See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325987559

Social Intelligence as a predictor of loneliness in the workplace

Article in The Spanish Journal of Psychology · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

2 408

1 author:

Fatos Silman
Cyprus International University
9 PUBLICATIONS 71 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fatos Silman on 02 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Spanish Journal of Psychology (2013), 16, e36, 1–6.
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid
doi:10.1017/sjp.2013.21

Social Intelligence as a Predictor of Loneliness

in the Workplace

Fatos Silman1 and Tayfun Dogan2

1 Cyprus International University (North Cyprus)
2 Niğde University (Turkey)

Abstract. The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between social intelligence and loneliness of academics
in the workplace. This study involves 326 (149 female/177 male) academics employed in various universities in Turkey
and North Cyprus. The age average of participants is 39.09 years. In this study, the Loneliness at Work Scale (LAWS)
and Tromso Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS) have been utilized. The data were analyzed using multiple regression and
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient analysis techniques. The findings showed that social information
processing, social skills, and social awareness, which are the sub-dimensions of social intelligence, positively explained
26% of social deprivation. Social skills and social awareness positively explained 13% of social companionship. The
findings also showed that the social information processing sub-dimension did not meaningfully explain social
companionship.

Received 25 July 2011; Revised 9 December 2011; Accepted 8 January 2012

Keywords: social intelligence, loneliness at work, social skills, social awareness, social information processing.

Researchers commonly agree that loneliness is a “break- which are two important components of the quality of
down in social interaction and poor quality interper- interpersonal relationships. Deniz, Hamarta, and Arı
sonal relationships” (Wright, 2007, p.4). Loneliness (2005) investigated the relationship between social
is a psychological state that stems from individuals’ skills and loneliness levels of university students
deficiencies in their social interactions (Wright, Burt, & with respect to their attachment styles. The authors
Strongman, 2006). In a work environment, loneliness defined attachment as individuals’ ability to have close
does not lie with the number of social relationships relationships with others that help the individuals de-
individuals may have, but rather lies with the quality velop a healthy personality and influence their per-
and the meaningfulness of these interpersonal rela- sonal and social development processes. The study
tionships. Individuals may feel lonely at work if showed that attachment styles have a significant effect
they experience emotional deprivation and a lack of on loneliness and social skills.
social companionship (Wright, 2007). Quick, Cooper, Wright (2005) investigated the relationship between
Gibbs, Little, and Nelson (2010) argue that healthy organizational climate, social support and loneliness
interpersonal communication has positive consequences in the workplace. The study revealed that a negative
on loneliness because loneliness is the “absence of emotional climate and lack of collegial support
deep human connection and heartfelt communication” affected the experience of loneliness in workers. It
(p.274). has been suggested that “addressing interpersonal
According to Wright, Burt, and Strongman (2006), problems in the workplace and improving the psy-
the feeling of loneliness arises less from lack of social chological work environment within an organization
support or working alone than from the quality of may enhance the social and emotional well-being
interpersonal relationships. The researchers devel- of employees” (p.123). Wright’s (2007) research on
oped a 16-item self-report loneliness scale to measure the experience of loneliness in organizational set-
loneliness in the workplace. The items are related to tings revealed that factors such as fear, lack of com-
emotional deprivation and social companionship, munity, and value congruence predicted loneliness
in organizations.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Social intelligence also has received a great deal
Fatos Silman. Cyprus International University, Faculty of Education, of attention in the recent literature. We know that in
Department of Classroom Teaching. Nicosia, Northern Cyprus, Mersin an increasingly globalized world, interpersonal com-
10 (Turkey).
munications between people, often of different cul-
E-mail: [email protected]
Tayfun Dogan. Nigde University, Faculty of Education, Department
tures, have become part of daily life. People need to
of Guidance and Psychological Counseling. Nigde (Turkey). E-mail: possess certain social skills and social competence to
[email protected] adjust to the demands of the social situations (Riggio,
2  F. Silman and T. Dogan

