Average levels of loneliness have been suggested to differ between collectivistic and individualistic countries. However, we know little about how individual-level collectivism (i.e., perceiving the self or one’s social environment as collectivistic) is related to loneliness. As individualism and collectivism imply different ideals about how individuals should be embedded in social relationships, they may imply distinct risks for loneliness. Specifically, less demanding ideals in individualism should imply the risk of lower actual social embeddedness; more demanding ideals in collectivism should imply the risk of higher perceived discrepancies from such ideals. Two cross-sectional survey studies in five European countries (Study 1: Austria, N = 239; Study 2: Italy, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, total N = 860) revealed that higher collectivism was related to lower loneliness. Individualism indeed implied lower social embeddedness, but collectivism did not imply higher discrepancies from ideal embeddedness. We discuss implications for reducing loneliness in different cultural contexts.

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

Valid theorizing and quantitative comparisons of loneliness across cultures require cross‐culturally similar meanings of loneliness. However, we know little about whether this is the case: Influential conceptualizations of loneliness mostly come from North America or Europe, where individuals tend to have relatively few stable social relationships and social interactions (i.e., less socially embedded cultures). We thus compare selected conceptualizations of loneliness from the literature to loneliness experiences that are reported in 42 semi‐structured interviews from countries with different levels of social embeddedness (Austria, Bulgaria, Israel, Egypt, India). Encouragingly, our thematic analysis does not suggest fundamental qualitative differences in loneliness definitions, perceived causes, or remedies. Nevertheless, we noticed and discuss aspects that may not be sufficiently considered in previous literature.

Do cultural norms that allow individuals to choose their social relationships put them at risk for, or protect them from, loneliness? After all, more freedom to choose whom to relate to may promote that individuals can choose higher-quality relationships (which protects from loneliness), but it may also imply a higher risk of social isolation (which puts at risk for loneliness). We propose that the solution to this cultural loneliness paradox of choice is to distinguish whether more individual choice flows from cultural norms that provide more opportunities for new relationships (as implied by higher relational mobility; higher RMn), or from cultural norms that allow to leave established relationships (as implied by lower relational stability; lower RSn). Specifically, we suggest that more individual choice protects from loneliness when emerging from higher RMn (which allows to establish new higher-quality relationships), but puts at risk for loneliness when emerging from lower RSn (which increases the risk of social isolation by undermining the stability of established relationships). Findings from two cross-sectional survey studies in four European countries (Study 1: Finland, N = 237; Portugal, N = 261; Study 2: Poland, N = 242; Austria, N = 2 41) supported this line of thought: Higher RMn was consistently related to lower loneliness across all samples, and lower RSn was related to higher loneliness in two out of four samples (and either non-significantly related to higher loneliness or unrelated to it in the other two samples). We discuss the importance and implications of differentiating RMn and RSn to resolve the cultural loneliness paradox of choice.

No abstract