protective self-presentation, sources of socialization, and loneliness among australian adolescents...

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1552–1562

Protective self-presentation, sources of socialization, andloneliness among Australian adolescents and young adults

Todd Jackson *

Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

School of Psychology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Received 12 January 2007; received in revised form 29 March 2007; accepted 13 April 2007Available online 5 June 2007

Abstract

This research assessed the relative impact of features of protective self-presentation, key sources ofsocialization, and social anxiety on individual differences in loneliness among Australian adolescents andyoung adults. In Study 1, 281 high school students living with parents completed self-report measures ofloneliness, self-presentation features (i.e., fear of negative evaluation, social competence), parenting style(overprotection, care), peer relations (attachment, teasing) and social anxiety. Peer and parenting measureswere significant predictors of loneliness, independent of self presentation influences. Social anxiety alsoadded to the model after controlling for all other measures. In Study 2, 170 undergraduates living indepen-dently completed measures of the same constructs. Paralleling findings from Study 1, protective self-presen-tation features, peer relations, and social anxiety had unique effects on loneliness. As hypothesized,however, parenting measures did not add to the prediction model for young adults. Implications of findingsare discussed in relation to understanding loneliness within high school and university age samples.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Loneliness; Self-presentation; Parenting; Peers; Adolescents; Young adults

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.012

* Tel.: +61 7 47814968.E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

T. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1552–1562 1553

1. Introduction

Loneliness is a common, distressing experience that has deleterious effects on psychologicalfunctioning and physical health (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2002; Heinrich & Gullone, 2006). Althoughself-presentation models (e.g., Arkin, Lake, & Baumgardner, 1986; Schlencker & Leary, 1983)have aided in articulating motivational bases of social anxiety, a cognitive-affective experiencetriggered by perception of others’ possible evaluations (Leary & Kowalski, 1995) and shyness,a related syndrome characterized by social anxiety and behavioral inhibition in interpersonal sit-uations (Leary, 1983), recent extensions suggest self-presentational factors also contribute to indi-vidual differences in loneliness (e.g., Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005; Dill & Anderson, 1999; Jackson,Fritch, Nagasaka, & Gunderson, 2002).

Self-presentation theorists posit that people are typically motivated to gain social approval ininterpersonal encounters and act in ways that might attract attention and engender recognition(Arkin et al., 1986). In contrast, the socially anxious have doubts about their interpersonal com-petencies and capacities to create favorable impressions. They adopt a protective self-presentationstyle, wherein the overarching goal of social interaction is not to win approval from others but toavoid their disapproval.

Tendencies to view interpersonal encounters as threats (e.g., Jackson & Ebnet, 2006; Jackson &Eglitis, 2005), others as rejecting (e.g., Jackson, Towson, & Narduzzi, 1997; Meleschko & Alden,1993; Wallace & Alden, 1997), and the self as less socially skilled (e.g., Wallace & Alden, 1991)may maintain or increase social anxiety and/or avoidance of social interaction. If this pattern re-sults in having fewer social contacts than one desires, loneliness has emerged (Dill & Anderson,1999). Indeed, shyness and social anxiety (e.g., Jackson, Soderlind, & Weiss, 2000; Jones, Rose,& Russell, 1990), fear of disapproval (e.g., Jackson et al., 2002; Leary, Koch, & Hechenbleikner,2001) and perceptions of social incompetence (e.g., Jackson et al., 2002; Segrin & Flora, 2000),even in the absence of actual deficits (e.g., Christensen & Kashy, 1998), contribute to loneliness.

To date, self-presentation models have highlighted actors’ motives and responses on the stagesof social life. With few exceptions (e.g., Jackson & Ebnet, 2006; Meleschko & Alden, 1993), paststudies examined perceptions and responses of actors to people in general rather than to specific‘‘audiences’’ of self-presentation. As a result, little is known about the degree to which particularaudiences or socialization influences contribute to loneliness, beyond features of protective self-presentation. Given that parents and peers are key socialization agents in childhood and adoles-cence (e.g., Shaffer, 2001), and loneliness is more prevalent among adolescents than any other seg-ment of the population (Perlman & Landolt, 1999), parenting and peer experiences may beparticularly relevant to understanding loneliness in this age group.

