loneliness scale

7/30/2019 Loneliness Scale

1/9

Journa l of Personality an d Social Psychology1980, Vol . 39, No. 3, 472-480

The Revised U CLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent andDiscriminant Validity EvidenceDan RussellUnivers i ty of Iowa

Letitia A. Peplau and Carolyn E. CutronaUniversity of California , Los Angeles

The development of an a d e q u a t e assessment instrument is a necessary pre-requisite fo r social psychological resea rch on lone l ine ss . Two studies providemethodo log ica l r e f inemen t i n t h e m e a su r e m e n t o f lonel iness . Study 1 presents arevised version of the se lf- repor t UCLA (University o f Cal i fo rn ia , Los Angeles)Loneliness Scale , des igned to c o u n t e r th e possible effec t s o f response bias in theor iginal scale, an d reports co n cu r r e n t va l id i ty ev idence fo r the revised measure.Study 2 demonstrates that although loneliness is correlated with measures ofnegative a f f ec t , social risk t ak ing , and aff i l ia t ive t endenc ie s , i t is nonetheless adistinct psychological exper ience .

Socia l re la t ions hips a re a t the core of hu-man l i f e . N ot su rp r i s ing ly , p rob lema t i c as -pec ts of re la t ionships have been a majorfocus of psychological research. Psych ologistshave unde r t aken careful analyses of aggres-s ion, compe t i t ion , c rowding, and o ther nega-tive factors in social rela t ions. Some problemsof soc ia l re la t ions have, however , been empha-sized to the neglect of othe rs. Rese archershave inves t iga ted ins tances where there a re" too many" people , and individua ls feel sub-jec t ively "crowded" (e .g . , Freedman, 197 5 ;Stokols , 1 9 7 2 ) . However , l i t t l e a t ten t ion hasbeen g iven to the other end of the c o n t i n u u mwh e r e social rela t ionships are "too few," andpeople feel sub jec t ive ly "lonely."

The i mp o r t a n c e of research on lonel inessl ies not on ly in its po ten t i a l fo r shedding l igh ton basic aspects of soc ia l re la t ions but also in

The au t h o r s w o u ld l i k e t o t hank Rob in Lewis ,J e f f T an ak a , D e b b i e M cG r e w , an d Phi l l ip Malamuthfo r the i r he lp in col lect ing the data fo r Study 1;W a r r e n H . Jones fo r prov id ing sub jec t s f r om t h eUnivers i ty o f Tulsa fo r Study 2 ; and Richard R .Lau for his comment s on the m an u s c r i p t and helpwi th data analysis .Requests fo r repr in t s should be s en t t o Dan Rus-sell, Div i s ion of Educat ional Psychology , Measure-ment , and Stat is t ics , College of Educat ion, Univers i tyo f I o w a , Iowa City , Iowa S2242.

th e fac t t h a t lonel iness is a common and dis-t ress ing problem for many people . In onena t i ona l su r vey (B r a d b u rn , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 6 % ofAmer i cans r epo r t ed hav ing fe l t "very lonelyor remote from other people" during the pastfew weeks. Loneliness has been l inked to av a r i e t y o f other ser ious individua l and socialproblems, inc ludin g a lcoholism (Nerv iano &Gross , 1 9 7 6 ) , adolescent del inquent behavior( B r e n n a n & Au s l a n d e r , N ot e 1 ) , suicide( Jacobs , 1971 ; W enz , 1 97 7) , and phys ica lillness and overu t i l iza t ion of hea l th care ser-vices (Lyn c h , 1 9 76 ) .Empirical research on loneliness has beenh a mp e r ed by a var ie ty of problems (see re-v i ews by Pep lau & Per lman , 1979 ; Peplau ,Russe l l , & H e i m, 1 9 78 ) . A major h ind ranceis tha t lonel iness , unl ike aggress ion, compet i -t ion , and cro w ding , cann ot be readily manipu-l a ted by r e sea rcher s . Thus, th e crucial taskf o r i nves t iga to r s is not the d eve l o p men t of ane xpe r i me n t a l paradig m to produce lonel inessin d i f f e r i n g degrees under contro l led condi-t i on s bu t r a t h e r the deve lopmen t o f i n s t r u -me n t s to detec t var ia t ions in lonel iness tha toccu r in eve ryday l i fe .O ur research on loneliness led in i t i a l l y tothe d eve l o p men t o f a 20- i tem, se l f - repor t mea-sure , the UCLA (Unive r s i t y o f Cal i fo rn ia ,Los Angeles) Lonel iness Scale (Russel l , Pep-

Copyr igh t 1980 by the Amer ica n Psycho log ica l Assoc ia t ion, Tnc . 002 2-35 14/8 0 /3 903 -0472 $00 .75472


