CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Cultural Differences and ValuesHealth disparities and outcomesDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Does loneliness thrive in relational freedom or restriction? The culture-loneliness framework

Open access
Heu, Luzia Cassis, van Zomeren, Martijn, Hansen, Nina·2021·Review of General Psychology
DOI 10.1177/1089268020959033
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Loneliness is a common experience with major negative consequences for well-being. Although much research has examined protective and risk factors for loneliness, we know little about its cultural underpinnings. The few studies that exist seem paradoxical, suggesting that loneliness is higher in cultures where tighter and more demanding (i.e., more restrictive) cultural norms about social relationships decrease the risk of social isolation. At the same time, loneliness is lower among individuals who hold more restrictive norms or perceive such norms among others around them. We move beyond previous research by generating the culture-loneliness framework, suggesting that loneliness occurs across all levels of restrictiveness, but through different predominant types of isolation. More restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships may better protect from physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships) but increase the likelihood of emotional and perceived isolation (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships or relationships that do not fulfill cultural ideals). We evaluate this framework by reviewing research at both the individual and the cultural levels, and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1089268020959033

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Differences in correlates of loneliness may be expected in India because of collectivism, the family system, and more restrictive norms about social relationships.

    “Despite most studies on loneliness among the oldest-old in Western or high-income countries, much less is known about loneliness among the oldest-old in India, a country where collectivism, the family system, and more restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships are emphasized, differences in correlates of loneliness may be expected [2,12,21,33].”

    From Factors associated with loneliness in a national study among persons 80 years and older in India in 2017-2018 (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (2005). Culture and relationships: The downside of self-contained individualism. In R. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Culture and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 10, pp. 77-94).
  2. Hendrix, M. (2018, March 29). Lonely America. National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/ lonely-america/
  3. Heu, L. C. (2020). Resolving the cultural loneliness paradox of choice (Doctoral dissertation). University of Groningen, Netherlands.
  4. Kiefer, C. W. (1980). Loneliness and Japanese social structure. In J. Hartog, J. R. Audy, & Y. A. Cohen (Eds.), The anatomy of loneliness (pp. 425-450). International Universities Press.
  5. Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A criti- cal review of concepts and definitions. Papers. Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University, 47(1), viii, 223.
  6. Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a social psychol- ogy of loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal relationships: Vol. 3. Relationships in disorder (pp. 31-56). Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Heu, Luzia Cassis
ORCID
Venue
Review of General Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-09-24
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
60-72
ISSN
  • 1089-2680 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1552
DOI
10.1177/1089268020959033
OpenAlex
W3089053350
Cited by
64
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
7.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Review of General Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
loneliness, relational freedom, physical isolation, emotional isolation, perceived isolation, social isolation, well-being

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review