1! Lr
:wwmfl.

.1
p

3

 

. ..m..-H.L.
24...... L. .

7

 

 

meals
r}
(f i ‘

(0039943 5

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

LONELINESS, SOLITUDE, AND THE ROLE OF
VIEWING INVOLVEMENT IN PARA-SOCIAL
INTERACTION

presented by
Mark Gregory Woods

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. D. A degree in Mass Media

 

 

 

Malor Profésfor’s Signfie

July 31, 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

' LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

JUN 1 3 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRCJDatoDue.p65-p.15

 

LONELINESS. SOLITUDE. AND THE ROLE OF VIEWING INVOLVEMENT IN
PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION

By

Mark Gregory Woods

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Mass Media Ph.D. Program

2004

ABSTRACT
LONELINESS, SOLITUDE, AND THE ROLE OF VIEWING INVOLVEMENT IN
PARA-SOCIAL INTERACTION
By
Mark Gregory Woods

Research has often tried to link loneliness to para-social interaction and more
passive viewing (less intention, attention, and selection). Para-social activity and
loneliness have been linked with reliance on television (viewing), but no relationship has
been found between loneliness and para-social activity. Furthermore, loneliness research
has often measured the chronicity of loneliness, but has not adequately made the
distinction between being alone and feeling lonely. There exists the possibility that one is
alone, but feels no sense of loneliness, and the possibility that one can be with a group of
people and still feel lonely. Further, loneliness has been treated as a stable trait rather
than a state that is given to fluctuations due to circumstances.

A path model was proposed where loneliness type drives the needs perceived by
individuals, which drives levels of viewing involvement, which drives levels of para-
social interaction. That is, loneliness type dictates the type of gratifications sought
(companionship, escapism, passing time, or social interaction). Companionship and
social interaction were believed to be positively correlated with viewing involvement,
and viewing involvement positively correlated with para-social interaction. From an
original sample of 427 respondents, 279 female respondents from a small college and a
large community college in Metropolitan Detroit were retained for testing. Results

indicated that there were differences in the gratifications sought among individuals who

were Classically Lonely, Lonely with Others, Loners, and Non-lonely when seeking
companionship, but not for escapism, social interaction, or passing time. Companionship
and social interaction were significantly correlated with viewing involvement, and there
was a strong link between para-social interaction and involvement. The path model was
not an acceptable fit, however, and there was little support for the necessity to create a

typology from solitude and loneliness. Implications and fiIture direction are discussed.

Copyright by
Mark Gregory Woods

2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, Thank God.

Next, I’d like to thank my family for their support. My mother, Lilly, my father,
Gregory, and my sister, Becky have always been my biggest supporters. I love you all.

Thanks to my dissertation committee: Charles Atkin, Sandi Smith, and Gwen
Wittenbaum. Your guidance over the years stretches beyond simply completing the
requirements of the doctoral program.

Thanks also to the tireless efforts of the library staff of Baker College of Auburn
Hills. Michele, Dena, Steve, Karrie, and everyone else involved: thank you.

Also, thank you, Dr. Brian Moss, for your help, support, and friendship.

And finally, thank you, Dr. Bradley Greenberg, for your guidance and patience.

It’s been a long road. I appreciate it.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................ ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1
Introduction to Loneliness and Solitude ...................................... 1
Audience Activity—Gratifications Sought ................................... 5
The Role of Involvement ......................................................... 6
Para-Social Interaction: Developing Bonds with Televised Personae... 7
Loneliness and Solitude as a Situation Rather Than Condition .......... 10
CHAPTER 2 METHOD ................................................................... 17
Results of Factor Analysis ........................................................ 26
Internal Consistency ....... 26
Parallelism .................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS .................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION ............................................................... 43
Limitations of Study ............................................................... 44
Future Directions ................................................................... 55
APPENDIX A
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings and Correlation Matrix ....... 61
APPENDIX B
Survey .......................................................................................... 62
APPENDIX C
Calculation of Errors (Test of Parallelism) ............................................ 67
REFERENCES ............................................................................... 108

vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1 Research Variables of Interest ............................................ 10

TABLE 1.2 Loneliness Type Most Likely to Use Television for Specific Need..l4

TABLE 2.1 Loneliness Items .............................................................. 19
TABLE 2.2 Solitude Items ................................................................. 20
TABLE 2.3 Uses & Gratifications Items ................................................ 22
TABLE 2.4 Viewing Involvement Items ................................................. 23
TABLE 2.5 Para-social Items ............................................................. 24
TABLE 2.6 Scale Means ................................................................... 25
TABLE 2.7 Correlation Matrix of Constructs ........................................ 26
TABLE 2.8 Internal Consistency of Loneliness Items ............................... 28
TABLE 2.9 Internal Consistency of Solitude Items .................................. 29
TABLE 2.10 Internal Consistency of Passing Time Items .......................... 29
TABLE 2.11 Internal Consistency of Social Interaction Scale ..................... 30
TABLE 2.12 Internal Consistency of Escape Items .................................. 30
TABLE 2.13 Internal Consistency of Viewing Involvement Items ................ 31
TABLE 2.14 Internal Consistency of Para-Social Items ............................ 32
TABLE 3.1 Levene Test of Homogeneity of Variance ............................... 35
TABLE 3.2 Within-Group Measures ................................................... 36
TABLE 3.3 F-test for Gratification Items .............................................. 37
TABLE 3.4 Contrast Tests ................................................................ 38
TABLE 3.5 Predicted Coefficients and Calculated Errors in Path Model ...... 42
TABLE 4.] T-test Comparing Females and Males across Constructs ............ 47

vii

TABLE 4.2 Solitude by Loneliness Type ............................................... 48

TABLE 4.3 Loneliness by Loneliness Type ............................................ 48
TABLE 4.4 Table of Means- Recalculated Loneliness Type ...................... 49
TABLE 4.5 Post Hoc Test of Homogeneity of Variance ............................ 50
TABLE 4.6 Post-Hoe Contrasts Using Recalculated Loneliness Type ........... 50
TABLE 4.7 Table of Means—Three Group Typology of Loneliness ............ 51
TABLE 4.8 Contrasts Using Three Group Typology of Loneliness .............. 52

TABLE 4.9 Post Hoe Predicted Path Coefficients and Resulting Error ......... 55

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 Categorization of Loneliness ...................................................... 4

FIGURE 1.2 Path Model of Effects ...................................................... 12
FIGURE 1.3 Hypothesized Links ........................................................ 16
FIGURE 3.1 Distribution of Respondents-- Loneliness by Solitude .............. 35
FIGURE 3.2 Path Coefficients ............................................................ 41
FIGURE 4.1 Post Hoe Path Model ...................................................... 54

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Introduction to Loneliness and Solitude

What is the nature of loneliness? Is there a distinction between being alone and
feeling lonely? Can conditions exist where either physical state or emotional state is in
seeming conflict? That is, can one feel lonely even in the presence of others? Can
someone be alone but not feel lonely? How do these conditions affect television
viewing? What uses of television become more prevalent given a condition of
loneliness? How does a given use of television affect involvement level with television
(i.e. television characters)?

From the loneliness research, there seems to be an assumption that the
chronically lonely individual does not seek or cannot obtain gratification from social
interaction. The chronically lonely are seen as poorly socialized individuals who use
television as a form of escapism. The choice in content seems driven by a more
“ritualized” (Rubin 1993) form of viewing, wherein the viewer watches with “less
intention, selection, and attention” (p. 99). The viewer is said to have a more passive
orientation (i.e. less active).

The problems with this idea are that the lonely viewer is assumed to be
watching in isolation from others and that there is a persistent condition of loneliness.
Chronically lonely people are not always lonely and are not necessarily alone.
Loneliness, as defined by Bell & Daly (1985), is a form of “psychological distress” (p.
122) evidenced by a need for others. It is the “perceived gap between a person’s
desired and achieved social relationships” (p. 122). Loneliness has a temporal

characteristic, that is, the duration of loneliness creates either transitory loneliness, a

form of “situational” loneliness usually caused by events such as moving to a new
location (Canary & Spitzberg, 1993, p. 803), or chronic loneliness.

Lonely people are those who feel a heightened sense of loneliness or social
isolation. In addition, they feel that they have experienced this state for an extended
period of time. To place it along the lines of uses & gratifications, these people have a
need for social activity (companionship). Those who are alone and feel this need but
do not have others to fulfill it (what Maslow (1983) called a need for belongingness (p.
20)), may seek television for that purpose.

However, this is a limited cross-section of individuals. Among those who are
not counted are those who are alone, but do not feel a need for belonging, and those
with a high need for belonging who have companionship. As Zakahi & Duran (1982)
noted, “the presence of others does not guarantee a lack of loneliness” (p. 204).
Likewise, in regard to the former, Hosman (1991) found little correlation between the
need for privacy and loneliness (r=.20, p<.01). This would suggest that someone who
prefers to be alone will not feel a sense of loneliness.

As indicated by Bell & Daly (1985) and Canary & Spitzberg (1993), loneliness
is measured along the dimension of time. Transitory or situational loneliness is a short-
terrn form of loneliness, while chronic loneliness is a result of more long-term
loneliness. Interestingly, Bell & Daly (1985) stated that transitory loneliness followed
events such as “divorce, death of a loved one, or mobility” (p. 122), which really
speaks to more physical states, that is, aloneness (solitude). This is not to say that such
events would not create a heightened sense of loneliness, but the critical element is the

physical separation or isolation from others. This suggests an entirely new category.

Thus, there are four sets of viewers with potentially different motivations for
watching television (Figure 1.1). There are now the lonely and non-lonely, and the
alone and non-alone. This idea now considers individuals’ loneliness along two
dimensions: physical state and perceptual state.

From this, four very distinct categories of individuals emerge:

l. Classically Lonely—the condition of being alone and feeling socially isolated. This
is categorized by a high degree of solitude and a high degree of perceived social
isolation (loneliness).

2. Lonely with Others—the condition of being with others in social situations, but not

 

feeling a sense of fulfillment socially. This is seen as a low degree of solitude and a

high degree of loneliness.

3. Loners—the condition of having a high degree of solitude, but no perceived sense

of loneliness. This is a situation where social contact is not necessarily preferred.

4. Non-lonely—the condition of not feeling lonely and of being in proximity of others.
These categories create new distinctions among individuals—states where

loneliness and solitude are independent. People can be alone and not feel a sense of

loneliness. People can feel lonely among others when they do not identify with the

others. Entering freshmen, for example, may not identify with fellow classmates or

roommates. They long to gain that sense of familiarity that comes from identification

with others. In this light, it would not be surprising that they would turn to that which

is familiar: television. The cast of characters become the familiar faces longed to see.

Figure 1.1 Categorization of Loneliness

Physical Loneliness (Solitude)
NON-

ALONE ALONE

, Classically Lonely with
Perceived Lonely Others
Loneliness LONELY

 

 

 

NON' Loners Non-lonely
LONELY

 

 

 

 

 

In this longing, what has developed is a bond with the characters—a para-
social interaction, brought on or made more salient by a set of needs, such as
companionship or social interaction. The viewer identifies with the characters on
television, that is, they develop an “affinity... with the characters” (Rubin & McHugh,
1987, p. 279) or otherwise any “illusion of intimacy” (Hoton & Wahl, 1956, p. 217)
perceived by the viewer toward the characters on television. This one-sided bond of
intimacy, this para-social interaction, has been typically believed to be a function of
loneliness, as noted. Given the new typology of loneliness suggested, it may be an
over-generalization to say that the lonely only seek companionship. Loners may not
feel the need for social interaction or the need for company. At best, it can be said that
the type of loneliness may serve to create different needs within different people,
which would impact how television affects them. But, before the end result (i.e. para-
social interaction) can be assessed, it is necessary to understand the conditions that
lead to it, that is, the needs or motivation for watching television, and the level of

involvement with television characters.

 

Audience Activity—Gratifications Sought

Any discussion on viewing motivation, need, or use of television starts with the
activity of lonely or non-lonely viewer. The idea of activity or passivity has been one
of viewers engaging in media materials. This viewing orientation would lead to
different uses of media (from different needs).

Perse & Rubin (1990) suggested that there was a more passive orientation
among lonely viewers (p. 48). Such an orientation led to a decreased likelihood of
viewing soaps for excitement or social interaction (active viewing). Rather, lonely
viewers tended to watch to pass the time. Escapism, companionship, and passing time
are seen traditionally as ritualized, or “less active and [less] goal-directed” (Perse,
1986, p. 177), uses, versus more “instrumental television viewing” (Rubin, 1984, p.
73) such as social interaction.

However, the idea of a more passive orientation is problematic when
considering the motivation to feel less lonely. While Rubin (1984) suggests the need
for companionship as a more ritualized gratification sought, this could be as easily
construed a very active orientation. A lonely person decides that feeling lonely is not
desired, and calling friends is not an option, so watching a program with familiar
characters fulfills the need for companionship. In fact, Rubin admits that ritualized and
instrumental use may not be “clearly dichotomous” (p. 76). That is, these gratifications
can be both instrumental and ritualized. In light of this, the decisive criterion would be
attention to media materials. Ritualized viewing suggests a more passive orientation,
which suggests less attention, though it is possible that a passive orientation lends

itself to a more accepting, and possibly a more attentive orientation. This is critical, in

 

that attention lends itself to involvement with characters (personae), argued here as the
key to para-social interaction.
The Role of Involvement

In order for one to develop a para-social bond, one must attend to media
materials. However, as noted, there are varying levels of attention. The viewer can
take a more passive or active role in viewing. What exactly that implies is a level of
involvement (viewing involvement) with the medium.

The viewer can only make bonds with someone she cares for, thinks about, and
plans time to be with. It can only be that involved viewer who will develop the
perceived bonds between the characters and herself. Involvement, then “reflects the
participation, attention, and emotion” (Rubin, 1993, p. 102) of the viewer toward the
mediated materials (or to the characters on television). Involvement, given an active
orientation (i.e. an instrumental viewing of television), would lead to a perceived bond
with the characters on television.

Zaichkowsky (1986) noted that involvement is a “mediating variable” (p. 4) in
determining media effects, noting that a person’s “inherent value system” and the
“varying situation” (p. 5) are antecedents of involvement. This value system and
varying situation could certainly include needs of the given moment, such as a need
for companionship derived from a sense of loneliness. Involvement, and ultimately
para-social interaction, would now be a fimction of the condition of the individual
(loneliness and solitude states) and the needs perceived by the individual. Thus, the

type of loneliness leads to gratifications sought, which determines the level of

involvement with mediated material. Viewing involvement then leads to para-social
interaction.
Para-Social Interaction: Developing Bonds with Televised Personae

Horton & Wohl (1956) suggested that individuals will form para-social
relationships with media personalities or characters (personae). A para-social
relationship or interaction (PSI) is a perceived bond developed by the viewer toward a
televised character or characters (personae). While not reciprocated, the viewer feels a
sense of identification with the personae.

According to Giles (2002), there was little interest in para-social interaction
until the “advent of the uses and gratifications approach” (p. 280). Viewers, being
goal-oriented, seek gratification from media materials. It was only logical to assume
that lonely people may find satisfaction socially through para-social interaction.

Levy (1979) continued the efforts of Horton and Wohl (1956) in developing
the idea of para-social interaction. He tested the belief that increased social interaction
will decrease para-social interaction and that increased para-social interaction (with
news personae) will increase news viewing. He found a significant but weak inverse
correlation between social interaction and para-social interaction (r=-. 12, p<. 05), and
no association between viewing alone or with others. He also found a slightly stronger
positive correlation between viewing and para-social interaction (r= 22, p< .01). This
indicates several possibilities. It shows that the para-social activity is linked to
viewing, but is not clearly linked to loneliness, again, perhaps because the concept of
loneliness is not more clearly conceptualized, or that loneliness is not directly linked to

para-social interaction.

 

Rubin, Perse, & Powell (1985) found links between loneliness and less
interpersonal communication and TV reliance, and also between para-social
interaction and TV reliance, but did not find a relationship between loneliness and
para-social interaction. Again, this may be due to the idea that loneliness has not been
more clearly differentiated between being alone and feeling lonely.

Perse & Rubin (1990) later found evidence of chronic loneliness related to less
interpersonal interaction and increased passive TV use (that is, passing time). This
leads into a discussion of audience activity. Uses and gratifications researchers have
always assumed the audience to be active; audience members have the ability to
recognize their needs and seek out gratification (perhaps through media use).
However, Rubin (1993) identified a set of individuals who watch television with a
more passive orientation. They are less goal-directed, and have little attention or
selection of materials. While the introduction of the chronically lonely as passive
viewer seems validated, the idea of passive viewing seems a bit problematic.

Rubin & McHugh (1987) indicated that there was a para-social relationship
development path, whereby, simplified, social attraction leads to a para-social
interaction, which leads to a sense of relationship importance, but found no link
between exposure to TV characters and para-social interaction. This is interesting, in
light of the fact that it is often assumed that lonely viewers seek companionship from
these characters. In fact, there is evidence that this is not the reason viewers attend to
media materials. F inn & Gorr (1988) looked at relationships between viewing
motivations and various personality traits, including shyness, self-esteem, and

loneliness. l V motivations were placed into two factors, with social compensation

 

(including such items as companionship, passing time, and escapism), and mood
management (relaxation, entertainment, arousal and information motivations). While
they were able to find relationships between shyness and viewing (r=.30, p<. 001), no
relationship was found between loneliness and social compensation (p=.09, n. s.). That
is, viewers who are chronically lonely are not necessarily watching for companionship,
passing time, or escapism.

Again, the assumption made is that the viewer is lonely and watching by
herself. It is possible that there are viewers watching in this way, and it is logical to
assume that lonely people would seek companionship, but it is not sound to assume
that all people who are in the absence of others wish to be with others. Being alone is a
physical state; loneliness is a psychological condition. Lonely people aren’t always
alone and people who are alone aren’t always lonely.

What has also been assumed, according to Perse & Rubin (1989) is the idea
that para-social interaction should not be considered something that poorly socialized
individuals do. In fact, they believed that this is a normal consequence of viewing. The
idea of non-lonely people making connections to media personae began to emerge.
This idea was furthered by Canary & Spitzberg (1993) with the distinction made
between chronically lonely individuals and situationally lonely individuals, that is,
those who are alone by temporary circumstances (such as being away from family due
to temporary work assignments). Interestingly, they found that the chronically lonely
rely less on media for escapism, noting that chronically lonely individuals attended to
media materials for surveillance (the need for information or news). As for para-social

interaction, there was no difference due to loneliness chronicity.

 

In sum, para-social interaction has been thought to be linked to loneliness
despite the rather moderate to low effects sizes (see Table 1.1). If loneliness does not

drive para-social interaction, then what does? And, does loneliness have a role in this?

Table 1.1 Research Variables of Interest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Year Variables value p-value
Levy 1979 para-social interaction social interaction =-.12 p<.05
Levy 1979 para-social interaction news viewing r=. 22 p<.01

viewing alone or with
Levy 1 979 para-social interaction others r=. 02 n. s.
Rubin, Perse, interpersonal
Powell 1985 loneliness communication r=-. 44 p<.001
Rubin, Perse,
Powell 1985 loneliness TV reliance r=.18 p<.001
Rubin, Perse,
Powell 1985 para-social interaction TV reliance r=. l5 p<.01
Rubin, Perse,
Powell 1985 para-social interaction loneliness =-.09 n.s.
less interpersonal
Perse, Rubin 1990 chronic loneliness interaction X2=61. l6 p<.001
increased passive TV
Perse, Rubin I990 chronic loneliness use X2=22. 83 p<.004
Hosman l99l loneliness need for privacy r=.20 p<.01
Rubin,
McHugh I987 para-social interaction TV exposure r=. 12 p<.05
attraction toward r=.01 n.s.
Rubin, characters r=.05 n.s.
McHugh I987 TV exposure (social, physical, task) r=. 05 n.s.
Rubin,
McHugh I987 para-social interaction social attraction r=. 35 p<. 001
r=.03 n.s.
Rubin, attraction r=. 1 1 p<. 05
McHtgh 1987 (social, physical, task) relationship importance r=.09 n.s.
Rubin,
McHugh 1987 para-social interaction relationship importance r=. 52 p<. 001
Finn, Gorr 1988 shyness social compensation r=.30 p<.001
Finn, Gorr I988 loneliness social compensation r=.09 n.s.

 

 

Loneliness and Solitude as a Situation Rather Than Condition
What has not really been considered to this point is the idea that loneliness is
not necessarily a stable trait or condition. As noted, the idea of being alone can be

either desired or not given different situations. Gratifications researchers indicate that

l0

individuals watch television for a variety of reasons—sometimes conflicting reasons
(e. g. escape from others, companionship). Given that, we must realize that loneliness
fluctuates, depending on the need for companionship, and the ability to obtain such
gratification. Someone who is lonely and alone (defined as the Classically Lonely)
would feel a heightened need for companionship, but, having no one around, would
likely become very involved with televised personae, and develop stronger bonds.
Someone who is alone, but not feeling lonely (Loner), may not feel a need for
escapism or companionship, and therefore, will not become as involved with personae,
and will not develop bonds with them.

Thus, uses of television as a variable must be considered. It cannot be assumed
that people are always lonely and that loneliness itself leads to para-social interaction.
Rather, it is that person who perceives a need for companionship that is more likely to
seek it out. This same person is more likely to do so by means of television if there
aren’t any others around.