With respect to parenting influences, psychodynamically-rooted researchers argue that dis-rupted early attachments have adverse effects on mental representations of the self and others;such disturbances interfere with the formation of subsequent attachment relationships and in-crease risk for loneliness (e.g., Cassidy & Berlin, 1999; Fromm-Reichmann, 1959; Hojat, 1987).Indeed, lower levels of secure attachment have been observed among lonely children (e.g., deMinzi, 2006) and young adults (e.g., Wiseman, Mayseless, & Sharabany, 2006). Conversely,loneliness has positive correlations with ambivalent and avoidant attachments to parents (Wise-man et al., 2006) as well as parenting behaviours such as overprotection (Terrell, Terrell, & VonDrashek, 2000) and inattention (Antognoli-Toland, 2001).

1554 T. Jackson / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1552–1562

Other studies have highlighted peer group correlates of loneliness. Parker and Asher (1993)found that being poorly accepted by peers, lacking a friend, and having unfulfilling friendshipscontribute independently to loneliness. Teasing (e.g., Storch, Brassard, & Masia- Warner, 2003;Strawser, Storch, & Roberti, 2005), rejection (Crick & Ladd, 1993) and reciprocal distrust (Roten-berg, MacDonald, & King, 2004) are other peer correlates of loneliness.

Unfortunately, because these studies examined either parenting or peer influences on loneliness,their relative effects are not clear. Although two studies have directly addressed this issue, each hasnotable limitations. Chipuer (2001) found that attachment to best friend but not to parents pre-dicted emotional and social loneliness among fifth and sixth grade children, after statistically con-trolling for other forms of loneliness. The stability of these effects was of concern, however, givethat the pattern was not replicated on school, neighborhood, or global measures of loneliness.More recently, Bogaerts, Vanheule, and Desmet (2006) linked loneliness with attachments topeers but not to parental overprotection or care among university students. Use of a single,non-validated item of loneliness also raises potential reliability concerns.

If firm conclusions cannot be drawn from these studies, plausible hypotheses about the relativeimpact of parenting versus peer factors can be generated from other sources. Harris (1995) arguesthat environmental effects of parenting on later personality development are modest relative togenetic influences, and do not transfer automatically to other contexts and predominate there. Be-cause children enact their adult lives outside the home, experiences in peer groups outside the fam-ily of origin have a greater bearing on later personality development than parenting does (Harris,1995). Although these ideas were not discussed specifically in relation to loneliness, Rapee andSpence (2004) recently proposed that environmental effects on social anxiety, a reliable correlateof loneliness, are minor and temporary. When a relevant environmental influence stops, socialanxiety returns to a set point, barring other environmental effects. As such, contributions of par-enting to social anxiety in offspring should be strongest when the child is living in the parentalhome but will diminish after the child has left home.

Study 1 attempted to clarify the relative impact of protective self-presentation, parenting, peerrelations, and social anxiety on individual differences in loneliness among Australian high schoolstudents living with parents. Based on work with American university students (Jackson et al.,1997, 2002), facets of protective self-presentation (i.e., heightened disapproval concerns, percep-tions of reduced social competence) were expected to contribute to loneliness in the sample. Sec-ond, peer measures (increased teasing, low peer attachment) were expected to add to theprediction model, beyond self-presentational influences. Furthermore, given that respondentswere living with parents/guardian, it was hypothesized that appraisals of parenting (heightenedoverprotection, reduced care) would contribute to loneliness, after peer factors had been con-trolled. Finally, consistent with Jackson et al. (2002), social anxiety was expected to influenceloneliness independent of all other measures.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

From an initial sample of 307 students from a state high school in Townsville, Australia, sur-veys of 26 respondents were eliminated due to missing data or evidence of random responding.


The final sample included 194 girls and 87 boys from classes in grades 8–12. Respondents were 12–17 years of age (M = 14.53 years, SD = 1.32 years).

