1
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKERS: AN EXPLORATION OF THEIR LONELINESS,
INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATION, AND LIFE SATISFACTION
NAPAPAT LUEDEESUNUN
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY
Graduate School of Psychology
ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY
Thailand
2008

2
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKERS: AN EXPLORATION OF THEIR LONELINESS,
INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATION, AND LIFE SATISFACTION
Napapat Luedeesunun
This study aimed to examine the interrelationships among loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among Thai online social networkers.
115 Pages November 2008
APPROVED:
____________________________
Vorapot Ruckthum, Ph.D.
Chairman
___________________________
CHE Representative
____________________________
Maria Bella Bamforth, Ph.D.
Advisor
____________________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ph.D.
Member
____________________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ph.D.
Member

3
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKERS: AN EXPLORATION OF THEIR LONELINESS,
INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATION, AND LIFE SATISFACTION
Napapat Luedeesunun
ABSTRACT
The current study aimed to examine the interrelationships among loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among Thai online social networkers. It
also attempted to investigate differences in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction as a function of demographic variables. This study utilized a causal-
comparative and correlational research design. A total of 306 Thai online social
networkers participated by completing a self-administered online survey questionnaire
in either English or Thai. The major instruments used were: the Revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale (RULS), the Liking People Scale (LPS), and the Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS). The study employed both descriptive and inferential statistical tools to
analyze the data.
The major findings of the study showed that there is a significant difference in:
a) life satisfaction as a function of gender, with females showing a higher level of life
satisfaction; b) life satisfaction as a function of age; c) interpersonal orientation as a
function of age; d) loneliness as a function of marital status; e) interpersonal orientation
as a function of number of friends online through social networking sites; and f)
interpersonal orientation as a function of number of hours spent online for social
networking sites. Furthermore, the results indicated that there is a significant inverse
relationship between loneliness and interpersonal orientation; there is a significant
inverse relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction; and there is a significant
positive relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal orientation.

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are some special individuals and groups who have given me, in one way
or another, their unconditional support and guidance throughout this research.
First of all, I would like to wholeheartedly thank my advisor and editor, Dr.
Maria Bella Bamforth, for her mentoring, patience, encouragement, and valuable
insights on my thesis over the year. Dr. Maria, you always made time to help me no
matter how busy you were. I truly appreciate it!
Likewise, I thank Dr. Edward Roy Krishnan, my statistical consultant. Dr.
Edward, thank you for your support with this research as well and for your statistical
expertise. I would not have made it without your help. I really appreciate all that you
have done.
I am grateful to the Dean of the Graduate School of Psychology, Dr. Vorapot
Ruckthum, for his encouragement and support on the thesis process.
I feel obliged to MSCP friends who stood by me and encouraged me all the way,
with their thoughtfulness and fruitful ideas. I especially thank my close friends for their
time and delightful company. I owe a great debt of gratitude to my supervisor and
colleagues at CentralWorld and Y&R who understood and supported me on this thesis,
for their assistance in questionnaire distribution and collection as well as for helping me
realize that there really is a light at the end of the tunnel. To all my respondents: a big
“thank you” for participating and for teaching me.
And, most importantly, I am grateful to my family for all their belief in my
potential and for their endless support and encouragement.
N. L.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page i
Approval Page ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Chapters
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 6
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Hypotheses 8
Significance of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 10
Conceptual Framework 13
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Loneliness 14
Interpersonal Orientation 20
Satisfaction with Life 25
Online Social Networkers 29
III. METHODOLOGY 36
Research Design 36

6
Participants of the Study 36
Research Instrumentation 37
Data Collection Procedure 41
Data Analysis 42
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 43
Descriptive Statistics 44
Inferential Statistics 49
Summary of Findings 74
V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION 77
Overview of the Study 77
Discussion of Findings 78
Limitation of the Study 86
Conclusion 87
Recommendation 88
REFERENCES 91
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Research Instrument (English Version) 99
Appendix B: Research Instrument (Thai Version) 104
Appendix C: Current Online Social Network Population 109

7
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Gender 45
2. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Age 45
3. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Marital Status 46
4. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Number of Friends
Online Through Social Networking Sites 46
5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Number of Hours
Spent for Social Networking Sites 47
6. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction 48
7. Description of Variables 49
8. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Gender 50
9. ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Gender 51
10. Measures of Association Between Loneliness,
Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction with Gender 52
11. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Age 53
12. ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Age 54
13. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Age 55

8
14. Measures of Association Between Loneliness,
Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction with Age 56
15. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Marital Status 57
16. ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Marital Status 58
17. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Loneliness as a
Function of Marital Status 59
18. Measures of Association Between Loneliness,
Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction with Marital Status 60
19. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Number of Friends Online
Through Social Networking Sites 60
20. ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Number of
Friends Online Through Social Networking Sites 62
21. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation as a
Function of Number of Friends Online Through Social Networking Sites 63
22. Measures of Association Between Loneliness,
Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction with
Number of Friends Through Online Social Networking Sites 65
23. Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation and
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Number of Hours
Spent for Online Social Networking Sites 66
24. ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and

9
Life Satisfaction as a Function of Number of Hours
Spent for Social Networking Sites 67
25. Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation as a
Function of Number of Hours Spent for Social Networking Sites 68
26. Measures of Association Between Loneliness,
Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction with
Number of Hours Spent for Social Networking Sites 69
27. Measure of Correlation Between Loneliness and
Interpersonal Orientation 70
28. Measure of Correlation Between Interpersonal Orientation and
Life Satisfaction 71
29. Measure of Correlation Between Life Satisfaction and
Interpersonal Orientation 72

10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Conceptual Framework of the Study 13

11
CHAPTER I
Introduction
We live in an increasingly connected world. Or at least we live in a world where
it is now easier to connect with other people using a variety of Web-based tools,
commonly referred to as online social networking (Lamb, 2006). As the Internet
became a more robust technological platform, the ability of users to contribute and form
communities of interest became easier and, in addition to business networks of
innovation, social networks and communities which had always existed in the physical
world began to emerge on this platform. These early networks, which were not tied to a
particular place or even time zone, consisted of a variety of individuals who might be
scattered geographically but who used the Internet as a conduit for discussion of
common interests and ideas (Hafner, 1997). Howard Rheingold, who pioneered such
online communities, defined them as “cultural aggregations that emerge when enough
people bump into each other often enough in cyberspaces” (Preece, 2000).
Social networking is one of the newest forms of computer mediated
communication or CMC. This form of communication relies on technology such as
email and instant messaging. These technologies function as substitutes or supplements
for face-to-face interactions with the purpose of making processes of communication
more mobile and convenient (Nyland, 2007). As of this writing, there are hundreds of
social networking sites with various technological affordances, supporting a wide range
of interests and practices. While their key technological features are fairly consistent,
the cultures that emerge around social networking sites are varied. Most sites support
the maintenance of pre-existing social networks, but others help strangers connect based
on shared interests, political views, or activities. Some sites cater to diverse audiences,

12
while others attract people based on common language or shared racial, sexual,
religious, or nationality-based identities. Sites also vary in the extent to which they
incorporate new information and communication tools, such as mobile connectivity,
blogging, and photo/video-sharing (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
How big is the phenomenon called social networking? According to the Pew
Internet & American Life Project (2007), over 100 million users are registered to be a
member of at least one social networking site. Two out of every 3 people online in the
United States now visit social networking sites everyday. If online social relationship
dominates Internet use for a majority of its users, there is a good reason to expect that
this relationship will have positive social impact. Communication, including contact
with neighbors, friends and family, and participation in social groups improve people’s
level of social support, their probability of having fulfilling personal relationships, their
sense of meaning in life, their self-esteem, their commitment to social norms and to
their communities, and their psychological and physical well-being (Diener, Suh,
Lucas, & Smith, 1999).
According to Rosen (2007), although social networking sites are in their
infancy, we are seeing their impact culturally; that we are only beginning to come to
grips with the consequences of our use of these sites. It is worth pausing for a moment
to reflect on the curious use of the word networking to describe this new form of human
interaction. Social networking sites “connect” users with a network–literally, a
computer network. But the verb to network has long been used to describe an act of
intentional social connecting, especially for professionals seeking career boosting
contacts. In the near future, our online interactions will begin to more closely mimic
offline interactions. Technologists are currently experimenting with mood-sensing tools

13
that enable computers to read our facial expressions and share those expressions with
others in whatever online environment we inhabit at the moment. While our virtual
identity may be shielded, our emotional state may soon be available for all to see and
feel–online. Despite the ability to connect with millions of strangers worldwide in new
and interesting ways, online networking has not significantly improved the connections
with people directly around us–our family, friends, and local communities. In some
cases, it has had the opposite effect of trading close connections for distant and virtual
ones (Lamb, 2006).
While social networking sites are often designed to be widely accessible, many
attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using
sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, or other factors that typically segment
society, even if that was not the intention of the designers. Many social networking sites
target people from specific geographical regions or linguistic groups, although this does
not always determine the site's constituency (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). This global
phenomenon is not only affecting the way people formed their relationship elsewhere; it
is affecting people in Thailand as well. Surprisingly, not only teens are the active
member of these sites but adults from early jobbers to late adults.
As cited in Kraut et al. (2001), research has not yet led to consensus on either
the nature of social interaction online or its effects on social involvement and personal
well-being. Some survey research indicates that online social relationships are weaker
than off-line relationships (Parks & Roberts, 1998), and that people who use the
Internet heavily report spending less time communicating with their families (Cole,
2000). In contrast, other survey research shows that people who use the Internet heavily
report more social support and more in-person visits with family and friends than those

14
who use it less (Pew Internet Report, 2000). According to Kraut and Kiesler (1999), it is
surely true that some people create meaningful and fulfilling relationships online both
through electronic groups and though individual connections. Yet some findings have
shown that people typically feel less close to online communication partners than to
those with whom they have formed real-world relationships. Nyland (2007) stated that
heavy users of social networking sites feel less socially involved with the community
around them and, as individuals use social networking more for entertainment, their
level of social involvement decreases.
Loneliness is a common and often debilitating problem for individuals in
contemporary society (McWhirter, 1990; Peplau & Perlman, 1982) and its
consequences are detrimental to one’s emotional, physical, and psychological health
(Ernst & Cacioppo, 1998). Even with advances in technology designed to facilitate
communication between people, loneliness may be on the rise (Jackson, Soderlind, &
Weiss, 2000). Seligman (1983) described loneliness as one of the most poorly
understood of all psychological phenomena and that measures of loneliness have been
shown to correlate negatively with satisfaction with life. Painful feelings are a fact of
life for lonely people. Three factors that figure prominently in chronic loneliness are
shyness, poor social skills, and a self-defeating attributional style. The link between
these factors and loneliness could go either way. Feeling lonely might cause a negative
attribution about others, but making negative attributions can also lead to loneliness.
Rubenstein and Shaver (1982) found that lonely people spend time in solitary activities
rather than engage with activity with others.
Recent research has demonstrated that socializing and expending resources to
maintain and enhance social relationships are important components to well-being or
life satisfaction enhancement. It is important to note here that the current researcher

15
takes the point of view of the New Economics Foundation (2006) which stated that
some researchers, notably those from an economics background, tend to see happiness,
life satisfaction, and well-being as synonymous and interchangeable. Argyle (2001)
posited that social relationships have a powerful effect on happiness and other aspects
of life satisfaction and are perhaps its greatest single cause. According to Filsinger
(1981), the developer of the Liking People Scale that measures interpersonal
orientation, this psychological phenomenon plays a significant role in one’s social
development and adjustment. Interpersonal orientation can be seen from many aspects,
the general liking of other people is one aspect of person-to-person orientation. The
theoretical point is that the degree of liking people will influence whether one
approaches or avoids social interaction.
The study of Internet use has been a focal point in many recent social science
studies due to its huge impact worldwide. Yet the implications of psychological aspects
associated with Internet use cry out for further consideration. In this regard, the present
researcher will focus her study on the following selected psychological phenomena:
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction. There are opportunity costs
when we spend so much time carefully nurturing relationships online. Given how much
time we already devote to entertaining ourselves with technology, it is at least worth
asking if the time we spend on social networking sites is well spent. Would investing so
much energy into online relationships help the feeling we face offline?
In the light of the given general assertions about existing online social
networking sites, the present researcher attempted to examine the interrelationships
among the phenomena of loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and satisfaction with life
among social online networkers. As she herself is a Thai as well as an online social

16
networker, the current researcher opted to explore the interplay among the three main
variables within the Thai context.
Background of the Study
Having been a member of one of the more popular social networking sites for
some time now, the present researcher has observed that many people are giving up real
life relationships for online relationships–that friendships nurtured online replace real
friends and that many online social networkers have become accustomed to
relationships that exist in the virtual world. This researcher posits that the Internet is
one of the tools people of this day and age use to kill time, especially in times of
loneliness. This position is partly supported by Russell, Peplau, and Ferguson (1978)
who asserted that lonely people often indicate that their relationships are superficial and
that no one understands them well. The feeling of loneliness is the feeling of not being
known and understood. People who are unwilling to reveal themselves face-to-face and
who receive little personal information from others may find their relationship less
satisfying and so may be more prone to loneliness. In a similar vein, Sermat (1980)
suggested that one of the contributing factors to loneliness is the individual’s
unwillingness to enter into interpersonal situations that involve the risk of being
rejected, embarrassed, or disappointed. Lonely people may be less willing or less able
to take the face-to-face social risks that might lead to alleviation of the lonely feelings.
Today, the internet, a new technological development has the potential to allow people
to enter into mediated interpersonal relationships without taking face-to-face social
risks.
In agreement with Argyle (2001), the researcher is of the opinion that social
relationships have a powerful effect on happiness and other aspects of well-being, and

17
perhaps, in some way, technology may be a pathway for lonely people to achieve some
level of social relationships that may lead to the enhancement of life satisfaction. It was
in this context that the researcher attempted to explore the psychological constructs of
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among Thai online social
networkers.
Statement of the Problem
An extensive review of literature on the variables loneliness, interpersonal
orientation, and life satisfaction failed to provide a clear link between these three
phenomena combined, much less within the framework of online social networking. As
mentioned earlier, online social networking is in its ‘infancy’ stage (Rosen, 2007); this
implies that there may not be that many empirical studies done within the field of
psychological science that would substantiate the effects of networking on the cognitive
and social aspects of the person. Even rarer would be studies conducted in Thailand that
specifically attempt to examine the three phenomena together. In the light of this
knowledge gap, the researcher deemed it necessary to conduct this exploratory study to
contribute towards the literature.
In order to better understand the dynamics between the three main variables
among Thai online social networkers, the following research questions were posed:
1. What is the profile of Thai online social networkers in terms of the
following demographic characteristics: gender, age, marital status, number
of friends online, and number of hours spent online?
2. Are there basic differences between members of online social networking
sites and non-members in terms of loneliness, interpersonal orientation,
and life satisfaction?

18
3. Are there significant differences in loneliness, interpersonal orientation,
and life satisfaction as a function of selected personal characteristics
among members and non-members of online social networking sites?
4. Are there significant interrelationships among loneliness, interpersonal
orientation, and life satisfaction among members and non-members of
online social networking sites?
Purpose of the Study
In view of the given knowledge gaps, this exploratory study was conducted
mainly in an attempt to empirically analyze the interrelationships among loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among Thai online social networkers. The
current research also investigated possible differences in loneliness, interpersonal
orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of these networkers’ demographic
characteristics, namely: gender, age, marital status, number of friends online, and
number of hours spent online. Finally, to broaden the parameters of this study in terms
of the target group of online social networkers, two groups were compared in the
process–members of online social networking sites and non-members.
Research Hypotheses
In the light of the research questions and purposes of the study, four research
hypotheses were generated for testing. This study’s hypotheses are hereby presented in
their null and alternative forms, as follows:
1Ho: There is no significant difference in loneliness, interpersonal orientation,
and life satisfaction as a function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends

19
online through social networking, and number of hours spent online for social
networking, at 0.05 level.
1Ha: There is a significant difference in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and
life satisfaction as a function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends
online through social networking, and number of hours spent online for social
networking, at 0.05 level.
2Ho: There is no significant relationship between loneliness and interpersonal
orientation among members and non-members of online social networking sites,
at .05 level.
2Ha: There is a significant relationship between loneliness and interpersonal
orientation among members and non-members of online social networking sites,
at .05 level.
3Ho: There is no significant relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction
among members and non-members of online social networking sites, at .05 level.
3Ha: There is a significant relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction
among members and non-members of online social networking sites, at .05 level.
4Ho: There is no significant relationship between life satisfaction and
interpersonal orientation among members and non-members of online social
networking sites, at .05 level.
4Ha: There is a significant relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal
orientation among members and non-members of online social networking sites,
at .05 level.

20
Significance of the Study
This study would be beneficial for many individuals and groups in this modern
society. Firstly, through this study, web developers and providers would become more
aware of and sensitive to the psychological aspects of their users, and would become
more knowledgeable about how to further improve their services for a better society.
Secondly, online social networkers themselves would have a better understanding of
how online social networking sites can contribute towards a better way of life through
reduced feelings of loneliness as well as through greater interpersonal orientation and
life satisfaction. Thirdly, this study would be a valuable resource for helping
professionals such as counselors, psychologists, social workers, and teachers; the
study’s findings would give them a greater understanding of how computer-mediated
social relationships impact people in this age of advanced communication and
information technology. Finally, this study could contribute to related foreign and local
literature by adding the perspective of online social networking to the evolving body of
research on loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction, independently or
in aggregate. Although the findings of the study will apply only to the actual
participants, the findings may still be used as reference material and database for other
researchers who are interested in the same or similar variables and study group or who
wish to explore other directions within the same framework.
Definition of Terms
In this section, key terms in the study that require clarification are defined in the
operational sense.