From this, a simple path model (Figure 1.2) is developed that broadly explains
loneliness and its relationship to para-social interaction. The loneliness type (a
function of perceived loneliness and solitude) drives the gratifications one may seek
from television, specifically companionship, escapism, passing time, and social
interaction adapted from Greenberg (1974) and Rubin (1979, 1981). Lonely people
would seemingly crave companionship more than Non-lonely people, and be more
likely to turn to television to gratify that need. Non—lonely people would more likely

seek television to pass the time, or perhaps as a vehicle to spend time with fi‘iends.

ll

 

Such assertions need to be more carefully examined. The following paragraphs look
more closely at each link along the path model.

Figure 1.2 Path Model of Effects

 

 

 

 

Loneliness . . Viewing Para-social
Tyge I Companionship ’ Involvement Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: arrows indicate positive relationship between constructs.

Looking at the individual links, the type of loneliness a person experiences
(loneliness and solitude levels) will determine the types of needs one would have. It
would be reasonable to expect that those with a heightened sense of loneliness and
solitude (defined here as the Classically Lonely) would have a need for
companionship, and use television to fill that need:

H1: Classically Lonely individuals will have a heightened need for
Companionship from television versus the other groups (i. e. Loners, Lonely with
Others, and Non-lonely).

Those who experience loneliness, but are around others will not necessarily
feel the need for companionship, but rather seek an escape from their current situation.
The presence of these others is not satisfying them, and the alternative is to escape that
through television:

H2: “Lonely with Others ” individuals will use television as an escape more
than other groups (i. e. Classically Lonely, Loners, and Non-lonely).

Those who do not feel a sense of loneliness, regardless of their state of
solitude, will more likely have less directed uses of television. Their present situation
does not necessarily lend itself to dissatisfaction, and any use of media will neither be
to escape a particular situation, nor to find comfort for any perceived inadequacies.

Television essentially becomes a means by which time is simply passed:

12

 

H3: Loner individuals will use television to pass time more than other groups
(Classically Lonely, “Lonely with Others, ” and Non-lonely).

For individuals who are not lonely and also not in the presence of others (i.e.
low level of loneliness and high level of solitude, or Loners), television becomes a
vehicle by which an experience is shared. It becomes a means by which individuals
can gather together for the sake of social interaction:

H4 .' Non-lonely individuals will use television for Social Interaction more than
other groups (i. e. Classically Lonely, “Lonely with Others, ” and Loners).

These needs will drive the level of viewing involvement. Traditionally active
uses will increase the level of viewing involvement, while the more ritualized viewing
(escape, passing time) will not be related to viewing involvement. The individual who
watches television for the expressed purpose of gratifying a need for companionship is
engaged in a very active pursuit and use of television. This person is more likely to
become more involved in viewing.

In sum, the type of media use is more likely to be the result of experiences and
perceptions one has in a given time frame. The needs one has are shaped by
circumstances (in this case, perceived feelings of loneliness and proximity to others),
and television provides gratification. The lonely (Classically Lonely) will seek
companionship; Lonely with Others will look to escape; the Loners will pass the time;
Non-lonely will use television as a means to spend time with others. Table 1.2

provides a visual outline of H1 -H4.

13

Table 1.2 Loneliness Type Most Likely to Use Television for Specific Need

Loneliness T

With Others Loners

Pass Time
Social Interaction

This model indicates that the specific needs are the result of the condition of
the individual, that is, how lonely they feel and their level of contact with others
(solitude). The condition of loneliness and solitude create four distinct categories, from
which certain needs will take on greater importance. This is important to note, as the
specific needs will lead to greater involvement. These particular needs will be the
more active needs: companionship and social interaction:

H5: As use for companionship increases, the level of viewing involvement
increases.

Seeking companionship is an active process. The viewer feels lonely, and is, in
fact, not around others (Classically Lonely). This person will seek others in any form,
including by proxy (use of television). By the same measure, those engaged in
television use for social interaction are using televised programs for the purpose of
interaction with others in their environment; the act of viewing facilitates discussion.
The actions of televised personae will lead to discussions by others regarding these
actions. This increases the level of involvement:

H6: As use for social interaction increases, the level of viewing involvement

increases.

l4

 

These are rather important links to note, as both the Non-lonely and Classically
Lonely both drive involvement. This is an indication that very different motivations
can lead to the same effect, in this case, greater involvement, and ultimately, para-
social interaction. This would also explain how there is seemingly no correlation
between loneliness and para-social interaction: both Non-lonely and Classically Lonely
individuals will identify with televised personae given higher levels of involvement.
Again, someone watching to simply pass the time will feel no particular attachment to
televised personae, while someone with a need for companionship will more likely
develop bonds with television characters. The discussion of characters and their
situations that increases one’s involvement serves to blur the boundaries of social and
para-social interaction. The characters and events on television, while clearly
mediated, are assigned greater importance, and increase the bonds perceived by the
viewer toward the televised personae.

H7: Viewing involvement will be positively correlated with para-social
interaction.

From this logic, we can see that the more active uses will drive viewing
involvement. We can also see that the Classically Lonely and Non-lonely individuals
will be the more active viewers. With these groups separated and accounted for by
virtue of solitude, we can see that para-social interaction is less likely in Lonely with
Others and Loners.

In sum, we see the path model developing (Figure 1.3). It should be noted here
that no links between escapism and passing time are indicated in the path model. It has

been argued that a passive orientation (as evidenced by the ritualistic gratifications

15

 

sought) is characterized by less attention to content. It is argued here that such
gratifications, then, would not lead to increased involvement. That is, these
gratifications should be unrelated to viewing involvement.

H8: Loneliness type drives the type of gratifications sought, which (as active
gratifications) then drives involvement, which ultimately leads to para-social
interaction.

Figure 1.3 shows the proposed links between the types of loneliness and the
gratification sought. Of these gratifications sought, companionship and social
interaction are shown to be strongly (and positively) linked to viewing involvement,
which is then linked to para-social interaction, while escapism and passing time should
be unrelated. In addition, gratification items should be uncorrelated across gratification
items (i.e. gratifications do not drive gratifications in this model). These links will be
tested using Hunter’s “path-e” program.

Figure 1.3 Hypothesized Links

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ Companionship
+
+ ; Escapism
Loneliness Viewing + Para-social
Type Involvement ——> Interaction
+ I Pass Time
4.
__+_, Social
Interaction

 

 

 

l6

CHAPTER 2
Method

Participants—427 college students from a small private college in Auburn
Hills and a large community college in Southeast Michigan participated in the survey.
Students in various classrooms were asked to participate in this study. Participation
was completely voluntary.

With 74% of the sample female, it was decided that the analysis would only
examine females. From the original sample, 313 females were extracted, and 279
female cases were retained for analysis (as they met the selection criteria of being

female and having a Loneliness Type score (thus, 34 females were dropped». It should

 

In!!! .... . .

be noted that of the 111 males (and 2 missing cases), 95 would have been retained for
testing under the same selection criteria (see Discussion section for rationale and
potential problems with retaining only females in the analyses).

Respondents were mostly Caucasian (82%), with 11% African American, and
3% Hispanic. The mean age was 25.5 years (SD: 8.3). Mean score for TV viewing
was 9.5 hours per week (SD: 8.2).

Measures—Four major measures that must be discussed are: loneliness type,
gratifications, viewing involvement, and para-social interaction. All measures except
viewing involvement explicitly noted that respondents were asked to answer questions
relative to the previous week, again, to try and capture the attitudes and beliefs held at
a particular moment in time. The extent to which change over time occurs is not
measured here. Rather, the situational disposition of the response items was designed

to give the respondent a context in which to assess their states.

17

Loneliness—Typically, loneliness has been measured using the UCLA
Loneliness Scale, which asks respondents how much they agree or disagree (highly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, highly agree) on items such as how often they feel
“in tune” with others, lack companionship, or feel close to people (note items 1, 4, 5,
8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 were reverse-scored (Table 2.1)). The UCLA Loneliness Scale
was adapted for this study, omitting items that asked if the respondent felt alone, shy
or outgoing with others. Shyness and outgoingness were considered separate and
distinct personality measures, and were therefore omitted. The idea of feeling alone
was considered an item that would measure solitude, and omitted.

Note that the distribution is highly skewed (Table 2.1). Most respondents feel
that they are not lonely. This is important to note when loneliness type is calculated by
taking the median split of this variable. There will invariably be quite a few
respondents placed as highly lonely relative to those below the median. This may
increase Type II error, in that, significant differences among groups may not be found

when, in fact, differences may actually exist.

18

Table 2.1 Loneliness Items
(1=StronegDisagree, =StronglyAgreeL

 

Loneliness (Perceptual) (M= 2.05, Med= 1.95, Mode= 1.53, S.D.= 0.66, Skew= .72)

 

Last week, how often dirtyou feel...

 

. you were "in tune" with the people around you? (reverse scored)

 

. you lacked companionship?

 

. there was no one you could turn to?

 

. part of a group of friends? (reverse scored)

 

. you had a lot in common with the pegfie around you? (reverse scored)

 

. you were no longer close to anyone?

 

. your interests and ideas were not shared by those around you?

 

QNQUI th—t

. close to people? (reverse scored)

 

9. left out?

 

10. Eur relationships with others were not meaningful?

 

11. no one really knew you well?

 

12. isolated from others?

 

13. you could find companionship when you wanted it? (reverse scored)

 

14. there were people who really understand you? (reverse scored)

 

15. people were around you but not with you?

 

16. there were people you could talk to? (reverse scored)

 

 

17. there were people you could turn to? (reverse scored)

 

 

 

Alpha= .93

Solitude—A solitude scale was constructed, and is aimed at measuring the
amount of time individuals spend alone. Respondents were asked to determine how
often (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) they spent time with others (note items
2 and 6 were reverse-scored (Table 2.2)). This six-item scale includes questions that
ask how often the respondent is around other people, how often they spend time alone,
and how they spend time with themselves. Item 3 was not retained for analysis, as it
violated parallelism tests. That is, this item was too highly correlated with other
constructs (particularly with several items in the loneliness scale (see Appendix C)).
Initial alpha with the item retained was 0.69; re-running the reliability analysis without
the item showed a final alpha of 0.73.

In addition, solitude was also positively skewed (Table 2.2). Relatively few

people reported being alone. Again, using median splits to create a high and low

19

category for solitude makes this variable relative to the respondents’ reports. That is,
high solitude individuals are in this category because they reported lower scores than

half of those in the low solitude category. It is not necessarily because they were
highly alone.

Table 2.2 Solitude Items

(1=Always, 2=Often, 3=Sometimes, 4=Rarely, 5=Never)
Solitude (M= 2.52, Med= 2.40, Mode= 2.0, 8.0. 0.71, Skew=
.48)
Last Week...

1. How often were you around other people?

 

 

 

2. How often were you by Lourself? (reverse scored)

 

3. How often did you spend time with a friend? (not retained)

 

4. How often did you spend time with relatives?

 

5. How often did you spend time with a significant other?

 

 

 

6. How often did you spend time alone? (reverse scored)
Alpha= .73 =

 

 

It must be noted that, in order to test the level of loneliness, it is necessary to
look at loneliness as a scale item. To do this, it must be assumed that the Classically
Lonely and the Non-Lonely are placed at opposite ends of the scale. An assumption has
to be made in order to rank Loners and Lonely with Others, and that is the perceived
loneliness will be more related to the Classically Lonely. So, high loneliness receives a
relatively higher weight versus high solitude. Thus, Lonely with Others would be
considered more closely related to Classically Lonely individuals, while Loners would
rank just below Lonely with Others.

In order to create the categories of loneliness (i.e. Classically Lonely, Lonely
with Others, Loners, and Non-Lonely), median splits were used to create high and low
categories for each construct. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the median values for
Loneliness (Med= 1.95) and Solitude (Med= 2.40). This may prove problematic when

evaluating the hypotheses, as these now become relative categories. That is, high

20

loneliness is defined as anyone who scored above the median value, which is clearly
below the scale’s mid-point of 3. This indicates that a portion of the highly lonely
individuals may not be highly lonely at, but only relatively lonelier than the
respondents in the lower half of the median value.

Creating this ordinal scale is obviously problematic. To say that Loners are
lower on the scale than Lonely with Others on the basis of their perceived loneliness
rather than their solitude state is an assumption that cannot be validated by precedent.
It has been argued earlier that the perceived loneliness will be assigned a greater
weight. Thus, weights were assigned to create ordinal categories, so that the relative
levels of loneliness from low to high are as follows: Non-Lonely = 1, Loners = 2,
Lonely with Others = 3, Classically Lonely = 4. This was performed in order to test the
path model.

Again, it can be questioned why solitude and loneliness were combined to
create a loneliness type scale. Rather, why are the categories placed along a continuum
for testing the path model? In truth, the original conception of the path model was that
the type of loneliness would drive gratifications. The separation of solitude and
loneliness was not originally designed to be separate constructs, and in fact, Table 2.7
shows a rather strong relationship between loneliness and solitude (r=0.39, p<.001).
The distinctions were made in order to explain a continuum of loneliness as it relates
to solitude. Certainly, this may be controversial, and in post hoc analysis, a revised
path model can test loneliness or solitude as separate constructs along the path model.

Gratifications—Needs, or gratification items, look at very specific

gratifications sought, particularly at needs related to passing time, companionship,

21

 

social interaction, and escapism. Respondents were asked to determine to what extent
they strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree to each item as a reason for
having viewed television the previous week.

It should be noted that both passing time (Skew= -. 04) and companionship
(Skew= 0.76) were not normally distributed. This is evidenced by the modal numbers.
However, social interaction (Skew= 0.24, Mode= 2.0) and escapism (Skew= -. 003,
Mode= 2. 0) were more

Table 2.3 Uses & Gratifications Items

 

 

(1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree)

“Listed below are reasons you might watch TV. Please indicate whether you strongly
agree, agree, feel neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree for each of these items as a
reason you watched television LAST WEEK. ”

PASS TIME (M= 3.12, S.D.= 1.02, Skew= -.04, Mode= 4.0)

I. it passed the time away (Passl)

2. it gave me something to do (PassZ)

3. it helped me forget my problems (not retained)

4. I was bored (PassB)

5. I had nothing better to do (Pass4)

Alpha= .88

COMPANIONSHIP (M= 1.95, SD. = 0.77, Skew= .76, Mode= 2. 0)

1. so I wasn’t alone (Compl)

2. there was no one to talk to (Comp2)

3. because it made me feel less lonely (Comp3)

Alpha= . 70

ESCAPISM (M=2.81, S. D. = 0.94, Skew= -. 003, Mode= 2. 0)

l. to forget about school and homework (Escl)

2. to get away from the rest of my family (not retained)

3. to get away from what I was doing (Esc2)

4. so I didn't have to do anything when I watched (not retained)

5. took my mind off of things (Esc3)

6. escape from everyday life (Esc4)

Alpha= .82

SOCIAL INTERACTION/ UTILITY (M= 2.26, SD. = 0.74, Skew= .24, Mode= 2. 0)
1. it was something to do when friends came over (3001)

2. so I could be with my family or friends (Soc2)

3. it served as a conversation topic (Soc3)

4. met new people who also watch (Soc4)

Alpha= .89

 

 

 

22

Viewing Involvement—Viewing involvement was an adapted version of
Rubin’s (1985) Affinity scale for soap operas, which measured the importance of
soaps to viewers. Woods (1997) believed that involvement and importance were
essentially the same, drawing from Zaichowsky’s (1986) argument that viewers who
were involved in the program would “perceive importance” (p. 12). Respondents
were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed (highly disagree, disagree,
neutral, agree, or highly agree) to items such as “I got very involved with the stories
I see on television,” and “I liked thinking about the programs I watched” (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4 Viewing Involvement Items
(1=StrongILDisagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

 

Involvement (All Items Retained) (M= 3.04, S.D.= 0.87)

 

1. It was important to me to watch my favorite shows. (lnv1)

 

 

2. Watching television was an importarflart of my dailuoutine. (Inv2)

 

3. I got very involved with the stories I saw on television. (an3)

 

4. I couldn’t wait to see what happened on my favorite shows. (Inv4)

 

5. I liked to think about the programs I watched. (an5)

 

 

6. I often thoguqht about what happened on television as I watched the shows. (lnv6)

 

 

Alpha= .89

Para-social Interaction—Rubin, Perse, & Powell’s (1985) adapted ten-item
para-social interaction scale was used to measure para-social activity. Such questions
include: “When I am watching my favorite TV programs, I feel as if I am part of the
group,” “I think my favorite TV characters or TV personalities are like old friends,”
and “I would like to meet my favorite TV characters or TV personalities.”
Respondents determined the extent to which they strongly agreed, agreed, felt

neutral, disagreed, or strongly disagreed (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 Para-social Items
(l=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

 

Para-social Interaction Scale (M= 3.16, S.D.= 0.75)

“Think about last week and the TV programs you watched. Now think about the characters
or personalities on those programs as you answer the followiqu items.”

 

1. When I was watchirLgmy favorite TV programs, I feel as if I am part of the group. (Parafl

 

2. My favorite TV characters or TV personalities made me feel comfortable, as if I were with
friends. (Para2)

 

3. I saw them as natural, down-to—earth people. (Para3)

 

4. I looked fonlvard to watching my favorite TV characters or TV personalities.

 

. If they appeared on another TV pggram, I would watch that program.

 

. If there was a story about them in a newspaper or maggzine, I would read it.

 

 

. I would like to have met my favorite TV characters or TV personalities.

 

5
6
7. I missed seeMem when they were not on the program.
8
9

. I thought they were like old friends. (Para4)

 

 

10. I found them to be attractive.

 

 

Alpha= .80

Table 2.6 summarizes the means for the variables tested (including Loneliness
and Solitude as separate constructs), while Table 2.7 indicates the correlations among the
variables tested. The table of means for each of the scale items reveals some of the
potential problems that may be encountered during testing. As noted earlier, loneliness
and solitude used median cut points to create high and low categories. The mean score for
each (Loneliness M=2. 05, Solitude M: 2.52) is below the scale’s mid-point of 3, to
produce a resulting mean below the scale’s mid-point for loneliness type (M = 2.46, SD=
1.24). In fact, companionship (M=].95, SD= 0.77) and social interaction (M= 2.26, SD=
0.74) are also quite low. That is, overall, respondents do not feel lonely or alone, and do
not generally use television to gratify a need for companionship or social interaction. As
noted, such low mid-points (especially for loneliness and solitude) may make finding

differences among groups more difficult.

24

Table 2.6 Scale Means
(1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Mean Deviation

Loneliness Type 2.46 1.24
Pass Time 3.12 1.02
Social Interaction 2.26 0.74
Escape 2.81 0.94
Companionship 1.95 0.77
Viewing Involvement 3.04 0.87
Para-social 3.16 0.75
Loneliness 2.05 0.66
Solitude 2.52 0.71

 

In looking at Table 2.7, all of the gratifications are significantly correlated with
each other. In fact, the lowest correlation is between escapism and social interaction
(r=0.20, p<. 05), and the strongest is between escapism and companionship (r=0. 43,
p<. 001). Again, this may pose a problem with the path model as originally conceived,
wherein gratification was seen as a uni-dimensional construct. The path model proposed
(Figure 1.3) includes all gratifications, even arguing that passive gratifications will have
no effect on viewing involvement. However, the path model also assumes that
gratifications are not related to each other; that is, no gratification drives another
gratification. Table 2.7 clearly shows that such assumptions are already violated, and will

need further consideration.

25

Table 2.7 Correlation Matrix of Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loneli Social Viewing
ness Pass lnterac Escap Compani Involve Para- Lonel Solit
Type Time tion e onship ment social iness ude
Lonefiness
Type 1
Pass Time 0.18" 1
Social
Interaction 0.03 0.24“ 1
Escape 0.07 0.22" 020* 1
Companion
ship 0.33""r 0.37“ 0.40” 0.43" 1
Involvement 0.08 0.11 0.30“ 0.35“ 0.22" 1
Para-social 0.04 0.12“ 020* 0.21“ 0.15”" 0.46“ 1
Loneliness 0.79“ 0.19" 0.05 0.22“ 0.42“ 0.12 0.05 1
039*
Solitude 0.57“ 0.19“ -0.04 0.07 0.17“ 0.10 0.09 * 1

 

**p< .0] *p<.05

 

Results of Factor Analysis
Internal Consistency

Using confirmatory factor analysis involves two tests of reliability—internal
consistency and parallelism. Internal consistency checks are derived by taking the
product of the factor loadings for each coefficient to obtain the predicted coefficient. The
difference from the obtained correlation is the resulting error. For example, Table 2.6
shows the loadings for items 1 and 2 as 0.57 and 0.64 respectively. The product is 0.36.
In fact, the obtained correlation was 0.34 for an error of 0.02 (0.36 — 0.34 = 0. 02).
Ideally, there should be little to no error, and the closer to zero, the more reliable the
item. While what constitutes too high an error rate is subjective, this study sets the
threshold at e>0.20 for both the internal consistency and parallelism tests.

lntemal consistency can be used for scales with four or more items (over-

identified). Below are the results of each scale, excluding the companionship scale, which

26

has only three items (thus is just-identified, and cannot be tested using internal
consistency). Parallelism will be discussed later.

Loneliness—All items were retained for analysis. Table 2.8 shows both the
correlation coefficients (in the lower quadrant) and the errors produced from the
difference between calculated and actual coefficients. Notice that Items 16 and 17 were
much more highly correlated than expected, producing an error of 0.39. However,
reliability analysis using SPSS 11.5 showed that deleting this item only slightly reduced
the reliability (alpha: .925). Given the rather high reliability and the relatively low error
rates (shown in the upper quadrant of Table 2.8 below) for both items across other items,

all items were retained.

