European

Psychologist

Coping with Loneliness:

A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Ami Rokach1, Hasan Bacanli2, and Gina Ramberan1
1

The Institute for the Study and Treatment of Psychosocial Stress, Toronto, Canada, 2Gazi University Ankara, Turkey

The present study examined the influence of cultural background on coping with loneliness. 711 participants from Canada, 568 from Turkey, and
389 from Argentina answered an 86-item questionnaire examining the
beneficial strategies they used to cope with loneliness. Those strategies
included acceptance and reflection, self-development and understanding,

social support network, distancing and denial, religion and faith, and
increased activity. Results indicated that cultural background affects the
strategies one uses to cope with loneliness. North Americans had the
highest mean scores on all six subscales, while Argentinians had the
lowest scores on five out of the six subscales.

Keywords: Loneliness, coping, cultural effects, gender differences.

Current research points out the pervasiveness of loneliness and its debilitating effects (Jones, Rose, & Russell,
1990; Rokach & Brock, 1997). As Sadler (1987) observed,
"many of us in today's world are living on the verge of
a lonely life. A significant number of us have experienced the ravages of loneliness; some of us have become
debilitated, depressed and demoralized by it" (p. 184).
Loneliness has been linked to such maladies as depression, suicide, hostility, alcoholism, poor self-concept,
and psychosomatic illnesses (McWhirter, 1990), and although most research was conducted in North America,
it is clear that the negative implications of loneliness are
felt regardless of the culture in which it occurs.
Different approaches to dealing with loneliness
have been postulated. Shaver, Furman and Buhrmester
(1985) found that lonely individuals appear to have intense social needs, but prefer solitude as a way of coping
with loneliness. The idea that solitude may afford comfort to lonely people received support in studies by Larson, Cziksentmihalyi, and Graef (1982), Rook and
Thuras (1987) and Andre (1991). While Rook and Peplau
(1982) emphasized the need to help the lonely develop
social support networks, Young (1982) employed a cognitive-behavioral approach aimed at modifying the
faulty perceptions, irrational beliefs, and perceived lack
of environmental or life control. That approach conceptualized loneliness as resulting from negative self-attri-

302

bution (Schultz & Moore, 1986) and thus aimed at

changing them.
Largely, loneliness research has tended to focus on
individual factors, i. e., either on personality factors or
lack of social contacts (Jylha & Jokela, 1990). However, if
we accept the premise that loneliness is expressive of the
individual's relationship to the community, then it is
conceivable that the difference among cultures and the
ways people's social relations are organized within them
will result in cross-cultural variations in the ways people
perceive, experience, and cope with loneliness. Wilson,
Sibanda, Sibanda, and Wilson (1989) asserted that little
cross-cultural research on loneliness exists. Ginter,
Glauser, and Richmond (1994) further pointed out the
importance and urgency for cross-cultural research.
Ami Rokach, PhD, is staff psychologist at the Ontario Correctional
Institute in Brampton, Ontario/Canada, where he works on psychological assessment and treatment of male incarcerates. He also holds
part-time faculty positions at the University of Toronto and at York
University. Rokach's research interests lie mainly in the area of loneliness, where he continues to carry out cross-cultural studies of loneliness, also examining the loneliness of marginalized groups in society
(homeless, drug addicts, and people afflicted with terminal illnesses
such as AIDS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis),
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ami
Rokach, PhD, The Institute for the Study and Treatment of Psychosocial Stress, 104 Combe Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H
4J9 (E-mail arokach@yorkuxa).

European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311

2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Coping with Loneliness: A Cross-Culturai Comparison

Segall, Lonner, and Berry (1998) reviewed the interplay between psychology and culture, and asserted that
"culture and all that it implies with respect to human
development, thought and behavior should be central,
not peripheral in psychological theory and research"
(p. 1108). Medora, Woodward, and Larson (1987) maintained that "among the important factors affecting the
individual's experience of loneliness are the culture arid
the family in which he/she develops" (p. 205). Consequently, the difference of social tapestry interpersonal
interactions, and the support networks available to individuals in various cultures and countries are, naturally
bound to effect the manner in which they experience
loneliness. According to Triandis (1996), contemporary
psychology is based on research conducted in the Western Hemisphere (e. g., Europe, North America, and Australia), even though approximately 70% of the world's
population lives in non-Western regions. He concluded
that "if psychology is to become a universal discipline it
will need both theories and data from the majority of
humans" (p. 407). The present study focused on adults
in three diverse populations: from North America (exemplified in this case by Canadian participants), from
Turkey and from Argentina. These cultures differ geographically religiously economically, and socially
The North American Culture