2/9

TH E REV ISED UC LA LONELINESS SCALE 473lau, & Ferguson, 1978). In studies usingcollege samples, the scale showed high internalconsistency (coefficient alpha of . 96 ) . Con-cu r r e n t va l id i ty was indica ted by re la t ion-ships between scores on the loneliness scaleand other indica tors of loneliness, social rela-t ionships, and affective states.Research by severa l o ther inves t iga tors hasalso suppor ted the adequacy of the UCLALone l iness Scale as a measure and has begunto provide a more detailed description of theexper ience of loneliness. Loneliness is relatedto a n u m b e r of personal characterist ics, in -c luding lo w self-esteem, shyness, feelings ofa l iena t ion , ex te rna l locus of contro l , and belieft h a t the world i s not a ju st place (Jones,F r e emo n , & Goswick, in press) . Lonely s tu-dents repor t exper ienc ing problems of inhib-i ted soc iabi l i ty (Horowitz & French, 1979)and, in dyadic in terac t ions , ra te bo th them-selves and thei r par tners more nega t ivelythan do nonlonely s tudents (Jones e t al., inp r e s s ) . Amon g both s tudents and o lder adul t s ,loneliness is l inked to nega t ive affects , inc lud-in g bore dom, res tlessness , and unhappiness ,and to dissa t i sfac t ion w i th soc ia l re la t ionships(Per lman , Ger son , & Spinner , 1978; Russel let al., 1978).Although the UCLA Loneliness Scale is areasonably adequate measure, several poten-t ia l problems with the scale are apparent .First, all items on the scale are worded in thesame direc t ion , wi th h igh scores ref lectingfeelings of social dissatisfaction. Any sys-tema tic response bias tow ard high or lowscores, irrespective of item content, wouldin f luence th e total scale score. A second po-tential problem concerns the discriminantva l id i ty of the scale. Substantial correlat ions(ranging from .4 to .5 ) have been foundbe tween loneliness scores and the Beck D e-pression Inventory (Bragg, 1979) and theCoopersmi th measure of self-esteem (Jonese t al., in p r e s s ) . Conceptua l ly , it is reasonablethat loneline ss migh t co-occur w ith depres-sion and low self-es teem, and such findingssupport the validity of the UCLA LonelinessScale. At the same time, however, these find-ings indicate a need to demonstrate the dis-c r iminan t validity of the scale by showingthat loneliness is distinct from related con-

structs. A final concern is the potential con-found ing of loneliness scores with social de -sirability. Since there is a social stigmaa t tached to lonel iness (Gordon, 1976) , indi-viduals who wan t to appear in a positive lightmigh t under repo r t t he i r exper i ence of loneli-ness.The two s tudies repor ted here address thesepoten t ia l problems wi th the original UCLALonel iness Scale and provide clarification con-cern ing the nature of loneliness. In the firsts t udy , a revised vers ion of the UCLA Lone-liness Scale is developed, incorporating newposi t ively worded i tems. The c oncu rren t va l id-ity of the revised scale is established by relat-in g loneliness scores to the experience of af-fec t s that have been l inked both empirically(Rus se l l e t al . , 1978) and theoretically(We i s s , 1973) to loneliness. A second studyprovides a f u r t h e r test of the concurren t va l id-i ty of the revised scale by examining re la t ion-ships between lonel iness and soc ia l behavior .In add i t ion , S tudy 2 addresses the discrimi-nan t va l id i ty of the revised scale by demon-s t ra t ing tha t lonel iness scores a re dist inctf rom measures of social desirability, socialr i sk tak ing , nega t ive emot iona l states, andaffiliative mot iva t ion .

Study 1The first s tudy had several goals. First, itw as designed to revise th e UCLA LonelinessScale by inco rpor a t ing new, posi tive ly wordedi tems. The internal consistency of this revisedmeasure w as assessed, and the correlation

between scores on the original and the revisedscale was ca lcula ted . Finally, the concur ren tvalidity of the revised loneliness scale w asinves t iga ted .Method

The 162 s tuden t s (6 4 males and 98 females) whovoluntar i ly par t i c ipa t ed in Study 1 were al l testedin the spring of the i r first y e a r at UCLA. Theycompleted an extensive ques t ionnaire ; per t inen t tothis research were th e measures of loneliness an demot ional states.Loneliness measures. Th e original UCLA Lone-liness Scale (Russell et al., 1978) was given, fol-lowed by 19 new i tems wr i t ten by the authors .These new i tems measured satisfaction with socialrelat ionships an d represen ted, as near ly as possible,opposite wordings of the original scale items.


3/9

474 D. RUSSELL, L. PEPLAU, AND C. CUTRONAA second set of measures assessed explicit self-labels of lonel iness . Examples of such ques t ions ar e"Dur i ng y ou r l i f e t ime , ho w o f t en h a v e y ou feltl o n e l y ? " an d "Dur ing th e past tw o weeks , h owlone ly hav e y ou f e l t ? " S ix such ques t ions were

asked, all involving the student identifying himselfor he r se l f as lone ly . Responses to each of these sixquest ions were summed to form a s ingle self- label-in g of lonel iness index (coefficient a l pha = .78 ) .Emotional state. Th e ques t i onna i r e con t a i n edthree mood measures assess ing anxiety and de pr e s -s ion . Th e Beck Depress ion Inven tory ( B D I ; Beck ,1967) consists of 21 symp toms or a t t i tudes charac-t e r i s t ic of cl inical depression. Each i tem has severa la l t e r na t i v e s descr ib ing mani fes ta t ions of each symp-tom tha t v ary in in te ns i t y . Scor ing on each i t emranges f r o m 0 to 3, depending on the sever i ty ofthe symptom mani fes ta t ion that is selected by re -sponden t s as being se l f -descr ip t ive . The BDI wasf ound to be quite reliable with clinical popula t ions ,wi t h a Spea rman- B rown sp l i t - h a l f coefficient of .93being repor ted. Val idi ty fo r t h e measure has beenind ica t ed by re la t ing BD I scores to cl inical j udg -m e n t s of the s ev e r i t y of depress ion : Corre la t ions of.65 and .67 were f o u n d in two studies. The BDI hasalso been shown to assess val idly th e sever i ty ofdepress ion in co ll ege popula t ions (Bu mbe rry , Ol iver ,& McClure , 1978) .The Cos te l lo-Comrey Depress ion and Anxie tyscales w er e also adminis tere d (Costello & C o m r e y ,1 9 6 7 ) . To develop these scales , a variety of factoranalyt ic studies were conducted with both no rma land cl inical popu lat ions. The go al of these analyseswas the con s t ruc t i on o f fac to r ia l ly " p u r e " anxie tyand depression scales , which minimized the inter-cor re la t ion of the two measures ; t he f ina l anxie tyand depression scales were found to correlate .40fo r males and .50 for females. Validi ty for the twoscales has been indica ted by re la t ionsh ips wi thclinica l diagnoses and other measures of anxiety anddepression. Split-half reliabilities of .90 for the de-pression scale (1 4 i tems) and .70 for the anxietyscale (9 i t ems) have been repor ted.

