1. Stress, State Anxiety and Social Support In Relation to Loneliness Stacey Dangler University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2. Abstract Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that social support buffers the effects of stress and state anxiety on loneliness.

3. Introduction Affects of Loneliness –Fatigue, depression, tension and helplessness (Jones, Rose, & Russell, 1990) –Social isolation and have low opinions of their character and believe that other share the same belief (Jones, Freemon, & Goswick, 1981)

4. Introduction cont’d Previous findings –Buffering hypothesis of social support for stress on anxiety and depression (Flannery & Wieman, 1989) –Social support correlated to loneliness (Jones, Rose, & Russell, 1990) –Anxiety and loneliness are highly correlated (Jones, Rose, &Russell, 1990)

5. Hypothesis Social support buffers the effect of stress and anxiety on loneliness

6. Low social support Stress level High Medium Low Loneliness State Anxiety High social support Loneliness State Anxiety Medium social support Loneliness State Anxiety Stress level High Medium Low Stress level High Medium Low Hypothesis (illustrated)

7. Methods Archival data set used (Bishop, 1997) Survey given to undergraduates at UNL –Traditional students ages 18-20 (M=18.7) 102 females and 102 males Participated in the study by signing up and filling out the questionnaire –Non traditional students over age 30 (M=38.4) 78 males and 123 females Were contacted through the mail and later received the survey to be completed

8. Methods cont’d Looked at four of the scales –Multi-dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) –State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) –Life Experiences Survey (LES) –Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS)

9. Methods cont’d Divided state anxiety, stress and support into three levels of low, medium and high Surveys that contained insufficient data or were incomplete were excluded from the analysis

10. Results There were significant interactions of support, state anxiety, and stress for loneliness when considering friend, significant other and total social support* The buffering hypothesis was partially supported by the data *For friend social support, F(8,378)=2.60, p=.009, Mse=74.17, significant other social support, F(8,378)=2.15, p=.031, Mse=80.77, and total, F(8,378)=2.36, p=.017, Mse=70.21

11. Low Total Social SupportMedium Total Social Support High Total Social Support

12. Results cont’d Main effect of friend social support, significant other social support, family social support, and total social support

13. F(2,378)=51.02, p=.001, Mse=74.17F(2,378)=33.27, p=.001, Mse=80.77 F(2,378)=29.60, p=.001, Mse=81.56F(2,378)=51.98, p=.001, Mse=70.21

14. Results cont’d Main effect of state anxiety for all support types

15. F(2,378)=24.06, p=.001, Mse=74.17 F(2,378)=17.50, p=.001, Mse=81.56 F(2,378)=24.44, p=.001, Mse=80.77 F(2,378)=21.02, p=.001, Mse=70.21

16. Results cont’d Also significant interaction of total social support and state anxiety for loneliness

17. F(4, 378)=2.55, p=.039, Mse=70.21

18. Discussion Partial support for the buffering hypothesis Demonstrates that social support can counteract the effects of anxiety and stress Another study (Krause, 1995) explains increases in higher support levels.

19. Medium Significant Other Social SupportHigh Significant Other Social Support

20. Conclusion While social support generally buffers the effects of anxiety and stress on loneliness, there is much to be studied. Support does not directly fix the problem, it can increase the problem.