Throckmorton, & DePaola, 1990). People as social The aim of this study is to examine the relation-
beings must be able to build meaningful and healthy ship between the social intelligence of academics with
relationships with others to avoid emotional stress loneliness in the workplace. Through their profession,
and physical problems (Doğan, Çetin, & Sungur, 2009). academics influence other segments of society. Therefore,
Social intelligence implies one’s social competence it is important that they do not suffer from any psycho-
or ability to deal with others successfully. It is “a logical problems or face impossibility in their work-
necessary prerequisite for being a successful inter- place if they want to be productive. For the above
cultural communicator” (Wawra, 2009, p.164). Social reasons, the researchers decided to conduct this study
intelligence is also the ability to relate to others and with academics.
to have perceptions about others’ beliefs, thoughts, The researchers of this study did not come across any
feelings and behaviors. Individuals should be intel- research studies on the direct relationship between social
ligent enough to build the capacity to understand the intelligence and loneliness in the workplace. However,
psychology of others and to have empathy toward them based on the above literature, it is logical to suggest that
(Quenza, 2006). Social intelligence is one of Gardner’s there are positive correlations between social intelligence
multiple intelligence categories and consists of the and the ability to build effective communications with
skills for understanding and interacting with people, others that will possibly prevent one from experiencing
getting along with them and getting them to cooperate loneliness in a particular setting.
(Albrecht, 2004).
Goleman (2006) identified two categories of social Method
intelligence: social awareness and social facility.
Social awareness implies individuals’ ability to sense and Participants
perceive important social cues about others’ thoughts In total, 326 academics recruited from state and private
and emotions and to understand complex social sit- universities in Turkey and North Cyprus participated
uations. Social facility implies individuals’ ability in this study. The data collection instruments were
to deal with others (cited in Heggestad, 2008). Liff sent to 5,767 academicians via mail. However, only
(2003) argues that self-awareness, regulation of emo- 326 of them responded. Of the 326 participants, 149
tions, goal-setting, and empathy are related to the were female (45.7%), and 177 were male (54.3%). The
capacity to form and maintain relationships. Social age range of the participants is 23 to 66 years. The
awareness and empathy also help individuals sense average age is 39.09 years (SD = 9.38). Of the partici-
the inner state of another person to understand what pants, 66 (20.2%) were teaching assistants, 88 (27.0%)
the other person feels and thinks (Goleman, 2006, were instructors, 87 (26.70%) were assistant professors,
cited in Wawra, 2009). It can be argued that all of 32 (9.8%) were associate professors and 53(16.3%)
these components represent social intelligence, which were professors. Regarding the number of years worked
helps individuals construct successful interpersonal in academia, 85 (26.1%) of the participants worked
relationships. 0–5 years, 49 (15.0%) worked 5–10 years, 120 (36.8%)
Kosmitzki and John (1993) examined two studies worked 10–20 years, and 72 (22.1%) worked 20 years
on the components of social intelligence. The two or more.
studies suggested that the most significant compo-
nents of social intelligence are the ability to under-
Data Collection Instruments
stand others, know social rules (cognitive aspects),
deal with people and adapt to social environments Loneliness in the Workplace Scale (LAWS): LAWS, which
(behavioral aspects). Riggio et al. (1990), in their cor- was developed by Wright et al. (2006) is a 16-item self-
relational analysis of social skills and self-esteem, report tool. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert-type
found that social skills were positively correlated with scale. The scale has two sub-dimensions: emotional
self-esteem and negatively correlated with social anx- deprivation and social companionship. The emotional
iety and loneliness. deprivation sub-dimension contains 9 items and mea-
Communication skills, interpersonal skills and people sures the emotional quality of the relationships between
skills are significant attributes for effective performance academics in the workplace (sample item: “I feel sat-
not only in social environments but also in the work- isfied with the relationships I have at work”). The social
place. Namely, in order to behave skillfully in various companionship sub-dimension contains 7 items and
social situations such as talking to one’s boss, attending evaluates the quantity of the relationships between
meetings, making presentations in front of a group of academics (sample item: “There is no one at work I can
people, sharing experiences with others, or interview- share personal thoughts with if I want to”). Wright
ing for a job, one needs to have a set of social skills et al. (2006) reported the internal consistency of the
(Albrecht, 2006). emotional deprivation sub-dimension as .93 and .87
 Social Intelligence and Loneliness at Work  3