It has been frequently pointed out (Schneider, 1998; Sermat, 1980) that loneliness is prevalent and may even be
encouraged by North American culture. Ostrov and Offer (1980) reasoned that the North American culture emphasizes individual achievement, competitiveness, and
impersonal social relations. Consequently, loneliness
may be quite pronounced in the face of such socially
alienating values. Saxton (1986) argued that in contemporary North American society, there is a decline in primary group contactsthe face-to-face, intimate contacts
with family members, relatives, and close friends that
were much more prevalent in the past. Since the 1960s,
residential mobility has enhanced loneliness in North
America by causing people to remain uninvolved in
their social groups because of their acute awareness of
an impending or at least possible move (Packard, 1972;
Walker, 1966). In addition, large metropolitan areas, with
their large apartment complexes, social prejudice, and
fear of crime, add to people's reluctance to interact and
get involved with each other (Medora, Woodward, &
Larson, 1987). Schneider (1998) reported that the North
American culture is incapable of producing symptom
reduction and adjustment as criteria for psychological
European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

well-being (see also Breggin, 1991). He pointed out that

normality in America is associated with such conditions
as spiritual and emotional emptiness (Cushman, 1995),
Type A personality, and workaholism (Fassel,
1990)factors that have been demonstrated to erode
physical and mental health (Bracke & Bugental, 1995).
Coupled with the increased computerization and internet use, this culture magnifies the individual's social
alienation, limited contact with others (within and without one's family), and loneliness (Kraut, Patterson,
Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998).
Since the American and the Canadian cultures share a
common language, geographical proximity, a flow of
visitors between the countries, commercial interconnections, and economical alliances, the Canadian sample
will be examined as part of the North American culture.
The Turkish Culture

The Republic of Turkey is nestled in the meeting place

of Europe and Asia and is surrounded by the Mediterranean, the Aegean, and the Black seas. Turkey is a secular
republic, almost all of whose inhabitants are Muslim
(Mango, 1994). The secular nature of the Turkish state
sets it apart from almost all other countries with Muslim
majorities in that Turks share the Western aspiration to
a free and comfortable life, and the governments they
elect must meet those aspirations (Mango, 1994). Two
contrary tendencies are presently at work in Turkey: The
first is said to be the gradual secularization of society, the
growth of consumer culture, the influence of the media,
and contacts with the outside world. The opposing tendency is a return to the late Ottoman practice of using
religion for purposes of social control and legitimization. There is now a limited, but growing, revival of Islamic sentiment as a source of comfort in a difficult
world (Encyclopedia of World Geography, 1994).
The population of the republic, which numbered
13.6 million at the time of the first census in 1927, rose to
56.5 million at the time of the last census in 1990. The
Turkish State Institute of Statistics estimated that the
population would rise to 70 million by the turn of the
millennium. The rapid growth of the population has resulted from improved health services and the preservation of peace during the republic's 70 years (Mango,
1994). The urban population is growing in a fast pace,
and recent statistics indicate that there are 73 cities with
more than 100,000 inhabitants. The population of the
province of Istanbul, for example, is almost totally urban. Most of the population, even villagers, are now
within reach of road, water, electricity and telecommu-

303

Ami Rokach et ai.

nications networks (Encyclopedia of World Geography,

1994).
Western and international influences are pervasive,
secularism is politically correct, and feminism and environmentalism are beginning to make an impact. Nevertheless/ the Turkish society still adheres to traditional
values. For instance, standards of right and wrong, and
those of honor remain strong. Hospitality is prized, and
society is held together by a network of personal connections that confer rights and impose duties. The emancipation of women came a fair way. Many women hold
positions of authority in higher professions, the judiciary, private business, cultural affairs, and education.
Turkish law now gives equal treatment to men and
women (Mango, 1994). However, there is still inequality
between the genders as far as family life is concerned,
which derives from Islamic traditions as well as from
traditional Mediterranean culture.
Nuclear families frequently live in small apartments, but loyalty to the extended family remains the
strongest social bond. People also experience solidarity
and a sense of belonging through their shared educational and professional backgrounds, and through their
membership in religious groups. All in all, the Turkish
society in permeated by networks of primordial loyalty
affinity, friendship, and material interest (Mango, 1994;
Encyclopedia of World Geography, 1994).
The Argentinian Culture

