Promoting Social Bonding
Strategies for Helping the Lonely and Socially Isolated
Karen S. Rook
ABSTRACT: The process of establishing and main-
taining satisfactory social bonds is quite difficult for
many people. This article considers how interpersonal
ties may be facilitated among the lonely and socially
isolated. A general framework for conceptualizing
solutions to loneliness is presented, and specific
interventions are discussed. Limitations of person-
centered interventions are examined, and alternative
interventions aimed at modifying features of social
settings are suggested. Interventions that may be
helpful even when it is not possible to improve
deficient social relations are also considered. Ethical
issues raised by interventions for loneliness and
cultural values that may constrain their effectiveness
are discussed.
Social bonds have long been considered essential to
psychological well-being (Durkheim, 1897/1951;
Paris, 1934; Murray, 1938). Yet for many people the
process of establishing and maintaining satisfactory
social bonds is quite difficult. Cross-national surveys
indicate that loneliness is a painful and common
problem. Estimates of loneliness in these surveys
range from 11% to 26% (Peplau, Russell, & Heim,
1979). An average 40% of respondents in several
large-scale surveys described themselves as currently
shy, and the vast majority of this group reported
that shyness was a major personal problem (Pilkonis
& Zimbardo, 1979). Surveys that have focused on
objective indicators of social involvement rather
than respondents' self-labels suggest that many people
lack important social ties. The quality of life surveys
conducted by the Institute for Social Research
(Campbell, 1981), for example, found that one in
six Americans did not have a friend to whom they
could confide personal problems, and this figure
increased to one in five when city dwellers were
considered separately (pp. 104-106). Although most
respondents knew people to whom they could turn
for help in times of trouble, 5% knew no one
(Campbell, 1981), and 19% reported that they did
not have "many very good friends" (Campbell,
Converse, & Rodgers, 1976, p. 358). Similarly, an
average 19% of those interviewed for the General
Social Survey from 1972 to 1980 (Davis, Smith, &
December 1984 « American Psychologist
Copyright 1984 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
Vol. 39, No. 12. 1389-1407
University of California, Irvine
Stephenson, 1981) said that they never or only rarely
visited friends outside of their own neighborhood.1
How should these figures be interpreted? Most
discussions of such data emphasize the majority of
respondents who report ample social ties (Fischer,
1976, 1982; Seeman, 1975). Although it is important
not to overstate the prevalence of social isolation
and loneliness, it is also important not to minimize
the existence of a significant minority whose social
lives are seriously deficient. Periods of loneliness and
feelings of social awkwardness or alienation from
others are probably experienced by most people over
the course of their lives, but for some these feelings
persist or are sufficiently severe to make them vul-
nerable to emotional disorders and impaired physical
health. Research has pointed to possible links be-
tween loneliness and depression (Bragg, 1979; Ho-
rowitz, French, & Anderson, 1982), alcohol use
(Bell, 1956; Nerviano & Gross, 1976), adolescent
delinquency (Brennan & Auslander, 1979), aggres-
siveness (Sermat, 1980), physical illness (Lynch,
1977), and suicide (Diamant & Windholz, 1981;
Trout, 1980). Sociological analyses similarly have
found social isolation to be associated with psycho-
pathology, particularly schizophrenia (Jaco, 1954;
Kohn & Clausen, 1955), and mortality due to
suicide and alcoholism (Collette, Webb, & Smith,
1979; Gove & Hughes, 1980). A large literature on
social support suggests that those who lack others
An earlier version of this article was prepared for the workshop,
Preventive Interventions to Reduce the Harmful Consequences
of Severe and Persistent Loneliness, which was sponsored by the
Office of Prevention, NIMH, in cooperation with the Department
of Psychology, UCLA, February 1982, Santa Barbara, California.
The following individuals are gratefully acknowledged for their
contributions to the preparation of this article: Mark Baldassare,
Sharon Biegen, Stephen Goldston, Raymond Novaco, Anne Peplau,
Dan Perlman, Brian Vandenberg, and Carol Whalen.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed
to Karen S. Rook, Program in Social Ecology, University of
California, Irvine, California 92717.
' This figure was computed from published frequency tables
for the General Social Survey (Davis et al., 1981). Of the 6,012
people who were interviewed about their social lives during this
period, 1,157 (or 19.24%) indicated that they visited friends
outside of their neighborhood only "once a year" or "never."
1389
to turn to for emotional or material support are
prone to stress-related illnesses and psychiatric dis-
orders (reviewed in Cohen & McKay, 1984; Heller
& Swindle, 1983; House, 1981; Kessler & McLeod,
in press; Mitchell, Billings, & Moos, 1983). Although
much of this research has been correlational in
nature and thus is subject to alternative interpreta-
tions, the results of several longitudinal studies point
to a causally prior role of deficient social relations
in the etiology of mental health problems (Pearlin,
Lieberman, Menaghan, & Mullan, 1981; Turner,
1981; Williams, Ware, & Donald, 1981). Moreover,
increased mortality has been linked to social isolation
in two carefully controlled prospective studies (Berk-
man & Syme, 1979; House, Robbins, & Metzner,
1982).
In light of this research, persistent loneliness
and social isolation represent potential risk factors
for emotional and physical disorders. Some of the
many people who describe themselves as lonely or
shy in surveys, or who appear relatively isolated on
objective indices of social involvement, are likely to
experience impaired functioning because of deficien-
cies in their social lives. This was indeed the judgment
of the Office of Prevention, National Institute of
Mental Health, when it convened a conference in
early 1982 to consider ways to prevent the adverse
consequences of severe and persistent loneliness. A
similar conclusion was reached by the President's
Commission on Mental Health in 1978 in targeting
the development of programs to foster natural sup-
port systems as a national priority for mental health
professionals (President's Commission on Mental
Health, 1978).
Concern about the consequences of social iso-
lation and loneliness is also evident in social critics'
suggestions that social bonding has somehow gone
awry in contemporary society. The growing rate of
divorce, increases in the number of people who are
living alone, and the magnitude of the singles industry
are frequently cited as evidence of the failure of
traditional institutions to foster the development of
enduring social bonds (Gordon, 1976; Slater, 1970).
The view that contemporary social relations are
superficial or transitory is widely held and is variously
attributed to greater geographic mobility (Packard,
1972), weakening of the family (Bronfenbrenner,
1974; Conger, 1981) and other traditional commit-
ments (Yankelovich, 1981), as well as a marked
increase in narcissism (Lasch, 1979). Pilisuk (1982)
summarized this view: "The very social currents of
careerism, autonomy, mobility, privacy and achieve-
ment that tend to disrupt our traditional roots and
ties also make difficult the continuity of new bonds"
(p. 27). Empirical analyses contradict the popular
belief that urbanization has undermined the quality
of our social ties (Fischer, 1982), and it is prudent
1390
to question nostalgic beliefs in a more socially
cohesive past. Nonetheless, the lingering doubt re-
mains that the process of successful social bonding
is somehow more haphazard or ephemeral than it
need be.
This article addresses the question of how in-
terpersonal ties may be facilitated among the lonely
and socially isolated. Until recently, loneliness has
been neglected as a topic for research (Perlman &
Peplau, 1981; Weiss, 1973), and as a result, relatively
little work has considered how to alleviate or prevent
loneliness. Systematic comparisons of different in-
terventions are therefore not possible. Instead, the
goals of this article are to suggest a general framework
for conceptualizing ways to help the lonely and to
illustrate diverse intervention strategies. Existing ap-
proaches to reducing loneliness are reviewed, and
additional approaches are proposed. Ethical issues
raised by interventions for loneliness and cultural
values that may constrain their effectiveness are also
examined.
Definitional Issues
A discussion of what is meant by loneliness must
precede any consideration of interventions. Many
definitions of loneliness have been offered (see Peplau
& Perlman, 1982), but a consensus has yet to
emerge. Indeed, some have argued that there are
distinct types of loneliness (e.g., Weiss, 1973). Despite
the lack of definitional consensus, these different
approaches share several common elements that
provide the basis for the definition offered in this
article.
First, loneliness is nearly always an aversive
experience. Although voluntary isolation or solitude
may have positive consequences (Larson, Csikszent-
mihalyi, & Graef, 1982; Suedfeld, 1982), unwanted
isolation is usually distressing and is associated with
sadness, anxiety, anger, self-deprecation, boredom,
and feelings of marginality (Rubenstein, Shaver, &
Peplau, 1979; Weiss, 1973). These affective reactions
overlap with those associated with depression, but
the negativity of loneliness is more circumscribed
than that of depression (Bragg, 1979; Horowitz,
French, & Anderson, 1982).
Second, loneliness is not synonymous with
being alone, nor can being with others be assumed
to offer protection from feelings of loneliness (Peplau
& Perlman, 1982). Loneliness occurs in the absence
of social relationships as well as within ongoing
relationships, such as "empty shell marriages" (e.g.,
Levinger, 1979). Recognizing that loneliness does
not covary directly with the amount of social contact,
researchers have argued that cognitive processes
determine whether or not the individual feels lonely.
Specifically, loneliness is hypothesized to occur when
a person's existing social relationships are discrepant
December 1984 • American Psychologist
 from the person's expected or desired relationships
(Gordon, 1976; Peplau & Caldwell, 1978). The
discrepancy model of loneliness has stimulated con-
siderable research but needs refinement in order to
predict when loneliness rather than some other
reaction will be evoked by a dissatisfying interper-
sonal situation (Rook, 1983). For example, when
does a person's perception that a marital relationship
falls short of his or her expectations result in lone-
liness rather than resentment or problem-solving
attempts? Two types of dissatisfying interpersonal
situations seem particularly likely to engender feelings
of loneliness—situations in which the individual
feels estranged from, misunderstood, or rejected by
others (Fromm-Reichmann, 1959; Leiderman, 1969)
and those in which the individual must forego
desired activities for lack of appropriate social part-
ners (Derlega & Margulis, 1982). Thus, for some
people a disturbing and persistent sense of separate-
ness from others is the core of loneliness, whereas
for others loneliness arises from the repeated disap-
pointment of having to forego activities that depend
upon the participation of another person. These two
meanings of loneliness are not mutually exclusive,
however. Loneliness is apt to be most debilitating
when people lack social companions and additionally
feel misunderstood by or different from others.
Weiss (1969, 1973) offered an analysis of social
needs that provides a basis for further specifying the
types of companionship deficits that are most likely
to cause loneliness. He argued that people require
both a sense of social integration and opportunities
for emotional intimacy to avoid loneliness. Moreover,
because social relationships become specialized to
perform certain functions, multiple relationships are
necessary to meet these different social needs. Spe-
cifically, ties to a social group (such as a network of
friends, a club, or a neighborhood organization) are
needed to provide a sense of social integration,
whereas an attachment figure (such as a spouse or
intimate partner) is needed to provide emotional
intimacy. Deficits of either category of companion-
ship cause loneliness. In Weiss's view, a person who
lacks ties to a social group cannot compensate for
this deficit by acquiring an attachment figure, nor
can a person who lacks an attachment figure com-
pensate by acquiring more group ties. This analysis
helps to explain why someone who has an extensive
network of friends but lacks a romantic partner
might complain of loneliness and, conversely, why
someone who has a romantic partner but no friends
might also feel lonely.
A final element that is important in a compre-
hensive definition of loneliness is a temporal dimen-
sion (Young, 1982). Many people undoubtedly ex-
perience occasional feelings of separateness from
others or periodic disappointment over lacking a
December 1984 • American Psychologist
partner for some desired activity. Such transient
lonely moods usually vanish fairly quickly and do
not warrant professional attention. This article is
concerned with persistent loneliness that arises when
people have suffered disrupted social lives or when
they have never established satisfying social relation-
ships.
In sum, loneliness is defined as an enduring
condition of emotional distress that arises when a
person feels estranged from, misunderstood, or re-
jected by others and/or lacks appropriate social
partners for desired activities, particularly activities
that provide a sense of social integration and oppor-
tunities for emotional intimacy. From this perspec-
tive, people who do not experience distress because
of an absence of social ties would not be considered
lonely and, accordingly, would not be considered
appropriate candidates for loneliness interventions.
This view respects the preferences of those who
choose to limit or refrain from social contact. Yet
clinical theorists have cautioned that some isolated
people deny or fail to recognize loneliness, instead
reporting somatic problems or vague feelings of
dissatisfaction (e.g., Peplau, 1955). Because people
who are lonely tend to be viewed as social failures
(Gordon, 1976; Parmelee & Werner, 1978), it is
likely that even those who are well aware of their
loneliness may be hesitant to discuss their experience
(Fromm-Reichmann, 1959). Thus, service providers
must be sensitive to the issue of stigma as they seek
to define and contact appropriate target groups for
loneliness interventions.
Approaches to Intervention
Interventions focused on the problem of loneliness
could have three very general goals. The most obvious
goal would be to help lonely individuals establish
satisfying interpersonal ties. Possible strategies might
be to help lonely people improve how they relate to
others or to identify new opportunities for them to
have social contact. Other interventions might strive
not to alleviate loneliness but, rather, to prevent
loneliness from evolving into or contributing to
more serious problems, such as depression, suicide,
or drug abuse. For example, a severely lonely widow
might be helped to identify enjoyable activities that
she could engage in on her own, or a lonely adolescent
might be taught drug-free strategies for managing
the anxiety caused by feelings of isolation. Thus,
even when it is not possible to improve the individ-
ual's social relations, service providers may perform
a valuable role in helping the individual cope with
loneliness. A third goal of loneliness interventions
might be to prevent loneliness from occurring rather
than to help people who are already lonely. Preventive
interventions could focus on groups known to be at
high risk for loneliness or on the design of social
1391
settings, such as schools and workplaces, to facilitate
friendship formation. Educational programs could
provide information about how to make friends or
where to meet others with similar interests.
The following discussion of interventions is
organized according to these three broad goals.
Although few interventions have been developed
specifically for loneliness, some elements of inter-
