lournal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1997, pp.

277-298

FAR AWAY FROM HOME: THE LONELINESS

EXPERIENCE OF OVERSEAS STUDENTS

HADAS WISEMAN
University of Haifa

This study investigated the experience of loneliness in college students studying

far away from home in a new culture, while undergoing changes in the balance of
different relationships in their lives. A sample of 103 overseas students (45 males
and 58 females), who came from North America to Israel on a one-year program,
completed the UCfA Loneliness Scale, indices of quantity and quality of social
relationships, and the Intimacy Scale. Contrary to what was expected, the loneli
ness scores of the overseas students were not higher than the normative scores of

American college students. The predictors of loneliness were satisfaction with

friends in Israel (22%), satisfaction with friends back home (11%), eating and
spending weekends alone (4%), and opposite-sex intimacy (2"/n). Interviews with
a subsample of students (n 20) showed that within a few weeks most students
=

enjoyed strong social support from their overseas triends. Limitations of the study
and directions for future research on overseas loneliness are discussed and
implications for counselors are suggested.

The present research set out to

study the experience of loneliness in
college students studying overseas. The overseas context is one which
has been largely neglected in the study of loneliness. A situation in which

college students study far away from home in a new culture for a finite
period of time, while undergoing changes in the balance of different
relationships in their lives, is certainly unique. In such a transitional,
international experience, students are faced both with problems that
confront anybody living in a foreign culture, as well as with difficulties
that face all late adolescents and young adults, whether they are study-

The author is indebted to Amia Liebhch for her assistance in the realization of this work,
to Roanne Feinberg for her invaluable part in this research, to Michal Givon for her
assistance with the interview material, and to Rachel Seginer for her helpful comments and
suggestions. Finally special gratitude is given to the overseas students who participated in
the study for sharing their experiences.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hadas Wiseman, School

of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel; or, e-mail: hadasw@con-
struct.haifa.ac.il.

277
278 WISEMAN

ing at home or overseas (Fumham, 1988). This combination would

appear put these young adults
to
particularly at high risk for loneliness
during their overseas
experience.
A literature search on the overseas
experience showed this area to be
under the general area of cross-cultural transitions, which refers to such
diverse groups as
immigrants, refugees, and sojourners (e.g., Kim &
Gudykunst, 1988; Searle & Ward, 1990; Shuval, 1982; Taft, 1977). Defin
ing sojourners and the dimensions that distinguish them from other

groups of travelers (such as tourists and migrants), Furnham (1988)

stressed two dimensions: the length of time spent in the foreign country
and the motives for travel. According to Furnham (1988) sojourners

spend a medium length of time (six months to five years) at a place,

usually intending to return "home," and their motives are specific and
goal-oriented. Foreign students fall within this category and much of the
research on sojourner adjustment (Church, 1982; Weissman & Furnham,
1987) has been on the adjustment of foreign students to their host culture
and, in general, their overseas adaptation (Martin, Bradford, & Rohrlich,
1995; Searle & Ward, 1990).
Studies foreign students have focused on the relationship between
on

mental health and academic performance (reviewed in Furnham, 1988).

Overseas students were found to be more likely to fail academically, and
such failure was found to be partially related to psychological stress
(Cox, Babiker, & Miller, 1981). The stress described by the subjects most
frequently related to homesickness and language difficulties. December,
in particular, was a month of unhappiness, which the authors postulated

may be due to homesickness at Christmas (i.e., the lack of family support

and the absence of the majority of students who have been able to return
to their homes). Specifically with
respect to loneliness, however, there
has been little actual research regarding college students studying over
seas. Previous studies have addressed the issue of loneliness
by asking
students to complete checklists or single items referring to homesickness
or feelings of loneliness (e.g., Martin et al., 1995). What is
lacking in
previous studies on the overseas
experience is an
investigation of lone
liness that capitalizes on the advances that have been made in the well
established area of loneliness research.
In the last 15 years there has been a growing interest in the study of
loneliness, with a special emphasis on the relationship between loneli
nessand mental health, the identification of high risk groups, and the

development of prevention and intervention programs (Archibald,

Bartholomew, & Marx, 1995; McWhirter, 1990; Peplau & Goldston, 1984;
Rook, 1984, 1988; Weiss, 1987). Although loneliness is as old as human
kind, its scientific study is still evolving (Perlman, 1987). Research on
loneliness has been facilitated by the development of the UCLA Loneli-
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 279

ness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Studies investigated the

relationship of loneliness with a wide variety of personality variables,

such as self-esteem, and
shyness, anxiety, (e.g., Goswick &
depression
Jones, 1981; Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana, 1985; Russell et al., 1980), the
relationship of loneliness with social network variables and with per
ceived social support (e.g., Jones & Moore, 1987; Pierce, Sarason, &
Sarason, 1991; Stokes, 1985), and gender differences in loneliness (e.g.,
Borys & Perlman, 1985; Stokes & Levin, 1986; Wiseman, Guttfreund, &
Luire, 1995).
Intuitively, one might expect that the situation in which the individual
experiences loneliness would make a difference, both in terms of direct
impact on the degree of loneliness felt, and in terms of the predictors of
loneliness in the specific context. Previous studies have paid very little
attention to context and have usually dealt with the predictors of loneli
ness in
samples of undergraduate university students (e.g., Stokes, 1985;
Bruch, Kaflowitz, & Pearl, 1988), or
specifically in the context of the
transition to college in the USA (e.g., Cutrona, 1982; Shaver, Furman, &
Buhrmester, 1985).
While the research on loneliness in overseas students has been
sparse, there has been much research on loneliness in college stu
dents. Several findings have emerged from the literature on loneliness
in college students which are relevant to the present investigation (for
a review see McWhirter, 1990). The association between loneliness
and the variable of ease of making friends was found in two studies,
one
using a
sample of midwestern United States university students
(Medora & Woodward, 1986a), and the other including Asian-Indian
students (Medora, Woodward, 1986b).