27

00. u 0.12..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 2.0 2.0 ~00 2.0 00.0 00.0 :0 00.0 ~00 2.0 00.0 00.0 00
5003
uOuumnl—IL

.- 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 .00 ~00 00.0 3.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 :0 t

00.0 .- -0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0:

00.0 00.0 .- 20 :~.0 ~00 00.0 00.0 00.0 -.0 00.0 00.0 :00 0~.0 ~00 ~00 0~.0 0:

0:0- 0:0. 0:0 -- 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~00 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 3

00.0- 00.0- 00.0 0:.0- .- 00 .00 00.0 00.0 3.0 0~.0 00.0 ~00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.

8.0 00.0 000. 0:0 :.0 -. ~00 0.0 2.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 5.0 00.0 00.0 :00 00.0 2

3.0 00.0 «00. ~00 0:0 000. .- 50 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~00 ~00 0~.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 :

00.0 00.0 3.0- :00 ~00 8.0- :0- -. 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0:

000 0:0 0:0- 9.0 00.0 :0- 00.0- 00.0- .. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0

00.0- 00.0- :0 :0- 00.0- 0.0 8.0 00.0 0 :0 : ~00 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 30 ~00 0

~:.0 :0- :0- 8.0 00.0 00.0- 00.0- 00. B0- 0.0 .- 000 00.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~

20 00.0 00.0- 00.0 00.0 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- ~00- 0 :0- -- 00.0 0~.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0

00.0. ~00- 00.0 00.0- ~00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. :00 :.0 .- 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 0

00.0- 00.0- ~00 00.0- 00.0- 00.0 00.0 ~:.0 00.0 ~:.0. 00.0 00.0 3.0- - 0.0 :00 ~00 0

0.0 5.0- :00- 0.0 00.0 00.0- 3.0- 00.0- 00.0- 30 ~00- ~70- 8.0 00.0 .- 000 00.0 0

:0 ~:.0 00.0- 00.0 5.0. «00. ~00 00.0- ~00- ~00- 0 2.0- 30 ~00- 00.0- .- 000 ~

50 ~00 ~00 ~00- 00.0- 00.0 00.0 00.0 ~00 00.0- :00- 80 0:0- ~:.0- 00.0 ~00 .- F

t 0: 0: 3 0: ~: : 0. 0 0 k 0 0 e 0 ~ 0 ea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

088— 002528:— .? 08530.80 .053:— mfi 030,—.

28

Solitude—The Solitude scale consisted originally of six items (Table 2.9). While
internal consistency checks show that all six items hold together, parallelism tests
indicate that Item 3 (How often did you spend time with a friend?) was cross-loaded with
several items in the loneliness scale (part of a group of friends (e= -0. 41), you had a lot
in common with the people around you? (e= ~0.29), there were people you could talk to?
(e= -0. 22), and there were people you could turn to? (e= -0.21)). Because of the sheer
number of cross-loaded items, Item 3 was deleted, creating a final alpha coefficient of
0.73.

Table 2.9 Internal Consistency of Solitude Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4 5
l -- 0 -0.02 0.01 0.08
2 0.66 -- -0.02 0.11 -O.10
3 0.22 0.22 -- -0.07 -0.01
4 0.29 0.19 0.16 -- 0.01
5 0.56 0.74 0.21 0.28 --

Factor

Loadings 0.81 0.81 0.25 0.37 0.79

Alpha = . 73

Passing T ime—Items retained for passing time are indicated in Table 2.3. Internal
consistency checks showed very little error (Table 2.10).

Table 2.10 Internal Consistency of Passing Time Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4
l —- 0.00 0.00 0.01
2 0.56 -- 0.01 -0.01
3 0.58 0.70 -- -0.01
4 0.55 0.71 0.73 --

Factor

Loadings 0.67 0.83 0.86 0.84

Alpha= .88

(note: Error calculations placed in the upper half of the correlation matrix)

29

Social Use/Interaction—Items retained for the social interaction scale are shown
on Table 2.3. Internal consistency check shows small error rates (Table 2.11).

Table 2.11 Internal Consistency of Social Interaction Scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4
l -- -0.01 0.05 -0.04
2 0.30 -- -0.03 0.04
3 0.43 0.32 -- -0.01
4 0.48 0.22 0.44 --

Factor

Loadings 0.70 0.42 0.68 0.63

Alpha= . 70

Escape—Items retained for the escapism scale are indicated in Table 2.3. Error
rates for this scale, though somewhat higher than the other uses scales, are still well
within acceptable limits (Table 2.12).

Table 2.12 Internal Consistency of Escape Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4
l -- -0.08 0.03 0.05
2 0.60 -- 0.05 0.02
3 0.56 0.62 -- -0.08
4 0.35 0.43 0.59 --

Factor

Loadigs 0.68 0.77 0.87 0.59

Alpha= .82

1nvolvement——All items were retained for the viewing involvement scale (see
Table 2.4). While error for the correlation between Item 5 and Item 6 is somewhat higher
(e= 0.18), internal consistency check indicates that the items are reliable (i.e. small error),

and all six items were retained for analysis (Table 2.13).

30

Table 2.13 Internal Consistency of Involvement Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 -- -0.07 0.04 0.12 0.08 0.09
2 0.62 -- -0.03 0.04 0.01 0.05
3 0.57 0.57 -- -0.02 -0.03 0.01
4 0.75 0.52 0.64 -- 0.07 0.05
5 0.55 0.55 0.59 0.57 -- 0.18
6 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.49 0.72 --

Factor

Loadings 0.79 0.70 0.77 0.80 0.80 0.68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alpha= .89
Para-Social Interaction—Items retained for the para-social scale were as follows:
“When I watched my favorite TV programs, I felt as if 1 was part of the group. ”
“My favorite TV characters or TV personalities made me feel comfortable, as if]
was with friends. ”
“1 saw them as natural, down-to-earth people. ”

“I thought they were like old friends. "

Initial CFA results indicated rather high errors testing internal consistency, and
exploratory factor analysis results indicated that the scale was not uni-dimensional.
Examination of the items indicated that the second factor seemed to reveal more of a
liking toward actors and actresses (“I found them to be attractive,” “If they appeared on
another TV program, 1 would watch them,” “If there was a story about them in a
newspaper or magazine, I would read it.”). Moreover, these items seem to indicate that
the viewer is aware that they are watching actors portraying characters. One of the

fundaments of para-social interaction is the blurring of distinction between the reality and

31

fantasy. Magazine articles discussing the real life of actors can be construed as separate
from the televised character’s life. The factor analysis would suggest this possibility.

Error rates for the retained items (Table 2.14) are within acceptable limits, thus
passing the internal consistency check.

Table 2.14 Internal Consistency of Para-Social Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 1 2 3 4
1 -- -0.02 0.04 -0.01
2 0.60 -- -0.01 0.03
3 0.39 0.52 -- -0.01
4 0.50 0.55 0.44 --

Factor

Loadings 0.70 0.83 0.61 0.70

Alpha= .80

As noted, the companionship scale (A lpha= .81) could not be checked for internal
consistency, as there are only three items, making it just-identified. However, the
parallelism test can be used to check the reliability.

Parallelism

Parallelism tests involve looking at error of each factor against all other factors.
This is calculated by taking the product of the factor loadings and the correlation between
the factors to create the predicted value. The difference from the obtained value is the
error. For example, looking at the para-social scale and the viewing involvement scale,
the error for the first item of each scale can be calculated by taking the product of the
factor loadings (0.70 and 0.79 respectively) multiplying that by the correlation of the two
factors (r= 0.54) to obtain the predicted correlation of 0.30. The obtained value was 0.26
(see the Factor Correlation Matrix in Appendix A) for a difference of 0.04. This is the

calculated error. Appendix C shows all calculated error values. As noted, Item 3 (“How

32

often did you spend time with friends and family? ”) produced multiple errors exceeding

0.20 within the loneliness scale, and therefore was deleted from the solitude scale.

33

CHAPTER 3
Results—-Test of Hypotheses

As noted in the Chapter 2, using median splits to determine high and low
categories for solitude (Med = 2.40) and loneliness (Med. = 1.94) yielded 279 cases.
These two categories were combined to create a continuous variable where the following
ranking was devised: Non-Lonely = 1, Loners = 2, Lonely with Others = 3, Classically
Lonely = 4. It was determined that the affective state (loneliness) was given a higher
ranking relative to the physical state (solitude), so that Loners were considered lower than
Lonely with Others.

Loneliness was given a higher relative weighting versus solitude for reasons of
precedent or focus. Academic study has concentrated heavily on loneliness, and not at all
on solitude. In fact, as noted, elements of solitude have found their way into the UCLA
Loneliness Scale. It has seemingly been assumed that being alone was essentially the
same as feeling lonely. This is not assumed in this model, but it is now assumed, given
this bias toward the affective aspect of loneliness, that solitude is not as strong as the
feeling of loneliness. Thus, loneliness was given a relatively higher weight. This ranking
will be necessary for testing the fit of the path model.

The uneven group sizes pose a slight problem (see Figure 3.1); ANOVA assumes
equal cell sizes. Violation of this can be problematic. However, the means within each
gratification sought can be tested despite the differences in sample size of the four

categories using weighted means, as outlined by Keppel (1991).

34

Figure 3.1 Distribution of Respondents- Loneliness by Solitude

Table 3.1 shows the test for homogeneity of variances. None of the gratification

Perceived
Loneliness

Physical Loneliness (Solitude)

 

 

 

 

 

 

NON-
ALONE ALONE
Classically Lonely with
Lonely Others
LONELY 01:83) 0:56)
NON' Loners Non-lonely
LONELY (n=45) (n=95)

 

items violates this test, and therefore should not result in Type I error.

Table 3.1 Levene Test of Homogeneity of Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levene

Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Pass Time 1.56 3 270 0.200
Social Interaction 1.69 3 272 0.170
Escape 2.08 3 269 0.104
Companionship 2.49 3 273 0.061

 

F -tests for weighted means involve taking the squared difference of the group
means from the grand mean multiplied by the size of the sample to obtain the Sum of
Squares (SS). For example, looking at Table 3.2, to calculate the SS for “Pass Time,” the

grand mean is calculated by summing the Sums and dividing by the sum of the sample

size:

35

 

 

Grand Mean (Y1) = (268.0 + 142.0 + 175.5 + 269.0) / (93 + 45 + 56 + 80)
= 3.12
SSA = (93) (2.88 — 3.12)2 + (45) (3.1 7 — 3.12): + (56) (3.13 — 3.12): + (80) (3.36 —
3.12):
= (93) (.0576) + (45) (0.0025) + (56) (0.0001) + (80) (.05 76)
= 10.09

Table 3.2 Within-Group Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time (F (270, 3) = 3.35, p<.05)
Lonely Classically
Non-Lonely Loner With Others Lonely
Sum 268.00 142.00 175.50 269.00
Sample Size 93 45 56 80
Mean 2.88 3.17 3.13 3.36
Standard Deviation 1.03 1.14 0.86 0.98
Social Interaction (F (272, 3) = 0.81, n.s.)
Lonely Classically
Non-Lonely Loner With Others Lonely
Sum 208.25 98.50 134.25 182.5
Sample Size 94 44 56 82
Mean 2.22 2.24 2.40 2.23
Standard Deviation 0.80 0.75 0.63 0.73
Escape (F(269, 3L= 1.22, n.s.)
Lonely Classically
Non-Lonelt Loner With Others Lonely
Sum 257.00 117.50 158.00 235
Sample Size 92 45 56 80
Mean 2.79 2.61 2.82 2.94
Standard Deviation 1.02 1.02 0.75 0.89
Companionship (F(273, 3) = 11.94, p<.05)
Lonely Classically
Non-Lonely Loner With Others Lonely
Sum 158.67 77.33 116.00 187.67
Sample Size 94 45 56 82
Mean 1.69 1.72 2.07 2.29
Standard Deviation 0.47 0.77 0.60 0.83

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

By dividing the Sum of Squares by the degrees of freedom (number of groups - l), the
Mean Square is calculated:
MSA = SSA/ de
= 10.09/(4 — 1)
= 3.36
The error term (MSS/A, or Mean Square Error) was calculated using SPSS (see Table 3.3),
which is the within-groups Mean Square (including the degrees of freedom). The F-value
is calculated by taking the MSA and dividing by the error term.
F = MSA / MSsxA
= 3.36 / 1.004
= 3.35
With 3 and 270 degrees of freedom, F ~values are significant at p<.05 at 2.60 and above.
So, for passing time, it can be stated that the groups’ means are different from each other.
Table 3.3 shows the F-values for all four dependent variables, including the eta-squared,
which measures the relative strength of association.

Table 3.3 F-test for Gratification Items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social

Pass Time Interaction Escape Companionship
Grand Mean 3.12 2.26 2.81 1.95
Sum of Squares 10.09 1.33 3.19 19.02
Degrees of
Freedom 3 3 3 3
Mean Square 3.36 0.44 1.06 6.34
Mean Square Error 1.004 0.545 0.87 0.531
Within Groug df 270 272 269 273
F-value Cp<.05) 335* 0.81 1.22 11.94“
Eta-Squared .04 .01 .02 .12

 

37

While the omnibus ANOVA was not directly needed for specific hypothesis
testing, it is useful as a gauge for potential effects. From this, social interaction and
escapism failed to achieve statistical significance. However, differences between group
means were detected in the other gratification items. Contrast analyses, which address
specified hypotheses in this paper, were used to test the specific differences (Table 3.4),
and will be discussed below.

Table 3.4 Contrast Tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contrast Tests

Value of Sig. (2- Eta-

Contrast Std. Error t df tailed) squared
Pass Time -0.12 0.49 -0.25 270 .805 0.0003
Social
Interaction 0.22 0.28 0.76 272 .450 0.002
Escape -0.12 0.42 -0.29 269 .774 0.0002
Companionship -1.39 0.29 4.76 273 .000 0.07

 

H1: Classically Lonely individuals will have a heightened need for
companionship from television versus the other groups.

Table 3.2 shows the group means for each gratification item. Classically Lonely
viewers (M = 2. 29) are significantly different than the other groups, and in fact, higher
than the other groups. In addition, Table 3.4 includes the eta-squared, which is a measure
of the degree of association. For companionship, the degree of association between the
Classically Lonely versus the other groups is 0.07, which is admittedly small. However,
overall, the results are consistent with H1.

H2: “Lonely with Others” individuals will use television as an escape more than
other groups.

In looking at H2, Lonely with Others had a group mean of 2.82, versus Classically

Lonely (M= 2. 94), Loners (M= 2. 61 ) and Non-Lonely (M = 2. 79). None of the contrast

38

tests indicated significant differences among the groups. The results are not consistent
with H2.

H3: Loner individuals will use television to pass time more than other groups.

Contrast analysis indicates that Non-Lonely viewers (M =2. 88) are significantly
different than the other groups (t= 2. 63, p= .009), and have the lowest mean score of the
four groups. Classically Lonely (M = 3.3 6) was the highest reported mean, and contrast
analysis shows a significant difference between the groups (t= -2. 24, p= .026). However,
Loners (M= 3.1 7) did not have a significant t-value (t= -0. 25, n.s.). Results indicate that
Classically Lonely use television more to pass time. The results are not consistent with
H3.

H4: Non-Lonely individuals will use television for social interaction more than
other groups.

AN OVA tests showed no significant differences between group means for Social
Interaction, and contrast analysis supports that. The results are not consistent with H4.

At this point, it is necessary to look at the measures of association for the first
four hypothesized relationships. As mentioned above, the eta-squared for companionship
was notably small (eta’= 0. 07), but was the largest measure of association among the
four contrasts (Table 3.4). Therefore, even though the result was consistent with H1, it
must be concluded that the measures are not strongly associated. Looking at the means of
each group in Table 3.2, it would seem any differences would be driven by the
Classically Lonely, a group defined as such because the literature has often assumed
loneliness and solitude to be essentially the same. The results above would appear

consistent with that assumption.

39

H5: As usefor companionship increases, the level of viewing involvement
increases.

The relationship between the two variables is small but positive (r= 0.22, p< .001
using SPSS 11.5—see Table 2.7). Clearly, this is not a strong relationship, however, it is
statistically significant and therefore, the results are consistent with H5.

H6: As usefor social interaction increases, the level of viewing involvement
increases.

The relationship between these two constructs is moderate and positive (r= 0.3 0,
p< .001). The results are consistent with H6.

H7: Viewing involvement will be positively correlated with para-social
interaction.

This relationship is quite strong (r= 0.46, p< .001). The results are consistent with
H7.

H8: Loneliness type drives the type of gratifications sought, which (as active
gratifications) then drives involvement, which ultimately leads to para-social interaction.

A test of fit was performed (Figure 3.2). The path included the loneliness type
driving particular needs, which drive the level of viewing involvement, which leads to
para-social interaction. Based on the type of gratification sought (active or passive), it
was predicted that more active needs (i.e. companionship and social interaction) would
lead to increased levels of viewing involvement, while more passive gratifications
(escapism and passing time) would have no relationship to increased viewing

involvement.

40

Figure 3.2 Path Coefficients

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'33 Companionship
. 1 2
'07 r Escapism 46
Loneliness Involvement ' Para-social
Type Interaction
-18 , Pass Time
.25
.03 . .
___, Socral Interaction

 

 

 

 

The model is tested by taking the product of predicted paths to obtain predicted
path coefficients. For example, given a simple path model x-9y-)z, where rxy=.5 and
ryz=.5, the predicted relationship between x and 2 would be rxz=.25. The difference
between the predicted and obtained correlation produces the error. In this more
complicated model proposed, Hunter’s path-e program was used to calculate proposed
relationships (see Table 3.5), with error rates calculated (upper half of Table 3.5).

Initial tests using Hunter’s “path-e” program to look at the fit of the model (see
Figure 3.2) indicate that the model has some rather large errors, particularly with the
companionship variable (Table 3.5). It would seem that the gratification items are more
highly correlated with each other than had been predicted (i.e. note the high error values
in the upper quadrant of Table 3.5 in conjunction with the obtained correlations found in
Table 2.7). That is, no relationship was proposed among gratification items. In addition,
escapism was not predicted to have any relationship with viewing involvement or para-

social interaction.

41

Table 3.5 Predicted Coefficients and Calculated Errors in Path Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loneli Compa

ness Pass Social Escap nion Involve Para-
Error values Type Time Interaction e ship ment social
Lonefiness
Type - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02
Pass Time .18 -- 0.23 0.21 0.31 0.10 0.07
Social
Interaction .03 .01 -- 0.20 0.39 0.05 0.08
Escape .07 .01 .00 -- 0.41 0.35 0.21
Companion
ship .33 .06 .01 .02 - 0.1 0 0.09
Involvement .05 .01 .25 .00 .1 2 -- 0.00
Para-social .02 .00 .12 .00 06 .46 -

 

 

Note: proposed links in bold (coefficients in lower half of the matrix; errors in upper half)

Interestingly, predicted errors along the specified paths are all under 0.10 (see
Table 3.5). Understanding the potential problems with the loneliness type variable (i.e.
determining levels of loneliness by placing Non-Lonely and Classically Lonely at each
end of the scale, and determining that Loners are less lonely than Lonely with Others), it
would seem that there is some indication to believe that the social and emotional situation
(feeling lonely and being alone) drive television use (i.e. loneliness type is related to
particular gratifications sought—companionship and passing time), which increases
viewing involvement, which drives para-social activity. However, as mentioned, this
model did not account for the rather high correlations among the gratification items, nor
the strength of the relationship between viewing involvement and escapism. Ultimately
the model has to be rejected and reconsidered; the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit (X2 (14) =
105.27, p<.001) was simply too high, as this test looks for non-significance to indicate a

good fit.

42

Chapter 4
Discussion

It has been argued that the idea of loneliness has been confounded with solitude in
previous literature, and that by creating more precise categories, more accurate results
linking loneliness and para-social interaction would be found. Further, it was argued that
loneliness was not directly linked to para-social interaction, but rather was linked to
perceived needs, which then were linked to involvement. Viewing involvement,
ultimately, was a better predictor of para-social interaction.

The link between the need for companionship and viewing involvement was not
strong (r= 0.22, p<. 0]), but was significant, as was the relationship between social
interaction and viewing involvement (r= 0.3 0, p<. 01). Ultimately, the path model failed
because of the correlations among the various gratifications, and the unpredicted
significant correlation between escapism and viewing involvement (r= 0. 35, p<.01). It
may be that escapism is not as passive as once imagined, and will be examined within the
limitations of this study.

While the path model was not deemed a good fit, the model does suggest that
needs do play a role in determining levels of viewing involvement, and that viewing
involvement is a more direct link to para-social interaction. A small and non-significant
correlation between loneliness and para-social interaction (r= 0.05, n.s.) is noted (see
Table 2.7), and this result has been supported in the literature. In contrast, there is a
relatively strong and significant link between involvement and para-social interaction (r=
0. 46, p<.01).

This study also indicated a link to the type of loneliness and the particular use of

television. While not all hypotheses could be supported, there is evidence to indicate that

43

one’s social situation can certainly drive the use of television to gratify a particular need,
which leads to increased levels of viewing involvement. However, it must be noted that
the measure of association (eta-squared) for each of the contrasts was quite low (Table
3.4) and that comparing the means (Table 3.2) indicated that any differences found were
more likely driven by the Classically Lonely, named as such because they are the group
typically conceptualized as lonely (that is, assumed to feel lonely and to be alone). Such
discovery casts serious doubt on the necessity of differentiating loneliness from solitude.
Rather, it may be that loneliness and solitude are separate constructs, but as such, do not
interact to create varying degrees of loneliness—at least not one that would significantly
determine the gratifications sought. But, before such conclusions can be reached, perhaps
it is necessary to look at some of the limitations and problems of the study, and perhaps
see if post hoc analysis might reveal any differences.

