Loneliness across cultures: Social isolation, cultural models, and coping strategies

Loneliness across cultures: Social isolation, cultural models, and coping strategies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Loneliness across cultures: Social isolation, cultural models, and coping strategies HUGO VALENZUELA GARCIA This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Over recent decades, loneliness has increasingly been recognized as a major factor affecting wellbeing, social life, and mental health, particularly in contemporary Western societies. While biomedical and psychological research has identified multiple risk factors associated with loneliness, less attention has been paid to how different cultures understand, evaluate, and respond to social isolation. This article examines the cultural meanings and social regulation of loneliness across societies, asking whether loneliness is mainly a feature of modern Western life or a more general condition of human relational existence. Using a mixed-methods approach based on data from 360 cultures and more than 3,700 ethnographic documents from the Human Relations Area Files, the study shows that (1) loneliness is a widespread human experience generally perceived as harmful or undesirable; (2) societies vary in the norms that define acceptable and unacceptable forms of isolation; and (3) diverse cultural mechanisms exist to prevent, manage, or alleviate loneliness. By situating loneliness within broader cultural models of relatedness and social belonging, the article contributes to a comparative anthropological understanding of loneliness and highlights the cultural and relational conditions that shape experiences of isolation, belonging, and wellbeing across societies. loneliness social isolation wellbeing culture relational life Introduction Whosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god (Francis Bacon, Of Friendship , 1625). Human beings are profoundly relational, and the experience of loneliness has long been regarded as a troubling condition affecting both social life and personal wellbeing. In recent decades, loneliness and social isolation have become pressing concerns across many parts of the world, particularly in highly urbanized and technologically interconnected societies. Despite living in what are often described as the most socially connected environments in history, enabled by digital technologies and intensified global flows of people and information (Castells, 2010: xxvii), increasing numbers of individuals report feeling socially disconnected or lacking meaningful relationships. Major media outlets refer to a “loneliness pandemic” (Sweet, 2021) and warn about its “deadly effects” (Abbott, 2023). Similar concerns have been documented in diverse contexts, including the former Soviet Union (Stickley et al., 2013), urban China (Wang et al., 2011), Australia (Astell-Burt et al., 2022), Canada (Grenier et al., 2021), Spain (Casal et al., 2023), and the United Kingdom (Rolls et al., 2011), where an increasing number of people report feeling lonely (Mishra, 2008). Not only are more people living alone, but an increasing number are choosing to do so, preferring privacy over the company of partners, children, or other relatives (De Jong Gierveld, 1998: 75; Snell, 2017). Loneliness has been associated with significant risks for mental and physical health, including chronic stress, depression, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). These findings have led researchers and policymakers to treat loneliness not only as an individual experience but also as a social condition with important implications for wellbeing and public health. Indeed, loneliness appears to be here to stay, exacerbated by complex contemporary factors, such as social distancing during the global COVID-19 pandemic (Matias et al., 2020), the spread of remote working (Valenzuela, 2021b), increasing reliance on personal technologies (Savolainen et al., 2020), population aging (Golden et al., 2009; Allison, 2013), changes in family structures and rising divorce rates (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010; Chen, 2015), rapid urbanization (Chen & Gong, 2022), the dramatic decline of community bonds and social capital (Putnam, 2001), the ever-expanding competition, anomie and individualization in modern societies (Zhao & Cao, 2010), and, more recently, the rise of the artificial intelligence as a substitute for human interaction in care, companionship, and communication (Turkle, 2011; Robertson, 2018). All these factors, along with “the lack of communication, empathy or education in human and emotional values (…) would be giving rise to an impoverished society plagued by lonely people” (Diez & Morenos, 2015: 34). Current research links loneliness to increased risks of premature death and a wide range of health issues, including cardiovascular disease, weakened immune function, chronic stress, depression, fatigue, and cognitive decline, such as dementia (see Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017, for reviews). According to Pike and Crocker (2020: 661), its effects are comparable to those of obesity or high blood pressure, as both can impair immune function and disrupt cellular processes. In this context, Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) found that chronic loneliness may increase the risk of premature death by up to 26%, underscoring its serious public health implications, with significant economic costs and mounting societal concern. In response, the UK recently established a Ministry of Loneliness, as nearly half of its citizens over the age of 75 live alone (9 million people). In Spain, the impact of loneliness on public health is estimated at 14 billion euros annually (i.e., 1.17% of GDP), primarily due to healthcare costs (medication and medical consultations) and loss of productivity (Casal et al., 2023). Additionally, the difficulty of statistically capturing loneliness—partly due to the stigma associated with it, which leads many to hide their condition—suggests that the problem is likely to be more widespread than it appears. Quantitative, individual-focused studies report high rates of loneliness among groups such as the elderly (Singh et al., 2009; Yang & Victor, 2011), young adults (Barzeva et al., 2019), the unmarried (Adamczyk, 2016), individuals with mental health disorders (Lindgren et al., 2014), and those with low incomes (Refaeli & Achdut, 2020). Incidence tends to be slightly higher among men (Barreto et al., 2021), varies across the life course (Borys & Perlman, 1985; Magnhild & Thorsen, 2014), and cuts across ethnic, age, and socioeconomic groups (Pike & Crocker, 2020: 661). In so-called ‘modern societies’, loneliness is often experienced as a form of exclusion, where unwanted solitude limits social interaction and access to vital support—material, emotional, or informational—usually provided through close relationships (Rook, 1984; Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, 2020). In contrast, or so it is often assumed, rural and cohesive small-scale societies tend to embed such support in local institutions—marriage, rituals, religion, or shared labor—which not only serve practical functions but also sustain personal ties and social cohesion, offering some protection against loneliness (De Jong Gierveld, 1998). Beyond material resources, these institutions foster identity, belonging, and shared moral frameworks (Turner, 2012; Parsons, 2020). While many social scientists have contrasted the cold loneliness of industrial cities with the warm communal ties of rural life, others have questioned this dichotomy by documenting the presence of intimate, close-knit relationships within urban environments, such as neighborhoods, religious communities, or sports leagues (Zirakzadeh, 1989; Cruces, 2022). Some interpret loneliness as a direct byproduct of Western capitalism and modernity (Slater, 1970; McGraw, 2010; Franklin, 2012), whereas others argue that it is a universal human experience that is shaped by diverse cultural and historical factors (Rokach, 1998; Ozawa-de Silva & Parsons, 2020). Notably, Lykes and Kemmelmeier (2014) suggest that collectivist cultures may even exhibit higher rates of loneliness than individualistic ones, an apparently paradoxical finding that challenges intuitive assumptions and further complicates the picture. Large-scale international surveys, such as the BBC Loneliness Experiment (Barreto et al., 2021), have generated invaluable cross-national insights and significantly advanced the field, but such data often lack the contextual depth that qualitative approaches can provide. A deeper understanding of loneliness calls for a culturally grounded and intersectional framework (Milbrandt & Park, 2023) that is capable of bridging quantitative and qualitative perspectives. As several anthropologists have shown, loneliness is not merely an individual or psychological condition; it is shaped by personal histories and embedded in complex relational, cultural, emotional, moral, and symbolic configurations (Rokach, 2011; Ozawa-de Silva & Parsons, 2020; Valenzuela-García et al., 2021a). Yet despite this complexity, the cross-cultural dimensions of loneliness remain largely underexplored. This paper examines how changing socio-material conditions shape loneliness in diverse societies and cultures, challenging the view that it is mainly a problem of modern Western life. The paper distinguishes analytically between loneliness (a subjective feeling of unwanted disconnection), social isolation (an objective lack of social contact), and solitude (a potentially valued and chosen state of aloneness). It also proposes a framework for understanding such social detachment along three intersecting dimensions: (1) objective/subjective experience, (2) transient/chronic duration, and (3) voluntary/imposed condition. These distinctions are key to disentangling the multiple forms and meanings of disconnection across cultural contexts. On the other hand, in this paper modernity is not treated as a fixed stage or a singular trajectory, but as a set of social and cultural transformations (economic, technological, affective, moral) that reshape how people connect, belong, and make sense of themselves. Rather than a coherent or uniform condition, modernity is understood as a shifting terrain in which the meanings of intimacy and isolation are continually reconfigured. By tracing how loneliness is perceived and managed across cultures, this article seeks to unsettle the presumed link between modernity and social disconnection. This paper was initially motivated by a quasi-philosophical question: Could the increasing prevalence of loneliness in contemporary Western societies be linked to the erosion of traditional institutions? While the approach is comparative and the dataset covers 360 societies, the question of loneliness inevitably evokes a deeper, more personal reflection. In an era marked by social fragmentation and estrangement, it is not only an empirical phenomenon but also an existential concern. Perhaps this is precisely where anthropology proves most valuable: in its ability to illuminate what is distant while helping us confront what is closest. Anthropology contributes not only through cross-cultural comparison, but also by foregrounding the relational, symbolic, and affective dimensions through which loneliness is lived, narrated, and morally negotiated in specific cultural contexts. And this, in turn, is essential for making sense of the worlds we inhabit. Building on this concern, this article aims to address the current gap in cross-cultural research on loneliness by exploring three guiding research questions ( RQ ). First ( RQ1 ): Is loneliness a universal human feeling, or merely an epiphenomenon of modern Western societies? Second ( RQ2 ): Are there identifiable patterns in how loneliness is perceived and experienced across cultures? And third ( RQ3 ): What cultural mechanisms or strategies exist to cope with and mitigate loneliness? The article is structured into four sections: the first outlines key conceptual definitions. The second explains the methodology. The third presents and discusses the results. The final section offers concluding remarks and a summary of the main findings. Conceptual dimensions of loneliness and a brief note on the relational aspects of modernity Loneliness is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, and a conceptual consensus on its meanings has yet to be reached. Some researchers differentiate between loneliness , solitude , social withdrawal , and isolation , while others use these terms interchangeably (Karnick, 2005: 11). Although all these terms imply a lack of social interaction, especially normalized, each term has distinct nuances that defy simple definition. I therefore offer a brief clarification of the key concepts used in this paper, considering their meanings along three analytical axes of social isolation : (1) objective versus subjective, (2) temporary versus long-term, and (3) voluntary versus forced. This paper understands isolation , seclusion , and social withdrawal as forms of objective, physical, or spatial separation from others, each with distinct connotations. Isolation (from Latin insula , island) denotes a state of being set apart, often externally imposed or resulting from structural conditions. It can be voluntary or involuntary and may stem from health-related circumstances (e.g., quarantine), personal choice (e.g., seeking solitude), or social dynamics (e.g., segregation, ostracism, or rejection). Seclusion , by contrast, implies a more deliberate and self-directed withdrawal from social contact, usually for a defined purpose and time frame (e.g., religious retreat, mourning). While isolation is more closely associated with exclusion or imposed constraint, seclusion typically suggests voluntary withdrawal within a socially recognized framework and may even be positively valued or encouraged (e.g., during meditation or spiritual retreat). Social withdrawal , in turn, refers to a progressive disengagement from interaction, which may (or may not) involve physical separation but often results in reduced social presence and connection. It reflects a gradual retreat from the social world, often driven by psychological factors such as anxiety or fear of rejection. Unlike isolation (more structural) or seclusion (more voluntary and ritualized), social withdrawal reveals an internal loss of relational agency and intentional detachment from others. Conventionally, when social separation is unwanted and sustained, one might expect to experience varying degrees of loneliness, defined as “the unpleasant experience that occurs when a person's network of social relations is deficient in some important way, either qualitatively or quantitatively” (Perlman & Peplau, 1981: 3). Loneliness entails a subjective, emotional experience that can arise even in socially dense environments—such as among housewives in large families (Valenzuela-García et al., 2021)—and may be absent even in conditions of minimal social contact (Ozawa-de Silva & Parsons, 2020). It is often linked to feelings of (un)belonging, emptiness, abandonment, and sorrow (Weiss, 1973; De Jong Gierveld, 1998; Yang & Victor, 2011). Chronic loneliness may trigger physiological responses, such as depression or anxiety, with serious consequences for mental health and even suicidal ideation (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2001; Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). For clarity, I treat terms such as lonesomeness, aloneness, forlornness , and solitude as synonyms of loneliness , despite their subtle differences. Solitude , in particular, shares features with the former but spans both subjective and objective dimensions: when chosen, it can foster reflection and self-discovery (Coplan & Bowker, 2013); when imposed, it may lead to loneliness and hinder social connection. Another key concept that requires further clarification in this paper is modernity , especially in its relational dimension. As previously noted, loneliness, isolation, and related phenomena are not merely psychological states but rather expressions of a broader weakening in the quality and density of social relationships. Drawing on the sociological literature (Giddens, 1991; Elias, 2000; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), I do not treat modernity as a uniform or linear process, nor as the radical opposite of tradition, but as a historically situated and evolving configuration of social life, often marked by internal tensions and ambivalences (including processes of reflexivity, rationalization, the erosion of normative anchors, and the reorganization of affective and symbolic ties). It involves a gradual shift from relatively stable, disciplinary institutions—such as the school, the factory, or the nuclear family—toward more fluid, fragmented, and contingent forms of existence (Augé, 1992; Bauman, 2000). This transformation, propelled by forces like technologization, urbanization, mobility, and global migration, has progressively reconfigured the scaffolding of everyday life and altered prevailing modes of social interaction. One major consequence has been the weakening of relational structures such as kinship, community, and religion, giving rise to what some have called structural loneliness (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008; Klinenberg, 2012; Putnam, 2000), that is, not merely the condition of being alone, but the broader erosion of stable, reciprocal, and meaningful social ties. From this perspective, loneliness (and other forms of social isolation alike) is not simply a psychological state or cultural metaphor, but a symptom of deeper transformations in moral frameworks and relational expectations in late modern societies. Recent scholarship shows how loneliness in modern contexts is linked to the decline of shared rituals and collective narratives (Franklin, 2012; Franklin et al., 2019; Franklin & Tranter, 2022), the rise of unstable or ambivalent relationships and intimacies (Eramian et al., 2025), and the growing interplay between mental health struggles and the fragmentation of social ties, which reinforces feelings of loneliness (Ozawa-de Silva, 2021). In this light, the concepts of relational mobility and relational vulnerability acquire relevance, as they help explain the expanding reach of loneliness, especially in modern urban contexts. Relational mobility refers to social environments where individuals can easily enter and exit relationships; while this flexibility may offer freedom, it often undermines depth and stability, increasing the risk of isolation (Heu et al., 2021). Relational vulnerability, in turn, describes the gradual erosion of both formal and informal support networks, particularly in precarious and urban settings, where maintaining lasting connections becomes increasingly difficult (Valenzuela et al., 2020). Understanding loneliness thus requires attention to the historical variability of modernity itself. Given the wide temporal span of the ethnographic materials (from the 1930s to the early 2000s), it is worth keeping in mind the difference between earlier phases of modernity that were more stable and institutionalized and later ones marked by fragmentation, hyperconnectivity, and fluid social ties (Augé, 1992; Bauman, 2000; Elias, 2000). This perspective helps to contextualize how loneliness and isolation are experienced and expressed across different historical and cultural settings. In this respect, as this paper will show, recent ethnographic records highlight two major forces (i.e., urbanization and migration) that have profoundly disrupted traditional institutions and reflect core features of late modernity: the erosion of embedded roles, the weakening of place-based belonging, and the rise of individual life trajectories. By contrast, earlier materials from the 1930s or 1950s often portray denser social networks and clearer normative expectations, even in conditions of economic hardship. Such contrasts call for a methodological approach that is attentive to both qualitative and quantitative data, and to the historical variability of social relations. Methodology This study employs a mixed-methods approach to cross-cultural analysis, combining qualitative and quantitative strategies. It draws on extensive ethnographic data from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), includes control comparisons with other databases (such as the PSF), and integrates both prevalence analysis and qualitative interpretation. The findings are grounded in broad cross-cultural generalizations derived through inductive comparison. The analysis is based on a systematic search of the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), a database of ethnographic materials covering over 360 cultures across seven regions: 81 from Asia (23%), 80 from North America (23%), 70 from Africa (19%), 47 from South America (13%), 33 from Oceania (9%), 17 from Europe (5%), 20 from Middle America and the Caribbean (6%), and 12 from the Middle East (3%). Unlike typical cross-cultural samples, the HRAF offer ethnographic data from multiple times and places, emphasizing diversity, geographical dispersion, and adequate literature coverage. In the HRAF, information retrieval through Boolean keyword search offers results organized by regions, subregions, cultures, documents, and paragraphs. Treated as an ethnographic snapshot, each paragraph was gathered, reviewed, and coded, paying close attention to thematic relevance and conceptual fit. The most analytically meaningful excerpts were compiled into a working document exceeding 150 pages and comprising over 200 ethnographic references. This material forms the foundation of the qualitative analysis developed in the article. Sampling and coding Unlike standardized sociocultural phenomena such as marriage or witchcraft , which are pre-coded and easily searchable within the HRAF database, the phenomenon of loneliness is not explicitly indexed. As a result, the initial keyword search for loneliness generated 415 documents, but these were distributed across only 171 of the 360 cultures included in the HRAF collection (47.5%). Rather than indicating a low frequency of the phenomenon itself, this likely reflects the fact that loneliness was either overlooked by fieldworkers or addressed using different terminologies. As Jankowiak and Ramsey (2000: 60) note in a comparable case, information on such topics can often be “thin or nonexistent” for many societies, largely depending on the ethnographer’s focus and interpretive lens. Thus, ethnographic data are always mediated through the observer’s language and conceptual framework, which means that references to social disconnection may be imprecise or shaped by culturally embedded assumptions. This can make interpretation especially difficult in cross-cultural contexts where emic categories often diverge from Western conceptual models (Karnick, 2005; Rokach, 2014). This was also true in the present study: even with the expanded search strategy, relevant data were frequently indirect or circumstantial, requiring a close reading of “every available story.” To overcome this limitation, the search was broadened to include a carefully selected set of related terms: solitude, lonesomeness, aloneness, confinement, isolation, lockdown, forlornness, seclusion, solitariness , and social withdrawal . These terms made it possible to capture a broader range of expressions and representations, while enabling analytical distinction (i.e., objective vs. subjective, voluntary vs. forced, and temporary vs. sustained forms of separation). At the same time, some results were excluded when keyword-based queries retrieved irrelevant material (e.g., references to “the isolation of the stable’s smell and disposal of animal dung”), underscoring the need for critical awareness throughout the selection process. Following this exhaustive search and filtering process, all the selected materials were subjected to grounded thematic coding. The process of reading, selecting, coding, and organizing the material into a coherent textual corpus was very time-consuming. Ultimately, 23 analytical categories emerged: (1) ethnographer and loneliness; (2) solitude and poverty; (3) solitude and environment; (4) loneliness and age; (5) emotions and loneliness; (6) women and solitude; (7) religious roles and isolation; (8) voluntary solitude; (9) social arrangements against solitude; (10) loneliness and the West; (11) religion, loneliness, and community; (12) forced isolation; (13) loneliness and suicide; (14) brotherhood and isolation; (15) migration and solitude; (16) loneliness as a social malaise; (17) loneliness, folklore, and myth; (18) isolation and rites; (19) loneliness and Native Americans; (20) loneliness and non-human entities; (21) status and isolation; (22) isolation, deviation, and social control; and (23) loneliness, oddity, and the dark arts. These themes serve to connect experiences of loneliness with specific cultural institutions and strategies, allowing for the identification of broader patterns and recurring dynamics that transcend anecdotal cases. Sampling control and adjustments For sampling control, I compared HRAF data with the Probability Sample Files (PSF), a random selection of 60 representative HRAF cultures allowing a more nuanced evaluation of the data's representativeness. Regarding the sampling, although the HRAF offers a privileged view of cultural diversity, it is not a representative sample of global cultures, as immigrant cultures in North America are overrepresented. To address this overrepresentation, these cultures were divided into two categories: Native North American Populations (17% of the total) and Regional, Ethnic, and Diaspora Cultures, which include migrant-origin groups like African Americans and Chinese Americans. This allows us to make a meaningful observation regarding the different forms of social isolation, both within the original context and amidst the sociocultural transformations brought about by migration and modernity. Qualitative analysis The raw ethnographic data chunks grouped under the same code were reorganized to generate a cohesive narrative thread through key themes (e.g., environment constraints, rites of passage, migration, mythology, psychopathologies, deviation, etc.). Secondary sources (e.g., Cultural Atlas, Ethnographic Atlas, Wikipedia) were sometimes consulted to enhance specific cultures' sociocultural, demographic, or economic context. The most innovative strategy of this research may stem from the fact that the qualitative analysis relies on a form of inductive inference: that is, each assertion is supported by all its valid (i.e., relevant, unique, and pertinent) ethnographic data retrieved from the HRAF, accompanied by its respective bibliographic reference and without ruling out cases that might contradict the findings. The qualitative analysis is grounded in more than 200 ethnographic documents, some covering more than one culture. Although this approach can lead to a denser and more demanding text, it ensures methodological transparency, data traceability, and analytical replicability. For instance, the following excerpt presents all the ethnographic cases (with their references) identified in the HRAF that illustrate the “folkloric centrality of loneliness”: Loneliness occupies folkloric centrality among most North American natives: Hopi (Courlander, 1987*), Tlingit (Kan, 1989*), Black Caribe (Taylor, 1951*), Navajo (Reichard, 1950*; Frisbie, 1980*), Cherokee (Mooney, 1982: 656*; Kilpatrick & Kilpatrick, 1965*); Cajun (Ancelet, 1989*); Pawnee and Chippewa (Densmore, 1913: 56*; 1929: 93*). Similar cases are described for the Carib Garifuna (Hadel, 1989: 205*) and the Orokaiva in Papua New Guinea (Schwimmer, 1969*). Quantitative analysis and dataset The quantitative analysis involves calculating the prevalence rates and gross, relative, and weighted percentages of isolation, seclusion, solitude, social withdrawal, and loneliness across the 360 cultures in the HRAF collection. The incidence of synonymous terms like lonesomeness, aloneness, and forlornness was low (< 20%) or very low (< 10%), likely due to their rare use of this wording in ethnographies (e.g., lonesomeness was just reported in 11.7% of original North American cultures and forlornness appeared only in four paragraphs across various regions). ===================Table 1 here ============== Table 1 Raw data retrieved from the HRAF: "c" indicates culture, "d." documents, and "p." means paragraphs. Isolation North America Asia Africa South America Oceania Europe Middle America & the Caribbean Middle East ∑ 75 c 678 d. 2271 p. 70 c. 379 d. 881 p. 67 c. 334 d. 822 p. 40 c. 146 d. 420 p. 32 c. 193 d. 470 17 c. 150 d. 577 p. 18 c. 100 d. 361 p. 10 c. 69 d. 200 p. 329c. 2049 d. 5532 p. Seclusion 64 c. 216 d 517 p. 53 c. 174 d 441 par. 64 c. 261 d. 1060 p. 28 c. 69 d. 418 p. 31 c. 69 d. 418 p. 13 c. 27 d. 53 p. 11 c. 28 d. 60 p. 9 c. 32 d. 86 p. 273 c. 876 d. 3953 p. Social withdrawal 66 c. 317 d. 686 p. 56 c. 204 d. 421 p. 57 c. 182 d. 331 p. 30 c. 44 d. 77 p. 25 c. 92 d. 196 p. 14 c. 59 d. 143 p. 14 c. 56 d. 158 p. 9 c. 48 d. 126 p. 271 c. 1002 d. 2138 p. Solitude 49 c. 108 d. 184 p. 34 c. 67 d. 130 p. 32 c. 63 d. 91 p. 27 c. 38 d. 69 p. 19 c. 37 d. 53 p. 12 c. 35 d. 51 p. 12 c. 23 d. 41 p. 7 c. 14 d. 18 p. 192 c. 385 d. 637 p. Loneliness 51 c. 181 d. 363 p. 36 c. 72 d. 104 p. 25 c. 43 d. 68 p. 14 c. 19 d. 31 p. 14 c. 25 d. 31 p. 12 c. 39 d. 63 p. 10 c. 22 d. 32 p. 9 c. 14 d. 18 p. 171 c. 415 d. 710 p. Lonesomeness 11 c 14 d. 16 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 3 c. 3 d. 2 p. 0 0 0 1c. 1 d. 1 p. 0 c. 0 d. 0 p. 18 c. 21 d. 22 p. Aloneness 6 c. 6 d. 6 p. 3 c. 3 d. 2 p. 2 c. 2 d. 2 p. 2 c. 2 d. 2 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 2 c. 2 d. 2 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 0 0 0 17 c. 18 d. 18 p. Forlornness 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 1 c. 1 d. 1 p. 0 c. 0 d. 0 p. 0 c. 0 d. 0 p. 0 c. 0 d. 0 p. 0 c. 0 d. 0 p. 4 c. 4 d. 4 p. Whole Sample N = 80 N = 81 N = 70 N = 47 N = 33 N = 17 N = 20 N = 12 360 Although quantifying ethnographic data is highly complex, the analysis employs various percentage ranges to better understand and compare regional prevalence rates. These ranges were organized as follows: Very low or none (0%-10%) indicates a minimal or almost non-existent presence of the phenomenon being studied. Low or very few (11%- 20%) suggests a slight but noticeable occurrence. Moderately low or few (21%-30%) indicates a presence that is somewhat more significant than "low" but still not considered high. Moderate or some (31%-40%) represents a noticeable presence without being overwhelmingly prevalent. Moderately high or several (41%-60%) suggests a substantial presence, more than "Moderate" but not reaching the highest levels. High or many (61%-80%) implies a significant presence with considerable prevalence. Very high or most (81%-100%) represents the highest level of prevalence, indicating a widespread and significant occurrence of the phenomenon. This scale enabled a systematic interpretation of the qualitative data when needed, facilitating their operationalization in comparative terms across regions and cultural contexts. Results and discussion Results are presented in six sections, followed by a summary: 1) Prevalences and regional distribution; 2) Remoteness, loneliness, and cooperation; 3) Loneliness: normative, cosmological, and psychological insights; 4) Deviation and social control; 5) Institutionalized isolation; and 6) The Lonely West (a final critical appraisal of our modern world). Each section concludes with a short summary. 