Studying the transition of students to college in their first year at

UCLA, Cutrona (1982) found that variables of quality referring to sub
jective satisfaction with relationships were better predictors of loneliness
than were referring to extent of social involvement.
variables of quantity
Satisfaction with friendships, for
example, was more closely linked to
loneliness than either number of friends or frequency of contact with
friends. In addition, in comparing the satisfaction ratings of students'
relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners, Cutrona found
that the best predictor of loneliness scores was the degree of satisfaction
with current friendships. In other words, dissatisfaction with friends was
most closely linked to loneliness. In later college years, loneliness has

been found to be linked equally closely to romantic and friendship

relations. As indicated by Cutrona (1982), this suggests that during

young adulthood the young adult is undergoing a

developmental shift
in social needs.
A study which examined adaptation to college of advanced students
280 WISEMAN

at a
metropolitan university in the Netherlands found that the more
adapted students experienced less depression, interpersonal helpless
ness, and loneliness (Van-Rooijen, 1986). Indeed, it seems likely that the

ability to adapt successfully to a new situation would in general be

related to various aspects of psychological health, loneliness included.
While previous studies on loneliness in college students are of interest
to the study of overseas students, the experience of loneliness in overseas

students needs to be studied in its own right. In the sojourner adjustment

research, the one study (Ward & Searle, 1991) that employed a reliable
and valid measure of loneliness (i.e., the UCLA loneliness scale) studied
loneliness as a
predictor of mood disturbance in a sample of foreign
students in New Zealand. In the present study, the focus is on the

experience of loneliness and its predictors in the context of overseas

students.
The aim of the present study is, thus, to elucidate the loneliness
experience of overseas college students and to study its predictors in this
unique context. Toward this goal, data were collected from a
sample of
overseas students from North America studying at the Hebrew Univer
sity of Jerusalem in Israel, based on questionnaires, as well as
personal
interviews with a subsample of students.
The questionnaire data were
geared toward investigating loneliness
among overseas students, and testing its predictors. Loneliness was
measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980), and the
scores of the current sample were compared to the normative
overseas

USA sample (i.e., UCLA

college students). The predictors of loneliness
that were tested included both objective variables pertaining to the
amount of social interactions (e.g., frequency of contact with friends), and

subjective variables pertaining to the quality of interpersonal relations

(e.g., intimacy with same-sex best friend). Furthermore, some of the
predictors referred to current friendships in Israel and others to relation
ships the student left behind, such as family and friends back home.
Specifically, the following hypotheses on overseas loneliness were
tested: (1) Given that overseas students are far away from home and are

faced with a cultural transition, their loneliness scores will be higher than
those of the normative sample (Russell et al., 1980) of American college
students in the United States; (2) Based on previous loneliness research
with college students, it is hypothesized that the variables of quality of
interpersonal relations will be more predictive of loneliness than the
variables of quantity of social interactions; and (3) Within the variables
of quality of interpersonal relations, ratings of the quality of current

relationships in Israel will be more predictive of loneliness than ratings

of the quality of relationships the student left behind, namely, family and
friends back home.
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 281

In addition to the
questionnaire data, interview data seemed most
suitable for better
understanding the individual's experience of loneli
ness
through his/her subjective reportings. As Stokes (1987) and others
(Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982; Weiss, 1987; Wiseman, 1995) have argued,
in order to focus on the
processes involved in loneliness and its meaning
to different people in different circumstances, there is a need for a more

individualistic, phenomenological approach to research on loneliness.

That is, research that emphasizes
personal descriptive accounts of the
loneliness experience and its meaning. Hence, in the present study the

quantitative aspects of the study were supplemented by subjective

accounts, by having students tell their story of the overseas experience
in their own words.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 105 overseas students (47 males and 58 females)
attending a one-year program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in
Israel. They were all single and their mean age was 21.36 (SD 3.01) for =

the males and 20.32 (SD 1.58) for the females. The students had already
=

completed two years of undergraduate studies. The one-year overseas

program in Israel was credited toward an undergraduate degree. The
students were from North America (85% were from the United States
and 15% from Canada), and were all of Jewish origin. Students in the

program were
segregated in special classes (given in English) in the
overseas school.
They lived together in the same dorms and had specially
organized social activities. A subsample of twenty students (11 females
and 9 males) participated in an in-depth personal interview.

INSTRUMENTS

Participants completed a booklet of questionnaires (in English) contain

ing the following three parts:

The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980). The UCLA Loneli
ness Scale is a 20-item self-report measure that yields a single lone
liness score. The scale has been shown to be internally consistent
(coefficient alpha of .94) and temporally reliable and free of the

response bias of social desirability. There is evidence for the concur

rent validity of the scale, and its discriminant validity has been

established, demonstrating that although loneliness is correlated

with measures of negative affect, social risk
taking, and affiliative
tendencies, it is nevertheless a distinct psychological experience
282 WISEMAN

(Russell et al., 1980). In the present study an

alpha coefficient of .88
was obtained for the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Evidence for concur

rent validity was

provided by the significant correlations that were

obtained in the present study between the respondents' UCLA lone

liness scores and their ratings of self-labelled loneliness for the past
two weeks (r =
.51), and of self-labelled loneliness during one's
lifetime (r =
.39).
Sharabany's Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1974, 1994). The second part of
the booklet contained a same-sex best friend version and
opposite-sex an

best friend version of Sharabany's Intimacy Scale

(Sharabany, 1 974, 1 994;
Sharabany, Gershoni, & Hofman, 1981). The Intimacy Scale consists of
32 items, four items for each of eight different dimensions of intimacy
with a best friend. The split-half reliability for the total scale score has
been found to range from .90 to .94. (Sharabany, 1974). Evidence for

validity was established by the finding that reciprocating friends (i.e.,

mutual best friend) obtained significantly higher intimacy scores as

compared with nonreciprocating friends. The alpha coefficients that

were obtained in the
present study were .94 and .96 for same-sex and
opposite-sex versions, respectively.
Social Activity Information Sheet. The third part of the booklet consisted
of background items, the variables of quantity of social interaction, and
of subjective quality of relationships. The three indices of quantity of
social interactions included: (1) frequency of contact with friends; (2) a
combined index of number of times the student had eaten dinner alone
and the number of times the student had spent a weekend
night alone
during the
previous two weeks; and (3)
dating status. The
subjective
quality of interactions was measured by three Likert-type single-item
questions (cf. Cutrona, 1982), in which the respondent was asked to rate
on a
6-point scale his/her satisfaction with interpersonal relationships
with (1) family, (2) friends in Israel, and (3) friends back home.

