Received: 22 July 2020 Revised: 4 January 2021 Accepted: 5 January 2021

DOI: 10.1111/pere.12367

ARTICLE

Loneliness across cultures with different levels

of social embeddedness: A qualitative study

Luzia C. Heu1 | Nina Hansen1 | Martijn van Zomeren1 |

Aharon Levy2 | Tsvetina T. Ivanova1 | Aiswarya Gangadhar1 |
Mahmoud Radwan

1
Faculty of Behavioural and Social
Sciences, Department for Social
Abstract
Psychology, University of Groningen, Valid theorizing and quantitative comparisons of lone-
Groningen, The Netherlands liness across cultures require cross-culturally similar
2
Columbia Business School, Faculty of
meanings of loneliness. However, we know little about
Business, Columbia University in the City
of New York, New York, New York, USA whether this is the case: Influential conceptualizations
of loneliness mostly come from North America or
Correspondence
Luzia C. Heu, Faculty of Behavioural and
Europe, where individuals tend to have relatively few
Social Sciences, Department for Social stable social relationships and social interactions
Psychology, University of Groningen, (i.e., less socially embedded cultures). We thus compare
Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS
Groningen, The Netherlands. selected conceptualizations of loneliness from the liter-
Email: [email protected] ature to loneliness experiences that are reported in
42 semi-structured interviews from countries with dif-
ferent levels of social embeddedness (Austria, Bulgaria,
Israel, Egypt, India). Encouragingly, our thematic anal-
ysis does not suggest fundamental qualitative differ-
ences in loneliness definitions, perceived causes, or
remedies. Nevertheless, we noticed and discuss aspects
that may not be sufficiently considered in previous
literature.

KEYWORDS
culture, in-depth interviews, interventions, loneliness, social
embeddedness

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Personal Relationships published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Association for Relationship
Research.

Pers Relationship. 2021;1–27. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere 1

2 HEU ET AL.

1 | INTRODUCTION

Loneliness is a major risk factor for impaired mental and physical health (e.g., cardiovascular
diseases, obesity, depression, anxiety disorders; Cacioppo, Grippo, London, Goossens, &
Cacioppo, 2015). To counteract severe loneliness and its aversive consequences, much psycho-
logical research has hence examined causes of and possible remedies for loneliness. However,
since most psychological research is conducted in European or Northern American cultures
(see also Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), we know comparatively little about loneliness
in contexts with higher social embeddedness (i.e., cultures where individuals are more embed-
ded in social networks, have more stable social relationships, and spend less time alone). This is
striking because multiple studies indicate that loneliness is, on average, higher in more than in
less socially embedded societies (e.g., Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014).
Indeed, different cultural norms about social relationships are likely to provide different
breeding grounds for loneliness experiences: They do not only influence how embedded indi-
viduals are in social networks, but also in which relationships they receive essential social pro-
visions (e.g., emotional support in friendships or partnerships), and which relationships or
relationship qualities they perceive as important (e.g., love in partnerships; shared decision-
making in family relationships). Such differences in how individuals relate to each other and
what they expect from their relationships seem to imply quantitative differences in loneliness
levels, causes, and experiences (e.g., Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2020; Lykes &
Kemmelmeier, 2014; Rokach, Orzeck, Cripps, Lackovic-Grgin, & Penezic, 2001). However, little
is known about qualitative differences in the meaning of the term loneliness and the experi-
ences that it describes. As such, it is yet unclear whether loneliness is cross-culturally compara-
ble at all, and whether existing research about loneliness from less socially embedded cultures
can hence be useful to understand loneliness in more socially embedded cultures.
To answer this question, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews in five countries
with different levels of social embeddedness (i.e., Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Egypt, and India),
where little research about loneliness has been done (in comparison to, e.g., the United States).
More specifically, we examined whether a selection1 of loneliness conceptualizations from the
literature (see Table S1.1 in Appendix S1) could sufficiently describe the phenomenon of loneli-
ness (i.e., definitions, perceived causes and remedies) across our cultural samples. This allowed
to examine whether the meaning of loneliness and the experiences it describes are comparable
across cultures and to identify aspects that have been considered less in this literature.

1.1 | Insights into loneliness from contexts of lower social

embeddedness

1.1.1 | Definitions of loneliness

Loneliness has been defined as perceived social isolation (VanderWeele, Hawkley, &
Cacioppo, 2012), the feeling of being cut-off or separated from others (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987),
or the aversive experience that results from a perceived discrepancy between actual and desired
relationships (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Loneliness definitions hence typically describe the neg-
ative, subjective experience of a relational impairment or shortcoming, which is different from
the objective state of being alone.
Within such broad definitions, loneliness experiences can, however, be characterized as multi-
faceted (Rokach, 1988). In a large-scale qualitative study in Canada, four main aspects of
HEU ET AL. 3

loneliness experiences were identified: (a) Self-alienation (i.e., feelings of emptiness, unreality, no
connection to oneself or the world around); (b) interpersonal isolation (missing an intimate rela-
tionship, missing a specific other, feeling different from others, socially rejected, or abandoned);
(c) agony (negative emotional experiences); and (d) physiological or behavioral distressed reac-
tions. As such, the emotions that accompany loneliness are highly similar to those that character-
ize depression (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2010). The prevalence of each facet, however,
varied by individual and situation, indicating that loneliness experiences are quite heterogeneous.

1.1.2 | Types of loneliness

Different loneliness types are distinguished by duration (e.g., chronic vs. situational loneliness;
Beck & Young, 1978; De Jong Gierveld & Raadschelders, 1982) and cause (e.g., emotional
vs. social vs. existential loneliness; Mijuskovic, 1977; Moustakas, 1972; Weiss, 1973). Situational
loneliness is more transient than chronic loneliness, and often a reaction to specific events
(e.g., relationship terminations, arguments; Beck & Young, 1978). Furthermore, emotional lone-
liness flows from a lack of a close, intimate relationship (e.g., a partnership or close friendship),
whereas social loneliness flows from missing a social network or others to spend time with
(e.g., friends or a community; Weiss, 1973). By contrast, existential loneliness
(e.g., Mijuskovic, 1977; Moustakas, 1972) results from the realization that humans move from
birth to death alone, without knowing whether their experiences are truly shared by others.

1.1.3 | Mechanisms underlying loneliness

From an evolutionary perspective, loneliness is an evolved response to a threat to reliable social

relationships (Cacioppo, Cacioppo, & Boomsma, 2013). Specifically, loneliness motivates indi-
viduals to ensure that they are embedded in social relationships of high quality, because social
isolation used to jeopardize survival throughout most of human history.
Similarly, loneliness has been suggested to emerge if an individual has in the past not been
provided with (e.g., Mikulincer & Shaver, 2014) or currently lacks certain social provisions
(Weiss, 1974). Such social provisions include attachment (a relationship that provides a sense of
security and belonging), social integration (a group that shares one's interests, that provides a
shared interpretation of experience, companionship, and exchange of services), reassurance of
worth (recognition of one's competences by others), reliable alliance (relationships that one can
count on for assistance; e.g., family relationships), guidance (someone to provide advice), and
opportunity for nurturance (opportunities to care for someone else, providing a sense of being
needed; e.g., parent–child relationships).
A more cognitive perspective focuses on the subjective perception of a relational lack as
mechanism underlying loneliness (Perlman & Peplau, 1981). It suggests that loneliness flows
from an unfavorable comparison between actual and desired social relationships, and should
hence be influenced by the various factors that impact on relationships or expectations about
them (see Table S1.1c in Appendix S1). This is in line with the somewhat broader perspective
that loneliness results if individuals' relationships cannot meet their individual and culture-
specific needs, expectations, or desires regarding relationships (Johnson & Mullins, 1987). As
such, one person can feel lonely because of not having a romantic partner whereas another per-
son in the same situation may not feel lonely at all.
4 HEU ET AL.