In addition to these mood measures , s tuden ts alsor a t ed on 9-point scales th e intensi ty of t h e i r cu r r en texper ience of 25 emot ions . These inc luded such af-fec ts as bored, empty , hopeles s , and sat isfied, alongw i t h a set of affects bel ieved to be unrelated toloneliness, such as resigned, embarrassed, and con-fident.

ResultsData analyses had two goals : to deve lop arevised loneliness scale and to assess the con-cur ren t va l id i ty of the revi sed scale.Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Prior todata analysis , i t was decided that t h e new

scale should consist of 20 items, half reflectingsat isfact ion with social re lat ionships and halfreflect ing dissat isfact ion. Accordingly, 10 ofthe new posi t ively worded i tems were se lected

for the final scale, along with 10 of the origi-na l nega t i ve l y worded i t ems . The cr i t e r ion fo rselecting these i tems w as their correlation withthe se l f - l abel ing lone l iness index . The 10 posi -t ive ly worded and 10 negat ively worded i temst h a t had the h ighe s t co r r e l a t i ons ( a l l g r e a t e rt h a n .40 in magn i t ude ) wi t h th e self-label ingindex were se lec ted for the f inal i n s t r u m e n t .The revi sed UCLA Lonel iness Scale i tems andscoring fo rma t a re given in Table 1 . N o t et h a t th e or ig ina l and new i t ems are r andomlyi n t e r m i x e d in the revised scale .1The in te rna l cons i s t ency of the revisedmeasu re was h igh (coeff icient a lpha of .94)and compar ed f avo r ab l y wi t h the alpha co -e f f i c i e n t of .96 ob t a i ned for the original scale .The co r r e l a t i on be tween th e revi sed andor ig ina l scales for the present sample was .91.

Tests for sex differences were also con-du c t e d , c o m p a r i n g the scores of male andfemale s tudent s on the revi sed measure . As igni f i can t s e x difference w as f o u n d , ( 1 5 7 )= 3 .20 , p < .001, wi th men scor ing signifi-can t l y l one l i e r t han women (Ms = 36.23 an d31 .12, r e spec t i ve l y ) . - Howeve r , i nc l ud ing se x

1 From the c u r r e n t d a t a , w e have also developeda 4-item s u r v e y v e r s i o n of the UCLA Lonel inessScale, consisting of two positively worded and twonega t ive ly worded i t ems . Us ing op t imal subse t re -gression p r o c e d u r e s , the se t of f o u r i tems that bes tpredicted scores on the self- label ing lonel iness indexw e r e se lec ted. The i t ems chosen were Numbers 1 ,13 , 15, and 18 f rom Table 1. This four- i t em lone-liness scale had a coefficient alpha of .75 in thec u r r e n t s t u d y . W e r e comme nd t ha t i nv e s t ig a t o r s w h ow a n t a sho r t ened v e r s i on of the lonel iness scale useth ese f o u r i t ems . No rma t i v e da t a and a bib l iographyof research us ing bo th vers ions of the scale are alsobeing compi led by the au thors . Inves t iga tors us ingthe measures a re urged to send us summary dataf rom t h e i r samples as wel l as a br i e f descript ion oft h e i r research and f indings .2 Since prev ious research has no t indica ted anysex differences in lonel iness , this resul t suggests apossible sampling bias. The participants in Study 1w e r e or ig inal ly t es t ed in the f a l l of the i r f irst y e a r a tUC LA, an d r e t u r n i n g versus n o n r c t u r n i n g s tuden t swere compared on t h e i r lonel iness scores f rom thisea r l ie r t e s t ing . N o s ign i f i can t differences were fo u n dfo r women. In con t ras t , men who re tu rned for re-t es t ing were lone l i e r t h a n n o n r e t u r n i n g men , 2(143)= 2.45, p < .02, which could have crea ted the ob-se rved sex differences. B ecau s e of this possible sam-pl ing bias , da ta f r o m t h e pa r t i c i p an t s in Study 1w e r e not inc luded in the normat ive s ta t i s t i cs p re-s en t ed in Table 2.


4/9

TH E R E V I S E D U C L A L O N E L I N E S S S C A L E 475Table 1The Revised UCLA Loneliness ScaleD i r e c t i o n s : I n d i c a t e h ow o f t e n y ou feel t h e way desc r i bed in each of the f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . Circ le o n en u m b e r fo r each . S t a t e m e n t

1 . I fee l in t u n e w i t h t h e p e o p le a r o u n d me"2. I l a c k c o m p a n i o n s h i p3 . There i s no one I can tu rn to4. I do not feel alone"5. I fee l p a r t of a g r o u p of f r i e n d s "6. I have a lot in common w i th th e people a r o u n d me "7. I am no longer c lose to a n y o n e8. My interests and ideas are not shared by thosea r o u n d m e9. I am an ou tgo ing person"10. T h e r e arc people I fee l close to"11. I feel left out12. My soc ia l r e l a t i on sh ip s a rc supe r f i c i a l13 . No one r ea l l y knows me well14. I feel i so la ted f rom o t h e r s15. I can find c o m p a n i o n s h i p w h e n I w a n t it "16 . T h e r e a r e p e o p l e w h o r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d m e "17 . I am u n h a p p y b e i n g so w i t h d r a w n18 . People a r e a r o u n d me b u t n o t w i t h me19. There arc people I can t a l k to"20 . There are people I can t u r n to "