THE INTERVIEW

A personal interview was conducted by the author (who is also a clinical

psychologist) in order to obtain personal descriptive accounts of over
seas loneliness and related factors. The format of the interviews was

semi-structured, consisting of open-ended questions (Wiseman & Lie-

blich, 1992). The interviewees were not told that the focus of the inter
view was loneliness, rather that it was aimed to study their social

experience in Israel. The interviews lasted between an hour and a half to

two hours. About 30 minutes into the interview the interviewer intro
duced the issue of loneliness in the following way: "Everybody feels
loneliness sometimes. I'm interested in hearing about when you feel
loneliness" (Wiseman, 1995). This naturally led to the issue of loneliness
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 283

as
part of their current overseas experience. In addition, other questions
about loneliness included, such as, "What do you do when you feel
were

lonely?," "When you feel loneliness, what do you attribute it to?" In

addition, students were asked about their relationships with those in the
United States, both family and friends, and about their social adjustment
to the overseas program.

PROCEDURE

The questionnaires were group-administered to the students in classes

given by the Overseas School of the Hebrew University. Students
responded to the questionnaires anonymously and their participation
in the study was voluntary. The arrival date in Israel of the overseas

group varied. At the time of completion of the questionnaires, 17% of

the students had been in Israel for 6 to 8 weeks, 17% for 9 weeks to 6
months, and the remaining 66% for 7 to 8 months. The time since
arrival (in weeks) served as a covariate in the multiple regression
analyses. In
answering the intimacy questionnaires, subjects were
asked to choose a
particular same-sex best friend and an opposite-sex
best friend or partner, and to respond in terms of their relationship
with him/her. Students were specifically instructed to refer to their
best friends in Israel.
The selection of the subsample of subjects for the personal inter
views was conducted in a
partially random way as follows: A third
of the sample had attached to the last page of their booklet of

questionnaires an
participate in an in-depth personal
invitation to
interview with the investigator. They were asked to come forward

upon completing the booklet, and to sign up for the interview. The
first twenty subjects who accepted the invitation and were willing to
participate were interviewed. A comparison between the loneliness
scores of this subgroup and of the larger group showed that while

the interviewees tended to have somewhat higher scores, the f-test

did not reach significance. The interviews were transcribed ver-
batum and two independent judges conducted a content analysis of
the interview material. The two judges reached an agreement rate of
85%. The author-interviewer served as a third judge, and formulated
the final categories.

RESULTS

UCLA LONELINESS SCORES

The mean UCLA loneliness scores of the overseas students were com

puted for males and females separately and were

compared with the
284 WISEMAN

normative loneliness data reported by Russell et al. (1980; p. 477). Con

trary to what was
expected, the loneliness scores of the current overseas
sample were not significantly different than those of the Russell et al.'s
(1980) university sample for both males (Overseas: M 38.71, SD 9.20; = =

Russell: M =
37.06, SD 10.91; z .94, n.s.), and females (Overseas: M
= = =

36.09, SD =
8.06; Russell: M 36.06, SD=
10.11; z .02, n.s). As in the
= =

Russell et al. normative sample no

gender differences were found in the
overseas n.s.]. It should be noted that more recent
sample [T(l, 101) =
2. 37,
studies with the UCLA Loneliness Scale (e.g., Archibald et al., 1995)

report loneliness scores consistent with the norms

reported by Russell et
al. (1980). Thus, the first hypothesis was rejected in that the loneliness
scores of the current overseas sample were not any higher than those of

a non-overseas
university sample of American students.

PREDICTION OF LONELINESS IN THE OVERSEAS CONTEXT

To test for the predictors of loneliness in the overseas context, a stepwise

multiple regression analysis (MRA) was performed. The predictors that
were
regressed on the UCLA loneliness scores consisted of the three
variables of quantity of social interaction and of the five variables of

subjective quality of interpersonal relationships. The variables of quan

tity of social interaction included: (1) frequency of contact with friends;
(2) a combined index of the number of times the student had eaten dinner
alone and the number of times the student had spent a weekend night
alone during the previous two weeks; and (3) dating status. The variables
of subjective quality of relations included: (1) satisfaction with family;
(2) satisfaction with friends in Israel; (3) intimacy with same-sex best
friend; (4) intimacy with opposite-sex best friend or partner; and (5)
satisfaction with friends back home. The time since arrival of the student
in Israel (in weeks) served as a covariate. Table 1 presents the Pearson
correlations between all eight predictors, time since arrival, and the
UCLA loneliness scores.

First, a stepwise MRA of the quantity variables on loneliness was

conducted, with the time since arrival as covariate. It was found that
of the three predictors of quantity of interaction, only the variable of

eating dinner and weekends alone emerged as a

significant predictor
of the UCLA loneliness scores. This index of times that the student ate
dinner alone and spent weekends nights alone during the last two
weeks predicted 14% of the variance in loneliness scores. Second,
testing the quality variables separately, the stepwise MRA, with the
time since arrival as covariate, showed that of the five quality predic
tors, three predictors were entered in the following order: satisfaction
with friends in Israel, satisfaction with friends back home, and oppo-
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 285

TABLE 1. Intercorrelations of Variables

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Frequency -08 15 -.14 13 .03 .12 .14 .01 -.07

2. Dating 14 .06 .06 -.07 00 .44*** .19* -13

3. Eat + Weekends 33*** .17* .07 .18* .20* .00 -.30**

4 Satisfaction- .17* .25** 11 .07 03 -25**

family
5 Satisfaction- .18* .54*** 22* 13 -
47***
friends

6. Satis. -friends .11 22* .17* -

42***
-home

7. Same-sex .18* .18* -.27**

intimacy
8. Opposite-sex .25** -
33***
intimacy
9. Arrive .05

10. Loneliness

Note Frequency frequency of contact with friends in Israel; Dating dating status, Eat + Weekends
= =

=
combined frequency of eating dinner alone and spending weekends alone, Satisfaction-family -

satisfaction m relations with family, Satisfaction-friends satisfaction in relations with friends in Israel,
=

Satis -friends-home =
satisfaction in relations with friends back home, Same-sex intimacy intimacy =

scores with same-sex friend in Israel, Opposite-sex intimacy intimacy scores with opposite-sex
=

friend/partner, Arrive =
time since arrival in Israel; Loneliness =
UCLA loneliness scores

*p< 05, **/>< 01;***p< 001

site-sex intimacy. Together these variables predicted 38% of the vari

ance in loneliness scores.