ventions for related problems such as shyness, dating
anxiety, and depression may prove useful in efforts
to help the lonely. Therefore, interventions that
appear relevant to the problem of loneliness, as well
as those developed specifically for loneliness, are
discussed in the following sections.
Facilitating Social Bonding
Many factors undoubtedly contribute to the diffi-
culties that some poeple experience in establishing
and maintaining interpersonal bonds. Discussions of
the causes of loneliness often distinguish between
characteristics of the lonely person and situational
constraints (Peplau & Perlman, 1979; Weiss, 1973),
Social inhibition or deficient social skills may underlie
loneliness for some people. For others loneliness
may result from limited opportunities for social
contact.
Changing Characteristics of the Lonely Person
Although it is appropriate to guard against the
tendency to explain loneliness in person-centered
terms (Perlman & Peplau, in press), empirical evi-
dence suggests that personal characteristics predispose
some people to loneliness. Studies have found that
lonely college students have greater difficulty than
nonlonely students in introducing themselves to
others, making phone calls to initiate social contact,
participating in groups, enjoying themselves at par-
ties, asserting themselves, and taking social risks
(reviewed in Horowitz et al., 1982; Jones, 1982;
Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Laboratory stud-
ies of dyadic interaction suggest that lonely college
students are less skilled at self-disclosure (Chelune,
Sulton, & Williams, 1980; Solano, Batten, & Parish,
1982) and less responsive to others (Jones, Hobbs,
& Hockenbury, 1982). In addition to these behavioral
differences, research suggests that lonely people may
approach social encounters with greater cynicism
and interpersonal mistrust than nonlonely people
(Brennan & Auslander, 1979; Jones, Freemon, &
Goswick, 1981; Moore & Sermat, 1974). Lonely
college students rated others more negatively and
expressed less desire for continued contact with
others in laboratory studies of acquaintanceship,
suggesting a possible pattern of "rejecting others
first" (Jones, 1982). Lonely students also evaluated
themselves critically and expected others to reject
1392
them, although they were not differentially evaluated
by nonlonely students.
Most of this research on the social behavior of
lonely people has been conducted with college stu-
dents, thus limiting the extent to which the findings
can be generalized. Moreover, it is not clear whether
the differences observed represent causes or conse-
quences of loneliness (Jones, 1982). Nonetheless, the
apparent importance of personality dynamics and
social skill deficits has prompted some researchers
to argue that loneliness represents an enduring trait
for a subset of lonely people (Gerson & Perlman,
1979; Shaver, Furman, & Buhrmester, in press).
Such "trait-lonely" individuals are apt to remain
lonely even when they have access to a social network
(Shaver et al., in press). Moreover, they appear to
be sadly resigned to further loneliness and engage in
passive, ineffective coping responses, such as watching
television, overeating, taking tranquilizers, and over-
sleeping (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982).
Horowitz (1983) offered an insightful analysis
that links these ineffective social behaviors and coping
responses to efforts to protect fragile self-esteem.
Studies have repeatedly found loneliness to be as-
sociated with low feelings of self-worth (Peplau,
Miceli, & Morasch, 1982), self-consciousness in
social interaction (Cheek & Busch, 1981), and self-
blame for social failures (Anderson, Horowitz, &
French, 1983). Because social interaction is a cen-
trally important source of feedback about the self
(Altman & Taylor, 1973), some people with low self-
esteem adopt dysfunctional interpersonal strategies
out of a desire to minimize the risks of negative
feedback. Horowitz (1983) described three dysfunc-
tional strategies that may serve this self-protective
function—excessive compliance with the wishes of
others, rebellion, and withdrawal. By trying to please
others, excessively compliant individuals hope to
avoid criticism and social rejection. Rebellion, in
contrast, invalidates others as a source of negative
feedback. Horowitz noted that some people rebel
internally rather than overtly, which may help to
explain the cynical and mistrusting attitudes that
have been found to characterize some lonely people.
Withdrawal from interpersonal situations removes
the threat of criticism or rejection by eliminating
social contact altogether. Interestingly, these inter-
personal strategies correspond closely to three dys-
functional interpersonal orientations identified by
Bowlby (1977a, 1977b)—compulsive care-giving,
emotional detachment, and compulsive self-reliance.
It is important to note that these strategies do
not serve to enhance self-esteem; rather, they protect
an already fragile self-concept from further negative
feedback. Loneliness is the cost of such protection
because the individual is likely either to be isolated
or to form problematic or superficial relationships.
December 1984 • American Psychologist
 Thus, those who work with the lonely should be
aware that the motivation to avoid threatening feed-
back about the self may at times be stronger than
the motivation to establish social relationships.
Further research is needed to identify and trace
the origins of individual characteristics that predis-
pose people to loneliness (cf. Hansson, Jones, &
Carpenter, in press). Progress made to date on this
important topic emphasizes the role of social skill
deficits, low self-esteem, and dysfunctional interper-
sonal beliefs and strategies in causing or sustaining
loneliness. The interventions reviewed in this section
address these factors.
Improving social skills. Social skills training
programs were developed initially to help people
deal with the problem of heterosexual dating anxiety
but have since been adapted for a variety of problems,
including social withdrawal and loneliness. These
programs draw heavily upon such behavioral tech-
niques as modeling, role playing, performance feed-
back (sometimes using videotape methods), and
homework assignments. The specific skills to be
taught vary and have been the subject of some
controversy (e.g., McFall, 1982), but commonly in-
clude initiating conversations, speaking fluently on
the telephone, giving and receiving compliments,
handling periods of silence, enhancing physical at-
tractiveness, nonverbal methods of communication,
and approaches to physical intimacy. Training is
usually conducted in groups and is intended to be
time limited, often lasting 10 to 12 weeks.
Social skills training programs have been dem-
onstrated to be effective in helping participants
acquire new interpersonal skills when compared
with waiting-list and no-treatment control groups,
although they have not been shown to be superior
to more traditional therapeutic approaches (Twen-
tyman & Zimering, 1979). Jones, Hobbs, and Hock-
enbury (1982) evaluated a social skills intervention
developed specifically for the lonely. A group of
lonely college students was taught to increase personal
attention (e.g., topic continuation, questions, refer-
ences to the other person) to their partners in a
series of dyadic interaction tasks. Training consisted
of modeling, practice interaction, and feedback.
Compared with two control groups of lonely students
(a no-treatment group and a practice-interaction-
only group), these students reported significantly
less loneliness, self-consciousness, and shyness at the
end of the study. Social skills training has also been
adapted for work with shy people (Pilkonis, Heape,
& Klein, 1980; Pilkonis & Zimbardo, 1979), although
published evaluation studies are not available.
Most social skills training programs appear to
emphasize skills needed to initiate social contact
(see Monti, Corriveau, & Curran, 1982, for an
exception). Although this is a necessary starting
December 1984 • American Psychologist
point for many lonely people, it may leave them
unprepared for handling the transition to greater
intimacy. This is particularly important in light of
research indicating that as relationships become
deeper, criticism and attempts at control increase
(Rands & Levinger, 1979). In order to enhance their
prospects for maintaining satisfying relationships,
lonely people may need to learn how to deal with
criticism and conflict (Rook & Peplau, 1982). In
addition, social skills researchers have tended not to
distinguish between clients whose interpersonal
problems reflect a history of social avoidance and
those whose problems reflect a history of social
rejection, even though this distinction would have
important implications for the design of effective
programs. Conger and Keane (1981) noted, for
example, that different skill deficits underly the
interpersonal problems of children who are shy or
withdrawn as compared with children who are ag-
gressive or disruptive. Social skills interventions
should be tailored accordingly.
Modifying dysfunctional beliefs. A number of
cognitively oriented therapies have been developed
to help clients recognize and correct self-defeating
thought patterns (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979;
Mahoney, 1974; Meichenbaum, 1977; Novaco,
1975). Young (1982) recently developed a cognitive-
behavioral therapy specifically for loneliness. A crit-
ical feature of the cognitive-behavioral model is
teaching clients to identify automatic thoughts and
to regard them as hypotheses to be tested rather
than facts. For example, in new social situations
anxious lonely clients may automatically think "I'll
make a fool of myself" and, as a result, may try to
avoid such situations. The therapist would encourage
the client to test this thought empirically by inquiring
how many times the client actually has behaved
foolishly in the past, by probing the basis for the
client's belief that others are constantly judging his
or her behavior, by having the client keep a record
of "foolish behavior" for a specific period, and so
forth. This process of testing automatic thoughts is
intended to help clients discover inconsistencies in
their assumptions and alternative interpretations that
may have been overlooked. Behavioral homework
assignments of graded difficulty are also used to
promote transfer of learning and to help lonely
clients gradually overcome their social inhibitions.
In a useful extension of the general cognitive-
behavioral approach, Young outlined six hierarchical
stages in establishing intimate relationships and ar-
gued that lonely clients should master each stage
before attempting successive stages. For example,
learning to spend enjoyable time alone and engaging
in activities with casual friends must be mastered
before attempting to establish an intimate relation-
ship, although Young cautioned that seeking intimate
1393
ties may not be an appropriate goal for ail lonely able to form friendships and intimate attachments
clients. These distinctions encourage practitioners to after therapy. That is, modifying characteristics of
view treatment of loneliness as a developmental the lonely person should remove the major obstacle
process. to satisfactory social bonding. This view assumes
Modifying interpersonal orientations. Other that a large pool of potential companions exists to
systems of therapy make use of the client-therapist be readily accessed by the lonely once they have
relationship itself to modify dysfunctional interper- been equipped with the requisite intrapsychic and
sonal orientations. Proponents of client-centered behavioral assets. Although such a view may be
therapies (Rogers, 1961, 1973, pp. 119-121), for technically correct, it overlooks external constraints
example, attribute loneliness to clients' beliefs that that sustain loneliness and the objective difficulties
they will be rejected by others unless their behavior of meeting others in situations conducive to rela-
conforms rigidly to social norms. That is, the real tionship formation. Lack of time or money to
self is believed to be unlovable. Unlike the cognitive-participate in social activities and distance from
behavioral approach, which might seek to help others represent very basic constraints. The degree
lonely clients overcome this belief through critical of match between a person and his or her social
evaluation or carefully designed behavioral assign- environment additionally affects the likelihood of
ments, client-centered therapies emphasize the de- meeting others with similar interests, values, and
velopment of trust within the client-therapist rela- backgrounds. People who are different from those
tionship. By establishing a relationship in which around them have fewer opportunities to initiate
clients feel safe enough to express themselves without relationships. Blau's (1961) classic study of friend-
threat of censure, their fear of rejection is thought ships in old age illustrated, for example, that the
to be reduced. Thus, lonely clients' interpersonal social lives of widows were largely determined by
orientations and self-perceptions are changed by the prevalence of other widows in the local area. In
actually providing them with new social experiences areas where widowhood was uncommon, being wid-
that disconfirm their expectations. owed was associated with having fewer social ties.
Psychodynamic approaches assume that over Outside of a limited number of special contexts
the course of therapy clients come to manifest their that may facilitate acquaintanceship, such as college
problematic interpersonal orientations in the rela- dormitories, clubs, or community organizations, the
tionship with the therapist (e.g., Sullivan, 1953). opportunities to meet and interact with similar
Analysis of this resulting transference relationship others are probably more haphazard and generally
provides a vehicle through which clients can be limited than is commonly assumed. Moreover, social
made aware of (and presumably gain control over) interaction in such centrally important contexts as
unconscious processes that contribute to their inter- work and school is often structured in a way that
personal difficulties. For example, a client who alien-encourages competition or wariness of others rather
ates others through excessive efforts to be consideratethan friendliness.
may be helped to recognize such actions as an Interventions aimed at changing personal char-
implicit demand for approval and affection (e.g., acteristics of lonely people, therefore, will not inev-
Horney, 1937). Moreover, among clients whose lone- itably be accompanied by changes in their interper-
liness reflects intense social anxiety and avoidance sonal relationships. This is not intended to minimize
of relationships, the relationship with a reliable and the potential benefits of such interventions but rather
trusted therapist represents a new and beneficial to suggest that a rationale exists for considering
interpersonal experience in its own right (Greenson, interventions aimed at increasing the lonely person's
1967; Leiderman, 1969). opportunities for social contact. The President's
Few detailed analyses exist of the psychody- Commission on Mental Health (1978) took the
namic processes believed to contribute to loneliness position that it is a societal responsibility to provide
and the therapeutic methods considered most effec- mechanisms for social integration and stated that
tive in working with the lonely (Leiderman, 1969; "a healthy society provides opportunities for people
Satran, 1978). A systematic review of psychodynamic to be connected in [meaningful] ways . . . and
theory and research that specifically addresses the provides special help for those unable to avail them-
etiology and treatment of loneliness, as distinct from selves of such opportunities" (p. 144).
depression and anxiety, would be quite valuable. Relatively little work has directly addressed this
possibility, but several promising approaches are
discussed in this section. Interventions that seek to
Providing New Opportunities for Social Contact
restructure existing opportunities for social contact
The approaches discussed thus far differ substantially in order to promote friendly interaction are distin-
in their theoretical orientations, but they share an guished from those that seek to create new oppor-
implicit expectation that lonely people should be tunities for social contact.