The Republic of Argentina is situated at the southern tip

of South America, and has the third largest Spanishspeaking population in the world (Fox, 1990). The overwhelming majority of the population is Roman Catholic.
The country has gone through political turmoil in the
1970s and an economic one in the 1980s. The brutal rule
of the military dictatorship during 1976-1982, characterized by politically motivated killings, kidnappings, and
torture, was followed by an economic crisis (1988-1992)
that resulted in a very sharp devaluation of the peso,
thousands lost their jobs, and social servicesincluding
public health and public educationpractically collapsed (Lewis & Torrents, 1993).
Today, Argentina is a democracy with a stable political system and a president who has been in power since
1989. The Argentinians are known "for fierce pride, elaborate rituals in relations between the sexes, and impulsive actions" (Fox, 1990, p. 3). Social values stress masculinitydividing women from men; they also exalt individualismdividing everyone from everyone else.
Loyalty is usually reserved in the Argentinian society to

304

one's family and close circle of friends and /or acquaintances (Lewis & Torrents, 1993; Tulchin & Garland,
1998).
Loneliness research tends to focus on individual
factors, that is either on personality factors or lack of
social contacts (Jylha & Jokela, 1990). However, loneliness could be expressive of the individual's relationship
to the community. It is conceivable, then, that the difference of the social tapestry, interpersonal interactions and
the support networks available to individuals in various
cultures and the manner in which people's social relations are organized within them, will result in cross-cultural variations in the way people cope with loneliness.
The present study, then, aimed at examining the manner
in which populations with differing cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, norms and values cope with
loneliness.

Method
Participants

A total of 1164 participants volunteered to answer the

loneliness questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty nine
participants from Argentina, 568 from Turkey and 711
Canadian formed the pool of participants for this study.
The average age of the 1164 participants was 32.08
years (range 13-83) and the mean education was 12.08
years (range 1-22). Fifty-seven percent of the participants
were single, 28% were married and 14% were separated,
divorced, or widowed. Table 1 outlines the breakdown of
genders, age, and educational levels within each culture.
Procedure

Participants were asked to reflect on their past loneliness

experiences and to endorse those items that described
the beneficial strategies they used to cope with loneliness.
It took approximately 10 minutes to answer the questionnaire. Participants were recruited in urban centers in
the three countries. In Canada they were recruited in
community centers, local universities, evening classes or
special interest groups (i. e., Alcoholics Anonymous,
Parents Without Partners, etc.). Participants took part in
the study on a volunteer basis and were assured of anonymity. The Argentinian and Turkish participants received the questionnaire translated into their languages.
Participants from Turkey and Argentina were recruited
from among university students, their parents, and others from the general population.
European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Coping with Loneliness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

The Loneliness Questionnaire

All items for the questionnaire were written by the senior author and based on Rokach's previous research on
loneliness (Rokach, 1990). That study yielded a theoretical model of coping with loneliness as reported by 526
participants who were asked to describe the strategies
they employed in coping with loneliness that had
proved to be beneficial to them. The present items were
chosen from those descriptions and were modified to
provide clarity and gender neutrality. The first draft was
reviewed by six psychologists and two psychology students for any items or instructions, which lacked in clarity, relevance/ or content. The questionnaire was then
constructed incorporating this feedback. The questionnaire has 86 items, which describe a variety of beneficial
coping strategies. The general instructions requested
that participants reflect on their previous experiences of
loneliness and endorse the items that described the coping strategies that were most helpful to them. They were
assured of "anonymity and were asked not to identify
themselves.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation was applied to the data with .40 being the minimum score for an item to load on a given factor. The
factor analysis procedure, using the SPSS program, extracted the principal components and the factor matrix
was subjected to a varimax rotation. The items contributing to the factors were then examined for their meaning. Six factors could be assigned meaning, and each accounted for sufficient amount of the variance (at least
3%) to support statistical meaningfulness. The remaining factors accounted for 1% or 2% of the variance and
so were ignored. Accordingly, repetitions of the varimax
rotations were limited to five factors each to permit the
results to be restricted to the most robust factors.