To test the contribution to loneliness of the

quantity variables, com
pared to the
quality variables (the second
hypothesis), two MRAs were
conducted with forced-entry, entering the quantity variables first, and
then the quality variables second, and vice versa. The results of the first
MRA with the quantity variables first, indicated that the quantity vari
ables explained 9%, and that the R change for the quality variables was
significant adding 31% to the explained variance (F Change 9.04, p < =

.001). Entering the variables in the other order with the quality variables
first, the results of the MRA indicated that the quality variables explained
39%, and that the R change for the quantity variables was nonsignifi
cant. Hence, the second hypothesis was confirmed in that the
quality of
social relations was more
predictive of loneliness than the quantity of
social interactions.
To test the prediction of the loneliness scores by the quantity and

quality variables together, a final stepwise-MRA was conducted with all

eight predictors and the time since arrival as a covariate. As can be seen
in Table 2, satisfaction with friends in Israel was entered first (22.3%),
satisfaction with friends back home (11.2%) was entered second, eating
and weekends alone was entered third (4.1%), and opposite-sex
intimacy
286 WISEMAN

Multiple Regression Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Predictors

TABLE 2. on

UCLA Loneliness Scores of Overseas Students

Beta
F_ R2 Change
Quantitative Predictors (Stepwise)
I. weekends alone -.37 16.04** .14
Eating +

Qualitative Predictors (Stepwise)

1. Satisfaction-friends 41 26 12** .24

2. Sat. friends back home .31 14.69** .11

3. .18 4.93* .03

Opposite-sex intimacy

Quantitative and Qualitative Predictors (Stepwise)

1. Satisfaction-friends .35 17 27** .22

2. Sat. friends back home .30 13.02** .11

3. weekends .18 4 70* .04

Eating +

4. .16 3.27# .02

Opposite-sex intimacy
Note. R2 -
398, Beta =
standanzed regression coefficient Frequency frequency =
of contact with friends
in Israel, Dating =
dating status;Eat + Weekends combined frequency of eating dinner alone and
=

spending weekends alone, Satisfaction-family =

satisfaction in relations with family; Satisfaction-friends
=
satisfaction in relations with friends in Israel, Satis. -fnends-home =
satisfaction in relations with
friends back home, Same-sex intimacy intimacy scores with
=
same-sex friend in Israel; Opposite-sex
intimacy intimacy
=
scores with opposite-sex friend/partner,

ttp < 08; 'p < 05; "p < 001

was entered forth (2.2%). Hence, the results of the MRA that included
both the quantity and quality variables indicated that the best predictors
were the three quality variables and the one quantity variable. Taken

together, these variables explained 39.8% of the variance in loneliness.

Referring to current relationships in Israel as compared to those the
student left behind (the third hypothesis), the results showed that while
as
hypothesized the current friendships in Israel were most important,
friendships back home were also of considerable importance. However,
dissatisfaction with one's relationships with family back home was not
a
significant predictor of loneliness. Thus, the third hypothesis was
partially supported.
It is of interest to note that the covariate, time since arrival, did not

emerge as a significant predictor, despite its correlations with some of

the predictors. passed since the student left home,
The more time had
the more
reported with the relationships in Israel and
satisfaction he/she
the less satisfaction with the relationships that were left behind (see Table
1). However, as all students were at least six weeks since arrival, the lack
of relationship to loneliness could be due to the fact that the students
overcame the situational loneliness of the first few weeks (as also indi
cated by the interview data presented below).
In summary, based on the questionnaire data, it was found that: (a) the
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 287

UCLA loneliness scores of thissample were not any higher than

overseas

those of university sample of Americans; (b) variables of

a non-overseas

quality of social relationships were more predictive of loneliness than

variables of the quantity of social interaction; and (c) among the quality
variables, while dissatisfaction with the current friendships in Israel was
most predictive of loneliness, dissatisfaction with the friendships back

home also predicted loneliness.

THE INTERVIEW DATA

Many interesting patterns appeared in the analysis of the responses

given by the interviewees, both in those pertaining to loneliness and
those pertaining to other aspects of their lives. A summary of the results
of the content analysis is provided in Table 3, which presents the cate

gories (as agreed upon by the judges), and the percentage of respondents
for each category. An account of the themes that emerged from the
interview data with regard to the students' relationships with family,
friends, and romantic partner are beyond the scope of the present study.
In what follows, the major themes that emerged with regard to loneliness
are
presented, including some examples of the interviewees' own words
in telling the story of the overseas experience.
Loneliness During the First Week. Most of the students reported having

experienced some bouts of loneliness during the first few days to a week
(see Table 3). This seemed to be a time when many students were seeking
out people to establish friendships. For some, this was quite a difficult

period. One woman reported: "When I first moved into the apartment
here, I felt a little bit alone because my roommate had a boyfriend and
all the other girls in the apartment had been here for three weeks already
and they were already meeting people and they knew people. Two of
the other girls in my suite had boyfriends and the other two had their
eye on somebody. I kind of felt left out in a sense."
Ease of Making Friends and Seeking Friends as a Priority. Many students

reported a fair amount of ease in making friends. Several people com

mented on a frequent spontaneous getting together of several students,
who met through random circumstances, (i.e., nearby dormitory rooms),
that occurred more and more often until they became an established

group of friends. "I met people the first week just because everybody
said, 'We're going out this night and we're going out the other night.'
We basically stuck with the same core of the group we started. ..there are
about four to five of us. I met them about the first or second week. We
all lived in the same building; so we would meet in one room or another
at night and play cards or listen to music or talk."
Interviewees described a
strong desire shared by the students on the
288 WISEMAN