21
Interpersonal Orientation
‘Interpersonal Orientation’ is an aspect of liking people and is conceived as a
personality construct which serves a mediational function in social interaction, as
defined by Filsinger (1981), the designer of the Liking People Scale (LPS), the
instrument employed in the current study to measure the phenomenon. People low on
the liking people scale spend less time with others, are more socially anxious, tend to be
introverted, and are less adept at judging the characteristics of other people. This
personality measure differentiates individuals who have high versus low level of liking
people (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007).
Loneliness
‘Loneliness’ is “the unpleasant experience that occurs when a person’s network
of social relationships is deficient in some important way, either qualitatively or
quantitatively,” (p.31), as defined by the designers (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980)
of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale or RULS that was employed in the current
study.
Online Social Networkers
‘Online Social Networkers’ refers to communities in which large groups of
Internet users with common interests or activities communicate and share resources
with one another (Preece, 2000).

22
Life Satisfaction
‘Life satisfaction,’ refers to “a global cognitive assessment of a person’s quality
of life according to his chosen criteria,” as defined by Ed Diener and colleagues
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985, p.71), the designers of the Satisfaction with
Life Scale (SWLS) used in this study. Judgments on satisfaction are dependent upon a
comparison of one’s circumstances with what is thought to be an appropriate standard,
It is important to point out that the judgment of how satisfied people are with their
present state of affairs is based on a comparison with a standard which each individual
sets for him or herself; it is not externally imposed (Diener, 1984).
Social Networking Sites
‘Social networking sites’ refers to any web-based services that allow individuals
to: (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; (2) articulate
a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and (3) view and traverse their
list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and
nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site (Boyd, 2007). Examples
of social networking sites include Hi5, MySpace, Friendster, and Facebook.

23
Conceptual Framework
LONELINESS
(Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale -
RULS)
MEMBER AND NON MEMBER
OF ONLINE SOCIAL
NETWORKING SITES
Demographic Variables
Age,
Gender,
Marital Status
Number of friends online
Number of hours spent online
LIFE SATISFACTION INTERPERSONAL ORIENTATION
(Satisfaction with Life Scale - (Liking People Scale – LPS)
SWLS)
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.
The current study attempts to empirically analyze the interrelationship between
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among both member and non
member of online social networking sites. This study also attempts to investigate
significant differences in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction
among the target participants as a function of the following demographic variables:
gender, age, marital status, number of friends online, and number of hours spent online.

24
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
This chapter presents the theoretical framework and supporting literature for this
study. This chapter is divided into four major sections. To introduce a coherent review
of related literature, the topics will be sequentially presented as follows: a) Loneliness:
Theoretical Perspectives and Related Studies; b) Interpersonal Orientation: Theoretical
Perspectives and Related Studies; c) Life Satisfaction: Theoretical Perspectives and
Related Studies; and d) Online Social Networking: General Perspectives and Related
Studies.
Loneliness
“We live in a society in which isolation is commonplace. In the impersonal climate of
industrial society, even more people obviously suffer from a sense of loneliness—the
loneliness of the lonely crowd. Understandably, the intense wish emerges to
compensate for this lack of warmth with closeness. People cry for intimacy.
—The Unheard Cry for Meaning, Viktor Frankl
Loneliness: Theoretical Perspectives
Humans are social animals. In fact, our desire for social connections seems so
strong that some authors have suggested that humans have a basic need to belong.
Social relationships subtly embrace us in the warmth of self affirmation, the whispers of
encouragement, and the meaningfulness of belonging. They are fundamental to our
emotional fulfillment, behavioral adjustment, and cognitive function. Disruption or
absence of stable social relationships blasts our minds and biology like few other events
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). When one’s intimate and social needs are not adequately
met, a complex set of feelings termed loneliness occurs that motivates one to seek the
fulfillment of these needs (Weiss, 1973). The core experience is one of being isolated

25
socially in terms of relational and collective connectedness (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona,
1980).
As cited in Huges, Waite, Hawkley and Cacioppo (2004), there is now
substantial evidence that loneliness is a core part of a constellation of socio-emotional
states including self-esteem, mood, anxiety, anger, optimism, fear of negative
evaluation, shyness, social skills, social support, dysphoria, and sociability (Berscheid
& Reis, 1998). Feelings of loneliness are not synonymous with being alone but instead,
involve perception of isolation, feelings of disconnectedness, and feelings of not
belonging. These feelings, in turn, are thought to reflect the discrepancy between one’s
desired and one’s actual relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982).
It has also been defined as an unpleasant experience that derives from important
deficiencies in the lonely person’s network of social relationships. According to Russell
et al. (1980), the designers of the instrument employed to measure loneliness in the
current study, “social relationships are at the core of human life” (p.472). These authors
claimed that most research tends to focus on the problems that involve too many people
and neglect the problems involving ‘too few’ people that ultimately leave people feeling
‘lonely,’ thus highlighting the lack of empirical data available.
As cited in Neto and Barros (2003), the issue of whether men or women are
more vulnerable to loneliness has not been resolved (Pinquart & Sorensen, 2001). On
the one hand, Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona (1980, p.474) claimed that “research has not
indicated any sex difference in loneliness.” On the other hand, Weiss (1973) presented
survey evidence showing that women are more apt to be lonely than men.
The following section presents a typological characterization of loneliness. Beck
and Young (1978) have distinguished three types of loneliness in terms of its duration:
(1) chronic loneliness, which evolves from social deficits continuing over a period of

26
years and can no longer be attributed to situation or environment; (2) situational
loneliness, which usually results at the termination of a relationship; and (3) transient
loneliness, which refers to the short duration of loneliness that most people experience
periodically as a result of brief periods of minor social deficiency (Murphy & Kupshik,
1992). One theoretical distinction between situational and chronic loneliness is that
situationally lonely persons are likely to actively adjust to the environment (e.g.,
participating in religious groups, going to social events), whereas chronically lonely
persons are likely to devalue social activities.
Weiss (1973), however, looked at loneliness in terms of the type of relationship
deficit involved. Weiss asserted that there are two types of loneliness: social loneliness–
that which arises when a person has few contacts socially and when there is a lack of
friendships or acquaintances; and emotional loneliness–the result of a lack of intimacy
within personal relationships. In a later discourse, Weiss (1974) elaborated on his idea
of two types of loneliness. His theory suggests loneliness arises from relational deficits;
this implies that relationships make certain provisions. Because the two types of
loneliness cannot adequately compensate for each other, that further implies that
relationships provide two distinct benefits. The first provision of social relationships is
security, which is further divided into three relational provisions: attachment,
nurturance, and guidance. The attachment provision is typically found in a romantic
relationship or a very close friendship. The nurturance provision is characteristic of
when an adult takes responsibility for the needs of a child, resulting in a sense of being
needed. Finally, obtaining guidance from a trusted or authoritative figure is an issue of
security and is reminiscent of the parent-child relationship. While security is what these
three provisions have in common, what differentiates them is the recipient and
beneficiary (Weiss, 1998). In the pair bond relationship, the self and the other both

27
serve as security providers and beneficiaries. In a nurturing relationship, the self is the
provider and the other is the beneficiary. In the guidance relationship, the roles are
reversed, with the self as the beneficiary and the other as the provider. The second
general provision of social relationships is affiliation, and its absence produces social
loneliness.
Weiss's (1974) taxonomy divides common interest into three types of relational
provisions: social integration, reassurance of worth, and a sense of reliable alliance.
Social integration is based in a common-concern network where individuals may share
information and experiences and may exchange services. Reassurance of worth focuses
on the individual's competence in a social role and is a characteristic of work
relationships. Finally, the sense of reliable alliance, most often provided by kin,
combats feelings of vulnerability, and abandonment. Weiss points out that these
provisions may have varying priorities across individuals and situations. He further
argues that the absence of each provision results in unique cognitive and affective
responses. For the security category, its absence produces emotional loneliness,
particularly if the attachment provision is unmet. Within this category, the lack of
opportunities for nurturance produces feelings of existential meaninglessness, and the
lack of guidance produces feelings of uncertainty and anxiety. For the affiliation
category, its absence results in social loneliness, particularly in the absence of
integration into a social network. Within this category, the lack of self-worth produces
low self-esteem, and the lack of reliable alliance produces feelings of vulnerability.
Loneliness: Related Studies
This segment cites a few studies that focused on loneliness, using the Revised
UCLA Loneliness Scale (used in the present study), although differing in their
purposes. For example, Hawkley, Browne, and Cacioppo (2004) conducted two studies

28
to examine mental representations of loneliness and social connectedness. The results of
Study 1 indicate that, for young adults, mental representations of loneliness-
connectedness appear to originate from three highly related but distinct aspects of the
social domain. Moreover, these aspects: isolation, relational connectedness, and
collective connectedness are compatible with individual, relational, and collective
aspects of the self. Analyses of data provided by older adults were remarkably
consistent in revealing three distinct dimensions of conceptual space representing
satisfaction with social connectedness. The discovery of the same conceptual
representation of loneliness–connectedness in young and older adults and across gender
and ethnicity lends generalizability to these results. Nurmi, Toivonen, Salmela-Aro, and
Eronen (1997) investigated loneliness to the extent of its association with the cognitive
and attributional strategies people apply in social situations. Two studies were carried
out among Finnish students to examine this association. In both studies, a pessimistic
avoidance strategy was associated with subsequent feelings of loneliness, even after
controls for the level of self-esteem. Both an optimistic planning strategy and a self-
serving attributional bias were negatively associated with feelings of loneliness among
men but not among women. Leung (2002) investigated the relationships between self-
disclosure in ICQ (“I seek you”) chat, level of loneliness, and ICQ usage. The results
indicate that loneliness is not related to level of ICQ use, but inversely related to
valence, accuracy, and the amount dimensions of self disclosure in ICQ chat, and that
ICQ usage is significantly related to control of depth and intent of disclosure.
Specifically, it was found that the lonelier the student, the more dishonest, more
negative, and the less revealing was the quality of the self-disclosure in their ICQ
interaction. Conversely, appropriate, honest, positive, and accurate self-disclosure
might lead to decreased loneliness when one feels understood, accepted, and cared

29
about on ICQ. Borys and Perlman (1985) studied gender differences in loneliness, using
the UCLA scale. The results revealed a clear pattern: statistically significant sex
differences are not usually found with the scale but, when they are found, males
typically have higher loneliness scores. In terms of self-labeling, women more
frequently than men admit being lonely. Sex role factors may help explain these
seemingly contradictory results. Of the various possible explanations of the gender
differences in self-labeled loneliness, most assume that social influence processes play a
crucial role. To test this viewpoint, an experiment was conducted. Subjects were
presented with a case history of a lonely person, which varied only the target person's
sex. The subjects were more rejecting of a lonely male than of a lonely female. These
results support the view that women are more apt to acknowledge their loneliness than
men.
A study quite different in context from the foregoing studies but in closer
proximity with the current research is that by Shaw and Gant (2002) which tested the
hypothesis that Internet usage can affect users beneficially. Internet use was found to
decrease loneliness and depression significantly, while perceived social support and
self-esteem increased significantly.
A culture-specific study using loneliness as the dependent variable is cited here
on account of its implications on certain determinants of loneliness. Gierveld and
Tilburg (1999) investigated the effects of differences between the Netherlands and Italy
in the aspect of living arrangements of older adults with and without partners. The
consequences of living alone and of co-residence with adult children have been further
investigated, using loneliness as the dependent variable. Controlled for age, health, sex,
size and support of the network, and for differences in socio-economic resources,
household composition is still the most important determinant of loneliness. Living

30
without a partner in the same household as one's adult children yields country-specific
correlations that correspond with differences in value orientations: less loneliness in
Italy, more loneliness in the Netherlands.
Interpersonal Orientation
"The reciprocal nature of social contacts is apparent: anyone who makes no social
contacts soon finds himself isolated. Society makes the same mistakes toward the
isolated individual as he makes toward society. If you approach people coldly they will
be hard and cold with you.”
"Individual Psychology," by Erwin Weber
Interpersonal Orientation: Theoretical Perspectives
Interpersonal orientation plays a significant role in one’s social development and
adjustment. Interpersonal orientations are ways in which individuals are usually
oriented towards other people as they attempt to interact or respond. When one person
responds in a specific way to another person, this manner of response might be termed
interpersonal orientations (Horney, 1948). Baumeister and Leary (1995) refer the word
‘interpersonal’ to anything relating to the interactions between and among people.
The classifications of interpersonal orientation patterns were developed by
Horney (1948). She identified three general tendencies: moving toward others; moving
against others; and moving away from others. Moving toward others indicates a need
for affection or approval–need for partners, friends, and lovers. This interpersonal
orientation provides responses ranging from mild support to close affiliation, trust, or
love. Moving against others indicates a view of the world as an arena where the strong
overcome the weak and only the fittest survive. Such an orientation indicates a need to
excel, achieve, and attain prestige and recognition. Moving away from others indicates a
need to avoid becoming attached to anybody or anything; self-sufficiency and privacy

31
both serve this need. Independence and detachment are prized. The goal is not to be
involved, influenced, obligated, or challenged. Persons exhibiting this orientation may
conform outwardly in order to avoid friction of obligation inwardly. However, they
reject rules and standards presented by other people. Most of us display more than one
of these interpersonal orientation patterns at different times toward various people.
The primary dimension of interpersonal orientations.
Interpersonal orientations have three primary dimensions, according to Griffin
and Patton (1976): the degree of involvement, the emotional tone or feeling involved,
and the amount of interpersonal control. The involvement relates not only to the amount
of interaction between the participants but also to the importance of the interaction to
each of the participants. It indicates the extent to which relationship actually exists. In
the case of two friends working together and talking with each other everyday, there
may be a little interpersonal involvement and not much of a relationship when
compared with a relationship of a father and a daughter who lived in different towns.
We need human contact in both personal and professional areas in our daily
lives; being able to be in contact and get along with others are important to make life
flow smoothly. With well-adjusted human beings, there is a need and desire for positive
relationships. Hanna (1999) said that the social self cannot develop without interaction.
To live in the world is to relate to others. Without self-knowledge, self-love, and
positive communication skills, the individual will encounter difficulties and
disappointments in interpersonal orientation and relations. Hanna also suggests that in
order for a relationship to begin, someone has to act. Initiating interactions is a valuable
interpersonal skill. Personality plays an important role in this stage. If you have an
extraverted personality, you are motivated to reach out to a new person. Attitudes and

32
behavior are also necessary in interpersonal relations. In one’s career, of utmost
importance are interpersonal skills, no matter what job one is working for especially if
the work concerns with helping, giving service, or needs high understanding such as
doctors, nurses, etcetera. Effective interpersonal orientations are very important in
performing such jobs. Besides affective interpersonal skills, effective communication is
also highly desired in helping one’s professional career.
Interpersonal relationships are essential for our personal well-being in many
ways. It is a must to grow and develop cognitively and socially, build a positive and
coherent personal identity, and feel that we are firmly in touch with reality. To Vogt
and Colvin (2003), some people are more highly motivated to develop and maintain
positive interpersonal relationships than others. The psychological construct that
underlies this individual difference has a long tradition within the field of psychology
and can be traced back to Bakan’s (1966) writings on communion, which he viewed as
a fundamental quality of human beings. According to Bakan, communion is
characterized by the need to become one with a group of others. Personal feelings of
pleasure and pain often mirror the circumstances of close others. Communal individuals
are interpersonally oriented and, perhaps while experiencing a cost to their own
emotional well-being, will frequently provide support to friends and loved ones. Given
that Bakan viewed communion as a lens through which people perceive and act upon
their world, interpersonal orientation is best viewed as one facet of communion that
emphasizes the desire and need to have close interpersonal relationships. One way that
interpersonally-oriented individuals might foster positive relationships is through their
attunement to and interest in understanding others. It implies that some individuals are
highly motivated to seek out, maintain, and foster close interpersonal relationships.
These individuals who, in large part, define themselves by their connectedness with

33
others, probably are more likely to spend time interacting with others and to think about
their social interactions than individuals who are less communal (Bakan, 1966).
According to Filsinger (1981) (the designer of the scale employed to measure
interpersonal orientation in the current study), liking people is an aspect of interpersonal
orientation and is conceived as a personality construct which serves a mediational
function in social interaction. People low on liking people spend less time with others,
are more socially anxious, tend to be introverted, and are less adept at judging the
characteristics of other people. A history of contact between people would determine a
large part of the nature of their interaction; the underlying assumption herein is that part
of the reason an individual tends to approach or to avoid people is the degree to which
he or she likes people. Individuals who like people would be expected to put time and
energy into social interaction, whereas those who do not like people would put their
energies into nonsocial pursuits. This particular aspect is a very specific, one-
dimensional domain of interpersonal orientation rather than other measurements of
interpersonal orientations.
Interpersonal orientation: Related Studies
Vogt and Colvin (2003) investigated if individuals who are more invested in
developing and maintaining interpersonal relations are able to provide more accurate
judgments of others’ personality characteristics. Results revealed that psychological
communion was positively associated with judges’ accuracy in rating targets’
personality characteristics. In addition, whereas women were more communal and
provided more accurate judgments than men, the relationship between communion and
accuracy held after controlling for the effect of gender. Finally, findings suggested that

34
interpersonally oriented individuals may sometimes draw on information about
themselves and about stereotypical others to facilitate accurate judgments of others.
Filsinger (1981) conducted three studies during the development of the Liking
People Scale. The first study was administered to undergraduates at a large Eastern
university. There were no sex differences found in this study. The Pearson product
moment correlation between ‘liking people’ and ‘alone behavior’ was significant. The
reported number of close friends and social anxiety were also significantly related to
‘liking people.’ The second study was carried out at a large Western state university.
Sex differences were found with females scoring significantly higher. Liking people
was reported as significantly related to ‘need for affiliation,’ ‘affiliative tendency,
‘introversion/extroversion,’ but negatively related to ‘need for autonomy.’ The third
study was performed on a sample of adults from a large Western metropolitan area.
There were no sex differences found, which left the existence of population-based sex
differences in doubt. ‘Liking people’ was significantly related to ‘social self-esteem’
and to ‘judgmental ability,’ but was not related to ‘interpersonal effectiveness.’ These
findings indicated that individuals who like people tend to have self confidence in
social situations and tend to feel that they have the ability to read the feelings of and
moods of others. On the other hand, individuals who like people are not necessarily sure
of their ability to get people to do things they wish them to do.