1. Prevalences and regional distribution Forms of objective isolation (i.e., isolation, seclusion, and social withdrawal) show a very high (> 81%) incidence and an even and proportional distribution across regions, with a slightly lower but still high prevalence (> 61–80%) for the regions of both South America, and Middle America and the Caribbean. The reported cases of objective isolation totaled 873, while only 247 cases of subjective isolation were retrieved (i.e., loneliness, lonesomeness, solitude, aloneness, and forlornness), indicating that forms of objective isolation are much more common, almost four times more, than subjective isolation. ============ Table 2 here================= Table 2 HRAF dataset with prevalences and percentages for all keywords. N. America I N. America II Asia Africa S. America Oceania Europe Middle America and the Caribbean Middle East ∑ HRAF 60 20 81 70 47 33 17 20 12 360 Isolation Cases 55 20 70 67 40 32 17 18 10 329 Gross % 91.7% 100.0% 86.4% 95.7% 85.1% 97.0% 100% 90.0% 83.3% 91.4% Relative % 16.7% 6.1% 21.3% 20.4% 12.2% 9.7% 5.2% 5.47% 3.04% 100% Weighted % 15.3% 5.6% 19.4% 18.6% 11.1% 8.9% 4.7% 5.0% 2.8% 91.4% Seclusion Cases 50 14 53 64 28 31 13 11 9 273 Gross % 83.3% 70.0% 65.4% 91.4% 59.6% 93.9% 76.5% 55.0% 75.0% 75.8% Relative % 18.3% 5.1% 19.4% 23.4% 10.3% 11.4% 4.76% 4.03% 3.30% 100% Weighted % 13.9% 3.9% 14.7% 17.8% 7.8% 8.6% 3.6% 3.1% 2.5% 75.8% Social withdrawal Cases 48 18 56 57 30 25 14 14 9 271 Gross % 80.0% 90.0% 69.1% 81.4% 63.8% 75.8% 82.4% 70.0% 75.0% 75% Relative % 17.7% 6.6% 20.7% 21.0% 11.1% 9.2% 5.2% 5.2% 3.3% 100.0% Weighted % 13.3% 5.0% 15.6% 15.8% 8.3% 6.9% 3.9% 3.9% 2.5% 75.3% Solitude Cases 36 13 34 32 27 19 12 12 7 192 Gross % 60.0% 65.0% 42.0% 45.7% 57.4% 57.6% 70.6% 60.0% 58.3% 53% Relative % 18.8% 6.8% 17.7% 16.7% 14.1% 9.9% 6.3% 6.3% 3.6% 100.0% Weighted % 10.0% 3.6% 9.4% 8.9% 7.5% 5.3% 3.3% 3.3% 1.9% 53.3% Loneliness Cases 32 19 36 25 14 14 12 10 9 171 Gross % 53.3% 95.0% 44.4% 35.7% 29.8% 42.4% 70.6% 50.0% 75.0% 48% Relative % 18.7% 11.1% 21.1% 14.6% 8.2% 8.2% 7.0% 5.8% 5.3% 100.0% Weighted % 8.9% 5.3% 10.0% 6.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.3% 2.8% 2.5% 47.5% Lonesomeness Cases 7 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 17 Gross % 11.7% 20.0% 1.2% 1.4% 2.1% 6.1% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 5% Relative % 41.2% 23.5% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 11.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Weighted % 1.9% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% Aloneness Cases 6 0 3 2 2 1 2 1 0 17 Gross % 10.0% 0.0% 3.7% 2.9% 4.3% 3.0% 11.8% 5.0% 0.0% 5% Relative % 35.3% 0.0% 17.6% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9% 11.8% 5.9% 0.0% 100.0% Weighted % 1.7% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 4.7% Forlornness Cases 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Gross % 0% 5.0% 1.2% 1.4% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1% Relative % 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Weighted % 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% Table 3 Probabilistic Sample Files (PSF) dataset with prevalences and percentages for main keywords. PSF cultures North America Asia Africa South America Oceania Europa Middle America and the Caribean Middle East Sumatory 8 13 16 10 6 3 3 1 60 ISOLATION 8 12 16 10 6 3 3 1 59 Gross % 100,00% 92,31% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 98,33% Relative % 13,56% 20,34% 27,12% 16,95% 10,17% 5,08% 5,08% 1,69% 100,00% Weighted % 13,33% 20,00% 26,67% 16,67% 10,00% 5,00% 5,00% 1,67% 98,33% SECLUSION 7 12 15 10 6 3 2 1 56 Gross % 87,50% 92,31% 93,75% 100,00% 100,00% 100,00% 66,67% 100,00% 93,33% Relative % 12,50% 21,43% 26,79% 17,86% 10,71% 5,36% 3,57% 1,79% 100,00% Weighted % 11,67% 20,00% 25,00% 16,67% 10,00% 5,00% 3,33% 1,67% 93,33% SOCIAL WITHDRAWAL 6 9 11 6 5 3 2 0 42 Gross % 75,00% 69,23% 68,75% 60,00% 83,33% 100,00% 66,67% 0,00% 70,00% Relative % 14,29% 21,43% 26,19% 14,29% 11,90% 7,14% 4,76% 0,00% 100,00% Weighted % 10,00% 15,00% 18,33% 10,00% 8,33% 5,00% 3,33% 0,00% 70,00% SOLITUDE 7 10 10 8 5 3 2 1 46 Gross % 87,50% 76,92% 62,50% 80,00% 83,33% 100,00% 66,67% 100,00% 76,67% Relative % 15,22% 21,74% 21,74% 17,39% 10,87% 6,52% 4,35% 2,17% 100,00% Weighted % 11,67% 16,67% 16,67% 13,33% 8,33% 5,00% 3,33% 1,67% 76,67% LONELINESS 7 9 10 7 3 3 2 1 42 Gross % 87,50% 69,23% 62,50% 70,00% 50,00% 100,00% 66,67% 100,00% 70,00% Relative % 16,67% 21,43% 23,81% 16,67% 7,14% 7,14% 4,76% 2,38% 100,00% Weighted % 11,67% 15,00% 16,67% 11,67% 5,00% 5,00% 3,33% 1,67% 70,00% Isolation (i.e., being separated, detached, or cut off from others voluntarily or involuntarily) scores very high worldwide (91.4% on average). The Middle East has the lowest rates (83.3%), while the highest is among European and North American migrant populations (100%). The Probabilistic Sample Files (PSF) show reasonable congruence with the HRAF data, showing a very high occurrence in all regions. Seclusion (i.e., the state of being secluded or isolated from others, often in a private or sheltered place), although somewhat inferior to isolation, also shows an evenly and proportionally high distribution across cultures (75.8% on average), being maximum in Oceania (93.9%) and Africa (91.4%), very high among Native Americans (83.3%), high among Europeans (76.5%), the Middle East (75%), North American migrants (70%) and Asians (65.4%), and moderately high in South America (59.6%), and Middle America and the Caribbean (55%). For seclusion, PSF percentages are generally higher than those found in the HRAF, but regional distribution shows a similar proportionality. Social withdrawal (i.e., when someone reduces interactions with others) is also widely reported (an average of 75%). It shows a similar distribution and proportion than isolation and seclusion: prevalence is very high among American migrants (90%), Europeans (82.4%) and African societies (81.4%), it is high among North American natives (80%), and slightly lower, but still high, in Oceania (75.8%), the Middle East (75%), Middle America and the Caribbean (70%), Asia (69.1%), and South America (63.8%). Data from the PSF subset reflect a similar trend, although the number of cases for Europe and the Middle East is too limited to support any robust conclusions: only one case from the Middle East and three from Europe are included in the PSF sample. Subjective forms of isolation (i.e., loneliness and solitude) reflect high (61–80%) to moderately high (41–60%) rates worldwide, although at lower levels than objective isolation. Solitude is particularly notable in Europe (70.6%) and among North American migrants (65%), followed by Native Americans (60%), and societies from Middle America and the Caribbean (60%), the Middle East (58.3%), South America (57.4%), Africa (45.7%), and Asia (42%). Loneliness is reported in 48% of the selected cultures, with particularly high rates among American migrants (95%), Middle Eastern cultures (75%), and Europe (70.6%). In contrast, other regions display moderate (31–40%) to moderately high (41–60%) rates, with lower instances in Africa (35.7%) and South America (29.8%). Data from the PSF indicates the highest percentages of loneliness and solitude in European (100%), Middle Eastern (100%), and North American cultures (87.50%). However, in general, PSF data report higher prevalences of loneliness and solitude than those found in the broader HRAF dataset. In summary, while cross-cultural forms of objective isolation are prevalent, the highest rates are found among European cultures and North American migrant populations. Loneliness is also notably high in the Middle East (75%), but caution is warranted due to its low representativeness in both samples: 1.6% in the PSF and 3.3% in the HRAF. In the following sections, we will examine the data from a qualitative standpoint, pinpointing the context and cultural significance of the cases. 2. Remoteness, loneliness, cooperation One might expect that remote settings or ecologically extreme environments, where subsistence practices often require intermittent migration, would be associated with high rates of loneliness. However, the existing ethnographic evidence does not convincingly support this connection. Although there are specific examples—such as Sarawak women who sing of loneliness while their husbands engage in labor migration for several years (Price, 1993*)—most isolated populations and long-term nomadic groups employ various strategies to cope with or mitigate loneliness. These often involve alternating periods of physical separation with vibrant communal gatherings that reinforce social cohesion and help alleviate feelings of isolation. Cases of explicit environmental isolation are documented among Navajo herders (Leighton & Kluckhohn, 1947*), Basque shepherds and herders (Castelli, 1970: 113*; Douglass, 1997*), and Malay rubber-tappers (Peletz, 1988*), yet neither solitude nor loneliness appears to be a central concern in these contexts. In contrast, most societies (particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Americas) tend to favor collective labor. Kenya’s South Turkana pastoralists cluster to combat loneliness (Dyson-Hudson & McCabe, 1985*), Sherpas counter isolation with conviviality (Fürer-Haimendorf, 1964*), and even solitary Amish individuals experience little actual solitude at the peer-group level (Hostetler, 1980*; Smith, 1987*). The Micronesian Ifaluk (Burrows, 1953*) and Mexican Tarahumara (Kennedy, 1978*) avoid solitary labor, favoring group activities for sociability. Similarly, the Havasupai, a North American nomadic hunting society, gather on any possible occasion (Smithson, 1959*), while in the remote Zapotec mountains, women’s work routines foster connections that would otherwise be unimaginable (Nader, 1990*). In summary, cross-cultural analysis suggests that, although human groups often develop social institutions and strategies to maintain seasonal or occasional contact, such as collective labor, festivities, or ritual gatherings, material or environmental constraints may lead to physical isolation. More significantly, however, the data indicate that physical isolation does not naturally or necessarily give rise to feelings of loneliness. 3. Loneliness: normative, cosmological, and psychological insights Ethnographies demonstrate that loneliness has particular significance in cultural psychology and traditional healing practices, especially within Native American, African, and South American cultures. These societies exhibit a normative and symbolic structure encompassing myths, taboos, beliefs, and magic that reflects a collective fear of isolation and loneliness. This is often personified in spiritual beings, supernatural threats, and illness. For many original North American cultures, loneliness occupies a central place in their mythology and folklore, as widely evidenced by reports concerning the Hopi (Courlander, 1987*), Tlingit (Kan, 1989*), Black Caribe (Taylor, 1951*), Navajo (Reichard, 1950*; Frisbie, 1980*), Cherokee (Mooney, 1982: 656*; Kilpatrick & Kilpatrick, 1965*), Cajun (Ancelet, 1989*), Pawnee and Chippewa (Densmore, 1913: 56*; 1929: 93*). Many Native American cultures allude to loneliness in their dream visions. The Iroquois, for instance, believe that loneliness manifests itself through dreams, revealing the need for a particular friend (St. John, 1994*), and that loneliness is "a state of ecstatic yearning, an otherworldly melancholia peculiarly Cherokeean (…) generally attributed to the sorcery of an enemy" (Kilpatrick & Kilpatrick, 1970: 110*). Also, loneliness plays a relevant role in the folklore of the Carib Garifuna (Hadel, 1989: 205*) and the Papuan Orokaiva (Schwimmer, 1969*), and it is reported that the Dogon's nasalized lyre tone dramatically emulates the desperate solitude associated with ostracism or symbolic exclusion from the community (Calame-Griaule, 1986*). According to the Micronesian Ifaluk’s cosmology, loneliness ( lalomweiu ) embodies one of their four major emotional forces (Lutz, 1982*). Abundant mythological evidence from these cultures consistently suggests that permanent solitude, understood as a prolonged state of personal isolation, is attributed exclusively to superior beings, such as first creators, mythic figures, or gods, as widely documented across Oceania, Asia, and Africa. In this context, it is striking to observe the recurrence of a shared mythological narrative across distant cultures: not only did Adam and Eve live in solitude, but the Orinoco Indians were created by two lonely brother spirits (Wilbert & Muirden, 1963*); Ngai, the Gikuyu creator and giver of all things, had no father, mother, or companion of any kind (Kenyatta, 1953*); the Micronesian deity Kachaw (Goodenough, 1986*) and other Polynesian and Hawaiian gods existed in solitude (Beckwith & Loumala, 1970*); and the Dogon of West Africa believe that “the source of all disorder was the loneliness of the jackal, God’s first-born” (Griaule, 1965: 156*). The association of loneliness with mischievous spirits is also well-documented worldwide, but particularly in Africa. The Tuareg of North Africa (Rasmussen, 2004*), Black nomads of the Sahara (Chapelle & Schütze, 1957*), the Bemba of Central Africa (Maxwell, 1983: 78*), and the Ibo of Nigeria (Uchendu, 1965*) all believe that evil spirits inhabit remote, isolated areas. These spirits, who are characterized by loneliness, envy humans and are thought to attack people. Similarly, the Dyak of Sarawak (Howell, 1908–1910: 53*) and Malay islanders (Valenzuela-Garcia, 2009) also believe malicious spirits dwell in secluded places. The Peruvian Aymara believe that the souls of the dead often attempt to drag relatives and friends along with them to the hereafter (Tchopik, 1951: 213*). For Thais, "pigs and hungry ghosts embody qualities undesirable in humans: sloth and greed in one case, loneliness, and isolation in the other" (Martin, 1981*). And according to Melanesians, noisy crowds and the vitality of humans (regarded as energizing and curing) frighten away evil souls and sorcerers (Lane, 1965*). The connection between loneliness, solitude, and various mental and physical ailments —which in turn many premodern societies frequently associate with supernatural forces and diverse forms of magic—is remarkably evident across cultures. Hostetler (1980*) notes that monks often experience acedia and apathy. The Laotian Hmong believe loneliness can lead to soul loss (Spring, 1989: 67*), while the Burmese attribute disturbed behavior to spirit attacks (Spiro, 1978*). In Samoa, young pregnant wives avoid solitude to prevent ghost attacks (Mead, 1928*), and Sabah fishers claim that loneliness can weaken the soul, increasing one’s vulnerability to spiritual harm (Sather, 1997*). Mexican Americans link loneliness to susto (Kiev, 1968*), and the Honduran Garifuna associate it with gubida or illness sent by deceased relatives' spirits (Bianchi, 1989*). The Javanese believe that social withdrawal is caused by head trauma or neurosis (Weiss, 1982*). Among the Iroquois and Hopis, loneliness and psychosomatic issues require a medicine man’s intervention (St. John, 1994*; Titiev, 1972*), while the Ojibwa seek solitude in the forest to cope with loneliness, grief, or sorrow (Kohl & Wraxall, 1860*). In contexts of social disruption or transformation—often shaped by processes such as colonization, displacement, or economic marginalization—loneliness is also closely linked to alcohol abuse. This link is documented among Kagodo islanders in Korea (Han, 1977*), Hebridean crofting communities (Coleman, 1984*), and the Kaska Dena of British Columbia (Honigmann et al., 1949*), among others, particularly in non-Western or postcolonial settings. In summary, solitude emerges as a central yet ambivalent condition across cultures, valued in sacred or ritual contexts, yet feared or stigmatized in everyday life. Ethnographic evidence reveals that loneliness and social isolation are widely perceived as undesirable states that are often linked to supernatural forces, illness, and moral disorder. These associations are particularly salient in Native American, African, and South American cultures, where loneliness is not only a personal feeling but a cosmological and social threat. The cross-cultural pattern suggests that, far from being purely individual or a modern condition, loneliness is deeply embedded in collective world views and ritual systems. 4. Deviation and social control According to Oliver (1949*), the Suai of the Solomon Islands preferred to separate their hamlets by a considerable distance and sought solitude when the bustle of the village became too much for them. However, cases like the Suai are highly exceptional. The prevailing norm in all societies is gregarious behavior and the frequent occurrence of social gatherings to alleviate loneliness in the form of communal activities, ceremonies, and worship, as seen among Muslim Kurds (Hansen, 1961*), the Nupe of Nigeria (Nadel, 1954*), the Vietnamese (Rambo, 1982*), Mormons (Nelson, 1952*), and the Amish (Hostetler & Huntington, 1971*). By contrast, Siberian Yakuts believe that a large population is essential for happiness, and they view solitude unfavorably (Sioroszewski, 1933*). Among the Navajo, feeling alone is seen as unfortunate (Reichard, 1950*). Social pressure to belong is widespread, and the fear of rejection or neglect by relatives and acquaintances often reinforces bonds of solidarity and brotherhood across different cultures, including the Central American Garifuna (Bianchi, 1989*), South American Aymara (Tschopik, 1952*), Khmer (Ebihara, 1971*), Thais (Mulder, 1996*), Chinese Nosu tribes (Pollard, 1921*), Apache (Perry, 1993*), Shona (Gelfand, 1981*), and Russians (Gorer, 1949*). In fact, lonely and solitary individuals are viewed with suspicion in many cultures. For example, Samoans believe that only wrongdoing occurs in solitude (Mead, 1928*), while Puerto Ricans (Mintz, 1966*), the ¡Kung San (Lee, 1979*; Marshall, 1961*), Scots (Parman, 1990*), Javanese Ponorogo (Weiss, 1982*), and Baghestanis (Horne, 1994*) express distrust toward lonely people. Such behavior is often linked to deviance, eccentricity, or wickedness, as seen in rural Ghana (Field, 1970*), among the Ibo of Nigeria (Green, 1964*), and the Shona of Rhodesia (Gelfand & Hannan, 1967*). Women accused of witchcraft are isolated in communities like the Bedouin (Abu-Lughod, 1986*), Canelos Quichua (Whitten, 2010*), and among Ghanese peasants (Field, 1970*). In the Trobriand Islands (Melanesia), individuals with physical deformities or diseases were excluded from social activities (Malinowski, 1929*). Among the Kanuri of West Africa (Cohen, 1960*), pre-industrial Japanese (Beardsley et al., 1972*), and Korean women (Hulbert, 1906*), higher social status is often correlated with increased seclusion and loneliness. Even in highly sexually segregated societies, women often gather to combat isolation, as observed among Turks (Stirling, 1965*), Mexican Zapotec (Nader, 1990*), and Kenyan Gusii mothers (LeVine & Lloyd, 1966*). For males, specific spaces often serve this function, like Irish pubs (Taylor, 1985*), Zapotec cantinas (Nader, 1990*), and Spanish bars (Mullard, personal communication), which serve as compensatory spaces of sociability and reinforce male bonding. Beyond spontaneous distrust, many societies have formalized solitude as a tool of punishment and social control. Forced seclusion is the standard mechanism of social control or punishment across cultures. Ostracism (i.e., individual exclusion from a society or group) is one of the harshest punishments for Fijians (Routledge, 2020*), Andean Quichua (Whitten, 2010*), and South American Mataco (Alvarsson & Beierle, 1997*), and the chief punishment for the transgression of fundamental rules and codes of behavior in the case of the American Native Papago (Underhill, 1939*), Cherokee (Reid, 1970*), Yakut (Siorozzewski, 1933*), and the G/wi of the Kalahari (Silberbauer, 1965*). In many cultural and historical contexts, enforced isolation becomes the ultimate form of symbolic and psychological punishment. In traditional Greece, withdrawal and isolation are equivalent to social death, and "the strongest sanction is to ignore one's opponent and thereby effectively deny his social existence" (Hirschon, 1978: 76*). Among Copper Inuit, suicide has been reported as a response to social rejection (Condon, 1987: 186*), and for the Yagahn nomads and hunter-gatherers of Cape Horn, the most severe punishment that can be inflicted on a child is to have its parents send it away in solitude or make it leave the hut (Gusinde & Schütze, 1937: 559*). During the deportations in Turkey from 1923 to 1938, Kurds were scattered and dispersed in groups of just a few families with the hope that isolation and loneliness would break the will of these people to retain their identity (Izady, 1992*). In wartime, Yugoslavs who were in solitary confinement in prisons and camps revealed that complete loneliness is one of the heaviest strains for a human being to bear (Erlich, 1966*). In summary, cross-cultural data reveal strong symbolic and normative frameworks that discourage solitude, eccentricity, and social deviance. Solitary individuals are often viewed with suspicion or moral disapproval, and imposed isolation is widely perceived as a severe form of punishment. From everyday mechanisms of social control to extreme institutional responses, loneliness and solitude are frequently treated not only as undesirable states but as threats to communal harmony and the cultural order. This reinforces the idea that relational embeddedness is a central value in most human societies and that solitude, far from being neutral, is often morally and politically charged. 5. Institutionalized isolation Despite the widespread aversion to loneliness and the frequent association of seclusion with punishment, many cultures tolerate, or even encourage, voluntary isolation under specific, culturally sanctioned circumstances. In most societies, seclusion is socially acceptable when pursued for purposes of meditation, introspection, creativity, or mind-body transformation (e.g., through altered states of consciousness). Even in the West, one might recall the acknowledged cultural trope of the ‘loner’, which frames solitude not as deprivation or social failure, but as a personal choice (or even a form of virtue) associated with autonomy, depth, or resistance to conformity. Such practices are documented among Thai peasants (Phillips, 1966*), Hebridean islanders (Kohl, 1955*), Rwandan hunters (Pagés & Scholl, 1933*), the Melanesian Canaque (Lenhart, 1979*), the Jivaro (Reiss, 1880*), African-American Gullahs (Creel, 1988*), the Nuer and Dinka of Sudan (Evans-Pritchard, 1956*), and the Ghanaian Ashanti (Rattray, 1927*). Among Native American groups, such introspective retreats are especially prevalent, as they often serve as pathways to spiritual knowledge and empowerment through communion with nature: thunder, wind, trees, or spirits. One of the most extensively documented examples is the Ojibwa practice of bodily mortification in solitude to gain protection from spiritual forces (Jennes, 1935*; Benton-Banai, 1979*; Shkilnyk, 1985*; Schmalz, 1991*). Similar practices appear among the Tarahumara (Bennett & Zingg, 1935*), Apache (Opler, 1969: 211*), Uaupés (Silva & Lilios, 1962*), Tlingit (Krause, 1956*), Bloods (Mountain, 1979*), Hopi (Titiev, 1944*), Chippewa (Densmore, 1913*), Gros Ventre (Fowler, 1987*), Kapauku Papuans (Pospisil, 1958*), and Khoi pastoralists (Boonzaier, 2010*). In Tierra del Fuego, novice hunters once spent up to two years in solitude, accompanied only by a dog (Lothrop, 1928*; Chapman, 1982*). Ethnographic evidence further shows that sustained or repeated voluntary isolation is typically reserved for ritual specialists and spiritual intermediaries. Zulu diviners (Raum, 1973*), Guajira sorcerers (Pineda & Muirden, 1950*), Brazilian shamans (Yves & Métraux, 1864*), and hermits from Tibetan, Greek, Russian Orthodox, or Islamic traditions (Bell Sir, 1931*; Campbell & Sherrard, 1968*; Rathburn, 1988*) all undergo ritualized seclusion. Comparable roles exist among Brooklyn Jews (Strom, 1993*), Burmans (Scott, 1910*), Amhara sorceresses (Levine, 1965*), and Moroccan messianic figures in the High Atlas (Berque & Bigwood, 1955*). Shamans from cultures as diverse as the Tlingit, Kaska (Honingman, 1954*), Barotse (Reynolds, 1983*), and Huichol (Zingg, 1938*) also seek solitude to mediate with the spirits. Crucially, these forms of isolation are institutionally legitimized and reserved for individuals of high social prestige. In summary, while loneliness is broadly perceived as undesirable, and while isolation often functions as a form of punishment, many societies make cultural allowances for voluntary seclusion, particularly in connection with spiritual or creative pursuits. Enduring isolation, however, is rarely generalized, but remains a culturally codified exception, typically limited to ritually defined roles. 