TABLE 3. Percentage of respondents for the Interview Categories

Categories from the Content Analysis % of respondents

1. Bouts of loneliness during the first week 75

2. Ease of making friends

2a Easy to make friends 50

2b. Difficult to make friends (introverted) 30

3. Seeking friends as a
priority 60

4 Loneliness feelings throughout the year When do you feel

loneliness"'

4a. Far away from family and friends at home (homesickness) 30

4b. Lack of romantic partner 35

4c. Feeling distant from close friends made at Hebrew U. 10

4d. Lack of connection to people around 25

4e. Boredom 15

4f. Loneliness stemming from within 15

5. Coping with loneliness

5a. Distracting activities (reading, playing/listening to music, 45

crafts,studying, sports, taking a walk, "keeping busy")
5b. Writing letters or
calling home 25

5c. Initiate interpersonal contact 35

5d Wallow 15

5e. Self-reflection 10

6. Lack of friendships with native Israelis

6a. Disappointed by "little America" 25

6b. Accept the situation 85

6c. An Israeli boyfriend 5

7. Reasons for coming on the overseas

program
7a Cultural/ideological connection to Israel and the Jewish 80
people.
7b Jewish/Zionistic youth movement, and /or belonged to a 75
Jewish organization in their college campus
7c. Previous vacation or summer tour in Israel 40

7d. Wanting to find a Jewish boyfriend /girlfriend 30

7e. Wanting to live in Israel permanently in the future 10

overseas
program to make friends with one another, which facilitated
their building of a network. "Especially at the university here, everyone
came and
everyone was in the same situation, everybody was in a new
culture, a new place, thrown together into Ulpan (an intensive program
for learning the Hebrew language). So, it made it really easy because

everybody wanted to meet new people."

The priority most students gave to making friends in the beginning
seemed to continue throughout the year. Even those students who

originally claimed not to be interested in making friends, later described

LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 289

examples of showing such an interest as a way of escaping feelings of

loneliness ("When I came I was just interested in studying, but I found
you have to meet people. Because I don't want to be on my own, so I
make an effort to get to meet people").
Times of Homesickness and LonelinessFeelings Throughout the Year. Feel
ings of loneliness that were
experienced after the first week or two
seemed to come at fairly infrequent intervals for a majority of the
students. When students did feel loneliness, this was most often associ
ated with feeling distant from those to whom they were intimately tied.
This included feeling far away from family and friends back in the
United States. Such feelings of homesickness were described, for exam
ple, as follows: "The loneliness came a few times when I wasn't well and
I missed my family. I missed my mom to hold my hand and everything.
I really missed home. Whereas back home if I felt like that, I would have

my parents. You have your family there, it's not like you're ever really
lonely." Interestingly, all the interviewees whose responses fell into this
category where the ones with relatively low UCLA loneliness scores.
That is, they were not typically lonely individuals.
Other times of loneliness feelings related to the absence of intimate
relations made in Israel, including feeling distant from a romantic part
ner who is not
nearby, or feeling distant from close friends made at
Hebrew University ("I feel very lonely when I'm sitting in my room and
my roommate isn't there and the other people around the dorm are at
classes, and I'm sitting there and my boyfriend is away)."
Another circumstance precipitating loneliness, which was not quite as

widely reported though still seemed fairly common (see Table 3), was
being amidst ones peers, but feeling lack of connection to them ("I feel
lonely when I'm sitting with someone talking and I realize we're not
connecting at all. ...I'm sitting with them and they appear interested in
me, but they really don't care.").
A few students indicated that feelings of loneliness arose during times
while there was a lull in activity when they were feeling boredom. For
these individuals loneliness did not subside after the early initial period
of adjustment, but rather was experienced at a fairly steady rate through
out the year. Interestingly, these students' UCLA loneliness scores were

among the higher ones in sample.

A relatively unusual situation in which some students (see Table 3) felt
loneliness, was when there were no particular circumstances in their
environment that provoked their loneliness, but rather it seemed to be
loneliness stemming from within.

Coping with Loneliness. There were several kinds of ways students

responded to their feelings of loneliness (see Table 3). Almost half of
the students involved themselves in some activity (e.g., reading,
290 WISEMAN

playing guitar, doing crafts, and just "keeping busy"), which could
distract them from their state. An almost similarly large number of
responses were related to establishing some kind of interpersonal
contact, whether this included writing a letter, calling family mem
bers, or going to visit a friend. A few students responded in a manner
that could best be described as
wallowing. They seemed to have little
desire to do anything but dwell on their
feelings as they waited for
them to pass.
Lack of Friendships with Native Israelis. Almost all of the students got
to know only a few Israelis, and usually as not more than acquain

tances. This was attributed to the setup, whereby Israeli students

were notdirectly part a of their social structure. A few students
were

initially disappointed by this: "Meeting Israelis was

my goal when I
came. I was
upset by the whole setup at the dormitories. It's like

living in Tittle America.'" However, while most students expressed

a desire to be familiar with more Israeli students,
they also saw this
as
something which would require great
a deal of effort: "We're in
two different worlds. First of all, the separate courses. I guess be
cause of the language and everything. But it doesn't help at all. I
could do other things [to meet Israelis], but it doesn't come naturally.
So, I don't put in the effort." Most students did not hold becoming
friends with Israelis as a
high enough priority to expend the effort

required. One exception to this was a female student who wanted,

and found, an Israeli
boyfriend.
Coming on the Overseas Program. Reasons for coming on the
Reasons for
overseas
program at Hebrew University varied (see Table 3), though
most were tied to some longstanding cultural or ideological connection

felt with Israel and the Jewish people. In terms of what part this overseas
experience will play in their future, most students said that while they
enjoyed their current experience in Israel very much, they did not foresee
living in Israel permanently in the future.