N e v e r R a r e l y S o m e t i m e s O f t e n1 21 21 21 21 221 21 22

22222222222

33333333333333333333

Note. The total score is the sum of all 20 i t ems." I t em shou ld be r eve r s ed ( i .e . , 1 = 4, 2 = 3, 3 = 2, 4 = 1) before s co r ing .as a var iable in the analyses indicated thatsex did not media t e any of the f indings .

Loneliness and emotional state. To assessthe concur r en t va l id i t y of the revised scale,th e re la t ionship of lonel iness scores to mea-sures of emotional states w as examined. Lone-l iness scores were s ignificantly correlatedwi th scores on the Beck Depress ion Inventory(r .62) and with th e Costello-ComreyAnxi e t y (r . 32 ) and Depression (r = . 5 5 )scales . Lon eliness scores were also sig nificantlycorrelated (all r s , above .40) with feelingabandoned, depressed, e m p t y , hopeless, iso-lated, and self-enclosed and with not feel ingsociable or sat isfied. Loneliness scores wereno t s ignif icant ly corre la ted wi th such concep-tua l l y unre l a t ed affects as feel ing crea t ive ,embarrassed, sens i t ive , surp r i sed, or t hough t -f u l .

Study 2Having obta ined ev idence concerning th epsychometr ic propert ies and concurrent valid-i ty of the revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, w e

u n d e r t o o k a second study to inves t iga te i s suesof val idi ty in greate r de ta i l . The goal of S tudy2 was to demons t ra te that loneliness, as mea-su red by the revised scale, is discriminablef r om me as u r e s of other , conceptual ly re la tedcons t ruct s such as depression, lack of affili-at ive mot iv a t ion , and low socia l r i sk taking.S tudy 2 also repl icated th e in te rnal cons i s -tency analyses reported in Study 1 with anew sample and provided addi t ional tests ofco n cu r r e n t val idi ty .Met/tod

To inc rea se th e genera l i t y of the f indings, abroader sample of college students w as recrui ted.O ne t h i r d of th e s t u d e n t s w e r e enrol led in i n t r o -ductory psychology classes at the Universi ty ofTulsa , one th i rd were enrol led in in t roduc tory psy-chology classes at UCLA, and the remaining stu-den t s were d rawn from upper d iv i s ion psychologyclasses a t UCLA. AH studen ts receive d part ia l coursecredi t fo r t he i r pa r t i c i pa t i on . Th e total sample of237 s tudents (107 males and 130 females) each com-p l e ted a ques t i on na i r e con t a in ing the followingmater ia l s , wi th the order of the materials randomlyvar ied .


5/9

476 D. RUSSELL, L . PEPLAU, A N D C . CUTRONALoneliness measures. The original UCLA Loneli-ness Scale was administered, along with the 10posi t ively worded i tems included in the revisedscale . Th e self- label ing lonel iness quest ions fromS t u d y 1 were also given, and a self-labeling loneli-

ness i ndex w as again crea ted by summing the re-sponses to these s ix i tems (coeff ic ient alpha . 7 2 ) .Social activities and relationships. Studen ts wereasked ho w f r equen t l y they had engaged in a v a r i e t yof soli tary activities (e.g., ea ten dinner alone) andsocial act iv i t i es (e .g . , done someth ing wi th a f r i end)dur ing the p rev i ou s 2 weeks . Studen ts a l so indica tedhow many c lose f r i ends they had and the na ture oft he i r cu r r en t da t i ng o r mar i t a l s t a t u s .Mood and personality measures. Seven measuresof mood and personal i ty were admini s te red. Toassess depress ion , the Beck D epress ion Inv en t ory(B eck , 1967) w as given. State anxiety w as mea-s u r e d us ing the State-Trait Anx i e t y Inv en to ry(STAI; Spei lberger , Gorsuch , & Lushene , 1970) .This scale consists of a set of affec t ive s ta tements(e.g. , "I feel calm") t h a t are used by responden tsto describe the i r current feelings. Validity evidencefo r th i s measure cons i s t s of corre la t ions wi th o theranx ie t y measu re s and scores of individuals exposedto anxie ty -provoking s i tua t ions . In te rnal cons i s t encyfor th e STAI i s h igh , wi th coefficient alphas rang-in g f r o m .83 to .92 in di ffe ren t s tudies .Self -es teem was measured us ing the Texas SocialB e h a v i o r I n v e n t o r y (TSBI -Fo rm A; H e l m r e i c h &Stapp , 1974). This scale is designed to assess socials e l f - e s t e em ; i tems concern the respondent 's feel ingso f social se l f - conf idence . Th e TSBI has been vali-da ted b y demons t ra t ing re la t ionsh ips wi th inter-personal a t t r ac t i on in l abora to ry se t t ings and withthe e n d o r s e m e n t of posi t ive self-descript ions on ameasu re of mascul in i ty and f emin in i t y . For the ver-s ion of the scale used here, a coefficient alpha of.8 5 w as f o u n d fo r both males and females.M eh rab i an ' s ( 1970 ) measu re s of Affiliative Ten-dencies and Sens i t iv i ty to Rejec t ion were inc ludedto assess approach and avoidance or i en ta t ionstoward social relat ionships . Val idi ty for the mea-sures has been indicated by low correlations with ame asu r e of social desirabi l i ty and (as theoret ical lypr e d ic t e d ) by nons ign i f i can t corre la t ions be tweenscores on the two scales . In l abora to ry s tudies theAffiliative Tendency scale has been related to af-filiative behavior in social situations and to a mea-sure of dependency . Sens i t iv i ty to Rejec t ion hasbeen re la ted to dependency and to conformi ty insocial situations. The reliabilities for both measuresare suff ic ient ly h igh ; K- R 20 (K uder -R icha rd sonf o r m u la ) coefficients of .80 and .83 are rep orted byM eh rab i an fo r t h e Affiliative Tendency and Sensi-t iv i ty to Re jec t ion scales , respect ively .

