Loneliness and vertical and horizontal collectivism and individualism: A multinational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• predicting self-report loneliness in 28 countries ( N = 8345). • horizontal-collectivism (for 19 country samples) predicted lower loneliness scores. • horizontal-individualism (for seven country samples) predicted lower loneliness scores. • vertical-individualism (for 16 country samples) predicted feeling more loneliness. • vertical-collectivism (for six country samples) predicted higher loneliness scores. • those who report that their culture is more egalitarian, also tend to report being less lonely. • those who report that their culture reflects individuality and is a hierarchical society are lonelier. This paper investigates how horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism predict self-report loneliness in addition to the variance accounted for by age and sex in 28 countries ( N = 8,345). Horizontal and vertical aspects of individualism and collectivism had small but significant contributions to predicting loneliness. Horizontal-collectivism (for 19 country samples) and, to a lesser extent, horizontal-individualism (for seven country samples), significantly predicted lower loneliness scores. Vertical-individualism (for 16 country samples), and to a lesser extent, vertical-collectivism (for six country samples), predicted feeling more loneliness among our participants. Adjusted R 2 values suggested that between 0.6% and 27.7% of self-report loneliness was predicted. These results suggest that those who value egalitarian social relations also tend to report being less lonely whereas those who value individuality and competitiveness endorse the loneliness items more. These results are of importance to those investigating and helping lonely individuals by appreciating the influence of perceived culture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".