DISCUSSION

The present study sheds light on the experience of loneliness in the

overseas context of student far away from home in a different
being a

culture. This situation which involves both being at a great distance from
one's family andformer social network, as well as involving a transition
to culture, language and social environment, is one which can be
a new

expected to arouse feelings of loneliness. Moreover, the students, who

are
young adults, are also facing the developmental tasks of achieving
identity and intimacy (Erikson, 1968); thus, they are particularly at a
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 291

stage in life that has been found to be associated with vulnerability to

loneliness (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982).
The present findings on loneliness in overseas students need to be
discussed in relation to research on loneliness, as well as on
previous
sojourner adjustment. Based on the findings from the two sources of
data of this study (i.e.,
questionnaires and interviews), the discussion
focuses on three major issues: (a) the social adjustment that most
students made within a few weeks of arrival; (b) the
predictors of
loneliness; and (c) limitations and directions for future research.

OVERCOMING LONELINESS WITHIN A

FEW WEEKS OF ARRIVAL

One of the most interesting findings that emerged refers to the rela
tively low level of loneliness experienced by our sample of overseas

students, with the UCLA loneliness scores not

being any higher than
the normative scores of American college students. This unexpected
finding seems
surprising in view of the fact that students came to a

new
country, without their family and friends, wherein they needed
to adjust to a new culture. However, as indicated also by the interview

material, within a matter of a few weeks most students enjoyed strong

social support. Moreover, their social network had the advantage of
being a dense one, consisting of other students in their overseas-situ
ation, due to the structure of the one-year program in Israel.
partly
Indeed, much of the literature on social support suggests that dense
social networks serve as buffers against stress and loneliness (e.g.,
Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kessler & McLeod, 1985; Seginer, 1990; 1994;
Stokes, 1985). Specifically, in the case of immigrants, a study of Asian
immigrants in the United States found that the larger one's close social
network, and the more it is interconnected, the lower the level of
depression (Kuo & Tsai, 1986).
One may question the effectiveness of support which is derived
from other individuals making a cultural transition (i.e. other over
seas students), rather than from members of the host society (i.e. the
Israeli students, with whom their contact was minimal). However,

studies have shown that the source of the support offered by social
ties whether it is from the immigrant's ethnic group or from
own

members of the host society is not relevant (Kuo & Tsai, 1986).

1. The UCLA scores that were obtained for a

sample of Israeli students were surprisingly
higher than that of the present overseas
sample (Wiseman & Lieblich, 1989). However, a
comparison with an Israeli sample is more problematic in that Israeli students enter

university after compulsary army service.

292 WISEMAN

Indeed, it has been suggested that social support from coethnic ties
isjust as valuable
support from members of the host society, but
as

that ties with coethnics may even have a unique importance in

buffering against feelings of isolation (Mirdal, 1984). Moreover, as

sojourners, despite the students being in a new country, they are not
undergoing the sort of cultural transition that immigrants typically
do, with all of the stresses of the immigratory experience (Furnham,
1988). Operating in a subculture made up of other American stu
dents, the students in our study were not faced with the need to
adopt the values, customs, or even language of the native Israelis.
Thus, it appears that the overseas students in our study were actually
at a
particular advantage in respect to avoiding loneliness, due to
their highly interconnected network of friends, as well as the lack of

pressure to obtain social support from the host society (i.e., Israeli
students).

PREDICTORS OF LONELINESS IN THE OVERSEAS CONTEXT

The present findings on the predictors of loneliness confirm previous

findings on the importance of the quality of relationships and the mean-
ingfulness of one's interactions in predicting loneliness, rather than the
quantity of social interactions (Cutrona, 1982; Jones et al., 1985; Wheeler,
Reis, & Nezlek, 1983). In addition, similar to Cutrona's (1982) findings,
the present findings indicate that for young adults, the relationship with
family is not as important a contributor to loneliness as is the relationship
with friends (of both sexes) and intimacy with a partner. In terms of
quantity of interactions, it appears that having to eat by oneself and to
spend a Friday night alone gives one a sense of loneliness and is most
likely related to social network variables.
With regard to the special situation of students who move away
for one-year on an overseas program, the findings indicate that not
only is the satisfaction with the friendships in the new environment
important, but also the satisfaction with the friendships that the
student left behind and will most probably resume at the end of the
year that was spent overseas. Satisfying friendships from back home
provide the student with a sense of attachment and belonging that
help him/her feel less lonely in the new environment. The student
who is dissatisfied with the friendships back home, perhaps has
higher expectations to make new friendships in Israel, which may
lead to a higher mismatch between his/her desired and actual social
relations and, in turn, results in a
greater sense of loneliness. Further
more, personality factors, such as
shyness, introversion, and low
self-esteem (Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Russell et al., 1980)
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 293

that have the student's social relations back home, are most
impeded
likely contributing to difficulties in the new social environment.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In the loneliness literature there has been a

growing emphasis on the
need to differentiate betweentypes of loneliness (Hojat & Crandall, 1987;
Marangoni & William, 1989; Rook, 1988). A limitation of the UCLA
Loneliness Scale employed in the present study is that it is a unidimen
sional measure of loneliness. Hence, it does not differentiate between
types of relational deficits that lead to loneliness, such as emotional vs.
social loneliness (Weiss, 1973, 1987); and it fails to distinguish between

types of loneliness in terms of the duration of loneliness, "state" versus

"trait" loneliness (Jones, 1987; Shaver, et al., 1985). Nevertheless, the
interview data provided some relevant insight to the types of loneliness
in this sample of overseas students.
Some support for the distinction between "emotional loneliness,"
which is produced by the absence of a close emotional attachment,
and "social loneliness," which is associated with the absence of an
accessible social network (Weiss, 1973,1987), was provided by the

responses of the interviewees. Among our overseas students there

appeared to be those who experienced emotional loneliness as they
longed for
particular family members, close friends, and /or a roman
tic partner, and there
were those who
experienced social loneliness as
they attempted to build a new social network.
The refinement of the subtypes of loneliness offered by Mikulincer
and Segal (1990), is also relevant to the responses provided by the
overseas students, and is an interesting avenue for future research.