35
Life Satisfaction
“To be able to look upon one’s life with satisfaction is to live twice.”
– Anonymous
Life Satisfaction: Theoretical Perspectives
Life satisfaction, the cognitive aspect of well-being, is the global evaluation by a
person of his or her life (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996). Life satisfaction is a positive
feeling of one’s self that can fluctuate over time. It reflects the personal judgment of the
individual in relation to aging and the perception of life satisfaction made manifest
through feelings of happiness, well-being, and a successful life. These feelings were
often used interchangeably with life satisfaction, according to Miller (1995).
Life satisfaction is an important component for quality of life (Haas, 1999). Life
satisfaction is the ultimate goal that human beings are striving to achieve their entire
lives. To precisely define life satisfaction is a very difficult task because there is no
universally acceptable definition, as this perception varies from person to person and
culture to culture. It appears that the literature concerning life satisfaction and well-
being, although without conclusion, is primarily concerned with how and why people
experience their lives in positive ways. Life satisfaction, happiness, well-being, and
quality of life have been used interchangeably.
Previous research efforts have identified three components of subjective
wellbeing: positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction (Diener, Emmons,
Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Emmons & Diener, 1985). Positive and negative affects are
components based on emotions (i.e., how a person usually feels) whereas life
satisfaction is a component based on cognitive judgments (how a person perceives the

36
pursuit or achievement of personal needs and aspirations). With these distinctions in
mind, well-being can be evaluated by asking individuals about their life in general, or
by asking them about their satisfaction with particular aspects such as their family or
job. From a general perspective, subjective well-being has often been shown to
correlate with variables such as education and age (Diener, Suh, & Oishi, 1997).
Evidence suggests that life satisfaction as a part of subjective well-being is likely to
reflect the fulfillment of personal values and goals, and is involved in the search for
meaningfulness in one’s life (Diener et al., 1997). Accordingly, Emmons (1986)
demonstrated a positive relationship between a person’s life satisfaction and the
importance and successful pursuit of personal strivings.
Subjective well-being and life satisfaction.
According to Diener, Suh, and Oishi (1997), subjective well-being is a field of
psychology that attempts to understand people's evaluations of their lives. These
evaluations may be primarily cognitive (e.g., life satisfaction) or may consist of the
frequency with which people experience pleasant emotions (e.g., joy) and unpleasant
emotions (e.g., depression). Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to how people evaluate
their lives and includes variables such as life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, lack of
depression and anxiety, and positive moods and emotions. The idea of SWB or
happiness has intrigued thinkers for millennia, although it is only in recent years that it
has been measured and studied in a systematic way. A person's evaluation of his or her
life may be in the form of cognitions (e.g., when a person gives conscious evaluative
judgments about his or her satisfaction with life as a whole, or evaluative judgments
about specific aspects of his or life such as recreation). However, an evaluation of one's
life also may be in the form of affect (people experiencing unpleasant or pleasant

37
moods and emotions in reaction to their lives). Thus, a person is said to have high SWB
if she or he experiences life satisfaction and frequent joy, and only infrequently
experience unpleasant emotions such as sadness and anger. Contrariwise, a person is
said to have low SWB if he or she is dissatisfied with life, experiences little joy and
affection, and frequently feels negative emotions such as anger or anxiety.
Life Satisfaction: Related Studies
In this segment, two studies are cited because of their emphasis on the variable
‘life satisfaction.’ Partly similar to the present study in terms of two major variables is
that by Schumaker, Shea, Monfries, and Groth-Marnat (1992). They conducted cross-
cultural research to examine the relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction
among residents of Fukoku, Japan and Melbourne, Australia, using the Satisfaction with
Life Scale. Australian subjects reported significantly less loneliness and significantly
greater life satisfaction than Japanese subjects. A high inverse correlation was found
between loneliness and life satisfaction in Australian subjects, with a much smaller
inverse relationship observed among the Japanese, suggesting that loneliness in
Japanese subjects did not emotionally translate into life dissatisfaction as it did in
Australian subjects. Instead, the experience of loneliness in Japanese individuals may
remain largely independent of general life satisfaction. Wang, Chen, Lin, and Wang
(2008) investigated the influences of leisure satisfaction on life satisfaction among
adolescent online gamers. Results revealed significant positive relationships between
physiological and aesthetic dimensions of leisure satisfaction and life satisfaction.
However, the educational dimension of leisure satisfaction has a significant negative
influence on life satisfaction. Findings also revealed a significant negative relationship
between web surfing frequency and life satisfaction in adolescents.

38
Other studies on life satisfaction and demographic variables.
Gender. People may sometimes be satisfied in situations that they perceived as
unfair. According to Inglehart (1990), studies have generally found that women report
more life satisfaction. Levels of life satisfaction are generally found to be marginally
higher among women than men. One explanation of these sex differences is that women
either experience or report positive and negative emotions more strongly than men.
Another explanation, with growing evidence to support it, is that women are more
socially connected and involved than men, resulting in their being more exposed to the
satisfaction and disappointments of those near and dear to them.
Age. Life satisfaction research with adults has shown that the positive levels of
life satisfaction are not just an epiphenomenon, which is a simple by-product of positive
life experiences, personality characteristics, and so forth. These benefits include
positive outcomes in intrapersonal, interpersonal, vocational, health, and education
arenas (King, Lyubormirsky & Diener, 2003). Studies averaging large sample sizes
have found that, on average, life satisfaction is highest among those under 25, fall
gradually in middle age (44-55 years) before rising again in later life. For example, in a
society like Japan where old people are accorded great respect–life satisfaction is
highest amongst those over 65. In Hungary, by contrast, the young are the most
satisfied and satisfaction is lower amongst older generations (Diener, 1999).

39
Online Social Networking
Online Social Networking: Historical Perspectives
The earliest online social networks were arguably the Bulletin Board Systems of
the 80’s that let users post public messages, send and receive private messages, play
games and exchange software. Other websites for community and connection emerged
in the 1990s, including classmates.com (1995), where users register by high school and
year of graduation; Company of Friends, a business-oriented site founded in 1997; and
Epinions, founded in 1999 to allow users to give their opinions about various consumer
products. A new generation of social networking websites appeared in 2002 with the
launch of Friendster. Unlike previous online communities, which brought together
anonymous strangers with shared interests, Friendster uses a model of social
networking known as the “Circle of Friends” in which users invite friends and
acquaintances–that is, people they already know and like–to join their network.
Friendster was an immediate success, with millions of registered users by mid-2003;
MySpace, launched in 2003, quickly surpassed it. Originally started by musicians,
MySpace has become a major venue for sharing music as well as videos and photos. It
is now the behemoth of online social networking, with over 100 million registered
users.
Today, various types of online communities appeared including special interest
groups such as Usenet groups; professional associations and online forums where
people could exchange ideas on specific topics of interest to them; portals, which
provided a single point of entry for individuals and businesses to interact with one
another; chat rooms, where users sought new communities and contacts; and short term
groups where users participated in one-time events such as online competitions,
quizzes, and polls. Some of these communities had moderators and others were more

40
dependent on users to keep them going. For example, The Well, which still exists, is
essentially an online set of forums which are available to users who pay a monthly fee
to participate in discussions on such wide-ranging topics as entertainment and media,
computer tools, and politics.
Nature of social networking sites.
Social networking sites have implemented a wide variety of technical features.
Their backbone consists of visible profiles that display an articulated list of friends who
are also users of the system. Profiles are unique pages where one can “type oneself into
being” (Sundén, 2003, p. 3). After joining a social networking site, an individual is
asked to fill out forms containing a series of questions. The profile is generated using
the answers to these questions, which typically include descriptors such as age,
location, interests, and an “about me’ section. Most sites also encourage users to upload
a profile photo. Some sites allow users to enhance their profiles by adding multimedia
content or modifying their profile's look and feel. Others, such as Facebook, allow users
to add modules (Applications) that enhance their profile.
The visibility of a profile varies by site and according to user discretion. By
default, profiles on Friendster and Tribe.net are crawled by search engines, making
them visible to anyone, regardless of whether or not the viewer has an account.
Alternatively, LinkedIn controls what a viewer may see based on whether she or he has
a paid account. Sites like MySpace allow users to choose whether they want their
profile to be public or “Friends only.” Facebook takes a different approach–by default,
users who are part of the same “network” can view each other's profiles, unless a profile
owner has decided to deny permission to those in their network. Structural variations
around visibility and access are one of the primary ways that social networking sites

41
differentiate themselves from each other. After joining a social network site, users are
prompted to identify others in the system with whom they have a relationship. The label
for these relationships differs depending on the site–popular terms includes “Friends,”
“Contacts,” and “Fans.” Most social networking sites require bi-directional
confirmation for Friendship, but some do not. These one-directional ties are sometimes
labeled as “Fans” or “Followers,” but many sites call these Friends as well. The term
“Friends” can be misleading, because the connection does not necessarily mean
friendship in the everyday vernacular sense, and the reasons people connect are varied
(Boyd, 2007).
The public display of connections is a crucial component of social networking
sites. The friends list contains links to each friend's profile, enabling viewers to traverse
the network graph by clicking through the friends lists. On most sites, the list of friends
is visible to anyone who is permitted to view the profile, although there are exceptions.
For instance, some MySpace users have “hacked” their profiles to hide the Friends
display, and LinkedIn allows users to opt out of displaying their network. Most social
networking sites also provide a mechanism for users to leave messages on their Friends'
profiles. This feature typically involves leaving “comments,” although sites employ
various labels for this feature. In addition, Social networking sites often have a private
messaging feature similar to webmail. While both private messages and comments are
popular on most of the major social networking sites, they are not universally available.
Beyond profiles, Friends, comments, and private messaging, social networking
sites vary greatly in their features and user base. Some have photo-sharing or video-
sharing capabilities; others have built-in blogging and instant messaging technology.
There are mobile-specific social networking sites (e.g., Dodgeball), but some web-

42
based social networking sites also support limited mobile interactions (e.g., Facebook,
MySpace, and Cyworld). Many social networking sites target people from specific
geographical regions or linguistic groups, although this does not always determine the
site's constituency. Orkut, for example, was launched in the United States with an
English-only interface, but Portuguese-speaking Brazilians quickly became the
dominant user group (Kopytoff, 2004). Some sites are designed with specific ethnic,
religious, sexual orientation, political, or other identity-driven categories in mind. There
are even social networking sites for dogs (Dogster) and cats (Catster), although their
owners must manage their profiles. While social networking sites are often designed to
be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not
uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age,
educational level, or other factors that typically segment society, even if that was not
the intention of the designers.
While MySpace attracted the majority of media attention in the U.S. and abroad,
social networking sites were proliferating and growing in popularity worldwide.
Friendster gained traction in the Pacific Islands, Orkut became the premier Social
Networking sites in Brazil before growing rapidly in India (Madhavan, 2007), Mixi
attained widespread adoption in Japan, LunarStorm took off in Sweden, Dutch users
embraced Hyves, Grono captured Poland, Hi5 was adopted in smaller countries in Latin
America, South America, and Europe, and Bebo became very popular in the United
Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Additionally, previously popular
communication and community services began implementing social networking sites
features (See Appendix C for the range of current online social network population on a
global scale).

43
Online Social Networking: Theoretical Perspectives
Social network theory.
Social network theory is concerned with the properties of social support
networks and resource exchanges among network members. From a social network
perspective, a social network involves a set of actors and the relations that connect
them. Actors, either individual people or aggregated units such as organizations or
families, exchange resources. These resources may include data, information, goods and
services, social support, and financial support.
According to social network theory, an individual's social networks comprise
strong ties and weak ties. A tie simply refers to the relationship between a certain
individual and a particular network member. Strong ties are more intimate and involve
more self-disclosure and various forms of resource exchange. People who are strongly
tied tend to show similarities in attitudes, background, and experience. While strong ties
can provide informational support and validation, the close relationships among strong
ties may play an effective role, which can satisfy an individual's emotional needs.
(Marsden & Campbell, 1984). On the matter of weak ties, Ye (2006) cited a number of
differing perspectives. Weak ties involve fewer intimate exchanges and less frequent
maintenance. Weak-tie relationships exist independently of the pressures and dynamics
of close social relationships (Adelman, Parks, & Albrecht, 1987). Weak-tie
relationships have their unique advantages: for instance, they offer anonymity and
objectivity that are not available in close relationships (Walther & Boyd, 2002).
Furthermore, weak ties may be especially valuable in the flow of new information
(Granovetter, 1982). Those who are loosely acquainted are likely to have access to
different information since their social networks involve different members. Therefore,
a weak tie can bring an individual resources that are unobtainable from close associates

44
(Granovetter, 1973). Overall, weak-tie relationships allow people to diversify their
networks or connections, thus providing a helpful alternative for social support.
Social network theory is applicable to describe human relationships developed
in a face-to-face context or through electronic means (Birnie & Horvath, 2002). It is
particularly relevant to the examination of how the Internet helps maintain old ties and
establish new ties. Similar to other interactive media (e.g., telephone), the Internet
supports existing social networks by expanding the means and opportunities for
interaction, allowing connection across time and space. In addition, it extends
individuals' social networks by allowing them to be involved in various online
communities and to communicate with others about their shared interests and concerns.
According to Turner and her colleagues (2001), online communities can provide “weak
tie” support. Online communication fosters the development of weak ties because
discussions often focus on the topic most salient to the user. In addition, compared to
strong-tie groups of close personal relations, members of such groups tend to have a
greater variety of backgrounds and experiences and thus “more expertise may be
brought to bear on the problem” (p. 235). Empirical evidence has lent support for the
benefits of online weak ties (Sharf, 1997).
Online Social Networking: Related Studies
A review of the literature revealed a couple of studies that focused on the aspect
of online social networking. A longitudinal study by Kraut, et al., (1998) was one of the
first to assess the causal direction of the relationship between Internet use and social
involvement and psychological well-being. The association of Internet use with changes
in the social and psychological variables showed that participants who used the Internet
more heavily became less socially involved and more lonely than light users and

45
reported an increase in depressive symptoms. Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2007)
examined the relationship between use of Facebook, a popular online social network
site, and the formation and maintenance of social capital. In addition to assessing
bonding and bridging social capital, they explored a dimension of social capital that
assesses one's ability to stay connected with members of a previously inhabited
community, which was referred to as maintained social capital. Regression analyses
conducted on results from a survey of undergraduate students suggest a strong
association between use of Facebook and the three types of social capital, with the
strongest relationship being to bridging social capital. In addition, Facebook usage was
found to interact with measures of psychological well-being, suggesting that it might
provide greater benefits for users experiencing low self-esteem and low life satisfaction.

46
CHAPTER III
Research Methodology
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate significant differences in
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among online social
networkers as a function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends online, and
number of hours spent online. The study also attempted to explore the interrelationships
among loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction. The present chapter
presents details on the following: research design, participants of the study, research
instrumentation, data collection procedure, and data analysis.
Research Design
The present study is a causal-comparative study as it attempted to compare
loneliness, interpersonal orientation and life satisfaction across demographic
characteristics, and correlational as it attempted to explore the interrelationships among
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and satisfaction with life among online social
networkers. This quantitative study used both descriptive and inferential statistical tools
to analyze the data obtained with the use of a survey questionnaire.
Participants of the Study
In the absence of data on the precise number of Thai online social networkers,
the present researcher deemed it sufficient for the purposes of this exploratory study to
have a sample group of 300 respondents to test the research hypotheses. The
respondents (both members and non members) were obtained by convenience sampling
through online distribution of a survey questionnaire. The snowball technique

47
facilitated the distribution process in that respondents were asked to invite their online
friends, who met the inclusion criteria, to participate, and so on. The inclusion criteria
for respondents consisted of the following: a) Must be a Thai online social networker;
b) can read and write in English or Thai; c) aged over 18 years; and d) must be willing
to participate in the study.
Research Instrumentation
The research instrument employed was a self-administered survey questionnaire
that was e-mailed out from the researcher’s own database. Respondents were given the
option to complete either the English or Thai version. A cover letter was provided to
explain the nature and purpose of the questionnaire. The questionnaire proper consisted
of four parts. Part I was a Personal Information section to be filled in with regard to the
demographic variables selected. Part II consisted of the Revised UCLA Loneliness
Scale (RULS). Part III consisted of the Liking People Scale (LPS). Part IV consisted of
the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The following section provides more details
about each segment of the questionnaire.
Part I: Personal Information
The first part of the questionnaire was a researcher-constructed set of questions
designed to ask about the respondent’s gender, age, marital status, number of friends
online, and number of hours spent online utilizing the networking site. To maintain
confidentiality, personal information that are not related to the study and which would
directly identify respondents were not included in the questionnaire.