for the social companionship sub-dimension. In their factor analysis revealed the goodness-of-fit index
study conducted with 220 participants in 4–7 week as RMSEA = 0.057, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95,
intervals, they reported the test-retest consistency coef- RFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.92 and AGFI = 0.91.
ficient as .87 for both factors. The internal consistency coefficients of the subscales
The adaptation of the scale into Turkish was carried for social information processing, social skills and social
out by Doğan et al. (2009). The psychometric qualities awareness were found to be .77, .84 and .67 respectively.
of the scale were examined with the help of the data The test-retest reliability coefficient, which was obtained
obtained from 436 employees. A 5-point Likert-type from the application of the test to 101 university students,
scale for answers was used in the Turkish version of was found to be .80. The correlations between the sub-
the scale. The following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients dimensions of the TSIS were found in scores ranging
were obtained: .90 (for the total scale), .87 (emotional from .32 to .45. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha was
deprivation sub-dimension) and .83 (social compan- calculated as .84 for the TSIS, .81 for the social informa-
ionship sub-dimension). The scores obtained from tion processing factor, .79 for the social skills factor
the application of the scale to 54 employees in three- and .77 for the social awareness factor.
week intervals was .82, .78, and .80 for the test-retest Demographic Information Form: Participants were asked
score, the emotional deprivation sub-dimension, and a total of six questions (three open-ended and three
the social companionship sub-dimension, respectively. closed-ended questions). On the demographic informa-
The confirmatory factor analysis carried out with the tion form, participants were asked to answer questions
Turkish sample also found a two-factor structure. The related to their gender, age, academic title, number of
goodness-of-fit indexes obtained for the two-factor years worked, and the university and department in
model were χ2 = 182.56, s = 436, p = .01, RMSEA = 0.047, which they work.
NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.95
and AGFI = 0.93. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha Procedure
coefficients were calculated as .92 for the LAWS, .90
for the emotional deprivation factor and .85 for the In this study, in addition to the data collection instru-
social companionship factor. ments, a demographic information form was also used.
Tromso Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS): The Tromso Initially, 5,767 academics, who are employed at the
Social Intelligence Scale (TSIS) was developed by Silvera, universities of Turkey and North Cyprus, were reached
Martinussen, and Dahl (2001) and adapted into via mail. The necessary information about the study
Turkish by Doğan and Çetin (2009). TSIS is a 7-point and the data collection instruments was sent to the
Likert-type scale that has 21 items and three sub- e-mail addresses of the academics. The volunteers par-
dimensions. Four different scores—a social informa- ticipated in the study. The application of the instru-
tion processing score, a social skills score, a social ments lasted approximately 10–15 minutes. The data
awareness score and a total score—can be obtained were analyzed through the SPSS 15.0 program.
from the scale.
Social Information Processing: This sub-dimension of Data Analysis
the scale, which is concerned with human relations, With respect to the aim of the study, a Pearson product
measures skills such as understanding verbal and non- momentum correlation was conducted to determine the
verbal messages, establishing empathy and deciphering relationship between social intelligence and loneliness
the hidden messages in the language of people (sample in the workplace. Then, multiple regression analysis
item: “I can often understand what others are trying to was conducted to determine to what extent the sub-
accomplish without the need for them to say anything”). dimensions of social intelligence predicted loneliness
Social Skills: This sub-dimension measures communica- in the workplace. Descriptive statistics was also used
tion skills such as effective listening, assertive behavior, for the concerned variables in the research.
and initiating, continuing and ending a relationship
(sample item: “I am good at entering new situations
Results
and meeting people for the first time”). Social Awareness:
This sub-dimension measures the effective behaviors Mean and standard deviation scores of the variables
of people in an appropriate environment, place and were calculated and are presented in Table 1.
time (sample item: “I often hurt others without realizing The findings related to correlations between lone-
it”). Each sub-dimension contains 7 items. A 5-point liness in the workplace and its sub-dimensions, and
Likert-type scale for answers was used in the Turkish social intelligence and its sub-dimensions, are shown
version of the scale. in Table 2. No correlation was found between the emo-
Doğan et al. (2009) examined the factor structure of tional deprivation sub-dimension and the social infor-
the scale through factor analysis. The confirmatory mation processing sub-dimension.
4  F. Silman and T. Dogan

Table 1. Descriptive statistics loneliness in the workplace. The researchers aimed