Factor 4, Distancing and denial (3%) = denial of the experience and pain of loneliness by alcoholism, drug
abuse, and other deviant behaviors (11 items);
Factor 5, Religion and faith (3%) = the need to connect to
and worship a divine entity. Through affiliation with
a religious group and practicing its faith one can gain
strength, inner peace, and a sense of community and
belonging (12 items);
Factor 6, Increased activity (3%), includes 9 items that
emphasize active pursuit of daily responsibilities as
well as fun-filled solitary or group activities, thus maximizing one's social contacts (see Appendix A for sample items).
Each of the six factors comprised a subscale and participants' scores are the sum of items they endorsed in each
subscale. Kuder-Richardson internal consistency reliabilities were calculated and yielded the following alpha
values: F(i) = .84; F{2) = .65; F(3) = .72; F(4) = -73; F(5) = .83;
F(6) = .62. K-R a for the 86-item questionnaire was .84 (see
Appendix A for sample items).
The present study took the position that, in light of
the world's interconnectedness (Hermans & Kempen,
1998), the same questionnaire employed in North America would be suitable, understood by, and apply to the
Argentinian and the Turkish populations. The questionnaires were translated by bilingual faculty members in
Turkey and Argentina and were edited for clarity and
accuracy of content and meaning.

Results

The results of the present study confirmed the hypothesis that the manner in which one copes with loneliness
All 86 items and subscales of the present question- varies according to one's culture and background. Cananaire were taken from Rokach and Brock (1998). The dians had significantly higher mean scores on all six substrategies were grouped into six factors:
scales than both the Turkish and the Argentinians.
Factor 1, Reflection and acceptance (14% of the variance)
Table 1 outlines that breakdown by gender, martial
= being by one's self to become acquainted with one's status, age, and education. A gender by culture %2 analfears, wishes and needs; and consequently accepting ysis was significant (/2{i,2) - 155.57; p < .0001). Similarly,
one's loneliness and it's resultant pain (20 items);
marital status was also significantly different among the
2
Factor 2, Self-development and understanding (5%) = the three cultures (X<2,3) = 114.44; p < .001). Age by culture
increased self-intimacy, renewal, and growth that are ANOVA (F{2,i584) = 58.71; p < .001) and education by culoften the results of active participation in organized ture ANOVA (F(2,i653) = 251.22; p < .001) found age and
focused groups or of receiving professional help and education to be significantly different among the three
cultures. Consequently, gender, marital status, age, and
support (16 items);
Factor 3, Social support network (4%) = the reestablishing education were co-varied in the following analyses.
Table 2 compared the mean scores on each of the six
of social support network that can help one feel consubscales among the three cultures. A multivariate analnected to and valued by others (18 items);
European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

305

Ami Rokach et a!.

Table 1
Demographics.
Population

Argentina

389

Males

189
(49%)
200
(51%)

Females

Marital Status
Single
Married

Divorced

Education
M
SD

Age
M

140
(36%)
63

73
(19%)
30

11.37 4.34
(1-18)
11.64 4.27

43.77 19.36
(16-83)
42.74 18.74

11.1

44.74 19.93

77
X2d,3) =

Turkey
Males
Females

568

Males
Females

203
(36%)
360
(64%)

711

Males
Females

131
(23%)
45
86

129

1664
893
(54%)
771
(46%)

6
(1%)
2
4

.271

395
(56%)
266

497
(70%)
210
(30%)

43

5.04

265

X20.2) =

Total

79

419
(74%)
154

X2d,2) =

Canada

173
(45%)
94

F(l,387)= 1.031

13.27 2.24
(3-19)
13.70 2.22

23.72 7.06
(16-56)
23.93 6.75

13.03 2.22

23.61

F<i,si9>= 1 0 . 7 2 * *

F(i,560) = -261

7.24

150
(21%)
109

11.57 2.75
(1-22)
11.14 2.55

32.26 13.62
(13-80)
33.11 12.35

40

41

12.58 2.94

30.23 16.12

F<1,673) = 4 1 . 3 0 * * *

F<i.7o3) = 6 . 6 0 * *

12.08 3.19
(1-22)

32.07 15.48
(13-83)

F(2,842> = 4 9 . 7 7 * * *

F(2.386)=101.43***

F(2,737) = 2 4 . 3 6 * * *

F(2,764)= 1 4 5 . 1 1 * * *

.135

954
(57%)
483

466
(28%)
261

471

205

229
(14%)
141
88

X2(2.3) marital status by culture = 1 1 4 . 4 4 * * *

=

F ( i,387)= 1 . 5 3 7 *

162
(23%)
122

X20,2)sexbyculture = 1 5 5 . 5 7 * * *
F(2,1584)educationbyculture

4.4

SD

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

Ranges are in parentheses

58.71***

F<2,1653) age by culture = 2 5 1 . 2 2 * * *

ysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was significant at the

.001 level (see Table 2). Consequently univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) for each coping subscale
across the three cultures were conducted. The ANCOVAs indicated that Canadians had the highest mean
score on each of the six subscales.
Analyses were conducted to examine whether men
and women within each culture scored differently.
MANCOVAs indicated that the men and women scored
significantly differently only in Argentina, and these differences were restricted to the Self-development and understanding and the Reflection and faith subscales. We
also examined the pattern of scores for men and women
across cultures: MANCOVAs indicated significant dif-

306

ferences within each gender across the three cultures.

