assessments, and longitudinal studies with multiple measurement points are necessary to advance the study of loneliness in children.

Conclusion

The results of two longitudinal surveys suggest that loneliness has a significant negative influence on children’s development by obstructing sense of peer acceptance and creating a further feeling of loneliness. This finding strongly endorses early educational interventions for lonely children and provides a reaffirmation that loneliness is harmful and not a negligible problem for children. In other words, we must not overlook lonely children.

	M	SD	95%CI	1	2	3	4
1. Loneliness (T1)	1.42	0.62	[1.36, 1.49]	–	−.44***	.35***	−.37***
2. Peer acceptance (T2)	3.35	0.65	[3.29, 3.42]	−.53***	–	−.36***	.58***
3. Loneliness (T3)	1.40	0.59	[1.34, 1.46]	.40***	−.45***	–	−.55***
4. Peer acceptance (T4)	3.38	0.57	[3.32, 3.43]	−.48***	.78***	−.67***	–

Model	df	χ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	90% CI for RMSEA	SRMR	BIC	Models compared	df	▵ χ²	Paths constrained
1	102	385.858	.879	.897	.085	[.076,.094]	.186	10,882.664	1 vs. 3	3	182.035***	a, b, c, f
2	101	297.529	.929	.916	.071	[.062,.081]	.080	10,797.090	2 vs. 3	2	93.706***	d, e, f
3	99	203.823	.962	.954	.053	[.042,.063]	.035	10,708.934				f
4	98	203.821	.962	.953	.053	[.043,.063]	.035	10,711.708	4 vs. 3	1	0.002 n.s.	none

Independent variable	Mediator variable	Dependent variable	β standardized indirect effect	95% CI mean indirect effect (lower and upper)
Loneliness (T1) →	Peer acceptance (T2)	→ Loneliness (T3)	.18***	[.08, .28]
Peer acceptance (T2) →	Loneliness (T3)	→ Peer acceptance (T4)	.13**	[.04, .22]
Loneliness (T1) →	Peer acceptance (T2)	→ Peer acceptance (T4)	−.32***	[−.44, −.19]
Loneliness (T1) →	Loneliness (T3)	→ Peer acceptance (T4)	−.09*	[−.17, −.01]
Loneliness (T1) →	Peer acceptance (T2) → loneliness (T3)	→ Peer acceptance (T4)	−.07**	[−.12, −.03]
^aLoneliness (T1) →	Peer acceptance (T2), loneliness (T3)	→ Peer acceptance (T4)	−.48***	[−.58, −.37]

	M	SD	95%CI	1	2	3	4
1. Loneliness (T1)	1.50	0.64	[1.43, 1.56]	—	−.40***	.54***	−.42***
2. Peer acceptance (T1)	3.46	0.51	[3.41, 3.50]	−.47***	—	−.33***	.50***
3. Loneliness (T2)	1.40	0.62	[1.35, 1.45]	.61***	−.39***	—	−.51***
4. Peer acceptance (T2)	3.30	0.59	[3.25, 3.35]	−.50***	.62***	−.60***	—

Model	df	χ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	90% CI for RMSEA	SRMR	BIC	Models compared	df	▵χ²	Paths constrained
5	100	282.103	.954	.945	.060	[.052,.068]	.058	13,859.698	5 vs. 8	2	31.962***	h, g
6	99	255.869	.960	.952	.056	[.048,.064]	.042	13,671.462	6 vs. 8	1	5.728*	h
7	99	271.702	.956	.947	.059	[.050,.067]	.050	13,687.295	7 vs. 8	1	21.561***	g
8	98	250.141	.962	.953	.055	[.047,.064]	.037	13,668.787				none

Footnotes

Authors’ note

A part of this article was presented in the poster session at the 28th International Congress of Applied Psychology (EP-080021), Paris, France.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Harvey

R. J.

(1988). Discriminating between problems in living: A examination of measures of depression, loneliness, shyness, and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 481–491.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Asher

S. R.

Hymel

Renshaw

(1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464.

Asher

S. R.

Paquette

J. A.

(2003). Loneliness and peer relations in Childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 75–78.

Asher

S. R.

Wheeler

V. A.

(1985). Children’s loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500–505.

Bagner

D. M.

Storch

E. A.

Roberti

J. W.

(2004). A factor analytic study of the loneliness and social dissatisfaction scale in a sample of African-American, and Hispanic-American children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 34, 237–250.

Bartels

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hudziak

J. J.

Boomsma

D. I.

(2008). Genetic and environmental contributions to stability in loneliness throughout childhood. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 147B, 385–391.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Besevegis

Galanaki

E. P.

(2010). Coping with loneliness in childhood. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 653–673.

10.

Boivin

Hymel

(1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135–145.

11.

Boivin

Hymel

Bukowski

W. M.

(1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765–785.

12.

Bouman

van der Meulen

Goossens

F. A.

Olthof

Vermande

M. M.

Aleva

E. A.

(2012). Peer and self-reports of victimization and bullying: Their differential association with internalizing problems and social adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 759–774.

13.

Burgess

K. B.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Lambert

S. F.

Birch

S. H.

(1999). Loneliness during early childhood: The role of interpersonal behaviors and relationships. In Rotenberg

K. J.

Hymel

(Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 109–134). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hawkley

L. C.

Thisted

R. A.

(2010). Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study. Psychology and Aging, 25, 453–463.

15.

Cassidy

Asher

S. R.

(1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Development, 63, 350–365.

16.

Chen

Oliveira

A. M. D.

Coco

A. L.

Zappulla

Kaspar

… DeSouze

(2004). Loneliness and social adaptation in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: A multi-national comparative study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1373–1384.

17.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

18.

Cohen

(2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59, 676–684.

19.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 55–62.