Against this backdrop, more specific loneliness causes in previous empirical research can
broadly be distinguished into relational, intrapersonal, situational, and cultural characteristics. Thus
far, studies have mostly focused on the first two. For instance, relational causes of loneliness include
few social interactions (De Jong Gierveld, Keating, & Fast, 2015), being unmarried, or low relation-
ship quality (Hawkley et al., 2008). Intrapersonal causes of loneliness include genetic disposition
(Matthews et al., 2016), higher introversion, or higher neuroticism (Buecker, Maes, Denissen, &
Luhmann, 2020). Similarly, causes that were perceived by lay people in Canada (Rokach, 1989)
could broadly be grouped into relational deficits, characterological/developmental variables and
traumatic events (see Table S1.1c in Appendix S1 for the specific content of each category).

1.1.4 | Remedies for loneliness

Previous work has examined the relation between general coping styles and loneliness
(e.g., problem- versus emotion-focused coping; Deckx, van den Akker, Buntinx, & van
Driel, 2018) or the effectiveness of interventions against loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2015). How-
ever, research about loneliness-specific remedies that individuals apply themselves is sparse—at
least among young and middle-aged adults (for coping strategies among older adults, see
Kharicha, Manthorpe, Iliffe, Davies, & Walters, 2018; Schoenmakers, van Tilburg, &
Fokkema, 2012). One exception is an analysis of Canadians' strategies to remedy loneliness,
which distinguishes three phases (Rokach, 1990): acceptance (e.g., solitary activity, reflecting
on, and accepting loneliness), transition (e.g., seeking professional support, religion, changing
how one interacts with others), and reaching out to belong (e.g., re-establishing or improving
relationships). Additional to such constructive strategies, individuals also reported self-
destructive or nonbeneficial strategies (e.g., addiction, self-harm, avoidance, and self-induced
isolation; see Table S1.1d in Appendix S1).

1.2 | Loneliness and differences in social embeddedness

Like most psychological research, research about loneliness has widely been conducted in the
Global North (e.g., the United States, Canada, the Netherlands; Henrich et al., 2010). When
compared to other parts of the world, these countries share a number of cultural elements
(i.e., they contain some similar shared beliefs, norms, or values; Chiu, Gelfand, Yamagishi,
Shteynberg, & Wan, 2010). For instance, they are generally characterized by higher individual-
ism (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), lower relational stability (i.e., cultural norms to hold
on to existing social relationships; Heu, Hansen, & van Zomeren, 2019), or less restrictive
norms about social relationships (i.e., fewer, less strict, and less demanding norms about social
relationships; Heu et al., 2020). As such, the cultures in these countries can be described as less
socially embedded2: Individuals are less embedded in tight social networks (e.g., families or com-
munities), spend more time or are more likely to live alone, have less stable and less long-
lasting relationships, and are more independent from each other when making choices.
Compared to less socially embedded cultures, we know little about loneliness in more
socially embedded cultures. Indeed, existing quantitative studies about loneliness suggest a
number of cultural differences: For one, average levels of loneliness seem to be higher in more
than in less socially embedded cultures3 (Fokkema, De Jong Gierveld, & Dykstra, 2012; Jylhä &
Jokela, 1990; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014; cf., Barreto et al., 2020): This is counterintuitive
HEU ET AL. 5

because living alone or being unmarried, for example, seem to increase the risk for loneliness
(e.g., Hawkley et al., 2008; Swader, 2018). However, it also seems that causes of, or risks for,
loneliness can differ across cultures. For instance, in different European countries, more inter-
action with family members was more strongly related to lower loneliness in countries where
family relationships were more valued (i.e., in more collectivistic and supposedly more socially
embedded cultures; Lykes & Kemmelmeier, 2014). Accordingly, we suggest in recent theorizing
(Heu et al., 2020) that cultures with more, more demanding, and stricter norms about social
relationships (e.g., more socially embedded cultures) may imply a higher risk of “emotional”
and “perceived” isolation (e.g., lacking individually fulfilling social relationships; being dissatis-
fied with social relationships or shunned because one deviates from social norms) despite a
lower risk of “physical isolation” (e.g., little social contact).
Importantly, such quantitative differences in risks for loneliness raise the question whether
there are also qualitative differences in the phenomenon of loneliness—that is, whether the
meaning of the term loneliness and the experiences it describes are similar across different cul-
tures. For instance, loneliness is often viewed as particularly closely related to social isolation
(e.g., De Jong Gierveld, Van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2006) in less socially embedded cultures where
individuals have a higher risk to become socially isolated. This might be different in cultures
where individuals tend to move from birth to death in networks of stable relationships and are
hardly ever alone. Similarly, in more socially embedded cultures, where individuals often live
together with their families or in-laws, lacking understanding by family members may be a
more prominent driver, and hence more central to definitions, of loneliness.
Indeed, in quantitative comparisons of individuals' perceptions of loneliness (e.g., experiential
aspects, self-perceived causes, or coping strategies), Canadians scored higher on all scales than
individuals from more socially embedded cultures (Croatians, Portuguese, Turks, or
Argentinians; e.g., Rokach et al., 2001; Rokach & Bacanli, 2001; Rokach, Bacanli, &
Ramberan, 2000; cf., Rokach & Sharma, 1996). This may suggest that Canadians have more
severe or more differentiated loneliness experiences. However, given that all questionnaires
were based on descriptions of loneliness provided by Canadians (Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990),
while loneliness tends to be higher in more socially embedded cultures (e.g., Lykes &
Kemmelmeier, 2014), these findings may also suggest that these questionnaires did not suffi-
ciently consider aspects of loneliness in more socially embedded cultures.
In fact, most cross-cultural studies or quantitative research in more socially embedded cul-
tures is based on loneliness conceptualizations and scales from less socially embedded cultures
(e.g., Anderson, 1999; Rajesh & Rangaiah, 2019). Only few qualitative studies have also examined
meanings of loneliness in more socially embedded groups: They suggest that loneliness experi-
ences revolve around similar themes as in less socially embedded cultures (e.g., loneliness as
related to impaired relationships; aversiveness), but also revealed some different aspects
(e.g., disrespectfulness by younger generations as risk factor for loneliness among elderly people;
e.g., Heravi-Karimooi, Anoosheh, Foroughan, Sheykhi, & Hajizadeh, 2010; Van der Geest, 2004).
However, these qualitative studies were conducted in single cultural samples and among elderly
people only, while cross-cultural qualitative research in broader age groups is missing.

1.3 | The current research

To examine the meaning of loneliness across cultures, we conducted a thematic analysis of

semi-structured in-depth interviews about definitions, perceived causes, and remedies for
6 HEU ET AL.

loneliness from contexts that should contain cultures with different levels of social
embeddedness (Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Egypt, and India). Specifically, we compared a selec-
tion of scientific conceptualizations of loneliness (which tend to be from less socially embedded
cultures) with loneliness experiences from cultures with different levels of social embeddedness.
This is relevant because loneliness and theorizing about it can only validly be compared across
cultures in quantitative research if ”loneliness” describes similar experiences.4 The qualitative
design of this study furthermore allowed us to identify aspects that are considered less in
research from less socially embedded cultures.
We sampled from different countries in which less psychological research has been con-
ducted than in Western European or Northern American countries (Henrich et al., 2010), with
cultures of relatively high (except for Austria and possibly Bulgaria), yet different levels of social
embeddedness. Through sampling from countries with different levels of social embeddedness,
we could examine which differences in results may be due to differences between lay and schol-
arly conceptualizations of loneliness (e.g., by comparing Austrian interviews to our selection of
conceptualizations in the literature), and which may be traced back to differences in social
embeddedness (by comparing findings across samples and the literature). Conversations with
informants from each culture and existing data about proxies of social embeddedness (see
Table S1.2 in Appendix S1) suggested that Austria had the lowest, Bulgaria a low-moderate,
Israel a moderate, and Egypt and India the highest levels of social embeddedness.5
More specifically, inhabitants of Austria and Bulgaria were comparatively likely to live
alone (e.g., 36% of households in Austria were one-person households in 2011, as compared to
only 4% in India in 2015; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Popula-
tion Division, 2017, 2019). At the same time, households were, on average, smallest in these
countries—with hardly any households with more than six members, or households with both
children under the age of 15 and members above the age of 60 (i.e., 1% in Austria in 2011 as
compared to 16% in India in 2015).6 Accordingly, average households were approximately twice
as large in Egypt and India as in Austria and Bulgaria (i.e., 4.1 household members in Egypt in
2014 and 4.6 in India in 2015, as compared to 2.3 in Austria and Bulgaria in 2011), with Israel
falling in between on most of these household characteristics (e.g., 21% one-person households
in 2008; an average household size of 3.1). These numbers illustrate that inhabitants of Egypt
and India were most likely to start their own families, live together with their parents and
extended families, and, therefore, to spend least time alone—particularly in comparison to
Bulgaria or Austria.
Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis suggests that more than 40% of Indians feel lonely to
some extent (Hossain et al., 2020). For comparison, 28.7% of Israeli participants in the
European Social Survey, 38.4% of Bulgarian participants, and 26.8% of Austrian participants
indicated to have felt lonely in the previous week (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2012,
2014). Although comparable prevalence rates for loneliness are scarce, this suggests that the
phenomenon of loneliness occurs and may be quite relevant across both less and more socially
embedded cultures.