48
Part II: Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS)
The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS) was developed and published by
Russell, Peplau, and Cutrona in 1980 and is currently used as a tool to measure
loneliness in a variety of populations. This questionnaire is a 20-item scale. This and
earlier versions have been used in a number of studies that show loneliness as a
common and distressing problem for many people. Loneliness has been linked with any
number of other problems, including personality characteristics such as shyness, feeling
of alienation, alcohol abuse, adolescent delinquent behavior, suicide, and physical
illness. This version of the scale used in the current study was revised to minimize
response bias, social desirability response set, and lack of potential uses for practice in
identifying lonely individuals whose loneliness is a problem in and of itself, or as
related to other problems.
Scoring: After reverse-scoring items 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20, the scores on
all 20 items are summed, producing a possible range of 20-80 with higher scores
indicating greater loneliness.
Validity: The RULS has good concurrent validity, correlating with a number of
mood and personality measures (e.g. the Beck Depression inventory, the Texas Social
Behavior Inventory) and particularly with a self-labeling loneliness index. In addition,
people who were more lonely on the RULS reported more limited social activities and
relationship and more emotion theoretical linked to loneliness. Finally, results show the
RULS to be unaffected by social desirability response set as measured by Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Inventory.

49
Reliability: The RULS has excellent internal consistency, with an alpha of .94
(Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980).
Part III: Liking People Scale (LPS)
The Liking People Scale (LPS) was developed and published by Erik E.
Filsinger in 1981 and is currently used as a tool to assess the level of interpersonal
orientation. The questionnaire contains 15 items used to measure one aspect of
interpersonal orientation–the general liking of people. Interpersonal orientation plays a
significant role in one’s social development. The theoretical point of departure of the
LPS is that the degree of liking people influences whether one approaches or avoids
social interaction.
Scoring: The respondents rate each item on their agreement or disagreement
according to their feelings. The ratings are quantified from 1 to 5 in terms of “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Item numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 are scored as above.
Item numbers 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 15 are reverse-scored.
Higher scores indicate more liking of people or higher interpersonal orientation.
Scoring Interval: The total scores are the sum of all items which range between
15 to 75 points. After having the sum score, the researcher divided the level of
interpersonal orientations into 3 levels by using the mean score and standard deviation
from the sample as follows:
Level Score
Low 15-40 points
Moderate 41-62 points
High 63-75 points

50
Reliability: The reliability of the LPS was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha to
test internal consistency. The LPS has good to very good internal consistency from two
samples of college students (.85 and .75) coefficient alpha was .78 from random sample
of adults (all as cited in Fischer & Corcoran, 2007).
Part IV: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was developed and published by
Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin in 1985. The SWLS consists of five statements
about satisfaction with life, referring to the cognitive-judgmental aspects of general life
satisfaction. Thus, in contrast to measures that apply some external standard, the SWLS
reveals the individual’s own judgment of his or her quality of life. Satisfaction with life
is often a key component of mental or subjective well-being.
Scoring: Each item is scored from 1 to 7 in terms of “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree.” Item scores are summed for total score, which ranges from 5 to 35,
with higher scores reflecting more satisfaction with life.
Reliability: The 5 items on SWLS were selected from a pool of 48 based on
factor analysis. The instrument’s internal consistency is very good; with an alpha of
0.87. The instrument has excellent test-retest reliability, with a correlation of 0.82 for a
two month period, suggesting it is stable (all as cited in Fischer & Corcoran, 2007).
Instrument translation.
The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale was translated into Thai by the researcher
and back-translated by a bilingual expert. The other research instruments–Satisfaction
with Life Scale (SWL) and Liking People scale (LPS) have been translated by previous
researchers in earlier unpublished studies and have been deemed reliable.

51
Data Collection Procedure
Data collection consisted of the following procedural steps:
1. A pretest of the Thai version of the survey questionnaire was conducted prior to the
actual study on 20 members of online social networking sites and 20 non-members
who were recruited online through convenience sampling. The pretest exercise
checked for any difficulty respondents might have with regard to the questionnaire
directions and item statements as well as to determine the reliability of the
instrument.
2. As there were no problems encountered in the pretest and the major instruments
were found to be reliable, the researcher proceeded to conduct the actual study by
an electronic mail blast. The strategy of viral E-mail (snowballing) was employed to
facilitate the distribution of questionnaires online. The researcher requested that the
completed questionnaires be sent back to the researcher by e-mail. The whole
process of distribution and collection of the questionnaires took approximately one
month.
3. After collection of all the completed questionnaires, the researcher individually
inspected the questionnaires to check for possible errors in completion which, for
the purposes of the study, would be deemed invalid. Only the valid questionnaires
were subsequently subjected to statistical analysis; a total of 306 questionnaires
qualified.

52
Data Analysis
After completion of the data collection process, the respondents’ data were
encoded, processed, and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS).
Data Analysis was accomplished through the following statistical treatments:
1. Descriptive statistics: Frequency and percentage distributions were used to analyze
the respondents’ demographic data. Mean scores were utilized in the analysis of the
respondents’ scores.
2. Inferential statistics: Appropriate statistical methods and tools including ANOVA,
Eta, Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons, and Pearson Product Moment Coefficient of
Correlation were employed to test the three research hypotheses of the study.
Significant differences in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and satisfaction with
life as a function of the five demographic characteristics were tested at the .05 level
of significance, and the statistical interrelationships among the three main variables
were also tested at the .05 level of significance.

53
CHAPTER IV
Presentation and Analysis of Data
This chapter presents the results of the SPSS-based analyses of data which were
obtained from participants through a self-administered online survey questionnaire. The
study involved a total of 306 participants (n=306).
The findings of the study are presented in the following order:
Section 1. Descriptive Statistics: Tabular presentation of the demographic profile of the
respondents with corresponding analysis and interpretation.
Section 2. Inferential Statistics: Individual hypothesis testing with corresponding
tabular presentation, analysis, and interpretation. The order of hypotheses testing
followed the original sequence of the research hypotheses; hence, the focal points of
analysis are as follows:
1. Difference in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a
function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends online through social
networking sites, and number of hours spent online for social networking sites.
2. Relationship between loneliness and interpersonal orientation among members
and non-members of online social networking sites.
3. Relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction among members and non-
members of online social networking sites.
4. Relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal orientation among
members and non-members of online social networking sites.

54
Reliability of Data Collection Tools
Several instruments were utilized in this study, namely, Revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale (RULS), Liking People Scale (LPS), and Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS). Apart from these, the instruments were accompanied by a personal
information form that was used to elicit information about the demographic
characteristics of the participants.
The following Cronbach Alpha values were observed in the three main
instruments used for this research:
1. Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (RULS) = .8032 (n = 306; No. of items = 20)
2. Liking People Scale or (LPS) = .7017 (n = 306; No. of items = 15)
3. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) = .7822 (n = 306; No. of items = 5)
The reliability coefficient values obtained were fairly high and acceptable for
psychological research and application.
Section 1: Descriptive Statistics
Sample Distribution
In total, 306 members of online social networking sites and non-members took
part in the survey conducted by the researcher. These were obtained through a
convenience sampling procedure via e-mail invitation. The participants were grouped
according to their gender, age, marital status, number of friends online through social
networking sites, and numbers of hours spent online through social networking sites, as
follows:

55
Demographic Profiles of Participants
Table 1
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Gender
Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 113 36.9 36.9 36.9
Female 193 63.1 63.1 100.0
Total 306 100.0 100.0
Table 1 indicates the majority of participants who took part in this study were
females, consisting of 193 (or 63.1%) out of the total 306. There were 113 (or 36.9%)
males.
Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Age
Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
25 and below 59 19.3 19.3 19.3
26-32 167 54.6 54.6 73.9
33-39 56 18.3 18.3 92.2
40 and above 24 7.8 7.8 100.0
Total 306 100.0 100.0
Table 2 shows that the majority of the population who took part in this study are
in the age range of 26-32 years, consisting of 167 (or 54.6%) out of the total 306; 59 (or
19.3%) are in the age range of 25 years and below; 56 (or 18.3%) are in the age range
of 33-39 years; and 24 (or 7.8%) are in the age range of 40 years and above.

56
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Marital Status
Marital Status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Single and 103 33.7 33.7 33.7
unattached
Single and dating 138 45.1 45.1 78.8
someone
Married 61 19.9 19.9 98.7
Divorced/widowed 4 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 306 100.0 100.0
It can be seen in Table 3 that 138 (or 45.1%) out of the total 306 people who
took part in this study are single and dating someone; 103 (or 33.7%) are single and
unattached; 61 (or 19.9%) are married; and 4 ( or 1.3%) are divorced or widowed.
Table 4
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Number of Friends Online Through Social
Networking Sites
Number of friends online Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
through social networking sites Percent Percent
0 (not a member of social 52 17.0 17.0 17.0
networking site)
1-100 126 41.2 41.2 58.2
101-250 74 24.2 24.2 82.4
251-400 27 8.8 8.8 91.2
401-550 12 3.9 3.9 95.1
551 or more 15 4.9 4.9 100.0
Total 306 100.0 100.0

57
As Table 4 indicates, the majority of people (83%) who took part in this study
are members of online social networking sites; they are further divided into having
between 1-100 friends online through social networking sites, 126 (or 41.2%) out of the
total 306; 74 (or 24.2%) have between 101-250 friends; 27 (or 8.8%) have between
251-400 friends; 12 (or 3.9%) have between 401-550 friends; and 15 (or 4.9%) have
over 551 friends. While 52 (or 17%) out of the total of 306 participants were not
members of any social networking sites.
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Number of Hours Spent for Social
Networking Sites
Number of hours spent for Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
social networking sites Percent Percent
0 or not applicable 53 17.3 17.3 17.3
less than 1 hour per week 68 22.2 22.2 39.5
2-7 hours per week 125 40.8 40.8 80.4
8-14 hours per week 32 10.5 10.5 90.8
More than 14 hour per week 28 9.2 9.2 100.0
Total 306 100.0 100.0
As Table 5 indicates, the majority of people who took part in this study spent
between 2-7 hours online through social networking site, 125 (or 40.8%) out of the total
306; 68 (or 22.2%) spent less than one hour per week; 32 (or 10.5%) spent between 8-
14 hours; 28 (or 9.2%) spent more than 14 hours per week. While 53 (or 17.3%) out of
total 306 participants do not engage themselves in any online social networking site.

58
Descriptive Analysis
Three variables were studied in this research. They were loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction. The following mean values were
observed for each of the variables as reflected in the sample of 306 members of online
social networking sites and non-members.
Table 6
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction
Total Score of Items Total Score of Items Total Score of Items
on RULS on LPS on SWL
N 306 306 306
Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Range 35 39 30
Minimum 20 30 5
Maximum 55 69 35
Table 6 reveals the mean values for each of the variable investigated. It was
observed that the mean of total scores of items on the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale
(RULS) is 33.49 (way below the mid-point in the scale) indicating an overall low level
of loneliness (possible scores: 20 to 80 with 50 as the mid-point). The mean of total
scores of items on Liking People Scale or (LPS) is 51.19 (just above the mid-point in
the scale), indicating a fairly moderate level of liking toward people (possible scores: 15
to 75 with 45 as the mid-point). Lastly, the mean of total scores of items on the
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) is 23.89 (just above the mid-point in the scale),
indicating a fairly moderate level satisfaction with life (possible scores: 5 to 35 with 20
as the mid-point).

59
A summary of all the foregoing discussion is presented in the following table for
clarity and ease of understanding.
Table 7
Description of Variables
Variable Description (as seen in the sample)
Loneliness Low level
Interpersonal orientation Slightly moderate level
Satisfaction with life Slightly moderate level
Section 2: Inferential Statistics
Hypothesis Testing
H1o: There is no significant difference in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction as a function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends online
through social networking, number of hours spent online for social networking, at 0.05
level.

60
Table 8
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a
Function of Gender
Gender Total Score of Total Score of Total Score of
Items on RULS Items on LPS Items on SWL
Male Mean 34.28 51.75 22.48
N 113 113 113
Std. Deviation 8.07 8.24 5.78
Female Mean 33.03 50.85 24.72
N 193 193 193
Std. Deviation 6.69 6.75 5.14
Total Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
N 306 306 306
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Table 8 shows the mean values of scores on the three variables, namely,
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction between male and female.
Male and female respondents have mean values of 34.28 and 33.03, respectively, on the
loneliness scale. The same order of gender obtained mean values of 51.75 and 50.85 on
the interpersonal orientation scale. Finally, the participants, according to gender, have a
mean of 22.48 and 24.72, respectively, on the life satisfaction scale.

61
Table 9
ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function
of Gender
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Total Score of Between (Combined) 111.735 1 111.735 2.139 .145
Items on RULS Groups
* Gender
Within 15876.752 304 52.226
Groups
Total 15988.487 305
Total Score of Between (Combined) 57.383 1 57.383 1.068 .302
Items on LPS * Groups
Gender
Within 16341.000 304 53.753
Groups
Total 16398.382 305
Total Score of Between (Combined) 358.355 1 358.355 12.344 .001
Items on SWL * Groups
Gender
Within 8825.086 304 29.030
Groups
Total 9183.441 305
ANOVA Table 9 indicates the F-values and their corresponding significance
levels for the difference in mean values of loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction across two genders. The differences in mean values across both genders on
the loneliness scale and interpersonal orientation scale are not significant (F=2.139; p =
.145 > .05 level) and (F=1.068; p = .302 > .05 level), respectively. Thus, there is no
significant difference in the level of loneliness and interpersonal orientation as a
function of gender. However, the differences in mean values of both genders on life

62
satisfaction is significant (F=12.344; p = .001 < .05 level). Thus, there is a significant
difference in life satisfaction as a function of gender.
Table 10
Measures of Association Between Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life
Satisfaction with Gender
Eta Eta Squared
Total Score of Items on RULS * Gender .084 .007
Total Score of Items on LPS * Gender .059 .003
Total Score of Items on SWL * Gender .198 .039
From ANOVA Table 10, it can be seen that there is a significant relationship in
the life satisfaction level of male and female participants (F=12.34; p = .001<.05). Eta,
which is the coefficient (degree) of association between gender and SWL score is .198,
indicating a low but significant relationship (range of possible association = 0 to 1; one
being the strongest association between the variables). Eta2 x 100 = 3.9% indicates the
percentage of common variance between gender and level of life satisfaction–in simple
terms, gender accounts for about 4% of variance in the scores of life satisfaction.

63
Table 11
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a
Function of Age
Age Total Score of Total Score of Total Score of
Items on RULS Items on LPS Items on SWL
25 and below Mean 33.03 53.07 24.24
N 59 59 59
Std. Deviation 7.12 5.81 5.04
26-32 Mean 34.42 50.46 23.22
N 167 167 167
Std. Deviation 7.06 7.30 5.73
33-39 Mean 31.98 52.30 24.41
N 56 56 56
Std. Deviation 7.39 7.97 4.80
40 and above Mean 31.71 49.00 26.50
N 24 24 24
Std. Deviation 7.85 8.40 5.66
Total Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
N 306 306 306
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Table 11 shows the mean values of scores on three variables, namely,
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and satisfaction with life across age groups.
Individuals between the age range of 25 and below, 26-32, 33-39, and 40 and above
have mean values of 33.03, 34.42, 31.98, and 31.71, respectively, on the loneliness
scale. The same order of age groups obtained mean values of 53.07, 50.46, 52.30, and
49.00 on the interpersonal orientation scale. Finally, the participants, according to the
same age groups, have a mean of 24.24, 23.22, 24.41, and 26.50, respectively, on the
life satisfaction scale.

64
Table 12
ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function
of Age
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Total Score of Items Between (Combined) 359.956 3 119.985 2.319 .076
on RULS * Age Groups
Within 15628.531 302 51.750
Groups
Total 15988.487 305
Total Score of Items Between (Combined) 481.317 3 160.439 3.044 .029
on LPS * Age Groups
Within 15917.065 302 52.706
Groups
Total 16398.382 305
Total Score of Items Between (Combined) 260.407 3 86.802 2.938 .034
on SWL * Age Groups
Within 8923.034 302 29.546
Groups
Total 9183.441 305
ANOVA Table 12 indicates the F-values and their corresponding significance
levels for the difference in mean values of loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction across age groups. The differences in mean values across age groups on the
loneliness scale is not significant (F=2.319; p = .076 > .05 level). Thus, there is no
significant difference in the level of loneliness as a function of age. However, the
differences in mean values across age groups on interpersonal orientation and life
satisfaction are significant (F=3.044; p = .029 < .05 level) and (F=2.938; p = .034 < .05
level), respectively. Thus, the difference in the mean values on interpersonal orientation
and life satisfaction scales is significant.

