Does Loneliness Thrive in Relational Freedom or Restriction? The Culture-Loneliness Framework

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
L. Heu, Martijn van Zomeren, N. Hansen
{"title":"Does Loneliness Thrive in Relational Freedom or Restriction? The Culture-Loneliness Framework","authors":"L. Heu, Martijn van Zomeren, N. Hansen","doi":"10.1177/1089268020959033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Loneliness is a common experience with major negative consequences for well-being. Although much research has examined protective and risk factors for loneliness, we know little about its cultural underpinnings. The few studies that exist seem paradoxical, suggesting that loneliness is higher in cultures where tighter and more demanding (i.e., more restrictive) cultural norms about social relationships decrease the risk of social isolation. At the same time, loneliness is lower among individuals who hold more restrictive norms or perceive such norms among others around them. We move beyond previous research by generating the culture-loneliness framework, suggesting that loneliness occurs across all levels of restrictiveness, but through different predominant types of isolation. More restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships may better protect from physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships) but increase the likelihood of emotional and perceived isolation (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships or relationships that do not fulfill cultural ideals). We evaluate this framework by reviewing research at both the individual and the cultural levels, and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"60 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020959033","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020959033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Loneliness is a common experience with major negative consequences for well-being. Although much research has examined protective and risk factors for loneliness, we know little about its cultural underpinnings. The few studies that exist seem paradoxical, suggesting that loneliness is higher in cultures where tighter and more demanding (i.e., more restrictive) cultural norms about social relationships decrease the risk of social isolation. At the same time, loneliness is lower among individuals who hold more restrictive norms or perceive such norms among others around them. We move beyond previous research by generating the culture-loneliness framework, suggesting that loneliness occurs across all levels of restrictiveness, but through different predominant types of isolation. More restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships may better protect from physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships) but increase the likelihood of emotional and perceived isolation (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships or relationships that do not fulfill cultural ideals). We evaluate this framework by reviewing research at both the individual and the cultural levels, and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.
孤独是在关系自由还是限制中茁壮成长?文化-孤独框架
孤独是一种常见的经历,会对幸福感产生重大负面影响。尽管很多研究都考察了孤独的保护因素和风险因素,但我们对其文化基础知之甚少。现存的少数研究似乎是矛盾的,表明在社会关系的更严格、更苛刻(即更严格)的文化规范降低社会孤立风险的文化中,孤独感更高。与此同时,拥有更多限制性规范或在周围其他人中感知到这些规范的个体的孤独感较低。我们超越了以往的研究,提出了文化-孤独框架,表明孤独发生在所有程度的限制中,但通过不同的主要隔离类型。关于社会关系的更严格(即更多、更严格或更苛刻)的规范可能会更好地防止身体上的孤立(即缺乏社会互动或关系),但会增加情感上和感知上的孤立(即缺乏个人满意的关系或不符合文化理想的关系)的可能性。我们通过回顾个人和文化层面的研究来评估这一框架,并讨论其理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of General Psychology
Review of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信