2 | METHOD

This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Psychology at the University of Gro-
ningen. We conducted 42 semi-structured in-depth interviews in total, with seven Austrian,
eight Bulgarian, eight Israeli, ten Egyptian, and nine Indian participants.7
HEU ET AL. 7

2.1 | Recruitment

We estimated levels of social embeddedness based on interviews with informants from each
country (e.g., about social evaluations of divorce, remaining unmarried, living alone, or living
with one's parents as an adult), data about household characteristics (e.g., average household
size, share of one-person households; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division, 2017, 2019; see Table S1.2 in Appendix S1), and individualism–
collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010) as one proxy of social embeddedness (we assumed generally
higher social embeddedness in more collectivistic cultures because more traditional forms of
collectivism promote that individuals are embedded in stable—usually familial—social struc-
tures; Triandis, 1995). The specific choice of countries then depended on the availability of pro-
ficient collaborators.
We determined in advance to conduct between six and ten interviews in each country. This
would allow us to examine differences and similarities of loneliness experiences within each
cultural context, and was a realistic number to achieve. Due to the heterogeneity of loneliness
experiences and definitions, theoretical saturation at a fine-grained level (i.e., for our inductive
coding) could have been achieved with large numbers of participants only, and was hence not
used to determine the number of interviews. However, with the realized sample sizes, we
reached theoretical saturation at the broad, conceptual level that was the main focus of our
deductive coding (because most participants reported multiple loneliness experiences, providing
a broad range of different loneliness experiences in each sample).
We then used a mix of purposive sampling and convenience sampling (with snowballing):
Specifically, we aimed to sample participants between the age of 25 and 45 (to add to a better
understanding of loneliness in this age group; Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016), with similar shares
of men and women, both individuals with and without partners and/or children, and some vari-
ation regarding education level (within each cultural context). In the Israeli context, we addi-
tionally aimed to interview both religious and nonreligious individuals. Participants were
mostly recruited through interviewers' social networks because, in all contexts, individuals
tended to be reluctant to talk about loneliness in an interview situation unless approached
through personal contact. Except for one Indian participant whose interview we stopped after
some initial questions (due to a lack of involvement), no participant dropped out during the
interview. For sample characteristics (e.g., family status, demographic characteristics), see
Table 1.

2.2 | Procedure and interviewer information (positionality)

Participants were invited to be interviewed and filmed8 for a project about loneliness, and fully
informed about the aim of the interviews and their rights. They could choose the locations for
their interviews, provided that video or audio recordings would be possible (for more detailed
information about interview settings, see section S1.1 in Appendix S1).
The principal investigator (PI), who integrated previous literature, attended and ste-
ered all interviews, and coded all interview material, was a cultural psychologist focusing
on cultural norms and loneliness. During data collection, she was a 27-year-old female
doctoral student with Caucasian appearance, who is originally from, and has grown up in
Vienna, Austria. Importantly, she was thus from a less socially embedded cultural
context.
8 HEU ET AL.

T A B L E 1 Sample characteristics

Austrian Bulgarian Israeli Egyptian Indian

sample sample sample sample sample
(n = 7) (n = 8) (n = 8) (n = 10) (n = 9)
Age range (in 26–45 27–44 26–39 25–44 24
years)
Gender
Men 5 3 4 5 5
Women 2 5 4 5 4
Family status
Single 2 1 4 4 1
In partnership 5 7 4 6 8
Married/ 1 4 3 4 8
registered
partnership
Own children 2 2 3 4 4
Divorced — — — — —
Household characteristics
In one-person 2 1 2 1 —
household
With partner 4 6 4 4 8
(and children)
With family of 1 1 — 8 2
origin
With in-laws — — — — 3
With — — 2 1 1
housemates
Education level
Minimum 2 — — — 1
compulsory
schooling
Secondary 2 — — 3 3
education
University 3 8 8 7 5
education
Location of residence
Urban area 7 6 6 10 5
Rural area — 2 2 — 4

Note: Note that, in the Indian and Egyptian samples, interviewees who were married and did not live together with (or in
immediate proximity to) their family of origin or in-laws had not necessarily chosen to do so. For instance, one Egyptian
participant had been bereaved, whereas multiple Indian participants had, usually for work, moved away from their place of
origin and families.

In each research context (except for Austria), the PI co-conducted interviews with collabora-
tors from the respective country: A 24-year-old female Bulgarian master student in psychology
(from a town in the North-West of Bulgaria); a 37-year-old male Jewish-Israeli postdoctoral
HEU ET AL. 9

researcher in psychology (from Jerusalem); a 32-year-old male, or a 28-year-old female Egyptian

translator (from Cairo/Gizeh); or a 22-year-old female Indian pre-master student in psychology
(from Bangalore). All except for the Egyptian interviewers had received university education in
psychology, but none except for the PI had experience with qualitative research or research in
the field of loneliness. Collaborators got involved because of their interest in the topic or pro-
ject, or the learning experience the collaboration offered. Since we used the PI's or collaborators'
social networks as well as snowballing in all research contexts, most interviewees were indi-
rectly or directly acquainted with the interviewers (i.e., as friends, acquaintances, colleagues,
family members, or acquaintances of these).
Interviews were conducted in the respective local language, and collaborators paraphrased
responses in English so that the PI could probe and adjust the course of the interview. All interviews
were translated into, and analyzed, in English. Interview length varied between around 10 and
around 60 min.9 After some initial small-talk, an introduction, and two superficial questions about
participants' family status, we asked about personal experiences of loneliness, including questions
about perceived causes of loneliness (e.g., What do you think made you feel lonely then?), ways of cop-
ing with, and perceived remedies for loneliness (e.g., What helped you feel less lonely?, How did your
loneliness disappear again?, Which advice would you give to someone who feels lonely?), as well as
own definitions of loneliness (e.g., How would you explain what loneliness is to someone who has
never felt lonely?). If participants had hardly ever felt lonely, we asked what they thought had protec-
ted them, and about their perception of loneliness experiences among others in their social sur-
roundings. Before answering a final question about their advice for a lonely person, participants
filled in a short, written questionnaire with demographic questions, questions about relationships
and about cultural characteristics. The purpose of this order was to monitor and avoid that partici-
pants would leave the interview in agitation (for the full interview guide and a brief summary of
answers to the written questionnaire, see sections S1.2 and S1.3 in Appendix S1).