65
Post hoc multiple comparisons, depicted in the following Table 13, further
reveal that those between the age range of 25 and below have significantly higher mean
(53.07) than those between the age range of 26-32 (50.46) and 40 and above (49.00) on
the interpersonal orientation scale. Also, those between the age range of 40 and above
have significantly higher mean than those between the age range of 26-32 on life
satisfaction.
Table 13
Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation and Life Satisfaction as
a Function of Age
Mean Sig. 95% Confidence
Difference Interval
(I-J)
Dependent (I) Age (J) Age Lower Upper
Variable Bound Bound
Total Score 25 and below 26-32 2.61* .018 .44 4.77
of Items on
LPS
33-39 .76 .573 -1.90 3.43
40 and above 4.07* .021 .61 7.53
26-32 25 and below -2.61* .018 -4.77 -.44
33-39 -1.84 .101 -4.05 .36
40 and above 1.46 .357 -1.66 4.58
33-39 25 and below -.76 .573 -3.43 1.90
26-32 1.84 .101 -.36 4.05
40 and above 3.30 .063 -.18 6.79
40 and above 25 and below -4.07* .021 -7.53 -.61
26-32 -1.46 .357 -4.58 1.66
33-39 -3.30 .063 -6.79 .18
Total Score 25 and below 26-32 1.02 .218 -.60 2.64
of Items on

66
SWL
33-39 -.17 .864 -2.17 1.82
40 and above -2.26 .087 -4.85 .33
26-32 25 and below -1.02 .218 -2.64 .60
33-39 -1.19 .158 -2.84 .46
40 and above -3.28* .006 -5.61 -.94
33-39 25 and below .17 .864 -1.82 2.17
26-32 1.19 .158 -.46 2.84
40 and above -2.09 .116 -4.70 .52
40 and above 25 and below 2.26 .087 -.33 4.85
26-32 3.28* .006 .94 5.61
33-39 2.09 .116 -.52 4.70
The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 14
Measures of Association Between Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life
Satisfaction with Age
Eta Eta Squared
Total Score of Items on RULS * Age .150 .023
Total Score of Items on LPS * Age .171 .029
Total Score of Items on SWL * Age .168 .028
From the earlier ANOVA and post hoc analysis, it was revealed that there is a
significant relationship in interpersonal orientation and life satisfaction across age group
of participants (F= 3.044 ; p = .0029<.05 and F = 2.938; p = .034 <.05 respectively).
The foregoing Table 14 depicts that Eta, which is the coefficient (degree) of association
between age and LPS and SWL score is .171 and .168, respectively, indicating a low
but significant relationship (range of possible association = 0 to 1; one being the
strongest association between the variables). Eta2 x 100 = 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively,
indicates the percentage of common variance between age and level of Interpersonal

67
orientation and satisfaction with life–in simple terms, age accounts for about 3% of
variance in the scores of both interpersonal orientation and life satisfaction.
Table 15
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a
Function of Marital Status
Marital Status Total Score of Total Score Total Score
Items on of Items on of Items on
RULS LPS SWL
Single and unattached Mean 33.56 50.25 23.83
N 103 103 103
Std. Deviation 7.14 7.00 5.75
Single and dating someone Mean 34.04 51.64 23.51
N 138 138 138
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.10 5.29
Married Mean 31.57 51.77 24.90
N 61 61 61
Std. Deviation 6.69 8.46 5.50
Divorced/widowed Mean 42.25 50.50 23.25
N 4 4 4
Std. Deviation 10.63 4.65 5.06
Total Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
N 306 306 306
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Table 15 shows the mean values of scores on three variables, namely,
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of marital status.
Single and unattached, single and dating someone, married and divorced/widowed have
mean values of 33.56, 34.04, 31.57, and 42.25, respectively, on the loneliness scale.
The same order of marital status categories obtained mean values of 50.25, 51.64,

68
51.77, and 50.50 on the interpersonal orientation scale. Finally, the participants have a
mean of 23.83, 23.51, 24.90, and 23.25, respectively, on the life satisfaction scale.
Table 16
ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function
of Marital Status
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 572.660 3 190.887 3.740 .012
RULS *Marital Status Groups
Within 15415.827 302 51.046
Groups
Total 15988.487 305
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 141.557 3 47.186 .877 .454
LPS * Marital Status Groups
Within 16256.825 302 53.831
Groups
Total 16398.382 305
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 84.594 3 28.198 .936 .424
SWL * Marital Status Groups
Within 9098.847 302 30.129
Groups
Total 9183.441 305
ANOVA Table 16 indicates whether or not the mean differences seen in the
three variables investigated among participants, as a function of different marital status,
are significant. The mean differences in interpersonal orientation and life satisfaction
are not significant (F = 0.877; p = .454 > .05) and (F = .936; p = .424 > .05)
respectively. Thus, there are no significant differences in interpersonal orientation and
satisfaction with life. However, the differences in mean values of loneliness as a

69
function of marital status is significant (F=3.740; p = .012 < .05 level). Thus, results
indicate that the difference in the mean values on loneliness, as a function of marital
status, is significant.
Post hoc multiple comparisons, as depicted in the following Table 17, further
reveal that divorced/widowed have significantly higher mean (42.25) than the rest of
the group; single and unattached (33.56), single and dating someone (34.04), and
married group (31.57), on the loneliness scale. Also, those single and dating someone
show significant higher means than the married group.
Table 17
Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Loneliness as a Function of Marital Status
Mean Sig. 95% Confidence
Difference (I-J) Interval
(I) Marital Status (J) Marital Status Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Single and Single and dating -.47 .611 -2.30 1.36
unattached someone
Married 1.99 .086 -.28 4.26
Divorced/widowed -8.69* .018 -15.85 -1.52
Single and dating Single and unattached .47 .611 -1.36 2.30
someone
Married 2.46* .026 .30 4.62
Divorced/widowed -8.21* .024 -15.34 -1.08
Married Single and unattached -1.99 .086 -4.26 .28
Single and dating -2.46* .026 -4.62 -.30
someone
Divorced/widowed -10.68* .004 -17.93 -3.42
Divorced/widowed Single and unattached 8.69* .018 1.52 15.85
s Single and dating 8.21* .024 1.08 15.34
someone
Married 10.68* .004 3.42 17.93
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

70
Table 18
Measures of Association Between Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life
Satisfaction with Marital Status
Eta Eta Squared
Total Score of Items on RULS * Marital Status .189 .036
Total Score of Items on LPS * Marital Status .093 .009
Total Score of Items on SWL * Marital Status .096 .009
From the earlier ANOVA and post hoc tables, it was clear that there is a
significant relationship in loneliness across different marital status categories of
participants (F= 3.740; p = .012<.05). The above Table 18 shows that Eta, which is the
coefficient (degree) of association between marital status and RULS score is .189,
indicating a low but significant relationship (range of possible association = 0 to 1; one
being the strongest association between the variables). Eta2 x 100 = 3.6% indicates the
percentage of common variance between marital status and level of loneliness–status
accounts for about 4% of variance in the scores of loneliness.
Table 19
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a
Function of Number of Friends Online Through Social Networking Sites
Number of friends Total Score of Total Score of Total Score of
through online social Items on Items on Items on
networking site RULS LPS SWL
0 (not a member of social Mean 33.90 47.79 24.17
networking site)
N 52 52 52
Std. Deviation 7.48 7.46 5.57
1-100 Mean 34.31 50.58 23.25
N 126 126 126
Std. Deviation 7.50 7.02 5.20

71
101-250 Mean 32.80 52.86 24.49
N 74 74 74
Std. Deviation 7.28 6.77 5.17
251-400 Mean 31.96 54.22 23.22
N 27 27 27
Std. Deviation 5.79 9.17 6.81
401-550 Mean 31.42 53.00 25.92
N 12 12 12
Std. Deviation 4.93 5.48 4.14
551 or more Mean 33.07 52.87 25.00
N 15 15 15
Std. Deviation 7.81 5.04 7.10
Total Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
N 306 306 306
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Table 19 shows the mean values of scores on three variables, namely,
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and satisfaction with life as a function of number
of friends through online social networking sites. Non-members of online social
networking sites, those with friends between 1-100, 101-250, 251-400, 401-550 and
551 or more have mean values of 33.90, 34.31, 32.80, 31.96, 31.42, and 33.07,
respectively, on the loneliness scale. The same group order obtained mean values of
47.79, 50.58, 52.86, 54.22, 53.00, and 52.87 on the interpersonal orientation scale.
Finally, these participants have a mean of 24.17, 23.25, 24.49, 23.22, 25.92, and 25.00,
respectively, on the life satisfaction scale.

72
Table 20
ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function
of Number of Friends Online Through Social Networking Sites
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 246.267 5 49.253 .939 .456
RULS * Number of Groups
friends through online
social networking site
Within 15742.220 300 52.474
Groups
Total 15988.487 305
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 1185.954 5 237.191 4.678 .000
LPS * Number of friends Groups
through online social
networking site
Within 15212.428 300 50.708
Groups
Total 16398.382 305
Total Score of Items on Between (Combined) 162.556 5 32.511 1.081 .371
SWL * Number of Groups
friends through online
social networking site
Within 9020.885 300 30.070
Groups
Total 9183.441 305
ANOVA Table 20 indicates whether or not the mean differences seen in the
three variables investigated among participants as a function of number of friends
online through social networking site are significant. The mean differences in loneliness
and life satisfaction are not significant (F = 0.939; p = .456 > .05) and (F = 1.081; p =
.371 > .05) respectively. Thus, there are no significant differences in loneliness and

73
satisfaction with life. However, the difference in mean values of interpersonal
orientation as a function of number of friends online through social networking site is
significant (F=4.678; p = .000 < .05 level). Thus, the difference in the mean values on
interpersonal orientation is significant.
Post hoc multiple comparisons were accomplished, as seen in the following
Table 21. The table further reveals that participants who are not members of any social
networking sites have significantly lower mean (47.79) than those who are members of
those sites. They are further divided into having between 1-100 friends (50.58), having
between 101-250 friends (52.86), having between 251-400 friends (54.22), having
between 401-550 friends (53.00) and having more than 551 friends (52.87), for the
interpersonal orientation scale. Also, those having between 1-100 friends have
significantly lower mean than those having between 101-250 friends and those having
between 251-400 friends.
Table 21
Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation as a Function of Number
of Friends Online Through Social Networking Sites
Mean Sig. 95% Confidence
Difference (I-J) Interval
(I) Number of friends (J) Number of friends Lower Upper
through online social through online social Bound Bound
networking site networking site
0 (not a member of 1-100 -2.79* .018 -5.10 -.48
social networking site)
101-250 -5.08* .000 -7.61 -2.54
251-400 -6.43* .000 -9.76 -3.11
401-550 -5.21* .023 -9.70 -.72
551 or more -5.08* .016 -9.19 -.97

74
1-100 0 (not a member of 2.79* .018 .48 5.10
social networking site)
101-250 -2.29* .029 -4.34 -.23
251-400 -3.64* .016 -6.61 -.67
401-550 -2.42 .261 -6.65 1.81
551 or more -2.29 .241 -6.11 1.54
101-250 0 (not a member of 5.08* .000 2.54 7.61
social networking site)
1-100 2.29* .029 .23 4.34
251-400 -1.36 .397 -4.51 1.79
401-550 -.14 .951 -4.50 4.23
551 or more -1.80E-03 .999 -3.97 3.97
251-400 0 (not a member of 6.43* .000 3.11 9.76
social networking site)
1-100 3.64* .016 .67 6.61
101-250 1.36 .397 -1.79 4.51
401-550 1.22 .621 -3.64 6.08
551 or more 1.36 .555 -3.16 5.87
401-550 0 (not a member of 5.21* .023 .72 9.70
social networking site)
1-100 2.42 .261 -1.81 6.65
101-250 .14 .951 -4.23 4.50
251-400 -1.22 .621 -6.08 3.64
551 or more .13 .961 -5.29 5.56
551 or more 0 (not a member of 5.08* .016 .97 9.19
social networking site)
1-100 2.29 .241 -1.54 6.11
101-250 1.80E-03 .999 -3.97 3.97
251-400 -1.36 .555 -5.87 3.16
401-550 -.13 .961 -5.56 5.29
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

75
Table 22
Measures of Association Between Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life
Satisfaction with Number of Friends Through Online Social Networking Sites
Eta Eta Squared
Total Score of Items on RULS * Number of friends through .124 .015
online social networking site
Total Score of Items on LPS * Number of friends through .269 .072
online social networking site
Total Score of Items on SWL * Number of friends through .133 .018
online social networking site
From the earlier ANOVA and post hoc tables, it was revealed that there is a
significant relationship in interpersonal orientation across categories of number of
friends online through social networking sites (F= 4.678 ; p = .000<.05). As depicted in
the foregoing Table 22, Eta, which is the coefficient (degree) of association between
number of friends online and LPS score is .269, indicating a low but significant
relationship (range of possible association = 0 to 1; one being the strongest association
between the variables). Eta2 x 100 = 7.2% indicates the percentage of common variance
between number of friends online through social networking site and level of
interpersonal orientation. In simple terms, this means that number of friends online
through social networking sites accounts for about 7% of variance in the scores of
interpersonal orientation.

76
Table 23
Mean Values for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a
Function of Number of Hours Spent for Online Social Networking Sites
Number of hours Total Score Total Score Total Score
spent for social networking of Items of Items of Items
site on RULS on LPS on SWL
0 or not applicable Mean 34.38 47.38 23.34
N 53 53 53
Std. Deviation 8.00 7.85 6.23
less than 1 hour per week Mean 33.51 52.15 23.78
N 68 68 68
Std. Deviation 7.46 8.07 5.67
2-7 hours per week Mean 33.18 52.02 23.82
N 125 125 125
Std. Deviation 6.75 6.52 5.31
8-14 hours per week Mean 32.41 53.13 24.09
N 32 32 32
Std. Deviation 6.69 6.06 5.06
More than 14 hour per week Mean 34.43 50.11 25.32
N 28 28 28
Std. Deviation 8.14 7.07 4.88
Total Mean 33.49 51.19 23.89
N 306 306 306
Std. Deviation 7.24 7.33 5.49
Table 23 above shows the mean values of scores on three variables, namely,
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of number of
hours spent online through social networking sites. It can be seen that 0 or not
applicable, less than one hour per week, between 2-7 hours per week, 8-14 hours per
week, and more than 14 hours per week have mean values of 34.38, 33.51, 33.18,
32.41, and 34.43, respectively on the loneliness scale. The same group order shows

77
mean values of 47.38, 52.15, 52.02, 53.13, and 50.11 on the interpersonal orientation
scale. Finally, these participants have a mean of 23.34, 23.78, 23.82, 24.09, and 25.32,
respectively, on the life satisfaction scale.
Table 24
ANOVA for Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function
of Number of Hours Spent for Social Networking Sites
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Total Score of Items on RULS Between (Combined) 116.345 4 29.086 .552 .698
*Number of hours spent for Groups
social networking site
Within 15872.142 301 52.731
Groups
Total 15988.487 305
Total Score of Items on LPS * Between (Combined) 1072.294 4 268.073 5.265 .000
Number of hours spent for Groups
social networking site
Within 15326.089 301 50.917
Groups
Total 16398.382 305
Total Score of Items on SWL * Between (Combined) 76.269 4 19.067 .630 .641
Number of hours spent for Groups
social networking site
Within 9107.172 301 30.256
Groups
Total 9183.441 305
ANOVA Table 24 indicates whether or not the mean differences seen in the
three variables investigated among participants as a function of number of hours spent
through online social networking sites are significant. The mean differences in

78
loneliness and life satisfaction are not significant (F = 0.552 ; p = .698 > .05) and (F =
0.630; p = .641 > .05) respectively. Thus, there are no significant differences in
loneliness and satisfaction with life. However, the difference in the mean values of
interpersonal orientation as a function of number of hours spent online through social
networking site is significant (F=5.265; p = .000 < .05 level). Thus, it can be said with
confidence that the difference in the mean values on interpersonal orientation is
significant.
Post hoc multiple comparisons, as depicted in the subsequent Table 25, further
reveal that participants who are not members of any social networking sites have
significantly lower mean (47.38) than those who are members; these are further divided
into spending less than one hour per week (52.15), spending between 2-7 hours per
week (52.02), spending between 8-14 hours per week (53.13), and spending more than
14 hours per week (50.11), for interpersonal orientation.
Table 25
Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Interpersonal Orientation as a Function of Number
of Hours Spent for Social Networking Sites
Mean Sig. 95% Confidence
Difference (I-J) Interval
(I) Number of hours (J) Number of hours spent Lower Upper
spent for social for social networking site Bound Bound
networking site
0 or not applicable less than 1 hour per week -4.77* .000 -7.34 -2.20
2-7 hours per week -4.65* .000 -6.95 -2.34
8-14 hours per week -5.75* .000 -8.89 -2.60
More than 14 hour per -2.73 .103 -6.01 .55
week
less than 1 hour per 0 or not applicable 4.77* .000 2.20 7.34

79
week
2-7 hours per week .12 .909 -1.99 2.24
8-14 hours per week -.98 .523 -3.99 2.03
More than 14 hour per 2.04 .204 -1.11 5.19
week
2-7 hours per week 0 or not applicable 4.65* .000 2.34 6.95
less than 1 hour per week -.12 .909 -2.24 1.99
8-14 hours per week -1.10 .437 -3.88 1.68
More than 14 hour per 1.92 .200 -1.02 4.85
week
8-14 hours per week 0 or not applicable 5.75* .000 2.60 8.89
less than 1 hour per week .98 .523 -2.03 3.99
2-7 hours per week 1.10 .437 -1.68 3.88
More than 14 hour per 3.02 .103 -.62 6.65
week
More than 14 hour 0 or not applicable 2.73 .103 -.55 6.01
per week
less than 1 hour per week -2.04 .204 -5.19 1.11
2-7 hours per week -1.92 .200 -4.85 1.02
8-14 hours per week -3.02 .103 -6.65 .62
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Table 26
Measures of Association Between Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life
Satisfaction with Number of Hours Spent for Social Networking Sites
Eta Eta Squared
Total Score of Items on RULS .085 .007
* Number of hours spent for social networking site
Total Score of Items on LPS .256 .065
* Number of hours spent for social networking site
Total Score of Items on SWL .091 .008
* Number of hours spent for social networking site