2.2. Measures

Demographics and background: Demographic items assessed gender, age, grade and livingarrangements (i.e., with parent(s)/legal guardian).

UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 (Russell, 1996): This 20 item measure evaluates feelings andinterpersonal experiences related to loneliness on a 4-point frequency scale. In this study, the totalscale had an internal consistency of a = .90.

Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale Revised (B-FNE-R; Carleton, McCreary, Norton, &Asmundson, 2006): The 12-item B-FNE-R taps concern about negative evaluations from others.Items were rated between Not at all characteristic of me (1) and Extremely characteristic of me (5).An alpha of a = .80 was obtained for the sample.

The Perceived Competence Scale for Children (PCSC; Harter, 1982): The 7-item Social Compe-tence subscale of the PCSC assesses perceptions of a child or adolescent’s social competence com-pared to peers with whom they most identify. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale of similarity.Its alpha was a = .91.

Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979): The PBI assessed percep-tions of parenting from primary caregiver during childhood and was comprised of 13-item Over-protection and 12-item Care dimensions. Items were rated between Very unlike (1) and Very like(5). Alpha’s were a = .75 and a = .90 for Overprotection and Care, respectively.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987): The 25-itemIPPA Friends subscale examined attachments to friends. Responses were rated from Never/Almost never (1) to Always/Almost always (5). The IPPA has satisfactory reliability and conver-gent validity (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The Friends subscale had an alpha of a = .93.

Teasing Questionnaire (TQ; Roth, Coles, & Heimberg, 2002): The 20-item TQ assesses recall ofbeing teased by peers in school about various issues (e.g., physical appearance, being ‘‘nerdy’’,misbehaving) on a scale between Never (0) and Always (4). In the present study, the TQ hadan alpha of a = .96 in this sample.

Interaction-Anxiousness Scale (IAS; Leary, 1983): The 15-item IAS assesses discomfort, ner-vousness, and shyness in social situations on a five-point scale. It has satisfactory internal consis-tency, test–retest reliability, and validity. In this sample the IAS had an alpha of a = .81.

2.3. Procedure

Permission to collect data was given by the high school principal who recommended a parentalassent form to gain parent–guardian permission allowing interested students to engage in thestudy. Four hundred and fifty survey packets concerning ‘‘a study of parent, peer and self-expe-riences’’ were distributed to health classes at the school. Students whose parents assented weregiven a packet by a research assistant on hand to introduce the study. After reading an informa-tion page and signing an informed consent, participants completed the research measures whichwere counterbalanced to control for order effects. Typically, the survey took 40–50 min tocomplete.


3. Results and discussion

Initial analyses revealed that loneliness was not related to gender, t = 1.04, p < .30, age, r = .08,p < .20, or grade, r = .07, p < .27; hence these factors were excluded from other analyses. Corre-lation coefficients calculated among the main measures indicated that loneliness had significantassociations with all other scales (Table 1).

Subsequently, a hierarchical regression analysis assessed relative contributions of predictors toloneliness. Conceptually proximal predictors were loaded into the equation prior to entry of con-ceptually distal influences. Specifically, self-presentation factors (B-FNE-R, perceived social com-petence) were entered in Step 1, followed by peer measures (attachment, teasing) in Step 2,parenting factors (Care, Overprotection) in Step 3, and social anxiety in Step 4 of the model.All measures in each step contributed to the prediction model (Table 2). Overall, the seven pre-dictors accounted for Adj. R2 = .54 of the variance in loneliness [F (7,273) = 47.83, p < .0001].

Table 1Intercorrelations between loneliness and other research measures for the high school sample (N = 281)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Loneliness .26** �.25** �.66** .25** �.48** .44** .44**

2. Fear of negative evaluation .00 �.28** .23** �.07 .23** .47**

3. Social competence .19** �.18* .10 �.03 �.134. Peer attachment �.22** .44** �.39** �.32**

5. Peer teasing �.18* .17* .22**

6. Parent care �.47** �.27**

7. Parent overprotection .33**

8. Social anxiety –

* p < .01.** p < .001.