2.3 | Data preparation and analytical approach

Interviews were translated into English and/or transcribed by translators, international stu-
dents, or the PI. Translations were then double-checked by collaborators or translators.
We conducted a thematic analysis (in line with Braun & Clarke, 2006), combining a theoret-
ical (i.e., deductive) approach (to examine whether the selected loneliness conceptualizations
from the literature could be used to describe loneliness experiences in more socially embedded
cultures) with an inductive analysis (to identify possible novel or less considered aspects). More
specifically, we first integrated the selected loneliness definitions, and taxonomies of causes and
remedies from the literature (e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990) into
broader frameworks that would allow to compare this previous work with our own findings
(see Figure 2a and Table S1.1 in Appendix S1). In a first coding round, we then applied concepts
and themes from previous research to our interview data (i.e., deductive coding). Furthermore,
we added or split existing into multiple codes (a) if we had not encountered an aspect in the lit-
erature before (e.g., resolving loneliness by sorting out one's relationships); (b) if we suspected
that an aspect of loneliness was specific to a certain culture (e.g., “bad habits” as cause for lone-
liness in the Indian sample); (c) if we suspected that an aspect might systematically differ
between cultural samples (e.g., unfulfilling family relationships as potentially more relevant
loneliness cause in more than in less socially embedded samples); or (d) if, within a category, a
specific aspect seemed particularly meaningful because it was emphasized by multiple
10 HEU ET AL.

participants (e.g., not being able to be oneself around others as more specific cause within per-
sonal characteristics causing loneliness). Furthermore, we also relabeled or regrouped codes
into themes in a way that best described our interview data.
After the first coding round, we revised the coding scheme by combining or dropping highly
specific codes that turned out not to be culture-specific and/or that occurred too infrequently to
allow for an examination of cultural differences. For loneliness definitions and remedies, we
reduced the number of codes less than for loneliness causes. This is because less is known about
coping strategies or remedies for loneliness, while definitions of loneliness were too diverse to
be meaningfully summarized by broader categories only.
Based on these revisions, codes in our final codebook deviate from previous schemes to bet-
ter fit the current data, and because of lacking convergence of categories and labels in the litera-
ture: For instance, personal factors (Perlman & Peplau, 1981) and characterological variables
(Rokach, 1989) summarize similar, yet slightly different sub-themes. To make links and differ-
ences between our final coding scheme and existing conceptualizations in the literature trans-
parent, we connect our codes and themes back to categories and themes from the research
literature in Table S1.1 in Appendix S1, and in the codebook.
All interviews were then coded a second time by the PI with a widely semantic and realist
approach (codes were based on the explicit content of participants' accounts rather than on what
was driving their narratives). However, some of the coding was also latent to apply more abstract
categories from the literature (e.g., lack of attachment; Weiss, 1974) to the reported concrete
loneliness experiences. Coding was done by the PI only (i.e., a single rater) because it required
extensive knowledge of the research literature on loneliness. However, codes, their labels, and
their grouping into themes were repeatedly discussed with the second and third authors of the
paper, and interpretations were checked by the native collaborators from each research context.
In a final step, we compared the broad framework we had derived from the literature with
frameworks from our interview data (see Figures 1–3, Table S1.1 in Appendix S1, and code-
book). Taking a more quantitative approach, we also examined whether certain codes were
clearly more prevalent in some than in other contexts.

3 | R E SUL T S

To examine whether the meaning of loneliness is comparable across cultures with different
levels of social embeddedness, we analyzed whether our selection of influential conceptualiza-
tions from the literature were reflected in individuals' reports of loneliness in samples with dif-
ferent levels of social embeddedness. We also examined whether we could identify potentially
under-researched aspects or cross-cultural differences. We will provide key quotes for our find-
ings here, and a more extensive selection in Appendix S2.

3.1 | Definitions of loneliness

Explicit definitions of loneliness converged across cultural contexts, with a taxonomy of

reported loneliness experiences by Canadians (Rokach, 1988), and with multiple definitions of
loneliness in the literature (e.g., Hays & DiMatteo, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981; VanderWeele
et al., 2012). To summarize, loneliness was cross-culturally (a) described by experiences of some
impairment of the relation between the self and the outside world, (b) viewed as different from
 HEU ET AL.

F I G U R E 1 Loneliness definitions in our data. Note: Grey fields indicate codes or themes that have not been described in the literature before
11
12 HEU ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 (a) Overview of loneliness causes in the literature. (b–d) Loneliness causes in our data. Note:
Grey fields indicate codes or themes that have not been described in the literature before

being alone, (c) experienced as aversive or negative, yet as potentially beneficial, and
(d) described as similar to depression (see Figure 1; see Table S2.1 in Appendix S2 for additional
quotes). Notably, experiences of loneliness were highly diverse (in line with Rokach, 1988)—yet
mostly within, and not systematically so between cultural samples.
More specifically, definitions included feeling closed off from others (e.g., not feeling under-
stood, feeling rejected, feeling trapped inside oneself), shortcomings in relationships
(e.g., lacking closeness or love, support, not being able to count on, or share one's thoughts with
others), or descriptions of perceived or actual isolation (including separations).

I4 (Israeli, female, 26): So, I think that it's like living life, where there is always dou-
ble glass. So, you always feel like there is something separating you from everyone
HEU ET AL. 13

F I G U R E 2 (Continued)

else—there is something happening inside you, and there is the outside world. And
between them, there is this double glass, and you can't reach it, even if it's so close.

Furthermore, participants associated loneliness with various aversive emotional experiences

(e.g., sadness, fear, or hopelessness) and issues with oneself (e.g., not being able to be, or dis-
liking oneself).

I2 (Israeli, female, 33): Not being in peace with yourself, and then, that sense of
loneliness is one of the symptoms. It can be expressed with millions of other symp-
toms. To me, the sense of loneliness is a symptom for that.

Loneliness was associated with similar states as depression (in line with Cacioppo
et al., 2010)—including, for instance, meaninglessness, helplessness, powerlessness, emptiness,
restlessness, or frustration.
Although some participants defined loneliness by (perceived) isolation, the large majority in
all samples implicitly or explicitly emphasized the difference between solitude and loneliness.
Whereas solitude was viewed as potentially enjoyable, loneliness itself was usually described as
14 HEU ET AL.

F I G U R E 3 (a–c) Loneliness remedies in our data. Note: For a comparison with the literature, see Table S1.1
in Appendix S1. Grey fields indicate codes or themes that have not been described in the literature before

aversive. Nevertheless, many participants viewed loneliness as purposeful—for instance, as an

opportunity for personal development or to appreciate fulfilling social relationships more.

IN1 (Indian, female, 38): But the positive thing is, like, when you are lonely, you
keep thinking and you heal yourself. So, it makes your healing also faster.
HEU ET AL. 15

3.2 | Types of loneliness

We found indications of emotional, social, and existential loneliness across samples (for addi-
tional quotes, see Table S2.2 in Appendix S2), but experiences of social or emotional loneliness
as initially described in the literature (i.e., as structural shortcomings in one's relational network;
Weiss, 1973) and as illustrated by the quote below (for emotional loneliness) were rare.

B4 (Bulgarian, female, 27): I was missing a part of me, I was missing what actually
gives a person the feeling of being fulfilled. […] Not being able to reveal your soul
in front of anyone…. Like, I can, through my work – making music – that's a kind
of revealing the soul, but that's like making a painting, as in, the painting is there
but not everyone understands it. And people just come and go, they don't establish
a permanent, long-lasting contact with you. So, in reality, it's the connection to
someone close to you, in my opinion. In my case, I needed a partner, um… Some
people need their family…

Indeed, individuals often felt lonely because they were missing some specific relational quality
in a specific situation (e.g., when not fitting in on an evening out, when lacking guidance
regarding a life decision; see section about “Loneliness despite fulfilling relationships” below
and “situational loneliness” in Table S2.1 in Appendix S2 for quotes). These individuals may
hence be viewed as temporarily emotionally lonely, but only in a very broad interpretation of
emotional loneliness. Existential loneliness (i.e., feeling lonely because of the separateness that
is inherent to the human experience) hardly occurred.
Furthermore, although most instances of loneliness were indeed situational (i.e., bound to a
specific event, such as a separation, an unenjoyable evening out), around half of the partici-
pants (distributed over all samples) described feelings of loneliness that persisted for a long time
or even throughout large parts of their lives (i.e., chronic loneliness).

E7 (Egyptian, female, 35): Yes, I get that feeling all the time. Although I know
many people and have many good friends whom I love and who love me, I still get
that feeling of loneliness even when they are around me, indeed.

Notably, such chronic loneliness was often described as latently present and clearly percep-
tible only in specific situations (or as usually present, and sometimes suppressed).

B3 (Bulgarian, male, 33): It's not present all the time but there are often moments
in which you pass the loneliness threshold, if we could call it like that. […] I can
describe it as a heartbeat. You know, sometimes it's up and sometimes you're below
that threshold, but […] often, actually, you're probably above it.