1394 December 1984 • American Psychologist

 Restructuring existing social opportunities. The
development of social ties is often fostered when
people, sometimes out of necessity rather than choice,
work together to accomplish shared goals. The ben-
efits of such cooperative interdependence were dem-
onstrated in an innovative intervention for school
children developed by Aronson and his associates
(Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978).
Aronson et al. argued that elementary schools are
often competitive, unfriendly places. Concerned
especially about the impact of such an environment
on minority children, Aronson et al. suggested that
"it would be valuable if the basic process could be
changed so that children could learn to like and
trust each other not as an extracurricular activity
but in the course of learning their reading, writing,
and arithmetic" (p. 23). To this end, he and his
colleagues developed a new instructional method,
the "jigsaw classroom" technique, in which children
formed small learning groups. In the groups, each
child was given a different piece of information
about the lesson. In order to master the material,
each child had to learn from other children and, in
turn, teach them about his or her own part of the
assignment. Thus, cooperation was the rewarded
pattern. Evaluation studies indicated that children
in the jigsaw classrooms showed greater liking for
each other and greater self-esteem than children in
traditional classrooms (Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield,
Aronson, & Sikes, 1977). Although the intervention
was not designed to reduce loneliness, a consequence
of the restructuring of classroom instruction was to
reduce social isolation and increase friendliness.
Such cooperative task interdependence appears
to have been a feature of a successful low-income
housing project for the elderly in San Francisco
(Hochschild, 1973). Hochschild described how work
roles spontaneously evolved in this retirement resi-
dence. These roles involved primarily interdependent
volunteer activities, such as construction of yarn
dolls for an orphanage, fund raising for a local
women's club, and visits to nearby nursing homes.
This work was neither required nor reimbursed but
served an important function in structuring residents'
social relations and contributing to the "web of
sociability" (p. 40),
Features of the physical environment may also
serve to foster or inhibit social interaction (Stokols,
1983). For example, structural characteristics of
elementary school classes, such as class size and
classroom organization, have been found to affect
children's friendliness and popularity (Hallinan,
1979). Tenant gardening programs established in
low-income housing projects in New York, Chicago,
and Philadelphia resulted in increased social inter-
action among residents as well as lower rates of
vandalism (Lewis, 1976). Sommer and his colleagues
December 1984 • American Psychologist
(Sommer, Herrick, & Sommer, 1981; Sommer &
Homer, 1981) argued that modern supermarkets are
needlessly alienating environments that could be
altered to encourage friendly exchanges between
shoppers. Shopping malls, urban parks, and sports
facilities have been cited as public settings that could
be designed to facilitate social contact (e.g., Ulrich
& Addoms, 1981). Within specific institutional set-
tings, such as nursing homes, work has begun to
identify environmental factors that promote social
interaction (reviewed in Kasl & Rosenfield, 1980;
Lawton, 1980).
Increasing social opportunities through network
building. When existing opportunities for social
contact are quite limited or not easily modified, it
may be necessary to consider ways to create new
opportunities for contact. Pilisuk and Minkler (1980)
described several interesting projects that sought to
establish supportive social networks for isolated se-
nior citizens. One project took place in inner-city,
single-room occupancy hotels that housed many
elderly persons. Physical disability, poverty, and fear
of crime prevented most of these inner-city residents
from venturing beyond their hotel rooms, and as a
result their social contacts were extremely limited.
Public health nurses set up stations in the lobbies of
these hotels and offered free blood pressure checkups
as an initial means of contact. Over the course of
several months they were able to identify shared
interests among residents, which provided a basis
for linking residents in dyads or larger groupings.
After a year of such informal interaction, residents
formed their own Senior Activities Club, which
came to function as an independent, active support
group.
An important feature of this project is that it
made creative use of an indirect approach—provision
of free blood pressure checkups—to initiate contact
with an isolated population. Had the project coor-
dinators turned to a more direct approach, such as
advertising for support groups, they would most
likely have met with failure. Pilisuk and Minkler
(1980) observed that "where the fact of belonging
and interacting is in itself foreign . . . special diffi-
culties [arise] in establishing trust levels that enable
supportive interpersonal linkages to develop"
(p. 106).
The development of support networks was an
unexpected byproduct of a program aimed at im-
proving the nutritional status of the low-income
elderly. In 1975 an organization called the Senior
Gleaners was formed to salvage and distribute to
the needy elderly food that normally would have
been wasted by food producers and suppliers. Mem-
bers of the Senior Gleaners organization were pri-
marily isolated, poor elderly whose initial incentive
for participation was access to food. A high level of
1395
cooperative interaction was required of members to by enhancing personal coping. One approach pro-
organize trips to produce fields and to coordinate vides emotional support during the transitional pe-
the distribution of food collected. Over time members riod following a major social loss. The second ap-
formed informal support networks, although this proach attempts to help lonely individuals develop
had been neither expected nor explicitly facilitated enjoyable activities in which they can engage inde-
by the project directors. pendently.
This process was referred to by Pilisuk and
Minkler as "unintentional network building," and it Coping With Social Loss: Transition Programs
is worth considering more generally the implications Loneliness that results from the loss of a significant
of intentional versus unintentional network building social relationship raises different intervention issues
for lonely clients. A common feature of the examples than loneliness that results from never having at-
discussed in this section, in addition to the feature tained such a relationship. Weiss (1976) developed
of cooperative task interdependence, is that partici- two programs tailored to the problem of loss of a
pants of the programs were not self-consciously spouse. Seminars for the Separated is a program
focused on establishing friendships with each other. that was designed to alleviate feelings of marginality,
This stands in sharp contrast to many profit-oriented confusion, and self-doubt that follow marital sepa-
singles programs, such as "people mixers" or dating ration. It typically involves 8 to 10 weekly group
services, in which the sole purpose of interaction is meetings of men and women who have recently
to find a partner. It seems likely that the self- separated from their spouses. Meetings begin with a
consciousness felt by participants in such programs short lecture given by a staff member, followed by
would doom many of their encounters to failure. small group discussions. The lectures cover such
Shyness researchers have argued that self-conscious- topics as the emotional reactions accompanying
ness inhibits the interactions of shy people and that separation, the impact of separation on relationships
strategies for distracting them from their self-con- with children, and issues of starting to date again.
sciousness would have value (Pilkonis & Zimbardo, Meetings usually conclude with an opportunity for
1979). Lonely people might similarly benefit from participants to socialize over refreshments.
social interactions structured in ways that distract Several benefits have been attributed to the
them from their self-consciousness and that do not program. First, the information provided through
appear contrived. Studies of the relative effectiveness the lectures reportedly helps participants to under-
of established organizations with goals not directly stand puzzling and sometimes disturbing emotional
related to friendship (for example, churches, the reactions. Weiss gave the example of a woman who
Sierra Club, adult education classes) versus the was quite disturbed by her impulse to attempt a
"singles business" (for example, singles bars, dating reunion with her former husband and who reported
services, singles apartment complexes) would be relief when she learned through a lecture that such
useful in this regard. feelings are common and reflect the persistence of
attachment feelings despite hostility toward the for-
Enhanced Coping With Loneliness mer spouse. Contact with similar, sympathetic others
Interventions that attempt to increase the lonely is believed to reduce participants' feelings of mar-
person's prospects for achieving satisfying interper- ginality and to provide a useful opportunity to
sonal ties would seem to provide the most direct practice socializing with members of the opposite
antidote to loneliness, but this approach is not sex. Finally, Weiss stressed the group's value in
always possible or appropriate. Newly divorced or simply getting members moving again and initiating
recently bereaved people may experience severe steps to improve their lives.
loneliness but may not be ready to establish new In attempting to generalize this group treatment
relationships. Similarly, the geographic isolation that approach to the recently widowed (Seminar for the
causes the rural widow to be lonely or the chronic Bereaved), Weiss encountered unanticipated prob-
disability that keeps some people housebound may lems. Explanations of the nature of separation dis-
be insurmountable obstacles to social involvement. tress were comforting to the newly separated, but
In such instances, a more appropriate goal of inter- comparable explanations of grief were experienced
vention would be to help people cope with their by the bereaved as painful. In contrast to the sepa-
feelings of loneliness. Rather than attempting to rated, the bereaved were more ambivalent about
improve the lonely person's interpersonal ties, the overcoming their distress, because their pain testified
goal would be to prevent loneliness from contributing to the intensity of their feelings for the deceased
to more serious problems such as depression or spouse. Weiss reported that the bereaved were also
alcoholism. less self-doubting than the separated and were quick
This section distinguishes two types of inter- to resent clumsy or awkward attempts to help. As a
ventions aimed at reducing the stress of loneliness result, the bereaved were less tolerant of fellow group

