Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol 9,

No

2, 1990, pp 214-220

LONELINESS AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

WARREN

H.JONES
ot Tulsa

University

theory is examined from the perspective

interpersonal issues and viewed as
containing valuable insights with respect to understanding anxiety and social rejection.
In particular, the recognition latent in exclusion theory of the social nature of human
existence and the breadth of empirical data consistent with the theory are seen as
major strengths. In addition, issues possibly requiring further elaboration and spec
ification in exclusion theory are presented.
Baumeister & Rice's (this issue) exclusion

of recent research

loneliness and related

on

Baumeister and Tice

generally

(this issue)

draw

valid conclusions in their article

This article,

number of useful and, I think,

on anxiety and social exclusion.

with the work it seeks to

along

& Solomon,

Pyszcznski,
integrative

toward

1986), may be

theories constructed

scale than has often been the

case

dispute (i.e., Greenberg,

part of a growing trend

seen as
on

in social

broader,

more

inclusive

psychology, particularly

in

years. Exclusion theory treats broadly defined domains of behavior,

and thus, the theory itself as well as any debate between its adherents
of terror management theory should prove to be
and the
recent

proponents

enlightening.

BASIC TENETS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION THEORY

its many interesting specific features, there are two basic reasons
that exclusion theory as articulated by Baumeister and Tice promises to
contribution to understanding anxiety in particular and
be a

Beyond

genuine

generally. First, unlike much contemporary

theorizing, which remarkably seems to have lost
of
the
sight
profound and far-reaching implications of the social nature
of human existence, exclusion theory takes seriously, indeed embraces,
its centrality. Until recently, research on topics such as conformity, inter
personal attraction, altruism, group formation, and the like has tended
human

behavior

more

social- psychological

Address

correspondence

to Warren H.

Jones, Department of Psychology, University of

Rulsa, Rulsa, OK 74104.

214

215

LONELINESS AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

to

emphasize only

the

of those processes,
others were merely

which

if the need to

and

and to be

momentary consequences of the circumstances in

happens to find oneself. By contrast, exclusion theory elevates

to belong to a
predominant motive for a wide array of behaviors

one

the need
and

situation-specific features
responsive to
belong

proximal, time-bound,

as

experiences.

Although immediate situational factors undoubtedly impact on specific

interpersonal behaviors, two considerations suggest that social-psy
chological demonstrations of conformity, attraction, and so on represent
only the tip of the interpersonal iceberg. First, one of the most valid
generalizations that can be made about human behavior concerns the
ubiquitous influence of interpersonal relationships and human groups,
and this truism holds across cultures and
historically (Hogan, 1983).
Human beings evolved as group-living,
culture-bearing animals. Thus,
Baumeister and Tice argue, the human

propensity toward social struc

quite likely biologically mandated. At the
very least it is archaic and deeply imbedded. Without other people for
comfort, companionship, safety, and so on, human beings have always
been less likely to survive as individuals and probably would not have
survived as a species.
Second, most people spend much of their waking time in the presence
of and interpersonal engagement with other people of varying degrees
of importance to them (e.g., Larson, Csikszentmihalyi, & Graef, 1982),
and even when alone, much of one's time is spent thinking about, lusting
after, plotting against significant others in one's life. As a consequence,
it may be argued that the most essential feature of human experience
is interpersonal involvement, both actual and symbolic, in which one
person or group of people tries to induce another person or group of
people to do or think what the former wants them to do or think (Athay
& Darley, 1981). In view of these considerations, Baumeister and Tice
are correct in
postulating the importance of exclusion and threatened
as motives underlying anxiety and correct also in
rejection
linking, through
the fundamental need to belong, seemingly separate processes such as
morality and conformity.
as

ture and

interdependence

is

The second laudable feature of exclusion

tenets

that

one

of the

major

theory

is that its basic

motives for human behavior is the need

interpersonally connected and that the threat or actuality of inter

personal exclusion is one cause of anxiety are consistent with a wealth
of psychological theory and data, many examples of which were cited
by Baumeister and Tice. If anything, Baumeister and Tice have understated
their case. For example, the largest and most common factor underlying
responses to multidimensional personality inventories has been labeled
"social shyness" (Howarth, 1980), supporting their contention that perto be

JONES

216

sonality and the

approval.

self

crystallize

around the need for social

recognition

and

only is there evidence that fear of social exclusion is

major
anxiety, but recent research confirms that inter
is
at the heart of psychological health and wellpersonal integration
and
that
social exclusion is intimately related to many
being,
conversely,
forms of psychopathology and personal distress. For example, various
lines of research converge on the conclusion that one of the most important
factors in predicting health and adjustment is the status and quality of
an individual's close
personal relationships, including friendships, families,
romantic and sexual ties, and relationship between neighbors, co-workers,
roommates, playmates, and the like. It has been known for a long time
that one of the best predictors of mental illness among adults is single
Moreover,

not

contributor to

marital status

(cf. Hafner, 1986). Also,

defined

help, comfort, information, and advice

as

the

one's social network is

strongly

the amount of social support,

one receives from

related to

adjustment

and

well-being

Sarason, 1985). In other words, people who are a part of and

integrated into a network of friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers
on whom
they can rely for comfort, safety, companionship, and assistance