Referring to the structure of loneliness feelings, Mikulincer and Segal

(1990) found a two-dimensional representation: The first is the
causal /attentional dimension, which allows one to understand lone
liness in terms of whether it is focused inwards ("self") or outwards
("social environment"); and the second dimension represents the
students' attitudes toward loneliness, which refers to struggle/con
flict to the causal dimension,
vs.
acceptance/adaptation. Referring
the present interview data showed that, on the one hand, there were
students who blamed their own actions or feelings for their loneli
ness, while on the other hand, there were
many students who attrib
uted their loneliness to circumstances they felt beyond their control,
such being at physical distance from close friends
as a or
family.
Referring to the students' attitudes toward loneliness, among the
interviewees there were students who were inclined to dwell either
on
personal qualities or circumstances that caused their feelings, and
294 WISEMAN

in doing so their loneliness was not alleviated. However, there were

many also who chose to take an active role in hastening the dissipa
tion of their loneliness. Due to the lack of differentiation between

types of loneliness on the basis of the duration of loneliness, one can

only speculate from this study regarding situational loneliness vs.

chronic loneliness in overseas students. The loneliness scores that

these overseas students obtained (i.e., no different than the norma
tive U.S. student sample), together with the interview data, suggest
that, firstly, overall in this sample most students overcame situation-

specific loneliness within a short period of adjustment. Secondly, the

impression from the interview data was that most students in this
sample did not suffer from chronic loneliness. This is probably due
to the self-selected nature of this sample of students. It could be

speculated that those students who choose to undertake a year of

study overseas are students whose personality is characterized by
sociability and who do not fit the prototype of the lonely student
(Horowitz, French, & Anderson, 1982). Moreover, it has been our

experience at the Student Counseling Centre that those students who

do not overcome homesickness tend to return home within the first
six weeks of the program, and thus, would not be included in this

study (all participants were at least six weeks since arrival). In order
to address these issues infuture research, there is a need to differen
tiate state vs. trait loneliness
(e.g., Hazan & Hutt, 1995; Shaver et al.,
1985), and to obtain assessments of loneliness before, during, and
after the overseas experience. Such a longitudinal design could en
able identification of students at risk for loneliness and relate their
loneliness to expectations from the experience. The role of
overseas

expectations has received attention in studies of

sojourners' adjust
ment (e.g., Martin et al., 1995), and could be specifically studied in

relation to the cognitive discrepancy model of loneliness (e.g., Ar

chibald et al., 1995).
The present findings on loneliness in overseas students are based
on a
sample of Jewish North American students in a one-year pro
gram in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. Their overseas
experience has the unique feature of
involving a cultural transition
to country
a that is connected to their
religion and cultural heritage.
Although Israel is physically far away from their home, in religious-
cultural terms it is, so to speak, "the home of their people." Thus, the
cultural distance from their own backgrounds (Babiker, Cox, &
Miller, 1980) is relatively moderate compared to other overseas so
journers, such as, for example, North Americans in Japan. Moreover,
within the specific structural setting of this overseas school, they
were not
dependent on the social support of the host society, but
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 295

able to make do with the

were
support from their American peers.
Indeed, as
sojourners they are not expected to adjust themselves to
the new culture (Furnham, 1988). In fact, these overseas students at
Hebrew University did not seem to feel the need to adjust to the
Israeli culture; instead
they retained easily their own Jewish-Ameri
can (or Canadian)identity. Thus, in terms of generalizability, the
present findings on loneliness and its predictors should be tested in
other samples of overseas students.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

COUNSELORS

The of the present study highlight the importance of social

findings
support in loneliness among overseas students far away
overcoming
from home. While loneliness feelings are typical during the first week of
the program, for most students, these are short-term feelings which are
alleviated by making friendships with other overseas students. Thus,
counselors working with overseas students should be aware that the first
few weeks in the program are crucial for social adjustment. Identification
of students at high risk for loneliness needs to be done within this time
period. It is suggested that for such screening purposes, the UCLA
Loneliness Scale could be administered to overseas students in the

program. Counselors can also gain from exploring with students the
degree of their satisfaction with their friendships back home, as this
emerged as an important predictor of loneliness. Those students who are
dissatisfied with the friendships they left behind are at higher risk for
loneliness, possibly due to their expectations that are difficult to fulfill
and the lack of a secure social base. Although an overseas program such
as the one studied, which involves separate English speaking classes and

housing together with other overseas students, limits the contact with
the host society, this structure has the advantage of facilitating the
development of dense social networks. Finally, both individual and
group approaches to crisis intervention, including building networks
and social support (Rook, 1984), are suggested as the treatment of choice
for treating loneliness in overseas students.

REFERENCES

Archibald, F S., Bartholomew, K., & Marx, R. (1995). Loneliness in early adolescence: A
test of the cognitive discrepancy model of loneliness. Personality and Social Psychol
ogy Bulletin, 21, 296-301.
Babiker, I. E., Cox, J. L., & Miller, P. M. (1980). The measurement of cultural distance and
its relationship to medical consultations, symptomatology and examination
per-
296 WISEMAN

formance of overseas students at Edinburgh University. Social Psychiatry, 15, 109-

116.

Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985) Gender differences in loneliness. Personality and Social

Psychologi/ Bulletin, 11, 6.3-74.

Bruch, M. A., Kaflowitz, N. G., & Pearl, L (1988). Mediated and nonmediated relationships
ofpersonality components to loneliness. Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 346-355
Church, A (1982). Sojourner adjustment Psychological Bulletin, 91, 540-572.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Cox, J., Babiker, I., & Miller, P. (1981). Psychiatric problems and first year examinations in
overseas students at
Edinburgh University. Journal of Adolescence, 4, 261-270.
Cutrona, C. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment.
In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness. A sourcebook of current theory, research,
and therapy (pp 291-309). New York Wiley.

Erikson, E H (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York. Norton.