1396 December 1984 • American Psychologist

members whose mode of participation in the group of individuals who are both lonely and depressed.
differed from their own (e.g., who were more talk- Finally, if encouraging lonely individuals to develop
ative), suggesting a need for screening of potential enjoyable solitary activities seems like a "last resort,"
group members to ensure compatibility. Finally, it should be remembered that social relations entail
whereas contact between the sexes appeared to have personal costs as well as rewards (Homans, 1974;
been helpful to the separated, the mourning process Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Establishing a love rela-
of widows and widowers differed sufficiently so that tionship is not always the panacea that some people
having both sexes together in one group was detri- expect (Lederer & Jackson, 1968). Moreover, Weiss
mental. (1973) has cautioned that the "campaign . . . for
These two programs have been described in an attachment figure" (p. 234) is difficult and fraught
some detail to illustrate the functions of short-term with risks, including the risks of social embarrass-
interventions for those whose social ties have been ment and of making hasty or troublesome partner
disrupted and to underscore the need for tailoring choices.
such interventions to the specific population served. An emphasis on enhancing solitary skills has
Empirical evaluations document the effectiveness of been recommended as an adjunct to therapy with
comparable professionally initiated interventions for lonely clients (Shaul, 1982; Young, 1982) and may
the bereaved (Raphael, 1977; Vachon, Lyall, Rogers, also be valuable in cases in which social isolation is
Freedman-Letofsky, & Freeman, 1980), as well as imposed by external constraints that cannot readily
for the elderly whose personal networks have been be changed, such as distance from others or physical
disrupted through residential relocation (Kowalski, disability. The stigma associated with being alone
1981), children whose parents have divorced (Wall- (Fromm-Reichmann, 1959; Parmelee & Werner,
erstein & Kelly, 1977), and individuals who have 1978), however, may make some lonely individuals
effectively lost a family member through a person- reluctant to focus on solitary activities. In such
ality-altering illness such as Alzheimer's disease (La- cases, it may be necessary to encourage the individual
zarus, Stafford, Cooper, Cohler, & Dysken, 1981). It to find enjoyable activities that bolster self-esteem
should be noted, however, that not all participants and that do not publicly identify him or her as being
benefit equally from such programs, as indicated without a partner, such as mastering a daytime
both by dropout rates and by analyses of individual hobby rather than attending a movie alone on a
change scores (cf. Gottlieb, 1983). For example, the Saturday evening.
ability to benefit from support programs has been
linked to the quality of participants' existing social Preventing Loneliness
networks (e.g., •Vachon, Lyall, Rogers, Freedman- Most discussions of prevention distinguish between
Letofsky, & Freeman, 1980). Thus, an important secondary and primary prevention (Cowen, 1977;
task for loneliness researchers is to evaluate which Goldston, 1977). Secondary prevention of loneliness
lonely individuals are the best candidates for such would involve the design of interventions tailored
programs. In addition, information is needed about to groups known to be at high risk for chronic or
the extent to which lonely people turn to or benefit severe loneliness. Primary prevention, in contrast,
from lay-initiated self-help groups. would most likely involve dissemination of educa-
Coping With Aloneness: Solitary Skills tional materials to a community or specific popula-
tion.
For some people the emotional distress associated
with loneliness is exacerbated by their inability to Identification of High-Risk Groups
spend satisfying time by themselves. Young (1982) Demographic factors such as age, marital status,
suggested that many lonely people are actually afraid gender, and income may predispose some groups of
of being alone and that, paradoxically, once they people to greater loneliness. Survey data indicate
overcome their fears of aloneness they can often that loneliness is higher among the young, the un-
initiate friendships more easily. Helping lonely in- married, the unemployed, women, and low-income
dividuals increase their repertoire of rewarding sol- groups (reviewed in Perlman & Peplau, in press).
itary activities may be useful for several reasons. These group differences point to possible structural
First, it relieves them of dependence on others to causes of loneliness. Among the permanently poor,
experience satisfaction and thus may increase their for example, "the routine affronts from a noxious
sense of personal control (Rook & Peplau, 1982). and sparse environment" not only threaten health
Second, research supports the usefulness of increasing and well-being but also contribute to the breakdown
pleasurable activities, including solitary activities, in of supportive social ties (Pilisuk, 1982, p. 28). Some
the treatment of depression (Fuchs & Rehn, 1977; of the demographic patterns of loneliness suggested
Lewinsohn, Biglan, & Zeiss, 1976). This strategy by survey data, however, may reflect differential
may be especially valuable for improving the morale willingness to admit personal problems (Perlman &