One-way ANOVAs showed that men and women scored
significantly different on each subscale.

Discussion
Considerable diversity appears to exist among the coping strategies available to the lonely (Rokach & Brock,
1998), and individual choices of coping strategies are affected by the individual's age, life experiences, cultural
background, and the availability of methods of alleviating loneliness. To echo the Basic Behavioral Science Task
Force (1996, p. 722): "Social, cultural, and environmental
European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Coping with Loneliness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

X3

rs. in m

CO

ro

rsi

co *st r n
<> r-. t o

XI

co o rsj
rsj ro CM

r- o Ln
co cn co

o
o

rsi

ro ro

(JD ID

cn co "vt cn
< q rsj r*.
^ ^_ ^ co

rsj

ro r-s in

Ln r - CO

o rsi
r*- r\i

CO

r- co ro
rsj rsj T -

o o Ch

co co co

in
ro

r-- og in
ro ^f rsi

a.

oo cn rsi

rsj rsj r~
rsi rsi rsi

n5 Is
Q XJ

sf t n t
ro in kD

00

ro ro rsi

CO

cn

^!^:

rsj rsi ^

tn
rsj

rsj
T ^ "

* ~

LD

II

II

m co r-~
o ^r ro

a.

Ln

00

rsi

cn

00

_ ;

rsj

3.68
3.70
3.63

2.23
2.24
2.22

51

'"I

o
rsj

82.

r*- r**> *-D

CM O *
* - 00 UD

2.62
2.84
2.37

c
1

+
ro

co
rs)

X5

II

II

*t

m
(si"

*SJ

rr
is
(

ur

ZJ

u
XJ
OJ

"cn
4'

II
>

CO vt 00
oq r~- CJ*

LT> O

*3" ro

in
ro

co O r-rsj ro rsj

co r- Ch

in
ro

tn
tn

xj

QJ C

T3 3
: XJ
QJ C

a.
o

ro Ln
ui ^ TJ

ro" ro m cq

O\

QJ

ur

* - rsj co

ro

Ln us rsj

in

rsi

o cn m

ro

|s. O ffl

cn rsi
CO q
rsi rsj ro

st rsi

cn
00

m in
en oq cn
uS <S

en
q

in

co

in

fD

CO

cn
CO

u
(/I

rsi

CO
E!

li

1164
893

ro
in

711
497
210

568
202
360

rsi

CO CO O
ro rsi

o
Q.
O

O P

QJ f ~ l

llll

European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311

2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

c
o

O
U

JS

< H

<

^j

Q_

iy

CL

u 2
T3 ^ a> ._
it;
C "a

5O +

U rsj

u.

C ^*

v-S 8

rsi

"st

3
rg X)
c
<^
.O
LO* " XJ
q 16 & <T3
LU

307

Ami Rokach et af.