80
From the earlier ANOVA and post hoc tables, it was shown that there is a
significant relationship in interpersonal orientation across number of hours spent online
(F= 5.265; p = .000<.05). Table 26 above shows that Eta, which is the coefficient
(degree) of association between number of hours spent online through social
networking sites and LPS score is .256, indicating a low but significant relationship
(range of possible association = 0 to 1; one being the strongest association between the
variables). Eta2 x 100 = 6.5% indicates the percentage of common variance between
number of hours spent online through social networking sites and level of Interpersonal
orientation–in simple terms, number of hours spent online through social networking
sites account for about 6.5% of variance in the scores of interpersonal orientation.
H2o. There is no significant relationship between loneliness and interpersonal
orientation among members and non-members of online social networking sites, at .05
level.
Table 27
Measure of Correlation Between Loneliness and Interpersonal Orientation
Total Score of Total Score of
Items on RULS Items on LPS
Total Score of Items on Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.282**
RULS
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 306 306
Total Score of Items on Pearson Correlation -.282** 1.000
LPS
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 306 306
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

81
The foregoing Table 27 indicates the correlation coefficient value between
loneliness and interpersonal orientation (liking people). The value r = -.282 indicates a
fairly low negative relationship. This relationship is significant at .000 < .05 level.
Therefore, the null-hypothesis is rejected and an alternate hypothesis would state that
there is a significant inverse relationship between loneliness and interpersonal
orientation. In other words, the higher the score on the loneliness scale (indicates
greater loneliness), the lesser the score on the interpersonal orientation scale (liking
people). The coefficient of determination or percentage of common variance, r2x100 =
.2822 x 100 = 8% of the variance in the scores on loneliness scale is accounted for by
the variance in the scores on the interpersonal orientation scale.
H3o: There is no significant relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction among
members and non-members of online social networking sites, at .05 level.
Table 28
Measure of Correlation Between Loneliness and Life Satisfaction
Total Score of Total Score of
Items on RULS Items on SWL
Total Score of Items on Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.333**
RULS
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 306 306
Total Score of Items on Pearson Correlation -.333** 1.000
SWL
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 306 306
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

82
Table 28 shows the correlation coefficient value between loneliness and life
satisfaction. The value r = -.333 indicates a fairly low negative relationship. This
relationship is significant at .000 < .05 level. Hence, the null-hypothesis is rejected and
an alternate hypothesis would state that there is a significant inverse relationship
between loneliness and life satisfaction. In other words, the higher the score on the
loneliness scale (indicates greater loneliness), the lower the score on the satisfaction
with life scale. The coefficient of determination or percentage of common variance,
r2x100 = .3332 x 100 = 11% of the variance in the scores on loneliness scale is
accounted for by the variance in the scores on life satisfaction.
H4o: There is no significant relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal
orientation among members and non-members of online social networking sites, at .05
level.
Table 29
Measure of Correlation Between Life Satisfaction and Interpersonal Orientation
Total Score of Total Score of
Items on SWL Items on LPS
Total Score of Items Pearson Correlation 1.000 .166**
on SWL
Sig. (2-tailed) . .004
N 306 306
Total Score of Items Pearson Correlation .166** 1.000
on LPS
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .
N 306 306
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

83
Table 29 indicates the correlation coefficient value between life satisfaction and
interpersonal orientation (liking people). The value r = .166 indicates a fairly low
positive relationship. This relationship is significant at .000 < .05 level. Hence, the null-
hypothesis is rejected and an alternate hypothesis would state that there is a significant
relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal orientation. In other words, the
higher the score on the satisfaction with life scale, the greater the score on the
interpersonal orientation scale (liking people). The coefficient of determination or
percentage of common variance, r2x100 = .1662 x 100 = 2.7% of the variance in the
scores on the life satisfaction scale is accounted for by the variance in the scores on
interpersonal orientation scale.
Summary of Findings
Descriptive Statistics: Summary of Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Gender.
The respondent group was predominantly female, at 63.1%.
Age.
Over half of the respondents (54.6%) belonged to the age category of 26-32
years.
Marital status.
Nearly half of the respondents (45.1%) were single and dating someone. This
was followed by the group of single and unattached (33.7%).

84
Number of friends online through social networking sites.
Most of the respondents (83%) were members of online social networking sites.
Number of hours spent for online social networking sites.
Majority of people (40.8%) who took part in this study spent between 2-7 hours
per week online through social networking sites.
Inferential Statistics: Summary of Hypothesis Testing (Hypothesis 1)
Loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of
gender.
There is no significant difference in the level of loneliness and interpersonal
orientation as a function of gender. However, the differences in mean values of both
genders on life satisfaction is significant, with females showing higher level of life
satisfaction.
Loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of age.
There is no significant difference in the level of loneliness as a function of age.
However, the differences in mean values across age groups on interpersonal orientation
and life satisfaction are significant: that is, respondents aged 25 and below have
significantly higher liking people mean scores than the other age groups, and those aged
40 and above have significantly higher mean scores than those between the age range of
26-32 on life satisfaction.

85
Loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of
marital status.
There are no significant differences in interpersonal orientation and satisfaction
with life across all categories of marital status. However, the difference in mean values
of loneliness as a function of marital status is significant. Specifically, those who are
divorced/widowed have significantly higher mean scores on loneliness than the rest of
the group. Also, those who are single and dating someone have significantly higher
loneliness mean scores than married group.
Loneliness, interpersonal orientation and life satisfaction as a function of
number of friends online through social networking sites.
There are no significant differences in loneliness and satisfaction with life as a
function of number of friends online through social networking sites. However, the
difference in the mean values on interpersonal orientation is significant. Participants
who are non-members of any social networking sites have significantly lower mean
scores on the liking people scale.
Loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction as a function of
number of hours spent online for social networking sites.
There are no significant differences in loneliness and life satisfaction as a
function of number of hours spent online for social networking sites. However, the
difference in mean values of interpersonal orientation is significant. Participants who
are non-members of any social networking sites have significantly lower mean scores
on the liking people scale.

86
Summary of Hypothesis Testing (Hypothesis 2)
There is a significant inverse relationship between loneliness and interpersonal
orientation. The higher the score on the loneliness scale, the lower the score on the
interpersonal orientation scale (liking people).
Summary of Hypothesis Testing (Hypothesis 3)
There is a significant inverse relationship between loneliness and life
satisfaction. The higher the score on the loneliness scale, the lower the score on the
satisfaction with life scale.
Summary of Hypothesis Testing: Hypothesis 4
There is a significant positive relationship between life satisfaction and
interpersonal orientation. The higher the score on the satisfaction with life scale, the
greater the score on the interpersonal orientation scale (liking people).

87
CHAPTER V
Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendation
This final chapter highlights the discussion of findings with reference to the
literature as well as the current researcher’s perspectives, in order to enrich the context
of the results of the study. This chapter starts with a brief overview, discussion of
findings, limitations, conclusions, and recommendations.
Overview of the Study
The current study aimed to examine the interrelationships among loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction among Thai online social networkers. It
also attempted to investigate differences in loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction as a function of gender, age, marital status, number of friends online, and
number of hours spent online. Two groups were compared in the process: members of
online social networking sites and non-members.
This study is a causal-comparative and correlational study. A total of 306 Thai
online social workers participated by completing a self-administered online survey
questionnaire in either English or Thai. Apart from a researcher-constructed personal
information section, the questionnaire proper consisted of the Revised UCLA
Loneliness Scale (RULS), the Liking People Scale (LPS), and the Satisfaction with Life
Scale (SWLS). The study employed both descriptive and inferential statistical tools to
analyze the data.

88
Discussion of Findings
The following section mainly highlights the significant findings of the study and
presents the discussion of these within the context of theoretical perspectives and
related studies cited in an earlier chapter. The order of discussion follows the sequence
of the research hypotheses as depicted in the given summary of findings.
Loneliness, Interpersonal Orientation, and Life Satisfaction as a Function of
Demographic Variables
Life satisfaction and gender.
It was found that there is a significant difference in life satisfaction as a function
of gender, with females showing a higher level of life satisfaction. This finding concurs
with that of Inglehart (1990) who reported that levels of life satisfaction are generally
found to be marginally higher among women than men. This may be because women
either experience or report positive and negative emotions more strongly than men.
Another explanation is, as Inglehart observed and with growing evidence to support it,
that women are more socially connected and involved than men, resulting in their being
more exposed to the satisfaction of those near and dear to them.
Life satisfaction and age.
There is a significant difference in age with life satisfaction; those between the
age range of 40 and above have significantly higher mean than those between the ages
range of 26-32 on life satisfaction where age accounts for about 3% of variance in the
scores of life satisfaction. Although this result shows a significant difference, it cannot
be concluded that life satisfaction increases with age nor shows an incremental pattern.
The age group of 40 and above is not considered old (rather, it falls into middle age);

89
therefore, further research is needed to conclude the finding. This particular study
cannot be compared to previous studies due to the difference in age distribution in the
sample. Earlier studies averaging large sample sizes have found that, on average, life
satisfaction is highest among those under the age of 25, and falls gradually with middle
age (44-55 years) before rising again in later life. Cultural differences also should be
taken into consideration for satisfaction with life. For example, in a society like Japan
where older people are accorded great respect, life satisfaction is highest among those
over 65 years of age. In Hungary, by contrast, the young are the most satisfied and
satisfaction is lower amongst older generations (Diener, 1999).
Interpersonal orientation and age.
Liking people is conceived as a personality construct which serves a mediational
function in social interaction. To this researcher’s best knowledge, there has not been
any previous study on age differences on this construct of interpersonal orientation. The
difference in age group came as a surprise, although the differences in age only
accounts for about 3% of variance in the scores of interpersonal orientation. Research
demonstrates a decreasing trend in liking of people as age increases, though the age
range of under 25 showed a statistically insignificant difference compared to those aged
between 33-39. One explanation for this could be that as we grow older, everyday
problems involving people create frustration and so could contribute to less liking of
people. Future research should be conducted in order to clarify this finding.
Loneliness and marital status.
Loneliness is a universal experience among humans, and as a unique subjective
experience, one’s personality, history, and background variables affect it. The
differences in the mean values on loneliness are significant among different marital
status; divorced/widowed have a significantly higher mean than the rest of the group.

90
Marital status accounts for about 4% of variance in the scores of loneliness; though a
small percentage, it is statistically significant. The finding is not surprising, given that
the survival of the human depends on communication and closeness with someone.
Weiss (1973) identified two types of loneliness–emotional loneliness and social
loneliness– and suggested that the former results from the loss or lack of an intimate
ties usually with a spouse, lover, parent or child whereas the latter stems from the lack
of a network of involvement with peers. The finding is also congruent with the study of
Gierveld and Tilburg (1999) who confirmed that living arrangement contributes the
most to loneliness.
Interpersonal orientation and number of friends online through social
networking sites and number of hours spent online for social networking sites.
Earlier studies by Filsinger (1981) indicated contact between people would
determine a large part of the nature of their interaction; the reason an individual tends to
approach or to avoid people is the degree to which he or she likes people. Individuals
who like people would be expected to put time and energy into social interaction
whereas those who do not like people would put their energies into nonsocial pursuits;
the finding of this study supports such statement. Results showed that the greater the
number of friends, the greater the liking of people; and the longer the time spent on
those sites also predict the greater the liking of people, except for the range of having
more than 550 friends in their network and those who spend more than 14 hours per
week–which gave a different result to the trend. This may due to the small number of
participants in that particular range. On the contrary, non members of social networking
sites who spend no time engaging themselves in such sites scored significantly lower.
The degree of association between number of friends online and liking of people
indicate a low but significant relationship; number of friends online through social

91
networking sites accounts for about 7% of variance in the scores of interpersonal
orientation and number of hours spent online through social networking site accounts
for about 6.5%. Social networking sites require much time and effort for interaction
with others. It can be said that non members of social networking are not interested in
nurturing their relationship online; however, this study did not cover the area outside
this online relationship. In other words, it is not in the scope of this study to examine
how they perform in face-to-face relationships nor in other computer-based interaction.
Non significant findings on loneliness.
Beyond the lack of gender differences in loneliness examined in this study, one
probable explanation is that loneliness is characterized by a lack of close relationships,
a situation that has little to do with gender. Borys and Perlman’s (1985) studies on
gender differences in loneliness appear to have produced contradictory results. Of the
various possible explanations of the gender differences in self-labeled loneliness, most
assume that social influence processes play a crucial role.
The study does not support the finding that there is a difference in loneliness
across age. It could be explained that loneliness is the experience elicited or exacerbated
by life circumstances and is typically conceptualized as consisting of a stable trait, with
individual differences in the set point for feelings of loneliness about which people
vacillate depending on the specific circumstances in which they find themselves in.
Some studies have found that loneliness increases with age. As the number of social
relationships decrease, social events triggering significant disruptions in social ties (e.g.,
death of a parent, children leaving home, relocation, death of a spouse) may increase.
However, further studies with larger samples and different age distributions should be
conducted.

92
Loneliness against number of friends online and number of hours spent online.
There is no significant difference in loneliness against number of friends online
and number of hours spent online through social networking sites. This finding is
consistent with that of Leung (2002) whose finding showed no significant difference in
ICQ (computer program) use and loneliness. This could be explained by the fact that
connecting to social networking sites disconnects us from normal social interaction; it is
not surprising that these replacement online friendships, which tend to be based on
weaker ties, do not differ in terms of loneliness no matter how many friends there are in
the network. And although social networking sites have the potential to allow lonely
people to enter into mediated interpersonal relationships without taking face-to-face
social risk, people do not turn to social networking sites for alleviation of their lonely
feelings. The non-significant relationship found between loneliness and social
networking sites used could be explained by the fact that online social networking is
simply a popular Internet activity for people in this modern age. To be fashionable,
people take time out to engage themselves in social networking sites as a daily routine
to interact with people in the network despite their loneliness state.
Non significant findings on interpersonal orientation.
The finding of this report shows no statistical difference in both genders in this
particular construct of interpersonal orientation. Earlier finding by Filsinger (1981)
created mixed results as per gender differences. The liking of people may have little to
do with gender although one could expect females to score significantly higher due to
the fact that they are more communal in nature (Vogt & Colvin, 2003).
There is no significant difference in interpersonal orientation and marital status,
despite the fact that marital status influenced significant difference in loneliness. This

93
researcher posits that being single and unattached does not translate to a dislike of
people.
Non significant findings on life satisfaction.
There is no significant difference in satisfaction with life as a function of marital
status. This is in contrast to an earlier finding that married people of both sexes report
more happiness than those who are never married, divorced, or separated (Lee,
Seccombe, & Shehan, 1991). One benefit of marriage may be providing interesting and
supportive social interactions for the individual.
There is no significant difference in satisfaction with life with number of friends
online or number of hours spent online through social networking site. A research by
Wang, Chen, Lin, and Wang (2008) that investigated the influence of leisure
satisfaction on life satisfaction among adolescent online gamers yielded a different
result. Their findings revealed a significant negative relationship between web surfing
frequency and life satisfaction in adolescents. Evidence from other research suggests
that life satisfaction as a part of subjective well-being is likely to reflect the fulfillment
of personal values and goals and is involved in the search for meaningfulness in one’s
life (Diener et al., 1997). Global satisfaction can be divided into satisfaction with the
various domains of life such as recreation, love, marriage, friendship, and so forth, and
these domains can, in turn, be divided into facets. Although having been a member with
lots of friends in the network may represent social support (from interacting with other);
this domain is too narrow to have caused significant difference in life satisfaction.
Another explanation could be that the instrument used to measure life satisfaction
measured perception in a broad angle including past experience (SWLS item 4: So far I
have gotten the important things I want in life; and SWLS item 5: If I could live my life
over, I would change almost nothing.), and is multi-dimensional (SWLS item 1: In most

94
ways my life is close to my ideal; and SWLS item 2: The conditions of my life are
excellent). Therefore, social support received from being a member of such online sites
could not have produced a significant result. The same could be applied to the length of
time people spend on these sites; the longer period could have contributed to a quick fix
of boredom, but not to satisfaction with life.
Relationship Between Loneliness and Interpersonal Orientation
The correlation coefficient results indicated that there is a fairly weak negative
relationship between loneliness and interpersonal orientation (liking people), among
online social networkers. This result implies, to a weak extent, that the greater
loneliness, the less the liking of people. This can also be interpreted the other way
around; that is, the greater the liking of people, the lesser the loneliness. Previous
research on loneliness tended to focus on social contact; as such, lack of social contact
contributed to loneliness. However, one should accept the premise that loneliness is also
expressive of an individual’s relationship to others around them as well. Other
demographic variables are often measured against loneliness but interpersonal
orientation, especially the liking of people, has not been brought into many researchers’
attention. This researcher posits that when one is low on liking of people, one usually
spends little time on social interaction and engages in other activities; and, hence, may
have limited capacity to enjoy satisfying relationships. It is possible that people low on
liking of people may reject or even repel others who could provide satisfying
interpersonal relationships; it may also be that the amount of interaction they experience
is adequate but less meaningful, following the argument of Kraut and Kiesler (1999).
Within the context of this study, it can be said that online social networkers with a high
level of loneliness may not be quite successful in initiating meaningful relationships on

95
a face-to-face basis; this may then lead to a low liking of people which may fuel more
loneliness. Under these circumstances, online social networking may be their only
outlet for some semblance of social relations.
Relationship Between Loneliness and Life Satisfaction
The correlation coefficient results indicated that there is a fairly low negative
relationship between loneliness and life satisfaction, among online social networkers.
This result implies that the greater loneliness, the lesser the satisfaction with life. This
result is echoed in a study by Neto and Barros (2003) who, likewise, reported an inverse
relationship between loneliness and a tendency to find satisfaction and optimism in life.
There may be at least two explanations for these significant findings: one is that people
who are less satisfied with life may be less successful in initiating meaningful
relationships than those with greater life satisfaction; this tendency would then be
reflected in their feelings of loneliness. Secondly, in concurrence with Neto and Barros
(2003), this researcher posits that feelings of loneliness are related to overall negative
attitudes towards social reality and that these attitudes are also reflected in the way
people view themselves.
Relationship Between Interpersonal Orientation and Life Satisfaction
The correlation coefficient results indicated that there is a fairly low positive
relationship between life satisfaction and interpersonal orientation (liking people),
among online social networkers. This result implies that the greater the satisfaction with
life, the greater the liking of people. Alternatively, the greater the liking for people, the
greater is satisfaction with life. Those who are high on liking of people are considered
more interpersonally oriented toward other people and are, most likely, willing to

96
engage with others. This factor could lead to greater enjoyment of the company of
others which, in turn, creates greater happiness.
Limitations of the Study
As in the case of other research investigations, the current study suffers from
certain methodological limitations. The psychosocial variables included in this study,
although widely used in Western nations, need more validation in Asian studies; this
includes the discussions and related studies that relied heavily on Western perspectives.
It could be argued that the self-report measure of life satisfaction was somewhat
simplistic; the simplicity in this scale does not necessarily mean the responses are less
valid than more complex indicators. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that other
possible measures of life satisfaction exist and these could be used in future studies.
Social desirability of response may have also been a factor. Participants in these
samples may have differed in their willingness to report feelings related to the variables
such as loneliness and satisfaction with life.
Another significant limitation of this research was the lack of opportunity to
obtain a random sample of participant, the e-mail contact was sent from the researcher’s
own database. Even though the invitation had been forwarded to a number of contacts
through snowballing, there is the likelihood that participants were pretty much from the
same class of social networks and, therefore, the research findings cannot be
generalized to other online networking populations. In addition, the small number of
subjects in some sample groups may not represent the population to provide sufficient
results. As such, the nature and number of subjects adversely affected the statistical
power of the study.