December 1984 • American Psychologist 1397

Peplau, in press). The surprising tendency for older
adults to describe themselves as less lonely than
middle-aged and younger adults has been attributed
to self-report biases as well as to more modest social
aspirations (Peplau, Bikson, Rook, & Goodchilds,
1982). Experimental evidence suggests that lonely
men are evaluated more negatively by others than
lonely women, which may make men more reluctant
to admit loneliness (Borys, Perlman, & Goldenberg,
1982). Extrapolation from survey evidence of group
differences to recommendations for preventive inter-
ventions must therefore be made with considerable
caution.
Obstacles to social participation make some
groups needlessly vulnerable to isolation. Elderly
individuals, for example, often lack transportation
that would make it possible for them to visit friends
(Perlman, Gerson, & Spinner, 1978). Snow and
Gordon (1980) observed that many communities
have a minibus service that will provide free rides
to senior citizens for medical purposes but not for
social purposes. They argued that this policy is
shortsighted and that providing safe transportation
for an older person to visit a friend may contribute
as much to health and well-being as providing
transportation for visits to physicians.
Much attention has also focused recently on
the difficulties encountered by people who function
as caretakers of chronically disabled family members.
Such caretaking is often a full-time responsibility,
and although these individuals provide valuable social
support for the disabled person, their own social
lives often suffer. In fact, evidence suggests that the
strain associated with caring for disabled relatives
makes the caretakers themselves vulnerable to health
and emotional problems (Cantor, 1983; Fengler &
Goodrich, 1979). The phrase "supporting the sup-
porters" has evolved to refer to the idea that resources
should be made available to ease the burden of
caretaking. Respite care, in which a professional or
paraprofessional is sent to care for the disabled
person for short periods, represents a relatively
simple intervention that would enable these family
caretakers to maintain their social ties.
Most caretakers are middle-aged and elderly
women (Shanas, 1979; Sussman, 1976), and their
caretaking role is likely to increase in the future as
greater emphasis is placed on preventing institution-
alization. Moreover, the frail elderly population is
increasing at a faster rate than other segments of the
elderly population, suggesting that increasing num-
bers of women will be called on to care for chronically
ill parents or spouses. These groups represent some-
what "hidden" populations at risk for loneliness and
concomitant problems. Provision of services to re-
move obstacles to social network participation would
thus seem to be a priority for community planning.
1398
Educational Approaches
An interesting example of an educational interven-
tion intended to foster the formation of supportive
social ties is the Friends Can Be Good Medicine
project, undertaken in 1982 by the California De-
partment of Mental Health, Mental Health Promo-
tion Branch. The objectives of the program were
"to communicate the critical importance of sup-
portive personal relationships to California residents
and to stimulate community activities which connect
people and provide opportunities to enhance personal
relationships in everyday life" (California Depart-
ment of Mental Health, 1982, p. 4). To accomplish
these objectives, public service announcements em-
phasizing the value of friends were broadcast on
radio and television, and pamphlets were distributed
through schools, libraries, community groups, and
municipal offices. The pamphlets covered such topics
as how social support enhances health, the ingredients
of friendship, how to assess the quality of friendships,
and how to enrich existing relationships.
As with many educational outreach efforts, it
is not clear that these messages reached their intended
audience. That is, people who already had satisfactory
social ties or who were most competent to develop
such ties may have been most likely to respond to
the educational messages. Evaluations of similar
prevention programs have found that those who
take advantage of such programs are often the least
needy (e.g., Gottlieb & Hall, 1980). In addition, a
major emphasis of the Friends Can Be Good Med-
icine project was to make people aware of the
importance of friends and to motivate them to
pursue friendships. Yet it is doubtful that lack of
motivation accounts for the loneliness and social
isolation experienced by many people.2 Although
such messages may be useful in prompting some
people to reevaluate their personal priorities, others
may require more detailed information about how
to make friends or where to seek professional help
if their previous attempts have been unsuccessful.
For example, the Chicago Daily News ran a 3-part
series on loneliness just before the Christinas holidays
in 1977 that provided information about a loneliness
hotline and community agencies that offered profes-
sional help to the lonely. Interestingly, the newspaper
also published information about volunteer oppor-
tunities with local hospitals and charitable organi-
2
An evaluation of the project indicated that roughly 70% of
respondents surveyed at baseline espoused the importance of
friendship (Hersey & Klibanoff, 1982, p. 8, Table 1). A 1-year
follow-up indicated that those who were exposed to the educational
materials were somewhat more likely than those not exposed to
say that friendships were personally quite important, although the
two groups did not differ in their reported intentions to increase
their friendship activities (p. 9, Table 2).
December 1984 » American Psychologist
 rations on the assumption that such volunteer activity of older adults (Arling, 1976; Beckman, 1981; Lee,
could reduce loneliness (Mark, 1977). 1979). Nor does an empty parental nest (Borland,
1982) or voluntary childlessness (Macklin, 1980)
Role of the Family appear to increase loneliness and dissatisfaction. The
A very basic question from the standpoint of pre- degree to which family interaction protects family
vention is what role families play in alleviating or members against loneliness appears to depend upon
exacerbating loneliness. This question is particularly such factors as the nature of their role relationships
important in light of social changes that appear to and their stage in the life cycle.
be altering the structure and functions of contem- Such findings admittedly offer only indirect
porary families. These changes include increased evidence on the ability of family involvement to
divorce rates and concomitant increases in the num- prevent loneliness. Critics might also argue that
ber of single-parent and reconstituted households, family life in the past consistently deterred loneliness
increases in the number of dual-career families and by providing intimacy and companionship but that
other nontraditional family forms, extension of the the changes affecting contemporary families have
postparental (or empty-nest) stage of the life cycle, eroded such benefits. Available evidence tends not
postponement of childbearing, and increases in the to support this view. Recent analyses by historians
number of voluntarily childless marriages (Bronfen- indicate that American families in the 18th and
brenner, 1976; Macklin, 1980). What these changes 19th centuries were far less nurturant and harmo-
signify for the American social fabric is hotly con- nious than is typically assumed (Davis, 1979; Demos,
tested (e.g., Genovese, 1984; Hess, 1984) and is too 1976). Moreover, empirical comparisons of interac-
complex to consider here, This section focuses on a tion patterns within different kinds of families do
narrower question: Are these changes likely to affect not reveal that nontraditional families have distinct
the incidence of loneliness within families? To answer liabilities; e.g., neither single-parent nor dual-career
this question, it is necessary to consider the various families appear to be disadvantaged relative to more
ways that families may function to prevent or cause traditional families on such measures as the amount
loneliness. Although the diversity of contemporary of time spent with children at home or type of
family structures and life-styles makes generalizations activities engaged in (Medrich et al,, 1982). When
difficult, three potential effects of family life seem nontraditional families, such as female-headed fam-
particularly important. ilies, do exhibit signs of greater strain than traditional
First, family life may directly reduce loneliness families, the difference is as likely to reflect harsh
by providing opportunities for social interaction. economic realities as lack of commitment to the
For example, family activities may provide the sense parenting role or other psychological factors (Levitan
of social integration, or involvement in a socially & Belous, 1984). Although further research is needed
cohesive group, that Weiss (1973) postulated to be to clarify how family interaction affects loneliness,
a necessary antidote to loneliness. On the other these results suggest caution in assuming that the
hand, outside of the marital relationship, families quality of affectional bonds in modern families has
may be ill-equipped to provide emotional intimacy, deteriorated as compared to an idealized past.
which Weiss also postulated to be necessary to A second way in which families may affect the
prevent loneliness. Indeed, it may be difficult for a incidence of loneliness is through parental socializa-
single social group to provide both a sense of group tion of children's interpersonal skills and self-confi-
solidarity and opportunities for emotional intimacy dence. As indicated earlier, low self-esteem appears
(cf. Shaver & Buhrmester, 1983). Although empirical to be a centrally important factor in the onset and
work bearing directly on this issue is sparse, available persistence of loneliness. That such low self-esteem
evidence suggests that family interaction does not may originate in family treatment is suggested by
uniformly protect family members from feelings of evidence that lonely adolescents (Brennan & Auslan-
loneliness. For example, married people are less der, 1979) and college students (Sarason, Levine,
lonely than unmarried people (Perlman & Peplau, Basham, & Sarason, 1983) describe their parents as
in press), but loneliness is quite high among adoles- rejecting and unsupportive. Although these findings
cents (Brennah & Auslander, 1979; Parlee, 1979). may reflect distorted perceptions of parental treat-
Time use studies indicate that television viewing is ment, there seems little reason to doubt the value
the major context in which parents and children of encouraging parents to help their children develop
spend time together (Medrich, Roizen, Rubin, & healthy self-esteem.
Buckley, 1982), and it is not clear that this activity Parents may additionally foster effective inter-
does more than ensure close physical proximity personal attitudes and skills through modeling and
(Himmelweit, 1958). Frequent interaction between direct teaching. For example, research suggests that
adult children and their parents does not appear to parents who are socially withdrawn and anxious
reduce loneliness or substantially enhance the morale tend to rear children who are similarly withdrawn

December 1984 • American Psychologist 1399

and anxious (Filsinger & Lamke, 1983). Interpersonal
cynicism and mistrust have been found to charac-
terize lonely adolescents (Brennan & Auslander, 1979)
and college students (Jones, 1982). What role, if
any, do family experiences have in engendering these
attitudes? Interestingly, Greenberg and Nay (1982)
found that college students whose parents had di-
vorced were more likely to endorse the termination
of relationships as a solution to interpersonal prob-
lems than students who had lost a parent through
death or who were from intact families, although
the three groups did not differ on measures of
interpersonal skill. In addition, parental divorce has
been found to be a stronger predictor of adult
loneliness than parental death (Rubenstein, Shaver,
& Peplau, 1979), further suggesting that the effects
of parental divorce may persist into adulthood.
When their parents' marriages deteriorate and ulti-
mately end, children often experience an over-
whelming sense of loss, anxiety about further aban-
donment and social rejection, intense feelings of
guilt, and fears of being different from peers (Gottlieb,
in press; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Early interven-
tion with children of divorce (Felner, Farber, &
Primavera, 1980; Gottlieb, in press; Wallerstein &
Kelly, 1977) may help them cope with these reactions
and thereby reduce their vulnerability to loneliness.
Further analyses are needed of child-rearing practices
and family events that affect children's acquisition
of interpersonal attitudes and skills.
A final way in which families may affect the
incidence of loneliness is through supporting or
hindering children's friendship choices. Parents are
often ambivalent about their children's friends
(Medrich et al., 1982). Lonely people remember
their parents as having been critical of their friends
in childhood (Perlman, 1984). Loneliness is apt to
be reduced and interpersonal confidence enhanced
if the family affords a supportive base from which
children can explore the formation of relationships
outside of the family.
In sum, the family may function as a direct
source of interpersonal involvement, as a context
for the acquisition of interpersonal skills and atti-
tudes, and as a secure base from which to establish
peer relationships. Three questions require further
research. First, which of these functions, or other
functions yet to be identified, is most effective in
preventing loneliness? Second, what factors inhibit
the ability of contemporary families to perform each
of these functions? Finally, what should be done to
reduce the incidence of loneliness attributable to
ineffective family functioning?
Overview of Intervention Approaches
It is apparent from this review that many strategies
exist for helping lonely people, which is appropriate
1400
because loneliness has many causes and manifesta-
tions. These approaches vary in their intended out-
comes and target populations. Moreover, some in-
terventions have been developed specifically to deal
with loneliness, whereas others have been developed
for different problems but nonetheless may be useful
in working with the lonely. The interventions also
differ in their focus on the lonely individual, on
specific groups, or on social settings. Table 1 sum-
marizes the approaches discussed in terms of these
distinguishing dimensions. It should be noted that
not all of the cells defined by this table represent
plausible approaches to the problem of loneliness.
For example, prevention of loneliness at the individ-
ual level or environmental approaches for enhancing
coping with loneliness would seem likely to have
limited appeal. It is also important to emphasize
that the approaches listed in Table 1 are not mutually
exclusive. An intervention aimed at network building,
for example, might incorporate components of social
skills training programs or pleasurable activities
scheduling.
Evaluations of the effectiveness of these inter-
ventions are sorely needed. With the exception of
social skills approaches and some bereavement pro-
grams, few published evaluation studies exist of
interventions developed specifically for loneliness.
Moreover, evaluation studies of interventions devel-
oped for related problems rarely include ratings of
loneliness or the quality of social ties as outcome
measures.
Ethical Issues
Interventions that seek to change people's social
relations are not without risks (Snow & Gordon,
1980). For example, programs designed to help
socially isolated school children could be stigmatiz-
ing. Oden and Asher (1977) urged service providers
to exercise caution in implementing such programs,
for instance, by inviting nonisolated as well as
isolated children to participate. In addition, some
programs have made children both more aggressive
and more cooperative, and such potential negative
effects should be monitored (Conger & Keane, 1981).
Friendly visitor programs aimed at reducing
the isolation of housebound or institutionalized el-
derly and disabled persons (e.g., Milligan & Bennett,
1978) provide an example of a well-intentioned
intervention that may backfire if not carefully con-
ducted. In a typical program, a volunteer visits the
shut-in person on a regular basis ranging from once
or twice a week to once a month. In effect, loneliness
is countered in these programs by providing a friend.
The visits continue for an indefinite period, often
determined by the volunteer's other commitments.
Expectations created on the recipient's part and the
manner in which termination of the volunteer's
December 1984 • American Psychologist
Table 1
Overview of Interventions for Loneliness
Individual approaches Group approaches Environmental approaches