Table 2Predictors of loneliness in the high school sample

Step Measure b sr2 t p

1 Fear of negative evaluation .26 .26 4.72 .001Social competence �.25 �.25 �4.51 .001Adj. R2 = .13 F Ch. (2,278) = 21.21, p < .001

2 Peer attachment �.60 �.56 �12.78 .001Peer teasing .08 .08 1.72 .09Adj. R2 = .46 F Ch. (2,276) = 87.81, p < .001

3 Parent care �.16 �.14 �3.34 .002Parent overprotection .15 .13 3.01 .003Adj. R2 = .52 F Ch. (2,274) = 16.12, p < .001

4 Social anxiety .19 .16 3.92 .001Adj. R2 = .54 F Ch. (1,273) = 15.34, p < .001


To clarify relative contributions of parenting and peer measures further, an alternate regressionwas performed with parenting measures in Step 2 and peer measures in Step 3 of the model. Quiteobviously, the contribution of parenting factors increased, Adj. R2 = .23 [F Ch. (2,276) = 49.99,p < .001]. Variance accounted for by peer factors diminished somewhat but remained highly sig-nificant, Adj. R2 = .16 [F (2,274) = 46.92, p < .001].

Findings suggested that self-presentational factors may be useful in understanding individualdifferences in loneliness among high school students. Replicating past work with undergraduates(Jackson et al., 2002), high school students who were particularly concerned with others’ disap-proval and the self as less socially competent reported were more lonely than their peers. Perhapsa protective self-presentation orientation, especially among adolescents with high levels of socialanxiety, contributes to social avoidance and limits opportunities to establish connections withothers to the extent that belongingness needs are not sufficiently met.

Increased loneliness was also reported among students who experienced less attachment topeers and those who viewed parents to be overly protective and/or comparatively lacking inwarmth/care. The effects were observed, independent of disapproval concerns and perceived socialcompetence. Thus, explicit consideration of perceptions and reactions of specific, ‘‘audiences’’ rel-evant to self-presentation might increase the predictive utility of such approaches.

4. Study 2

Both parenting and peer measures contributed to loneliness in Study 1, but it was not clearwhether this pattern would also be found in other age groups. As noted, theorists discussingsocialization influences on personality in general (e.g., Harris, 1995) and experiences closely linkedwith loneliness (Rapee & Spence, 2004) argue that environmental effects of parenting decrease aschildren grow up and leave the parental home. To explore this hypothesis more fully, a secondstudy was conducted with undergraduates living outside the parental home. Parallel to Study 1,measures of self-presentation, peer functioning and social anxiety were expected to make separatecontributions to loneliness. However, in contrast to Study 1, effects of parenting on lonelinesswere expected to diminish in the new sample.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

The sample was comprised of 126 women and 44 men (M = 22.49 years, SD = 5.64 years) se-lected from classes at James Cook University (JCU), also in Townsville, Australia. Two otherincomplete surveys were excluded from analyses. A majority of the sample was single (76.5%),married (11.8%), or cohabiting (8.8%); 67.6% of respondents were employed at least parttime.

5.2. Measures

Aside from new demographic (marital status, employment status) and the age appropriate so-cial competence measure described below, scales used for Study 2 were identical to those from


Study 1. Alphas for all previously used scales were satisfactory, ranging from a = .82 (TQ) toa = .95 (B-FNE-R) in the university sample.

Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis,1988): Twenty-four ICQ items related to competence in negative assertion, self-disclosure, andconflict management assessed social competence in the sample. Ratings were made from I’m poorat this (1) to I’m extremely good at this (5). Its alpha was a = .88.

5.3. Procedure

A majority of participants completed the study to earn research credit for psychology classes.Students were made aware of a study of parent, peers, and self-experiences through a poster inPsychology at JCU. The sole inclusion criterion was for participants to have lived outside ofthe parental home for at least six months. Volunteers were given a packet containing the informa-tion page, consent, and measures. Once completed, the packet was returned to a ‘‘drop’’ box inPsychology. In general, the study took 30–40 min to complete.