3.3 | Causes and remedies

Across the different cultural samples, causes and remedies for loneliness could nicely be
fit into the broad structure that we derived from existing literature. Together with the
convergent definitions of loneliness, this suggests similar meanings of loneliness across
cultures with distinct levels of social embeddedness. 10 For a comparison of coding
16 HEU ET AL.

schemes from the literature versus from these interviews, see Figures 1 to 3, Table S1.1 in
Appendix S1, as well as the codebook.
However, the absence of fundamental qualitative differences we observed does not necessar-
ily imply that there are no cultural differences in reported loneliness experiences altogether.
Although broad definitions, perceived causes, and remedies for loneliness seemed to be similar,
we observed some differences in the manifestation of certain themes (e.g., whether a new part-
nership as remedy for loneliness usually meant getting married or starting to date a girlfriend/
boyfriend; see Table S2.3 in Appendix S2). As such, certain concrete examples were specific to
one or a few cultural samples. For instance, only in the Indian sample, participants explicitly
talked about “bad habits” such as being lazy, aggressive, or unwilling to work as cause of
loneliness.

IN8 (Indian, male, 27): For example, if I am doing anything wrong, nobody will be
with me. Drinking, roaming and fighting around here and there, nobody will let
me be around them then. […] If you make those mistakes, you'll have to live a
lonely life and remain in those thoughts.

Relatedly, we observed potential differences in the importance of specific themes. For

instance, high independence from others was more often mentioned as loneliness cause in
highly embedded samples; a maladaptive family background during childhood was more often
mentioned as cause of later loneliness in less embedded samples.

E7 (Egyptian, female, 35): When I have trouble to deal with something and I feel
that I need to ask someone for help, but I don't know how to do that, because I'm
the kind of person who doesn't know how to ask for help. So, in these very
moments, I feel that I'm so lonely.

A1 (Austrian, male, 35): And I don't think that it was because my parents didn't
love me, but—I think that all—everyone loves their children. But many people are
not aware that they are not able to properly communicate their love—or to pass it
on or have not learnt to express it openly. And that they are actually lonely them-
selves, and that they, as such, hand down their loneliness. And it takes a long time
to deconstruct something like this.

3.3.1 | Aspects that have been considered less in the loneliness

literature

Additional to examining whether the loneliness experiences in our interviews generally fit
into selected previous conceptualizations of loneliness, we also wanted to examine
whether they would reveal aspects that had not been considered yet. Although we did not
detect novel aspects, we identified aspects that have been less considered in this literature.
Surprisingly, these were not unique to more socially embedded contexts. For instance,
(a) individuals mostly experienced loneliness despite having fulfilling social relationships
(in line with Moustakas, 1972) and (b) loneliness was often resolved by higher indepen-
dence from others and social withdrawal (instead of more social contact or relationships;
for additional quotes, see Table S2.4 in Appendix S2).
HEU ET AL. 17

Loneliness despite fulfilling social relationships

Previous literature has focused much on shortcomings of social relationships as cause of loneli-
ness (Hawkley et al., 2008). Accordingly, impairments of relationship quality such as feeling dif-
ferent from, or misunderstood by others, lacking support, or separations were recurrent themes
in our interviews as well. However, relational causes for loneliness often emerged in specific
relationship domains or were bound to specific situations (see “situational loneliness” in
Table S2.1 in Appendix S2 for quotes) rather than being general relational shortcomings—
which is in contrast to what is typically measured in empirical studies (e.g., overall relationship
quantity or quality; Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2019).

IN10 (Indian, male, 28): Most of the people in office: they like to drink, they like to
party. […] I don't like to drink, I don't like to party. I don't fall in that, you know,
uh that category of people at all. […] For example, there's gonna be a promotion
party. […] Then I'll usually end up sitting in a corner, and having uh – having
Sprite or Coke or something […] by myself. So, I feel very lonely at that point […].
It's the misfit in the environment that I'm uh – there.

Furthermore, although loneliness was usually viewed as the subjective experience of

unfulfilling social relationships, many participants identified causes that were quite unrelated
to social relationships. Most prominently, loneliness seems to not only cause instability, unease,
or ill-being (Cacioppo et al., 2015), but to sometimes also be their result (in line with
Moustakas, 1972). For instance, interviewees reported feeling lonely when faced with problems
or decisions Indeed, despite being supported by others, they often felt lonely because they ulti-
mately had to resolve problems and make decisions themselves:

I6 (Israeli, male, 35): There was a period that was extremely difficult and stressful,
where I felt that I was alone. Despite having partners, despite having a community
around me that was supportive and invested in me—my father worked alongside
me—I felt alone. Because it was my responsibility to deal with things that were
extremely difficult and complex.

E6 (Egyptian, male, 40): Well, if you find something that makes you happy in life
or something that pulls you out of hardships or problems, that's when you don't
feel loneliness. But as long as there are problems or difficulties in your life, you feel
lonely. […] As long as you're financially sufficient in life, you don't feel lonely.

Related to that, others described loneliness when in a novel or unstructured situation or

when lacking an aim:

I8 (Israeli, female, 32): That you can't find some kind of purpose for yourself, some
kind of goal, something that you do that is making you understand why you were
put here on this earth. So, you'll feel lonely—no matter how many people you have
around you. […] But you just don't feel like you're living the life that you want to
live. Then, no matter what, you'll feel a sense of loneliness.

Furthermore, multiple participants viewed internal instability or a difficult relationship with

themselves as the true cause of their loneliness (e.g., little self-love, little self-acceptance,
18 HEU ET AL.

difficulty being or deciding by oneself).11 This is related to, yet slightly different from previous
research, which viewed, for instance, low self-esteem as cause of loneliness because it should
hamper relationships with others (Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1989). Although some par-
ticipants followed this reasoning, others eventually noticed that their longings in relationships
were unrealistically demanding, or that even their fulfillment would not erase loneliness.
Indeed, some participants explained that their longing for different relationships had only been
a symptom of their unfulfilling relationship with themselves (in line with Moustakas, 1972):

I2 (Israeli, female, 33): The loneliness came from the inside, the outside is not…
like, it's something that I have with myself – the difficulty of being alone with
myself in peace. So, the environment is distracting, but it's not solving the problem.
[…] When you are in a relationship, it's – you let somebody else accept you, love
you, you know – you don't have to do it yourself. But, you know, that's something I
learned through the years, that, if you don't do it yourself, it won't come from
outside.

As such, loneliness may sometimes feel, but not actually be, about social relationships.

Higher independence and social withdrawal as remedies

In line with the above, many interviewees reported that their loneliness had been diminished
by reducing contact with, or dependency on others (e.g., through a better relationship with
themselves). Accordingly, solitude or solitary activity were relevant coping strategies both in
this and previous research (e.g., focusing on daily responsibilities or enjoyable leisure activities;
Rokach, 1990). However, previous literature mostly presents solitary involvement as prepara-
tion for eventually reaching out to others again, and social withdrawal sometimes even as mal-
adaptive reaction to loneliness (Cacioppo et al., 2015; Rokach, 1988, 1990). This is in contrast to
perceptions by many interviewees in this study. Although they acknowledged the importance of
strong social relationships, they perceived self-focused or solitary coping strategies as ultimately
more effective (see quote above).
Additionally, many interviewees perceived a reduction rather than the expansion, of their
social contacts or networks as a remedy for their loneliness. Specifically, they identified sorting
out their relationships as relevant coping strategy:

B6 (Bulgarian, female, 27): There was a point when I was very discouraged about my
environment and I constantly surrounded myself with new people. I tried one environ-
ment, I tried another, I was straight up, “scattering” myself. And I still didn't feel okay
with those people, I couldn't have a meaningful conversation, um… Until I started prac-
ticing “hygiene” towards the people close to me. […] And it's very important that a per-
son realizes this eventually and is not afraid of removing all the friends around them,
but keeps their closest ones. Like, now, years later, I have fewer friends, I see fewer fri-
ends, like, we're all busy, but, um… I know that we are very close and I feel very com-
fortable with them. I've never felt lonely with them.

Specifically, participants explained that social withdrawal or solitude could reduce the num-
ber of loneliness-eliciting interactions, allow to process loneliness-eliciting events, order one's
thoughts, reach more inner balance, obtain a better relationship with oneself, or prevent being
overwhelmed by additional stimulation from the outside:
HEU ET AL. 19

IN4 (Indian, female, 29): Being alone helps me. During that time, I cool down and
I won't take any tension. Suppose I was with others and talked about it—that
would remind me of it.