forces shape who we are and how well we function in

the everyday world. The culture we belong to, the neighborhood we live in, and the demographic composition
of our community" all profoundly influence mental
health, adjustment to daily demands, and our ability to
cope with loneliness.
Mijuskovic (1992) distinguished two models of human organization, namely, the organic community (which
Turkey may resemble) and the atomistic society, which
North America is said to exemplify. In the basis of an
organic community, such as Turkey, "is the conviction
that each person should function or behave in an interdependent and synchronous fashion in relation to the
other members [of the community]" (p. 149). In such a
community, the whole defines the individual, who could
not exist without it. The individual greatly relies on the
community for support, a sense of belonging, reciprocal
sharing with others, and a sense of identity. Turkey, with
its emphasis on close family ties and religious observance, is described in those terms (Hooglund, 1996).
The North American culture, on the other hand,
stresses individual achievement and competitive, impersonal social relations, which make alliances with others difficult (Medora, Woodward, & Larson, 1987). They
were described by Mijuskovic (1992) as examples of the
atomistic societies where "relations are essentially regarded as contractual, external, legalistic, formalistic
[and such a] society, then is the outcome of an artificial
agreement" (p. 152). A decline in primary group contacts, increased mobility, a decline in neighborhood contacts, and an emphasis on autonomy and personal success characterize that society (Medora, Woodward, &
Larson, 1987). Weinrob (1987) referred to the North
American as the mechanized society.
Results of the present study indicated that North
Americans scored significantly higher than their Turkish
and Argentinian counterparts on the six subscales. The
reflection and acceptance so fundamental to successfully coping with loneliness (Rokach & Brock, 1998) are
probably mostly subscribed to by the North American
culture, with its emphasis on self-growth, understanding, and acceptance. Thus, North Americans had the
highest mean score on this subscale. It is possible that
this is also the reason why the Argentinian sample, who
has been exposedalbeit on a somewhat limited basisto the North American influence, scored higher
than the Turkish sample (see Fox, 1990; Hooglund,
1996).
The self-development and understanding subscale
includes items highlighting increased self intimacy, renewal, and growth, which are often the results of active

308

participation in organized focused groups or of receiving professional help and support. The willingness to
seek professional help is probably higher in North
America than anywhere else in the world. Additionally,
one would be hard pressed to find in other countries the
multitude of professionals (from social workers and
psychologists to guidance counselors) who are readily
available to assist the citizens. It is consequently suggested that North Americans most probably see the benefit in using those therapeutic alliances to ward off the
pain of loneliness than their Argentinian and Turkish
counterparts.
Weintrob (1987) highlighted the mechanized society the North American culture has become. In that society with its instant food, instant drinks, and readily
available instant communication to anywhere in the
world, we strive to create instant relationships. "We try
to be instantly appealing, instantly interested, and instantly connected" (p. 78). As Lewin (1948) observed
more than half a century ago, North American inhabitants reveal a great deal about themselves and make
friends easily but do not develop highly intimate relationships (or as Weintrob implies: they develop shallow
relationships). The Germans and other Europeans, he
said, were exactly the opposite: slow to open up, but
friendships that developed were intimate and long lasting. It is thus suggested that the present differential scoring on self-development and understanding, social support network, and increased activity (or even the common workaholism) are a reflection of the short-term
relationship difficulties in connecting to others. It is also
indicative of the need to achieve, produce, and succeed,
something North Americans are probably more adept at
using as an approach to dealing with loneliness (Coon,
1992; Mijuskovic, 1992; Saxton, 1986).
Another effect the North American mechanized
and atomistic society may have on its people is the need
to appear connected, appealing, and romantically desirable, lest the person feel rejected and be seen as a failure
(Gordon, 1976; Mijuskovic, 1992; Weintrob, 1987). As Rokach (1999) found, those who grow up in the relatively
alienating North American culture with its emphasis on
competitiveness and impersonal social relations appear
to endorse distancing and denial significantly more than
those who were not raised there. Results of the present
study are consistent with that previous finding. North
Americans scored significantly higher on distancing and
denial than did their Argentinian and Turkish counterparts, who may not feel the pressure and the need to
appear as socially appealing and connected as North
Americans do.
European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Coping with Loneliness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Although it has been reported that North Americans do indeed use prayer and the sense of belonging
which attendance at religious services entails as a way
of alleviating the gnawing pain of loneliness (Andre,
1991; Rokach & Brock, 1998), it has not been reported as
a widely held strategy that secular people use to cope
with loneliness. It is therefore surprising and contrary to
expectations that North Americans, rather than the devout Turkish Muslims or the Argentinians, who grow up
in a mostly Roman Catholic country, would use and benefit from prayer. These results contradict those of a previous study (Rokach, 1999), which suggested that North
American adults score lower on religion and faith than
those who were raised in more traditional and religious
countries (see also Ramdin, 1991).
If we examine the genders across the three cultures,
the same trends emerge. North Americans (both men
and women) had the highest mean scores, while the Argentinians had the lowest mean scores on all (but Reflection and acceptance). While male scores did not differ
significantly from those of females in the North American and Turkish samples, they were significantly different in the Argentinian sample. Those differences were
particularly notable in the factors Self-development and
understanding and Religion and faith, where women
scored higher than men. As previously mentioned, Argentinian man have been described as lone warriors
who are independent, brave, and freely expressive of
their masculinity via gender-specific behaviors (Fox,
1990). Argentinian women are typically socialized to be
more self-reflecting, to attend to matters of the soul, and
to look after the religious education of their children and
their religious practices, while the men are at work or
after work meet with their friends in a local cafe (Fox,
1990; Lewis & Torrents, 1993). It thus stands to reason
that Argentinian women would ascribe more importance to self-development and understanding and religion and faith as strategies to cope with loneliness than
Argentinian men would.
To conclude, it appears that cultural background
clearly affects the strategies used in coping with loneliness. North Americans scored the highest on all six subscales, while the Argentinian had the lowest scores (on
five out of the six subscales). Examining each gender
across cultures yielded similar results.
Further research is needed to replicate the present
study with the three cultures, as well as comparing their
way of coping with loneliness to that of people from
other cultures. In light of the growing awareness that
research conducted in Western cultures does not necessarily represent the psychology of non-Western populaEuropean Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311
2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