Goal of Specific to Relevant to Specific to Relevant to Specific to Relevant to

intervention loneliness loneliness loneliness loneliness loneliness loneliness

Facilitate Cognitive- Client-centered Social skills Social skills Network Restructuring

social behavior therapies training for training for building social settings
bonding therapy for Psychodynamic lonely college dating (intentional (e.g., school
loneliness therapies students and anxiety and unintentional) classroom
socially isolated Shyness modification)
children groups
Enhance Improving Support Self-help
coping solitary groups for groups
with skills bereavement,
loneliness (pleasurable divorce, and
activities other social
scheduling) losses
Prevent Early intervention Community Removing
loneliness with high-risk awareness obstacles
groups (e.g., and educational to social
children of programs contact
divorce)

visits is handled appear to be crucial. Some programs
make use of college student volunteers who receive
course credit for taking part in the program for a
college quarter or semester. It is not clear that the
individuals visited are always well informed of the
time-limited nature of the program or that the
students are prepared to handle reactions evoked by
pending termination of their visits.
A pair of studies by Schulz and his colleagues
(Schulz, 1976; Schulz & Hanusa, 1978) demonstrated
these risks. In the initial study, residents of a retire-
ment home who were given control over the fre-
quency and duration of visits made by college
student volunteers scored higher on measures of
health and psychological well-being than residents
who were visited on a random basis or residents
who were not visited. However, follow-up data col-
lected 24, 30, and 42 months after completion of
the study indicated that the initial gains had been
lost and that, in fact, the groups that had previously
benefited from the visiting program now showed
precipitous declines on the same measures. The
residents who had not been visited by the college
students were the healthiest and best adjusted at
follow-up. The researchers attributed these deleteri-
ous effects of the visiting program to expectations
that had been raised and then abruptly violated
when the study ended. Schulz and Hanusa (1978)
suggested that the declines "might have been avoided
had we provided substitute . . . events" (p. 1199).
This research underscores the risks that inhere
in some loneliness interventions, particularly those
that directly attempt to provide social contact. Ther-
apists who see lonely clients in individual therapy
may need to be particularly sensitive to the extent
to which they function as surrogates for the rela-
tionships lacking in their clients' lives and to the
impact of terminating therapy. These studies illus-
trate, moreover, that the long-term effects of loneli-
ness interventions may differ markedly from short-
term effects.
It is also important to remember that most
lonely people do not consult professionals about
their loneliness (Rook & Peplau, 1982), and many
would not welcome professional assistance. Grounds
for intervention therefore must be carefully estab-
lished. Outreach efforts to contact vulnerable pop-
ulations may raise ethical issues. Some widow-to-
widow support groups, for example, contact pro-
spective participants by reading the obituaries and
making unsolicited telephone calls. It is plausible
that some widows might find this intrusive or might
be offended by the implication that they need a
special program to help them cope. Practitioners
should strive to make high-risk groups aware of
available services without violating their privacy or
labeling them as needy.
Interventions designed to prevent loneliness raise
similar issues, particularly because many interven-
tions are likely to be aimed at children. For example,
those who offer programs for children of divorce
must weigh potential benefits of preventing future
attachment problems against possible risks of exac-
erbating the impact of the divorce and inadvertently