Limitations of Study

This study sought to determine better links to para-social interaction and to
predict the path of effects that lead from loneliness to para-social interaction. However,
certain limitations became apparent and need to be acknowledged before further study
can continue.

First, there were several problems with the sample. A convenience sample
gathered over several weeks in a number of class rooms potentially contributed to the
rather skewed demographics, particularly in terms of viewing diet and sex. The national
average for viewing was over 30 hours per week in 2001 (Nielsen Media Research,
2001), well above this college sample at 9.5 hours for the previous week. With such low

average viewing, it must be concluded that the sample is a rather different sample from

44

the US. population. And as such, the results from the tests are more likely to be different
from a more normal sample. Thus, generalizability is compromised. This is further
compounded by the exclusion of males in this study.

It had been assumed that differences by sex do not exist. However, t-tests show
that differences do exist between males and females for loneliness and solitude (Table
4.1), with males reporting higher levels of both loneliness (M= 2.31) and solitude (M=
2. 93) than females (loneliness (M= 2. 05), solitude (M= 2. 52)). These differences are
surprising, sparking the necessity to examine literary evidence for differences in sex.

Borys & Perlman (1985) summarized the early sdcial-psychological literature,
indicating that there were few studies that showed a main effect for gender on loneliness,
but any significant results found indicated that men were lonelier than women. They
suggested that the UCLA Loneliness Scale assessed loneliness “indirectly” (p. 64), which
resulted in males expressing higher levels of loneliness. Direct measures of loneliness,
they argued, resulted in women rating themselves as lonely more often than males,
suggesting that it is “culturally more acceptable” for women to identify themselves as
lonely.

More recent studies show mixed results. Page (1990) examined high school
students by gender and size of high school, noting a main effect of gender on loneliness.
Results indicated that males scored higher on the loneliness scale (UCLA Revised) than
females (p. 152). In contrast, Archibald, Bartholomew, & Marx (1995) looked at
loneliness in early adolescence, noting a main effect of gender, with females scoring
higher in loneliness (p. 298). Koenig, Issacs, & Schwartz (1994) studied differences in

gender, depression, and loneliness. They noted that females reported feeling more

45

depressed than males (p. 37), but there was no effect of sex on loneliness (p. 36). And,
most confounding was Stokes & Levin’s (1986) attempt to predict loneliness through
measuring one’s social network and network density. Two separate studies were
completed, with the first study indicating no significant difference between males and
females for the first sample, but the second sample indicated that females were “less
lonely” (p. 1071) than males. The second study revealed that females were “significantly
less lonely” (p. 1072) than males. What must be noted in the former study is that the
sample included only 49 males versus 81 females for the second sample (where
significant differences in sex were found), while the first sample included a more even
number of males and females (males (n= 97), females (n= 82) (p. 1071)).

So, given the rather mixed results concerning differences in sex, and that the
stated hypotheses made no prediction of differences between males and females, and
given that the sample is largely female, males were not retained for analysis. If a true
difference exists between females and males on loneliness and solitude, the literature
does not support a consistent answer, and this study was not designed to make that
determination, and therefore only females were analyzed.

These t-test results (Table 4.1) are certainly intriguing, and one wonders what
interaction effects might result from a 2 X 4 ANOVA looking at sex and loneliness type.
However and again, the original hypotheses made the initial assumption that no
differences between the sexes existed for loneliness, solitude, and gratification seeking as
a result of the type of loneliness. Table 4.] clearly shows that such an assumption was a
faulty one. Since this study made no assumption of differences by sex, analyses including

males could indeed drive differences, but would not be properly assigned as a main effect

46

of sex. It is possible that including males in the analyses could increase the statistical
power and provide more variation in loneliness type (i.e. loneliness and solitude), which
could increase the likelihood of covariation in the predicted uses. However, this assumes
no differences in how men and women view. The t-tests do not support this assumption.
The literature, in addition, is conflicted. If differences do exist between males and
females, adding males to the analyses could potentially confound results, perhaps leading
to false conclusions. Effects might be masked if males were retained in the study, or that
the male influence may drive the differences, which would not be picked up with the
given tests. Therefore, only females were retained for analysis. This is understandably a
limitation of this study, and future research should look to determine differences by sex
or gender.

Table 4.1 T-test Comparing Females and Males across Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Std. Error
sex N Mean Deviation Mean t df sig._
Para-Social female 311 3.17 0.76 0.04 0.85 420 0.394
male 111 3.10 0.83 0.08
Viewing
Involvement female 311 3.01 0.88 0.05 0.50 417 0.616
male 108 2.96 0.74 0.07
Passing Time female 308 3.13 1.03 0.06 -2.43 412 0.015
male 106 3.39 0.79 0.08
Social Interaction female 309 2.26 0.73 0.04 -2.86 415 0.004
male 108 2.49 0.70 0.07
Escapism female 308 2.79 0.94 0.05 -1.19 414 0.235
male 108 2.91 0.97 0.09
Companionship female 312 1.97 0.79 0.04 -3.73 419 0.000
male 109 2.31 0.91 0.09
Loneliness female 290 2.05 0.66 0.04 -3.42 390 0.001
male 102 2.31 0.59 0.06
Solitude female 303 2.52 0.71 0.04 -5.21 405 0.000
male 104 2.93 0.65 0.06
Calculated
Loneliness Type female 279 2.46 1.24 0.07 -5.24 372 0.000
male 95 3.20 1.07 0.11

 

47

The loneliness type scale is problematic for two reasons—the determination of
groups and ranking of groups. The loneliness scale and solitude scale were used, taking
the median splits to obtain relatively equal cell sizes for each group. When using median
splits, the results indicate a relative feeling of loneliness versus the rest of the respondents
and a relative sense of solitude in like manner. Thus, relatively equal cell sizes are
achieved; however, actual loneliness and solitude may not be achieved. Table 4.2 shows
the breakdown of the loneliness type by solitude using the scale’s point.

Table 4.2 Solitude by Loneliness Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lonely with Classically
Solitude Non-Lonely Loner Others Lonely
Below 3.0 95 22 56 26
Greater than
or equal to 3.0 0 23 0 57

 

While Non-Lonely and Lonely with Others fell within expected cells, 22 cases of

Loners would fall in the low solitude category if the scale’s true mid-point were used (26

cases for Classically Lonely). Likewise, Table 4.3 shows the same breakdown by

Loneliness.

Table 4.3 Loneliness by Loneliness Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lonely with Classically
Loneliness Non-Lonely Loner Others Lonely
Below 3.0 95 45 52 60
Greater than
or egal to 3.0 0 0 4 23

 

 

 

Again, it is evident that quite a few cases are misplaced. Lonely with Others and
Classically Lonely cases have 52 and 60 cases respectively of respondents feeling less

than the scale’s mid-point of loneliness.

48

Table 4.4 shows the group means by gratification sought. With only eight cases
retained for analysis in the Lonely with Others group, it seems unlikely that significant
results will be achieved. In fact, it is quite likely that the homogeneity of variance
assumption will be violated. In looking at the means, there also does not appear to be a
linear trend for any of the gratifications.

Table 4.4 Table of Means—Recalculated Loneliness Type
(1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loneliness type with true midpoint
Social
Pass Time Interaction Escape Companionship
Non-lonely Mean 3.05 2.33 2.75 1.84
N 227 229 228 230
Std.
Deviation 0.97 0.73 0.93 0.67
Loner Mean 3.43 2.32 2.85 2.06
N 90 91 89 90
Std.
Deviation 0.95 0.76 0.97 0.80
Lonely with
Others Mean 3.53 2.00 3.03 2.75
N 8 8 8 8
Std.
Deviation 0.63 0.68 0.71 0.56
Classically
Lonely Mean 3.37 2.18 3.23 2.66
N 32 32 31 32
Std.
Deviation 0.89 0.66 0.94 0.88

 

 

 

 

 

 

While there was no violation of the homogeneity of variance (Table 4.5) in post
hoc analysis using the scales’ mid-point of 3.0 to create a new loneliness type scale, none
of the proposed hypotheses showing gratifications differing by loneliness type achieved
statistical significance (Table 4.6). In fact, eta-squared values are lower than initial results
(Table 3.4), invalidating any claim for a true mid-point in determining the distribution of

loneliness and solitude into high and low categories.

49

Table 4.5 Post Hoe Test of Homogeneity of Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levene
Gratification Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Pass Time 0.92 3 262 0.432
Social 1.30 3 264 0.276
Escape 0.63 3 261 0.594
Companionship 1.51 3 265 0.211

 

Table 4.6 Post-Hoe Contrasts Using Recalculated Loneliness Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contrast Tests
Value of Sig. (2- Eta-
Gratification Contrast Std. Error t df tailed) squared

Pass Time 0.03 0.59 -0.04 262 .966 0.000
Social

Interaction 0.47 0.37 1 .27 264 .203 0.006
Escape 0.29 1 .02 -0.28 261 .780 0.0003
Companionshig 0.85 0.56 1.53 265 .128 0.009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second noted problem was of the ranking of loneliness type. While this was
not necessary for ANOVA testing, it was necessary to create a rank order and to assume
ordinal scaling to test the path model, as it was believed that the increasing degree of
loneliness type (the combination of solitude and loneliness) would drive the types of
gratifications sought. Given the rather high correlation between solitude and loneliness
(r= 0.39, p< .001), it is easy to conclude that loneliness and solitude may be uni-
dimensional, despite the results from confirmatory factor analysis, which indicated that
they are separate constructs.

A potential solution would be to simply reverse the loneliness types in question,
that is, rank Lonely with Others below Loners and re-run the analysis. While this is
tempting, the same problem occurs: there is no theoretical basis for ranking these groups.
The only other possible solution would be to group Lonely with Others with Loners in

order to make comparisons between groups. In this, one could argue that the groups do

50

not have both traits (loneliness and solitude) and therefore are somewhere in between the
lonely and non-lonely groups.

Table 4.7 shows that, at least in passing time and companionship, there seems to
be a linear trend (that is, as the loneliness type increases, the gratification sought
increases). However, contrast analysis results (note that passing time and escapism used
the combined groups and were run similarly to the hypothesized tests) shown in Table 4.8
indicate that the groups are not significantly different from each other, excepting
companionship. The results are similar to the original tests of differences in the four-
group typology (see Table 3.4). Also, of note, the eta-squared measures of association are
almost identical to the original results (i.e. weakly associated).

Table 4.7 Table of Means—Three Group Typology of Loneliness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Social
Time Interaction Escape Companionshig
Non-Lonely Mean 2.88 2.22 2.79 1.69
N 93 94 92 94
Std.
Deviation 1.03 0.80 1.02 0.68
Loners!
Lonely with
Others Mean 3.15 2.33 2.73 1.91
N 101 100 101 101
Std.
Deviation 0.99 0.69 0.89 0.70
Classically
Lonely Mean 3.36 2.23 2.94 2.29
N 80 82 80 82
Std.
Deviation 0.98 0.73 0.89 0.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

Table 4.8 Contrasts Using Three Group Typology of Loneliness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value of eta-
Contrast Std. Error t df Sig; squared
Pass Time -0.05 0.25 -0.21 271 0.833 0.0001
Social
Interaction 0.12 0.19 0.65 273 0.516 0.002
Escape 0.28 0.23 1.17 270 0.241 0.005
CompanionshiL -0.98 0.19 -5.04 274 0.000 0.08

 

The hypothesized results did not support distinction between types of loneliness.
While one could potentially be a loner, having a high degree of solitude and a low degree
of loneliness, for example, this person is essentially no different than a Lonely with Other
or non-lonely individual in this study. In light of the results using the recalculated
loneliness type, the measure is not consistent with the hypothesized relationships, similar
to the original tests. Loneliness and solitude, when used to make distinctions in the type
of loneliness one experiences, do not seem to determine the gratifications sought, at least
not when making such fine distinctions between loneliness and solitude (i.e. Loners and
Lonely with Others). Further, given the results shown in Table 4.8, there is no support for
a third group that exists between the lonely and non-lonely.

Next, the path model may have been unnecessarily complicated. The model
attempted to predict four separate gratifications based on increasing degree of loneliness.
Further, each gratification was then thought to be uncorrelated with all other
gratifications. Finally, only active gratifications (companionship and social interaction)
were believed to be linked to viewing involvement. Each of these points must be more
closely examined.

First, it was believed that a particular type of loneliness had a higher or lower

degree of loneliness and would determine the gratification sought. However, contrast

52

analysis clearly indicated that differences did not exist among the groups, and that, if any
association existed that resembled this low to high degree of use (that is, that as the
degree of loneliness increases, then the gratification sought increases), companionship is
that variable (see means in Table 3.2), and in fact, Table 2.7 shows that companionship
and loneliness type are the only positively and significantly strong relationship (r=0. 33,
p<. 001).

Second, it was also originally assumed that gratifications would be uncorrelated.
However, Table 2.7, as mentioned, shows that all the gratifications are significantly
correlated with each other. Again, the problem is in design. The original path model, as in
the case of loneliness type, assumed some sort of omnibus gratification scale, as if there
was a varying degree of overall use. This was flawed, and attempting to account fo all
four gratifications sought ultimately complicated the path model.

Thirdly, the active gratifications were believed to lead to increased viewing
involvement, and while the results were consistent with those hypotheses, an
unanticipated relationship between escapism and viewing involvement emerged (r=0.35,
p<. 001 ). In fact, this was the strongest relationship between any gratification and viewing
involvement. Such a result is quite surprising, leading one to question the assumption
behind activity and passivity and attention to media. That, or perhaps escapism is not
quite as passive as originally conceptualized. It would seem that people who want to
escape become more highly involved in this mediated reality than those who seek social
interaction or mere companionship. It may even be that those with escapist needs more

completely immerse themselves into the world of television, which was heretofore not

53

considered. This calls into question the passivity of escapism, as mentioned. In any event,
such an unanticipated relationship did lead to the path model not proving to be a good fit.

This leads to the conclusion that a simpler model of effects needs to be tested. In
looking at the original links, companionship, as noted had the strongest correlation of the
gratifications sought and loneliness type, and therefore will be retained for this post hoc
analysis, as will the loneliness type, with the understanding of its stated limitations. Thus,
a new path model was developed (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Post Hoc Path Model

 

 

 

 

Loneliness -33 22 Viewing -46 Para-social
Type I Companionship Involvement Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This model is much simpler, and produces very little error (Table 4.9). This is
further evidenced by an acceptable Goodness of Fit chi-square statistic (X’ (3) = 0. 35,
p=. 950). The chi-square value is low, but more importantly, the non-significant p-value
shows that the model fits well. From this result (i.e. the high non-significant p-value),
there is an indication that the degree of loneliness with solitude (loneliness type) drives
the use of television for companionship, which increases viewing involvement, which
then increases para-social interaction. Of course this is stated with the given

understanding of the problems with the loneliness type.

54

Table 4.9 Post Hoc Predicted Path Coefficients and Resulting Error

 

 

 

 

 

Loneliness Viewing Para-social
Type Companionship Involvement Interaction
Lonefiness
Type 0.00 0.01 0.01
Companionship 0.33 0.00 0.05
Viewing
Involvement 0.07 0.22 0.00
Para-social
Interaction 0.03 0.10 0.46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: coefficients in lower half of the matrix, error terms in upper half
Future Directions

This study has only looked at loneliness and para-social interaction as it relates to
television. Other media need closer examination. In particular, intemet communication
has potential for interesting results. Given instant messages or email, can such distinct
categories of loneliness and solitude (i.e. Lonely with Others and Loners) exist for other
media where it may have failed for television? How does this affect the perception of
loneliness—is one considered a Loner or Lonely with Others while communicating or
even playing online games against virtual (but real) others?

Can there be a passive (ritualized) orientation with other media? That is, can one
engage in mediated conversation, play an online game with others, and otherwise seek
web—based entertainment in either active or passive roles? More importantly, is the
resulting interaction considered para-social? Is there really a difference? To be sure, the
interactive aspect is not present in televised programming, but the physical connection or
proximity is also missing in other media, such as online messaging. In fact, it is possible
to carry on a complete conversation in real time and never hear or see the other person.
Can this be considered social interaction? If so, the distinction between social and para-

social begin to blur, as the perceived connection—free of physical proximity, becomes

55

the necessary criterion for interaction. Lines and definitions blur given this new mediated
landscape.

Para-social interaction is not necessarily a function of loneliness, and almost
certainly not a direct antecedent. Lonely people may believe characters to be more real,
more important to them than less lonely individuals, but it seems logical to think that the
viewer who is more involved in a program will more likely identify with televised
personae. It may be fair to say that loneliness may eventually lead one to an increased
level of involvement with television, but television can provide a platform for
involvement for any number of viewers in any number of social contexts (i.e. those not
lonely). Para-social interaction, then, becomes a function of how willing a person is to
identify with the televised world versus their own. From there, it is a matter of predicting
what variables lead to the inclination toward that immersion.

This study has sought to synthesize research in loneliness and para-social
interaction. Consistent with past research, loneliness and para-social interaction have
been very weakly and non-significantly related. And, while the literature has looked at
involvement or relationship importance (Rubin & McHugh, 1987, p. 285), involvement
was seen as the end result of para-social interaction rather than the variable that drives
para-social interaction. Also, research in viewing orientation has suggested more active
and more passive forms of viewing; evidence exists to support the idea that loneliness
leads to a more passive orientation (Perse & Rubin, 1990). However, the idea that
loneliness and para-social interaction are somehow directly related persisted. Perhaps it

simply seems too logical to not continue to consider that link as somehow strong.

56

Why exactly is loneliness not directly linked to para-social interaction? As noted,
Perse & Rubin (1989) indicated that the development of bonds with televised characters
was a normal result of viewing television. That is, para-social interaction is not limited to
lonely viewers. If that is true, then it would follow that loneliness and para-social
interaction would be weakly correlated, if at all. If these two constructs are truly related
yet weakly correlated, then there must be intervening variables. Loneliness may lead to
para-social interaction; however, para-social interaction is driven by some other variable
(here argued as viewing involvement).

This study has attempted to take this link between para-social interaction and
loneliness and find the intervening links. While loneliness does not drive para-social
interaction, there does seem to be some association between the type of loneliness and the
gratifications sought (companionship), which ultimately leads to para-social interaction
(via viewing involvement). Admittedly, this was accomplished in post hoc analysis, but
this should not diminish the implications that viewing involvement better predicts para-
social interaction (as found in the original analysis), and that loneliness is not directly or
significantly linked to para-social interaction, but rather falls along a path toward para-
social interaction.

Of importance is the state of loneliness one perceives. In fact, perception is the
very essence of loneliness. However, past definitions have made no distinction between
the perceived state and the physical state. This study has sought to make that distinction
by adding solitude as a separate construct, and creating different types of loneliness based
on the distinction between being alone and feeling lonely. However, results would

indicate that there is little support for separating solitude from loneliness. The post hoc

57

path model does show a good fit, but the type of loneliness based on loneliness and
solitude did not indicate differences in predicted gratifications sought. In fact, it seemed
that the Classically Lonely typically reported the highest means, and Non-lonely with the
lowest means. It must follow then, that solitude need not be separated from loneliness.
Perhaps such distinctions do exist; that is, there are people who feel lonely in a crowd, or
others that enjoy their solitude, but it is problematic to place them along a scale, or to say
that differences in gratifications sought somehow differ. Loneliness itself would be
sufficient, at least in looking at gratifications sought from television.

As our society becomes increasingly more integrated globally through electronic
media, physical boundaries no longer constrain us from interpersonal communication in
real time at relatively low cost. Psychological distance becomes the new measure of
isolation. It may well be that loneliness is measured more by the number of
media/communication outlets available. Social and para-social interaction may become
nothing more than the difference between being answered and ignored. While this study
does not address various media channels or delves into the link between media channels
and loneliness, it does suggest that continued refinement on the nature of loneliness is a
necessity in a society that is constantly evolving and even redefining itself, at least from a
communication standpoint.

What exactly is the nature of loneliness and its role in para-social interaction? As
stated earlier, this study has argued that loneliness is a combination of perceived social
isolation and solitude. It has been asserted that loneliness is not the same as being alone,
that loneliness, whether it is in isolation or in the presence of others, and identification

with others, is a trait that we all have regardless of the degree of solitude or loneliness in

58

our present situations. While this study was not able to show differences when looking at
finer distinctions made between loneliness and solitude, it was able to show that
loneliness is not directly linked to para-social interaction—that it fits within a path
leading to para-social interaction.

We watch television when we are alone, with others, feeling lonely, or happily
(and even unhappily) with our family and/or friends. These conditions do not determine
the extent to which individuals bond with characters on television. It is that person who is
involved with the program that will more likely develop a para-social bond. It is that
person who decides to care, who pays attention to the program, that is, the characters,
what they say, and what happens to them, that will create the bond. An experience
witnessed is still an experience, even if that experience is in the realm of fiction. And
while the viewer cannot express her feelings toward the characters on television to them
nor enjoy any real feedback from them, are the identification and any affective response
toward them any less real? Are feelings and perceptions confined to physical reality, or
can we be gratified by that which is not real?

Gratification is clearly not confined to our physical reality. In fact, uses &
gratification literature have indicated that gratification sought can be achieved from
mediated materials. These gratifications sought develop as a result of perceived needs.
This study has looked at loneliness type in the formation of the need for gratifying a need
to pass the time, to escape from reality, to interact socially with others, or for
companionship. It is the act of seeking gratification that leads to increased involvement
with the very thing that provides gratification, in this case, television programs, rather,

the characters within these programs.