tions (Triandis, 1996), the three populations that were

compared in this study could also be compared to those
of a Third-World country. It may also be beneficial for
future research to establish whether differences which
were found in this study were attributable to qualitative
differences between cultures or to quantitative differences in coping strategies.
Acknowledgment

We wish to thank Tricia Orzeck for her help with data

analysis.

References
Andre, R. (1991). Positive solitude: A practical program for mastering
loneliness and achieving self-fulfillment. New York: HarperCollins.
Basic Behavioral Science Task Force for the National Advisory
Mental Health Council (1996). Basic behavioral science research for mental health: Sociocultural and environmental
processes. American Psychologist, 51, 722-731.
Bracke, P.E., & Bugental, J.ET. (1995). Existential addiction: Amodel for treating Type A behavior and workaholism. In T.
Pauchant (Ed.), In search of meaning: Managing for the health of
our organizations, our communities, and the natural world
(pp. 65-93). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Breggin, P. (1991). Toxic psychiatry. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Coon, D. (1992). Introduction to psychology: Exploration and application (6th ed.). New York: West Publishing.
Encyclopedia of World Geography (1994). Turkey. Vol.1. Toronto:
World Book.
Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death. San Francisco: Harper.
Fox, G. (1990). The land and people of Argentina. New York: J.B. Lippincott.
Ginter, E.J., Glauser, A., & Richmond, B.D. (1994). Loneliness, social support, and anxiety among two south pacific culture. Psychological Reports, 74, 875-879.
Gordon, S. (1976). Lonely in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hermans, H.J.M., & Kempen, H.J.G. (1998). Moving cultures: The
perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111-1120.
Hooglund, E. (1996). The society and its environment. In H. C.
Metz (Ed.), Turkey: A country study (pp. 71-143). Maryland,
Lenham: Federal Research Division Library of Congress.
Jones, W.H., Rose, ]., & Russell, D. (1990). Loneliness and social
anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation
anxiety (pp. 247-266). New York: Plenum.
Jylha, M., & Jokela, J. (1990). Individual experiences as culturalA
cross-cultural study on loneliness among the elderly. Aging and
Society, 10, 295-315.

309

Ami Rokach et ai.