December 1984 • American Psychologist 1401

labeling the children as deviant from their peers.
Service providers must be sensitive to how children
interpret invitations to participate in such programs
and whether children are capable of making informed
decisions about their participation independent of
pressure from parents or teachers.
The concept of unintentional network building,
discussed earlier as a promising approach to the
problem of loneliness, also raises the issue of in-
formed consent. Programs that bring lonely or iso-
lated people together for a manifest purpose (e.g.,
receipt of health care services, volunteer activities)
that differs from the true purpose (building social
networks) may be more successful than programs in
which the goal of promoting social ties is made
quite explicit. This potential advantage is offset,
however, by the fact that participants of such pro-
grams are denied fully informed consent. Advocates
of outreach efforts must guard against potential
abuses of interventions intended to be benevolently
protective of the lonely and socially isolated.
Cultural Values
Cultural values in this country may present imped-
iments to the alleviation of loneliness as a widespread
problem. Traditional cultural emphases on individ-
ualism and privacy, for example, have been cited as
obstacles to community acceptance of interventions
designed to promote social bonding (Heller, 1979).
"The institutionalization of social support programs
would require a shift in this value toward the
usefulness of interpersonal support as a key ingre-
dient in the maintenance of psychological well-
being" (Heller, 1979, p. 375).
Moreover, cultural values dictate that certain
forms of interpersonal involvement are preferable
to others. Gordon (1976) argued that we live in a
"couple culture" where success is measured not
only in terms of material possessions but also in
terms of achieving certain types of relationships.
For the young adolescent this may mean having a
"best friend"; for the teenage girl it may entail
having a "boyfriend." For adult Americans, social
status has traditionally been attached to marriage.
Stein (1976) discussed the "cultural imperative" of
marriage and cited such novels as Sheila Levine Is
Dead and Living in New York by Gail Parent (1972)
and Looking for Mr. Goodbar by Judith Rossner
(1975) as reinforcing the cultural stereotype that
unmarried people are failures in the marriage market.
Because of social pressures and rewards associated
with certain roles, individuals who fail to measure
up to cultural expectations may feel dissatisfied and
lonely, even if they derive important gratifications
from other types of relationships. Thus, loneliness
interventions that do not culminate in the formation
of culturally sanctioned social bonds may be judged
1402
ineffective by participants even though their social
relations improve at a general level. Service providers
should be cautious about the extent to which they
share this cultural bias.
Finally, Flanders (1979) suggested that programs
to alleviate loneliness are at odds with the profit
motives of the "loneliness industry" and with busi-
ness interests that thrive on the consumer behavior
of lonely people. He noted, for example, that many
businesses in shopping malls count heavily on Sat-
urday and Sunday business, a practice that is scorned
by Europeans. In Europe it is customary for busi-
nesses to close on Saturday afternoon, presumably
because weekend time is considered best spent in
family and leisure pursuits.
These different perspectives suggest that the
effectiveness of interventions to reduce loneliness is
likely to be diminished by conflicting cultural values
and practices. Achievement of large-scale reduction
in social isolation, therefore, may require attitude
change and educational efforts. As a first step, such
efforts might seek to loosen our cultural preoccu-
pation with romantic relationships (Brain, 1976)
and to ascribe greater value to other forms of
relationships, particularly friendships. Increased
public awareness of the situational and structural as
opposed to personal causes of loneliness might serve
to debunk the myth of "the lonely loser." Public
interest in the subject of loneliness appears to be
quite strong currently (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1980),
suggesting that social scientists' contributions to
greater understanding of loneliness would be well-
received.
Conclusion
This article has considered a variety of strategies for
helping the lonely and socially isolated. Several
themes from this discussion warrant highlighting.
First, the dominant research paradigm to date
has been to locate the sources of and solutions to
loneliness in the lonely individual. Greater attention
must be given to structural variables and features of
social settings that inhibit the development of sup-
portive social ties. Although some of these factors
may not be amenable to change, many others rep-
resent plausible foci of interventions. For example,
restructuring group interactions to encourage coop-
erative interdependence could complement more
traditional social programming in such contexts as
schools, workplaces, senior citizen centers, and nurs-
ing homes. Supportive interpersonal linkages have
been fostered even in severely isolated populations
without recourse to individually oriented therapies
(e.g., Pilisuk & Minkler, 1980). This is not intended
to minimize the usefulness of efforts to identify
personal characteristics that predispose some people
to loneliness but rather to urge analyses of the
December 1984 « American Psychologist
 ecological roots of loneliness. At a minimum, it
would seem important for mental health profession-
als to guard against the tendencies to blame people
for their loneliness and to assume that abundant
social contexts exist that are conducive to the for-
mation of friendships.
Second, although many lonely people believe
that establishing a primary relationship (e.g., love
relationship) would provide the antidote to their
loneliness, interventions that focus on alternative
goals may also be beneficial. Establishing friendships
may be a more appropriate initial goal for some
lonely people than seeking to establish love relation-
ships. Helping lonely individuals develop a repertoire
of enjoyable solitary activities may also be useful
even though it does not directly affect their social
ties. Such interventions may enhance psychological
well-being even if they do not remedy major defi-
ciencies in the lonely person's social network.
Third, further research is needed to inform
intervention efforts. Epidemiological studies are
needed to clarify our understanding of who is at
greatest risk for severe and persistent loneliness.
Longitudinal studies would be helpful in this regard
to identify temporal sequences that may link lone-
liness to depression and other disorders. Such re-
search is particularly important in an era of dimin-
ishing funds for mental health services to aid in
targeting interventions to those groups most in need.
In addition, controlled evaluations of the effectiveness
of existing loneliness should be conducted. Careful
consideration must be given to the outcomes assessed
in evaluation studies. It may be advisable, for ex-
ample, to supplement self-reports of loneliness with
measures assessing the extent and quality of inter-
personal contacts. Moreover, researchers should be
alert to the possibility of unintended consequences
of their interventions. As noted earlier, some social
skills interventions appear to have increased aggres-
siveness in children (Kirby & Toler, 1970), and an
intervention with the elderly had a long-term detri-
mental impact that was not evident in the initial
evaluation (Schulz & Hamisa, 1978). These examples
speak to the need to incorporate measures of possible
negative outcomes and to include long-term follow-
up in the design of evaluation studies.
Finally, it is important that efforts to alleviate
loneliness not be construed as endorsing an ethic of
sociability. Most individuals strive for an optimal
level of social contact that balances the need for
intimacy and the need for privacy. For some people
this optimal level is achieved with very infrequent
social contact. It is easy to exaggerate the benefits
of social ties and to overlook their very real con-
straints and limitations. It is easy to forget, moreover,
that loneliness is not inevitably bad. Loneliness may
be an unavoidable aspect of certain developmental
December 1984 • American Psychologist
transitions (Rook & Peplau, 1982) and may some-
times serve as an impetus to growth (Suedfeld,
1982). The goal of loneliness interventions, accord-
ingly, is not to eliminate aloneness but to provide
greater options for those who seek to improve their
social relations and particularly to offer hope to
those whose aloneness is unwanted and prolonged.
REFERENCES
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The
development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Irvington.
Anderson, C. A., Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. D. (1983).
Attributional style of lonely and depressed people. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 127-136.
Arling, G. (1976). The elderly widow and her family, neighbors
and friends. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 757-767.
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M.
(1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Beck, A. T, Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979).
Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Beckman, L. J. (1981). Effects of social interaction and children's
relative inputs on older women's psychological well-being. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1075-1086.
Bell, R. G. (1956). Alcohol and loneliness. Journal of Social
Therapy, 2, 171-181.
Berkman, L. F., & Syme, S. L. (1979). Social networks, host
resistance, and mortality: A nine-year follow-up of Alameda
County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology, 109, 186-
204.
Blaney, N. X, Stephan, C., Rosenfield, D., Aronson, E., & Sikes,
J. (1977). Interdependence in the classroom: A field study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 121-128.
Blau, Z. (1961). Structural constraints on friendship in old age.
American Sociological Review, 26, 429-439,
Borland, D. C. (1982). A cohort analysis approach to the empty-
nest syndrome among three ethnic groups of women: A theo-
retical position. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 117-
129.
Borys, S., Perlman, D., & Goldenberg, S. (1982, May). Sex
differences in loneliness. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Bowlby, J. (1977a). The making and breaking of affectional bonds.
I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the light of attachment
theory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210,
Bowlby, J. (1977b). The making and breaking of affectional bonds,
II. Some principles of psychotherapy. British Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 130, 421-431.
Bragg, M. E. (1979). A comparative study of loneliness and
depression (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 39, 79-
13710.
Brain, R. (1976). Friends and lovers. New York: Basic Books,
Brennan, T., & Auslander, N. (1979). Adolescent loneliness: An
exploratory study 'of social and psychological predispositions
and theory (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Institute of
Mental Health, Juvenile Problems Division. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 194822)
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). The origins of alienation. Scientific
American, 321, 53-61.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). Who cares for America's children? In
V. C. Vaughan & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), The family—can it be
saved? (pp. 3-32). Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publishers.
California Department of Mental Health, Mental Health Promotion
Branch. (1982). Friends can be good medicine: Resource guide,
Sacramento, CA: Author.
Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
1403
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The
quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage.
Cantor, M. H. (1983). Strain among caregivers: A study of
experience in the United States. Gerontologist, 23, 597-604.
Cheek, J. M., & Busch, C. M. (1981). The influence of shyness
on loneliness in a new situation. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 7, 572-577
Chelune, G. J., Sultan, F. E., & Williams, C. L. (1980). Loneliness,
self-disclosure, and interpersonal effectiveness. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 27, 462-468.
Cohen, S., & McKay, G, (1984). Social support, stress and the
buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In A. Baum, J. E.
Singer, & S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and
health (Vol. 4, pp. 253-267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collette, J., Webb, S. D., & Smith, D. L. (1979). Suicide,
alcoholism and types of social integration: Clarification of a
theoretical legacy. Sociology and Social Research, 63, 699-721.
Conger, J. C., & Keane, S. P. (1981). Social skills intervention in
the treatment of isolated or withdrawn children. Psychological
Bulletin, 90, 478-495.
Conger, J. J. (1981). Freedom and commitment: Families, youth,
and social change. American Psychologist, 36, 1475-1484.
Cowen, E. L. (1977). Baby steps toward primary prevention.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 1-22.
Davis, D. B. (1979). The American family and boundaries in
historical perspective. In D. Reiss & H. A. Hoffman (Eds.), The
American family: Dying or developing? (pp. 13-33). New York:
Plenum.
Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W., & Stephenson, C. B. (1981). General
social survey, cumulative file, 1972-1980. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Demos, J. (1976). Myths and realities in the history of American
family life. In H. Grunebaum & J. Christ (Eds.), Contemporary
marriage: Structure, dynamics, and therapy (pp. 9-31). Boston:
Little, Brown.
Derlega, V. J., & Margulis, S. T. (1982). Why loneliness occurs:
The interrelationship of social-psychological and privacy con-
cepts. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A
sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 152-
165). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Diamant, L., & Windholz, G. (1981). Loneliness in college
students: Some therapeutic considerations. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 22, 515-522.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding
& G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work
published 1897)
Paris, R. L. (1934). Cultural isolation and the schizophrenic
personality. American Journal of Sociology, 40, 156-164.
Felner, R. D., Farber, S. S., & Primavera, J. (1980). Children of
divorce, stressful life events and transitions: A framework for
preventive efforts. In R. H. Price, R. F. Ketterer, B. C. Bader,
& J. Monahan (Eds.), Prevention in mental health: Research,
policy and practice (pp. 81-108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fengler, A., & Goodrich, N. (1979). Wives of elderly disabled
men: The hidden patients. Gerontologist, 19, 175-183.
Filsinger, E. E., & Lamke, L. K. (1983). The lineage transmission
of interpersonal competence. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 75-80.
Fischer, C. S. (1976). The urban experience. New York; Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Flanders, J. P. (1979, May). Paradigms to study and control
loneliness. Paper presented at the UCLA research conference
on loneliness, Los Angeles, CA.
Fromm-Reichmann, F. (1959), Loneliness. Psychiatry, 22, 1-15.
Fuchs, C. Z., & Rehn, L. P. (1977). A self-control behavior
therapy program for depression. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 45, 206-215.
1404
Genovese, R. G. (Ed.). (1984). Families and change (pp. 3-10).
New York: Praeger.
Gerson, A. C., & Perlman, D. (1979). Loneliness and expressive
communication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 258-266.
Goldston, S. E. (1977). Denning primary prevention. In G. W.
Albee & J. M. Joffee (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopa-
thology (Vol. 1, pp. 18-41). Hanover, NH: University Press of
New England.
Gordon, S. (1976). Lonely in America. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1983). Social support strategies: Guidelines for
mental health practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gottlieb, B. H. (in press). Theory into practice: Issues that surface
in planning interventions which mobilize support. In I. G.
Sarason Si B. R. Sarason (Eds,), Social support: Theory, research
and application. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.
Gottlieb, B. H., & Hall, A. (1980). Social networks and the
utilization of preventive mental health services. In R. H. Price,
R. F. Ketterer, B. C. Bader, & J. Monahan (Eds.), Prevention in
mental health (pp. 167-194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gove, W. R., & Hughes, M. (1980). Re-examining the ecological
fallacy: A study in which aggregate data are critical in investi-
gating the pathological effects of living alone. Social Forces, 58,
1157-1177.
Greenberg, E., & Nay, W. R. (1982). The intergenerational trans-
mission of marital instability reconsidered. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 44, 335-347.
Greenson, R. R. (1967). The technique and practice of psycho-
analysis. New York: International Universities Press.
Hallinan, M. T. (1979). Structural effects on children's friendships
and cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1, 43-54.
Hansson, R. Q, Jones, W., & Carpenter, B. N. (in press). Relational
competence and social support. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of