5.1. Rites of passage Alongside meditation, rites of passage represent another major cultural domain in which short-term isolation is accepted and socially sanctioned. In particular, puberty initiation rituals, which signal a critical transition in social status for both girls and boys, often entail periods of seclusion, fasting, and the observance of taboos. These practices are typically embedded within collective logics of transformation, and thus feelings of loneliness are rare, as initiates are eventually reabsorbed into the broader group, their altered status being publicly acknowledged. Accounts of such rites are widespread across ethnographic contexts. In our sample, they are richly described among the Orokaiva, Aiga, and Binandele of Papua New Guinea (Williams & Murray, 1930*), the Lesu of Melanesia (Powdermaker, 1933*), the Yapese of Polynesia (Lingenfelter, 1979*), and the Tiwi of Australia (Goodale, 1971*). Similar patterns are documented among numerous Native American groups, such as the Assiniboine (Miller, 2002*), Yurok (Kroeber, 1925: 45*), Papago (Underhill, 1946*), and Nehalem (Jacobs, 2003*; Lurie, 2010*). In Africa, we find parallel practices among the Burundi (Meyer, 1916*), Zulu (Raum, 1973*), Dogon (Calame-Griaule, 1986*), Luguru (Mluanda, 1971*), and Ovimbundu (Hambly, 1934*). Comparable rituals are also noted among the Canela of Brazil (Crocker, 1990*), the Wayuu of La Guajira in Colombia (Gutiérrez & Muirden, 1950*), and populations in West Bengal (Klass, 1978*). In many of these societies, women undergo stricter forms of seclusion than men, often due to associations with reproductive capacity and ritual purity. For instance, Nehalem Timalook menstruating women are secluded for as long as two months (Jacobs, 2003*), a practice mirrored among the Haida (Blackman, 1990*), Melanesians (Carrier & Carrier, 1991*), Yurok (Kroeber, 1925*), Orokaiva (Williams & Murray, 1930*), Semai (Dentan, 1988*), and in the case of Calabash girls (Price, 1993*). Moreover, in some cultural contexts, a higher social status implies longer or more rigorous periods of isolation, as observed among the Haida, Kurds (Hansen, 1961*), and Koreans (Hulbert, 1906*). A striking example of gendered isolation is found among the Tarahumara, where women give birth in solitude (Fried, 1951*). Despite these varied practices, explicit associations between seclusion and loneliness appear only sporadically in the ethnographic record. They tend to emerge in Middle Eastern and Asian societies, where seclusion (especially of women) is often prolonged and highly restrictive. In sum, while short-term ritual seclusion during initiation rites is widespread and culturally valued, it rarely produces feelings of loneliness due to its symbolic function and communal reintegration. However, in contexts where female seclusion is stricter and more prolonged, experiences of solitude and even loneliness may become more salient, albeit unevenly reported. 5.2. Marriage and loneliness In a high percentage of cultures, marriage emerges as a key institution for preventing loneliness. A classic ethnographic illustration is provided by Gillin’s portrayal of the Barama River Caribs, which serves as a representative case for many other societies: "Practically every individual in the community over the age of about twenty is married or has definite plans to be married. Universal matrimony thus obviates dependency occasioned by old age as well as loneliness. Children of one or the other of the spouses by previous marriages may be included in the family group. If both parents of young children die, they are usually adopted by the maternal grandparents. Children of deceased relatives are, however, often adopted." (Gillin, 1936: 80*) However, the relationship between marriage and solitude is far from simple. While marriage often provides protection against isolation, it can also trigger feelings of estrangement, particularly in the early stages. This is especially frequent among women, due to patrilocal residence patterns, which are dominant in 71% of the world’s cultures (according to the Ethnographic Atlas). Although similar detachment is sometimes experienced by men in matrilocal contexts, as in the case of Bajau bridegrooms (Nimmo, 1972*), it is more commonly documented among women. Supporting examples include the Kikuyu in Kenya (Davison, 1996*), Mundurucú (Murphy & Murphy, 1985: 223*), Ona hunter-gatherers of Tierra del Fuego (Gusinde, 1931*), Chukchee (Bogoraz-Tan et al., 1904*), G/wi (Silberbauer, 1965*), and Japanese brides (Beardsley et al., 1972*). Polygynous arrangements also present a notable case of female (subjective) loneliness, as women must navigate competitive or asymmetrical marital environments. More broadly, conflictive or emotionally distant marital relationships frequently generate loneliness, as seen among the Burmese (Spiro, 1977*), Naskapi hunter-gatherers (Henriksen, 1973: 62*), Tuareg (Rasmussen, 1991*), rural Malays (Valenzuela, 2009), Native Australians along the Finer River (Schulze & Tepper, 1891*), Mormons (Jankowiak, 2008*), and the Gikiyu (Cox & Mberia, 2004*). Nevertheless, these feelings of estrangement tend to diminish over time, especially with prolonged cohabitation and the arrival of children. In cultures where biological offspring are absent, adoption often becomes a strategy to mitigate loneliness, as illustrated by the Blackfoot (Hanks, 1950*), elderly Hokkien women (Wolf, 1969*), and Ndiki women, who arrange complex inter-clan adoptions (Dugast, 1959*). Other compensatory arrangements include reliance on sons-in-law for support in old age, as among the Warao of Venezuela (Suárez, 1971*), or the companionship of pets, as observed among childless Garo couples in India (Rongmuthu, 1960*). Despite its limitations, marriage is widely preferred to solitude. As Wolf (1969*) notes, elderly Hokkien women would rather live in a shared household than die alone, "in a lonely room without the comfort of relatives." Similar sentiments are expressed among traditional Greeks (Hirschon, 1978*) and Cururú River tribes (Murphy & Murphy, 1985*), where the spouse is regarded as a companion in the struggle against isolation. In many cultural contexts, singlehood (especially among women) is socially disapproved. Unmarried women may be subjected to suspicion, moral scrutiny, or symbolic vulnerability, which increases their exposure to loneliness. These dynamics are well documented among the Garifuna (Bianchi, 1989*), in Sarawak (Winzeler, 1991*), Turkey (Stirling, 1965), and Iran (Nassehi-Behnam, 1985*). The pressure to avoid solitude also shapes widowhood: the tendency of widowers to remarry, as seen in traditional Greece (Hirschon, 1989*), northern Mexico (Merrill, 1988*), and among the Kaska (Honigmann & Bennet, 1949*), underscores the social and emotional costs of long-term solitude and the cultural value of relational reintegration. In a nutshell, while marriage is generally an effective remedy for loneliness, it may initially be accompanied by feelings of isolation, particularly among women. Over time, however, such feelings are often alleviated through emotional bonds, shared life experiences, and the inclusion of children or adopted kin. Across most cultures, women experience the loneliness of marriage and its absence more acutely, reflecting broader gendered structures of sociality and dependence. 5.3. Old age, death, and uprooting Loneliness linked to aging, uprootedness, and proximity to death emerges as a near-universal experience across cultures. These situations frequently give rise to forms of existential loneliness , grounded not only in social disconnection, but also in feelings of loss, finitude, and profound life transitions. Although such loneliness might appear inevitable, its meaning and intensity are always culturally shaped, modulated by normative expectations and by the presence (or absence) of institutional or familial support. Old age, for example, often leads to greater solitude due to factors such as declining health or the loss of a spouse (Ennew, 1980*). Yet, even in this case, solitude does not necessarily mean loneliness. In many small-scale rural societies, elders continue to enjoy symbolic authority and social value and are commonly cared for by family networks. This is the case among the Akan of Ghana, where old age is associated not with neglect but with increased respect and attention: old age is not tied to loneliness and neglect but to increased respect and family care (Warren, 1986*). However, when aging intersects with poverty, loneliness becomes more prevalent, as documented among Chicana widows (Miranda et al., 1981), Brazilian caboclos and Mundurucú (Murphy & Murphy, 1985*), urban Brazilians (Bichir & Marques, 2012), Hawaiians (Gallimore & Howard, 1968*), the Nuer (Hutchinson, 1980: 380*), Saramakans (Price, 1993: 167*), rural North Americans (Hannan, 1979), and Russians (Benet, 1974*). In such cases, the erosion of social ties is compounded by material precarity, reinforcing feelings of abandonment. Death also triggers reflections on loneliness in many societies, affecting both the living and the deceased. Among the Assiniboine, for example, it is customary to kill a favorite horse or dog at the grave, with the aim of reducing the loneliness of the deceased (Miller, 2002*). The Karanga of Africa believe that dead men become homeless and lonely (Aschwanden & Cooper, 1987*). In several Asian cultures, the isolation of widows and the stigma attached to their status has been identified as a factor in suicidal ideation, notably among the Chinese, Manchu, and Indian populations (Elliott, 1999*). There are also cases like that of the Bombay husband, who hanged himself driven by loneliness and despair after being abandoned by his wife (Elwin, 1943*). Across cultures, grief and mourning often lead to voluntary withdrawal from social life, as shown in the Caribbean (González, 1988*). Yet the opposite may also occur: in some contexts, funerary rituals spark communal gatherings, feasting, and intoxication, as in Chichicastenango, Guatemala (Buzel, 1952: 83*), where death becomes an occasion for reaffirming social bonds. In summary, although aging itself does not inherently cause loneliness, conditions such as poverty, weakened kinship ties, and intergenerational tensions can exacerbate vulnerability to it. In extreme cases, profound isolation leads to suicide, particularly among socially marginalized or abandoned individuals. In many cultures, loneliness is understood metaphorically as a form of social death, a condition that strips individuals of recognition, reciprocity, and meaningful belonging. Having explored cross-cultural patterns and established general trends, we can affirm that, while loneliness is deeply shaped by local material, relational, and symbolic conditions, some of the most persistent and emotionally intense cases in our sample are linked to broader processes of social disembedding. This calls for a closer examination of a particularly salient cluster: chronic loneliness in modern Western contexts, where relational structures appear more fragmented, and individualization is more pronounced. 6. The lonely West? Chronic loneliness and the erosion of relational structures While analyzing the ethnographic patterns of loneliness in our sample, I identified a recurrent cluster of chronic, emotionally distressing experiences emerging in several Western contexts. These accounts were often marked by long-term social disconnection, weakened kinship ties, and a sense of institutional abandonment. Rather than framing these patterns through a simplistic binary between “Western” and “traditional” societies, I interpret them as manifestations of broader processes of socio-material and institutional disembedding associated with late modernity. In this sense, the key distinction is not civilizational but relational: loneliness tends to become chronic when social ties are no longer rooted in dense, reciprocal, and institutionally supported networks. This includes individuals who feel emotionally alone even when not physically isolated. In such cases, loneliness refers to a subjective sense of disconnection and emotional distress, though this often overlaps with objective isolation. These conditions are more frequent in contexts shaped by urbanization, mobility, individualization, and weakened intergenerational bonds. Yet such dynamics are not exclusive to the West. The ethnographic cases in our sample, along with recent studies from low- and middle-income countries (Akhter-Khan et al. 2022, 2023, 2024; Kwegyir Tsiboe 2019; Roos et al. 2019), show that similar experiences emerge amid rapid social change, economic precarity, and shifting moral economies of care. By shifting the focus from cultural blocks to relational regimes, we move beyond static or essentialist comparisons and instead highlight how loneliness arises from the transformation of specific forms of social embeddedness. This is grounded not only in comparative ethnographic evidence but also in the reflexive accounts of anthropologists themselves, who often have to grapple with their own loneliness, displacement, and the transformation of communal life. These self-reflective passages function as ethnographic metacommentaries, situated judgments grounded in a deep familiarity with both the specific cultural context and broader comparative frames. They often illuminate not only the analyst’s positionality but also the layered dynamics of loneliness, belonging, and displacement as experienced and interpreted from within the ethnographic encounter. Thus, quite often, ethnographies contain etic reflections on loneliness and estrangement, as anthropological fieldwork itself is frequently a solitary practice, often marked by homesickness and emotional distancing. Examples include Chagnon among the Yanomami (1968*), Lancaster among the Blackfoot (1966*), Herskovits on colonial officials in Haiti (1937*), and various Arctic ethnographies (Befu, 1970*; De Coccola et al., 1986*). Typically, this loneliness is overcome through progressive integration into local communities, as seen in work by Kerns (1983*). Upon leaving her field site, Abu-Lughod wrote: “It is a quiet life I will miss. There is no loneliness, always someone to sit with. I feel so much part of something here. I don’t remember ever feeling that before” (1986: xiii*). In this context, many anthropologists also reflect on the impact of modernity on communal life, emphasizing how processes such as globalization, imperialism, modernity or evangelism disrupt established relational practices. This theme appears in works such as Fenton & Tooker (1978*) on Native Americans, Weltfish (1965*) on the Pawnee, Lowenberg (1984*) on Scottish villagers, and Simic (1978*) with Yugoslav farmers. Across these cases, there is an increasing emphasis on the connection between loneliness, processes of urbanization and migration, and their psychosocial consequences, ranging from anxiety and depression to somatization, substance abuse, and even suicide. This is particularly acute among North American migrant populations, where loneliness prevalence rates can reach up to 95%. Common causes include uprootedness, cultural estrangement, and social invisibility. A poignant example is that of an elderly Chinese man in San Francisco: “I am an old man now, and I feel lonely all the time. I can't find anyone to talk with (…) I live all by myself in this apartment. My children hardly come here to see me. I have a feeling they don't want me” (Tsai, 1986*). The HRAF have numerous similar examples, especially among migrant communities in the US and Canada, namely Chinese (Mirak, 1983*; Thompson, 1989*; Tseng, 1975*), Koreans (Lee, 1977*; Hurh & Kim, 1983*), Hmong (Koltyk, 1998*; Lynch et al., 1995*), Indochinese (Rick, 1990*), Italians (Gans, 1982*; Alessandrini, 1986*), Chicanos (Miranda et al., 1981*; Vélez-Ibáñez, 1996*), other Latinos (Suárez-Orozco, 1995*; Padilla, 1958*; García, 1996*; Chavez, 1998*), and Syrians (Kayal & Kayal, 1975*; Naff, 1985*). In summary, cross-cultural evidence indicates that experiences of loneliness are not confined to any particular type of society, but tend to emerge in relation to broader sociohistorical processes linked to modernity, such as migration, urbanization, and the weakening of institutional and kin-based forms of relational support. Rather than being a symptom of modernity per se, loneliness appears where social ties are destabilized, care structures eroded, and individuals left to navigate increasingly fragmented relational landscapes. While the meanings and manifestations of loneliness are shaped by local symbolic frameworks and cultural scripts, a recurrent pattern across diverse contexts is the dissolution of relational bonds once anchored in shared norms, reciprocal expectations, and socially embedded institutions of care and belonging. Conclusion The following conclusions summarize the findings, address the initial research questions (supported by additional research whenever feasible), and offer a final reflection. RQ1 Is loneliness a universally shared feeling, or is it merely an epiphenomenon of modern Western society? Cross-cultural manifestations of objective and subjective isolation are prevalent in virtually all societies, suggesting that the experience of loneliness is universal. Although specific regions, such as the Middle East, show noteworthy rates of objective (isolation, seclusion, social withdrawal) and subjective isolation (loneliness and solitude), the highest rates of subjective isolation are observed among European cultures and North American migrant populations, which also score very high in isolation and social withdrawal. According to the HRAF data, North American populations of migrant origin display the highest rates of loneliness (95%) and solitude (65%), and very high rates of social withdrawal (90%) and seclusion (70%). European cultures show the highest rates of solitude (70%), loneliness (70.6%), a very high occurrence of isolation (100%), and high rates of seclusion (76.5%). Although the representation of European cultures is modest and lower than in other regions (4.7% of the whole sample), the PSF back up those ratios. Overall, the cross-cultural ethnographic data analyzed here appear to support what has been called the Lonely West hypothesis, namely a general positive association between loneliness and processes of modernization. These include industrialization, technological development, urbanization, normative individualism, and secularization. While not uniform across all contexts, these processes tend to erode embedded relational structures and contribute to increased experiences of disconnection, particularly in late-modern settings. These findings are consistent with recent studies: for instance, Blaginin et al. (2018) highlight the rise of loneliness in megacities,[1] attributing it largely to growing individualism,[2] while MacDonald et al. (2020) identify urban density and reduced social engagement as key predictors of loneliness. This pattern coincides with the weakening of relational structures that were once central to communal and small-scale traditional life, such as family networks, religious communities, and local rituals. However, this does not imply the disappearance of institutions altogether. Late modernity entails a transformation rather than a dissolution of institutional forms (Augé, 1992; Bauman, 2000). Institutions often persist, but in more fluid, fragmented, and individualized configurations. Schools, families, and workplaces still operate, yet their ability to generate stable, morally binding, and reciprocal social ties has significantly declined. From this perspective, loneliness arises not from institutional voids, but from their declining capacity to root individuals in thick, lasting forms of relational life. RQ2 Is there any cross-cultural pattern or constant in the perception and experience of loneliness? Scrutiny of the ethnographic data reveals several fundamental patterns that are shared across cultures. Virtually all societies distinguish objective isolation (i.e., being alone) from subjective isolation (i.e., feeling lonely). In contrast, in most societies, solitude acquires a more ambiguous character: it is regarded as positive when chosen but harmful when undesired, often leading to feelings of loneliness. Contrary to expectations, factors such as remoteness, low population densities, and environmental constraints do not necessarily result in loneliness , given that different societies engage in socio-economic activities that promote regular gatherings and dispel solitude and loneliness. Most cultures prefer gregarious activities to individual ones. While solitary places and forms of conduct are observed with distrust and suspicion, permanent states of isolation are considered states of superior entities (e.g., creators, gods). Occasional isolation and seclusion are not only tolerated but often valorized when situated within normative practices with cultural significance, such as rites of passage or spiritual exercises. Loneliness is seldom reported in these contexts, as ritual seclusion is followed by reintegration into the communal fabric. When it does surface, it tends to do so in settings where gender-based segregation is particularly rigid or prolonged. A broader cross-cultural pattern also emerges here: women appear more likely to experience loneliness with greater intensity, reflecting both structural inequalities and differentiated normative expectations. Prolonged or permanent states of seclusion are typically reserved for ritual specialists—who often occupy positions of elevated symbolic status—or for cosmological beings such as gods, spirits, and creators. Beyond these exceptional cases, long-term and involuntary isolation is rare and generally associated with punitive practices. As Södenberg and Fry (2017) note, it is commonly imposed only in response to serious transgressions of core moral or communal norms. When sustained, seclusion , social withdrawal , loneliness , and ostracism have deeply corrosive effects on individual well-being. Across cultures, such conditions are frequently explained in terms of supernatural affliction or attributed to morally deviant or socially anomalous individuals. Loneliness is experienced across cultures with deep-seated aversion, and it is often the object of moral, symbolic, and folkloric concern, since it is a fundamental catalyst for psychological or physical anguish. Degrees of solitude and loneliness vary throughout the life-cycle and may be critical at certain moments (e.g., first stages of marriage, divorce, or widowhood), showing a slightly higher prevalence among elderly females than males, which is congruent with recent studies (Boehlen et al., 2023). However, although aging may imply solitude, it is not synonymous with loneliness in any significant way. Finally, alongside processes of individualism, migration, and urbanization, poverty seems to be a significant predictor of loneliness. Impoverished individuals usually have smaller social networks than their non-poor counterparts (Refaeli & Achdut, 2002) because in modern societies access to recreational spaces for socializing is increasingly compromised by the availability of economic resources (Valenzuela-García, 2022). RQ3 What mechanisms or strategies do cultures use to cope with and alleviate loneliness? Although the feeling of loneliness is frequently related to specific life crises (e.g., divorce, widowhood, death of a child, etc.), societies often have institutional mechanisms and social arrangements to counteract it. Marriage can be regarded as the main institutional remedy for loneliness, despite its ambiguities. In this case, although instances of loneliness are reported among newlyweds and in polygynous marriages, long-term cohabitation, especially with the arrival of children, tends to alleviate these feelings. Lonely elders often find solace within extended families, where they are cared for by the wider community. Similarly, widowers often seek companionship through remarriage, driven not only by practical considerations but also to alleviate their sense of solitude. Adoption, too, is a widespread social practice that counteracts loneliness on the part of the adopter and adoptees too. Rituals and folklore, as seen across cultures, often serve as powerful channels for containing and transforming feelings of loneliness. Through communal gatherings, religious ceremonies, collective labor, and seasonal festivities, societies weave affective ties that reaffirm belonging and mutual care. Ethnographic and experimental data alike point to a widespread tendency to privilege collaboration over solitude, an inclination deeply rooted in the human condition and supported by cross-cultural evidence (see Molina et al., 2017). In conclusion, ethnographic findings reveal a rich repertoire of symbolic, moral, and institutional mechanisms that are widely shared across societies and that act to forestall undesired isolation. Rather than passive responses, these forms of social regulation constitute active, culturally embedded strategies to sustain cohesion and protect against the corrosive effects of loneliness . A final reflection: loneliness, reciprocity, and the cost of disconnection It may sound like a cliché, but loneliness resonates unexpectedly with two of Marcel Mauss’s central concepts: the total social fact and the gift (1925). It cuts across the moral, emotional, economic, legal, and religious domains, condensing in a single experience the intricate interplay between social structures and cultural meanings. Loneliness, in this sense, is not merely a private feeling but a prism through which the interdependence of social life becomes visible: how we belong, how we give and receive, and how we are (or are not) recognized. As the testimonies of anthropologists and migrants show, uprootedness, estrangement, and marginality often culminate in profound solitude. Put simply, loneliness arises when there is no one to share with : the displaced ethnographer far from home, the migrant severed from daily routines, the elderly person left without conversation, the young bride in an unfamiliar family, the widow or divorcée without kin. At its core, loneliness is a relational condition—not the absence of people, but the collapse of reciprocity. And herein lies the second resonance with Mauss: if loneliness signals the breakdown of those fundamental exchanges through which lives are sustained and made meaningful, then reciprocity (the gift ) is its remedy. Where social ties allow the circulation of material, symbolic, and emotional resources, they generate belonging, care, and recognition. As Parsons (2020) reminds us, it is this flow of reciprocity that protects individuals from the isolating drift of modern life. More than sixty years ago, the anthropologist D.R. Mace offered an insight that feels even more urgent today: Our experience of living in the Orient, in Africa, even in southern European and Caribbean communities, as well as in the Soviet Union, convinces us that the middle-class Western obsession about getting away from other people does not represent typical human psychology (…) For loneliness, the sense of isolation from one's fellows is the root cause of many of the personal and social problems in our Western world. (Mace, 1963: 117) As social cohesion weakens, loneliness and relational vulnerability become structural challenges. It is both puzzling and troubling that in so-called advanced and hyperconnected societies, more and more people find themselves condemned to solitude. The growing phenomenon of lonely deaths in countries like Norway (Hauge & Kirkevold, 2012), the United States (Twenge et al., 2019), and Japan (Allison, 2013) should not only alarm us, but compel us to reflect. These solitary deaths stand in stark contrast to the situation in many premodern societies, where solitude is feared, stigmatized, or actively discouraged. Within such symbolic and normative frameworks lies a collective effort to resist radical individualism and the unraveling of social life. Paradoxically, the very ideals that have propelled modernity, such as autonomy, mobility, or liberalism, may have also eroded the principles of reciprocity, mutual obligation, and communal belonging. In this light, loneliness appears to be the high price paid for the pursuit of unbounded freedom and economic progress. In a world increasingly shaped by demographic transitions, technological change, and the weakening of stable social ties, loneliness emerges as a central problem for understanding human wellbeing across cultures. An anthropology of loneliness is therefore not merely descriptive but diagnostic, revealing how different societies recognize, regulate, and attempt to alleviate experiences of isolation. Comparative inquiry shows that while loneliness is a widespread human condition, cultures differ significantly in the symbolic frameworks, moral expectations, and social arrangements through which relational life is sustained. By examining these variations, anthropology can contribute to current debates on mental health, social suffering, and the conditions that make meaningful belonging possible in contemporary societies. Declarations Author Contribution H.V.