to find out whether or not social information process-
Variables X SD ing, social skills and social awareness, which are the
sub-dimensions of social intelligence, predicted emo-
Emotional deprivation 20.30 7.53 tional deprivation and social companionship, which
Social companionship 13.71 5.05 are the sub-dimensions of loneliness at work. The
Social information processing 29.69 4.32 results showed meaningful correlations between the
Social skills 23.03 3.86 predictive variables of social skills, social awareness,
Social awareness 26.42 4.22 social information processing and emotional depri-
n = 326.
vation. It was found that the variables of social skills,
social awareness and social information processing
significantly predicted emotional deprivation. At the
second stage, correlations between the variables of social
Multiple regression analysis results related to the
information processing, social awareness, social skills
prediction of emotional deprivation are presented in
and social companionship at work were examined. It
Table 3. Regarding the findings, it can be observed that
was found that the dimensions of social skills and social
the sub-dimensions of social intelligence were mean-
awareness significantly predicted social companion-
ingful predictors of loneliness in the workplace, R = .505,
ship at work. However, it was also found that social
R2 = .255, p < .001. When the relationships of the vari-
information processing did not significantly predict
ables with emotional deprivation were evaluated one
social companionship at work. The data obtained were
by one, the following order of importance was obtained:
discussed in light of the literature.
social awareness, β = −.44; p < .001, social skills, β = −.19;
From the literature, it can be noted that loneliness
p <. 001, and social information processing, β = .13;
is interpreted as a negative state. It is defined in rela-
p < .015. These findings showed that the related vari-
tion to negative emotions such as anxiety, anger, sadness
ables explained 26% of the emotional deprivation at
and stress. The relevant studies emphasized the pos-
work variance.
itive relationship between loneliness and psycholog-
Multiple regression analysis results related to the pre-
ical symptoms such as depression and anxiety (Peplau &
diction of social companionship at work are presented
Perlman, 1982; Wiseman & Guttfreund, 1995). Failure
in Table 4. When the findings were analyzed, it was
in human relationships is one of the most important
observed that the sub-dimensions of social intelligence
reasons for loneliness. The studies showed that people,
were meaningful predictors of social companionship
who had communication problems with others, suf-
at work, R = .36, R2 = .13, F = 16, 08, p < .001. When the
fered from loneliness more often. Brennan (1982) found
relationships of the variables with social companionship
that lonely people saw themselves as socially inept.
were evaluated one by one, it was seen that the vari-
Jones, Freemon, and Goswick (1981) found that lonely
ables of social skills, β = −.22; p < .001 and social aware-
people paid less attention to their partners in dyadic
ness, β = −.16; p < .005 were meaningful predictors of
conversations, changed the topic more often, and asked
social companionship. The sub-dimension of social
fewer questions about their partners than did non-lonely
information processing was not a meaningful predictor
people, suggesting a lack of interpersonal sensitivity and
of social companionship. These findings show that the
a tendency to conduct unfocused conversations.
related variables explain 13% of the social companion-
Social intelligence is conceptually defined as under-
ship in the workplace variance.
standing fellow human beings and behaving appropri-
ately toward them (Thorndike, 1920). It was also found
Discussion
that people, whose social intelligence level is high, can
The aim of this research was to examine the correla- have easier and more fulfilling relationships with others
tion between the social intelligence of academics and (Doğan & Çetin, 2009). People with these traits can also

Table 2. Correlation between loneliness at work and social intelligence

Social Information Processing Social Skills Social Awareness

Emotional deprivation −.04 −.28** −.47**

Social companionship −.22** −.31** −.25**

n = 326, *p < .05, **p < .001.

 Social Intelligence and Loneliness at Work  5

Table 3. Multiple regression analysis related to the prediction of emotional deprivation at work

B SEB β t p

Social information processing .22 .09 .13 2.44 .015 *

Social skills −.37 .11 −.19 3.50 .001**
Social awareness −.78 .09 −.44 8.55 .000**

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

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis results related to the prediction of social companionship at work

B SEB β t p

Social information processing −.12 .07 −.09 1.75 .082

Social skills −.29 .08 −.22 3.77 .000**
Social awareness −.19 .07 −.16 2.84 .005*