97
Nonetheless, despite these acknowledged limitations, the current study, being
the first of its kind in Thailand, is bound to contribute to the literature and is expected to
act as a catalyst to further research for more refined and definitive conclusions.
Conclusions
Overall, this study demonstrated increased understanding of loneliness,
interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction. All the alternative research hypotheses
were supported by the findings. The existence of significant relationships between
loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life satisfaction, however small, set the stage
for a closer look at the implications of these relationships.
It is true that we live in an increasingly connected world, a world where
technological advancement allows us to connect, with a touch of our finger tips, with
people regardless of geographical location, or form a new ‘virtual relationships’ where
both strangers and acquaintance meet and exchange ideas, foster friendships, etcetera.
One would believe that it could help ease the painful feeling we call loneliness–a
feeling that is considered distressing and affecting all walks of life and which, by and
large, people want to avoid. Likewise, many may be led to believe that being part of
online social sites would contribute to greater socialization opportunities or to greater
happiness and satisfaction with life.
The researcher concludes that the ability of online social networkers to link up
with people both near and far in greater numbers and with greater frequency, does not
improve the ability to “connect” with people. Having hundreds of friends on these sites
is certainly no cure for loneliness nor is it the panacea for greater life satisfaction or for
getting to like or be liked. Other more obvious social situations such as healthy face-to-

98
face relationships is, more likely, a better aide for loneliness. It is safe to say that having
a good number of supportive friends strengthens the liking of people and, in a way,
gives one greater life satisfaction.
There is only so much that technology can and should do. The choice of how to
make connections is now more varied and complex and new communication and
friendship forms will continue to change the way people interact socially. What to do
with and how well to advance those connections is still entirely up to the individual.
Recommendation
Based on the major findings of the study and the conclusions drawn, the
following recommendations are offered:
To Web Developers
This study shows that people low on liking people are not interested in being
part of social networking sites. The researcher assumes that this may be due to the
nature of the sites. However, if some site usage and application can be enhanced, such
as providing other contents that has less interaction with other people can be done alone
like news or music update, these websites may be able to attract more members in the
long term. Perhaps a more user-friendly advertising campaign through various mass
media may reach those who have not been reached before.
To Members of Online Social Networking Sites
The findings of this research led to the conclusion that becoming a part of this
virtual relationship may not necessarily help ease feelings of loneliness nor contribute

99
to greater life satisfaction. It is recommended that network site users continue with
online social networking but should also seek more face-to-face means of socializing to
gain more friends and acquaintances for sharing and exchange of ideas and for the sheer
enjoyment of other people’s company. Online social networkers are encouraged to
develop greater social support through family members, relatives, neighbors, peers,
coworkers and others whose company and friendship have not been explored before.
To Government Policy Makers and Helping Professionals
The researcher recommends that government policy makers as well as helping
professionals such as counselors, psychologists, teachers, social workers, health
providers, and the like should look more closely at the implications and ramifications of
online social networking use, abuse, or misuse. With the influx of more advanced
communication and information technology, online social network users may be
overwhelmed, confused, stressed out, or even led astray by these ‘virtual worlds’ and
could be, to some extent, in danger of being exploited by the more sinister networks.
Internet addiction is now a diagnostic reality. If uncontrolled, online social networking
might suffer the same fate.
To Other Researchers
Those who are interested in further exploring the psychographic aspect of online
social networkers should conduct more comprehensive studies using more psychosocial
variables, such as motivation, level of self-esteem, locus of control, and other
personality dimensions. These studies can be carried out through statistical means,
through in-depth interviewing, or a combination of both quantitative and qualitative
methods of research.

100
Future research should examine the relationships highlighted in the present
study with larger populations. While a single-nation study is useful as a preliminary
investigation of the effects highlighted herein, the generalizability of these findings will
benefit from its replication in other cultural settings.
A significant amount of loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and life
satisfaction variance is left unexplained in this study. Further investigations should
include other factors. For instance, this study did not directly consider the original
causal direction of the relationships among loneliness, interpersonal orientation, and
satisfaction with life relative to usage of social networking sites; future longitudinal
studies will be better equipped to answer this cause-and-effect issue.
Finally, it would be useful to examine the amount of time people spend on
social networking sites with respect to the context of use. Social networking sites usage
as merely the number of hours per week ignores the reasons for use. The amount of
time one spends with social networking sites may change depending on its context.
Content of conversation and purpose of use on social networking sites could provide
additional information explaining the relationships among loneliness, liking people, and
life satisfaction in terms of online social networking.

101
REFERENCES
Adelman, M., Parks, M., & Albrecht, T. (1987). Beyond close relationships: Support in
weak ties. In T. L. Albrecht & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating Social
Support (pp.126-147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. New York: Taylor & Francis Inc.,
pp.71
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human exitance. Chicago: IL, Rand McNally.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal
Attachment as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin
117:497-529.
Beck, A. T., & Young, J. E. (1978). College blues. Psychology Today. September, pp.
80–92.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and Close Relationships. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and L. Gardner (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology,
(Vol.2, pp. 193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Birnie, S., & Horvath, P. (2002). Psychological predictors of Internet social
communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7 (4).
Retrieved April 6, 2008 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/horvath.html
Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985) Gender Differences in Loneliness Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin .1985; 11: 63-74
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well being: Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575.

102
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With
Life Scale.: Journal of Personality Assessment,. 49, 71-75.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent finding on subjective well being:
Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 25-41.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R.E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well being:
Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being:
Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends:"
Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated d Communication, 12 (4), article 1.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Ernst, J. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on
loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 1-22.
Filsinger, E. E. (1981). A measure of interpersonal orientation; the liking people scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1981, 45, 3.
Fischer, J. & Corcoran, K. (2007). Measures for clinical practice and research: A
sourcebook (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Gierveld, J. J. & Van Tilburg, T. (1999). Living arrangements of older adults in the
Netherlands and Italy: Coresidence values and behavior and their consequences
for loneliness. A Journal of cross cultural Gerontology, 14, 1, 1-24
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
6, 1360-1380.

103
Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V.
Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis (pp.105-130).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Griffin, K., & Patton, B.R. (1976). Fundamentals of interpersonal communication (2nd
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Haas, B. K. (1999). Clarification and integration of similar quality of life concepts.
Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 3, 215-220.8
Hafner, K., (1997, May). The Epic Saga of The Well, Wired Magazine, May, 1997,
Issue 5.05.
Hawkley, L. C., Browne, M. W., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). How can I connect with
thee? Let me count the ways, Psychological Science, 16 (10), 798-804(7)
Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1945.
Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley L. C., & Cacioppo J. T. (2004). A Short Scale for
Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys. Research on aging. 26 (6), 655-672
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Jackson, T., Soderlind, A., & Weiss, K. E. (2000). Personality traits and quality of
relationships as predictors of future loneliness among American college
students. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 28 (5),
463-470.
King, L., Lyubormirsky, S., & Diener, E. (2003). The benefits of happiness. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Kopytoff, V. (2004, November 29). Google's orkut puzzles experts. San Francisco
Chronicle. Retrieved May 30, 2008 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/29/BUGU9A0BH441.DTL

104
Kraut, R. E., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis,
W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social
involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, (9),
1017-1032.
Kraut, R. & Kiesler, S. (1999). Internet use and ties that bind. American Psychology.
54, 783-784.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgerson, V., & Crawford, A.
(2001). Internet paradox revisited: Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49-74.
Lamb, P. (2006). Social networking. Christian Science Monitor. Deseret News (Salt
Lake City). FindArticles.com. 25 Oct. 2008. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061112/ai_n16841680
Lee, G. R., Seccombe, K., & Shehan, C. L. (1991). Marital status and personal
happiness: An analysis of trend data. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,
839-844.
Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, Self-Disclosure, and ICQ (“I Seek You”) Use. Cyber
Psychology & Behavior, 5, (3), 2002
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being
measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616-628.
Marsden, P., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63 (2),
482-501.
Madhavan, N. (2007, July 6). India gets more Net Cool. Hindustan Times. Retrieved
May 30, 2008 from
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=f2565bb8-663e-
48c1-94ee-d99567577bdd

105
McWhirter, B. R., (1990). Loneliness: A review of current literature with implications
for counseling and research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 417-
422.
Miller, C. A. (1995) Nursing care of the older adults. Philadephia: J. B. Lippincott.
Murphy, P.M., & Kupshik, G.A. (1992). Loneliness, stress & well-being: a helpers’
guide. London: Rouledge.
Neto, F. & Barros, J. (2003) Predictors of Loneliness Among Students and Nuns in
Angola and Portugal. The Journal of Psychology, 2003, 137(4), pp 351 – 362
New Economics Foundation. (2006). Life satisfaction. Retrieved on 24 October 2008
from http://www.happyplanetindex.org/life-satisfaction.htm
Nurmi, J. E., Toivonen, S., Salmela- Aro, K., & Eronen, S. (1997). Social Strategies
and loneliness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1997, 137 (6), pp 764-777
Nyland, R. (2007). The gratification niches of internet social networking, e-mail, and
face-to-face communication. Unpublished master’s thesis. Brigham Young
University. Provo, Utah, USA.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. (1981). Toward a social psychology of loneliness. In S. Duck
& R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationship 3: Personal relationships in
disorder (pp. 31-56). London, L: Academic Press.
Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. (1982). Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory,
Research and Therapy. New York: John Wiley.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How
women use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2007). Teens and Social Media. February to
March 2007.

106
Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Rheingold, H. (1994). The Virtual Community: Surfing the Internet, London: Minerva,
(1994).
Rosen, C. (2007). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism: The new Atlantis. A
Journal of Technology & and Society, 17, pp. 15-31.
Rubenstein, C. M. & Shaver, P. (1982). The experience of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau &
D. Perlman ( Eds.), Loneliness: A source book of current theory, research and
therapy . New York: Wiley
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of
loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:471–480.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E., (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness
scale: Concurrent discriminant validity evident. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39: 4272-80.
Seligman, A. G. (1983). The presentation of loneliness as a separate diagnostic category
and its disengagement from depression. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 1,
33-37.
Sermat, V. (1980). Some situational and personality correlates of loneliness. In: Hartog,
J., Audy, J.R., & Cohen, Y.A., (eds). The anatomy of loneliness. New York:
International Universities Press, pp. 305–318.
Schumaker, J. F., Shea J. D., Monfries, M. M, and Groth – Marnat, G. (1992).
Loneliness and life satisfaction in Japan and Australia. Journal of Psychology,
127 (1), 65-71.
Sharf, B. F. (1997). Communicating breast cancer on-line: Support and empowerment
on the Internet. Woman and Health, 26 (1), 65-84

107
Shaw, L. H, and Gant, L. M (2002) In Defense of the Internet: The Relationship
between Internet Communication and Depression, Loneliness, Self-Esteem, and
Perceived Social Support. Cyberpsychology & behavior volume 5, number 2,
2002
Sundén, J. (2003). Material Virtualities. New York: Peter Lang.
Turner, J. W., Grube, J. A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within
Online Communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and
traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51 (1), 231-251.
Vogt, D. S., and Colvin, C. R., (2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of
personality judgment. Journal of personality 71:2
Wang E. S., Chen L S., Lin J. Y., and Wang M. C. (2008) the relationship between
leisure satisfaction and life satisfaction of adolescents concerning online games.
ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 169, Spring 2008
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In
C. Lin & D. Atkin (Eds.), Communication Technology and Society: Audience
Adoption and Uses (pp 153-188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Weiss R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The Experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing
unto others: Joining, molding, conforming, helping, loving (pp.17-26).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 671-683.

108
Ye, J. (2006). Traditional and online support networks in the cross-cultural adaptation
of Chinese international students in the United States. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 11(3), article 9.
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue3/ye.html

109
APPENDIX A
Research Instrument (English Version)
Dear Participant,
My name is Napapat Luedeesunun and I am a graduate student in counseling
psychology at Assumption University. I am writing to invite you to participate in my
research on “Online Social Networkers” in the form of an online survey questionnaire.
Non-members of online social network are still welcome to participate.
The questionnaire should take about ten minutes to complete. If you are able to
complete and return the questionnaire within two weeks, it would be greatly
appreciated.
The information supplied by participants will be treated as confidential. Access to the
questionnaire is restricted only to me. Completion of the questionnaire is voluntary. If
you would like to obtain a summary of the results of this research, I am happy to send
you copies upon completion.
Please feel free to contact me on 081-8099220 or jubjui@hotmail.com in regard to any
queries you may have.
Yours truly,
Napapat Luedeesunun

110
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Participant,
For your information, this questionnaire is being distributed as part of a graduate
school study and will be used for research purposes only. Note that there is no right or
wrong answer, so please answer all questions honestly. Rest assured that all responses
and data will remain confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.
Part 1. Personal Information
Directions: Fill in the correct personal information by marking a tick (√ ) in the
appropriate space.
1. Gender
( ) Male
( ) Female
2. Age:
( ) 25 and below
( ) 26-32
( ) 33-39
( ) 40 and above
3. Marital Status
( ) Single and unattached
( ) Single and dating someone
( ) Married
( ) Divorced/Widowed
4. Number of friends through online social networking site
( )0
( ) 1 - 100
( ) 101-250
( ) 251-400
( ) 401-550
( ) 551 or more
5. Number of hours spent for social networking site
( ) 0 or not applicable
( ) Less than 1 hour per week
( ) 2-7 hours per week
( ) 8-14 hours per week
( ) More than 14 hour per week

111
Part II. (RULS)
Directions: Indicate how often you have felt the way described in each statement using
the following scale:
4 = “I have felt this way often”
3 = “I have felt this way sometimes”
2 = “I have felt this way rarely”
1 = “I have never felt this way”
Statements:
__ 1. I feel in tune with the people around me.
__ 2. I lack companionship.
__ 3. There is no one I can turn to.
__ 4. I do not feel alone.
__ 5. I feel part of a group of friends.
__ 6. I have a lot in common with the people around me.
__ 7. I am no longer close to anyone.
__ 8. My interests and ideas are not shared by those around me.
__ 9. I am an outgoing person.
__ 10. There are people I feel close to.
__ 11. I feel left out.
__ 12. My social relationships are superficial.
__ 13. No one really knows me well.
__ 14. I feel isolated from others.
__ 15. I can find companionship when I want to.
__ 16. There are people who really understand me.
__ 17. I am unhappy being so withdrawn.
__ 18. People are around me but not with me.
__ 19. There are people I can talk to.
__ 20. There are people I can turn to

112
Part 3. (LPS)
Directions: The following questions ask your feeling about a number of things. Indicate
your degree of agreement/disagreement with each statement using the following scale:
a = Strongly agree
b = Moderately agree
c = Neutral
d = Moderately disagree
e = Strongly disagree
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS HERE ARE NOT THE SAME AS
THOSE IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION (PART 2).
__ 1. Sometimes when people are talking to me, I find myself wishing that they would
leave.
__ 2. My need for people is quite low.
__ 3. One of the things wrong with people today is that they are too dependent upon
other people.
__ 4. My happiest experiences involve other people.
__ 5. People are not important for my personal happiness.
__ 6. Personal character is developed in the stream of life.
__ 7. I could be happy living away from people.
__ 8. It is important to me to be able to get along with other people.
__ 9. No matter what I am doing, I would rather do it in the company of other people.
__ 10. There is no question about it–I like people.
__ 11. Personal character is developed in solitude.
__ 12. In general, I don’t like people.
__ 13. Except for my close friends, I don’t like people.
__ 14. A person only has a limited amount of time and people tend to cut into it.
__ 15. People are the most important thing in my life.