59

But most importantly, the link between loneliness and para-social interaction
must, at some point, be abandoned. The literature for the last twenty-five years has
clearly indicated a very small effect size between the two, and this study has mirrored
those results. While the path model provided was not an acceptable fit, there is certainly
evidence to support the notion that gratification leads to involvement, which leads to
para-social interaction. It is important to realize that loneliness is but a small player in
ultimately determining para-social interaction. This study has suggested viewing
involvement as a predictor of para-social interaction; firrther thought and development of
factors related to para-social interaction must continue, but can only do so when and if we

are willing to accept that loneliness is not the direct antecedent to para-social interaction.

60

Appendix A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings and Correlation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matrix
Factor Loadings
Para- Pass Social Companion
Social Involvement Time Interaction Escape ship
0.7 0.79 0.67 0.7 0.68 0.82
0.83 0.7 0.83 0.42 0.77 0.66
0.61 0.77 0.86 0.68 0.87 0.82
0.7 0.8 0.84 0.63 0.59
0.8
0.68
Factor Correlation Matrix
Para- Pass Social Companion
Social Involvement Time Interaction Escape ship
Para-Social 1 0.54 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.15
Involvement 0.54 1 0.13 0.35 0.41 0.21
Pass Time 0.15 0.13 1 0.25 0.28 0.39
Social
Interaction 0.21 0.35 0.25 1 0.32 0.57
Escape 0.27 0.41 0.28 0.32 1 0.56
Companionship 0.15 0.21 0.39 0.57 0.56 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61

 

 

APPENDIX B Survey Instrument

 

T he following is a survey looking at your opinions on television. We 'd like to know
more about how you felt and what you thought about regarding television from last
week. Please answer the questions below honestly. All answers will be strictly

confidential.

 

 

Think about last week and the TV
programs

you watched. Now think about
the characters or personalities
on those programs as you
answer the following items.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Dis
agree

Strongly
Disagge

 

When I watched my favorite TV
programs, I felt as if I was part of
the group.

 

My favorite TV characters or TV
personalities made me feel
comfortable, as if I was with friends.

 

I saw them as natural, down-to-
earth people.

 

I looked fonlvard to watching my
favorite TV characters or TV
personalities.

 

If they appeared on another TV
program, I would watch that

program.

 

If there was a story about them in a
newspaper or magazine, I would
read it.

 

I missed seeing them when they
were not on the profiam.

 

I would like to have met my favorite
TV characters or TV personalities.

 

 

 

I thouLht they were like old friends.

I found them to be attractive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primarily
alone

Primar
ily
with
others

 

When you watched television last
week,
did you watch...

 

 

Last week...

Strongly
Mae

Ag ree

Neutral

Dis
Agree

Strongly
Dis

Agree

 

 

It was important to see my favorite
nggrams from beginning to end.

 

I usually planned my evenings so I
did not miss my favorite TV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

programs.

 

 

I usually checked the time so that I
did not miss my favorite programs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very
Often

Often

Some
times

Rarely

Never

 

How often did you select the
warns YOU watched last week?

 

 

Last week...

Never

Rarely

Some
times

Often

Alwgys

 

How often were you around other
people?

 

How often were you by yourself?

 

How often did you spend time with
a friend?

 

How often did you spend time with
relatives?

 

How often did you spend time with
a significant other?

 

 

How often did you spend time
alone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many people do other things at the
same time they watch TV. Below
you will find a list of things that you
might have done while watching
your favorite TV programs last
week.

For each item, indicate how often
you engaged in that activity: very
often, often, sometimes, rarely,
or never.

 

Very
Often

Often

Some
times

Rarely

Never

 

Reading a book or newspaper

 

Getting something to eat

 

EatirLL

 

Taking care of children

 

Doing housework

 

Talkigq about what is on TV

 

Talkigg about things not on TV

 

TalkinLto friends about TV

 

Talkigng to friends about other thifls

 

 

Snackigg

 

 

 

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

Please read the following four statements and choose the ONE that best describes

you.

 

lonely."

“Last week, no one was around, and I felt quite

 

“Last week, there were people around me, but
I did not feel as though I were part of the group.”

 

feel all that lonely.”

“Last week, I was by myself a lot, but I didn’t

 

 

not feel lonely much at all."

“Last week, I was with friends and/or family a
lot. People were around all the time, and I did

 

 

 

 

Think about last week and the
television
programiyou watched.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neut
ral

Disagree

Strong

Dis
_agree

 

It was Important to me to watch my
favorite
shows.

 

Watching television was an
important part of
my dailgroutine.

 

I got very involved with the stories |
see
on television.

 

I couldn't wait to see what
happened on my
favorite shows.

 

I liked thinking about the programs
I watched.

 

I often thought about what was
happening

on television as I watched the
shows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last week, how often did you
feel...

Never

RareIL

Som
etim
es

Often

Alway

 

you were "in tune" with the people
around you?

 

you lacked companionship?

 

there was no one you could turn
to?

 

part of a Hcgoup of friends?

 

you had a lot in common with the
ople around you?

 

you were no longer close to
anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64

 

 

 

your interests and ideas were not
shared by
those around you?

 

close to people?

 

left out?

 

your relationships with others were
not
meaninfll?

 

no one really knew you well?

 

isolated from others?

 

you could find companionship

when you wanted
it?

 

there were people who really
understood you?

 

people were around you but not
with you?

 

there were people you could talk
to?

 

there were people you could turn
to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Listed below are reasons you
might watch TV.

Please indicate whether you
strongly agree, agree, feel neutral,

disagree, or strongly disagree for Strong
each of these items as a reason Iy
you watched television LAST Strongly Neut Dis
WEEK. Agree Agree ral Disagree agree

 

it passed the time away

 

so I could be with my family or
friends

 

it helped me met my problems

 

escape from everyday life

 

I had nothing better to do

 

to get away from the rest of my
family

 

it gave me somethingto do

 

because it made me feel less
lonely

 

to forget about school and
homework

 

took my mind off of things

 

to get away from what I was doing

 

so I wasn't alone

 

l was bored

 

 

met new people who also watch

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

 

 

 

it was something to do when
friends came over

 

so I didn't have to do anything
when I watched

 

it served as a conversation topic

 

there was no one to talk to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rWhat is your age?

 

 

 

 

 

Male Female I
Gender?
African Hisp
Ethnicity Caucasian American anic Asian Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many hours last week did you
spend watchinLtelevision?

 

 

 

 

66

 

APPENDIX C Calculation of Errors (Test of Parallelism)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Para- lnvolveme Product Of
. Factor predicted obtained error
Socral nt .
Loadings
an of ou imp‘ma’" ta ”am“ 0 7 o 79 o 54 o 30 o 26 o 04
p gr p fav shows ' ' ' ' ' '
daily routine 0.7 0.7 0.54 0.26 0.24 0.02
get involved w/ stories 0.7 0.77 0.54 0.29 0.3 -0.01
couldn't wait to see
what 0.7 0.8 0.54 0.30 0.26 0.04
happened
"ka ‘hmk‘ng aba‘" 0.7 0.8 0.54 0.30 0.3 0.00
shows
‘haugh‘ am" as I 0.7 0.68 0.54 0.26 0.3 -004
watched
comfortable, as im ortant to watch
if w/ p f 0.83 0.79 0.54 0.35 0.25 0.10
friends av shows
daily routine 0.83 0.7 0.54 0.31 0.29 0.02
get involved w/ stories 0.83 0.77 0.54 0.35 0.31 0.04
couldn't wait to see
what 0.83 0.8 0.54 0.36 0.27 0.09
happened
like ‘hinkiag am“ 0 83 o 8 0 54 o 36 o 32 o 04
shows . . . . . .
‘haagh‘ ass“ as I 0.83 0.68 0.54 0.30 0.35 -o.05
watched
down to earth ‘mp‘f‘am ‘0 ”am" 0.61 0.79 0.54 0.26 0.18 0.08
av shows
daily routine 0.61 0.7 0.54 0.23 0.17 0.06
get involved w/ stories 0.61 0.77 0.54 0.25 0.29 -0.04
couldn't wait to see
what 0.61 0.8 0.54 0.26 0.19 0.07
happened
“k" thinking am“ 0 61 0 8 o 54 o 26 o 23 o 03
shows . . . . . .
‘haugh‘ aba‘" as ' 0.61 0.68 0.54 0.22 0.25 -o.03
watched
like old friends 'mpar‘aa‘ ta ”am" 0.7 0.79 0.54 0.30 0.37 -007
fav shows
daily routine 0.7 0.7 0.54 0.26 0.36 -0.10
get involved w/ stories 0.7 0.77 0.54 0.29 0.34 -0.05
couldn't wait to see
what 0.7 0.8 0.54 0.30 0.3 0.00
happened
"k" ‘hiaka‘g aba‘“ o 7 0 8 o 54 o 30 o 38 -o 08
shows . . . . . .
thought about as l 0.7 0.68 0.54 0.26 0.37 -o.1 I
watched
Para- Product of
. Pass Time Factor predicted obtained error
Socral .
Loadings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

part of group passed time away 0.7 0.67 0.15 0.07 0.09 -0.02
gave me sggle‘h'"g ‘0 0.7 0.83 0.15 0.09 0.12 -0.03
bored 0.7 0.86 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.01
nothing better to do 0.7 0.84 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.08
comfortable, as
if w/ passed time away 0.83 0.67 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.01
friends
gave me flammag ta 0.83 0.83 0.15 0.10 0.13 -003
bored 0.83 0.86 0. I 5 0.1 1 0.09 0.02
nothing better to do 0.83 0.84 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.04
down to earth passed time away 0.61 0.67 0.15 0.06 0.08 -0.02
gave me swath“ ‘0 0.61 0.83 0.15 0.08 0.14 -0.06
bored 0.61 0.86 0.15 0.08 0.1 -0.02
nothing better to do 0.61 0.84 0.15 0.08 0.1 -0.02
like old friends passed time away 0.7 0.67 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01
gave me sggne‘hm ‘0 0.7 0.83 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.00
bored 0.7 0.86 0.15 0.09 0.1 l -0.02
nothing better to do 0.7 0.84 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.07
. Product of
Para- Soc1al . .
Social In terac tion Factor pred1cted obtamed error
Loadmgs
something to do w/
part of group friends 0.7 0.7 0.21 0.10 0.08 0.02
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.7 0.42 0.21 0.06 0.07 -0.01
conversation topic 0.7 0.68 0.21 0.10 0.1 0.00
met new people 0.7 0.63 0.21 0.09 0.14 -0.05
comfortable, as something to do w/
if w/ friends 0.83 0.7 0.21 0.12 0.1 0.02
friends came over
be w/ family/friends 0.83 0.42 0.21 0.07 0.09 -0.02
conversation topic 0.83 0.68 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.04
met new people 0.83 0.63 0.21 0.1 l 0.09 0.02
something to do w/
down to earth friends 0.61 0.7 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.05
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.61 0.42 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.03
conversation topic 0.61 0.68 0.21 0.09 0 0.09
met new people 0.61 0.63 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.02
something to do w/
like old friends friends 0.7 0.7 0.21 0.10 0.08 0.02
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.7 0.42 0.21 0.06 0.1 -0.04
conversation topic 0.7 0.68 0.21 0.10 0.18 -0.08
met new people 0.7 0.63 0.21 0.09 0.16 -0.07

 

68

 

 

Para-

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S . Escapism Factor predicted obtained error
oc1al .
Loadings
part of group schoofi'fgtework 0.7 0.68 0.27 0.13 0.04 0.09
get away from what 1
was 0.7 0.77 0.27 0.15 0.18 -0.03
doing
took mind off things 0.7 0.87 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.07
escape everyday life 0.7 0.59 0.27 0.1 l 0.17 -0.06
comfortable, as forget
if w/ 0.83 0.68 0.27 0. I 5 0.15 0.00
friends school/homework
get away from what I
was 0.83 0.77 0.27 0.17 0.17 0.00
doing
took mind offthings 0.83 0.87 0.27 0. I 9 0.16 0.03
escape everyday life 0.83 0.59 0.27 0.13 0.22 -0.09
down to earth mg“ 0.61 0.68 0.27 0.1 1 0.08 0.03
school/homework
get away from what I
was 0.61 0.77 0.27 0.13 0.12 0.01
doing
took mind offthings 0.61 0.87 0.27 0.14 0.1 I 0.03
escape everyday life 0.61 0.59 0.27 0.10 0.06 0.04
like old friends mg“ 0.7 0.68 0.27 0.13 0.11 0.02
school/homework
get away from what I
was 0.7 0.77 0.27 0.15 0.18 -0.03
doing
took mind offthings 0.7 0.87 0.27 0.16 0.15 0.01
escape everyday life 0.7 0.59 0.27 0.1 l 0.22 -0.11
Para- Companio Product Of . .
Social nshi Factor pred1cted obtained error
P
Loadmgs
part of group so I wasn't alone 0.7 0.82 0. I 5 0.09 0.05 0.04
no one to talk to 0.7 0.66 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.03
feel less lonely 0.7 0.82 0.15 0.09 0.13 -0.04
comfortable, as
if w/ so I wasn't alone 0.83 0.82 0.15 0.10 0.1 0.00
friends
no one to talk to 0.83 0.66 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.00
feel less lonely 0.83 0.82 0.15 0.10 0.17 -0.07
down to earth so I wasn't alone 0.61 0.82 0.15 0.08 -0.05 0.13
no one to talk to 0.61 0.66 0.15 0.06 0 0.06
feel less lonely 0.61 0.82 0.15 0.08 0.14 -0.06
like old friends so I wasn't alone 0.7 0.82 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.03
no one to talk to 0.7 0.66 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.02
feel less lonely 0.7 0.82 0.15 0.09 0.2 -0.1 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Para- Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
Soc1al .
Loadmgs
part of group around others 0.7 0.81 0.13 0.07 .06 0.02
by yourself 0.7 0.81 0.13 0.07 .10 -0.02
spent w/ friend 0.7 0.18 0.13 0.02 .06 -0.04
spent w/ relatives 0.7 0.25 0.13 0.02 .05 -0.02
spent w/ sig. other 0.7 0.37 0.13 0.03 .03 0.01
spent alone 0.7 0.79 0.13 0.07 .1 l -0.04
comfortable, as
if w/ around others 0.83 0.81 0.13 0.09 .02 0.07
friends
by yourself 0.83 0.81 0.13 0.09 .01 0.08
spent w/ friend 0.83 0.18 0.13 0.02 .01 0.01
spent w/ relatives 0.83 0.25 0.13 0.03 .03 0.00
spent w/ sig. other 0.83 0.37 0.13 0.04 .04 0.00
spent alone 0.83 0.79 0.13 0.09 -.01 0.09
down to earth around others 0.61 0.81 0.13 0.06 .03 0.03
by yourself 0.61 0.81 0.13 0.06 .06 0.01
spent w/ friend 0.61 0.18 0.13 0.01 .00 0.02
spent w/ relatives 0.61 0.25 0.13 0.02 -.01 0.03
spent w/ sig. other 0.61 0.37 0.13 0.03 .12 -0.09
spent alone 0.6] 0.79 0.13 0.06 .00 0.07
like old friends around others 0.7 0.81 0.13 0.07 .11 -0.04
by yourself 0.7 0.81 0.13 0.07 .19 -0.12
spent w/ friend 0.7 0.18 0.13 0.02 .01 0.01
spent w/ relatives 0.7 0.25 0.13 0.02 -.01 0.03
spent w/ sig. other 0.7 0.37 0.13 0.03 .03 0.00
spent alone 0.7 0.79 0.13 0.07 .17 -0.09

 

70

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pa'a' Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Soc1al .
Loadmgs
part of group in tune 0.7 0.57 0.07 0.03 -.01 0.03
lacked companionship 0.7 0.64 0.07 0.03 .03 0.00
no one to turn to 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .04 -0.01
part of group 0.7 0.52 0.07 0.03 .03 -0.01
lots in common 0.7 0.69 0.07 0.03 -.03 0.07
not close to anyone 0.7 0.74 0.07 0.04 .l l -0.07
'"'e'es's/'eeas "e' 0.7 0.6 0.07 0.03 -02 0.04
shared
close to people 0.7 0.65 0.07 0.03 .07 -0.04
Iefi out 0.7 0.72 0.07 0.04 .05 -0.01
’e'aaeash'ps "e' 0.7 0.72 0.07 0.04 .01 0.03
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .05 -0.01
isolated from others 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .05 -0.01
could find
companionship 0.7 0.56 0.07 0.03 -.01 0.04
whenever
'here were peep'e “be 0.7 0.66 0.07 0.03 -.02 0.05
understood you
peep'e a'.°"“e’ eat "e' 0.7 0.49 0.07 0.02 .08 -0.06
With you
'here we'e peep'e '0 0.7 0.74 0.07 0.04 .08 -004
talk to
'ae'e were peep'e '° 0.7 0.74 0.07 0.04 .07 004
turn to
comfortable, as
if w/ in tune 0.83 0.57 0.07 0.03 -.06 0.09
friends
lacked companionship 0.83 0.64 0.07 0.04 .05 -0.01
no one to turn to 0.83 0.73 0.07 0.04 .04 0.01
part of group 0.83 0.52 0.07 0.03 .03 0.00
lots in common 0.83 0.69 0.07 0.04 -.10 0.14
not close to anyone 0.83 0.74 0.07 0.04 .12 -0.08
'“'e'es‘s/'eeas “e' 0.83 0.6 0.07 0.03 -.05 0.08
shared
close to people 0.83 0.65 0.07 0.04 .08 -0.04
left out 0.83 0.72 0.07 0.04 -.01 0.05
'e'a"°"s."'ps “e' 0.83 0.72 0.07 0.04 -.02 0.06
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.83 0.73 0.07 0.04 .00 0.04
isolated from others 0.83 0.73 0.07 0.04 .03 0.01
could find
companionship 0.83 0.56 0.07 0.03 .00 0.03
whenever
there were peep'e Whe 0.83 0.66 0.07 0.04 -.07 0.11

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0.83 0.49 0.07 0.03 .03 0.00
With you
'here were oeoo'e to 0.83 0.74 0.07 0.04 .02 0.02
talk to
more WIT]: ogoo'e to 0.83 0.74 0.07 0.04 .02 0.03
down to earth in tune 0.61 0.57 0.07 0.02 -.06 0.09
lacked companionship 0.61 0.64 0.07 0.03 .l l -0.09
no one to turn to 0.61 0.73 0.07 0.03 .09 -0.06
part of group 0.61 0.52 0.07 0.02 -.01 0.04
lots in common 0.61 0.69 0.07 0.03 -.07 0.10
not close to anyone 0.61 0.74 0.07 0.03 .15 -0.12
“"e'es's/‘oeas “o' 0.61 0.6 0.07 0.03 -.01 0.04
shared
close to people 0.61 0.65 0.07 0.03 .05 -0.02
left out 0.61 0.72 0.07 0.03 .02 0.01
’e'aaonsh'os “o' 0.61 0.72 0.07 0.03 .05 -0.02
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.6] 0.73 0.07 0.03 .05 -0.02
isolated from others 0.61 0.73 0.07 0.03 .06 -0.03
could find
companionship 0.61 0.56 0.07 0.02 .04 -0.01
whenever
'here were oeoo'e who 0.61 0.66 0.07 0.03 -.10 0.13
understood you
People around: oo' "o' 0.61 0.49 0.07 0.02 .06 -0.04
With you
were were oeoo'e 'o 0.61 0.74 0.07 0.03 .04 -0.01
talk to
were we]: ogop'e to 0.61 0.74 0.07 0.03 .06 002
like old friends in tune 0.7 0.57 0.07 0.03 -.02 0.05
lacked companionship 0.7 0.64 0.07 0.03 .08 -0.05
no one to turn to 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .07 -0.04
part of group 0.7 0.52 0.07 0.03 .04 -0.02
lots in common 0.7 0.69 0.07 0.03 -.02 0.06
not close to anyone 0.7 0.74 0.07 0.04 .14 -0.11
""e'es‘s/‘oeas “o' 0.7 0.6 0.07 0.03 .06 -003
shared
close to people 0.7 0.65 0.07 0.03 .07 -0.03
left out 0.7 0.72 0.07 0.04 .I I -0.07
’e'aaoosh'ps “o‘ 0.7 0.72 0.07 0.04 .03 0.00
meanmgful
no one really knew you 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .04 0.00
isolated from others 0.7 0.73 0.07 0.04 .15 -0.12
could find
companionship 0.7 0.56 0.07 0.03 .03 0.00
whenever
'he’e we'e oeoo'e who 0.7 0.66 0.07 0.03 -.05 0.08

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 0.7 0.49 0.07 0.02 .10 -0.07
wrth you
there were people to 0.7 0.74 0.07 0.04 _04 .0,0]
talk to
there were people to 0.7 0.74 0.07 004 .03 001
turn to

 

73

 

 

lnvolveme

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n t Pass Time Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
important to
watch passed time away 0.79 0.67 0.13 0.07 0.04 0.03
fav shows
gave me some'h'"g 'o 0 79 0 83 0 13 0 09 0 1 -0 01
do . . . . . .
bored 0.79 0.86 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.06
nothing better to do 0.79 0.84 0.13 0.09 -0.01 0.10
daily routine passed time away 0.7 0.67 0.13 0.06 0.18 -0.12
gave me someone to 0 7 0 83 0 13 0 08 0 22 0 14
do . . . . . .
bored 0.7 0.86 0.13 0.08 0.14 -0.06
nothing better to do 0.7 0.84 0.13 0.08 0.1 -0.02
ge' Til-3'12? w/ passed time away 0.77 0.67 0.13 0.07 0.12 -0.05
gave me sggne'h'"g 'o 0.77 0.83 0.13 0.08 0.11 -0.03
bored 0.77 0.86 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.00
nothing better to do 0.77 0.84 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.07
couldn't wait to
see passed time away 0.8 0.67 0.13 0.07 0 0.07
what happened
gave me sgme'a'"g 'o 0.8 0.83 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.02
o
bored 0.8 0.86 0.13 0.09 0 0.09
nothing better to do 0.8 0.84 0.13 0.09 -0.04 0.13
iii-531:3? passed time away 0.8 0.67 0.13 0.07 0.09 -002
gave me sgme‘h'"g 'o 0.8 0.83 0.13 0.09 0.15 -0.06
o
bored 0.8 0.86 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.05
nothing better to do 0.8 0.84 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.05
thought about
as I passed time away 0.68 0.67 0.13 0.06 0.12 -0.06
watched
gave me sggoe'h'"g 'o 0.68 0.83 0.13 0.07 0.1 0.03
bored 0.68 0.86 0. I 3 0.08 0.07 0.01
nothing better to do 0.68 0.84 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.00