-G. conceived the study, conducted the research, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. Acknowledgment [Deleted due to anonymization] Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are derived from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) database. Access to these data is subject to the HRAF license and is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Abbott, B. (2023). Loneliness Isn’t Just Bad for Your Health—It’s Deadly. The Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/loneliness-social-isolation-death-577009bb Adamczyk, K. (2016). An Investigation of Loneliness and Perceived Social Support Among Single and Partnered Young Adults. Current Psychology, 35 , 674–689 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7 Allison, Anne (2013). Precarious Japan . Duke University Press. Astell-Burt, T., Hartig, T., Putra, I. G. N. E., Walsan, R., Dendup, T., & Feng, X. (2022). Green space and Loneliness: A systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. The Science of the total environment , 847:157521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157521 Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity (J. Howe, Trans.). Verso. (Original work published 1992) Barreto, M. C., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., & Qualter, P. (2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences , 169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. SAGE Publications. Bichir, R. M. and Marques, E. (2012). Poverty and sociability in Brazilian metropolises: comparing poor people's personal networks in São Paulo and Salvador. Connections 32 (1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12300 Blaginin, V., Ergunova, O., & Pyankova, S. (2018). Loneliness as a social problem of a modern metropolis. In F. Casati, G. А. Barysheva, & W. Krieger (Eds.)., Lifelong Wellbeing in the World - WELLSO 2017, vol 38. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 71–79). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.9 Barzeva S. A., Meeus, W. H. J., Oldehinkel A. J. (2019). Social withdrawal in adolescence and early adulthood: Measurement issues, normative development, and distinct trajectories. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 47 :865. https://doi.org.10.1007/s10802-018-0497-4 Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity . Polity Press. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences . SAGE Publications. Boehlen, F.H., Heider, D., Schellberg, D. et al. (2023). Gender-specific association of loneliness and health care use in community-dwelling older adults. BMC Geriatr 23 , 502. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04201-9 Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender Differences in Loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111006 Cacioppo, J. T., and Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection . Norton & Co. Casal, B., Ribera, B. E., & Rodríguez, E. (2023). El coste de la soledad no deseada en España. Observatorio Estatal de la Soledad No Deseada . Fundación Once. Castells, Manuel. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010. Chen, V. T. (2015). Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. University of California Press. Chen J. & Gong, L. (2022). Loneliness in urbanising China. Heath and Social Care in the Community, 30 (3):e812-e822. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13451 Coplan, R. J., Bowker, J. C. (2013). A Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation . Wiley Blackwell. Cruces, F. (2022). Metropolitan intimacies. An ethnography on the poetics of daily life . Lexington books. De Jong Gierveld, J. (1998). A review of Loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8 (1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259898008090 Díaz Nicolás, J. & Morenos Páez, M. (2015). La soledad en España. Fundación ONCE y Fundación AXA Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective . University of Chicago Press. Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1939) Ember, C. R. (2007). Using the HRAF Collection of Ethnography in Conjunction with the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample and the Ethnographic Atlas. Cross-Cultural Research, 41 (4), 396–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397107306593 Ember, C. R, and Ember, M. (2024). Basic Guide to Cross-Cultural Research. Human Relation Area Files. Cultural Information for education and research. https://hraf.yale.edu/cross-cultural-research/basic-guide-to-cross-cultural-research/#sampling-within-the-hraf-collection Franklin, A. (2012). A lonely society? Loneliness and liquid modernity in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47: 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2012.tb00232.x Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press. Golden, J., Conroy, R. M., Bruce, I., Denihan, A., Greene, E., Kirby, M., & Lawlor, B. A. (2009). Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. International journal of geriatric psychiatry , 24(7), 694–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2181 Grenier, A., Burke, E., Currie, G., Watson, S., & Ward, J. (2022). Social Isolation in Later Life: The Importance of Place, Disadvantage and Diversity. Journal of aging & social policy , 34 (3), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2021.1886637 Hauge, S., & Kirkevold, M. (2012). Variations in older persons' descriptions of the burden of loneliness. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 26 (3), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00965.x Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of behavioral medicine: a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 40 (2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8 Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: a literature review. Clinical psychology review , 26 (6), 695–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002 Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10 (2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352 Jankowiak W., and Ramsey, A. (2000). Femme Fatale and Status Fatale: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cross-Cultural Research , 34(1): 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400104 Karnick P. M. (2005). Feeling lonely: theoretical perspectives. Nursing science quarterly, 18 (1), 7–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318404272483 Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York: Penguin Books. Leigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., & Caan, W. (2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public health, 152 , 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035 Lindgren, B. M., Sundbaum, J., Eriksson, M., & Graneheim, U. H. (2014). Looking at the world through a frosted window: experiences of loneliness among persons with mental ill-health. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 21 (2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12053 Lykes, V. A., Kemmelmeier, M. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45 (3), 468–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113509881 MacDonald, K. J., Willemsen, G., Boomsma, D. I. and Schermer, J. A. (2020). Predicting Loneliness from Where and What People Do. Social Sciences 9 (4):51. https://doi.org.10.3390/socsci9040051 Magnhild, N. & Thorsen, K. (2014). Loneliness among men and women: a five-year follow-up study. Aging & Mental Health, 18 (2): 194–206. https://doi.org.10.1080/13607863.2013.821457 Matias, T., Dominski, F. H., & Marks, D. F. (2020). Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. Journal of health psychology , 25 (7), 871–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320925149 Mauss, M. (1990[1925]). The Gift. The form and reason for exchange . Routledge. McGraw, J. G. (2010). Intimacy and isolation . Rodopi. Milbrandt, T. & Park, O. (2023). A Multidimensional Social Inquiry into the Loneliness Problem: Urbanization, Technological Mediation, and Neoliberal Individualism . Report. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-tpaj-mp55 Mishra, M. (2018). The Western world’s loneliness epidemic: What lessons can be learned . The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/mind-the-gap/the-western-worlds-loneliness-epidemic-what-lessons-can-be-learned/ Molina, J.L., Lubbers M. J., Valenzuela-García, H., Mestres, S. (2017). Cooperation and competition in social anthropology. Anthropology Today, 33(1): 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12323 Ortiz-Ospina, E., Roser, M. (2020). Loneliness and Social Connections. OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/social-connections-and-loneliness. Ozawa-de Silva. C., & Parsons, M. (2020). Toward an anthropology of loneliness. Transcultural Psychiatry , 57(5):613–622. https://doi.org.10.1177/1363461520961627 Parsons, M.A. (2020). Being unneeded in post-Soviet Russia: Lessons for an anthropology of loneliness. Transcultural Psychiatry , 57(5):635–648. https://doi.org.10.1177/1363461520909612 Perlman, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour, & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal Relationships : 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31–56). Academic Press. Pike, I. L. & Crocker, R. M. (2020). “My own corner of loneliness:” Social isolation and place among Mexican immigrants in Arizona and Turkana pastoralists of Kenya. Transcultural Psychiatry 57 (5): 661–672. doi: 10.1177/1363461520938286 Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Influences on Loneliness in Older Adults: a Meta-Analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23 (4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_2 Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . Touchstone Books. Refaeli, Th., & Achdut, N. (2020). Perceived poverty, perceived income adequacy and loneliness in Israeli young adults: Are social capital and neighborhood capital resilience factors? Health and Social Care in Community, 30 (2): 668–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13177 Robertson, J. (2018). Robo sapiens Japanicus: Robots, gender, family, and the Japanese nation . University of California Press. Rokach, A. (1998). The Relation of Cultural Background to the Causes of Loneliness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1998.17.1.75 Rokach, A. (2011). From Loneliness to Belonging: A Review. Psychology Journal, 8 , 70–81. https://doi.org.10.1016/0277-9536(92)90300-F Rolls, L., Seymour. J.E., Froggatt, K.A., Hanratty, B. (2011). Older people living alone at the end of life in the UK: Research and policy challenges. Palliative Medicine , 25 (6): 650–657. https://doi.org.10.1177/0269216310373165 Rook, K. S. (1984). Research on social support, loneliness, and social isolation: Toward an integration. Review of Personality & Social Psychology, 5 , 239–264. https://doi.org.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728658 Savolainen, I., Oksanen A., Kaakinen M., Sirola A., & Paek H. (2020). The Role of Perceived Loneliness in Youth Addictive Behaviors: Cross-National Survey Study. JMIR Ment Health, 7 (1), e14035. https://doi.org.10.2196/14035 Silverstein, M., & Giarrusso, R. (2010). Ageing and Family Life: A Decade Review. J Marriage Fam . 72 (5), 1039–1058. https://doi.org.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x Singh, A., Misra, N. (2009). Loneliness, depression and sociability in old age. Industrial Psychiatry Journal , 18 (1):51 − 5. https://doi.org.10.4103/0972-6748.57861 Slater P. (1970). The pursuit of loneliness: American culture at the breaking point . Beacon. Snell, K., D., M., (2017). The rise of living alone and loneliness in history. Social History, 42 :1, 2–28, DOI: 10.1080/03071022.2017.1256093 Södenberg, P., & Fry, D., P. (2017). Anthropological aspects of ostracism. In D.W. Kipling & Nida, S. A. (Eds.). Ostracism, Exclusion, and Rejection . Routledge. Stein, J. Y., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2015). The Social Construction of Loneliness: An Integrative Conceptualization, Journal of Constructivist Psychology 28 (3): 210–227 https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2014.911129 Stickley, A., Koyanagi, A., Roberts, B., Richardson, E., Abbott, P., Tumanov, S., & McKee, M. (2013). Loneliness: its correlates and association with health behaviours and outcomes in nine countries of the former Soviet Union. PloS one , 8 (7), e67978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067978 Sweet, J. (2021). The Loneliness Pandemic. The psychology and social costs of isolation in everyday life. The Harvard Magazine. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/12/feature-the-loneliness-pandemic Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism . Westview Press. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . Basic Books. Turner, E. (2012). Communitas: The Anthropology of Collective Joy . Palgrave Macmillan. Valenzuela-García, H. (2009). An ethnography of the Impact of Politics and Globalization on the Malaysian Fishing Economy. Edwin and Mellen Press Valenzuela-Garcia, H.; Lubbers, M., and Molina, J.L. (2020). Vivo entre Cuatro Paredes. Fundación FOESSA. Valenzuela-Garcia, H., Lubbers, M., & Molina, J. (2021a). She’s surrounded by loved ones, but feeling alone: A Relational Approach to Loneliness. Social Inclusion, 9 (4), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4585 Valenzuela-García, H. (2021b). Teletrabajo y amplificación de la desigualdad en la sociedad post-pandemia española. In Días extraños. Cómo el Covid-19 transforma nuestra cotidianeidad . Revista Andaluza de Antropología, 1 (19), 14–36. https://doi.org/10.12795/RAA.2021.19.02 Valenzuela-Garcia, H., Molina, J.L., and Lubbers, M.J. (2022). Choose, buy, pay – Paradoxes of shame-relieving processes among impoverished Spaniards after 2008’s great recession. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 12 (1): 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-11-2021-0056 Wang, G., Zhang, X., Wang, K., Li, Y., Shen, Q., Ge, X., & Hang, W. (2011). Loneliness among the rural older people in Anhui, China: prevalence and associated factors. International journal of geriatric psychiatry , 26 (11), 1162–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2656 Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation . MIT Press. Wheeler, L., Reis, H., Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (4), 943–953. https://doi.org.10.1037//0022-3514.45.4.943 Yang, K. & Victor, C. (2011). Age and loneliness in 25 European nations. Ageing and Society, 31 , 1–21. https://doi.org.10.1017/S0144686X1000139X Zhao, R. & Cao, L. (2010). Social Change and Anomie: A Cross-National Study. Social Forces , 88 (3), 1209–1229. https://doi.org.10.1353/sof.0.0312 Footnotes A megacity is generally defined as an urban area with more than ten million inhabitants, but its significance lies not only in its size. Megacities are marked by infrastructural complexity, population density, and often by social fragmentation and anonymity (Blaginin et al. 2018). ‘Individualism’ refers to a sociocultural orientation that emphasizes personal autonomy, self-determination, and individual rights over collective duties. It is often linked to processes of modernization and social differentiation, and to the weakening of embedded relational roles (Triandis 1995; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002; Dumont 1986). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixHRAFethnographicsources.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9147375","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":610825665,"identity":"f6d2313c-6f9a-430e-8007-867be315cfc1","order_by":0,"name":"HUGO VALENZUELA GARCIA","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Autonomous University of Barcelona","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"HUGO","middleName":"VALENZUELA","lastName":"GARCIA","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-17 10:10:36","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105379783,"identity":"57e3365c-cf42-4931-afff-134e95a40199","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 10:57:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1571857,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9147375/v1/94f1d419-1b38-43ee-9b19-6acc2a19b85b.pdf"},{"id":105379764,"identity":"41e86b4c-5c72-43bc-b24c-773b9f730588","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-25 10:57:42","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":41712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixHRAFethnographicsources.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9147375/v1/786db8236e321bf53e283a83.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Loneliness across cultures: Social isolation, cultural models, and coping strategies","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhosoever is delighted in solitude is either a wild beast or a god (Francis Bacon, \u003cem\u003eOf Friendship\u003c/em\u003e, 1625).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHuman beings are profoundly relational, and the experience of loneliness has long been regarded as a troubling condition affecting both social life and personal wellbeing. In recent decades, loneliness and social isolation have become pressing concerns across many parts of the world, particularly in highly urbanized and technologically interconnected societies. Despite living in what are often described as the most socially connected environments in history, enabled by digital technologies and intensified global flows of people and information (Castells, 2010: xxvii), increasing numbers of individuals report feeling socially disconnected or lacking meaningful relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor media outlets refer to a “loneliness pandemic” (Sweet, 2021) and warn about its “deadly effects” (Abbott, 2023). Similar concerns have been documented in diverse contexts, including the former Soviet Union (Stickley et al., 2013), urban China (Wang et al., 2011), Australia (Astell-Burt et al., 2022), Canada (Grenier et al., 2021), Spain (Casal et al., 2023), and the United Kingdom (Rolls et al., 2011), where an increasing number of people report feeling lonely (Mishra, 2008). Not only are more people living alone, but an increasing number are choosing to do so, preferring privacy over the company of partners, children, or other relatives (De Jong Gierveld, 1998: 75; Snell, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness has been associated with significant risks for mental and physical health, including chronic stress, depression, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline (Heinrich \u0026amp; Gullone, 2006; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). These findings have led researchers and policymakers to treat loneliness not only as an individual experience but also as a social condition with important implications for wellbeing and public health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndeed, loneliness appears to be here to stay, exacerbated by complex contemporary factors, such as social distancing during the global COVID-19 pandemic (Matias et al., 2020), the spread of remote working (Valenzuela, 2021b), increasing reliance on personal technologies (Savolainen et al., 2020), population aging (Golden et al., 2009; Allison, 2013), changes in family structures and rising divorce rates (Silverstein \u0026amp; Giarrusso, 2010; Chen, 2015), rapid urbanization (Chen \u0026amp; Gong, 2022), the dramatic decline of community bonds and social capital (Putnam, 2001), the ever-expanding competition, anomie and individualization in modern societies (Zhao \u0026amp; Cao, 2010), and, more recently, the rise of the artificial intelligence as a substitute for human interaction in care, companionship, and communication (Turkle, 2011; Robertson, 2018). All these factors, along with “the lack of communication, empathy or education in human and emotional values (…) would be giving rise to an impoverished society plagued by lonely people” (Diez \u0026amp; Morenos, 2015: 34).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent research links loneliness to increased risks of premature death and a wide range of health issues, including cardiovascular disease, weakened immune function, chronic stress, depression, fatigue, and cognitive decline, such as dementia (see Heinrich \u0026amp; Gullone, 2006; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017, for reviews). According to Pike and Crocker (2020: 661), its effects are comparable to those of obesity or high blood pressure, as both can impair immune function and disrupt cellular processes. In this context, Holt-Lunstad et al. (2015) found that chronic loneliness may increase the risk of premature death by up to 26%, underscoring its serious public health implications, with significant economic costs and mounting societal concern.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response, the UK recently established a Ministry of Loneliness, as nearly half of its citizens over the age of 75 live alone (9\u0026nbsp;million people). In Spain, the impact of loneliness on public health is estimated at 14\u0026nbsp;billion euros annually (i.e., 1.17% of GDP), primarily due to healthcare costs (medication and medical consultations) and loss of productivity (Casal et al., 2023). Additionally, the difficulty of statistically capturing loneliness—partly due to the stigma associated with it, which leads many to hide their condition—suggests that the problem is likely to be more widespread than it appears.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative, individual-focused studies report high rates of loneliness among groups such as the elderly (Singh et al., 2009; Yang \u0026amp; Victor, 2011), young adults (Barzeva et al., 2019), the unmarried (Adamczyk, 2016), individuals with mental health disorders (Lindgren et al., 2014), and those with low incomes (Refaeli \u0026amp; Achdut, 2020). Incidence tends to be slightly higher among men (Barreto et al., 2021), varies across the life course (Borys \u0026amp; Perlman, 1985; Magnhild \u0026amp; Thorsen, 2014), and cuts across ethnic, age, and socioeconomic groups (Pike \u0026amp; Crocker, 2020: 661).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn so-called ‘modern societies’, loneliness is often experienced as a form of exclusion, where unwanted solitude limits social interaction and access to vital support—material, emotional, or informational—usually provided through close relationships (Rook, 1984; Ortiz-Ospina \u0026amp; Roser, 2020). In contrast, or so it is often assumed, rural and cohesive small-scale societies tend to embed such support in local institutions—marriage, rituals, religion, or shared labor—which not only serve practical functions but also sustain personal ties and social cohesion, offering some protection against loneliness (De Jong Gierveld, 1998). Beyond material resources, these institutions foster identity, belonging, and shared moral frameworks (Turner, 2012; Parsons, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile many social scientists have contrasted the cold loneliness of industrial cities with the warm communal ties of rural life, others have questioned this dichotomy by documenting the presence of intimate, close-knit relationships within urban environments, such as neighborhoods, religious communities, or sports leagues (Zirakzadeh, 1989; Cruces, 2022). Some interpret loneliness as a direct byproduct of Western capitalism and modernity (Slater, 1970; McGraw, 2010; Franklin, 2012), whereas others argue that it is a universal human experience that is shaped by diverse cultural and historical factors (Rokach, 1998; Ozawa-de Silva \u0026amp; Parsons, 2020). Notably, Lykes and Kemmelmeier (2014) suggest that collectivist cultures may even exhibit higher rates of loneliness than individualistic ones, an apparently paradoxical finding that challenges intuitive assumptions and further complicates the picture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarge-scale international surveys, such as the BBC Loneliness Experiment (Barreto et al., 2021), have generated invaluable cross-national insights and significantly advanced the field, but such data often lack the contextual depth that qualitative approaches can provide. A deeper understanding of loneliness calls for a culturally grounded and intersectional framework (Milbrandt \u0026amp; Park, 2023) that is capable of bridging quantitative and qualitative perspectives. As several anthropologists have shown, loneliness is not merely an individual or psychological condition; it is shaped by personal histories and embedded in complex relational, cultural, emotional, moral, and symbolic configurations (Rokach, 2011; Ozawa-de Silva \u0026amp; Parsons, 2020; Valenzuela-García et al., 2021a). Yet despite this complexity, the cross-cultural dimensions of loneliness remain largely underexplored.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper examines how changing socio-material conditions shape loneliness in diverse societies and cultures, challenging the view that it is mainly a problem of modern Western life. The paper distinguishes analytically between \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e (a subjective feeling of unwanted disconnection), \u003cem\u003esocial isolation\u003c/em\u003e (an objective lack of social contact), and \u003cem\u003esolitude\u003c/em\u003e (a potentially valued and chosen state of aloneness). It also proposes a framework for understanding such social detachment along three intersecting dimensions: (1) objective/subjective experience, (2) transient/chronic duration, and (3) voluntary/imposed condition. These distinctions are key to disentangling the multiple forms and meanings of disconnection across cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, in this paper \u003cem\u003emodernity\u003c/em\u003e is not treated as a fixed stage or a singular trajectory, but as a set of social and cultural transformations (economic, technological, affective, moral) that reshape how people connect, belong, and make sense of themselves. Rather than a coherent or uniform condition, modernity is understood as a shifting terrain in which the meanings of intimacy and isolation are continually reconfigured. By tracing how loneliness is perceived and managed across cultures, this article seeks to unsettle the presumed link between modernity and social disconnection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper was initially motivated by a quasi-philosophical question: \u003cem\u003eCould the increasing prevalence of loneliness in contemporary Western societies be linked to the erosion of traditional institutions?\u003c/em\u003e While the approach is comparative and the dataset covers 360 societies, the question of loneliness inevitably evokes a deeper, more personal reflection. In an era marked by social fragmentation and estrangement, it is not only an empirical phenomenon but also an existential concern. Perhaps this is precisely where anthropology proves most valuable: in its ability to illuminate what is distant while helping us confront what is closest. Anthropology contributes not only through cross-cultural comparison, but also by foregrounding the relational, symbolic, and affective dimensions through which loneliness is lived, narrated, and morally negotiated in specific cultural contexts. And this, in turn, is essential for making sense of the worlds we inhabit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this concern, this article aims to address the current gap in cross-cultural research on loneliness by exploring three guiding research questions (\u003cb\u003eRQ\u003c/b\u003e). First (\u003cb\u003eRQ1\u003c/b\u003e): \u003cem\u003eIs loneliness a universal human feeling, or merely an epiphenomenon of modern Western societies?