6. Results

Loneliness was not related to gender, t = 1.20, p < .27, age, r = �.03, p < .67 or employmentstatus, t = 1.67, p < .10. Correlations between loneliness and other measures were highly signifi-cant (p < .005 or above) except for Parental Care and Overprotection (Table 3). In this sample,the seven predictors combined for Adj. R2 = .55 of the variance in loneliness [F(7,162) = 30.08, p < .0001]. Features of protective self-presentation were highly related to loneli-ness. Peer factors added to the model, albeit effects were attenuated (Table 4). In contrast, parent-ing was not related to loneliness. Social anxiety had a modest effect, beyond other factors. In analternate regression model, parenting factors had little effect on loneliness even when entered inStep 2 of the equation, Adj. R2 = .005 [F Ch. (2,165) = .69, p < .50]; in contrast, peer influenceswere undiminished, Adj. R2 = .16 [F Ch. (2,163) = 18.66, p < .001].

Table 3Intercorrelations between loneliness and other research measures for the university sample (N = 170)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Loneliness .59** �.55** �.53** .23* �.19 .17 .56**

2. Fear of negative evaluation �.48** �.28** .31** �.15 .21* .59**

3. Social competence .30** �.29** .17 �.23* �.59**

4. Peer attachment �.22* .23* �.15 �.28**

5. Peer teasing �.31** .28** .30**

6. Parent care �.40** �.177. Parent overprotection .29**

8. Social anxiety –

* p < .01.** p < .001.

Table 4Predictors of loneliness in the university sample

Step Measure b sr2 t p

1 Fear of negative evaluation .43 .38 6.55 .001Social competence �.34 �.25 5.21 .001Adj. R2 = .44 F Ch. (2,167) = 63.34, p < .001

2 Peer attachment �.35 �.33 �6.01 .001Peer teasing .04 .04 .78 .44Adj. R2 = .54 F Ch. (2,165) = 19.61, p < .001

3 Parent care �.02 �.02 �.370 .713Parent overprotectiona �.02 �.02 �.369 .712Adj. R2 = .53 F Ch. (2,163) = .10, p < .90

4 Social anxiety .17 .12 2.35 .02Adj. R2 = .55 F Ch. (1,162) = 5.52, p < .02

a Note: The negative b value for Overprotection in the regression contrasts with its positive bivariate relation toloneliness. Results were consistent within steps in alternate prediction equations that removed various combinations ofvariables. Hence, there was no evidence for suppression of error variance in the prediction model.


In Study 2, effects of protective self-presentation, peer relations, and social anxiety were repli-cated among university students. On this basis, the hypothesis that these factors influence loneli-ness across the lifespan is worthy of pursuit. In contrast, parenting factors did not add to theprediction of loneliness among university students was also supported. On the one hand, this find-ing may illustrate how effects of parenting on loneliness do not transfer automatically to environ-ments outside one’s family of origin. Conversely, differential effects of parenting on lonelinesswithin the two samples may reflect differences in the recall of parenting due to cognitive and inter-personal changes of the self between adolescence and young adulthood wherein attachment-related thoughts and feeling shifted in emphasis from parents to peers.

7. General discussion

Adding to studies highlighting effects of rejection concerns and perceived social competencedeficits (e.g., Leary et al., 2001; Segrin & Flora, 2000), this research strengthens the view that lone-liness corresponds with a protective self-presentation style. Although loneliness has been tied withambivalent attachment to parents (Wiseman et al., 2006), patterns of association from thisresearch suggest ambivalence permeates lonely students’ views of others in a more general way.If longing for interpersonal contact is a hallmark of loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1982), some-what paradoxically, lonely students were also concerned about others as sources of disapprovaland the self as lacking in skills to forge connections and circumvent rejection.

Regarding effects of specific ‘‘audiences’’ of self-presentations, Study 1 found that perceptionsof peer relations and parenting contributed independently to loneliness among high school stu-dents. However, Study 2 challenged the platitude that these influences are of equal significance,regardless of age or life circumstances. For university students living outside the parental home,perceptions of parenting were far less salient to loneliness than were reported peer experiences.