To measure social desirability, the Marlowe-Crow ne Socia l Des i rab i li ty Inve n tory (Crow ne &Marlowe, 1964) w as adminis tered. This scale isdesigned to iden t i fy indiv idual s w ho t end to describethemselves in an overly posi t ive or desirable fashion.Indiv idual s w ho respond in a socially desirablefashion on this measure have been found to be more

f avo r ab l e in the i r a t t i tudes toward a bor ing t ask ,to be social ly conforming, and to be very susceptibleto pe r suas i on . A t es t - re tes t corre la t ion of .88 forth i s measure has been repor ted over a 1-monthperiod. Internal consistency for the measure is alsoh igh , wi th a K-R 20 coefficient of .88 be ing found .The measures of introvers ion-extrovers ion andly ing developed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1975)we re al so admini s te red. The In t rovers ion-Ext rover-sion scale is designed to assess whe the r the re-s p o n d e n t is a sociable and f r i endly person versus aqu i e t and in t rospec t ive person . Val ida t ion of thisme asu r e has involved demonstrat ions of relat ionshipsbe t we e n scores on the scale and condi t ionabi l i ty ,level of asp i ra t ion , v ig i l ance , and t ime judgment ,based on Eysenck 's personal i ty theory . The Liescale is designed to assess whether individuals aredistorting their responses. This measure has beenval ida ted by compar ing scores on the sca le undercond i t ions where the responden ts should be mot i -va t ed to di s to r t th e i r responses versus neu t ra l con-di t ions . Test-retest rel iabi l i t ies for both measuresare high, with a correlation of .89 found for theIn t rov ers ion-Ext ro ve rs ion sca le and .84 for the Liescale o v e r a 1-month period. A coefficient alpha of.85 is repor ted for the Introversion-Extroversionscale and .80 for the Lie scale.A f inal measu re t h a t w as admini s te red was theAssert iveness sca le deve loped by Rathus (1973) . O nthis scale, respondents indicate how self-descript ivea set of assertive and nonassert ive behaviors are.Val id i ty for the m e a s u r e has been indicated by sig-n i f ican t corre la t ions be tween scores on the sca le andpeer rat ings of assert iveness . Significant relation-ships were also f ound between sca le scores andverbal repor t s o f as ser t ive behav ior in different socials i tua t ions . Test-retest re l i ab i l i ty (over a 2-monthi n t e r v a l ) of .78 is rep orte d by R a t h u s , along witha split-half correlat ion of .77. For the present study,ha l f of the 30 i tems on the R a t h u s measure wereused, consis t ing of e v e r y odd i tem f rom th e scale.Results

Sex differences. Comparisons were madebe tween the mean lonel iness scores fo r malesand females. In con t ra s t to the findings re-por ted in S t u d y 1, no significant differenceswere found, / ( 2 2 8 ) = .72, n s . In Table 2,normative loneliness data from this sampleare presen ted sepa ra t e ly fo r males and fe-males. Including sex as a variable in theanalyses r epor t ed below indicated no medi -ation of the relationships by sex of subject.Internal consistency. To cross-validate thein t e rna l consis tency findings from S tudy 1, thesame procedures were used to analyze datafrom the second s tudy . An alpha coefficient of.94 was again found for the revised loneliness


6/9

TH E R E V I S E D UCLA L O N E L I N E S S SCALE 477Table 2Normative Statistics for Male an d FemaleCollege Students in Study 2

Sta t is t ic Male s F em a l e snMSDMdnM o deRan g e

10 237.0610.9135.3830.0020-68

12836.0610.1134.1729.0020-66

m e a s u r e ; and once again th e corre lat ion be-tw e e n scores on the o r igina l and revised lone-liness scales was .91. The similarity of thef indings f rom these tw o independent s tudiesi s s t r ik ing .Concurrent validity. The relationship be-tween scores on the revised lonel iness scaleand measu r e s of social act ivi t ies and re la t ion-ships were examined as a test of concurrentva l id i t y . F o r sol i tary re lat ionships , s ignif icantcorre la t ions (al l / > s < .001) we r e found be -tween loneliness scores and the amount oft ime s tudent s spent a lone each day (r = .41),t h e n umb e r o f t imes t hey had e a t en d inne ra lone dur ing the previous 2 weeks (r = .34) ,and the n u m b e r o f t imes they had spent aweekend n ight a lone dur ing the previous 2weeks (r=.44). Lonely students also re-por ted doing f e we r social act ivi t ies wi thf r i ends (r = 28) and having fewer closefr iends (r . 4 4 ) . The re la t ionship be tweenloneliness and dat ing or mari ta l status wasexamined, us ing analysis of var iance to com-pare th ree groups : those s tudent s w ho wereno t dat ing at a l l , those s tudent s da t ingcasually, and those s tudents e i ther datingsteadily or married. Using scores on the re-vised UCLA Lonel iness Scale as the depen-dent measure, s ignif icant differences weref ound among these three groups , F(2, 187) =2 2 . 97 , p < .001. S t u d e n t s w ho we r e no t dat ingat all had a mean loneliness score of 43.1;s tude nt s who we re da t ing casua l ly an d thosew ho were r oman t i ca ll y i nvo lved had means of34.0 and 32.7, respectively. Post-hoc compari-sons (using the Scheffe procedur e ) i nd i ca t edthat s t u d e n t s w ho w e r e no t dat ing were s ig-nificantly more lonely than the other twog r o u p s , F ( l , 189) = 3 5 . 2 3 ,p < .001; s t uden t sw ho were da t ing casua l ly did not differ sig-