\u003c/em\u003e Second (\u003cb\u003eRQ2\u003c/b\u003e): \u003cem\u003eAre there identifiable patterns in how loneliness is perceived and experienced across cultures?\u003c/em\u003e And third (\u003cb\u003eRQ3\u003c/b\u003e): \u003cem\u003eWhat cultural mechanisms or strategies exist to cope with and mitigate loneliness?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe article is structured into four sections: the first outlines key conceptual definitions. The second explains the methodology. The third presents and discusses the results. The final section offers concluding remarks and a summary of the main findings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConceptual dimensions of loneliness and a brief note on the relational aspects of modernity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLoneliness\u003c/em\u003e is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon, and a conceptual consensus on its meanings has yet to be reached. Some researchers differentiate between \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esolitude\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e, while others use these terms interchangeably (Karnick, 2005: 11). Although all these terms imply a lack of social interaction, especially normalized, each term has distinct nuances that defy simple definition. I therefore offer a brief clarification of the key concepts used in this paper, considering their meanings along three analytical axes of \u003cem\u003esocial isolation\u003c/em\u003e: (1) objective versus subjective, (2) temporary versus long-term, and (3) voluntary versus forced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper understands \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003esocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e as forms of objective, physical, or spatial separation from others, each with distinct connotations. \u003cem\u003eIsolation\u003c/em\u003e (from Latin \u003cem\u003einsula\u003c/em\u003e, island) denotes a state of being set apart, often externally imposed or resulting from structural conditions. It can be voluntary or involuntary and may stem from health-related circumstances (e.g., quarantine), personal choice (e.g., seeking solitude), or social dynamics (e.g., segregation, ostracism, or rejection). \u003cem\u003eSeclusion\u003c/em\u003e, by contrast, implies a more deliberate and self-directed withdrawal from social contact, usually for a defined purpose and time frame (e.g., religious retreat, mourning).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e is more closely associated with exclusion or imposed constraint, \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e typically suggests voluntary withdrawal within a socially recognized framework and may even be positively valued or encouraged (e.g., during meditation or spiritual retreat). \u003cem\u003eSocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e, in turn, refers to a progressive disengagement from interaction, which may (or may not) involve physical separation but often results in reduced social presence and connection. It reflects a gradual retreat from the social world, often driven by psychological factors such as anxiety or fear of rejection. Unlike \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e (more structural) or \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e (more voluntary and ritualized), \u003cem\u003esocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e reveals an internal loss of relational agency and intentional detachment from others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConventionally, when social separation is unwanted and sustained, one might expect to experience varying degrees of loneliness, defined as “the unpleasant experience that occurs when a person's network of social relations is deficient in some important way, either qualitatively or quantitatively” (Perlman \u0026amp; Peplau, 1981: 3). Loneliness entails a subjective, emotional experience that can arise even in socially dense environments—such as among housewives in large families (Valenzuela-García et al., 2021)—and may be absent even in conditions of minimal social contact (Ozawa-de Silva \u0026amp; Parsons, 2020). It is often linked to feelings of (un)belonging, emptiness, abandonment, and sorrow (Weiss, 1973; De Jong Gierveld, 1998; Yang \u0026amp; Victor, 2011). Chronic loneliness may trigger physiological responses, such as depression or anxiety, with serious consequences for mental health and even suicidal ideation (Pinquart \u0026amp; Sörensen, 2001; Cacioppo \u0026amp; Patrick, 2008; Hawkley \u0026amp; Cacioppo, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor clarity, I treat terms such as \u003cem\u003elonesomeness, aloneness, forlornness\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003esolitude\u003c/em\u003e as synonyms of \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e, despite their subtle differences. \u003cem\u003eSolitude\u003c/em\u003e, in particular, shares features with the former but spans both subjective and objective dimensions: when chosen, it can foster reflection and self-discovery (Coplan \u0026amp; Bowker, 2013); when imposed, it may lead to loneliness and hinder social connection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother key concept that requires further clarification in this paper is \u003cem\u003emodernity\u003c/em\u003e, especially in its relational dimension. As previously noted, loneliness, isolation, and related phenomena are not merely psychological states but rather expressions of a broader weakening in the quality and density of social relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on the sociological literature (Giddens, 1991; Elias, 2000; Beck \u0026amp; Beck-Gernsheim, 2002), I do not treat modernity as a uniform or linear process, nor as the radical opposite of tradition, but as a historically situated and evolving configuration of social life, often marked by internal tensions and ambivalences (including processes of reflexivity, rationalization, the erosion of normative anchors, and the reorganization of affective and symbolic ties). It involves a gradual shift from relatively stable, disciplinary institutions—such as the school, the factory, or the nuclear family—toward more fluid, fragmented, and contingent forms of existence (Augé, 1992; Bauman, 2000). This transformation, propelled by forces like technologization, urbanization, mobility, and global migration, has progressively reconfigured the scaffolding of everyday life and altered prevailing modes of social interaction. One major consequence has been the weakening of relational structures such as kinship, community, and religion, giving rise to what some have called \u003cem\u003estructural loneliness\u003c/em\u003e (Cacioppo \u0026amp; Patrick, 2008; Klinenberg, 2012; Putnam, 2000), that is, not merely the condition of being alone, but the broader erosion of stable, reciprocal, and meaningful social ties. From this perspective, loneliness (and other forms of social isolation alike) is not simply a psychological state or cultural metaphor, but a symptom of deeper transformations in moral frameworks and relational expectations in late modern societies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent scholarship shows how loneliness in modern contexts is linked to the decline of shared rituals and collective narratives (Franklin, 2012; Franklin et al., 2019; Franklin \u0026amp; Tranter, 2022), the rise of unstable or ambivalent relationships and intimacies (Eramian et al., 2025), and the growing interplay between mental health struggles and the fragmentation of social ties, which reinforces feelings of loneliness (Ozawa-de Silva, 2021). In this light, the concepts of \u003cem\u003erelational mobility\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003erelational vulnerability\u003c/em\u003e acquire relevance, as they help explain the expanding reach of loneliness, especially in modern urban contexts. Relational mobility refers to social environments where individuals can easily enter and exit relationships; while this flexibility may offer freedom, it often undermines depth and stability, increasing the risk of isolation (Heu et al., 2021). Relational vulnerability, in turn, describes the gradual erosion of both formal and informal support networks, particularly in precarious and urban settings, where maintaining lasting connections becomes increasingly difficult (Valenzuela et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding loneliness thus requires attention to the historical variability of modernity itself. Given the wide temporal span of the ethnographic materials (from the 1930s to the early 2000s), it is worth keeping in mind the difference between earlier phases of modernity that were more stable and institutionalized and later ones marked by fragmentation, hyperconnectivity, and fluid social ties (Augé, 1992; Bauman, 2000; Elias, 2000). This perspective helps to contextualize how loneliness and isolation are experienced and expressed across different historical and cultural settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this respect, as this paper will show, recent ethnographic records highlight two major forces (i.e., urbanization and migration) that have profoundly disrupted traditional institutions and reflect core features of late modernity: the erosion of embedded roles, the weakening of place-based belonging, and the rise of individual life trajectories. By contrast, earlier materials from the 1930s or 1950s often portray denser social networks and clearer normative expectations, even in conditions of economic hardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch contrasts call for a methodological approach that is attentive to both qualitative and quantitative data, and to the historical variability of social relations.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a mixed-methods approach to cross-cultural analysis, combining qualitative and quantitative strategies. It draws on extensive ethnographic data from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), includes control comparisons with other databases (such as the PSF), and integrates both prevalence analysis and qualitative interpretation. The findings are grounded in broad cross-cultural generalizations derived through inductive comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis is based on a systematic search of the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF), a database of ethnographic materials covering over 360 cultures across seven regions: 81 from Asia (23%), 80 from North America (23%), 70 from Africa (19%), 47 from South America (13%), 33 from Oceania (9%), 17 from Europe (5%), 20 from Middle America and the Caribbean (6%), and 12 from the Middle East (3%). Unlike typical cross-cultural samples, the HRAF offer ethnographic data from multiple times and places, emphasizing diversity, geographical dispersion, and adequate literature coverage. In the HRAF, information retrieval through Boolean keyword search offers results organized by regions, subregions, cultures, documents, and paragraphs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTreated as an ethnographic snapshot, each paragraph was gathered, reviewed, and coded, paying close attention to thematic relevance and conceptual fit. The most analytically meaningful excerpts were compiled into a working document exceeding 150 pages and comprising over 200 ethnographic references. This material forms the foundation of the qualitative analysis developed in the article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSampling and coding\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike standardized sociocultural phenomena such as \u003cem\u003emarriage\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003ewitchcraft\u003c/em\u003e, which are pre-coded and easily searchable within the HRAF database, the phenomenon of loneliness is not explicitly indexed. As a result, the initial keyword search for loneliness generated 415 documents, but these were distributed across only 171 of the 360 cultures included in the HRAF collection (47.5%). Rather than indicating a low frequency of the phenomenon itself, this likely reflects the fact that loneliness was either overlooked by fieldworkers or addressed using different terminologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs Jankowiak and Ramsey (2000: 60) note in a comparable case, information on such topics can often be \u0026ldquo;thin or nonexistent\u0026rdquo; for many societies, largely depending on the ethnographer\u0026rsquo;s focus and interpretive lens. Thus, ethnographic data are always mediated through the observer\u0026rsquo;s language and conceptual framework, which means that references to social disconnection may be imprecise or shaped by culturally embedded assumptions. This can make interpretation especially difficult in cross-cultural contexts where emic categories often diverge from Western conceptual models (Karnick, 2005; Rokach, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis was also true in the present study: even with the expanded search strategy, relevant data were frequently indirect or circumstantial, requiring a close reading of \u0026ldquo;every available story.\u0026rdquo; To overcome this limitation, the search was broadened to include a carefully selected set of related terms: \u003cem\u003esolitude, lonesomeness, aloneness, confinement, isolation, lockdown, forlornness, seclusion, solitariness\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003esocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e. These terms made it possible to capture a broader range of expressions and representations, while enabling analytical distinction (i.e., objective vs. subjective, voluntary vs. forced, and temporary vs. sustained forms of separation). At the same time, some results were excluded when keyword-based queries retrieved irrelevant material (e.g., references to \u0026ldquo;the isolation of the stable\u0026rsquo;s smell and disposal of animal dung\u0026rdquo;), underscoring the need for critical awareness throughout the selection process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing this exhaustive search and filtering process, all the selected materials were subjected to grounded thematic coding. The process of reading, selecting, coding, and organizing the material into a coherent textual corpus was very time-consuming. Ultimately, 23 analytical categories emerged: (1) ethnographer and loneliness; (2) solitude and poverty; (3) solitude and environment; (4) loneliness and age; (5) emotions and loneliness; (6) women and solitude; (7) religious roles and isolation; (8) voluntary solitude; (9) social arrangements against solitude; (10) loneliness and the West; (11) religion, loneliness, and community; (12) forced isolation; (13) loneliness and suicide; (14) brotherhood and isolation; (15) migration and solitude; (16) loneliness as a social malaise; (17) loneliness, folklore, and myth; (18) isolation and rites; (19) loneliness and Native Americans; (20) loneliness and non-human entities; (21) status and isolation; (22) isolation, deviation, and social control; and (23) loneliness, oddity, and the dark arts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese themes serve to connect experiences of loneliness with specific cultural institutions and strategies, allowing for the identification of broader patterns and recurring dynamics that transcend anecdotal cases.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSampling control and adjustments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor sampling control, I compared HRAF data with the Probability Sample Files (PSF), a random selection of 60 representative HRAF cultures allowing a more nuanced evaluation of the data's representativeness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the sampling, although the HRAF offers a privileged view of cultural diversity, it is not a representative sample of global cultures, as immigrant cultures in North America are overrepresented. To address this overrepresentation, these cultures were divided into two categories: Native North American Populations (17% of the total) and Regional, Ethnic, and Diaspora Cultures, which include migrant-origin groups like African Americans and Chinese Americans. This allows us to make a meaningful observation regarding the different forms of social isolation, both within the original context and amidst the sociocultural transformations brought about by migration and modernity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQualitative analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe raw ethnographic data chunks grouped under the same code were reorganized to generate a cohesive narrative thread through key themes (e.g., environment constraints, rites of passage, migration, mythology, psychopathologies, deviation, etc.). Secondary sources (e.g., Cultural Atlas, Ethnographic Atlas, Wikipedia) were sometimes consulted to enhance specific cultures' sociocultural, demographic, or economic context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most innovative strategy of this research may stem from the fact that the qualitative analysis relies on a form of inductive inference: that is, each assertion is supported by \u003cem\u003eall its valid\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., relevant, unique, and pertinent) ethnographic data retrieved from the HRAF, accompanied by its respective bibliographic reference and without ruling out cases that might contradict the findings. The qualitative analysis is grounded in more than 200 ethnographic documents, some covering more than one culture. Although this approach can lead to a denser and more demanding text, it ensures methodological transparency, data traceability, and analytical replicability. For instance, the following excerpt presents all the ethnographic cases (with their references) identified in the HRAF that illustrate the \u0026ldquo;folkloric centrality of loneliness\u0026rdquo;:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLoneliness occupies folkloric centrality among most North American natives: Hopi (Courlander, 1987*), Tlingit (Kan, 1989*), Black Caribe (Taylor, 1951*), Navajo (Reichard, 1950*; Frisbie, 1980*), Cherokee (Mooney, 1982: 656*; Kilpatrick \u0026amp; Kilpatrick, 1965*); Cajun (Ancelet, 1989*); Pawnee and Chippewa (Densmore, 1913: 56*; 1929: 93*). Similar cases are described for the Carib Garifuna (Hadel, 1989: 205*) and the Orokaiva in Papua New Guinea (Schwimmer, 1969*).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eQuantitative analysis and dataset\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quantitative analysis involves calculating the prevalence rates and gross, relative, and weighted percentages of isolation, seclusion, solitude, social withdrawal, and loneliness across the 360 cultures in the HRAF collection. The incidence of synonymous terms like lonesomeness, aloneness, and forlornness was low (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;20%) or very low (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;10%), likely due to their rare use of this wording in ethnographies (e.g., lonesomeness was just reported in 11.7% of original North American cultures and forlornness appeared only in four paragraphs across various regions).\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e===================Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e here ==============\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaw data retrieved from the HRAF: \"c\" indicates culture, \"d.\" documents, and \"p.\" means paragraphs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsolation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorth America\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrica\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth America\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOceania\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEurope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle America \u0026amp; the Caribbean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle East\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026sum;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75 c\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e678 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2271 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e379 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e881 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e334 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e822 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e146 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e420 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e193 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e470\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e150 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e577 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e100 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e361 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e69 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e200 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e329c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2049 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5532 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e216 d\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e517 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e174 d\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e441 par.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e261 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1060 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e69 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e418 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e69 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e418 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e27 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e53 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e60 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e32 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e86 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e273 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e876 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3953 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ewithdrawal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e317 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e686 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e204 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e421 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e182 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e331 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e44 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e77 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e92 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e196 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e59 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e143 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e56 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e158 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e48 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e126 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e271 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1002 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2138 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolitude\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e108 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e184 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e67 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e130 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e63 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e91 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e38 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e69 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e37 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e53 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e35 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e51 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e23 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e41 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e192 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e385 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e637 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e181 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e363 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e72 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e104 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e43 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e68 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e19 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e31 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e25 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e31 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e39 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e63 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e22 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e32 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e415 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e710 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLonesomeness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 c\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e16 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e21 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e22 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAloneness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForlornness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 c.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 d.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 p.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhole Sample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e360\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough quantifying ethnographic data is highly complex, the analysis employs various percentage ranges to better understand and compare regional prevalence rates. These ranges were organized as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eVery low\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003enone\u003c/em\u003e (0%-10%) indicates a minimal or almost non-existent presence of the phenomenon being studied.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLow\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003every few\u003c/em\u003e (11%- 20%) suggests a slight but noticeable occurrence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eModerately low\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003efew\u003c/em\u003e (21%-30%) indicates a presence that is somewhat more significant than \"low\" but still not considered high.