Who is alone?

1. Who is alone? On the characteristics of social isolation and loneliness Beate Völker, Henk Flap & Gerald Mollenhorst Dept of Sociology/ICS Utrecht University

2. …so many of us eke out an existence as loveless and unloved atoms – free individuals in an open society, condemned to form part of the great, grey subculture of the lonely. Robert Brain, 1976:259

3. Why studying loneliness - from a sociological perspective? • Social isolation is the counterpart of social integration (or is it not?) • Sociologists view personal relations as the mortar of society: • Norms and rules about how to behave are transmitted via social relations. • Social resources are an important means for achieving many important individual goals. Isolated people probably lack social resources and are therefore disadvantaged • a society consisting of isolated members will fall apart and is prone to crumble (see Fischer and Phillips 1982:21) • Actually: consequences of loneliness in a sociological view go further then individual feelings related to loneliness

4. Research questions • What are the social characteristics of those who are lonely? • How is loneliness related with a person’s network? • Which network patterns (size and composition) are associated with feelings of loneliness? • Do those who feel lonely lack in particular strong ties or also weaker ties? • And do lonely people also lack social resources? • Is there a spatial component to loneliness? Does loneliness differ between neighborhoods?

5. Background Ad 1. Many studies have been conducted on psychological characteristics of loneliness, e.g. relational standards, role socialization, social comparison processes. Research into socio-economic characteristics of those who feel lonely is scarce. Ad 2. We do know how networks help to get a better life, but we lack knowledge about how networks make our life miserable. Consequences of relations that are absent are an important part of the study of social networks. Ad 3. There are studies showing important differences between cultures concerning feelings of loneliness. These differences are largely unexplained.

6. Background (2) • Because of selection problems is the relation between social characteristics – networks and loneliness studied best via a longitudinal design: Individual socio-economic characteristics Loneliness Networks

7. Background (3) • There are major concerns about meaning and consequences of small networks (see ‘Social isolation in America’, by Smith Lovin, McPherson and colleagues 2006). – Meaning of ‘zeros’ is in particular unclear because only one namegenerating question and no outcome measures are available.

8. Arguments (1) • On individual level characteristics: • As far as studies do exist it is shown that those who are socially disadvantaged in general do also feel more lonely. Elderly, those with lower education and income and unmarried people are hence expected to suffer more from loneliness.

9. Arguments (2) 2. On network patterns: • Given the distinction between social and emotional loneliness, network patterns - are not expected to be perfectly associated with feelings of loneliness (see e.g. Weiss, 1973). We do expect however that loneliness is more experienced among those with few or no strong ties and less among those with few or no weaker ties • Straightforward argument from social resource/social capital theory: small networks provide less social capital than large networks. Yet: 1) benefits of social relations might decrease at the margin; 2) people might be able to produce wellbeing also via other (material) resources. Hence: relation between network and access to all kin of social resources not quite clear

10. Arguments (3) 3. On the level of the neighborhood: • Communities with few meeting opportunities are expected to promote higher feelings of loneliness and vice versa • Disadvantaged communities are expected to promote higher feelings of loneliness and vice versa • Heterogeneous communities are expected to promote higher feelings of loneliness and vice versa • Close communities are expected to promote higher feelings of loneliness for those who are not belonging and vice versa

11. Data • SSND1: Survey of the social networks of the Dutch (n=1007 respondents; Völker & Flap 1999) • Detailed overview of people’s personal networks, delineated by the exchange method • Representative sample of 160 neighborhoods in the Netherlands • SSND2, 2007: second wave among same respondents, n=604; • Many network questions are the same as in 1999 • measurement of loneliness according to Jong Gierveld en van Tilburg (1999)

12. Measuring loneliness (SSND2) • There is always someone available on who I can rely with my daily difficulties • I miss a really good friend • I experience a kind of emptiness around myself • There are enough people to lean on in case of problems • I miss companionship • I think my circle of acquaintances is too restricted • I know many others who I can trust completely • There are enough others to whom I feel really close • I miss people around me • Often I feel just left for my own • If I need anybody, I have always friends to talk with Cronbach’s alpha = .87

13. Measuring networks (SSND1 and 2) Exchange method: name generators – partly standard, partly focusing on own research questions; step 1: • Who has keys to your house? • Small repairs in and around the house? • Visiting • Discussing personal matters • Who are your direct neighbors? • Open question • How got current/last job? • Advice asking/providing in case of problems at work? • Having trouble with somebody? • Working together • Who is your boss? • How got your current house?

14. Step 2: Characteristics of alters and the relationship ego-alter • Characteristics of alter: • Sex, age, education, occupation, having a paid job, family situation , religion, • role relation with ego (15 categories, 3 different roles could be mentioned) • Characteristics of the relationship ego- alter: • Degree of intensity, trust and liking (5-point-scale) • Duration of relationship (years/months) • Frequency of contact (6 categories) • Geographical distance (5 km) • Still relation in about 5 years? • Where did you meet first? (13 different settings) • Where do you meet currently?