nif icant ly from those w ho were dat ing steadilyor w ho we r e m a r r i e d .Discriminant validity. The d i s c r iminan tval idi ty of the revised scale was assessed by

examin ing th e r e l a t ionsh ip be twe en l one li ne s sscores and scores on the o the r measu r e s ofmood and personal i ty . Initial analyses exam-ined the co r r e l a t i on of lone l iness scores wi ththe mood and pe r sona l i ty m easu res and theself- labeling loneliness index. An inspection oft h e se cor re la t ions ( see Table 3) indica te s thatlonel iness scale scores corre late more highlywi th the self-labeling loneliness index thanw i t h any of the othe r measures . None the le s s ,loneliness w as s t rong ly cor re la ted wi th man yof the mood and personality variables, raisingth e poss ib i l i ty tha t these v ar iab le s might , i fcombined , a ccoun t fo r m u c h of the var iancein lon el in es s scores . For example , lonelinessm i g h t be a f u n c t i o n of low social risk takingcombined with high levels o f anx i e t y . There-fo re , a second di scr imin an t va l id i ty t e s t wasconduc ted to e x a m i n e whe the r s co r e s on theUCLA Lonel iness Scale were re lated moreclosely to the o t h e r m e a s u r e s of lonel iness( i . e . , th e se l f - l abe l ing l one l i ne s s i ndex ) thanto an opt imal l inear combinat ion of the moodand pe r sona l i t y va r i ab l e s .

M u l t i p l e r eg res s ion analys i s was used tocombine the mood and personality measuresas pre dic tor s of lone l iness . To e l imina te cor -r e l a t ion s a m o n g th e predic tor s , a factor analy-Table 3Correlation of Scores on the Revised U C L ALoneliness Scale With Self-LabeledLoneliness and the Measures ofMood an d Personality

M e a s u r e R e v i s e d U C L ALone l i n e s s ScaleSe lf - labe l ing l o n e l in e s s i n d e xDepressionSelf-esteemI ntroversion-cxtroversionAffi l i a t ive t e n d e n c yAnxie tyAsse r t ivenes sSensitivity to r e j e c t i o nSoc ia l des i rabi l i tyLy ing

.705.505-.493-.457-.452.359-.342.276-.203-.001

Note. Based on 239 s t u d e n t s in S t u d y 2.


7/9

478 D . RUSSELL, L. PEPLAU, AND C. CUTRONATable 4Regression Analysis Predicting Scores on theRevised UCLA Loneliness Scale From Scoreson the Affiliative Motivation, Social RiskTaking, Negative Affect, and SocialDesirability Factors

Pred ic to r S tanda rd iz edbeta F va lue"Aff i l ia t ivem o t i v a t i o nSocial r iskt a k i n gN e g a t i v e affectSociald e s i r a b i l i t y

-.523-.504.375-.073

70.30*59.32*41.50*

1.43

.1 2

.17.14

.000 This is a test of t h e s ign i f i cance of each b e t a w e i g h t ,w i t h d f = 1, 170.*p < .001 .s is w as first conducted on the mood and per-sona l i t y measures . Using pr incipal fac tor ingw i t h a v a r i max r o t a t i on , a fou r - fac to r s t ruc-t u r e emerged. ;i The f i rs t f a c t o r w as labeledSocial Risk Taking; measures of introversion-ex t rove r s i on , se l f -es teem, sens i t iv i ty to re jec-t ion , and asser t iveness loaded highly on it. Asecond f ac to r was labe led Negat ive Affect ; thedepress ion and anxie ty scales def ined thisf ac to r . The t h i rd fac to r w as labeled SocialDe s i r a b i l i t y , s ince the measures of social de-s i rab i l i ty and ly ing loaded highly on thisf a c t o r . A final f a c t o r w as labeled AffiliativeM o t i v a t i o n ; th e affiliative t endency and in-t rovers ion-ext rovers ion scales had high load-ings.In the subsequent regress ion ana lyses ,scores on these four fac to r s we re used in lieuo f the n i ne separa t e scales to predic t scoreson the revised lonel iness scale. All four f a c t o rscore s we re en t e r ed s imul t an eous ly i n to t heregres s ion e q u a t i o n . The regress ion resul ts ares u m m ar i z e d in Table 4. Affiliative mot iva t i on ,socia l r i sk taking, and nega t i ve affect wereall s ign i f ican t pred ic to r s of lone l iness , whereasthe socia l des i rabi l i ty fac to r was unre l a t ed t olone l iness . In com bina t ion , t hese fou r fac to r spr ed i c t ed 43 % of the var i ance in lone l inessscores .A l th o u g h t he se f ac to r s we re p r ed i c t i ve oflone l iness , in combinat ion they were able toaccoun t fo r less than half the reliable var iancein lone l iness scores . Using the alpha coefficient