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eModerate\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003esome\u003c/em\u003e (31%-40%) represents a noticeable presence without being overwhelmingly prevalent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eModerately high\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003eseveral\u003c/em\u003e (41%-60%) suggests a substantial presence, more than \"Moderate\" but not reaching the highest levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eHigh\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003emany\u003c/em\u003e (61%-80%) implies a significant presence with considerable prevalence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eVery high\u003c/em\u003e or \u003cem\u003emost\u003c/em\u003e (81%-100%) represents the highest level of prevalence, indicating a widespread and significant occurrence of the phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis scale enabled a systematic interpretation of the qualitative data when needed, facilitating their operationalization in comparative terms across regions and cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eResults are presented in six sections, followed by a summary: 1) Prevalences and regional distribution; 2) Remoteness, loneliness, and cooperation; 3) Loneliness: normative, cosmological, and psychological insights; 4) Deviation and social control; 5) Institutionalized isolation; and 6) The Lonely West (a final critical appraisal of our modern world). Each section concludes with a short summary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e1. Prevalences and regional distribution\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eForms of objective isolation (i.e., isolation, seclusion, and social withdrawal) show a very high (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;81%) incidence and an even and proportional distribution across regions, with a slightly lower but still high prevalence (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;61\u0026ndash;80%) for the regions of both South America, and Middle America and the Caribbean. The reported cases of objective isolation totaled 873, while only 247 cases of subjective isolation were retrieved (i.e., loneliness, lonesomeness, solitude, aloneness, and forlornness), indicating that forms of objective isolation are much more common, almost four times more, than subjective isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e============ Table \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e here=================\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHRAF dataset with prevalences and percentages for all keywords.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN. America I\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN. America II\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrica\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS. America\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOceania\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEurope\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle America\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eand the\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCaribbean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle East\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026sum;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHRAF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e360\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsolation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e329\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.47%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.04%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e273\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.76%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.03%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.30%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial withdrawal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e271\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolitude\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLonesomeness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAloneness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e35.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForlornness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCases\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGross %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelative %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeighted %\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProbabilistic Sample Files (PSF) dataset with prevalences and percentages for main keywords.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePSF cultures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNorth America\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrica\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth America\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOceania\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEuropa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle America and the Caribean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMiddle East\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSumatory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eISOLATION\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e92,31%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,56%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20,34%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27,12%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,95%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,17%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,08%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,08%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,69%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeighted %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSECLUSION\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e92,31%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93,75%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,43%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,79%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,86%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,71%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,36%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,57%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,79%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeighted %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSOCIAL WITHDRAWAL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69,23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68,75%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14,29%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,43%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26,19%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14,29%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,90%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,76%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeighted %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSOLITUDE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76,92%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15,22%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,74%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,74%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17,39%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10,87%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6,52%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,35%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,17%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeighted %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLONELINESS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69,23%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62,50%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelative %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21,43%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23,81%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7,14%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4,76%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2,38%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeighted %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3,33%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1,67%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70,00%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIsolation (i.e., being separated, detached, or cut off from others voluntarily or involuntarily) scores very high worldwide (91.4% on average). The Middle East has the lowest rates (83.3%), while the highest is among European and North American migrant populations (100%). The Probabilistic Sample Files (PSF) show reasonable congruence with the HRAF data, showing a very high occurrence in all regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeclusion (i.e., the state of being secluded or isolated from others, often in a private or sheltered place), although somewhat inferior to isolation, also shows an evenly and proportionally high distribution across cultures (75.8% on average), being maximum in Oceania (93.9%) and Africa (91.4%), very high among Native Americans (83.3%), high among Europeans (76.5%), the Middle East (75%), North American migrants (70%) and Asians (65.4%), and moderately high in South America (59.6%), and Middle America and the Caribbean (55%). For seclusion, PSF percentages are generally higher than those found in the HRAF, but regional distribution shows a similar proportionality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial withdrawal (i.e., when someone reduces interactions with others) is also widely reported (an average of 75%). It shows a similar distribution and proportion than isolation and seclusion: prevalence is very high among American migrants (90%), Europeans (82.4%) and African societies (81.4%), it is high among North American natives (80%), and slightly lower, but still high, in Oceania (75.8%), the Middle East (75%), Middle America and the Caribbean (70%), Asia (69.1%), and South America (63.8%). Data from the PSF subset reflect a similar trend, although the number of cases for Europe and the Middle East is too limited to support any robust conclusions: only one case from the Middle East and three from Europe are included in the PSF sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubjective forms of isolation (i.e., loneliness and solitude) reflect high (61\u0026ndash;80%) to moderately high (41\u0026ndash;60%) rates worldwide, although at lower levels than objective isolation. Solitude is particularly notable in Europe (70.6%) and among North American migrants (65%), followed by Native Americans (60%), and societies from Middle America and the Caribbean (60%), the Middle East (58.3%), South America (57.4%), Africa (45.7%), and Asia (42%). Loneliness is reported in 48% of the selected cultures, with particularly high rates among American migrants (95%), Middle Eastern cultures (75%), and Europe (70.6%). In contrast, other regions display moderate (31\u0026ndash;40%) to moderately high (41\u0026ndash;60%) rates, with lower instances in Africa (35.7%) and South America (29.8%). Data from the PSF indicates the highest percentages of loneliness and solitude in European (100%), Middle Eastern (100%), and North American cultures (87.50%). However, in general, PSF data report higher prevalences of loneliness and solitude than those found in the broader HRAF dataset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, while cross-cultural forms of objective isolation are prevalent, the highest rates are found among European cultures and North American migrant populations. Loneliness is also notably high in the Middle East (75%), but caution is warranted due to its low representativeness in both samples: 1.6% in the PSF and 3.3% in the HRAF.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the following sections, we will examine the data from a qualitative standpoint, pinpointing the context and cultural significance of the cases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2. Remoteness, loneliness, cooperation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne might expect that remote settings or ecologically extreme environments, where subsistence practices often require intermittent migration, would be associated with high rates of loneliness. However, the existing ethnographic evidence does not convincingly support this connection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough there are specific examples\u0026mdash;such as Sarawak women who sing of loneliness while their husbands engage in labor migration for several years (Price, 1993*)\u0026mdash;most isolated populations and long-term nomadic groups employ various strategies to cope with or mitigate loneliness. These often involve alternating periods of physical separation with vibrant communal gatherings that reinforce social cohesion and help alleviate feelings of isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCases of explicit environmental isolation are documented among Navajo herders (Leighton \u0026amp; Kluckhohn, 1947*), Basque shepherds and herders (Castelli, 1970: 113*; Douglass, 1997*), and Malay rubber-tappers (Peletz, 1988*), yet neither solitude nor loneliness appears to be a central concern in these contexts. In contrast, most societies (particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Americas) tend to favor collective labor. Kenya\u0026rsquo;s South Turkana pastoralists cluster to combat loneliness (Dyson-Hudson \u0026amp; McCabe, 1985*), Sherpas counter isolation with conviviality (F\u0026uuml;rer-Haimendorf, 1964*), and even solitary Amish individuals experience little actual solitude at the peer-group level (Hostetler, 1980*; Smith, 1987*). The Micronesian Ifaluk (Burrows, 1953*) and Mexican Tarahumara (Kennedy, 1978*) avoid solitary labor, favoring group activities for sociability. Similarly, the Havasupai, a North American nomadic hunting society, gather on any possible occasion (Smithson, 1959*), while in the remote Zapotec mountains, women\u0026rsquo;s work routines foster connections that would otherwise be unimaginable (Nader, 1990*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, cross-cultural analysis suggests that, although human groups often develop social institutions and strategies to maintain seasonal or occasional contact, such as collective labor, festivities, or ritual gatherings, material or environmental constraints may lead to physical isolation. More significantly, however, the data indicate that physical isolation does not naturally or necessarily give rise to feelings of loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3. Loneliness: normative, cosmological, and psychological insights\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthnographies demonstrate that loneliness has particular significance in cultural psychology and traditional healing practices, especially within Native American, African, and South American cultures. These societies exhibit a normative and symbolic structure encompassing myths, taboos, beliefs, and magic that reflects a collective fear of isolation and loneliness. This is often personified in spiritual beings, supernatural threats, and illness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor many original North American cultures, loneliness occupies a central place in their mythology and folklore, as widely evidenced by reports concerning the Hopi (Courlander, 1987*), Tlingit (Kan, 1989*), Black Caribe (Taylor, 1951*), Navajo (Reichard, 1950*; Frisbie, 1980*), Cherokee (Mooney, 1982: 656*; Kilpatrick \u0026amp; Kilpatrick, 1965*), Cajun (Ancelet, 1989*), Pawnee and Chippewa (Densmore, 1913: 56*; 1929: 93*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany Native American cultures allude to loneliness in their dream visions. The Iroquois, for instance, believe that loneliness manifests itself through dreams, revealing the need for a particular friend (St. John, 1994*), and that loneliness is \"a state of ecstatic yearning, an otherworldly melancholia peculiarly Cherokeean (\u0026hellip;) generally attributed to the sorcery of an enemy\" (Kilpatrick \u0026amp; Kilpatrick, 1970: 110*). Also, loneliness plays a relevant role in the folklore of the Carib Garifuna (Hadel, 1989: 205*) and the Papuan Orokaiva (Schwimmer, 1969*), and it is reported that the Dogon's nasalized lyre tone dramatically emulates the desperate solitude associated with ostracism or symbolic exclusion from the community (Calame-Griaule, 1986*). According to the Micronesian Ifaluk\u0026rsquo;s cosmology, loneliness (\u003cem\u003elalomweiu\u003c/em\u003e) embodies one of their four major emotional forces (Lutz, 1982*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbundant mythological evidence from these cultures consistently suggests that permanent solitude, understood as a prolonged state of personal isolation, is attributed exclusively to superior beings, such as first creators, mythic figures, or gods, as widely documented across Oceania, Asia, and Africa. In this context, it is striking to observe the recurrence of a shared mythological narrative across distant cultures: not only did Adam and Eve live in solitude, but the Orinoco Indians were created by two lonely brother spirits (Wilbert \u0026amp; Muirden, 1963*); Ngai, the Gikuyu creator and giver of all things, had no father, mother, or companion of any kind (Kenyatta, 1953*); the Micronesian deity Kachaw (Goodenough, 1986*) and other Polynesian and Hawaiian gods existed in solitude (Beckwith \u0026amp; Loumala, 1970*); and the Dogon of West Africa believe that \u0026ldquo;the source of all disorder was the loneliness of the jackal, God\u0026rsquo;s first-born\u0026rdquo; (Griaule, 1965: 156*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe association of loneliness with mischievous spirits is also well-documented worldwide, but particularly in Africa. The Tuareg of North Africa (Rasmussen, 2004*), Black nomads of the Sahara (Chapelle \u0026amp; Sch\u0026uuml;tze, 1957*), the Bemba of Central Africa (Maxwell, 1983: 78*), and the Ibo of Nigeria (Uchendu, 1965*) all believe that evil spirits inhabit remote, isolated areas. These spirits, who are characterized by loneliness, envy humans and are thought to attack people. Similarly, the Dyak of Sarawak (Howell, 1908\u0026ndash;1910: 53*) and Malay islanders (Valenzuela-Garcia, 2009) also believe malicious spirits dwell in secluded places. The Peruvian Aymara believe that the souls of the dead often attempt to drag relatives and friends along with them to the hereafter (Tchopik, 1951: 213*). For Thais, \"pigs and hungry ghosts embody qualities undesirable in humans: sloth and greed in one case, loneliness, and isolation in the other\" (Martin, 1981*). And according to Melanesians, noisy crowds and the vitality of humans (regarded as energizing and curing) frighten away evil souls and sorcerers (Lane, 1965*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe connection between loneliness, solitude, and various mental and physical ailments \u0026mdash;which in turn many premodern societies frequently associate with supernatural forces and diverse forms of magic\u0026mdash;is remarkably evident across cultures. Hostetler (1980*) notes that monks often experience acedia and apathy. The Laotian Hmong believe loneliness can lead to soul loss (Spring, 1989: 67*), while the Burmese attribute disturbed behavior to spirit attacks (Spiro, 1978*). In Samoa, young pregnant wives avoid solitude to prevent ghost attacks (Mead, 1928*), and Sabah fishers claim that loneliness can weaken the soul, increasing one\u0026rsquo;s vulnerability to spiritual harm (Sather, 1997*). Mexican Americans link loneliness to \u003cem\u003esusto\u003c/em\u003e (Kiev, 1968*), and the Honduran Garifuna associate it with \u003cem\u003egubida\u003c/em\u003e or illness sent by deceased relatives' spirits (Bianchi, 1989*). The Javanese believe that social withdrawal is caused by head trauma or neurosis (Weiss, 1982*). Among the Iroquois and Hopis, loneliness and psychosomatic issues require a medicine man\u0026rsquo;s intervention (St. John, 1994*; Titiev, 1972*), while the Ojibwa seek solitude in the forest to cope with loneliness, grief, or sorrow (Kohl \u0026amp; Wraxall, 1860*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contexts of social disruption or transformation\u0026mdash;often shaped by processes such as colonization, displacement, or economic marginalization\u0026mdash;loneliness is also closely linked to alcohol abuse. This link is documented among Kagodo islanders in Korea (Han, 1977*), Hebridean crofting communities (Coleman, 1984*), and the Kaska Dena of British Columbia (Honigmann et al., 1949*), among others, particularly in non-Western or postcolonial settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, solitude emerges as a central yet ambivalent condition across cultures, valued in sacred or ritual contexts, yet feared or stigmatized in everyday life. Ethnographic evidence reveals that loneliness and social isolation are widely perceived as undesirable states that are often linked to supernatural forces, illness, and moral disorder. These associations are particularly salient in Native American, African, and South American cultures, where loneliness is not only a personal feeling but a cosmological and social threat. The cross-cultural pattern suggests that, far from being purely individual or a modern condition, loneliness is deeply embedded in collective world views and ritual systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4. Deviation and social control\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Oliver (1949*), the Suai of the Solomon Islands preferred to separate their hamlets by a considerable distance and sought solitude when the bustle of the village became too much for them. However, cases like the Suai are highly exceptional.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe prevailing norm in all societies is gregarious behavior and the frequent occurrence of social gatherings to alleviate loneliness in the form of communal activities, ceremonies, and worship, as seen among Muslim Kurds (Hansen, 1961*), the Nupe of Nigeria (Nadel, 1954*), the Vietnamese (Rambo, 1982*), Mormons (Nelson, 1952*), and the Amish (Hostetler \u0026amp; Huntington, 1971*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy contrast, Siberian Yakuts believe that a large population is essential for happiness, and they view solitude unfavorably (Sioroszewski, 1933*). Among the Navajo, feeling alone is seen as unfortunate (Reichard, 1950*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial pressure to belong is widespread, and the fear of rejection or neglect by relatives and acquaintances often reinforces bonds of solidarity and brotherhood across different cultures, including the Central American Garifuna (Bianchi, 1989*), South American Aymara (Tschopik, 1952*), Khmer (Ebihara, 1971*), Thais (Mulder, 1996*), Chinese Nosu tribes (Pollard, 1921*), Apache (Perry, 1993*), Shona (Gelfand, 1981*), and Russians (Gorer, 1949*). In fact, lonely and solitary individuals are viewed with suspicion in many cultures. For example, Samoans believe that only wrongdoing occurs in solitude (Mead, 1928*), while Puerto Ricans (Mintz, 1966*), the \u0026iexcl;Kung San (Lee, 1979*; Marshall, 1961*), Scots (Parman, 1990*), Javanese Ponorogo (Weiss, 1982*), and Baghestanis (Horne, 1994*) express distrust toward lonely people. Such behavior is often linked to deviance, eccentricity, or wickedness, as seen in rural Ghana (Field, 1970*), among the Ibo of Nigeria (Green, 1964*), and the Shona of Rhodesia (Gelfand \u0026amp; Hannan, 1967*). Women accused of witchcraft are isolated in communities like the Bedouin (Abu-Lughod, 1986*), Canelos Quichua (Whitten, 2010*), and among Ghanese peasants (Field, 1970*). In the Trobriand Islands (Melanesia), individuals with physical deformities or diseases were excluded from social activities (Malinowski, 1929*). Among the Kanuri of West Africa (Cohen, 1960*), pre-industrial Japanese (Beardsley et al., 1972*), and Korean women (Hulbert, 1906*), higher social status is often correlated with increased seclusion and loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven in highly sexually segregated societies, women often gather to combat isolation, as observed among Turks (Stirling, 1965*), Mexican Zapotec (Nader, 1990*), and Kenyan Gusii mothers (LeVine \u0026amp; Lloyd, 1966*). For males, specific spaces often serve this function, like Irish pubs (Taylor, 1985*), Zapotec cantinas (Nader, 1990*), and Spanish bars (Mullard, personal communication), which serve as compensatory spaces of sociability and reinforce male bonding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond spontaneous distrust, many societies have formalized solitude as a tool of punishment and social control. Forced seclusion is the standard mechanism of social control or punishment across cultures. Ostracism (i.e., individual exclusion from a society or group) is one of the harshest punishments for Fijians (Routledge, 2020*), Andean Quichua (Whitten, 2010*), and South American Mataco (Alvarsson \u0026amp; Beierle, 1997*), and the chief punishment for the transgression of fundamental rules and codes of behavior in the case of the American Native Papago (Underhill, 1939*), Cherokee (Reid, 1970*), Yakut (Siorozzewski, 1933*), and the G/wi of the Kalahari (Silberbauer, 1965*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many cultural and historical contexts, enforced isolation becomes the ultimate form of symbolic and psychological punishment. In traditional Greece, withdrawal and isolation are equivalent to social death, and \"the strongest sanction is to ignore one's opponent and thereby effectively deny his social existence\" (Hirschon, 1978: 76*). Among Copper Inuit, suicide has been reported as a response to social rejection (Condon, 1987: 186*), and for the Yagahn nomads and hunter-gatherers of Cape Horn, the most severe punishment that can be inflicted on a child is to have its parents send it away in solitude or make it leave the hut (Gusinde \u0026amp; Sch\u0026uuml;tze, 1937: 559*). During the deportations in Turkey from 1923 to 1938, Kurds were scattered and dispersed in groups of just a few families with the hope that isolation and loneliness would break the will of these people to retain their identity (Izady, 1992*). In wartime, Yugoslavs who were in solitary confinement in prisons and camps revealed that complete loneliness is one of the heaviest strains for a human being to bear (Erlich, 1966*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, cross-cultural data reveal strong symbolic and normative frameworks that discourage solitude, eccentricity, and social deviance. Solitary individuals are often viewed with suspicion or moral disapproval, and imposed isolation is widely perceived as a severe form of punishment. From everyday mechanisms of social control to extreme institutional responses, loneliness and solitude are frequently treated not only as undesirable states but as threats to communal harmony and the cultural order. This reinforces the idea that relational embeddedness is a central value in most human societies and that solitude, far from being neutral, is often morally and politically charged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5. Institutionalized isolation\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the widespread aversion to loneliness and the frequent association of seclusion with punishment, many cultures tolerate, or even encourage, voluntary isolation under specific, culturally sanctioned circumstances. In most societies, seclusion is socially acceptable when pursued for purposes of meditation, introspection, creativity, or mind-body transformation (e.g., through altered states of consciousness). Even in the West, one might recall the acknowledged cultural trope of the \u0026lsquo;loner\u0026rsquo;, which frames solitude not as deprivation or social failure, but as a personal choice (or even a form of virtue) associated with autonomy, depth, or resistance to conformity. Such practices are documented among Thai peasants (Phillips, 1966*), Hebridean islanders (Kohl, 1955*), Rwandan hunters (Pag\u0026eacute;s \u0026amp; Scholl, 1933*), the Melanesian Canaque (Lenhart, 1979*), the Jivaro (Reiss, 1880*), African-American Gullahs (Creel, 1988*), the Nuer and Dinka of Sudan (Evans-Pritchard, 1956*), and the Ghanaian Ashanti (Rattray, 1927*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong Native American groups, such introspective retreats are especially prevalent, as they often serve as pathways to spiritual knowledge and empowerment through communion with nature: thunder, wind, trees, or spirits. One of the most extensively documented examples is the Ojibwa practice of bodily mortification in solitude to gain protection from spiritual forces (Jennes, 1935*; Benton-Banai, 1979*; Shkilnyk, 1985*; Schmalz, 1991*). Similar practices appear among the Tarahumara (Bennett \u0026amp; Zingg, 1935*), Apache (Opler, 1969: 211*), Uaup\u0026eacute;s (Silva \u0026amp; Lilios, 1962*), Tlingit (Krause, 1956*), Bloods (Mountain, 1979*), Hopi (Titiev, 1944*), Chippewa (Densmore, 1913*), Gros Ventre (Fowler, 1987*), Kapauku Papuans (Pospisil, 1958*), and Khoi pastoralists (Boonzaier, 2010*). In Tierra del Fuego, novice hunters once spent up to two years in solitude, accompanied only by a dog (Lothrop, 1928*; Chapman, 1982*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthnographic evidence further shows that sustained or repeated voluntary isolation is typically reserved for ritual specialists and spiritual intermediaries. Zulu diviners (Raum, 1973*), Guajira sorcerers (Pineda \u0026amp; Muirden, 1950*), Brazilian shamans (Yves \u0026amp; M\u0026eacute;traux, 1864*), and hermits from Tibetan, Greek, Russian Orthodox, or Islamic traditions (Bell Sir, 1931*; Campbell \u0026amp; Sherrard, 1968*; Rathburn, 1988*) all undergo ritualized seclusion. Comparable roles exist among Brooklyn Jews (Strom, 1993*), Burmans (Scott, 1910*), Amhara sorceresses (Levine, 1965*), and Moroccan messianic figures in the High Atlas (Berque \u0026amp; Bigwood, 1955*). Shamans from cultures as diverse as the Tlingit, Kaska (Honingman, 1954*), Barotse (Reynolds, 1983*), and Huichol (Zingg, 1938*) also seek solitude to mediate with the spirits. Crucially, these forms of isolation are institutionally legitimized and reserved for individuals of high social prestige.