personality and social psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Heller, K. (1979). The effects of social support: Prevention and
treatment implications. In A. P, Goldstein & F. H. Kanfer
(Eds.), Maximizing treatment gains: Transfer enhancement in
psychotherapy (pp. 353-382). New "York: Academic Press.
Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. (1983). Social networks, perceived
social support and coping with stress. In R. D. Felner, C. A.
Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber (Eds.), Preventive psychology:
Theory, research and practice in community intervention (pp.
87-103). New York: Permagon Press.
Hersey, J. C., & Klibanoff, L. S. (1982). Executive summary:
Friends can be good medicine project. Sacramento, CA: Cali-
fornia Department of Mental Health.
Hess, B. B. (1984). Protecting the American family: Public policy,
family, and the New Right. In R. G. Genovese (Ed.), Families
and change (pp. 11-21). New York: Praeger.
Himmelweit, H. (1958). Television and the child: An empirical
study of the effect of television on the young. London: Oxford
University Press.
Hochschild, A. (1973). The unexpected community. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior (2nd ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New
York: Norton.
Horowitz, L. M. (1983). The toll of loneliness: Manifestations,
mechanisms, and means of prevention. (Technical Advisory
Report) Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health,
Office of Prevention.
Horowitz, L. M., French, R. S., & Anderson, C. A. (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-Interscience.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
House, J. S., Robbins, C., & Metzner, H. L. (1982). The association
December 1984 • American Psychologist
 of social relationships and activities with mortality: Prospective
evidence from the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Amer-
ican Journal of Epidemiology, 116, 123-140.
Jaco, E. G. (1954). The social isolation hypothesis and schizo-
phrenia. American Sociological Review, 19, 567-577.
Jones, W. (1982). Loneliness and social behavior. In L. A. Peplau
& D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current
theory, research and therapy (pp. 238-252). New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. R., & Goswick, R. A. (1981). The
persistence of loneliness: Self and other determinants. Journal
of Personality, 49, 27-48.
Jones, W. H., Hobbs, S. A., & Hockenbury, D. (1982). Loneliness
and social skill deficits. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 42, 682-689.
Kasl, S. V., & Rosenfield, S. (1980). The residential environment
and its impact on the mental health of the aged. In J. E. Birren
& R. B. Sloane (Eds.), Handbook of mental health and aging
(pp. 468-498). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. (in press). Social support and mental
health in community samples. In S. Cohen & L, Syme (Eds.),
Social support and health. New York: Academic Press.
Kirby, F. D., & Toler, H. C. (1970). Modification of pre-school
isolate behavior: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 3, 309-314.
Kohn, M. L., & Clausen, J. A. (1955). Social isolation and
schizophrenia. American Sociological Review, 20, 265-273.
Kowalski, N. C. (1981). Institutional relocation: Current programs
and applied approaches. Gerontologist, 21, 512-519.
Larson, Ri, Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Graef, R. (1982). Time alone
in daily experience: Loneliness or renewal? In L. A. Peplau &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy (pp. 40-53). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an
age of diminishing expectations. New York: Norton.
Lawton, M. P. (1980). Environment and aging. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Lazarus, C. W., Stafford, B., Cooper, K., Cohler, B., & Dysken,
M. (1981). A pilot study of an Alzheimer patients' relatives
discussion group. Gerontologist, 21, 353-358.
Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage.
New York: Norton.
Lee, G. R. (1979). Children and the elderly: Interaction and
morale. Research on Aging, 1, 335-360.
Leiderman, P. H, (1969). Loneliness: A psychodynamic interpre-
tation. International Psychiatry Clinic, 6(2), 155-174.
Levinger, G. A. (1979). A social psychological perspective on
marital dissolution. In G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.),
Divorce and separation (pp. 37-60). New York: Basic Books.
Levitan, S. A., & Belous, R. S. (1984). Working wives and mothers:
What happens to family life? In R. G. Genovese (Ed.), Families
and change (pp. 110-117). New York: Praeger.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Biglan, A,, & Zeiss, A. M. (1976). Behavioral
treatment of depression. In P. O. Davison (Ed.), The behavioral
management of anxiety, depression and pain (pp. 91-145). New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Lewis, C. A. (1976). People/plant proxemics: A concept for
humane design. In P. Suedfeld & J. Russell (Eds.), The behavioral
basis of design: Proceedings of the 7th International Environ-
mental Design Research Association Conference (pp. 102-107).
Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Lynch, J. J. (1977). The broken heart: The medical consequences
of loneliness in America. New York: Basic Books.
Macklin, E. D. (1980). Nontraditional family: A decade of research.
'Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 905-922.
Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Cognition and behavior modification.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Mark, N. (1977, December 19-21). Loneliness can kill. Chicago
Daily Ne\vs, pp. 8-10.
December 1984 • American Psychologist
McFall, R. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of
social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-34.
Medrich, E. A., Roizen, J., Rubin, V., & Buckley, S. (1982). The
serious business of growing up: A study of children's lives
outside school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An
integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Milligan, M. A., & Bennett, R. (1978). Assessment of mental
health and social problems during multiple friendly visits: The
development and evaluation of a friendly visiting program for
isolated elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development. 8, 43-45.
Mitchell, R. E., Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1983). Social
support and well-being: Implications for prevention programs.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 3, 77-98.
Monti, P. M., Corriveau, D. P., & Curran, J. P. (1982). Social
skills training for psychiatric patients: Treatment and outcome.
In J. P. Curran & P. M. Monti (Eds.), Social skills training
(pp. 185-223). New York: Guilford.
Moore, J. A., & Sermat, V. (1974). Relationship between self-
actualization and self-reported loneliness. Canadian Counsellor,
8(3), 194-196.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nerviano, N. J., & Gross, W. F, (1976). Loneliness and locus of
control for alcoholic males: Validity against Murray need and
Cattell trait dimensions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32,
479-484.
Novaco, R. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation
of an experimental treatment. Lexington, MA: Heath & Co.
Oden, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children in social skills
for friendship-making. Child Development, 48, 495-506.
Packard, V. (1972). A nation of strangers. New York: David
McKay.
Parent, G. (1972). Sheila Levine is dead and living in New York.
New York: Putnam.
Parlec, M. B. (1979). The friendship bond. Psychology Today,
113, 43-54.
Parmelee, P., & Werner, C. (1978). Lonely losers: Stereotypes of
single dwellers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4,
292-295.
Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan,
J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 22, 337-356.
Peplau, H. E. (1955). Loneliness. American Journal of Nursing,
55(12), 1476-1481.
Peplau, L. A., Bikson, T. K., Rook, K. S., & Goodchilds, J. D.
(1982). Being old and living alone. In L. A. Peplau & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,
research and therapy (pp. 327-347). New \brk: Wiley-Intersci-
ence.
Peplau, L. A., & Caldwell, M. A. (1978). Loneliness: A cognitive
analysis. Essence, 2, 207-220.
Peplau, L. A., Miceli, M., & Morasch, B. (1982). Loneliness and
self-evaluation. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness:
A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 135-
151). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1979). Blueprint for a social
psychological theory of loneliness. In M. Cook & G. Wilson
(Eds.), Love and attraction (pp. 101-110). Oxford, England:
Pergamon.
Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness.
In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook
of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 1-18). New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., & Heim, M. (1979). The experience
of loneliness. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. S. Carroll (Eds.),
New approaches to social problems: Applications of attribution
theory (pp. 53-78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
1405
Perlman, D. (1984, August). Loneliness and social support in
developmental perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Perlman, D., Gerson, A. C, & Spinner, B. (1978). Loneliness
among senior citizens: An empirical report. Essence, 2, 239-
248.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology
of loneliness. In S. Duck & R. Oilmour (Eds.), Personal
relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 31-56).
London: Academic Press.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (in press). Loneliness research: A
survey of empirical findings. In L. A. Peplau & S. E. Goldston
(Eds.), Preventing the harmful consequences of severe and per-
sistent loneliness. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Pilisuk, M. (1982). Delivery of social support: The social inocu-
lation. American Journal of Ortltopsychiatry, 52, 20-31.
Pilisuk, M., & Minkler, M. (1980). Supportive networks: Life ties
for the elderly. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 95-116.
Pilkonis, P. A., Heape, C., & Klein, R. H. (1980). Treating shyness
and other relationship difficulties in psychiatric outpatients.
Communication Education, 29, 250-255.
Pilkonis, P. A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). The personal and
social dynamics of shyness. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emotions in
personality and psychopatho/ogy (pp. 133-160). New York:
Plenum Press.
President's Commission on Mental Health. (1978, February).
Report of the Task Panel on Community Support Systems.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rands, M., & Levinger, G. (1979). Implicit theories of relationship:
An intergenerational study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 645-661.
Raphael, B. (1977). Preventive intervention with the recently
bereaved. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 1450-1454.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). The loneliness of contemporary man as
seen in "The case of Ellen West." Annals of Psychotherapy, 3,
22-27.
Rogers, C. R. (1973). Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York:
Harper & Row.
Rook, K. S. (1983). Social support, loneliness, and social isolation.
(Technical Advisory Report) Washington, DC: National Institute
of Mental Health, Office of Prevention.
Rook, K. S., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Perspectives on helping the
lonely. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A
sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 351-
378). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Rossner, J. (1975). Looking for Mr. Goodbar. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Rubenstein, C. M., & Shaver, P. (1980). Loneliness in two
Northeastern cities. In J. Hartog, J. R. Audy, & Y. A. Cohen
(Eds.), The anatomy of loneliness (pp. 319-337). New York:
International Universities Press.
Rubenstein, 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-Interscience.
Rubenstein, C, Shaver, P., & Peplau, L. A. (1979). Loneliness.
Human Nature, 2, 59-65.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised
UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R.
(1983). Assessing social support: The social support question-
naire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127-
139.
Satran, G. (1978). Notes on loneliness. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychoanalysis, 6, 281-300.
Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the
1406
physical and psychological well-being of the institutionalized
aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 563-
573.
Schulz, R., & Hanusa, B. H. (1978). Long-term effects of control
and predictability-enhancing interventions: Findings and ethical
issues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1194-
1201.
Seeman, M. (1975). Alienation studies. Annual Review of Sociology,
1, 91-123.
Sermat, V. (1980). Some situational and personality correlates of
loneliness. In J. Hartog, J. R. Audy, & Y. A. Cohen (Eds.), The
anatomy of loneliness. New \brk: International Universities
Press.
Shanas, E. (1979). The family as a social support system in old
age. Gerontologist, 19, 169-174.
Shaul, S. (1982, August). The effectiveness of two counseling
strategies for reducing loneliness. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington,
DC.
Shaver, P., & Buhrmester, D. (1983). Loneliness, sex-role orientation
and group life: A social needs perspective. In P. B. Baulus (Ed.),
Basic group processes (pp. 259-288). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (in press). Aspects of
a life transition: Network changes, social skills, and loneliness.
In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Sage series in personal
relationships (Vol. 1). London: Sage.
Slater, P. (1970). The pursuit of loneliness: American culture at
the breaking point. Boston: Beacon Press.
Snow, D. L., & Gordon, J. B. (1980). Social network analysis and
intervention with the elderly. Gerontologist, 20, 463-467.
Solano, C. H., Batten, P. G., & Parish, E. A. (1982). Loneliness
and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 524-531.
Sommer, R., Herrick, J., & Sommer, T. R. (1981). The behavioral
ecology of supermarkets and farmer's markets. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 1, 13-19.
Sommer, R., & Horner, M. (1981). Social interaction in co-ops
and supermarkets. Communities, 20, 15-18.
Stein, P. J. (1976). Single. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stokols, D. (1983). The environmental context of behavior. In D.
Perlman & C. Cozby (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 443-472).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Suedfeld, P. (1982). Aloneness as a healing experience. In L. A.
Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of
current theory, research and therapy (pp. 54-67). New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New
York: Norton.
Sussman, M. B. (1976). The family life of old people. In R.
Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social
sciences (pp. 218-243). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Thibaut, J. W, & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of
groups. New York: Wiley.
Trout, D. L. (1980). The role of social isolation in suicide. Suicide
and Life-Threatening Behavior, 10, 10-23.
Turner, R. J. (1981). Social support as a contingency in psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22,
357-367.
Twentyman, C. T, & Zimering, R. T. (1979). Behavioral training
of social skills: A critical review. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, &
P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 7,
pp. 319-399). New York: Academic Press.
Ulrich, R. S., & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recre-
ational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research,
13, 43-65.
Vachon, M. I., Lyall, W., Rogers, J., Freedman-Letofsky, K., &
Freeman, S. (1980). A controlled study of a self-help intervention
for widows. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1380-1384.
December 1984 = American Psychologist
WaUerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1977). Divorce counseling: A
community service for families in the midst of divorce. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 4-22.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). The effects of parental
divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. In J. Hartog,
J, R, Audy, & Y. A. Cohen (Eds.), The anatomy of loneliness
(pp. 148-169). New York: International Universities Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1969). The fund of sociability. Transaction/Society,
6, 36-43.
Weiss, R. S. (Ed.). (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional
and social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1976). Transition states and other stressful situations:
Their nature and programs for their management. In G. Caplan
December 1984 • American Psychologist
& M. Killilea (Eds.), Support systems and mutual help: Multi-
disciplinary explorations (pp. 213-232). New York: Grune &
Stratton.
Williams, A. W., Ware, J. E., & Donald, C. A, (1981). A model
of mental health, life events, and social supports applicable to
general populations. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22,
324-336.
Yankelovich, D. (1981). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment
in a world turned upside down. New York: Random House.
Young, J. E. (1982). Loneliness, depression and cognitive therapy:
Theory and application. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.),
Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy
(pp. 379-405). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
1407