Regarding this paradoxical relation between loneliness and solitude, we additionally

observed some potential cultural differences: Solitude was perceived both as cause and remedy
for loneliness in all samples, but appeared to be perceived as remedy more often in more socially
embedded samples (and as cause slightly more often in less socially embedded samples). In line
with that, only in more socially embedded samples, loneliness was by some participants per-
ceived as strongly intertwined with wanting to be alone (in line with Cacioppo et al., 2015;
Rokach, 1990):

E9 (Egyptian, male, 25): You always feel that you want to be alone, uh… You don't
want to talk to anybody, you don't want to argue or discuss with anybody about
any topic.

IN4 (Indian, female, 29): I felt that I didn't need anybody: ‘I should live alone, I
should be alone’ – that's when it (loneliness) came to my mind.

4 | DISCUSSION

To examine whether the meaning of “loneliness” is similar across cultures with different levels
of social embeddedness, we compared selected conceptualizations of loneliness
(e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981; Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990) with loneliness experiences in in-
depth interviews from five countries with different levels of social embeddedness. We specifi-
cally examined lay definitions, perceived causes and remedies, which together define the phe-
nomenon of loneliness and are pivotal for the development of culture-sensitive interventions.
Across the board, we did not find fundamental qualitative differences: Individuals in all cul-
tures seemed to know loneliness and, for instance, experience it because of unsatisfying rela-
tionship quality, separations, or feeling different or misunderstood. This is reassuring with an
eye to the validity of previous cross-cultural findings about loneliness, and encouraging for
future research in the field.
Although we did not encounter aspects that were entirely novel to the literature (i.e., that
could not be fit into previous conceptualizations or taxonomies), we identified some aspects that
have been considered less in previous research literature: (a) That loneliness often emerges
despite generally fulfilling social relationships, and (b) that higher independence from others
(e.g., through a better relationship with oneself) and social withdrawal can be important reme-
dies for loneliness. Although not entirely new to the literature (e.g., Moustakas, 1972;
Rokach, 1989, 1990), the dominance of these themes was striking given the strong focus on
social relationships as loneliness cause or remedy in public opinion (e.g., Ortiz-Ospina &
Roser, 2020) and many interventions (e.g., Local Government Association, 2016). Furthermore,
we observed some potential cultural differences in particularly common aspects of loneliness
experiences (e.g., solitude as more common perceived remedy for loneliness in more socially
embedded cultures), and in the specific examples and situations within broader themes
(e.g., solitude as loneliness cause or remedy typically referred to temporarily withdrawing from
20 HEU ET AL.

others in a shared family home in more socially embedded cultures, but to living and spending
entire days alone in less socially embedded cultures). As such, our findings can also provide
concrete starting points for future research about loneliness and for a cultural psychology of
loneliness in particular.

4.1 | Implications for theorizing and research about culture and

loneliness

Our finding that conceptions of loneliness converged across samples and with multiple influen-
tial conceptualizations in the literature suggests that loneliness is comparable across cultures
with different levels of social embeddedness. This is encouraging for cross-cultural research
about loneliness, yet counter to the notion that such different cultures cause qualitative differ-
ences in the phenomenon itself. One explanation is that aspects of social embeddedness seemed
comparatively irrelevant for loneliness in our interviews: Social loneliness (i.e., feeling lonely
because of lacking relationships or social interaction) was rare, while most individuals reported
feeling lonely without being alone or even despite generally fulfilling social relationships
(in line with Moustakas, 1972). This suggests that most variation in loneliness stems from fac-
tors that can occur in both more and less socially embedded cultures (e.g., separations, insecu-
rities, relational or nonrelational problems).
Notably, an absence of fundamental qualitative differences, as observed in the current
research, does not rule out the possibility of quantitative cultural differences (e.g., different preva-
lence of certain causes or remedies). For instance, we observed that solitude seemed to more often
be viewed as remedy for loneliness in more socially embedded samples (and potentially more
often as cause in less socially embedded samples). Clearly, such differences need to be interpreted
with caution because of our small samples and convenience sampling—a robust interpretation
would require in-depth ethnological knowledge and quantitative research. Nevertheless, theoreti-
cally, a higher likelihood of solitude and social isolation in less embedded cultures (e.g., due to
the option of living alone or divorcing) may indeed make solitude a more common and salient
cause of loneliness (Heu et al., 2020). By contrast, in more socially embedded cultures, less free-
dom to choose one's relationships may more often bind individuals to unfulfilling (potentially
loneliness-eliciting) relationships (Heu et al., 2020; Kito, Yuki, & Thomson, 2017). As much as
social interaction may ease the loneliness of the socially isolated, solitude may ease the loneliness
of those whose relationships are unresponsive (e.g., unsupportive, less emotionally close). Solitude
may hence have a double role regarding loneliness across cultures, yet the frequency with which
it is cause or remedy may differ by level of social embeddedness.
Furthermore, such an absence of fundamental qualitative differences does not rule out that
abstract causes and remedies are manifested in different culture-specific situations or words.
For instance, solitude was more likely to refer to being in an apartment where one lived by one-
self in less socially embedded cultures versus to being alone in a room in an apartment that was
shared with family members in more socially embedded cultures. Although only the first may
count as solitude from a less socially embedded perspective, individuals in the latter situation
were in solitude relative to what they were used to.
Finally, we note that our observation of aspects that have been considered less in previous
literature partly overlaps with work by Moustakas (1972) on existential loneliness. This may be
rather unsurprising given that most current research is grounded in a cognitive perspective on
loneliness (i.e., loneliness as consequence of a perceived discrepancy between desired and
HEU ET AL. 21

actual social relationships; Johnson & Mullins, 1987; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). Unlike most
such current empirical work, theorizing about existential loneliness suggests that loneliness
often does not result from unsatisfying relationships with others. Instead, loneliness can emerge
in the face of life stressors and problems, a lack of purpose in life, or a poor relationship with
oneself. Given that these were prominent perceived loneliness causes across our samples, future
empirical research may need to consider types of loneliness that are unrelated to the quantity or
quality of an individual's social network.

4.2 | Practical implications

The convergence of loneliness experiences across cultural samples and literature suggests that effec-
tive interventions against loneliness that have been developed in less socially embedded cultures
may provide useful starting points for interventions in cultures of higher social embeddedness. Nev-
ertheless, differences in prevalence and concrete manifestations of abstract causes or remedies also
indicate that interventions may need culture-specific adjustments. For instance, across cultures,
loneliness emerged after separating from a partner. However, in more socially embedded cultures,
this usually referred to the end of a nonsexual, pre-marital connection or engagement, implying the
loss of a close emotional bond and/or the perspective of a shared future. By contrast, in less embed-
ded cultures, this typically referred to the end of quite committed partnerships, with significant
upheavals in the partners' lives (e.g., moving houses; losing shared social contacts) and a stronger
decrease in physical intimacy. Despite similar reasons for feeling lonely, individuals in these differ-
ent cultures may thus require quite different interventions.
Indeed, even within one culture, a one-size-fits-all intervention may be insufficient. Loneliness
emerged for highly diverse reasons and was resolved in very different ways within each sample
(in line with Rokach, 1988). As such, a remedy for some may exacerbate loneliness for others. For
instance, many interventions revolve around increased social interaction (e.g., telephone helplines
or community meals; Local Government Association, 2016). However, many chronically lonely
interviewees described feeling lonely even or particularly when surrounded by others. Such inter-
ventions may hence help those who feel lonely because of being isolated (e.g., elderly people), but
may even be counterproductive for others. This calls for loneliness interventions that address
loneliness causes rather than interventions that are targeted at the experience of loneliness itself.
Relatedly, our results suggest that, rather than increasing relational provisions only
(e.g., increasing social interaction, strengthening social networks), interventions may also aim
at decreases in demands from relationships (e.g., increasing comfort with occasional solitude;
increasing emotional independence). This is because, for one, relational needs that caused lone-
liness were often too specific or situation-bound to be fulfillable by a change to individuals'
social networks. Furthermore, particularly individuals with more chronic forms of loneliness
reported less loneliness after reducing their relational needs: They had focused on duties or
enjoyable activities, accepted loneliness as part of their lives, accepted occasional disharmonies
in relationships, or developed higher self-acceptance.