 

74

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lnvolveme some] Factor predicted obtained error
nt lnteract1on .
Loadmgs
important to something to do w/
watch friends 0.79 0.7 0.35 0.19 0.1 1 0.08
fav shows came over
be w/ family/friends 0.79 0.42 0.35 0.12 0.12 0.00
conversation topic 0.79 0.68 0.35 0.19 0.29 -0.10
met new people 0.79 0.63 0.35 0.17 0.12 0.05
daily routine sfolae‘h'"g 'o do w/ 0.7 0.7 0.35 0.17 0.11 0.06
lends came over
be w/ family/friends 0.7 0.42 0.35 0.10 0.08 0.02
conversation topic 0.7 0.68 0.35 0.17 0.21 -0.04
met new people 0.7 0.63 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.00
. something to do w/
ge' Involved w/ friends 0.77 0.7 0.35 0.19 0.16 0.03
stories
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.77 0.42 0.35 0.1 l 0.08 0.03
conversation topic 0.77 0.68 0.35 0.18 0.23 -0.05
met new people 0.77 0.63 0.35 0.17 0.09 0.08
couldn't wait to something to do w/
see friends 0.8 0.7 0.35 0.20 0.16 0.04
what happened came over
be w/ family/friends 0.8 0.42 0.35 0.12 0.07 0.05
conversation topic 0.8 0.68 0.35 0.19 0.27 -0.08
met new people 0.8 0.63 0.35 0.18 0.09 0.09
. . . somethin to do w/
"ke "'"o‘mg friegnds 0.8 0.7 0.35 0.20 0.23 003
about shows
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.8 0.42 0.35 0.12 0.15 -0.03
conversation topic 0.8 0.68 0.35 0.19 0.31 -O. 12
met new people 0.8 0.63 0.35 0.18 0.1 0.08
thought about something to do w/
as I friends 0.68 0.7 0.35 0.17 0.21 -0.04
watched came over
be w/ family/friends 0.68 0.42 0.35 0.10 0.13 -0.03
conversation topic 0.68 0.68 0.35 0.16 0.27 -0.1 I
met new people 0.68 0.63 0.35 0.15 0.1 0.05

 

75

 

 

lnvolveme

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n t Escapism Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
im rtant to
pVIlatch forge' 0.79 0.68 0.41 0.22 0.22 0.00
school/homework
fav shows
get away from what I
was 0.79 0.77 0.41 0.25 0.2 0.05
doing
took mind offthings 0.79 0.87 0.41 0.28 0.24 0.04
escape everyday life 0.79 0.59 0.41 0.19 0.29 -0.10
daily routine schoolf/‘l’fiz'ework 0.7 0.68 0.41 0.20 0.22 -002
get away from what I
was 0.7 0.77 0.41 0.22 0.17 0.05
doing
took mind off things 0.7 0.87 0.41 0.25 0.23 0.02
escape everyday life 0.7 0.59 0.41 0.17 0.28 -0.11
get Involved w/ forge' 0.77 0.68 0.41 0.21 0.2 0.01
stones school/homework
get away from what I
was 0.77 0.77 0.41 0.24 0.25 -0.01
doing
took mind off things 0.77 0.87 0.41 0.27 0.31 -0.04
escape everyday life 0.77 0.59 0.41 0.19 0.27 -0.08
couldn't wait to forget
see 0.8 0.68 0.41 0.22 0.17 0.05
school/homework
what happened
get away from what I
was 0.8 0.77 0.41 0.25 0.19 0.06
doing
took mind off things 0.8 0.87 0.41 0.29 0.23 0.06
escape everyday life 0.8 0.59 0.41 0.19 0.25 -0.06
like thinking forget
about shows school/homework 0'8 0'68 0‘4] 0'22 0'2 0'02
get away from what I
was 0.8 0.77 0.41 0.25 0.17 0.08
doing
took mind off things 0.8 0.87 0.41 0.29 0.26 0.03
escape everyday life 0.8 0.59 0.41 0.19 0.29 -0.10
thought about forget
as I 0.68 0.68 0.41 0.19 0. l 9 0.00
watched school/homework
get away from what I
was 0.68 0.77 0.41 0.21 0.2 0.01
doing
took mind off things 0.68 0.87 0.41 0.24 0.19 0.05
escape everyday life 0.68 0.59 0.41 0.16 0.23 -0.07

 

76

 

 

Involveme

Companio

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Factor predicted obtained error
nt nship .
Loadmgs
important to
watch so I wasn't alone 0.79 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.01
fav shows

no one to talk to 0.79 0.66 0.21 0.1 l -0.02 0.13
feel less lonely 0.79 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.17 -0.03
daily routine so I wasn't alone 0.7 0.82 0.21 0.12 0.2 -0.08
no one to talk to 0.7 0.66 0.21 0.10 0.07 0.03
feel less lonely 0.7 0.82 0.21 0.12 0.28 -0.16
ge' “5‘33? w/ so 1 wasn't alone 0.77 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.11 0.02
no one to talk to 0.77 0.66 0.21 0.1 l 0.07 0.04
feel less lonely 0.77 0.82 0.21 0.13 0.15 -0.02

couldn't wait to
see so I wasn't alone 0.8 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.1 0.04

what happened
no one to talk to 0.8 0.66 0.21 0.11 -0.04 0.15
feel less lonely 0.8 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.1 0.04
2:333:12? so 1 wasn't alone 0.8 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.17 -0.03
no one to talk to 0.8 0.66 0.21 0.1 l 0.08 0.03
feel less lonely 0.8 0.82 0.21 0.14 0.22 -0.08

thought about
as I so I wasn't alone 0.68 0.82 0.21 0.12 0.15 -0.03

watched

no one to talk to 0.68 0.66 0.21 0.09 0.1 l -0.02
feel less lonely 0.68 0.82 0.21 0.12 0.18 -0.06

 

77

 

 

Involveme

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n t Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
important to
watch around others 0.79 0.81 0.14 0.09 .11 002
fav shows
by yourself 0.79 0.81 0.14 0.09 .16 -0.07
spent w/ friend 0.79 0.18 0.14 0.02 .13 -0.11
spent w/ relatives 0.79 0.25 0.14 0.03 .04 —0.01
spent w/ sig. other 0.79 0.37 0.14 0.04 -.05 0.09
spent alone 0.79 0.79 0.14 0.09 .22 -0.13
daily routine around others 0.7 0.81 0.14 0.08 .13 -0.05
by yourself 0.7 0.81 0.14 0.08 .16 -0.08
spent w/ friend 0.7 0.18 0.14 0.02 .14 -0.13
spent w/ relatives 0.7 0.25 0.14 0.02 .01 0.01
spent w/ sig. other 0.7 0.37 0.14 0.04 -.02 0.06
spent alone 0.7 0.79 0.14 0.08 .19 -0. 12
ge' “wowed w/ around others 0.77 0.81 0.14 0.09 -.03 0.1 1
stories
by yourself 0.77 0.81 0.14 0.09 .09 -0.01
spent w/ friend 0.77 0.18 0.14 0.02 .04 -0.02
spent w/ relatives 0.77 0.25 0.14 0.03 -.01 0.03
spent w/ sig. other 0.77 0.37 0.14 0.04 -.09 0.13
spent alone 0.77 0.79 0.14 0.09 .10 -0.01
couldn't wait to
see around others 0.8 0.81 0.14 0.09 .03 0.06
what happened
by yourself 0.8 0.81 0.14 0.09 .12 -0.03
spent w/ friend 0.8 0.18 0.14 0.02 .04 -0.02
spent w/ relatives 0.8 0.25 0.14 0.03 .03 0.00
spent w/ sig. other 0.8 0.37 0.14 0.04 -.06 0.1 I
spent alone 0.8 0.79 0.14 0.09 .12 -0.03
like thinking
about shows around others 0.8 0.81 0.14 0.09 .00 0.09
by yourself 0.8 0.81 0.14 0.09 .02 0.07
spent w/ friend 0.8 0.18 0.14 0.02 -.02 0.04
spent w/ relatives 0.8 0.25 0.14 0.03 .05 -0.02
spent w/ sig. other 0.8 0.37 0.14 0.04 .00 0.04
spent alone 0.8 0.79 0.14 0.09 .08 0.01
thought about ,
as I around others 0.68 0.81 0.14 0.08 .04 0.04
watched
by yourself 0.68 0.81 0.14 0.08 .09 -0.01
spent w/ friend 0.68 0.18 0.14 0.02 -.01 0.02
spent w/ relatives 0.68 0.25 0.14 0.02 .09 -0.07
spent w/ sig. other 0.68 0.37 0.14 0.04 .01 0.02
spent alone 0.68 0.79 0.14 0.08 .09 -0.02

 

78

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invo‘llyeme Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
important to
watch in tune 0.79 0.57 0.09 0.04 .02 0.02
fav shows
lacked companionship 0.79 0.64 0.09 0.05 .01 0.04
no one to turn to 0.79 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.07 0.12
part of group 0.79 0.52 0.09 0.04 .09 -0.05
lots in common 0.79 0.69 0.09 0.05 .02 0.03
not close to anyone 0.79 0.74 0.09 0.05 .04 0.02
'h'e'es'shoeas hot 0.79 0.6 0.09 0.04 .03 0.01
shared
close to people 0.79 0.65 0.09 0.05 .02 0.02
left out 0.79 0.72 0.09 0.05 .02 0.03
’e'ahohsh'ps ho' 0.79 0.72 0.09 0.05 -.05 0.10
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.79 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.09 0.14
isolated from others 0.79 0.73 0.09 0.05 .04 0.01
could find
companionship 0.79 0.56 0.09 0.04 .07 -0.03
whenever
'here were people who 0.79 0.66 0.09 0.05 -03 0.08
understood you
oeoo'e a'fohho’ hh' ho' 0.79 0.49 0.09 0.03 .13 -009
w1th you
'here were oeoo'e 'o 0.79 0.74 0.09 0.05 .02 0.03
talk to
'here were oeoo'e 'o 0.79 0.74 0.09 0.05 .05 0.01
turn to
daily routine in tune 0.7 0.57 0.09 0.04 .13 -0.09
lacked companionship 0.7 0.64 0.09 0.04 .10 -0.06
no one to turn to 0.7 0.73 0.09 0.05 .04 0.01
part of group 0.7 0.52 0.09 0.03 .17 -0. 14
lots in common 0.7 0.69 0.09 0.04 .1 l —0.07
not close to anyone 0.7 0.74 0.09 0.05 .10 -0.06
'h‘e'es'sheeas ho' 0.7 0.6 0.09 0.04 .09 -0.06
shared
close to people 0.7 0.65 0.09 0.04 .13 -0.09
left out 0.7 0.72 0.09 0.05 .16 -0.1 l
’e'ahohsh'os ho' 0.7 0.72 0.09 0.05 .05 -0.01
meanmgful
no one really knew you 0.7 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.02 0.07
isolated from others 0.7 0.73 0.09 0.05 .17 -0.12
could find
companionship 0.7 0.56 0.09 0.04 .14 -0.10
whenever
'here were oeoo'e who 0.7 0.66 0.09 0.04 -.01 0.05
understood you
peop'e a’ohho’ h'“ "o' 0.7 0.49 0.09 0.03 .15 -0.12

 

with you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

 

 

there were people to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.7 0.74 0.09 0.05 .10 -0.05
talk to
there were people to 0.7 0.74 0.09 0.05 .11 007
turn to
get "wowed w/ in tune 0.77 0.57 0.09 0.04 .04 0.00
stones
lacked companionship 0.77 0.64 0.09 0.04 .00 0.05
no one to turn to 0.77 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.01 0.06
part of group 0.77 0.52 0.09 0.04 .06 -0.02
lots in common 0.77 0.69 0.09 0.05 .02 0.03
not close to anyone 0.77 0.74 0.09 0.05 .04 0.02
'h'e'es'shoeas "o' 0.77 0.6 0.09 0.04 .01 0.03
shared
close to people 0.77 0.65 0.09 0.05 -.03 0.08
left out 0.77 0.72 0.09 0.05 .05 0.00
'e'ahohsh'os ho' 0.77 0.72 0.09 0.05 -.04 0.09
meanmgful
no one really knew you 0.77 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.05 0.10
isolated from others 0.77 0.73 0.09 0.05 .07 -0.02
could find
companionship 0.77 0.56 0.09 0.04 -.01 0.05
whenever
'he’e were oeoo'e who 0.77 0.66 0.09 0.05 -.12 0.17
understood you
oeoo'e ahohho’ h'" ho' 0.77 0.49 0.09 0.03 .1 1 -0.08
With you
'he’e were oeop'e 'o 0.77 0.74 0.09 0.05 -.04 0.09
talk to
‘he'e were peoo'e 'o 0.77 0.74 0.09 0.05 -.02 0.07
turn to
couldn't wait to
see in tune 0.8 0.57 0.09 0.04 -.05 0.09
what happened
lacked companionship 0.8 0.64 0.09 0.05 -.02 0.06
no one to turn to 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.07 0.12
part of group 0.8 0.52 0.09 0.04 .03 0.00
lots in common 0.8 0.69 0.09 0.05 -.04 0.09
not close to anyone 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 .00 0.05
'h'e'estshoeas ho' 0.8 0.6 0.09 0.04 .07 -0.02
shared
close to people 0.8 0.65 0.09 0.05 -.05 0.10
left out 0.8 0.72 0.09 0.05 -.04 0.09
re'ahohshh’s hot 0.8 0.72 0.09 0.05 -.05 0.1 1
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.06 0.1 l
isolated from others 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 -.02 0.07
could find
companionship 0.8 0.56 0.09 0.04 .04 0.00
whenever
'he'e were oeoh'e who 0.8 0.66 0.09 0.05 -.03 0.07

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0.8 0.49 0.09 0.04 .13 -0.09
With you
here we'e oeoo'e 'o 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 -.01 0.06
talk to
there were people 'o 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 .01 0.04
turn to
"he 'h'hk'hg in tune 0.8 0.57 0.09 0.04 .06 002
about shows
lacked companionship 0.8 0.64 0.09 0.05 .13 -0.08
no one to turn to 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 .05 0.00
part of group 0.8 0.52 0.09 0.04 .09 006
lots in common 0.8 0.69 0.09 0.05 .04 0.01
not close to anyone 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 .10 -0.05
'h'e'es'shoeas "o' 0.8 0.6 0.09 0.04 .05 0.00
shared
close to people 0.8 0.65 0.09 0.05 .04 0.01
left out 0.8 0.72 0.09 0.05 .10 -0.04
he'ahohsh'os ho‘ 0.8 0.72 0.09 0.05 .07 -0.01
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 .02 0.03
isolated from others 0.8 0.73 0.09 0.05 .l l -0.06
could find
companionship 0.8 0.56 0.09 0.04 .12 -0.08
whenever
there we'e people who 0.8 0.66 0.09 0.05 .04 0.01
understood you
oeoo'e aiohho’ oh' ho' 0.8 0.49 0.09 0.04 .13 -0. 10
w1th you
there were peop'e 'o 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 .08 -0.02
talk to
there we'e peoo'e 'o 0.8 0.74 0.09 0.05 .08 003
turn to
'hoogh' aho'" in tune 0.68 0.57 0.09 0.03 .04 -0.01
as I watched
lacked companionship 0.68 0.64 0.09 0.04 .13 -0.09
no one to turn to 0.68 0.73 0.09 0.04 .08 003
part of group 0.68 0.52 0.09 0.03 .07 -0.04
lots in common 0.68 0.69 0.09 0.04 .00 0.04
not close to anyone 0.68 0.74 0.09 0.05 .06 -0.01
'h‘e'es'shoeas “o' 0.68 0.6 0.09 0.04 .05 -0.01
shared
close to people 0.68 0.65 0.09 0.04 .02 0.02
left out 0.68 0.72 0.09 0.04 .07 -0.03
’e'ahohsh'os ho' 0.68 0.72 0.09 0.04 .10 -0.06
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.68 0.73 0.09 0.04 .00 0.04
isolated from others 0.68 0.73 0.09 0.04 .05 -0.01
could find
companionship 0.68 0.56 0.09 0.03 . 12 -0.08
whenever
'here were oeoo'e who 0.68 0.66 0.09 0.04 .10 -0.06

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

, 0.68 0.49 0.09 0.03 .10 -0.07
With you
there were people to 0. 68 0.74 009 005 .07 -003
talk to
there were people to 0. 68 0.74 0.09 (105 .06 .002
turn to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

 

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time some] Factor predicted obtained error
Interaction .
Loadmgs
. something to do w/
hasseo h'he friends 0.67 0.7 0.25 0.12 0.1 1 0.01
away came over
be w/ family/friends 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.07 0.11 -0.04
conversation topic 0.67 0.68 0.25 0.1 I 0.02 0.09
met new people 0.67 0.63 0.25 0.1 l 0.05 0.06
something to do w/
gag: me d friends 0.83 0.7 0.25 0.15 0.24 -0.09
(somet mg to 0 came over
be w/ family/friends 0.83 0.42 0.25 0.09 0.1 -0.01
conversation topic 0.83 0.68 0.25 0.14 0.16 -0.02
met new people 0.83 0.63 0.25 0.13 0.15 —0.02
something to do w/
bored friends 0.86 0.7 0.25 0.15 0.29 -0. l 4
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.86 0.42 0.25 0.09 0.03 0.06
conversation topic 0.86 0.68 0.25 0.15 0.18 -0.03
met new people 0.86 0.63 0.25 0.14 0.1 1 0.03
. somethin to do w/
ho'higgdzehe' frieeiids 0.84 0.7 0.25 0.15 0.19 004
came over
be w/ family/friends 0.84 0.42 0.25 0.09 0.08 0.01
conversation topic 0.84 0.68 0.25 0.14 0.09 0.05
met new people 0.84 0.63 0.25 0.13 0.07 0.06

 

83

 

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time Escapism Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
Passed "'he forge' 0.67 0.68 0.28 0.13 0.15 -0.02
away school/homework
ge' away ho'.“ wha' ' 0.67 0.77 0.28 0.14 0.11 0.03
was domg
took mind offthings 0.67 0.87 0.28 0.16 0.17 -0.01
escape everyday life 0.67 0.59 0.28 0.11 0.21 -0.10
gave me forget _
something to do school/homework 0'83 0'68 0'28 0'16 0'26 0'10
ge' away ho'.“ wha" 0.83 0.77 0.28 0.18 0.19 -0.01
was domg
took mind off things 0.83 0.87 0.28 0.20 0.22 -0.02
escape everyday life 0.83 0.59 0.28 0.14 0.2 -0.06
bored forge' 0.86 0.68 0.28 0.16 0.19 -0.03
school/homework
get away ho'.“ wha' ' 0.86 0.77 0.28 0.19 0.18 0.01
was domg
took mind offthings 0.86 0.87 0.28 0.21 0.14 0.07
escape everyday life 0.86 0.59 0.28 0.14 0.16 -0.02
ho'h'hg better forge' 0.84 0.68 0.28 0.16 0.14 0.02
to do school/homework
ge' away ho'." wha" 0.84 0.77 0.28 0.18 0.08 0.10
was domg
took mind off things 0.84 0.87 0.28 0.20 0.09 0.11
escape everyday life 0.84 0.59 0.28 0.14 0.12 0.02

 

84

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time Companio Factor predicted obtained error
nsh1p .
Loadmgs
oaszej'ag’he so 1 wasn't alone 0.67 0.82 0.39 0.21 0.18 0.03
no one to talk to 0.67 0.66 0.39 0.17 0.23 -0.06
feel less lonely 0.67 0.82 0.39 0.21 0.25 -0.04
gave me so I wasn't alone 0.83 0.82 0.39 0.27 0.22 0.05
something to do
no one to talk to 0.83 0.66 0.39 0.21 0.23 -0.02
feel less lonely 0.83 0.82 0.39 0.27 0.27 0.00
bored so I wasn't alone 0.86 0.82 0.39 0.28 0.24 0.04
no one to talk to 0.86 0.66 0.39 0.22 0.28 0.06
feel less lonely 0.86 0.82 0.39 0.28 0.28 0.00
hohhiggdgehe’ sol wasn't alone 0.84 0.82 0.39 0.27 0.21 0.06
no one to talk to 0.84 0.66 0.39 0.22 0.23 -0.01
feel less lonely 0.84 0.82 0.39 0.27 0.22 0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
passed "me around others 0.67 0.81 0.19 0.10 .22 -0. 12
away
by yourself 0.67 0.81 0.19 0.10 .18 -0.08
spent w/ friend 0.67 0.18 0.19 0.02 .01 0.01
spent w/ relatives 0.67 0.25 0.19 0.03 -.03 0.06
spent w/ sig. other 0.67 0.37 0.19 0.05 .09 -0.04
spent alone 0.67 0.79 0.19 0.10 .16 -0.06
gave me around others 0.83 0.81 0.19 0.13 .14 -001
1someth1ng to do
by yourself 0.83 0.81 0.19 0.13 .08 0.04
spent w/ friend 0.83 0.18 0.19 0.03 -.09 0.12
spent w/ relatives 0.83 0.25 0.19 0.04 -.01 0.05
spent w/ sig. other 0.83 0.37 0.19 0.06 .07 -0.02
spent alone 0.83 0.79 0.19 0.12 .18 -0.05
bored around others 0.86 0.81 0.19 0.13 .18 -0.04
by yourself 0.86 0.81 0.19 0.13 .13 0.00
spent w/ friend 0.86 0.18 0.19 0.03 -.08 0.1 I
spent w/ relatives 0.86 0.25 0.19 0.04 -.01 0.05
spent w/ sig. other 0.86 0.37 0.19 0.06 .12 -0.06
spent alone 0.86 0.79 0.19 0.13 .22 -0.10
ho'hggdzehe’ around others 0.84 0.81 0.19 0.13 .14 -001
by yourself 0.84 0.81 0.19 0.13 .10 0.03
spent w/ friend 0.84 0.18 0.19 0.03 -.13 0.16
spent w/ relatives 0.84 0.25 0.19 0.04 .02 0.02
spent w/ sig. other 0.84 0.37 0.19 0.06 .07 -0.01
spent alone 0.84 0.79 0. I 9 0.13 .17 -0.05