as a lower bound es t imate of the rev i sed lone-l iness scale ' s re l iabi l i ty , an addi t ional 5 2%o f the var iance in lone l iness scores i s poten-t ia l ly e xp l a i nab l e . This pe r mi t t e d a secondd i s c r iminan t val idi ty t es t for the lonel inesss c a l e a te s t o f whe the r t he unexp la inedvar iance could be accounted for by the self-l abe l ing loneliness index.To inves t iga te th i s poss ibi l i ty , a hi e ra rch i -ca l regress ion analys i s w as p e r f o r m e d . Thefour mood and personal i ty fac to rs were en-t e r ed firs t i n t o the regress ion equat ion, fol -lowed by the se l f - labe l ing lone l iness index.Af t e r e l i mi na t i ng th e var iance expla ined bythe mood and personal i ty fac tors , th e self-l abe l ing lone l iness inde x w as still a s igni f icantpr ed i c t o r o f lone l iness , F(l, 169 ) = 81.01,p < .001. An addi t i ona l 18% of the var i ancein lonel iness scale scores w as explained by thelonel iness i ndex . This resul t provides clearev idence of the di sc r iminan t va l id i t y of therevi sed UCLA Loneliness Scale.A final d i s c r imin an t va l id i t y t e s t examinedw he t he r th e previously reported c onc urrentv a l i d i t y ev idence for the UCLA Lonel inessScale was based solely on the in f luence of themood and pe r sona l i t y va r i ab l e s . For example ,is t he r e l a t i on sh ip be twe en lone line ss and then u m b e r o f close f r i end s un i q ue l y a t t r i bu t ab l eto lon e l iness , or does i t ref lec t the fac t t h a tlonel iness is cor r e l a t ed wi th lo w affi l iat ivemot iva t i on and low social r isk taking? Thegene ral ques t io n is w he the r the re la t ionshipsfound be tw een lone l ine s s and socia l behaviorsare due to the inf luence of a third se t ofvar i ab l e s ( i .e . , the mood and personal i ty mea-sures ) on both the person 's lone l iness andsocial r e l a t i ons . If scores on the revised lone-l iness scale are re la ted to the concurrentv a l i d i t y c r i t e r i a i nde pe nde n t of the mood andp e r s o n a l i t y var i ab l e s , t hen f u r t h e r di sc r imi -n a n t v a l i d i t y e v i de nce for the scale is pro-v ided .T he con cu r r e n t v a l i d i t y ana ly s e s w e r et h e r e f o r e r edone , us ing pa r t i a l co r r e l a t i ons tocon t ro l s t a t i s t i ca l l y for the effect of the moodand pe r s on a l i t y v a r i ab l e s . Signi f ican t r e l a t i on -sh ips (p < . 001 ) were aga in found be t w e e n

' The fac to r analysis results arc available from thea u t h o r s .


8/9

T H E R E V I S E D UCLA L O N E L I N E S S SCALE 479lonel iness scores and the a m o u n t of t imealone each day (r=.2T), the n u m b e r o ft imes d i n n e r w as eaten alone (r . 3 1 ) , then u m b e r of weekend eve nings a lone (r = . 3 1 ) ,and the n u m b e r of close f r iends (r . 2 7 ) .Ho we ve r , th e re la t ionship be tween lone l inessand the numbe r of social act ivi t ies now onlyapproached s ignif icance (r = .12, p< . 0 7 ) .Analys i s of covar iance w as used to test there la t ionship be tween lone l iness and c u r r e n tda t i ng o r mar i t a l s t a t u s , cont rol l ing for thee f f e c t of the mood and pe r sona l i t y variables .This s ign if ican t r e l a t i onsh ip also pers is ted,F ( 2 , 144) = 7.3S, p < .001.

Genera l Discuss ionThe resul ts from Studies 1 and 2 indicatetha t the UCLA Lonel iness Scale has beensuccess fu l ly revi sed . The revised lonel inessscale has high in te rna l cons i s t ency, wi th a co-efficient a lpha of .94 f o u n d in both s tudies .Co n c u r r e n t va l i d i t y for the new measu r e w asi nd ica t ed by demons t ra t ing tha t lone ly peopler epo r t experiencing emotions theoret ical lyl inked to lone l iness and do not report experi-enc ing emot i ons un r e l a t ed to lonel iness .Lone ly i nd iv idua l s also reporte d mor e l imite dsocial activities an d re lat ionships . Discr imi-nant val idi ty for the revised lonel iness scalew as indica ted by evidence t h a t scores on themeasu r e we r e no t confounded by social de-s i rabi l i ty. Scores on the scale were also foundto cor re la te more h ighly wi th o the r measures

o f l one l i ne s s t han wi t h the measures of moodand personal i ty var iables that were examined.The revised loneliness scale passed a ve rys t r i n g e n t d i s c r iminan t va l i d i t y t es t , wi th th edemons t r a t i on t h a t re la t ionships be tween lone-l iness and the concu r r en t va l i d i t y c r i t e r i aexamined in S t u d y 2 we r e i n d e p e n d e n t of thei n f l u ence of the other mood and personal i tyvar iables on loneliness.An impor tan t i s sue ra i sed by a l t e r i ng theUCLA Lonel iness Scale is whether empi r ica lre la t ionships f ound by re searchers us ing th eoriginal scale are still valid for the revisedvers ion . In Studies 1 & 2, the h igh cor re la t ionof .91 between scores on the or iginal andrevi sed lone l iness scales suggests t h a t pr ev iousf indings would s t i l l hold t rue for the new scale.Fu tu r e r e s e a r ch r ep l i c a t i ng e a r l i e r f i nd ings

would provide empi r ica l evidence on thisi s sue .Al t hough th e r e su l t s f rom th e c u r r e n ts tud i e s suppor t the u t i l i ty of the UCLA Lone-liness Scale as a measure of lonel iness , itshou ld be emphas ized that the val idi ty of ameasure is never "proven." The validity ofth e lonel iness scale in othe r popula t ions needsto be es tab l i shed , and the abi l i ty of the mea-s u r e to de tec t lone l iness in such "a t risk"groups as n e wc o m e r s and the recent ly di-vorced should also be inves t iga ted . W e hopet h a t th e UCLA Loneliness Scale will providea s ta r t ing poin t for a gr ea t e r unde r s t and ingof the widespread and dis t ress ing experienceof lone l iness .