4.3 | Limitations and future directions

One limitation of this study is the use of convenience sampling. Most participants were rec-
ruited through collaborators' networks because this allowed us to access participants who might
22 HEU ET AL.

otherwise have been reluctant to be interviewed about a sensitive topic like loneliness. At the
same time, this may have reduced internal and external validity of our results: Participants
may, for instance, have been less willing to report experiences that concerned their relation
with the interviewer (e.g., friendship) or with a person that both were acquainted with. They
may also have been less likely to report feeling lonely because of social isolation than those
whom we did not reach. Certain topics, such as shame, social exclusion, or isolation may there-
fore be underrepresented in our data. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why we believe
that this limitation does not invalidate our conclusions.
For one, despite convenience sampling, we obtained samples with diverse loneliness experi-
ences (e.g., different frequency or longevity) and that differed on other relevant characteristics
(e.g., social isolation; marital status). Furthermore, the level of acquaintance with the inter-
viewer appeared to not importantly affect what was disclosed: For instance, even friends of
interviewers were not reluctant to tell if the lack of a close friend had caused their loneliness.
Finally, our results widely converged with findings in Canadian studies (Rokach, 1988, 1989,
1990), in which answers were written and hence more anonymized. Nevertheless, we encourage
future research to replicate our findings with exclusively purposive sampling, and no personal
relationship between interviewers and interviewees.
Another limitation of this study is that results were analyzed by the PI only (i.e., a single
rater with European background), and in English instead of the language of the interview.12
This was necessary because coding required extensive knowledge about the loneliness litera-
ture. To reduce the risk that conclusions reflect the PI's or a European perspective only, obser-
vations and conclusions were discussed with collaborators. No clear differences in
interpretations emerged. Furthermore, although translations may have resulted in the loss of
some cultural nuances (e.g., if the direct translation of a word had a different connotation than
in the original language), they should not have strongly affected the validity of our conclusions:
We were most interested in broad similarities and differences regarding loneliness definitions,
perceived causes, and remedies. Nevertheless, to explore more fine-grained differences (e.g., for
questionnaire development), data in future research may be analyzed in the language of the
interview and by coders from different research contexts.
It is also important to note what the results of this study cannot offer. For one, they do not
allow for conclusions about actual loneliness causes or remedies. Causes and remedies that are
perceived by lay people help to understand whether “loneliness” describes a similar experience
across cultures, but not necessarily what actually causes or resolves it. Second, our findings do
not allow for conclusions about the prevalence of (perceived) causes or remedies in different cul-
tures (e.g., Rokach & Bacanli, 2001; Rokach et al., 2000, 2001). Due to the qualitative design of
this study, we could, thus far, only observe tendencies regarding frequency or relevance of
aspects of the loneliness experience. We hence recommend to conduct longitudinal and quanti-
tative studies in the future (e.g., based on taxonomies derived from this qualitative data; see
Figures 2–3 and codebook) to (a) better understand actual causes and remedies, and (b) to com-
pare the prevalence of loneliness causes or remedies across different cultures.
Finally, our finding that there were no fundamental qualitative differences in loneliness
experiences in this set of samples does not imply that there are no such cross-cultural differences
at all. For instance, it is possible that cultures that differ on other dimensions than social
embeddedness may reveal unique loneliness definitions, causes or remedies. Nevertheless, the
finding that culturally very different samples (like those in the current study) share a similar
notion of loneliness strongly suggests that loneliness may describe similar experiences across
many cultures (e.g., in line with Cacioppo et al., 2013).
HEU ET AL. 23

4.4 | Conclusion

In-depth interviews from five countries suggest that the meaning of the word “loneliness” and
the experiences it describes may be similar across cultures with different levels of social
embeddedness. More specifically, selected influential conceptualizations in the literature
seemed to quite accurately describe loneliness experiences across both less and more socially
embedded cultures: Definitions, causes, and remedies generally converged with those reported
by lay people from cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. Although we did not
encounter aspects that seemed entirely novel to this literature, we identified aspects that have
been considered less: that loneliness frequently emerges despite fulfilling social relationships or
that social withdrawal and higher independence (rather than more social contact) may be
important remedies. We also identified potential cultural differences in relevance and specific
manifestations of certain aspects (e.g., solitude typically meant temporarily withdrawing from
others in more embedded cultures and seemed to be a more common remedy than in less
embedded cultures, where it often referred to living and spending days alone). In sum, findings
from our rich interview data provide a first indication that loneliness may validly be examined
across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness. As such, they pave the way for
future cross-cultural research on loneliness, and suggest that influential conceptualizations in
the loneliness literature may provide useful starting points to decrease loneliness across the
globe.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

As part of IARR's encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the fol-
lowing information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are
available. The data can be obtained by emailing the corresponding author: luzia.heu@gmail.
com. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by
emailing the corresponding author: [email protected].

E N D N O T ES
1
The current literature on loneliness is extensive, which is why we mostly compare to a selection of conceptual-
izations or taxonomies that (a) seemed particularly influential for empirical research and/or subsequent theo-
rizing, and that (b) are comparatively comprehensive (i.e., that summarize multiple different facets of
loneliness, causes, or remedies).
2
Notably, cultural characteristics can strongly vary within, as well as transcend, country borders. Individual-
ism, relational stability (Heu, Hansen, & van Zomeren, 2019), restrictiveness (Heu et al., 2020), or social
embeddedness should hence, on average, be higher or lower in a country, but levels can differ considerably
between different cultural groups within that country (e.g., between more rural and more urban communities,
communities with different political orientations, different age groups, or even different families).
3
We do not intend to equate culture (i.e., shared ideas such as norms, beliefs, or values; Chiu et al., 2010) with
country (i.e., one “container” of culture or one type of cultural unit). However, since most cross-cultural
research has used countries as proxies for different cultures, we use both terms to describe study results. Spe-
cifically, to refer to specific study results, we write country and, to describe interpretations thereof, we write
culture.
4
We thus compare lay people's reports about their loneliness experiences to scholars' conceptualizations of lone-
liness. Notably, lay people's conceptions of loneliness, as well as what they perceive as causes and remedies
can deviate from scholarly definitions, and empirically validated causes or remedies. However, since the sub-
jective experience of loneliness can most directly be accessed through self-report, lay people's reports usually
provide the basis for scholarly work (e.g., Rokach, 1988, 1989, 1990). As such, taxonomies that are based on
24 HEU ET AL.

lay people's reports often overlap with those that are derived more theoretically or even empirically
(e.g., Perlman & Peplau, 1981 and Rokach, 1989 for loneliness causes).
5
These countries also differ in terms of wealth and education level: While the gross domestic product/capita in
2017 was $59,111 in Austria and $42,194 in Israel, it was $24,561 in Bulgaria, and only $12,250 in Egypt and
$7,034 in India (World Bank Data, 2017). Furthermore, the share of adolescents who were enrolled in second-
ary school was estimated to be 99% in Israel, 89% in Bulgaria and 87% Austria (2017), 83% in Egypt (2018),
and 62% in India (2013).
6
Notably, no recent data about multigeneration households or extended family households was available for
Austria, Bulgaria, or Israel. We speculate that these household forms occur too infrequently to be of statistical
relevance in these countries—which would confirm their relatively lower level of social embeddedness.
7
We report results in line with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ; Tong,
Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007).
8
Interviews were video-recorded (instead of being audio-recorded only) because this research was combined
with a film project about loneliness experiences. Participants could, however, opt out of the film project and
have their interviews audio-recorded only.
9
Interview length varied considerably between participants (e.g., depending on personal relevance of loneli-
ness; response styles) and countries. For instance, Egyptian interviewees tended to provide brief answers,
while Bulgarian interviewees often embedded their answers in longer narratives. Additionally, the PI probed
more in later interviews (e.g., in the Israeli or Indian samples) to deepen and broaden the information that
had already been gained from the other interviews.
10
This does not mean that every theme that was mentioned in previous work was also mentioned in the current
interviews. However, the broader categories of perceived causes and remedies converged.
11
Issues with oneself were coded as part of loneliness definitions if reported in response to how interviewees
would explain what loneliness is, and as loneliness cause if they were reported in response to what inter-
viewees believed had made them lonely (or if they implicitly described such issues as cause of their loneliness
experience).
12
Four interviews in the Indian sample were conducted in English and hence analyzed in their original lan-
guage. Furthermore, even though—for higher consistency—Austrian interviews were also analyzed in
English, the PI was aware of the original meaning in German.