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, while loneliness is broadly perceived as undesirable, and while isolation often functions as a form of punishment, many societies make cultural allowances for voluntary seclusion, particularly in connection with spiritual or creative pursuits. Enduring isolation, however, is rarely generalized, but remains a culturally codified exception, typically limited to ritually defined roles.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5.1. Rites of passage\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlongside meditation, rites of passage represent another major cultural domain in which short-term isolation is accepted and socially sanctioned. In particular, puberty initiation rituals, which signal a critical transition in social status for both girls and boys, often entail periods of seclusion, fasting, and the observance of taboos. These practices are typically embedded within collective logics of transformation, and thus feelings of loneliness are rare, as initiates are eventually reabsorbed into the broader group, their altered status being publicly acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccounts of such rites are widespread across ethnographic contexts. In our sample, they are richly described among the Orokaiva, Aiga, and Binandele of Papua New Guinea (Williams \u0026amp; Murray, 1930*), the Lesu of Melanesia (Powdermaker, 1933*), the Yapese of Polynesia (Lingenfelter, 1979*), and the Tiwi of Australia (Goodale, 1971*). Similar patterns are documented among numerous Native American groups, such as the Assiniboine (Miller, 2002*), Yurok (Kroeber, 1925: 45*), Papago (Underhill, 1946*), and Nehalem (Jacobs, 2003*; Lurie, 2010*). In Africa, we find parallel practices among the Burundi (Meyer, 1916*), Zulu (Raum, 1973*), Dogon (Calame-Griaule, 1986*), Luguru (Mluanda, 1971*), and Ovimbundu (Hambly, 1934*). Comparable rituals are also noted among the Canela of Brazil (Crocker, 1990*), the Wayuu of La Guajira in Colombia (Guti\u0026eacute;rrez \u0026amp; Muirden, 1950*), and populations in West Bengal (Klass, 1978*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many of these societies, women undergo stricter forms of seclusion than men, often due to associations with reproductive capacity and ritual purity. For instance, Nehalem Timalook menstruating women are secluded for as long as two months (Jacobs, 2003*), a practice mirrored among the Haida (Blackman, 1990*), Melanesians (Carrier \u0026amp; Carrier, 1991*), Yurok (Kroeber, 1925*), Orokaiva (Williams \u0026amp; Murray, 1930*), Semai (Dentan, 1988*), and in the case of Calabash girls (Price, 1993*). Moreover, in some cultural contexts, a higher social status implies longer or more rigorous periods of isolation, as observed among the Haida, Kurds (Hansen, 1961*), and Koreans (Hulbert, 1906*). A striking example of gendered isolation is found among the Tarahumara, where women give birth in solitude (Fried, 1951*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these varied practices, explicit associations between seclusion and loneliness appear only sporadically in the ethnographic record. They tend to emerge in Middle Eastern and Asian societies, where seclusion (especially of women) is often prolonged and highly restrictive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, while short-term ritual seclusion during initiation rites is widespread and culturally valued, it rarely produces feelings of loneliness due to its symbolic function and communal reintegration. However, in contexts where female seclusion is stricter and more prolonged, experiences of solitude and even loneliness may become more salient, albeit unevenly reported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5.2. Marriage and loneliness\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a high percentage of cultures, marriage emerges as a key institution for preventing loneliness. A classic ethnographic illustration is provided by Gillin\u0026rsquo;s portrayal of the Barama River Caribs, which serves as a representative case for many other societies:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Practically every individual in the community over the age of about twenty is married or has definite plans to be married. Universal matrimony thus obviates dependency occasioned by old age as well as loneliness. Children of one or the other of the spouses by previous marriages may be included in the family group. If both parents of young children die, they are usually adopted by the maternal grandparents. Children of deceased relatives are, however, often adopted.\" (Gillin, 1936: 80*)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the relationship between marriage and solitude is far from simple. While marriage often provides protection against isolation, it can also trigger feelings of estrangement, particularly in the early stages. This is especially frequent among women, due to patrilocal residence patterns, which are dominant in 71% of the world\u0026rsquo;s cultures (according to the Ethnographic Atlas). Although similar detachment is sometimes experienced by men in matrilocal contexts, as in the case of Bajau bridegrooms (Nimmo, 1972*), it is more commonly documented among women. Supporting examples include the Kikuyu in Kenya (Davison, 1996*), Munduruc\u0026uacute; (Murphy \u0026amp; Murphy, 1985: 223*), Ona hunter-gatherers of Tierra del Fuego (Gusinde, 1931*), Chukchee (Bogoraz-Tan et al., 1904*), G/wi (Silberbauer, 1965*), and Japanese brides (Beardsley et al., 1972*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolygynous arrangements also present a notable case of female (subjective) loneliness, as women must navigate competitive or asymmetrical marital environments. More broadly, conflictive or emotionally distant marital relationships frequently generate loneliness, as seen among the Burmese (Spiro, 1977*), Naskapi hunter-gatherers (Henriksen, 1973: 62*), Tuareg (Rasmussen, 1991*), rural Malays (Valenzuela, 2009), Native Australians along the Finer River (Schulze \u0026amp; Tepper, 1891*), Mormons (Jankowiak, 2008*), and the Gikiyu (Cox \u0026amp; Mberia, 2004*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, these feelings of estrangement tend to diminish over time, especially with prolonged cohabitation and the arrival of children. In cultures where biological offspring are absent, adoption often becomes a strategy to mitigate loneliness, as illustrated by the Blackfoot (Hanks, 1950*), elderly Hokkien women (Wolf, 1969*), and Ndiki women, who arrange complex inter-clan adoptions (Dugast, 1959*). Other compensatory arrangements include reliance on sons-in-law for support in old age, as among the Warao of Venezuela (Su\u0026aacute;rez, 1971*), or the companionship of pets, as observed among childless Garo couples in India (Rongmuthu, 1960*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its limitations, marriage is widely preferred to solitude. As Wolf (1969*) notes, elderly Hokkien women would rather live in a shared household than die alone, \"in a lonely room without the comfort of relatives.\" Similar sentiments are expressed among traditional Greeks (Hirschon, 1978*) and Curur\u0026uacute; River tribes (Murphy \u0026amp; Murphy, 1985*), where the spouse is regarded as a companion in the struggle against isolation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many cultural contexts, singlehood (especially among women) is socially disapproved. Unmarried women may be subjected to suspicion, moral scrutiny, or symbolic vulnerability, which increases their exposure to loneliness. These dynamics are well documented among the Garifuna (Bianchi, 1989*), in Sarawak (Winzeler, 1991*), Turkey (Stirling, 1965), and Iran (Nassehi-Behnam, 1985*). The pressure to avoid solitude also shapes widowhood: the tendency of widowers to remarry, as seen in traditional Greece (Hirschon, 1989*), northern Mexico (Merrill, 1988*), and among the Kaska (Honigmann \u0026amp; Bennet, 1949*), underscores the social and emotional costs of long-term solitude and the cultural value of relational reintegration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a nutshell, while marriage is generally an effective remedy for loneliness, it may initially be accompanied by feelings of isolation, particularly among women. Over time, however, such feelings are often alleviated through emotional bonds, shared life experiences, and the inclusion of children or adopted kin. Across most cultures, women experience the loneliness of marriage and its absence more acutely, reflecting broader gendered structures of sociality and dependence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5.3. Old age, death, and uprooting\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLoneliness linked to aging, uprootedness, and proximity to death emerges as a near-universal experience across cultures. These situations frequently give rise to forms of \u003cem\u003eexistential loneliness\u003c/em\u003e, grounded not only in social disconnection, but also in feelings of loss, finitude, and profound life transitions. Although such loneliness might appear inevitable, its meaning and intensity are always culturally shaped, modulated by normative expectations and by the presence (or absence) of institutional or familial support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOld age, for example, often leads to greater solitude due to factors such as declining health or the loss of a spouse (Ennew, 1980*). Yet, even in this case, solitude does not necessarily mean loneliness. In many small-scale rural societies, elders continue to enjoy symbolic authority and social value and are commonly cared for by family networks. This is the case among the Akan of Ghana, where old age is associated not with neglect but with increased respect and attention: old age is not tied to loneliness and neglect but to increased respect and family care (Warren, 1986*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, when aging intersects with poverty, loneliness becomes more prevalent, as documented among Chicana widows (Miranda et al., 1981), Brazilian caboclos and Munduruc\u0026uacute; (Murphy \u0026amp; Murphy, 1985*), urban Brazilians (Bichir \u0026amp; Marques, 2012), Hawaiians (Gallimore \u0026amp; Howard, 1968*), the Nuer (Hutchinson, 1980: 380*), Saramakans (Price, 1993: 167*), rural North Americans (Hannan, 1979), and Russians (Benet, 1974*). In such cases, the erosion of social ties is compounded by material precarity, reinforcing feelings of abandonment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeath also triggers reflections on loneliness in many societies, affecting both the living and the deceased. Among the Assiniboine, for example, it is customary to kill a favorite horse or dog at the grave, with the aim of reducing the loneliness of the deceased (Miller, 2002*). The Karanga of Africa believe that dead men become homeless and lonely (Aschwanden \u0026amp; Cooper, 1987*). In several Asian cultures, the isolation of widows and the stigma attached to their status has been identified as a factor in suicidal ideation, notably among the Chinese, Manchu, and Indian populations (Elliott, 1999*). There are also cases like that of the Bombay husband, who hanged himself driven by loneliness and despair after being abandoned by his wife (Elwin, 1943*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross cultures, grief and mourning often lead to voluntary withdrawal from social life, as shown in the Caribbean (Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, 1988*). Yet the opposite may also occur: in some contexts, funerary rituals spark communal gatherings, feasting, and intoxication, as in Chichicastenango, Guatemala (Buzel, 1952: 83*), where death becomes an occasion for reaffirming social bonds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, although aging itself does not inherently cause loneliness, conditions such as poverty, weakened kinship ties, and intergenerational tensions can exacerbate vulnerability to it. In extreme cases, profound isolation leads to suicide, particularly among socially marginalized or abandoned individuals. In many cultures, loneliness is understood metaphorically as a form of social death, a condition that strips individuals of recognition, reciprocity, and meaningful belonging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaving explored cross-cultural patterns and established general trends, we can affirm that, while loneliness is deeply shaped by local material, relational, and symbolic conditions, some of the most persistent and emotionally intense cases in our sample are linked to broader processes of social disembedding. This calls for a closer examination of a particularly salient cluster: chronic loneliness in modern Western contexts, where relational structures appear more fragmented, and individualization is more pronounced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e6. The lonely West? Chronic loneliness and the erosion of relational structures\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile analyzing the ethnographic patterns of loneliness in our sample, I identified a recurrent cluster of chronic, emotionally distressing experiences emerging in several Western contexts. These accounts were often marked by long-term social disconnection, weakened kinship ties, and a sense of institutional abandonment. Rather than framing these patterns through a simplistic binary between \u0026ldquo;Western\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;traditional\u0026rdquo; societies, I interpret them as manifestations of broader processes of socio-material and institutional disembedding associated with late modernity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this sense, the key distinction is not civilizational but relational: loneliness tends to become chronic when social ties are no longer rooted in dense, reciprocal, and institutionally supported networks. This includes individuals who feel emotionally alone even when not physically isolated. In such cases, loneliness refers to a subjective sense of disconnection and emotional distress, though this often overlaps with objective isolation. These conditions are more frequent in contexts shaped by urbanization, mobility, individualization, and weakened intergenerational bonds. Yet such dynamics are not exclusive to the West. The ethnographic cases in our sample, along with recent studies from low- and middle-income countries (Akhter-Khan et al. 2022, 2023, 2024; Kwegyir Tsiboe 2019; Roos et al. 2019), show that similar experiences emerge amid rapid social change, economic precarity, and shifting moral economies of care.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy shifting the focus from cultural blocks to relational regimes, we move beyond static or essentialist comparisons and instead highlight how loneliness arises from the transformation of specific forms of social embeddedness. This is grounded not only in comparative ethnographic evidence but also in the reflexive accounts of anthropologists themselves, who often have to grapple with their own loneliness, displacement, and the transformation of communal life. These self-reflective passages function as ethnographic metacommentaries, situated judgments grounded in a deep familiarity with both the specific cultural context and broader comparative frames. They often illuminate not only the analyst\u0026rsquo;s positionality but also the layered dynamics of loneliness, belonging, and displacement as experienced and interpreted from within the ethnographic encounter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, quite often, ethnographies contain etic reflections on loneliness and estrangement, as anthropological fieldwork itself is frequently a solitary practice, often marked by homesickness and emotional distancing. Examples include Chagnon among the Yanomami (1968*), Lancaster among the Blackfoot (1966*), Herskovits on colonial officials in Haiti (1937*), and various Arctic ethnographies (Befu, 1970*; De Coccola et al., 1986*). Typically, this loneliness is overcome through progressive integration into local communities, as seen in work by Kerns (1983*). Upon leaving her field site, Abu-Lughod wrote: \u0026ldquo;It is a quiet life I will miss. There is no loneliness, always someone to sit with. I feel so much part of something here. I don\u0026rsquo;t remember ever feeling that before\u0026rdquo; (1986: xiii*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, many anthropologists also reflect on the impact of modernity on communal life, emphasizing how processes such as globalization, imperialism, modernity or evangelism disrupt established relational practices. This theme appears in works such as Fenton \u0026amp; Tooker (1978*) on Native Americans, Weltfish (1965*) on the Pawnee, Lowenberg (1984*) on Scottish villagers, and Simic (1978*) with Yugoslav farmers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross these cases, there is an increasing emphasis on the connection between loneliness, processes of urbanization and migration, and their psychosocial consequences, ranging from anxiety and depression to somatization, substance abuse, and even suicide. This is particularly acute among North American migrant populations, where loneliness prevalence rates can reach up to 95%. Common causes include uprootedness, cultural estrangement, and social invisibility. A poignant example is that of an elderly Chinese man in San Francisco:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am an old man now, and I feel lonely all the time. I can't find anyone to talk with (\u0026hellip;) I live all by myself in this apartment. My children hardly come here to see me. I have a feeling they don't want me\u0026rdquo; (Tsai, 1986*).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe HRAF have numerous similar examples, especially among migrant communities in the US and Canada, namely Chinese (Mirak, 1983*; Thompson, 1989*; Tseng, 1975*), Koreans (Lee, 1977*; Hurh \u0026amp; Kim, 1983*), Hmong (Koltyk, 1998*; Lynch et al., 1995*), Indochinese (Rick, 1990*), Italians (Gans, 1982*; Alessandrini, 1986*), Chicanos (Miranda et al., 1981*; V\u0026eacute;lez-Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, 1996*), other Latinos (Su\u0026aacute;rez-Orozco, 1995*; Padilla, 1958*; Garc\u0026iacute;a, 1996*; Chavez, 1998*), and Syrians (Kayal \u0026amp; Kayal, 1975*; Naff, 1985*).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, cross-cultural evidence indicates that experiences of loneliness are not confined to any particular type of society, but tend to emerge in relation to broader sociohistorical processes linked to modernity, such as migration, urbanization, and the weakening of institutional and kin-based forms of relational support. Rather than being a symptom of modernity per se, loneliness appears where social ties are destabilized, care structures eroded, and individuals left to navigate increasingly fragmented relational landscapes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the meanings and manifestations of loneliness are shaped by local symbolic frameworks and cultural scripts, a recurrent pattern across diverse contexts is the dissolution of relational bonds once anchored in shared norms, reciprocal expectations, and socially embedded institutions of care and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following conclusions summarize the findings, address the initial research questions (supported by additional research whenever feasible), and offer a final reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIs loneliness a universally shared feeling, or is it merely an epiphenomenon of modern Western society?\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-cultural manifestations of objective and subjective isolation are prevalent in virtually all societies, suggesting that the experience of loneliness is universal. Although specific regions, such as the Middle East, show noteworthy rates of objective (isolation, seclusion, social withdrawal) and subjective isolation (loneliness and solitude), the highest rates of subjective isolation are observed among European cultures and North American migrant populations, which also score very high in isolation and social withdrawal. According to the HRAF data, North American populations of migrant origin display the highest rates of loneliness (95%) and solitude (65%), and very high rates of social withdrawal (90%) and seclusion (70%). European cultures show the highest rates of solitude (70%), loneliness (70.6%), a very high occurrence of isolation (100%), and high rates of seclusion (76.5%). Although the representation of European cultures is modest and lower than in other regions (4.7% of the whole sample), the PSF back up those ratios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the cross-cultural ethnographic data analyzed here appear to support what has been called the \u003cem\u003eLonely West\u003c/em\u003e hypothesis, namely a general positive association between loneliness and processes of modernization. These include industrialization, technological development, urbanization, normative individualism, and secularization. While not uniform across all contexts, these processes tend to erode embedded relational structures and contribute to increased experiences of disconnection, particularly in late-modern settings. These findings are consistent with recent studies: for instance, Blaginin et al. (2018) highlight the rise of loneliness in megacities,[1]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e attributing it largely to growing individualism,[2]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e while MacDonald et al. (2020) identify urban density and reduced social engagement as key predictors of loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis pattern coincides with the weakening of relational structures that were once central to communal and small-scale traditional life, such as family networks, religious communities, and local rituals. However, this does not imply the disappearance of institutions altogether. Late modernity entails a transformation rather than a dissolution of institutional forms (Aug\u0026eacute;, 1992; Bauman, 2000). Institutions often persist, but in more fluid, fragmented, and individualized configurations. Schools, families, and workplaces still operate, yet their ability to generate stable, morally binding, and reciprocal social ties has significantly declined. From this perspective, loneliness arises not from institutional voids, but from their declining capacity to root individuals in thick, lasting forms of relational life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIs there any cross-cultural pattern or constant in the perception and experience of loneliness?\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScrutiny of the ethnographic data reveals several fundamental patterns that are shared across cultures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtually all societies distinguish objective isolation (i.e., being alone) from subjective isolation (i.e., feeling lonely). In contrast, in most societies, \u003cem\u003esolitude\u003c/em\u003e acquires a more ambiguous character: it is regarded as positive when chosen but harmful when undesired, often leading to feelings of loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContrary to expectations, factors such as remoteness, low population densities, and environmental constraints do not necessarily result in \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e, given that different societies engage in socio-economic activities that promote regular gatherings and dispel solitude and loneliness. Most cultures prefer gregarious activities to individual ones. While solitary places and forms of conduct are observed with distrust and suspicion, permanent states of \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e are considered states of superior entities (e.g., creators, gods).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOccasional \u003cem\u003eisolation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e are not only tolerated but often valorized when situated within normative practices with cultural significance, such as rites of passage or spiritual exercises. Loneliness is seldom reported in these contexts, as ritual seclusion is followed by reintegration into the communal fabric. When it does surface, it tends to do so in settings where gender-based segregation is particularly rigid or prolonged. A broader cross-cultural pattern also emerges here: women appear more likely to experience loneliness with greater intensity, reflecting both structural inequalities and differentiated normative expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProlonged or permanent states of \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e are typically reserved for ritual specialists\u0026mdash;who often occupy positions of elevated symbolic status\u0026mdash;or for cosmological beings such as gods, spirits, and creators. Beyond these exceptional cases, long-term and involuntary isolation is rare and generally associated with punitive practices. As S\u0026ouml;denberg and Fry (2017) note, it is commonly imposed only in response to serious transgressions of core moral or communal norms. When sustained, \u003cem\u003eseclusion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esocial withdrawal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eostracism\u003c/em\u003e have deeply corrosive effects on individual well-being. Across cultures, such conditions are frequently explained in terms of supernatural affliction or attributed to morally deviant or socially anomalous individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eLoneliness\u003c/em\u003e is experienced across cultures with deep-seated aversion, and it is often the object of moral, symbolic, and folkloric concern, since it is a fundamental catalyst for psychological or physical anguish.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegrees of \u003cem\u003esolitude\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e vary throughout the life-cycle and may be critical at certain moments (e.g., first stages of marriage, divorce, or widowhood), showing a slightly higher prevalence among elderly females than males, which is congruent with recent studies (Boehlen et al., 2023). However, although aging may imply solitude, it is not synonymous with loneliness in any significant way.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, alongside processes of individualism, migration, and urbanization, poverty seems to be a significant predictor of loneliness. Impoverished individuals usually have smaller social networks than their non-poor counterparts (Refaeli \u0026amp; Achdut, 2002) because in modern societies access to recreational spaces for socializing is increasingly compromised by the availability of economic resources (Valenzuela-Garc\u0026iacute;a, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat mechanisms or strategies do cultures use to cope with and alleviate loneliness?