Re fe r ence Note1. B r e n n a n , T., & Aus lande r , N. Adolescent loneli-ness: An exploratory study of social an d psy-chological pre-disposit ions and theory. Unpub-l i shed manu scr ip t , Behaviora l Research Ins t i tu t e ,Bou lder , Colorado, Jan ua ry 1979.

ReferencesB e c k , A. T. Depression. N ew Y o r k : H o e b e r , 1967.B r a d b u r n , N. The structure of psychological well-being . Chicago: Aldine , 1969.Bragg, M . A comparative study of loneliness anddepression. Unp ubl is hed doc tora l d isse r ta t ion ,Univers i ty of Cal i fo rn ia , Los Angeles, 1979.B u m b e r r y , W ., O l ive r , J . M ., & McC Iur e , J . Validityof th e Beck Depression Inventory in a universitypopula t ion us ing psychia t r ic estimate as the cri-t e r ion . Journal of Clinical and Consult ing Psy-chology, 1978, 46 , 150-155.Costello, C. G., & Comrey , A. L. Scales for measur-in g depress ion and anxie ty . Journal of Psychology,1 9 6 7 , 66, 303-313.C r o w n e , D. P., & Mar lowe , D . The approval motive:Studies in evaluative dependence. N ew Y o r k :Wiley, 1964.Eyse nck , H. J., & Eyse nck , S. B. G. Eysenck Per-sonality Quest ionnaire. San Diego, Cal i f . : E d u c a -t iona l and I ndus t r i a l Testing Service , 1975.Freedman , J. L. Crowding and behavior. New York:Viking Press, 1975.G o r d o n , S . Lonely in America. New York : S imon

& Schus t e r , 1976.He lmrc ich , R ., & Stapp , J . Shor t forms of the TexasSoc ia l Be hav io r I nve n t o ry (TSBI), an objec t iveme a su r e of se l f -e s t eem. Bulletin of the Psycho-nomic Society, 1974, 4, 473-475.H o r o w i t z , L. M ., & F r e n c h , R. de Sales . In t e rpe r -sona l problems of people w ho describe themselvesas lone ly . Journal of Consult ing and ClinicalPsychology, 1979, 47 , 762-764.


9/9

48 0 D . RUSSELL, L. P E P L A U , A N D C . C U T R O N AJ acob s , J . Adolescent suicide. N e w York : Wi l ey ,1971.Jone s , W . H . , Freemon , J. R., & Goswick , R. A.The pers is tence of lonel iness : Self and o ther re-j e c t i on? Journal of Personality, in press .L y n c h , J. J. The broken heart: T he medical conse-quences of loneliness in America. New Y o r k :Basic Books, 1976.M eh rab i an , A . T he dev e l opmen t and val ida t ion o fmeasures of affi l ia t ive t endency and sens i t iv i ty tor e j e c t ion . Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 1970, 30, 417-428.N e r v i a n o , V . J., & Gross , W. F . Lonel iness andlocus of con t ro l fo r alcoholic males: Val idi tyaga i n s t M ur ray n eed and Cat te l l t ra i t d imens ions .Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1976, 32, 479-484.Pep lau , L. A., & Per lman , D. B lue pr in t fo r a socia lpsycholog ica l theory of loneliness. In M. Cook &

G. Wi l son ( E d s . ) , Love an d attraction. O x f o r d ,Eng l and : Pe rgamon Press, 1979.Pep l au , L. A. , Russe l l , D., & Heim, M . Lonel iness :A bib l iography of research and theory . JSASCatalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,1978, *, 38. (Ms. No. 1682)

P e r l m a n , D ., Gerson , A. C., & Spinner , B . Lonel inessamong sen ior c i t i zens : An empi r ica l repor t .Essence, 1978, 2(4) , 239-248.Rathus , S . A. A 30-i tem schedule for assess ing as-s e r t i v e b ehav io r . Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 398-406 .Russe l l , D ., P e p l a u , L. A., & Fe rgu son , M. L. De-ve lop ing a m e a s u r e of lone l iness . Journal of Per-sonality Assessment, 1978, 42, 290-294.Spie lbe rge r , C. D ., G o r s u c h , R . L., & L u s h e n e , R. E.Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.Palo Alto, Calif . : Consulting Psychologists Press,1970.Stokol s , D. On the di s t i n c t i on b e tween den s i t y andc r o w d i n g : Some imp l i ca t i on s fo r f u t u r e r e s ea rch .Psychological Review, 1972 , 79, 275-277.Weiss , R. S. Loneliness: The experience of emotionaland social isolation. Cambridge , Mass . : Massa-chuse t t s Ins t i tu te of Technology Press , 1973.W e n z , F. V. Seasonal su ic ide a t t empts and fo rms oflone l iness . Psychological Reports , 1977 , 40, 807-810.

Received Ju ly 30, 1979