Kraut, R-/ Patterson, M v Lundmark, B., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay,
Rook, K.S., & Thuras, P. (1987). Attitudes toward solitude, "solitude
T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: Asocial technology
skill/' and loneliness. Unpublished manuscript University of
that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
California, Irvine, Program in Social Ecology.
American Psychologist, 53,1017-1031.
Sadler, W.A. (1987). Dimensions in the problem of loneliness: A
Larson, R., Cziksentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone in
phenomenological approach in social psychology. Journal of
daily experience: Loneliness or renewal? In L.A. Peplau & D
Phenomenological Psychology, 9,157-187.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of theory, research andSaxton, L. (1986). The individual, marriage, and family. Belmont, CA:
therapy (pp. 40-53). New York: Wiley.
Wadsworth Publishing.
Lewin, K. (1948). Some social-psychological differences between
Schneider, K.J. (1998). Toward a science of the heart: Romanticism
the United States and Germany. In G. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving
and the revival of psychology. American Psychologist, 53,
social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. 1935-1946.
277-289. "
New York: Harper and Row.
Schultz, N.R., & Moore, D. (1986). The loneliness experience of
Lewis, CM., & Torrents, N. (1993). Argentina in the crisis years
college students: Sex differences. Personality and Social Psychol(1983-1990) from Alfonsin to Menem (pp. 1-10). London: Instiogy Bulletin, 12(1), 111-119.
tute of Latin American Studies.
Segall, M.H., Lonner, W.J., & Berry, J.W. (1998). Cross-cultural psyMango, A. (1994). Turkey: The challenge of a new role. Westport, CN:
chology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture
Praeger Publishers and the Center for Strategies and Internain behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53,1101-1110.
tional Studies, Washington, DC.
Sermat, V. (1980). Some situational and personality correlates of
McWhriter, B.T. (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature
loneliness. In J. Hartog, J.R. Audy, & Y.A. Cohen (Eds.), The
with implications for counseling and research. Journal of Counanatomy of loneliness (pp. 305-318). New York: International
seling and Development 68, 417-423.
University Press.
Medora, N v Woodward, J., & Larson, J. (1987). Adolescent loneliShaver, P., Furman, W, & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Aspects of a life
ness: A cross-cultural comparison of American and Asian Inin transition: Network changes, social skills and loneliness. In
dians. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 28,204-210.
S.W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationMijuskovic, B. (1992). Organic communities, atomistic societies and
ships (pp. 193-219). London: Sage.
loneliness. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 19,147-164. Triandis, H.C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural
Ostrov, E., & Offer, D. (1980). Loneliness and the adolescent. In J.
syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415.
Hartog, J.R. Audy, & Y. Cohen (Eds.), The anatomy of loneliness Tulchin, J.S., & Garland, A.M. (1998). Argentina: The challenges of
(pp. 170-185). New York: International University Press.
modernization. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.
Packard, V. (1972, Nov.). Are there no roots in America? Sunday
Walker, H.B. (1966). 7b compare loneliness. New York: Harper and
World Herald Magazine of the Midlands. 12, 5-7.
Row.
Ramdin, R. (1991). World in view: West Indies. Austin, TX: SteckWeintrob, H.L. (1987). Self disclosure as a marketable commodity.
Vaughn Library.
In M. Hojat & R. Crandall (Eds.), Loneliness: theory, research,
and application [special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and
Rokach, A. (1990). Surviving and coping with loneliness. Journal
Personality, 2(2), 77-88.
of Psychology, 124, 39-54.
Rokach, A. (1999). Cultural background and coping with loneliWilson, D., Sibanda, J., Sibanda, P., & Wilson, C. (1989). Personality
concomitants of loneliness among black and white male Zimness. Journal of Psychology, 133,217-229.
babwean adolescents. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129,
Rokach, A., & Brock, H. (1998). Coping with loneliness. Journal of
577-578.
Psychology, 132, 107-127.
Young,
J.E. (1982). Loneliness, depression and cognitive therapy:
Rokach, A., & Brock, H. (1997). Loneliness and the effects of life
theory
application. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Lonelichanges. Journal of Psychology, 131, 284-298.
ness:
A
sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 379Rook, K.S., & Peplau, L.A. (1982). Perspectives on helping the
406). New York: Wiley.
lonely. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 351-378). New
York: Wiley.

310

European Psychologist, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311

2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

Coping with Loneliness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Appendix A
Coping with Loneliness
Sample Items
Factor 1: Reflection and acceptance
I came to accept how I felt (.59)*
I turned loneliness into a time for reflection (.61)
I came to view being alone as an opportunity to think
things through and set new goals for myself (.64)
I tried to focus on what really mattered to me in life
(.59)
Factor 2: Self-development and understanding
I sought professional help from a medical doctor (.57)
I actively sought to make new friends at social groups
I attended (.40)
I enrolled in personal development seminars (.51)
I went back to work after years of being at home (.41)
Factor 3: Social support network
I renewed old friendships (.49)
I spent time at places where I knew there would be a
lot of people (.45)

European Psychologist Vol. 5, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 302-311

2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers

I went to more parties and social functions (.63)

I corresponded with friends/family more frequently
(.42)
Factor 4: Distancing and denial
I denied to myself that anything was wrong (.48)
I purposely built walls around myself (.55)
I avoided social functions (.40)
I drank alcohol to excess (.58)
Factor 5: Religion and faith
I sought answers to my problems in prayer (.75)
My attendance at religious services increased (.68)
I felt strengthened and comforted by my faith in God
(.76)
I actively sought to make friends at my church (.56)
Factor 6: Increased activity
I took up a new hobby (.51)
I got a part-time job (.42)
I took up a new sport (.46)
I immersed myself in work (.53)
The factor loading of the item.

311