15. Measuring network resources:Position Generator Note: in the SSND about 30 different positions have been presented to respondents. The positions are coded with their socioeconomic status and their occupational prestige

16. Loneliness and network measures SOCIAL NETWORKS (SSND1 AND 2): • Network size • Composition (e.g. friends, kin, partner, neighbors etc.) • Strength: core ties vs. other ties • Resources: position generator (Lin and Dumin 1986) LONELINESS: • SSND1: proxy for loneliness: ‘ I would like to have more friends’ • SSND2: Loneliness scale • Note: it is analyzed whether network size and the proxy for loneliness in 1999 influenced participation in the survey; no association has been found

17. The Survey of the Social Networks of the Dutch (SSND) - Data Collection

18. Analysis:Loneliness • Scale range from 11 – 55 (higher values indicate higher feelings of loneliness) • About two third of the respondents have a value of 22 or lower, that is the lower half of the scale • About one third feels – according to that criterion – alone • Note: the real degree of loneliness might be underestimated because the interviews are face-to-face interviews (see De Leeuw, 1992)

19. Who is alone?

20. Who is alone? See table, column 1 Those who are: • Older, • Lower educated • Not married • Having no paid work and • Foreigners (parents not born in the Netherlands) feel more lonely • Note: number of children (as well as having or not having children), rather increases than decreases feelings of loneliness • No effect of urbanization

21. What are the network correlates of loneliness ?

22. What are the network correlates of loneliness See table, column 2 - Core discussion networks in 1999 as well as in 2006 predict (negatively) loneliness • No effect of weaker relationships on loneliness • ‘Wish to have more friends’ is also a predictor of loneliness • Note: further analyses show that in particular partner and friends are the members of the core network whose presence decreases feelings of loneliness; kin and other relationships have less or no impact • Correlation between core network size in 1999 and 2007 only .27 • Average core network size: 2.32 (sd=1.85) and 2.43 (sd=2.21)

23. How is loneliness related with network resources?

24. How is loneliness related with network resources, i.e. social capital? See table, column 3 • Resources predict loneliness (negatively) at both points of measurements • Correlation between resources in 1999 and 2007 is .50 • If resources are separately in the analysis, coefficients of resources in 2006 are higher (b=-.102; se=.035) than those in 1999 (b=-.079; se=.035)

25. Relation between core network size in 1999 and loneliness in 2006 OR:1.88 OR:1.43 N=597

26. Relation between number of weaker ties in 1999 and loneliness in 2006 OR:0.998 N=597

27. Multinomial logistic regression on having a core network and loneliness: • Having/not having a core network and feeling lonely/ or not: • Compared to those who have a core network and do not feel lonely (the happy ones): • those without a core/and who do feel lonely have fewer resources, are more often male, and lower educated. • those without a core and who feel not lonely have also fewer resources, are lower educated but live in rural areas • those with a core network nevertheless feel lonely have often a good job, are Dutch, and live in larger cities

28. Multinomial logistic regression on having many core and other network members and loneliness: • Results are largely the same if the dependent variable is calculated with size of core network (relatively large vs. relatively small), with one exception: those who have children, have often a small core network and feel lonely • If the dependent variable is calculated using size of the network without core ties, results show • a clear effect of having children on feeling not lonely and having larger networks compared to all categories • women are more often those with a small network but without feelings of loneliness as well as those with as good job, and those who are married No effect of social resources in the multinomial analyses

29. Is there a spatial dimension of loneliness? • Roughly 11% of the variation in loneliness is due to neighborhood differences • Data have been enriched with neighborhood information obtained from the CBS ‘kerncijfers wijken en buurten’ • Analysis explains roughly 70% on the neighborhood level and 20% on the individual level

30. the spatial dimension of loneliness Disadvantaged Note: it is controlled for individual as well as network characteristics

31. In a multilevel regression analysis the following results have been established: individual loneliness is lower in neighborhoods where • people have been living there for long • few facilities for children exist (??) • the neighborhood is rich (owners and expensive houses) • neighborhood homogeneity with regard to household composition is high • and embeddedness is high • If loneliness in neighborhoods is added to the analysis many effects • disappear, because the effect is that strong

32. Conclusion (1) • As to the social characteristics of loneliness: those who are older, lower educated and not from the Netherlands feel more lonely • Loneliness is not related to weaker ties, but before all to core discussion ties • Number of core ties is a good predictor of loneliness • Yet: There are also people with few/no core relations (and other relationships) who do not feel lonely and vice versa. Females, those in rural areas, with children, and no job feel often not lonely, although they have small networks. Dutch, with good jobs living in cities feel more often lonely although they do have a network. • Composition of core: presence of friends and partner make for little feelings of loneliness • Effect of having children on loneliness deserves more attention • Effect of network at t1 is stronger than effect on t2. Both processes - selection as well as effect of networks on loneliness – seem to be relevant, yet the latter one is stronger

33. Conclusion (2) • Social resources are also related to feelings of loneliness, yet to a lesser degree than core ties. Social resources are in particular relevant at t2. • There is also a clear spatial dimension to loneliness: length of residence, embeddedness in the neighborhood, degree of disadvantage and neighborhood composition all explain individual loneliness are of importance

34. Thanks for your attention!More information?Mail to: b.volker@uu.nl