113
Part 4. (SWLS)
Direction: Below are five statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using the
1-7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by circling the number that
corresponds to it.
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Slightly Disagree
4 – Neither Agree nor Disagree
5 – Slightly Agree
6 – Agree
7 – Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1. In most ways my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
is close to my ideal.
2. The conditions of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
life are excellent.
3. I am satisfied with my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
life.
4. So far I have gotten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the important things
I want in life.
5. If I could live my life over, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would change almost nothing.
Additional comment (if any)
………………………….………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

114
APPENDIX B
Research Instrument (Thai Version)
เรียน ผูตอบแบบสอบถาม
ดิฉันชื่อ นภพรรษ ฤดีสุนันท และกําลังศึกษาในระดับ ปริญญาโทในสาขาวิชา จิตวิทยาที่ปรึกษาใน
มหาวิทยาลัยอัสสัมชัญ และใครขอเชิญทานเขารวมทําแบบสอบถามในงานวิจัยหัวขอ “Online Social
Networkers” โดยผูที่ไมไดเปนสมาชิก ก็สามารถรวมทําแบบสอบถามนี้ได
แบบสอบถามใชเวลาทั้งสิ้นประมาณสิบนาที กรุณากรอกแบบสอบถามและสงกลับภายในสองอาทิตย
ขอมูลที่ถูกรวบรวมไดทั้งหมดจะถูกเก็บไวเปนความลับและจะไมมีใครที่สามารถเขาดูขอมูลไดนอกจากผูทําวิจัย
เทานั้น ขอมูลที่ถูกบันทึกในแบบสอบถามจะไมถูกนําไปใชในวัตถุประสงคอื่นนอกเหนือจากวัตถุประสงคของการ
วิจัยเทานั้น การเขารวมการวิจัยนี้ถือเปนความสมัครใจของผูเขารวมตอบแบบสอบถาม หากทานมีความสนใจในผล
วิจัย ผูวิจัยยินดีสงผลวิจัยใหกับทานเมื่อการวิจัยไดผลเปนที่เรียบรอยแลว

หากทานมีขอสงสัยประการใดกรุณาติดตอผูวิจัยไดที่ 081-8099220 หรือ jubjui@hotmail.com
ผูวิจัยขอขอบคุณในความรวมมือเปนอยางสูงมา ณ โอกาสนี้
ขอแสดงความนับถือ
นภพรรษ ฤดีสุนันท

115
แบบสอบถาม ตอนที่ 1
แบบสอบถามนี้เปนสวนหนึ่งของการเก็บขอมูลเพื่อทําวิทยานิพนธ ความรวมมือของทานในการตอบแบบสอบถามนี้จะ
เปนประโยชนในการรวบรวมขอมูลในการทําวิจัย
ตอนที่ 1 ขอมูลสวนตัวผูตอบแบบสอบถาม
1. เพศ
( ) ชาย
( ) หญิง
2. อายุ
( ) 25 หรือนอยกวา
( ) 26-32
( ) 33-39
( ) 40 หรือมากกวา
3. สถานภาพการสมรส
( ) ยังไมแตงงานและไมมแฟน
ี
( ) ยังไมแตงงานแตคบหากับแฟนอยู
( ) สมรสแลว
( ) หยา / เปนมาย
4. จํานวนเพื่อนในเวบไซตประเภท Social network
( ) 1 - 100
( ) 101-250
( ) 251-400
( ) 401-550
( ) 551 หรือมากกวา
5. จํานวนชั่วโมงที่ใชในการเขาเวบไซตประเภท social network ตออาทิตย
( )0
( ) นอยกวา1 ชัวโมง
่
( )2-7
( ) 8 - 14
( ) มากกวา 14

116
ตอนที่ 2 (RULS)
Directions: คําถามตอไปนี้เปนการสอบถามความคิดเห็นของทาน ซึ่งไมมีคําตอบใดถูกหรือผิด กรุณาตอบทุกคําถามตาม
ความรูสึกของทาน โดยใชตัวเลือกดังนี้ เพื่อตอบถึงความถี่ในความรูสึกของทาน

4 = “รูสึกเชนนีบอยครั้ง”
 ้
3 = “รูสึกเชนนีบางครั้ง”
 ้
2 = “รูสึกเชนนีนานๆครั้ง”
 ้
1 = “ไมเคยรูสึกเชนนี้เลย”

Statements:
__ 1. ฉันรูสึกเขากับคนรอบตัวได

__ 2. ฉันขาดเพื่อน
__ 3. ไมมีใครที่ฉนสามารถหันไปหาได
ั
__ 4. ฉันไมรสึกอยูเพียงลําพัง
ู
__ 5. ฉันรูสึกเปนสวนหนึ่งในกลุมเพื่อน

__ 6. ฉันมีความธรรมดาเหมือนกับคนรอบตัว
__ 7. ฉันไมมีความใกลชดกับคนทั่วไปอีกตอไป
ิ
__ 8. ความคิดและความสนใจของฉันไมไดทุกแบงปนกับคนรอบขาง
__ 9. ฉันเปนคนเขาสังคมไดงาย
__ 10. ฉันมีคนที่รูสึกใกลชิดดวย
__ 11. ฉันรูสึกถูกทอดทิ้ง

__ 12. ความสัมพันธในสังคมของฉันเปนแบบผิวเผิน
__ 13. ไมมีใครทีรูจักฉันเปนอยางดี
่
__ 14. ฉันรูสึกแปลกแยกจากผูอื่น

__ 15. ฉันสามารถหามิตรไดในเวลาที่ตองการ
__ 16. มีคนที่เขาใจฉันอยางแทจริง
__ 17. ฉันไมมีความสุขในความเปนคนเก็บเนื้อเก็บตัว
__ 18. มีคนอยูรอบตัวฉันแตไมไดอยูกับฉัน
__ 19. มีคนที่ฉันสามารถพูดคุยได
__ 20. มีคนที่ฉันสามารถหันไปหาได

117
ตอนที่ 3 ปฏิสัมพันธกับผูอื่น (LPS)
คําถามตอไปนี้เปนการสอบถามความคิดเห็นของทาน ซึ่งไมมีคําตอบใดถูกหรือผิด กรุณาตอบทุกคําถามตามความรูสึกของ

ทาน โดยใชตัวเลือกดังนี้
A = เห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
B = คอนขางเห็นดวย
C = ไมมีความเห็น
D = ไมเห็นดวย
E = ไมเห็นดวยอยางยิ่ง
___1. ในบางครั้ง เมื่อมีผูเขามาสนทนาดวย ทานตองการใหเขาออกจากวงสนทนา
___2. ทานไมชอบเขาสังคม
___3. การพึ่งพาอาศัยผูอื่นมากเกินไปเปนสิ่งที่ผิด
___4. ทานมีความสุขเมื่อมีผูอื่นรวมอยูดวย
___5. ความสุขสวนตัวของทาน ไมจําเปนตองอาศัยผูอื่น
___6. ลักษณะนิสยของบุคคลจะพัฒนาตามประสบการณในชีวิต
ั
___7. ทานสามารถมีความสุขไดโดยไมมีผูคนรอบขาง
___8. สิ่งทีสําคัญในชีวิตของทาน คือ การสามารถใชชีวิตรวมกับผูอื่นไดเปนอยางดี
่
___9. ไมวาทานจะทําอะไรก็ตาม ทานมักทํารวมกับผูอื่นเสมอ
___10. ทานเปนคนชอบเขาสังคม
___11. ลักษณะนิสยของบุคคลสามารถพัฒนาไดดวยตนเอง
ั
___12. โดยปกติ ทานไมคอยชอบพบปะผูคน
___13. ทานไมคอยพบปะกับผูอื่น ยกเวนกับเพื่อนสนิท
___14. คนเรามีเวลาจํากัดอยูแลว แตเรายังเลือกที่จะทําใหมันนอยลงไปอีก

___15. ผูคนรอบตัวทานคือสิ่งสําคัญทีสุดในชีวิตทาน
่

118
ตอนที่ 4 (SWLS)
กรุณาลงความคิดเห็นของทานตามลําดับ……….
1 – ไมเห็นดวยอยางมาก 2 – ไมเห็นดวย 3 – ไมเห็นดวยเล็กนอย
4 – ไมมีขอคิดเห็น เปนกลาง ไมออกความเห็น 5 – เห็นดวยเล็กนอย 6 – เห็นดวย
7 – เห็นดวยอยางมาก
ไมเห็นดวยอยางมาก เห็นดวยอยางมาก
1. โดยรวมแลว ชีวิตทานใกลเคียงกับอุดมคติของทาน 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. สถานภาพชีวิตของทานดีมาก 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. ทานมีความสุขและพอใจในชีวิตของทาน 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. เทาที่ผานมาทานไดสิ่งสําคัญในชีวิตที่ทานตองการ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. ถาทานยอนชีวตได ทานไมตองการเปลี่ยนอะไรเลย 1
ิ 2 3 4 5 6 7
ความคิดเห็นอื่นๆ ……………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
ขอบคุณ

119
Appendix C: Current Online Social Network Population
Name Description/Focus Registered users Registration
Adult Adults -- for finding 230,000[2] Open
FriendFinder friends or sex partners.
Advogato Free and open source 13,575[4] Open
software developers
Amie Street Music Open
ANobii Books Open
aSmallWorld European jet set and social 270,000[8] Invite-only
elite
ASUIsTalking General, School, College. Open with Arizona
State University email
address
Avatars United Online games. Open
Authorstream PowerPoint Presentation Open
Sharing - General
Badoo General, Popular in Europe 13,000,000[11] Open to people 18 and
older
Bahu General, Popular in 1,000,000[13] Open to people 13 and
France, Belgium and older
Europe
Bebo General, Popular in the 40,000,000[15] Open to people 13 and
US, UK, Ireland, NZ and older
the Pacific Islands
Biip Norwegian Community. Requires Norwegian
phone number.
BlackPlanet African-Americans 20,000,000[17] Open
Broadcaster.com Video sharing and webcam 322,715[19] Open
chat
Buzznet Music and pop-culture 10,000,000[20] Open
CafeMom Mothers 1,250,000[22] Open to moms and
moms-to-be
Cake Financial Investing Open
Capazoo General (blogs, photos, Open
music, videos)
Care2 Green living and social 8,942,968[24] Open
activism
Classmates.com School, college, work and 50,000,000[25] Open
the military
Cloob General. Popular in Iran. Open
College Tonight College students. requires an e-mail
address with an ".edu"
ending
Cyworld South Koreans 23,000,000[27] Open
DeviantART Art community 8,000,000 Open
DontStayIn Clubbing (primarily UK) Open
Elftown Community and wiki 185,000[30] Open, approval
around Fantasy and sci-fi. needed
Eons.com For baby boomers Open to people 13 and
older

120
Erotas Online Adult site allowing for all Open to people 18 and
types of members from older
straight to gay, and bi-
sexual and transsexual
members.
Experience Life experiences Open
Project
Facebook General. 124,000,000[32] Open to people 13 and
older.
Faceparty General. Popular UK. 200,000[34] Invitation only to
people 18 and older.
Fetlife People who are into 32,500[36] Open to people "of
BDSM [legal] age to see adult
content"
Flixster Movies 63,000,000[38] Open to people 13 and
older
Flickr Photo sharing, Open
commenting, photography
related networking,
worldwide
Fotolog Photoblogging. Popular in 15,000,000[41] Open
South America and Spain.
Friends Reunited UK based. School, college, 19,000,000[43] Open
work, sport and streets
Friendster General. Popular in 80,000,000[45] Open to people 16 and
Southeast Asian countries older.
such as Thailand,
Philippines and Singapore.
Not popular in North
America and Europe.
Frühstückstreff General Open
Fubar dating, an "online bar" for 1,200,000[47] Open
18 and older
Gaia Online Anime and games Open to people 13 and
older
Gather Article, picture, and video 465,000[49] Open
sharing, as well as group
discussions
Geni.com Families, genealogy 15,000,000[50] Open
Goodreads Library cataloging, book Open
lovers
Gossipreport.com Anonymous gossip Open to people 16 and
older
Grono.net Poland Invite-only
GuildCafe Online games Open
Habbo General. Over 31 100,000,000[52][53] Open to people 13 and
communities worldwide. older
Chat Room and user
profiles.
hi5 General. Popular in 80,000,000[55] Open to people 13 and
Portugal, Cyprus, older
Romania, Thailand and
Latin America.

121
Hospitality Club Hospitality 328,629[57] Open
Hyves Most popular Dutch social 4,000,000[58] Open
network, especially for
students
imeem Music, Video, Photos, 24,000,000[60] Open
Blogs
IRC-Galleria Finland 500,000[62] Open to Finnish
speaking people 12
and older
itsmy Mobile community 2,500,000.[63]
worldwide, blogging,
friends, personal TV-
shows
iWiW Hungary 1,700,000[64] Invite-only
Jaiku General. Owned by Open to people 13 and
Google. older
kaioo General, nonprofit 30,000[65]
Last.fm Music 21,000,000[66] Open to people 13 and
older
LibraryThing Book lovers 400,000[68] Open to people 13 and
older
lifeknot Shared interests, hobbies Open to people 18 and
older.
LinkedIn Business 30,000,000[69] Open
LiveJournal Blogging 16,723,587[71] Open (OpenID)
LunarStorm Sweden Open
MEETin General Open
Meetup.com General. Used to plan Open to people 18 and
offline meetings for people older.
interested in various
activities.
MiGente.com Latinos 2,800,000[73] Open
Mixi Japan 17,980,000[75] Invite-only
mobikade mobile community, UK Open to people 18 and
only older
MocoSpace mobile community, 3,000,000[77] Open to people 14 and
worldwide older
MOG Music Open to people 14 and
older
Multiply "Real world" relationships 10,000,000[78] Open to people 13 and
older
Muxlim Muslim portal site 50,000[80] Open to people 13 and
older
MyChurch Christian Churches 144,295[82] Open
MyHeritage family-oriented social Open
network service
MySpace General. Popular in the 246,351,193[83] Open to ages 14 and
United States, Canada and up.
Europe.
myYearbook General 5,100,000[84] Open to age 13 and up
& Grades 9 and up
Nasza-klasa.pl School, college and 11,000,000[86] Open
friends. Popular in Poland.

122
Nabuur Online Volunteering Open
Netlog General. Popular in 36,000,000[87] Open to people 13 and
Europe. Formerly known older
[88]
as Facebox and Redbox.
Nettby Norwegian Community. Open
Nexopia Canada 1,400,000[90] Open to people 14 and
older
Ning Users create their own Open
social websites and social
networks
Odnoklassniki.ru General. Popular in Russia 22,000,000 Open
OkCupid Social networking and Open to people 18 and
dating older
Orkut Owned by Google. Popular 67,000,000[93] Open to people 18 and
in Brazil, Paraguay and older, (Google login)
India. Gaining some
popularity in the USA and
Canada.
OneWorldTV Not for Profit Video Open
sharing and social
networking aimed at
people interested in social
issues, development,
environment, etc.
OUTeverywhere Gay/LGBTQ Community Open
Passado General Open
Passportstamp Travel Open
PerfSpot General w/International 20,000,000[95] Open
focus & claim to largest
media collection of social
networks
Pingsta Collaborative platform for Invite-only, only
the world's Internetwork Internet Experts
Experts
Plaxo Business 15,000,000[97] Open
Playahead Swedish, Open
Danish,Norwegian
teenagers
Playboy U Online college community Open to college
students with .edu e-
mail address
Plurk Micro-blogging, RSS, Open
updates
Pownce Websites, files, and short Open
updates
ProfileHeaven British teens Open to people 13 and
older
quarterlife A social network for Open to people 14 and
artists, filmmakers, older
musicians, and creative
people
RateItAll General (consumer ratings) Open
Ravelry Knitting and crochet 80,000[99] Invite-only while in

123
beta
Reunion.com Locating friends and 48,000,000[100] Open
family, keeping in touch
Ryze Business 500,000[102] Open
scispace.net Collaborative network site By invitation, but can
for scientists request an invitation
Shelfari Books Open
Skyrock Leading Social Network in 22,000,000[103] Open
French-speaking world
Sonico.com General. Popular in Latin 17,000,000[105][106] Open to people 13 and
America and Spanish and older.
Portuguese speaking
regions.
Soundpedia Music Open
Sportsvite Recreational sports 22,000[108] Open
Stickam Live video streaming and 2,000,000[109] Open
chat.
Student.com International teens and Open
colleges
StudiVZ University students, 8,000,000[110] Open
mostly in the German-
speaking countries
Tagged.com General 30,000,000[111] Open
Taltopia Online artistic community Open
TravBuddy.com Travel Open
Travellerspoint Travel Open
tribe.net General Open
Trombi.com French subsidiary of 4,400,000[114] Open
Classmates.com
Tuenti.com General. Very Popular in Invite-only
Spain
Twitter Micro-blogging, RSS, 2,200,000 [116] Open
updates
V Kontakte Russian social network. 20,000,000[118] Open
Vampirefreaks Gothic and industrial 1,725,604 [120] Open to users 13 and
subculture over
Vox Blogging Open
WAYN Travel and lifestyle 10,000,000[121] Open to people 18 and
older
WebBiographies Genealogy and biography Open
Windows Live Blogging (formerly MSN 120,000,000[123] Open
Spaces Spaces)
Wis.dm Questions and answers 50,000[125] Open
about anything and
everything
Xanga Blogs and "metro" areas 27,000,000[126] Open
XING Business (primarily 6,000,000[128] Open
Europe (Germany) and
China)
Xiaonei Significant site in China 15,000,000[130] Open
Yahoo! 360° Linked to Yahoo! IDs, Open to people 18 and
unsupported[131] older, (Yahoo! login)
Yelp, Inc. Local Business Review Open

124
and Talk
Youmeo UK Social Network (focus Open
on data portability)