20.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.

21.

de Jong Gierveld

van Tilburg

T. G.

Dykstra

P. A.

(2006). Loneliness and social isolation. In Perlman

Vangelisti

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 485–500). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Ebesutani

Drescher

C. F.

Reise

S. P.

Heiden

Hight

Damon

Yongu

(2012). The loneliness questionnaire-short version: An evaluation of reverse-worded and non-reverse-worded items via item response theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 427–437.

23.

Gifford-Smith

M. E.

Brownell

C. A.

(2003). Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284.

24.

Goossens

Beyers

(2002). Comparing measures of childhood loneliness: Internal consistency and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 252–262.

25.

Heinrich

L. M.

Gullone

(2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 695–718.

26.

Huston

A. C.

Ripke

M. N.

(2006). Middle childhood: Contexts of development. In Huston

A. C.

Ripke

(Eds.), Developmental contests in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Hymel

Rubin

K. H.

Rowden

LeMare

(1990). Children’s peer relationship: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004–2021.

28.

Jobe-Shields

Cohen

Parra

(2011). Patterns of change in children’s loneliness: Trajectories from third through fifth grades. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 57, 25–47.

29.

Jones

A. C.

Schnka

K. C.

van Dulmen

M. H.

Bossarte

R. M.

Swahn

M. H.

(2011). Changes in loneliness during middle childhood predict risk for adolescent suicidality indirectly through mental health problems. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40, 818–824.

30.

Kass

R. E.

Wasserman

(1995). A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwarz criterion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 928–934.

31.

Kochel

K. P.

Ladd

G. W.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2012). Longitudinal associations among youths’ depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and low peer acceptance: An interpersonal process perspective. Child Development, 83, 637–650.

32.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Coleman

C. C.

(1997). Classroom peer acceptance, friendship, and victimization: Distinct relational systems that contribute uniquely to children’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181–1197.

33.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Wardrop

J. L.

(2001). Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134–151.

34.

LaFontana

K. M.

Cillessen

A. H.

(2002). Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647.

35.

Lasgaard

Goossens

Elklit

(2011). Loneliness, depressive symptomatology, and suicide ideation in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 137–150.

36.

Levitt

M. J.

Guacci-Franco

Levitt

J. L.

(1993). Convoys of social support in childhood and early adolescence: Structure and function. Developmental Psychology, 29, 811–818.

37.

Nangle

D. W.

Erdley

C. A.

Newman

J. E.

Mason

C. A.

Carpenter

E. M.

(2003). Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 546–555.

38.

Nishimura

Murakami

Sakurai

(2015). The development of the five-item loneliness scale for children. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 86, 368–373.

39.

Parker

J. G.

Asher

S. R.

(1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.

40.

Parker

J. G.

Seal

(1996). Forming, losing, renewing, and replacing friendships: Applying temporal parameters to the assessment of children’s friendship experiences. Child Development, 67, 2248–2268.

41.

Parkhurst

J. T.

Hopmeyer

(1999). Developmental change in the sources of loneliness in childhood and adolescence: Constructing a theoretical model. In Rotenberg

K. J.

Hymel

(Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 56–79). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Perren

Alsaker

F. D.

(2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bull-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 45–57.

43.

Posada

Buckley

T. R.

(2004). Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: Advantages of Akaike information criterion and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Systematic Biology, 53, 793–808.

44.

Qualter

Brown

S. L.

Munn

Rotenberg

K. J.

(2010). Childhood loneliness as a predictor of adolescent depressive symptoms: An 8-year longitudinal study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 493–501.

45.

Qualter

Brown

S. L.

Rotenberg

K. J.

Vanhalst

Harris

R. A.

Goossens

… Munn

(2013). Trajectories of loneliness during childhood and adolescence: Predictors and health outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1283–1293.

46.

Renshaw

P. D.

Brown

P. J.

(1993). Loneliness in middle childhood: Concurrent and longitudinal predictors. Child Development, 64, 1271–1284.

47.

Rotenberg

K. J.

(1999). Childhood and adolescent loneliness: An introduction. In Rotenberg

K. J.

Hymel

(Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 3–8). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Rotenberg

K. J.

McDougall

Boulton

M. J.

Vaillancourt

Fox

Hymel

(2004). Cross-sectional and longitudinal relations among peer-reported trustworthiness, social relationships, and psychological adjustment in children and early adolescents from the United Kingdom and Canada. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 46–67.

49.

Schinka

K. C.

VanDulmen

M. H.

Bossarte

Swahn

(2012). Association between loneliness and suicidality during middle childhood and adolescence: Longitudinal effects and the role of demographic characteristics. The Journal of Psychology, 146, 105–118.

50.

Sletta

Valas

Skaalvik

Sobstad

(1996). Peer relations, loneliness, and self-perceptions in school-aged children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 431–445.

51.

Sullivan

H. S.

(1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton.

52.

Terrell-Deutsch

(1999). The conceptualization and measurement of childhood loneliness. In Rotenberg

K. J.

Hymel

(Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 11–33). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

53.

UNICEF. (2007). An overview of child well-being in rich countries: A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations (Innocenti Report Card 7, 2007). Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.

54.

Vanhalst

Klimstra

T. A.

Luyckx

Scholte

R. H.

Engels

R. C.

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.

55.

Vernberg

E. M.

Ewell

K. K.

Beery

S. H.

Freeman

Abwender

D. A.

(1995). Aversive exchanges with peers and adjustment during early adolescence: Is disclosure helpful? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 26, 43–59.

56.

Weiss

R. S.

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

57.

Witvliet

Brendgen

Van Lier

P. A.

Koot

H. M.

Vitaro

(2010). Early adolescent depressive symptoms: Prediction from clique isolation, loneliness, and perceived social acceptance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1045–1056.