 

86

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass Time Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
passed "me in tune 0.67 0.57 0.19 0.07 .08 -0.01
away
lacked companionship 0.67 0.64 0. I 9 0.08 .09 -0.01
no one to turn to 0.67 0.73 0. I 9 0.09 .16 -0.07
part of group 0.67 0.52 0.19 0.07 .08 —0.01
lots in common 0.67 0.69 0.19 0.09 .12 -0.03
not close to anyone 0.67 0.74 0. I 9 0.09 .13 -0.03
‘h'e'es'shoeas ho' 0.67 0.6 0.19 0.08 .07 0.01
shared
close to people 0.67 0.65 0.19 0.08 .07 0.02
left out 0.67 0.72 0.19 0.09 .15 -0.06
re'ahohsh'os hot 0.67 0.72 0.19 0.09 .09 0.00
meanmgful
no one really knew you 0.67 0.73 0.19 0.09 .06 0.03
isolated from others 0.67 0.73 0.19 0.09 .19 -0.09
could find
companionship 0.67 0.56 0.19 0.07 .08 -0.01
whenever
there were heoo'e who 0.67 0.66 0.19 0.08 .07 0.01
understood you
Peoo'e alohho’ hh' ho' 0.67 0.49 0.19 0.06 .10 -0.03
With you
there we'e oeoh'e 'o 0.67 0.74 0.19 0.09 .12 -003 i
talk to
'here were oeoo'e 'o 0.67 0.74 0.19 0.09 .15 005
turn to
gave me in tune 0.83 0.57 0.19 0.09 .01 0.08
omethmg to do
lacked companionship 0.83 0.64 0.19 0.10 .12 -0.02
no one to turn to 0.83 0.73 0.19 0.12 .17 «0.05
part ofgroup 0.83 0.52 0.19 0.08 .07 0.02
lots in common 0.83 0.69 0.19 0.11 .08 0.03
not close to anyone 0.83 0.74 0.19 0.12 .16 -0.05
'h‘e'es'shoeas ho' 0.83 0.6 0.19 0.09 .1 1 -0.01
shared
close to people 0.83 0.65 0.19 0.10 .10 0.01
left out 0.83 0.72 0.19 0.1 I .l I 0.00
'e'ahohsh'Ps ho' 0.83 0.72 0.19 0.1 1 .15 -0.04
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.83 0.73 0.19 0.12 .10 0.01
isolated from others 0.83 0.73 0.19 0.12 .15 -0.04
could find
companionship 0.83 0.56 0.19 0.09 .08 0.01
whenever
'he'e were oeoo'e who 0.83 0.66 0.19 0.10 .04 0.07

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

87

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0.83 0.49 0.19 0.08 .1 I -0.03
With you
there were oeoh'e 'o 0.83 0.74 0.19 0.12 .04 0.07
talk to
'here were people to 0.83 0.74 0.19 0.12 .08 0.03
turn to
bored in tune 0.86 0.57 0.19 0.09 .06 0.03
lacked companionship 0.86 0.64 0.19 0.10 .17 —0.07
no one to turn to 0.86 0.73 0.19 0.12 .18 —0.06
part of group 0.86 0.52 0.19 0.08 .03 0.05
lots in common 0.86 0.69 0.19 0.11 .08 0.03
not close to anyone 0.86 0.74 0.19 0.12 .20 -0.08
'h‘e'es'shoeas ho' 0.86 0.6 0.19 0.10 .16 -0.07
shared
close to people 0.86 0.65 0.19 0.1 l .10 0.01
left out 0.86 0.72 0.19 0.12 .18 -0.06
’e'ahohsh'Ps ho' 0.86 0.72 0.19 0.12 .15 -0.03
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.86 0.73 0.19 0.12 .13 -0.01
isolated from others 0.86 0.73 0.19 0.12 .20 -0.08
could find
companionship 0.86 0.56 0.19 0.09 .10 -0.01
whenever
there were oeoo'e who 0.86 0.66 0.19 0.1 1 .00 0.11
understood you
peoo'e alohho’ h'h ho' 0.86 0.49 0.19 0.08 .09 -0.01
w1th you
'here were oeoo'e 'o 0.86 0.74 0.19 0.12 .06 0.06
talk to
'here were oeoo'e ‘o 0.86 0.74 0.19 0.12 .06 0.06
turn to
passed '"he in tune 0.84 0.57 0.19 0.09 .05 0.04
away
lacked companionship 0.84 0.64 0.19 0.10 .16 -0.06
no one to turn to 0.84 0.73 0.19 0.12 .13 -0.01
part of group 0.84 0.52 0.19 0.08 .05 0.04
lots in common 0.84 0.69 0.19 0.1 I .04 0.07
not close to anyone 0.84 0.74 0.19 0.12 .14 -0.02
'h‘e’es‘s/‘oeas hot 0.84 0.6 0.19 0.10 .12 -0.02
shared
close to people 0.84 0.65 0.19 0.10 .02 0.09
left out 0.84 0.72 0.19 0.1] .14 -0.02
’e'ahohsh'ps ho' 0.84 0.72 0.19 0.1 1 .15 -0.04
meanmgful
no one really knew you 0.84 0.73 0.19 0.12 .13 -0.01
isolated from others 0.84 0.73 0.19 0.12 .14 -0.03
could find
companionship 0.84 0.56 0.19 0.09 . 12 -0.03
whenever
'he'e we'e oeoo'e who 0.84 0.66 0.19 0.11 -.01 0.11

 

understood you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88

 

 

people around, but not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 0.84 0.49 0.19 0.08 . IO -0.02
w1th you
there were people to 0.84 0.74 0.19 0.12 _03 0,09
talk to
there were people to 0.84 0.74 (“9 (”2 .05 007
turn to

 

89

 

 

 

Social

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Escapism Factor predicted obtained error
lnteract1on .
Loadmgs
Isomething to do
w/ forget
friends came school/homework 0'7 0'68 0'32 0'15 0'] l 0'04
over
ger away rre'.“ wher 1 0.7 0.77 0.32 0.17 0.11 0.06
was domg
took mind offthings 0.7 0.87 0.32 0.l9 0.04 0.15
escape everyday life 0.7 0.59 0.32 0.l3 0.04 0.09
be w/ forget
family/friends school/homework 0'42 0'68 0'32 0'09 0'14 '0’05
ger away rrer.“ whar 1 0.42 0.77 0.32 0.10 0.07 0.03
was domg
took mind off things 0.42 0.87 0.32 0.l2 0.15 -0.03
escape everyday life 0.42 0.59 0.32 0.08 0.17 -0.09
e°""ere:er'°r‘ rerger 0.68 0.68 0.32 0.15 0.21 -0.06
topic school/homework
ger away rrer.“ wear 1 0.68 0.77 0.32 0.17 0.13 0.04
was domg
took mind offthings 0.68 0.87 0.32 0.19 0.19 0.00
escape everyday life 0.68 0.59 0.32 0.13 0.22 -0.09
forget
met new people school /homework 0.63 0.68 0.32 0.14 0.14 0.00
ger away rrer." wher 1 0.63 0.77 0.32 0.16 0.15 0.01
was domg
took mind offthings 0.63 0.87 0.32 0.18 O. l 5 0.03
escape everyday life 0.63 0.59 0.32 0.12 0.2] -0.09

 

90

 

 

 

Social

Companio

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Factor predicted obtained error
lnteract1on nsh1p .
Loadmgs
something to do

. w/ so I wasn't alone 0.7 0.82 0.57 0.33 0.21 o. 12

fnends came
over

no one to talk to 0.7 0.66 0.57 0.26 0.21 0.05

feel less lonely 0.7 0.82 0.57 0.33 0.22 0.] l

.ee w.’ so 1 wasn't alone 0.42 0.82 0.57 0.20 0.16 0.04
fam1ly/fr1ends

no one to talk to 0.42 0.66 0.57 0.16 0.] l 0.05

feel less lonely 0.42 0.82 0.57 0.20 0.18 0.02

”miss?“ so I wasn‘t alone 0.68 0.82 0.57 0.32 0.36 -o.04

no one to talk to 0.68 0.66 0.57 0.26 0.35 -0.09

feel less lonely 0.68 0.82 0.57 0.32 0.33 -0.01

met new people so I wasn't alone 0.63 0.82 0.57 0.29 0.34 -0.05

no one to talk to 0.63 0.66 0.57 0.24 0.33 -0.09

feel less lonely 0.63 0.82 0.57 0.29 0.38 -0.09

 

91

 

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sonar Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
Interaction Loa dings
something to do

. w/ around others 0.7 0.81 -0. 12 -o.07 .01 -o.os

friends came
over

by yourself 0.7 0.81 -O.12 -0.07 .02 -0.09

spent w/ friend 0.7 0.18 -O.12 ~0.02 -.27 0.26

spent w/ relatives 0.7 0.25 -O. l 2 -0.02 .01 -0.03

spent w/ sig. other 0.7 0.37 -O. 12 -0.03 .00 -0.03

spent alone 0.7 0.79 -O. 12 -0.07 .09 -0. l 6

.be w./ around others 0.42 0.8] -o.12 -o.04 -.18 0.14
fam1ly/fr1ends

by yourself 0.42 0.81 -O.12 -0.04 -.15 0.1 I

spent w/ friend 0.42 0.18 -0.12 -0.01 -.l l 0.11

spent w/ relatives 0.42 0.25 -0. 12 -0.0l -.08 0.07

spent w/ sig. other 0.42 0.37 -O.12 -0.02 -.01 -0.01

spent alone 0.42 0.79 -O. 12 -0.04 -.09 0.05

comt/(elrasiznon around others 0.68 0.81 -o.12 -o.07 -.01 one

by yourself 0.68 0.81 -O.l2 -0.07 -.08 0.02

spent w/ friend 0.68 0.18 -O.12 -0.0l -. l 3 0.12

spent w/ relatives 0.68 0.25 -0. 12 -0.02 .05 -0.07

spent w/ sig. other 0.68 0.37 -0.12 -0.03 -.06 0.03

spent alone 0.68 0.79 -0. 12 -0.06 -.02 -0.04

met new people around others 0.63 0.81 -O.12 -0.06 .06 -0.12

by yourself 0.63 0.81 -0.12 -0.06 .01 -0.07

spent w/ friend 0.63 0.18 -O. I 2 -0.0l -.05 0.04

spent w/ relatives 0.63 0.25 -0. 12 -0.02 .04 -0.06

spent w/ sig. other 0.63 0.37 -0.12 -0.03 -.01 -0.02

spent alone 0.63 0.79 -0. 12 -0.06 .03 -0.09

 

92

 

 

 

Social

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Interaction .
Loadings
something to do
. W/ in tune 0.7 0.57 0.1 l 0.04 .03 0.01
fi’rends came
over
lacked companionship 0.7 0.64 0.1 I 0.05 .09 -0.04
no one to turn to 0.7 0.73 0.1 l 0.06 .02 0.03
part of group 0.7 0.52 0.1 l 0.04 -.08 0.12
lots in common 0.7 0.69 0.1 1 0.05 -.05 0.10
not close to anyone 0.7 0.74 0.1 l 0.06 -.02 0.08
rrrrereer/rdeee "er 0.7 0.6 0.11 0.05 .01 0.04
shared
close to people 0.7 0.65 0.1 l 0.05 -.05 0.10
lefi out 0.7 0.72 0.1 l 0.06 .l l -0.05
re'arrer‘er‘rps "er 0.7 0.72 0.1 1 0.06 .06 0.00
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.7 0.73 0.1 l 0.06 .01 0.05
isolated from others 0.7 0.73 0.1 l 0.06 .02 0.04
could find
companionship 0.7 0.56 0.1 l 0.04 .1 I -0.07
whenever
rr‘ere were Peep'e wr‘° 0.7 0.66 0.1 1 0.05 .02 0.03
understood you
peep'e around, er“ "er 0.7 0.49 0.11 0.04 .10 -0.06
W1th you
were were peep'e r° 0.7 0.74 0.1 1 0.06 -.09 0.15
talk to
were were Peep'e re 0.7 0.74 0.1 1 0.06 -.10 0.16
turn to
famirye/f‘rvr/ends in tune 0.42 0.57 0.1 1 0.03 -.06 0.08
lacked companionship 0.42 0.64 0.11 0.03 -.03 0.06
no one to turn to 0.42 0.73 0.1 1 0.03 -.03 0.06
part of group 0.42 0.52 0.1 l 0.02 -.07 0.10
lots in common 0.42 0.69 0.1 I 0.03 -. 10 0.13
not close to anyone 0.42 0.74 0.1 I 0.03 -.08 0.12
'r‘rereerS/‘deee “er 0.42 0.6 0.11 0.03 -.03 0.06
shared
close to people 0.42 0.65 0.1 l 0.03 -. I O 0.13
left out 0.42 0.72 0.1 l 0.03 .01 0.02
rerar'eneh'pe “er 0.42 0.72 0.1 1 0.03 -.05 0.08
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.42 0.73 0.1 l 0.03 -. l 3 0.16
isolated from others 0.42 0.73 0.1 1 0.03 -.07 0.10
could find
companionship 0.42 0.56 0.1 I 0.03 .07 -0.05
whenever

 

93

 

 

there were people who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.42 0.66 0.1 l 0.03 -.02 0.05
understood you
Peep'e arm, bur "er 0.42 0.49 0.11 0.02 -.01 0.04
With you
there were Peep'e re 0.42 0.74 0.11 0.03 -.01 0.05
talk to
there were peepre r° 0.42 0.74 0.11 0.03 -.04 0.08
turn to
eerwereerrer‘ in tune 0.68 0.57 0.1 1 0.04 .03 0.02
top1c
lacked companionship 0.68 0.64 0.1 I 0.05 .16 -O.ll
no one to turn to 0.68 0.73 0.11 0.05 .10 -0.05
part of group 0.68 0.52 0.11 0.04 .05 -0.01
lots in common 0.68 0.69 0.11 0.05 .04 0.01
not close to anyone 0.68 0.74 0.1 l 0.06 .10 -0.04
"“ereere/rdees “er 0.68 0.6 0.11 0.04 .17 -0. 12
shared
close to people 0.68 0.65 0.1 l 0.05 .08 -0.03
left out 0.68 0.72 0.1 l 0.05 .21 -0.15
re'erreneh'pe “er 0.68 0.72 0.1 1 0.05 .14 -0.09
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.68 0.73 0.1 l 0.05 .04 0.02
isolated from others 0.68 0.73 0.1 l 0.05 .15 -0.09
could find
companionship 0.68 0.56 0.1 l 0.04 .14 -O. 10
whenever
rhere were Peep'e who 0.68 0.66 0.11 0.05 .01 0.04
understood you
Peepre around, er“ "er 0.68 0.49 0.11 0.04 .20 -0.17
w1th you
were were peepre re 0.68 0.74 0.11 0.06 .04 0.02
talk to
there were peep'e re 0.68 0.74 0.11 0.06 .03 0.02
turn to
met new people in tune 0.63 0.57 0.1 l 0.04 .06 -0.02
lacked companionship 0.63 0.64 0.1 l 0.04 .17 -0.12
no one to turn to 0.63 0.73 0.1 l 0.05 .12 -0.07
part of group 0.63 0.52 0.1 l 0.04 .07 -0.03
lots in common 0.63 0.69 0.1 I 0.05 .13 -0.08
not close to anyone 0.63 0.74 0.1 l 0.05 .l l -0.06
""ereere/‘eeee "er 0.63 0.6 0.1 1 0.04 .10 -o.oo
shared
close to people 0.63 0.65 0.1 l 0.05 .12 -0.08
left out 0.63 0.72 0.1 l 0.05 .18 -O. l 3
re'er'ener‘rps "er 0.63 0.72 0.1 1 0.05 .15 -o.1o
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.63 0.73 0.11 0.05 .10 -0.04
isolated from others 0.63 0.73 0.1 I 0.05 .16 -0.1 1
could find
companionship 0.63 0.56 0.1 I 0.04 .09 -0.05
whenever

 

94

 

 

there were people who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.63 0.66 0.1 1 0.05 .05 0.00
understood you
people around, but not 0. 63 0,49 0.” 0.03 .11 .007
With you
there were people to 0_ 63 0.74 0.1 I 0.05 .09 -0,03
talk to
there were people to O. 63 0.74 0.” 005 .06 .001
turn to

 

95

 

 

Companio

Product

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Escapism . ofF actor predicted obtained error
nsh1p .
Loadlngs

forget

school/homewo so I wasn't alone 0.68 0.82 0.56 0.31 0.3 0.01
rk
no one to talk to 0.68 0.66 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.00
feel less lonely 0.68 0.82 0.56 0.31 0.35 -0.04
get away from
what I so I wasn't alone 0.77 0.82 0.56 0.35 0.34 0.01
was doing
no one to talk to 0.77 0.66 0.56 0.28 0.23 0.05
feel less lonely 0.77 0.82 0.56 0.35 0.36 -0.0l
reorihr‘lfrgg: err so I wasn't alone 0.87 0.82 0.56 0.40 0.31 0.09
no one to talk to 0.87 0.66 0.56 0.32 0.24 0.08
feel less lonely 0.87 0.82 0.56 0.40 0.36 0.04
eseepe . so 1 wasn't alone 0.59 0.82 0.56 0.27 0.32 -o.os
everyday llfe

no one to talk to 0.59 0.66 0.56 0.22 0.27 -0.05
feel less lonely 0.59 0.82 0.56 0.27 0.4 -0. l 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Escapism Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
forget
school/homewo around others 0.68 0.81 0.07 0.04 -.03 0.07
rk

by yourself 0.68 0.81 0.07 0.04 -.05 0.09

spent w/ friend 0.68 0.18 0.07 0.0] -.02 0.03

spent w/ relatives 0.68 0.25 0.07 0.01 .01 0.00

spent w/ sig. other 0.68 0.37 0.07 0.02 .02 0.00

spent alone 0.68 0.79 0.07 0.04 -.05 0.08

get away from
what 1 around others 0.77 0.81 0.07 0.04 .05 -0.01
was doing

by yourself 0.77 0.81 0.07 0.04 .07 ~0.02

spent w/ friend 0.77 0.18 0.07 0.01 -.03 0.04

spent w/ relatives 0.77 0.25 0.07 0.01 .01 0.01

spent w/ sig. other 0.77 0.37 0.07 0.02 .02 0.00

spent alone 0.77 0.79 0.07 0.04 .09 -0.0S

moshing: err around others 0.87 0.81 0.07 0.05 .02 0.03
by yourself 0.87 0.81 0.07 0.05 .05 0.00

spent w/ friend 0.87 0.18 0.07 0.01 .04 -0.03

spent w/ relatives 0.87 0.25 0.07 0.02 .02 0.00

spent w/ sig. other 0.87 0.37 0.07 0.02 .04 -0.02

spent alone 0.87 0.79 0.07 0.05 .03 0.01

eeeepe . around others 0.59 0.81 0.07 0.03 .04 0.00

everyday llfe

by yourself 0.59 0.81 0.07 0.03 .12 -0.09

spent w/ fn'end 0.59 0.18 0.07 0.01 .02 -0.02

spent w/ relatives 0.59 0.25 0.07 0.01 .06 -0.05

spent w/ sig. other 0.59 0.37 0.07 0.02 .01 0.00

spent alone 0.59 0.79 0.07 0.03 .14 -0.1 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Escapism Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
forget
school/homewo in tune 0.68 0.57 0.24 0.09 -.01 0.11
rk
lacked companionship 0.68 0.64 0.24 0.10 .12 -0.02
no one to turn to 0.68 0.73 0.24 0.12 .1 1 0.01
part of group 0.68 0.52 0.24 0.08 .04 0.04
lots in common 0.68 0.69 0.24 0.1 1 .02 0.09
not close to anyone 0.68 0.74 0.24 0.12 .12 0.00
'"rereer/‘deee "er 0.68 0.6 0.24 0.10 .08 0.02
shared
close to people 0.68 0.65 0.24 0.1 1 .10 0.00
lefi out 0.68 0.72 0.24 0.12 .12 0.00
re'arrer‘ehrpe "er 0.68 0.72 0.24 0.12 .1 1 0.01
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.68 0.73 0.24 0.12 .00 0.12
isolated from others 0.68 0.73 0.24 0.12 .12 0.00
could find
companionship 0.68 0.56 0.24 0.09 .05 0.04
whenever
were were peep'e whe 0.68 0.66 0.24 0.1 1 .01 0.09
understood you
people 310““, bur "er 0.68 0.49 0.24 0.08 .14 -0.06
w1th you
there were peep'e re 0.68 0.74 0.24 0.12 .07 0.05
talk to
were were peep'e re 0.68 0.74 0.24 0.12 .07 0.05
turn to
get away from
what I in tune 0.77 0.57 0.24 0.1 1 .11 0.00
was doing
lacked companionship 0.77 0.64 0.24 0.12 .12 0.00
no one to turn to 0.77 0.73 0.24 0.13 .14 -0.01
part of group 0.77 0.52 0.24 0.10 .07 0.03
lots in common 0.77 0.69 0.24 0.13 .14 -0.01
not close to anyone 0.77 0.74 0.24 0.14 .20 ~0.07
'"rereerS/rdees "er 0.77 0.6 0.24 0.11 .1 1 0.00
shared
close to people 0.77 0.65 0.24 0.12 .13 -0.01
left out 0.77 0.72 0.24 0.13 .14 -0.01
re'arrer‘errrps "er 0.77 0.72 0.24 0.13 .09 0.04
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.77 0.73 0.24 0.13 .05 0.08
isolated from others 0.77 0.73 0.24 0.13 .17 -0.03
could find
companionship 0.77 0.56 0.24 0.10 .05 0.05
whenever