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

easily give support to those with lower levels of social expectations and body language of others (Silvera
intelligence. Sufficient social support can help the lonely et al., 2001). In this study, it was hypothesized that
individuals get rid of their sense of loneliness. social information processing would predict loneli-
Social intelligence has multiple dimensions. The find- ness at work. The findings showed that social informa-
ings of the study can be interpreted in terms of the tion processing positively and significantly predicted
sub-dimensions of social intelligence. Social awareness, emotional deprivation at work, but social information
which is a sub-dimension of social intelligence, implies processing did not significantly predict social com-
proper behaviors in social environments. People who panionship at work.
have high social awareness are successful at acting Finally, it can be said that social intelligence is an
appropriately in social environments, and reacting important predictor of academics’ loneliness at the
and responding to the behaviors they confront. In other workplace. Therefore, seminars can be offered to help
words, people with social awareness know what to employees improve their social intelligence and com-
say, how to behave and how to influence others (Silvera munication skills.
et al., 2001). For this reason, social awareness is con- There are limitations of this study. This study was
sidered to be an important variable for predicting conducted with academics. It would be more infor-
loneliness in the workplace. Social awareness is a key mative to include participants from other professions.
element for behaving in compliance with the organi- Future studies should take this issue into consider-
zational climate of the workplace. ation. Further, the impact of loneliness on the perfor-
This study showed that social awareness negatively mance, motivation and job satisfaction of employees
and significantly predicted loneliness in the workplace. should be studied. In these studies, the influence of
In other words, high social awareness has a decreasing the mediating role of the variables, such as social and
influence on the loneliness of academics in the work- emotional intelligence, should also be examined.
place. Social skills, which are one of the sub-dimensions
of social intelligence, are related to the performance of References
social intelligence. Social skills consist of individuals’
abilities to act appropriately in human relationships. Albrecht K. (2004). Social intelligence: Beyond IQ. Training,
People with high social skills can adapt to social envi- 41, 28–31.
Albrecht K. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of success.
ronments and can easily make friends (Silvera et al.,
San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
2001). Effective listening and initiating and maintaining
Brennan T. (1982). Loneliness at adolescence. In L. A. Peplau &
relationships with new people are important dimen- D. Perlman (Eds.), A sourcebook of current theory,
sions of social skills. research, and therapy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Social information processing, which is one of the Deniz M. E., Hamarta E., & Arı R. (2005). An investigation
sub-dimensions of social intelligence, involves indi- of social skills and loneliness levels of university students
viduals’ skills in understanding the emotions, thoughts, with respect to their attachment styles in a sample of
 6  F. Silman and T. Dogan

Turkish students. Social Behaviour and Personality, 33, review of industrial and organizational psychology, (pp. 253–293).
19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.1.19 West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Doğan T., Çetin B., & Sungur M. Z. (2009). İş yaşamında Riggio R. E, Throckmorton B., & DePaola S. (1990).
yalnızlık ölçeği Türkçe formunun Geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik Social skills and self-esteem. Personality and Individual
çalışması [Validity and reliability study of the Turkish Differences, 11, 799–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
version of loneliness in the workplace scale] Anadolu 0191-8869(90)90188-W
Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10, 271–277. Silvera D. H., Martinussen M., & Dahl T. I. (2001). The
Doğan T., & Çetin B. (2009). Tromso sosyal zekâ ölçeği Tromso Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of
Türkçe formunun faktör yapısı, geçerlik ve güvenirlik social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42,
çalışması [The factor structure of Tromso social intelligence 313–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00242
scale and its validity and reliability study]. Kuram ve Thorndike E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper’s
Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9, 691–720. Magazine, 140, 227–235.
Goleman D. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter Wawra D. (2009). Social intelligence: The key to intercultural
more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books. communication. European Journal of English Studies, 13,
Heggestad E. D. (2008). A really big picture view of social 163–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13825570902907193
intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 102–104. Wiseman H., & Guttfreund D. G. (1995). Gender differences
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701468667 in loneliness and depression of university students
Jones W. H., Freemon J. E., & Goswick R. (1981) The seeking counselling. British Journal of Guidance and
persistence of loneliness: Self and other determinants. Counselling, 23, 231–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Journal of Personality, 49, 27–48. http://dx.doi.org/ 03069889508253008
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1981.tb00844.x Wright S. L. (2005). Organizational climate, social support,
Kosmitzki C., & John O. P. (1993). The implicit use of and loneliness in the workplace. In N. M. Ashkanasy,
explicit conceptions of social intelligence. Personality and W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Series Eds.), and N. M.
Individual Differences, 15, 11–23. http://dx.doi.org/ Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe, & C. E. J. Hartel (Vol. Eds.),
10.1016/0191-8869(93)90037-4 Research on emotion in organizations: Vol. 1. The effect of
Liff S. B. (2003). Social and emotional intelligence: affect in organizational studies (pp. 123–142). Amsterdam,
Applications for developmental education. Journal of The Netherlands: Elsevier
Developmental Education, 26, 28–34. Wright S. L., Burt C. D. B., & Strongman K. T. (2006).
Peplau L. A., & Perlman D. (1982). Perspectives on loneliness. Loneliness in the workplace: Construct definition and
In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook scale development. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35,
of current theory, research and therapy. New York, NY: John 59–68.
Wiley & Sons. Wright S. L. (2007, May). The experience of loneliness in
Quick J. C., Cooper C. L., Gibbs P. C., Little L. M., & organisations. Full conference paper for the European
Nelson D. L. (2010). Positive organizational behavior at Academy of Management Conference (EURAM 2007).
work. In G. P. Hodginson & J. P. Ford (Eds.), International Paris, France.

View publication stats