Bivariate relations between parenting measures and loneliness in the sample and a replication ofthe initial regression model when parenting influences were entered before peer factors bolsterthis contention. Findings from Study 2 were also congruent with those of the only publishedstudy assessing parent and peer influences on loneliness in university students (Bogaertset al., 2006).

In each prediction model, social anxiety also had unique effects on loneliness. In the context ofrecent research on loneliness (e.g., Boomsma, Willemsen, Dolan, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2005;Cacioppo et al., 2002) and shyness (e.g., Schmidt & Schulkin, 1999), this association suggestscommon genetic and biological factors may underlie social anxiety and loneliness. That said, psy-chological factors may also explain this association, given that both the shy and the lonely maysubscribe to globally negativistic, cynical, and pessimistic views of the self and events (e.g., Jack-son et al., 2000; Toner & Heaven, 2005).

This research augments past work linking loneliness with features of protective self-presenta-tion and clarifies contributions of experiences with specific socialization sources for adolescentsversus young adults having different living arrangements. Nonetheless, its limitations must benoted. The differential impact of parenting highlights a need for continued research on samplesof different ages and life circumstances, and those having more equal gender distributions. Sec-ond, although self-report scales are appropriate for assessing subjective experiences such as lone-liness, they reflect recalled experiences which can be susceptible to various biases. Hence, objectivemeasures of factors such as social skills and parent–peer relations might be useful additions tofuture work. Third, procedural differences in the consent process and the provision of incentivesamong high school versus university students cannot be dismissed as influences on the findings.Fourth, the cross-sectional research design and obvious difficulties with experimentally manipu-lating multiple variables did not permit tests of causality. That said, findings help to justify theresources necessary for longitudinal research on the issues of interest. Treatment studies compar-ing interventions such as social skills training with cognitive restructuring may also clarify mech-anisms and directions of causality between experiences examined in this research.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported, in part, by a Key Laboratory grant from Southwest University(NSKD06014) and a Faculty Research grant from James Cook University. I thank Toula Gor-dillo and Melissa Boylan for their assistance with data collection and data entry.

References

Antognoli-Toland, P. L. (2001). Parent–child relationship, family structure, and loneliness among adolescents.Adolescent & Family Health, 2, 20–26.

Arkin, R. M., Lake, E. A., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1986). Shyness and self-presentation. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek,& S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 189–203). New York: Plenum.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences andtheir relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.

Bogaerts, S., Vanheule, S., & Desmet, M. (2006). Feelings of subjective emotional loneliness: An exploration ofattachment. Social Behavior & Personality, 34, 797–812.


Boomsma, D., Willemsen, G., Dolan, C., Hawkley, L., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). Genetic and environmentalcontributions to loneliness in adults: The Netherlands Twin Register study. Behavior Genetics, 35, 745–752.

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence inpeer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991–1008.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. (2005). People thinking about people: The vicious cycle of being a social outcast in one’sown mind. In K. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion,

rejection, and bullying: Sydney symposium of social psychology series (pp. 91–108). New York: Psychology Press.Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L., Crawford, E., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M., Kowalewski, R., et al. (2002). Loneliness and

health: Potential mechanisms. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 407–417.Carleton, R. N., McCreary, D. R., Norton, P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2006). Brief fear of negative evaluation scale

– Revised. Depression and Anxiety, 23, 297–303.Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1999). Understanding the origins of childhood loneliness: Contributions of attachment

theory. In K. J. Rotenberg & S. Hymel (Eds.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 34–55). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University.

Chipuer, H. M. (2001). Dyadic attachments and community connectedness: Links with youths’ loneliness experiences.Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 429–446.

Christensen, P. N., & Kashy, D. (1998). Perceptions of and by lonely people in initial social interaction. Personality &

Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 322–329.Crick, N., & Ladd, G. W. (1993). Children’s perceptions of their peer experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social

anxiety, and social avoidance. Developmental Psychology, 29, 244–254.de Minzi, M. (2006). Loneliness and depression in middle and late childhood: the relationship to attachment and

parental styles. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 189–210.Dill, J. C., & Anderson, C. (1999). Loneliness, shyness, and depression: The etiology and interrelationships of everyday

problems in living. In T. Joiner & J. C. Coyne (Eds.), The interactional nature of depression (pp. 93–125).Washington, DC: APA.