 

98

 

 

 

there were people who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

understood you 0.77 0.66 0.24 0.12 .05 0.07
peepre 310% bur "er 0.77 0.49 0.24 0.09 .16 -0.07
w1th you
rr‘ere were peep'e re 0.77 0.74 0.24 0.14 .10 0.04
talk to
there were peep'e re 0.77 0.74 0.24 0.14 .08 0.06
turn to
reek ".“r‘d err in tune 0.87 0.57 0.24 o. 12 .08 0.04
thlngs
lacked companionship 0.87 0.64 0.24 0.13 .10 0.03
no one to turn to 0.87 0.73 0.24 0.15 .12 0.03
part of group 0.87 0.52 0.24 0.1 l .l l 0.00
lots in common 0.87 0.69 0.24 0.14 .09 0.06
not close to anyone 0.87 0.74 0.24 0.15 .17 -0.0I
‘rrrereerS/‘dees "er 0.87 0.6 0.24 0.13 .07 0.05
shared
close to people 0.87 0.65 0.24 0.14 .10 0.03
left out 0.87 0.72 0.24 0.15 .15 0.00
rerarrer‘er‘ms "er 0.87 0.72 0.24 0.15 .08 0.07
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.87 0.73 0.24 0.15 .07 0.09
isolated from others 0.87 0.73 0.24 0.15 .22 -0.07
could find
companionship 0.87 0.56 0.24 0.12 .07 0.04
whenever
there were Peep'e wr‘r’ 0.87 0.66 0.24 0.14 .05 0.08
understood you
Peepre 310"“, bur "er 0.87 0.49 0.24 0.10 .10 0.00
With you
there were peep'e re 0.87 0.74 0.24 0.15 .07 0.09
talk to
rhere were peep'e re 0.87 0.74 0.24 0.15 .09 0.06
turn to
eeeepe . in tune 0.59 0.57 0.24 0.03 .08 0.00
everyday llfe
lacked companionship 0.59 0.64 0.24 0.09 .16 -0.07
no one to turn to 0.59 0.73 0.24 0.10 .20 -O.10
part of group 0.59 0.52 0.24 0.07 .12 -0.05
lots in common 0.59 0.69 0.24 0.10 .08 0.02
not close to anyone 0.59 0.74 0.24 0.10 .21 -O.10
'“rereer/rdees "er 0.59 0.6 0.24 0.08 .13 -o.04
shared
close to people 0.59 0.65 0.24 0.09 .19 -O.10
left out 0.59 0.72 0.24 0.10 .26 -0. l6
rererrer‘ehrps "er 0.59 0.72 0.24 0.10 .16 -o.oo
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.59 0.73 0.24 0.10 .17 -0.06
isolated from others 0.59 0.73 0.24 0.10 .26 —0.16
could find
companionship 0.59 0.56 0.24 0.08 .10 -0.02
whenever

 

99

 

 

there were people who

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.59 0.66 0.24 0.09 .12 -0.02
understood you
people around, but not 059 0.49 0.24 0.07 .16 -0.09
With you
there were people to 0.59 0.74 0.24 0.10 .19 .0,08
talk to
there were people to 0.59 074 0.24 0.10 .19 -0.09
turn to

 

100

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Companlo Solitude Factor predicted obtained error
nsh1p .
Loadlngs
5° r wasn't around others 0.32 0.81 0.17 0.11 .14 41.03
alone
by yourself 0.82 0.81 0.17 0.1 l .01 0.10
spent w/ friend 0.82 0.18 0.17 0.03 -.01 0.03
spent w/ relatives 0.82 0.25 0.17 0.03 .04 0.00
spent w/ sig. other 0.82 0.37 0.17 0.05 .08 -0.02
spent alone 0.82 0.79 O. I 7 0.1 I .1 l 0.00
no one to talk to around others 0.66 0.81 0.17 0.09 .07 0.02
by yourself 0.66 0.81 0.17 0.09 .04 0.05
spent w/ friend 0.66 0.18 0.17 0.02 .01 0.01
spent w/ relatives 0.66 0.25 0.17 0.03 .l 1 -0.08
spent w/ sig. other 0.66 0.37 0.17 0.04 -.02 0.06
spent alone 0.66 0.79 0.17 0.09 .04 0.04
feel less lonely around others 0.82 0.81 0.17 0.11 .15 -0.03
by yourself 0.82 0.81 0.17 0.1 1 .12 0.00
spent w/ friend 0.82 0.18 0.17 0.03 .06 -0.03
spent w/ relatives 0.82 0.25 0.17 0.03 .06 -0.02
spent w/ sig. other 0.82 0.37 0.17 0.05 .09 -0.04
spent alone 0.82 0.79 0.17 0.1 I .15 -0.04

 

101

 

 

Companio

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
nsh1p .
Loadings
50:13:" r in tune 0.82 0.57 0.46 0.22 .26 -0.04
lacked companionship 0.82 0.64 0.46 0.24 .35 -O.1 I
no one to turn to 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .19 0.08
part of group 0.82 0.52 0.46 0.20 .20 -0.0l
lots in common 0.82 0.69 0.46 0.26 .28 -0.02
not close to anyone 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.28 .23 0.04
"“ereer/‘deee "er 0.82 0.6 0.46 0.23 .18 0.04
shared
close to people 0.82 0.65 0.46 0.25 .18 0.07
left out 0.82 0.72 0.46 0.27 .27 0.00
re'arrenerrrpe "er 0.82 0.72 0.46 0.27 .19 0.09
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .12 0.16
isolated from others 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .33 -0.06
could find
companionship 0.82 0.56 0.46 0.21 .22 -0.01
whenever
rhere were Peepre who 0.32 0.66 0.46 0.25 .15 o. 10
understood you
Peepre around, er“ “er 0.32 0.49 0.46 0.18 .17 0.01
With you
rr‘ere were peep'e re 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.23 .20 0.08
talk to
there were peep'e re 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.28 .21 0.07
turn to
no one to talk to in tune 0.66 0.57 0.46 0.17 .19 -0.02
lacked companionship 0.66 0.64 0.46 0.19 .22 -0.03
no one to turn to 0.66 0.73 0.46 0.22 .32 -O. 10
part of group 0.66 0.52 0.46 0.16 .14 0.02
lots in common 0.66 0.69 0.46 0.21 .23 -0.02
not close to anyone 0.66 0.74 0.46 0.22 .20 0.03
'“rereer/rdees "er 0.66 0.6 0.46 0.18 .14 0.04
shared
close to people 0.66 0.65 0.46 0.20 .16 0.04
left out 0.66 0.72 0.46 0.22 .29 -0.07
re'arrer‘ehrpe "er 0.66 0.72 0.46 0.22 .27 -0.05
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.66 0.73 0.46 0.22 .21 0.01
isolated from Others 0.66 0.73 0.46 0.22 .34 —O.11
could find
companionship 0.66 0.56 0.46 0.17 .14 0.03
whenever
rhere were peep'e wr‘e 0.66 0.66 0.46 0.20 .18 0.02
understood you
peep'e around’ bur "er 0.66 0.49 0.46 0.15 .10 0.05

 

 

with you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there were people to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.66 0.74 0.46 0.22 .24 -0.01
talk to
rhere were oeoore ro 0.66 0.74 0.46 0.22 .24 -o.oz
turn to
feel less lonely in tune 0.82 0.57 0.46 0.22 .25 -0.03
lacked companionship 0.82 0.64 0.46 0.24 .33 -0.08
no one to turn to 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .34 -0.06
part of group 0.82 0.52 0.46 0.20 .29 -0.09
lots in common 0.82 0.69 0.46 0.26 .25 0.01
not close to anyone 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.28 .27 0.01
‘orereere/‘oeos "or 0.82 0.6 0.46 0.23 .23 0.00
shared
close to people 0.82 0.65 0.46 0.25 .18 0.07
left out 0.82 0.72 0.46 0.27 .37 -0.10
rerer'ooerrrps "or 0.82 0.72 0.46 0.27 .22 0.05
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .16 0.1 l
isolated from others 0.82 0.73 0.46 0.28 .40 -0.12
could find
companionship 0.82 0.56 0.46 0.21 .25 -0.04
whenever
were were peoo'e who 0.82 0.66 0.46 0.25 .19 0.06
understood you
people around, or" "or 0.82 0.49 0.46 0.18 .27 -o.09
w1th you
there were people to 0.32 . 0.74 0.46 0.23 .29 -o.01
talk to
more were people to 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.28 .23 0.00
turn to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

103

 

 

Product of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solitude Loneliness Factor predicted obtained error
Loadings
around others in tune 0.81 0.57 0.48 0.22 .24 -0.02
lacked companionship 0.81 0.64 0.48 0.25 .26 -0.01
no one to turn to 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.28 .15 0.14
part of group 0.81 0.52 0.48 0.20 .25 -0.05
lots in common 0.81 0.69 0.48 0.27 .30 -0.04
not close to anyone 0.81 0.74 0.48 0.29 .27 0.02
‘r‘rereereooeoe "or 0.81 0.6 0.48 0.23 .22 0.02
shared
close to people 0.81 0.65 0.48 0.25 .27 -0.02
left out 0.81 0.72 0.48 0.28 .20 0.08
reror'or‘ehroe "or 0.81 0.72 0.48 0.23 .16 0.12
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.8] 0.73 0.48 0.28 .17 0.1 l
isolated from others 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.28 .29 -0.01
could find
companionship 0.81 0.56 0.48 0.22 .19 0.03
whenever
there were people who 0.81 0.66 0.48 0.26 .23 0.02
understood you
Peop'e aroor‘o’ or“ “or 0.31 0.49 0.48 0.19 .18 0.01
w1th you
more were people ro 0.81 0.74 0.48 0.29 .22 0.07
talk to
there wtflrr: ogoo'e ro 0.31 0.74 0.48 0.29 .26 0.03
by yourself in tune 0.81 0.57 0.48 0.22 .16 0.06
lacked companionship 0.81 0.64 0.48 0.25 .19 0.06
no one to turn to 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.28 .18 0.10
part of group 0.81 0.52 0.48 0.20 .14 0.06
lots in common 0.81 0.69 0.48 0.27 .18 0.09
not close to anyone 0.81 0.74 0.48 0.29 .21 0.08
'“rereoreooeos "or 0.81 0.6 0.48 0.23 .18 0.05
shared
close to people 0.81 0.65 0.48 0.25 .12 0.13
left out 0.81 0.72 0.48 0.28 .21 0.07
re'or‘ooeh'oe "or 0.81 0.72 0.48 0.28 .15 0.13
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.28 .15 0.14
isolated from others 0.81 0.73 0.48 0.28 .26 0.03
could find
companionship 0.81 0.56 0.48 0.22 .10 0.12
whenever
‘here were people who 0.31 0.66 0.48 0.26 .13 0.13
understood you
oeoP'e oroooo’ our “or 0.81 0.49 0.48 0.19 .17 0.02
w1th you
there were people to 0.81 0.74 0.48 0.29 .15 0.14

 

104

 

 

 

talk to

 

there were people to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.81 0.74 0.48 0.29 .16 0.13
turn to
spent w/ friend in tune 0.18 0.57 0.48 0.05 .12 -0.07
lacked companionship 0.18 0.64 0.48 0.06 .13 -0.07
no one to turn to 0.18 0.73 0.48 0.06 .15 -0.09
part of group 0.18 0.52 0.48 0.04 .46 -0.41
lots in common 0.18 0.69 0.48 0.06 .35 -0.29
not close to anyone 0.18 0.74 0.48 0.06 .15 -0.09
'r‘rereerS/roeee "or 0.18 0.6 0.48 0.05 .09 -o.03
shared
close to people 0.18 0.65 0.48 0.06 .20 015
left out 0.18 0.72 0.48 0.06 .12 -0.06
r eror'ooeo'os “or 0.18 0.72 0.48 0.06 -.03 0.09
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.18 0.73 0.48 0.06 .09 -0.03
isolated from others 0.18 0.73 0.48 0.06 .15 -0.08
could find
companionship 0.18 0.56 0.48 0.05 .14 -0.09
whenever
there were people who 0.18 0.66 0.48 0.06 .17 -0.1 1
understood you
people eroor'o’ our "or 0.18 0.49 0.48 0.04 .05 -o.01
w1th you
there were oeoo'e to 0.18 0.74 0.48 0.06 .28 -o.22
talk to
there were oeoo'e to 0.18 0.74 0.48 0.06 .27 -0.21
turn to
:Efart‘irvre": in tune 0.25 0.57 0.48 0.07 .1 1 -0.04
lacked companionship 0.25 0.64 0.48 0.08 .16 -0.08
no one to turn to 0.25 0.73 0.48 0.09 .15 -0.06
part of group 0.25 0.52 0.48 0.06 .08 -0.02
lots in common 0.25 0.69 0.48 0.08 .13 -0.04
not close to anyone 0.25 0.74 0.48 0.09 .17 -0.08
'orereere/roeoe “or 0.25 0.6 0.48 0.07 .01 0.07
shared
close to people 0.25 0.65 0.48 0.08 .18 -0.10
left out 0.25 0.72 0.48 0.09 .13 -0.05
re'er'or‘ehroe “or 0.25 0.72 0.48 0.09 .17 -0.09
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.25 0.73 0.48 0.09 .05 0.03
isolated from others 0.25 0.73 0.48 0.09 .12 -0.03
could find
companionship 0.25 0.56 0.48 0.07 . 12 -0.05
whenever
there were oeoo'e who 0.25 0.66 0.48 0.08 .16 -0.08
understood you
oeoo'e oro‘rr‘o’ or" "or 0.25 0.49 0.48 0.06 .07 -o.01
w1th you
there were people to 0.25 0.74 0.48 0.09 .14 -0.05

 

105

 

 

talk to

 

there were people to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.25 0.74 0.48 0.09 .17 -0.09
turn to
eoehr w/ “3 in tune 0.37 0.57 0.48 0.10 .15 -o.os
other
lacked companionship 0.37 0.64 0.48 0.1 l .41 -0.30
no one to turn to 0.37 0.73 0.48 0.13 .23 -0.10
part of group 0.37 0.52 0.48 0.09 .12 -0.03
lots in common 0.37 0.69 0.48 0.12 .19 -0.06
not close to anyone 0.37 0.74 0.48 0.13 .31 -O.18
rhrereer/roeoe "or 0.37 0.6 0.48 0.11 .06 0.04
shared
close to people 0.37 0.65 0.48 0.12 .23 -0.1 1
left out 0.37 0.72 0.48 0.13 .11 0.01
re'or'ohehrpe "or 0.37 0.72 0.48 0.13 .17 -0.04
meamngful
no one really knew you 0.37 0.73 0.48 0.13 .16 -0.03
isolated from others 0.37 0.73 0.48 0.13 .17 004
could find
companionship 0.37 0.56 0.48 0.10 .18 -0.08
whenever
rhere were peopre who 0.37 0.66 0.48 o. 12 .19 -0.07
understood you
oeoP'e around, our "or 0.37 0.49 0.48 0.09 .06 0.03
w1th you
rhere were people ro 0.37 0.74 0.48 0.13 .19 -o.os
talk to
rhere were people ro 0.37 0.74 0.48 0.13 .17 -0.04
turn to
spent alone in tune 0.79 0.57 0.48 0.22 .18 0.04
lacked companionship 0.79 0.64 0.48 0.24 .17 0.08
no one to turn to 0.79 0.73 0.48 0.28 .14 0.14
part of group 0.79 0.52 0.48 0.20 .10 0.10
lots in common 0.79 0.69 0.48 0.26 .15 0.1 1
not close to anyone 0.79 0.74 0.48 0.28 .25 0.03
rhreresre/roeae "or 0.79 0.6 0.48 0.23 .19 0.04
shared
close to people 0.79 0.65 0.48 0.25 .10 0.15
left out 0.79 0.72 0.48 0.27 .18 0.09
re'or‘oheh'os "or 0.79 0.72 0.48 0.27 .10 0.17
meaningful
no one really knew you 0.79 0.73 0.48 0.28 .08 0.19
isolated from others 0.79 0.73 0.48 0.28 .21 0.07
could find
companionship 0.79 0.56 0.48 0.21 .07 0.15
whenever
rhere were people who 0.79 0.66 0.48 0.25 .06 0.19
understood you
oeoo'e erohho’ our "or 0.79 0.49 0.48 0.19 .17 0.01

 

with you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

 

 

 

there were people to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.79 0.74 0.48 0.28 .16 0.12
talk to

there were people to 0.79 0.74 0.48 0.28 .15 0.13
turn 10

 

107

 

REFERENCES

Archibald, F. S., Bartholomew, K., & Marx, R. (1995). Loneliness in early
adolescence: A test of the cognitive discrepancy model of loneliness, Personality
and Psychological Bulletin, 21, 3, 296-301.

Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1985). Some communicator correlates of
loneliness, The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 121-142.

Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender differences in loneliness,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1, 63-74.

F inn, S., & Gorr, M. B. (1988). Social isolation and social support as F

correlates of television viewing motivations, Communication Research, 15, 2, 135-
158.

Gantz, W. (1996). An examination of the range and salience of gratifications

research associated with entertainment programming. Journal of Behavioral and .'
Social Sciences, 1996(1), 12-48. I;

 

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a
model for future research, Media Psychology, 4, 279-305.

Greenberg, BS. (1974). Gratifications of television viewing and their
correlates for british children. In J .G. Blumler & E. Katz (eds.), The uses of mas_s
communications 71-92. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

 

Horton, D., & Wohl, RR. (1956). Mass communication and para-social
interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance, Psychiatry, 19, 215-229.

Hosman, L. A. (1991). The relationships among need for privacy,
loneliness, conversational sensitivity, and interpersonal communication motives,
Communication Reports, 4, 2, 73-80.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis; A researcher’s handbook, 3rd ed.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Koenig, L. J ., Isaacs, A. M., & Schwartz, J. A. J. (1994). Sex differences in
adolescent depression and loneliness: Why are boys lonelier if girls are more

depressed? Journal of Research in Personality, 28, I, 27-43.

Levy, M. R. (1979). Watching TV news as para-social interaction. Journal
of Broadcasting, 23, 69-80.

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley
Educational Publishers, New York.

108

 

Nielsen Media Research. (2001). Average u.s. television viewing time,
october 2001. In Park, K. (ed.) The world almanac and book of facts 2003, 282,
New York: World Almanac Books.

Page, R. M. (1990). High school size as a factor in adolescent loneliness,
The High School Journal, 73, 3, 150-153.

Perloff, R. M., Quarles, C., & Drutz, M. (1983). Loneliness, depression and
the uses of television, Journalism Quarterly, 60, 2, 352-356.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Attribution in social and parasocial r
relationships, Communication Research, 16, 1, 59-77.

Perse, E. M., & Rubin, A. M. (1990). Chronic loneliness and television use,
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 34, 1, 37-53.

Robinson, J .P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, LS. (1991). Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press, 250- [u
255.

 

Rubin, A. M. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human
Communication Research, 5, 2, 109-120.

Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations.
Communication Research, 8, 2, 141-165.

Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and Instrumental Television Viewing.
Journal of Communication, 34, 3, 67-77.

Rubin, A. M. (1993). Audience activity and media use. Communication
Monographs, 60, 98-105.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications
perspective. In J. Bryant & D Zillmann (Eds), Media effects: Advances in theory
and research (pp.4l7-436). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rubin, A. M. (1994). Parasocial interaction scale. In Rubin, R. B.,
Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds), Communication research measures: A
sourcebook (pp. 273-277). New York: Guilford Press.

Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial

interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research,
12, 2, 155-180.

109

Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial
interaction relationships, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 31, 3, 279-
292.

Stokes, J ., & Levin, I. (1986). Gender differences in predicting loneliness
from social network characteristics, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 5, 1069-1074.

Woods, M. G. (1997). Teen viewing of soaps: A uses &
gratifications/cultivation study, Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State
University.

Zaikowsky, J .L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of
Advertising, 15, 2, 4—14, 34.

Zakahi, W. R., & Duran, R. L. (1982). All the lonely people: The
relationship among loneliness, communicative competence, and communication

anxiety, Communication Quarterly, 30, 3, 203-209.

110