(Sarason

&

adjusted than people who lack a social network altogether or,

likely, whose social network is perceived as not being supportive.
Indeed, when most people first experience a psychological crisis, it is
to the social network that they turn for help rather than to mental health
practitioners (Gottlieb, 1981). Thus, in a very real sense having a supportive
social network, the existence of which implies that a person is not typically
socially excluded, is the first and often the most effective line of defense
in the battle against anxiety and emotional breakdown.

are

better

more

LONELINESS PHENOMENON

Conceptually, the fear or reality of being excluded from social groups

and intimate relationships is highly and perhaps most particularly relevant
to the psychological phenomenon of loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1982).
One would

expect, therefore,

that the research literature

on

loneliness

provide confirmatory findings for exclusion theory, which it does.

For example, as Baumeister and Tice would predict, loneliness is a common
experience, frequently associated with the actual or threatened loss of
important social ties and relationships. One survey found that 26% of
U.S. adult respondents reported having felt lonely during the previous
2 weeks (Bradburn, 1969), and loneliness is particularly common among
persons who have recently undergone divorce, widowhood, and romantic
breakups (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). Loneliness is an intensely unpleasant
would

217

LONELINESS AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

as would be expected from the perspective of exclusion

strongly related to anxiety and other "social emotions," such
as
anger, guilt, shyness, and shame (e.g., Jones & Carver, in press).
Also, Baumeister and Tice correctly note that chronic aloneness and
being rejected are not identical, and this corresponds to an issue extensively
investigated in the loneliness literature. Research indicates that loneliness
is only moderately associated with the amount of social contact and
other so-called quantitative indicators of social involvement (e.g., number
of friends, dating frequency, residential distance from friends and relatives,
etc.) (e.g., Jones, Carpenter, & Quintana, 1985). Elderly people, for

experience and,

theory,

is

example,

tend to have the least social contact and the smallest social

networks among various age cohorts, and yet they report the lowest
levels of loneliness. College students, by contrast, report large and diverse
interpersonal networks and spend more of their tirre with others, and

yet college students and young adults in general tend to be lonelier than
other groups (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). More strongly predictive of
loneliness than

"objective" environmental
qualitative aspects of relationships, such

factors
as

al., 1985). Put another way, loneliness appears

from

actually being socially

with the social and intimate

QUESTIONS

isolated

as

are

variables

satisfaction

to derive not

it does from

relationships

one

assessing
(e.g., Jones et

being

so

much

dissatisfied

does have.

RAISED BY EXCLUSION THEORY

Although these possibilities are anticipated by exclusion theory in its

incorporation of threatened and symbolic rejection, such findings and
others in the literature on loneliness and related issues raise some questions
perhaps insufficiently considered by Baumeister and Tice. Three seem
most important: First, the factors postulated as leading to social exclusion
appear excessively mechanical and linear. For example, it is suggested
that when social exclusion occurs it is based on instances of incompetence,
deviance, and unattractiveness. Undoubtedly, in the extreme these factors
do eventuate in social exclusion, but people who are socially excluded
in the sense that they feel lonely are not particularly deviant, incompetent,
nor unattractive. Instead, lonely people "exclude themselves" by with
drawal, rejection of others, and habitual passivity rather than by being
rejected (e.g., Jones & Carver, in press). Following laboratory interactions
with strangers, lonely people, as compared to not-lonely participants,
rate themselves and their fellow participants negatively (e.g., less honest,
less warm, less friendly, etc.) and indicate that they expect to be negatively
rated by others (Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981; Jones, Sansone, &
Helm, 1983). By contrast, ratings of lonely participants do not, in general,

JONES

218

confirm these
rated

as

negative expectations.

"liking

themselves less"

At the worst,

or as

lonely persons

"more difficult to

get

are

to know."

loneliness and social networks also suggests

that intimates may not know whether they are being accepted or rejected
as well as one
might think; sometimes there is even confusion regarding

Furthermore, research

whether

relationship

nominations

across

on

exists. Studies

even

individuals reveal that

as

many
friends and members of social networks

named

as

do not

name

the informant

as one

social network

comparing

as

half of the individuals

by primary

informants

of their network members

or

close

friends (Antonucci & Israel, 1986; Fischer, 1982). In other words, it may
often be what a person perceives or believes rather than what the members
of the social network

actually

do that defines exclusion and hence the

experience
anxiety and loneliness. Also, research on romantic rela
tionships suggests that the person with whom one falls in love is, in a
of

very real sense, at least as much one's conception of that person as it

is that other person (Sternberg, 1987). Thus, it seems likely that internal
processes (e.g., beliefs, expectations, judgments) mediate
the connections between loneliness (and related forms of distress such

psychological
as

anxiety)

and the external

than envisioned

by

interpersonal

environment to

greater degree

Baumeister and Tice.