Fromm-Reichmann, F. (1959). Loneliness. Psychiatry, 22, 1–15.Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialisation theory of development. Psychological

Review, 102, 458–489.Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87–97.Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology

Review, 26, 695–719.Hojat, M. (1987). A psychodynamic view of loneliness and mother–child relationships: A review of theoretical

perspectives and empirical findings. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 89–104.Jackson, T., & Ebnet, S. (2006). Appraisal and coping in romantic relationship narratives: Effects of shyness, gender,

and connoted affect of relationship events. Individual Differences Research, 4(1), 2–15.Jackson, T., & Eglitis, K. (2005). My name’s Jasper and I’m a Sagittarius: Threat, social anxiety and their impact on

making a personal introduction videotape. Journal of Worry and Affective Experiences, 1, 98–112.Jackson, T., Fritch, A., Nagasaka, T., & Gunderson, J. (2002). Towards explaining the association between shyness and

loneliness: A path analysis with American college students. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 263–270.Jackson, T., Soderlind, A., & Weiss, K. (2000). Personal and contextual predictors of future loneliness among college

students. Social Behavior & Personality, 28(5), 463–470.Jackson, T., Towson, S., & Narduzzi, K. (1997). Predictors of shyness: A test of variables associated with self-

presentational models. Social Behavior & Personality, 25, 149–154.Jones, W., Rose, J., & Russell, D. (1990). Loneliness and social anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and

evaluation anxiety (pp. 247–266). New York: Plenum.Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47,

66–75.Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. In M. R.

Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 145–166). New York: Oxford.Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford.Meleschko, K. G., & Alden, L. E. (1993). Anxiety and self-disclosure: Toward a motivation model. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1000–1009.


Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology,

52, 1–10.Parker, J., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group

acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611–621.Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Loneliness. New York: Wiley.Perlman, D., & Landolt, M. (1999). Examination of loneliness across the life cycle: Two solitudes or unified enterprise?

In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Loneliness in childhood and adolescence (pp. 247–325). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rapee, R. M., & Spence, S. H. (2004). The etiology of social phobia: Empirical evidence and an initial model. Clinical

Psychology Review, 24, 737–767.Rotenberg, K. J., MacDonald, K. J., & King, E. V. (2004). The relation between loneliness and interpersonal trust

during middle childhood. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165, 233–249.Roth, D., Coles, M., & Heimberg, R. (2002). The relationship between memories of childhood teasing and anxiety and

depression in childhood. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 149–164.Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 66, 20–40.Schlencker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model.

Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669.Schmidt, L., & Schulkin, J. (1999). Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical

outcomes. New York: Oxford.Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2000). Poor social skills are a vulnerability factor in the development of psychosocial problems.

Human Communication Research, 26, 489–514.Shaffer, D. (2001). Developmental psychology. New York: Wadsworth.Storch, E. A., Brassard, M. R., & Masia-Warner, C. L. (2003). The relationship of peer victimization to social anxiety

and loneliness in adolescence. Child Study Journal, 33, 1–18.Strawser, M., Storch, E., & Roberti, J. (2005). The Teasing Questionnaire-Revised: Measurement of childhood teasing

in adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 780–792.Terrell, F., Terrell, I., & Von Drashek, S. R. (2000). Loneliness and fear of intimacy among adolescents who were

taught not to trust strangers during childhood. Adolescence, 35, 611–617.Toner, M., & Heaven, P. (2005). Peer-social attributional predictors of socio-emotional adjustment in early

adolescence: A two-year longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 579–590.Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1991). A comparison of social standards and perceived ability in anxious and non-

anxious men. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 15, 237–254.Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1997). Social phobia and positive social events: The price of success. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 106, 416–424.Wiseman, H., Mayseless, O., & Sharabany, R. (2006). Perceived quality of early relationships with parents, attachment,

personality predispositions and loneliness in first-year university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,237–248.

protective self-presentation, sources of socialization, and loneliness among australian adolescents...

Documents