Furnham, A. (1988). The adjustment of sojourners In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.),
Cross-cultural adaptation Current approaches (pp. 42-62). Newbury Park, CA Sage
Goswick, R A., & Jones, W. H (1981). Loneliness, self-concept, and adjustment. Journal of
Psychology, 107, 237-240.
Hazan, C, & Hutt, M. (1995). Patterns of adaptation: Attachment differences in psychosocial
functioning during the prst year of college Manuscript under review.
Hojat, M & Crandall, R. (Eds.). (1987). Loneliness: Theory, research and applications.
,

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, Part 2, 271-272.

Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. S., & Anderson, C. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person
In L A Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness A sourcebook of current theory, research
and therapy (pp 183-205) New York. Wiley.

Jones, W. H. (1987) Research and theory on loneliness A response to Weiss's reflections.

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 27-30.
Jones, W H., Carpenter B. N., & Quintana, D. (1985). Personality and interpersonal
predictors of loneliness in two cultures. Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology,
48, 1503-11.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. A., & Goswick, R A. (1981) The persistence of loneliness: Self
and other determinants. Journal of Personality 49, 27-4S>.

Jones, support journal of Social Behavior

H. W., & Moore, T. L. (1987) Loneliness and social
andPersonality, 2, 145-156.
Kessler, R., & McLeod, J. (1985). Social support and mental health in community surveys.
In S. Cohen & S L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (p. 219-240). New York:
Academic Press.

Kim, Y. Y., &Gudykunst, W. B (Eds.). (1988) Cross-cultural adaptation Current approaches

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kuo, W. H., & Tsai, Y. M. (1986). Social networking, hardiness and immigrants' mental
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 133-149.

Marangoni, C, & William, L. (1^89) Loneliness A theoretical review with implications for
measurement, lournal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 93-128
Martin, J. N., Bradford, L., & Rohrlich, B (1495) Comparing predeparture expectations
and post-sojourn reports. A longitudinal study of U.S. students abroad. International

lournal oflntercultural Relations. 19, 87-1 10.

McWhirter, B. T (1940). Loneliness: Review of current literature, with implications for
counseling and research lournal of Counseling and Development, 68, 417-422.
Medora, N., & Woodward, J. (1986a). Loneliness among adolescent college students at a
midwestem university. Adolescence, 21, 391- 402
LONELINESS IN OVERSEAS STUDENTS 297

Medora, N., & Woodward, J. (1986b). Loneliness among students at an Indian University.
International Review of Modern Sociology, 16, 117-133.
Mikulincer, M., & Segal, J (1990). A multidimensional analysis of the experience of
loneliness lournal of Social andRelationships, 7, 209-230
Personal
Mirdal, G. (1984). Stress and distress migration: Problems and resources of Turkish
in

women in Denmark. International

Migration Revietv, 18, 984-1003.
Peplau, L. A & Goldston, S. E. (Eds.). (1984). Preventing the harmful consequences of severe
,

and persistent loneliness Washington, DC' U S Government Printing Office.

Perlman, D. (1987). Further reflections on the present state of loneliness research. Journal
if Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 17-26
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (199|), General and relationship-based
perceptions of social support' Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Person
ality and Social
Psychologij, 61, 1028-1039
Rook, K. S. (1984). Promoting social bonding Strategies for helping the lonely and socially
isolated. American Psychologist, 39, 1389-1407.
Rook, K S. (1988). Toward a more differentiated view of loneliness. In S. W. Duck (Ed),
Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 571-589). New York.
Wiley.
Rubenstern, C. M., & Shaver, P. (1982). The experience of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp.
206-223). New York Wiley.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980) The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale
Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence, lournal of Personality and Social

Psychologi/, 39, 472-480.

Searle, W., & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment
during cross-cultural transition. International journal of lntercultural Relations, 14,
449-464.

Segmer, R. (1990). Analysis of a double layers support system. Adolescence, 25, 739-752.
Segrner, R. (1994). Social support: Application to early adolescent transitions. Unpublished

manuscript. University of Haifa.

Sharabany, R. (1974). Intimate friendship among Kibbutz and city children and its measurement
Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.

Sharabany, R. (1994) Intimate friendship scale Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric

properties and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,
449^169.

Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hofman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend,

boyfriend: Age and sex
differences in intimatefriendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800-808.
Shaver, P., Furman, W & Buhrmester, D (1985) Transition to college1 Network changes,
,

social skills, and loneliness In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds), Understanding personal

relationships An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 193-219). London: Sage Publications.

Shuval, J T (1982). Migration and stress. In L. Goldberg & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of
stress Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 677-691) New York. The Free Press.

Stokes, J. P. (1985). The relation of social network and individual difference variables to
loneliness, lournal cf Personality and Social
Psychology, 4S, 981-990.
Stokes, J., & Levin, I. (1986). Gender differences in predicting loneliness from social network
characteristics. Journal cf Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1069-1074
Stokes, J. P. (1987). On the usefulness of phenomenological methods. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 2, 57-62.
Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural
psychology (pp. 121-151) New York: Academic.
Van Rooijen, L. (1986). Advanced students' adaptation to college. Higher Education, 15, 3-4,
197-209.
298 WISEMAN

Ward, C , & Searle, W. (1990). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on

psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International lournal of

Intercultural Relations, 15, 209-225.
Weiss, R S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Weiss, R S. (1987). Reflections on the present state of loneliness research. lournal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 2, 1-16.
Weissman, D , & Furnham, A. (1987). The expectations and experiences of a
sojourning
temporary resident abroad: A preliminary study Human Relations, 40, 313-326.
Wheeler, L., Reis, H., & Nezlek, J. (1983) Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles, journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 943-953.
Wiseman, H. (1995). The quest for connectedness: Loneliness as process in the narratives
of lonely university students The Narrative Study of Lives, 3, 116-152
Wiseman, H., & Lieblich, A. (1989, February). Intimacy and loneliness in the transition to

adulthood. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Israeli Psychological Asso
ciation, Haifa.
Wiseman, H., & Lieblich, A. (1992) Individuation in a collective community. Adolescent

Psychiatnj, 18, 156-179.

Wiseman, H., Guttfreund, D., & Lurie, I. (1995). Gender differences in loneliness and
depression of university students seeking counselling. British Journal of Guidance &

Counselling, 23, 231-243.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.