Second, exclusion theory fails

to consider

the

fully

inevitability

and

of social exclusion. For

complexity
example, social exclusion may occur
various
and
these
dimensions themselves may be in
dimensions,
along
conflict. The acquisition of power in relationships and social groups often
results in decreases in

intimacy

and

liking,

whereas

being accepted

and

well liked

(Hogan,

by everyone often results in limitations in status and influence

Jones, & Cheek, 1985). Also, in one sense, many instances of

or inclusion in one
group or relationship entails automatic
exclusion from another group or relationship. To illustrate, marrying
one
person obviates other romantic opportunities, at least in principle,

acceptance

and

becoming

Republican

means

that

one

cannot

be,

at

the

same

time,

Democrat. Thus, the central issue in anxiety and loneliness may not
be exclusion itself but rather how one copes with or responds to it.
a

Third, exclusion theory might benefit from

sideration of individual differences in the

more

thorough

con

to avoid social exclusion

ability
perceived or real rejection. Baumeister and Tice focus
largely on transitory instances of social incompetence, deviance, and
unattractiveness. It may be that everyone is subject to
anxiety and lone
liness following social exclusions, but not everyone is
equally likely to
be excluded or to perceive exclusion in the normal uncertainties of social
interaction. For example, there is evidence that trait
shyness (which is
highly correlated with both loneliness and anxiety) has a genetic component
(Plomin & Daniels, 1986), is quite stable over time (Morris, Soroker, &
and reactions to

219

LONELINESS AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Burrus, 1954), and involves the tendency

more

poorly

& Smith,

in social situations than is

to believe that

actually

the

one

case

is

performing

(Jones, Briggs,

1986).

Finally, to a large extent the points raised above concern questions

emphasis and interpretation rather than compelling inconsistencies.
Consequently, it seems likely that subsequent accounts of exclusion
theory could be modified to accommodate these issues. More important,
Baumeister and Tice have proposed a model that corresponds well to
prevailing conceptualizations of human nature found in the social sciences
generally, that subsumes a large proportion of the relevant literature,
and that constitutes a legitimate basis for further
developments in un
derstanding anxiety and social exclusion.
of

REFERENCES
Antonucci, T. C, & Israel, B. A. (1986). Veridicality of social support: A comparison of
principal and network members' responses, journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
54, 432-437.

Athay, M.,

&

Darley, J.

N. Cantor &

J.

M.

(1981) Roward an interaction-center theory of personality. In

(Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale,

F. Kihlstrom

NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being Chicago: Aldine.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social support in community mental health.
In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, R, & Solomon, S. (1986) Rhe causes and consequences of
self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public and private

self.

New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Hafner, R. J. (1986). Marriage and mental illness. New York: Guilford.

Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed ), Nebraska
symposium on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to
armadillo

psychology.

In B. R. Schlenker

(Ed.),

The

self

and social

life.

New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Howarth, E. (1980). Ma]or factors of personality. Journal of Psychology, 104, 171-183.

W. H., Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). Shyness: Conceptualization and mea
surement, journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 629-639.

Jones,

Jones, W. H., Carpenter,

predictors

B.

N., & Quintana, D. (1985). Personality and interpersonal

of loneliness in

two

cultures,

fournal of Personality

and Social

Psychology,

48, 1503-1511.
W. H
& Carver, M. D. (in press). Rhe experience of loneliness: Adjustment and
coping implications. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and
clinical psychology: Tlie health perspective. New York: Pergamon.
Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. E., & Goswick, R. A. (1981). Rhe persistence of loneliness: Self
and other determinants, journal of Personality, 49, 27-48.
Jones, W. H., Sansone, C, & Helm, B. (1983). Loneliness and interpersonal judgments.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 437-441.

Jones,

JONES

220

Larson, R.,

in daily experience:
A sourcebook
Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Lonelinessresearch, theory, and therapy (pp. 40-53). New York. Wiley-Interscience.
Soroker, E., & Burrus, G. (1954). Follow-up studies of shy, withdrawn
1. Evaluation of later adjustment. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24,

Csikszentmihalyi,

Loneliness

of

current

Moms, L. W.,
children:

or

M., & Graef, R. (1982). Rime alone

renewal. In L. A.

743-754.

Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (Eds.). (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current research,
theory, and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1986). Genetics and shyness. In W. H. Jones, J M. Cheek, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 63-80). New
York: Plenum
Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (Eds.). (1985). Socio/ support: Theory, research and applications.
Boston: Martinus Nijhof.
Sternberg, R. (1987). Explorations of love. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.),
in
personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 171-196). Greenwich, CR: JAI Press.

Advances

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.