R EF E RE N C E S
Anderson, C. A. (1999). Attributional style, depression, and loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison of American
and Chinese students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167299025004007
Barreto, M., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2020). Loneliness around the
world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 169,
110066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066
Beck, A. T., & Young, J. E. (1978). College blues. Psychology Today, 12(4), 80–95.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Buecker, S., Maes, M., Denissen, J. J., & Luhmann, M. (2020). Loneliness and the big five personality traits: A
meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2229
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., & Boomsma, D. I. (2013). Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cognition &
Emotion, 28(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.837379
Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., & Thisted, R. A. (2010). Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-
lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago health, aging, and social rela-
tions study. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017216
Cacioppo, S., Grippo, A. J., London, S., Goossens, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2015). Loneliness: Clinical import and inter-
ventions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615570616
HEU ET AL. 25

Chiu, C. Y., Gelfand, M. J., Yamagishi, T., Shteynberg, G., & Wan, C. (2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of
intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 482–493.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375562
De Jong Gierveld, J., Keating, N., & Fast, J. E. (2015). Determinants of loneliness among older adults in Canada.
Canadian Journal on Aging, 34(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980815000070
De Jong Gierveld, J., & Raadschelders, J. (1982). Types of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneli-
ness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 105–119). Wiley-Interscience.
De Jong Gierveld, J., Van Tilburg, T., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Loneliness and social isolation. In D. Perlman &
A. Vangelisti (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 485–500). Cambridge University
Press.
Deckx, L., van den Akker, M., Buntinx, F., & van Driel, M. (2018). A systematic literature review on the associa-
tion between loneliness and coping strategies. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 23(8), 899–916. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13548506.2018.1446096
Fokkema, T., De Jong Gierveld, J., & Dykstra, P. A. (2012). Cross-national differences in older adult loneliness.
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 146(1–2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.
2011.631612
Hawkley, L. C., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Masi, C. M., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). From social
structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: The Chicago health, aging, and social
relations study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(6),
S375–S384. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/63.6.S375
Hays, R. D., & DiMatteo, M. R. (1987). A short-form measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51
(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sci-
ences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Heravi-Karimooi, M., Anoosheh, M., Foroughan, M., Sheykhi, M. T., & Hajizadeh, E. (2010). Understanding
loneliness in the lived experiences of Iranian elders. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(2),
274–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2009.00717.x
Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N. (2019). Lonely alone or lonely together? A cultural-psychological
examination of individualism-collectivism and loneliness in five European countries. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 45(5), 780–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218796793
Heu, L. C., Hansen, N., & van Zomeren, M. (2019). Resolving the cultural loneliness paradox of choice: The role
of cultural norms about individual choice regarding relationships in explaining loneliness in four European
countries.
Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., Hansen, N. (2020). Does loneliness thrive in relational freedom or restriction? The
culture-loneliness framework. Review of General Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1089268020959033
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.).
McGraw-Hill.
Hossain, M., Purohit, N., Khan, N., McKyer, E. L. J., Ma, P., Bhattacharya, S., & Pawar, P. (2020). Prevalence and
correlates of loneliness in India: A systematic review. SocArXiv Papers. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/x4ctz
Johnson, D. P., & Mullins, L. C. (1987). Growing old and lonely in different societies: Toward a comparative per-
spective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 2(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160684
Jylhä, M., & Jokela, J. (1990). Individual experiences as cultural—A cross-cultural study on loneliness among the
elderly. Ageing & Society, 10(3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X00008308
Kharicha, K., Manthorpe, J., Iliffe, S., Davies, N., & Walters, K. (2018). Strategies employed by older people to
manage loneliness: Systematic review of qualitative studies and model development. International Psycho-
geriatrics, 30(12), 1767–1781. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610218000339
Kito, M., Yuki, M., & Thomson, R. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological
approach to explain cross-cultural differences. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.
1111/pere.12174
Local Government Association. (2016). Combating loneliness. A guide for local authorities. Author. Retrieved from
https://democracy.kent.gov.uk/documents/s86113/Combating%20Loneliness%20A%20Guide%20for%20Local
%20Authorities%20-%20LGA.pdf
26 HEU ET AL.

Luhmann, M., & Hawkley, L. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age.
Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000117
Lykes, V. A., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic
and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(3), 468–490. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022022113509881
Matthews, T., Danese, A., Wertz, J., Odgers, C. L., Ambler, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2016). Social isola-
tion, loneliness and depression in young adulthood: A behavioural genetic analysis. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1178-7
Mijuskovic, B. (1977). Loneliness: An interdisciplinary approach. Psychiatry, 40(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00332747.1977.11023926
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). An attachment perspective on loneliness. In R. J. Coplan & J. C. Bowker
(Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being
alone (pp. 34–50). Wiley Blackwell.
Moustakas, C. E. (1972). Loneliness and love. Prentice Hall.
Norwegian Centre for Research Data. (2012). ESS round 6: European social survey round 6 data (Data file edition
2.4. NSD). doi:https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS6-2012
Norwegian Centre for Research Data. (2014). ESS round 7: European social survey round 7 data (Data file edition
2.2. NSD). doi:https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS7-2014
Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Roser, M. (2020, February). Loneliness and social connections. Retrieved from https://
ourworldindata.org/social-connections-and-loneliness
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.),
Personal relationships: 3. Relationships in disorder (pp. 31–56). Academic Press.
Rajesh, T., & Rangaiah, B. (2019). The influence of personality traits among ordinary, problematic and addicted
Facebook users. A study on university students in India. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kymsq
Rokach, A. (1988). The experience of loneliness: A tri-level model. The Journal of Psychology, 122(6), 531–544.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1988.9915528
Rokach, A. (1989). Antecedents of loneliness: A factorial analysis. The Journal of Psychology, 123(4), 369–384.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1989.10542992
Rokach, A. (1990). Surviving and coping with loneliness. The Journal of Psychology, 124(1), 39–54. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00223980.1990.10543204
Rokach, A., & Bacanli, H. (2001). Perceived causes of loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, 29(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.2.145
Rokach, A., Bacanli, H., & Ramberan, G. (2000). Coping with loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison. European
Psychologist, 5(4), 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.5.4.302
Rokach, A., Orzeck, T., Cripps, J., Lackovic-Grgin, K., & Penezic, Z. (2001). The effects of culture on the meaning
of loneliness. Social Indicators Research, 53(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007183101458
Rokach, A., & Sharma, M. (1996). The loneliness experience in a cultural context. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 11(4), 827–839.
Schoenmakers, E. C., van Tilburg, T. G., & Fokkema, T. (2012). Coping with loneliness: What do older adults
suggest? Aging & Mental Health, 16(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.630373
Swader, C. S. (2018). Loneliness in Europe: Personal and societal individualism-collectivism and their connection
to social isolation. Social Forces, 97(3), 1307–1336. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy088
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A
32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6),
349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. New York, NY: Westview Press.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). Household size and
composition around the world 2017—Data booklet (ST/ESA/SER.A/405). Retrieved from https://www.un.
org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/household_size_and_composition_around_
the_world_2017_data_booklet.pdf
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019). Database on household
size and composition 2019. Retrieved from https://population.un.org/Household/index.html#/countries/356
HEU ET AL. 27

Van der Geest, S. (2004). “They don't come to listen”: The experience of loneliness among older people in
Kwahu, Ghana. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 19(2), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCCG.
0000027846.67305.f0
VanderWeele, T. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). On the reciprocal association between loneliness
and subjective well-being. American Journal of Epidemiology, 176(9), 777–784. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/
kws173
Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. The MIT Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others: Joining, molding,
conforming, helping, loving (pp. 17–26). Prentice Hall.
World Bank Data. (2017). World development indicators. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Heu LC, Hansen N, van Zomeren M, et al. Loneliness across
cultures with different levels of social embeddedness: A qualitative study. Pers
Relationship. 2021;1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12367