\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the feeling of \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e is frequently related to specific life crises (e.g., divorce, widowhood, death of a child, etc.), societies often have institutional mechanisms and social arrangements to counteract it. Marriage can be regarded as the main institutional remedy for loneliness, despite its ambiguities. In this case, although instances of \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e are reported among newlyweds and in polygynous marriages, long-term cohabitation, especially with the arrival of children, tends to alleviate these feelings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLonely elders often find solace within extended families, where they are cared for by the wider community. Similarly, widowers often seek companionship through remarriage, driven not only by practical considerations but also to alleviate their sense of solitude. Adoption, too, is a widespread social practice that counteracts loneliness on the part of the adopter and adoptees too.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRituals and folklore, as seen across cultures, often serve as powerful channels for containing and transforming feelings of loneliness. Through communal gatherings, religious ceremonies, collective labor, and seasonal festivities, societies weave affective ties that reaffirm belonging and mutual care. Ethnographic and experimental data alike point to a widespread tendency to privilege collaboration over solitude, an inclination deeply rooted in the human condition and supported by cross-cultural evidence (see Molina et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, ethnographic findings reveal a rich repertoire of symbolic, moral, and institutional mechanisms that are widely shared across societies and that act to forestall undesired isolation. Rather than passive responses, these forms of social regulation constitute active, culturally embedded strategies to sustain cohesion and protect against the corrosive effects of \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eA final reflection: loneliness, reciprocity, and the cost of disconnection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt may sound like a clich\u0026eacute;, but \u003cem\u003eloneliness\u003c/em\u003e resonates unexpectedly with two of Marcel Mauss\u0026rsquo;s central concepts: the \u003cem\u003etotal social fact\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ethe gift\u003c/em\u003e (1925). It cuts across the moral, emotional, economic, legal, and religious domains, condensing in a single experience the intricate interplay between social structures and cultural meanings. Loneliness, in this sense, is not merely a private feeling but a prism through which the interdependence of social life becomes visible: how we belong, how we give and receive, and how we are (or are not) recognized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the testimonies of anthropologists and migrants show, uprootedness, estrangement, and marginality often culminate in profound solitude. Put simply, \u003cem\u003eloneliness arises when there is no one to share with\u003c/em\u003e: the displaced ethnographer far from home, the migrant severed from daily routines, the elderly person left without conversation, the young bride in an unfamiliar family, the widow or divorc\u0026eacute;e without kin. At its core, loneliness is a relational condition\u0026mdash;not the absence of people, but the collapse of reciprocity. And herein lies the second resonance with Mauss: if loneliness signals the breakdown of those fundamental exchanges through which lives are sustained and made meaningful, then reciprocity (the \u003cem\u003egift\u003c/em\u003e) is its remedy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere social ties allow the circulation of material, symbolic, and emotional resources, they generate belonging, care, and recognition. As Parsons (2020) reminds us, it is this flow of reciprocity that protects individuals from the isolating drift of modern life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore than sixty years ago, the anthropologist D.R. Mace offered an insight that feels even more urgent today:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur experience of living in the Orient, in Africa, even in southern European and Caribbean communities, as well as in the Soviet Union, convinces us that the middle-class Western obsession about getting away from other people does not represent typical human psychology (\u0026hellip;) For loneliness, the sense of isolation from one's fellows is the root cause of many of the personal and social problems in our Western world. (Mace, 1963: 117)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs social cohesion weakens, loneliness and relational vulnerability become structural challenges. It is both puzzling and troubling that in so-called \u003cem\u003eadvanced\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ehyperconnected\u003c/em\u003e societies, more and more people find themselves condemned to solitude. The growing phenomenon of \u003cem\u003elonely deaths\u003c/em\u003e in countries like Norway (Hauge \u0026amp; Kirkevold, 2012), the United States (Twenge et al., 2019), and Japan (Allison, 2013) should not only alarm us, but compel us to reflect.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese solitary deaths stand in stark contrast to the situation in many premodern societies, where solitude is feared, stigmatized, or actively discouraged. Within such symbolic and normative frameworks lies a collective effort to resist radical individualism and the unraveling of social life. Paradoxically, the very ideals that have propelled modernity, such as autonomy, mobility, or liberalism, may have also eroded the principles of reciprocity, mutual obligation, and communal belonging. In this light, loneliness appears to be the high price paid for the pursuit of unbounded freedom and economic progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a world increasingly shaped by demographic transitions, technological change, and the weakening of stable social ties, loneliness emerges as a central problem for understanding human wellbeing across cultures. An anthropology of loneliness is therefore not merely descriptive but diagnostic, revealing how different societies recognize, regulate, and attempt to alleviate experiences of isolation. Comparative inquiry shows that while loneliness is a widespread human condition, cultures differ significantly in the symbolic frameworks, moral expectations, and social arrangements through which relational life is sustained. By examining these variations, anthropology can contribute to current debates on mental health, social suffering, and the conditions that make meaningful belonging possible in contemporary societies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eH.V.-G. conceived the study, conducted the research, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e[Deleted due to anonymization]\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are derived from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) database. Access to these data is subject to the HRAF license and is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbbott, B. (2023). Loneliness Isn\u0026rsquo;t Just Bad for Your Health\u0026mdash;It\u0026rsquo;s Deadly. \u003cem\u003eThe Wall Street Journal\u003c/em\u003e https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/loneliness-social-isolation-death-577009bb\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdamczyk, K. (2016). An Investigation of Loneliness and Perceived Social Support Among Single and Partnered Young Adults. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology, 35\u003c/em\u003e, 674\u0026ndash;689 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9337-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllison, Anne (2013). \u003cem\u003ePrecarious Japan\u003c/em\u003e. Duke University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAstell-Burt, T., Hartig, T., Putra, I. G. N. E., Walsan, R., Dendup, T., \u0026amp; Feng, X. (2022). Green space and Loneliness: A systematic review with theoretical and methodological guidance for future research. \u003cem\u003eThe Science of the total environment\u003c/em\u003e, 847:157521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157521\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAug\u0026eacute;, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity (J. Howe, Trans.). Verso. (Original work published 1992)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarreto, M. C., Victor, C., Hammond, C., Eccles, A., Richins, M. T., \u0026amp; Qualter, P. (2021). Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110066.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeck, U., \u0026amp; Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences. SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBichir, R. M. and Marques, E. (2012). Poverty and sociability in Brazilian metropolises: comparing poor people's personal networks in S\u0026atilde;o Paulo and Salvador. Connections \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 20\u0026ndash;32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12300\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlaginin, V., Ergunova, O., \u0026amp; Pyankova, S. (2018). Loneliness as a social problem of a modern metropolis. In F. Casati, G. А. Barysheva, \u0026amp; W. Krieger (Eds.)., Lifelong Wellbeing in the World - WELLSO 2017, vol 38. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 71\u0026ndash;79). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarzeva S. A., Meeus, W. H. J., Oldehinkel A. J. (2019). Social withdrawal in adolescence and early adulthood: Measurement issues, normative development, and distinct trajectories. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e:865. https://doi.org.10.1007/s10802-018-0497-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBauman, Z. (2000). \u003cem\u003eLiquid Modernity\u003c/em\u003e. Polity Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeck, U., \u0026amp; Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). \u003cem\u003eIndividualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoehlen, F.H., Heider, D., Schellberg, D. et al. (2023). Gender-specific association of loneliness and health care use in community-dwelling older adults. \u003cem\u003eBMC Geriatr 23\u003c/em\u003e, 502. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04201-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorys, S., \u0026amp; Perlman, D. (1985). Gender Differences in Loneliness. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 63\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111006\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCacioppo, J. T., and Patrick, W. (2008). \u003cem\u003eLoneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection\u003c/em\u003e. Norton \u0026amp; Co.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCasal, B., Ribera, B. E., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, E. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEl coste de la soledad no deseada en Espa\u0026ntilde;a. Observatorio Estatal de la Soledad No Deseada\u003c/em\u003e. Fundaci\u0026oacute;n Once.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastells, Manuel. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume I: The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, V. T. (2015). \u003cem\u003eCut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy.\u003c/em\u003e University of California Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen J. \u0026amp; Gong, L. (2022). Loneliness in urbanising China. \u003cem\u003eHeath and Social Care in the Community, 30\u003c/em\u003e(3):e812-e822. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13451\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoplan, R. J., Bowker, J. C. (2013). \u003cem\u003eA Handbook of Solitude: Psychological Perspectives on Social Isolation\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley Blackwell.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCruces, F. (2022). \u003cem\u003eMetropolitan intimacies. An ethnography on the poetics of daily life\u003c/em\u003e. Lexington books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Jong Gierveld, J. (1998). A review of Loneliness: Concept and definitions, determinants and consequences. \u003cem\u003eReviews in Clinical Gerontology, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 73\u0026ndash;80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259898008090\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eD\u0026iacute;az Nicol\u0026aacute;s, J. \u0026amp; Morenos P\u0026aacute;ez, M. (2015). \u003cem\u003eLa soledad en Espa\u0026ntilde;a.\u003c/em\u003e Fundaci\u0026oacute;n ONCE y Fundaci\u0026oacute;n AXA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDumont, L. (1986). \u003cem\u003eEssays on individualism: Modern ideology in anthropological perspective\u003c/em\u003e. University of Chicago Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElias, N. (2000). The civilizing process. Oxford: Blackwell. (Original work published 1939)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmber, C. R. (2007). Using the HRAF Collection of Ethnography in Conjunction with the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample and the Ethnographic Atlas. \u003cem\u003eCross-Cultural Research, 41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 396\u0026ndash;427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397107306593\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmber, C. R, and Ember, M. (2024). Basic Guide to Cross-Cultural Research. Human Relation Area Files. Cultural Information for education and research. https://hraf.yale.edu/cross-cultural-research/basic-guide-to-cross-cultural-research/#sampling-within-the-hraf-collection\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFranklin, A. (2012). A lonely society? Loneliness and liquid modernity in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47: 11\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2012.tb00232.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolden, J., Conroy, R. M., Bruce, I., Denihan, A., Greene, E., Kirby, M., \u0026amp; Lawlor, B. A. (2009). Loneliness, social support networks, mood and wellbeing in community-dwelling elderly. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 24(7), 694\u0026ndash;700. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2181\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrenier, A., Burke, E., Currie, G., Watson, S., \u0026amp; Ward, J. (2022). Social Isolation in Later Life: The Importance of Place, Disadvantage and Diversity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of aging \u0026amp; social policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 471\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2021.1886637\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHauge, S., \u0026amp; Kirkevold, M. (2012). Variations in older persons' descriptions of the burden of loneliness. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian journal of caring sciences, 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 553\u0026ndash;560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00965.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHawkley, L. C., \u0026amp; Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of behavioral medicine: a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 218\u0026ndash;227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeinrich, L. M., \u0026amp; Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: a literature review. \u003cem\u003eClinical psychology review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(6), 695\u0026ndash;718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHolt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., \u0026amp; Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 227\u0026ndash;237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJankowiak W., and Ramsey, A. (2000). Femme Fatale and Status Fatale: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. \u003cem\u003eCross-Cultural Research\u003c/em\u003e, 34(1): 57\u0026ndash;69. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400104\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarnick P. M. (2005). Feeling lonely: theoretical perspectives. \u003cem\u003eNursing science quarterly, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7\u0026ndash;6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318404272483\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlinenberg, E. (2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York: Penguin Books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeigh-Hunt, N., Bagguley, D., Bash, K., Turner, V., Turnbull, S., Valtorta, N., \u0026amp; Caan, W. (2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. \u003cem\u003ePublic health, 152\u003c/em\u003e, 157\u0026ndash;171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindgren, B. M., Sundbaum, J., Eriksson, M., \u0026amp; Graneheim, U. H. (2014). Looking at the world through a frosted window: experiences of loneliness among persons with mental ill-health. \u003cem\u003eJournal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 114\u0026ndash;120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12053\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLykes, V. A., Kemmelmeier, M. (2014). What predicts loneliness? Cultural difference between individualistic and collectivistic societies in Europe. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 468\u0026ndash;490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113509881\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacDonald, K. J., Willemsen, G., Boomsma, D. I. and Schermer, J. A. (2020). Predicting Loneliness from Where and What People Do. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences 9\u003c/em\u003e(4):51. https://doi.org.10.3390/socsci9040051\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagnhild, N. \u0026amp; Thorsen, K. (2014). Loneliness among men and women: a five-year follow-up study. \u003cem\u003eAging \u0026amp; Mental Health, 18\u003c/em\u003e(2): 194\u0026ndash;206. https://doi.org.10.1080/13607863.2013.821457\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatias, T., Dominski, F. H., \u0026amp; Marks, D. F. (2020). Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of health psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(7), 871\u0026ndash;882. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320925149\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMauss, M. (1990[1925]). \u003cem\u003eThe Gift. The form and reason for exchange\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcGraw, J. G. (2010). \u003cem\u003eIntimacy and isolation\u003c/em\u003e. Rodopi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMilbrandt, T. \u0026amp; Park, O. (2023). \u003cem\u003eA Multidimensional Social Inquiry into the Loneliness Problem: Urbanization, Technological Mediation, and Neoliberal Individualism\u003c/em\u003e. Report. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. https://doi.org/10.7939/r3-tpaj-mp55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMishra, M. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe Western world\u0026rsquo;s loneliness epidemic: What lessons can be learned\u003c/em\u003e. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/mind-the-gap/the-western-worlds-loneliness-epidemic-what-lessons-can-be-learned/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolina, J.L., Lubbers M. J., Valenzuela-Garc\u0026iacute;a, H., Mestres, S. (2017). Cooperation and competition in social anthropology. Anthropology Today, 33(1): 11\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12323\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrtiz-Ospina, E., Roser, M. (2020). Loneliness and Social Connections. OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/social-connections-and-loneliness.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzawa-de Silva. C., \u0026amp; Parsons, M. (2020). Toward an anthropology of loneliness. \u003cem\u003eTranscultural Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 57(5):613\u0026ndash;622. https://doi.org.10.1177/1363461520961627\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParsons, M.A. (2020). Being unneeded in post-Soviet Russia: Lessons for an anthropology of loneliness. \u003cem\u003eTranscultural Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 57(5):635\u0026ndash;648. https://doi.org.10.1177/1363461520909612\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePerlman, D., \u0026amp; Peplau, L. A. (1981). Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour, \u0026amp; S. Duck (Eds.), \u003cem\u003ePersonal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e: 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31\u0026ndash;56). Academic Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePike, I. L. \u0026amp; Crocker, R. M. (2020). \u0026ldquo;My own corner of loneliness:\u0026rdquo; Social isolation and place among Mexican immigrants in Arizona and Turkana pastoralists of Kenya. \u003cem\u003eTranscultural Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e 57 (5): 661\u0026ndash;672. doi: 10.1177/1363461520938286\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePinquart, M., \u0026amp; S\u0026ouml;rensen, S. (2001). Influences on Loneliness in Older Adults: a Meta-Analysis. \u003cem\u003eBasic and Applied Social Psychology, 23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 245\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2304_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutnam, R. (2001). \u003cem\u003eBowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community\u003c/em\u003e. Touchstone Books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRefaeli, Th., \u0026amp; Achdut, N. (2020). Perceived poverty, perceived income adequacy and loneliness in Israeli young adults: Are social capital and neighborhood capital resilience factors? \u003cem\u003eHealth and Social Care in Community, 30\u003c/em\u003e(2): 668\u0026ndash;684. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13177\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobertson, J. (2018). \u003cem\u003eRobo sapiens Japanicus: Robots, gender, family, and the Japanese nation\u003c/em\u003e. University of California Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRokach, A. (1998). The Relation of Cultural Background to the Causes of Loneliness. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1): 75\u0026ndash;88. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1998.17.1.75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRokach, A. (2011). From Loneliness to Belonging: A Review. \u003cem\u003ePsychology Journal, 8\u003c/em\u003e, 70\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org.10.1016/0277-9536(92)90300-F\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRolls, L., Seymour. J.E., Froggatt, K.A., Hanratty, B. (2011). Older people living alone at the end of life in the UK: Research and policy challenges. \u003cem\u003ePalliative Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(6): 650\u0026ndash;657. https://doi.org.10.1177/0269216310373165\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRook, K. S. (1984). Research on social support, loneliness, and social isolation: Toward an integration. \u003cem\u003eReview of Personality \u0026amp; Social Psychology, 5\u003c/em\u003e, 239\u0026ndash;264. https://doi.org.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728658\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavolainen, I., Oksanen A., Kaakinen M., Sirola A., \u0026amp; Paek H. (2020). The Role of Perceived Loneliness in Youth Addictive Behaviors: Cross-National Survey Study. \u003cem\u003eJMIR Ment Health, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), e14035. https://doi.org.10.2196/14035\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilverstein, M., \u0026amp; Giarrusso, R. (2010). Ageing and Family Life: A Decade Review. \u003cem\u003eJ Marriage Fam\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1039\u0026ndash;1058. https://doi.org.10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSingh, A., Misra, N. (2009). Loneliness, depression and sociability in old age. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Psychiatry Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1):51\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5. https://doi.org.10.4103/0972-6748.57861\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSlater P. (1970). \u003cem\u003eThe pursuit of loneliness: American culture at the breaking point\u003c/em\u003e. Beacon.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSnell, K., D., M., (2017). The rise of living alone and loneliness in history. \u003cem\u003eSocial History, 42\u003c/em\u003e:1, 2\u0026ndash;28, DOI: 10.1080/03071022.2017.1256093\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eS\u0026ouml;denberg, P., \u0026amp; Fry, D., P. (2017). Anthropological aspects of ostracism. In D.W. Kipling \u0026amp; Nida, S. A. (Eds.). \u003cem\u003eOstracism, Exclusion, and Rejection\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStein, J. Y., \u0026amp; Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2015). The Social Construction of Loneliness: An Integrative Conceptualization, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Constructivist Psychology 28\u003c/em\u003e (3): 210\u0026ndash;227 https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2014.911129\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStickley, A., Koyanagi, A., Roberts, B., Richardson, E., Abbott, P., Tumanov, S., \u0026amp; McKee, M. (2013). Loneliness: its correlates and association with health behaviours and outcomes in nine countries of the former Soviet Union. \u003cem\u003ePloS one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(7), e67978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067978\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweet, J. (2021). The Loneliness Pandemic. The psychology and social costs of isolation in everyday life. The Harvard Magazine. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/12/feature-the-loneliness-pandemic\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTriandis, H. C. (1995). \u003cem\u003eIndividualism and collectivism\u003c/em\u003e. Westview Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurkle, S. (2011). \u003cem\u003eAlone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurner, E. (2012). \u003cem\u003eCommunitas: The Anthropology of Collective Joy\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValenzuela-Garc\u0026iacute;a, H. (2009). \u003cem\u003eAn ethnography of the Impact of Politics and Globalization on the Malaysian Fishing Economy.\u003c/em\u003e Edwin and Mellen Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValenzuela-Garcia, H.; Lubbers, M., and Molina, J.L. (2020). \u003cem\u003eVivo entre Cuatro Paredes.\u003c/em\u003e Fundaci\u0026oacute;n FOESSA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValenzuela-Garcia, H., Lubbers, M., \u0026amp; Molina, J. (2021a). She\u0026rsquo;s surrounded by loved ones, but feeling alone: A Relational Approach to Loneliness. \u003cem\u003eSocial Inclusion, 9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 350\u0026ndash;362. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i4.4585\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValenzuela-Garc\u0026iacute;a, H. (2021b). Teletrabajo y amplificaci\u0026oacute;n de la desigualdad en la sociedad post-pandemia espa\u0026ntilde;ola. In \u003cem\u003eD\u0026iacute;as extra\u0026ntilde;os. C\u0026oacute;mo el Covid-19 transforma nuestra cotidianeidad\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eRevista Andaluza de Antropolog\u0026iacute;a, 1\u003c/em\u003e(19), 14\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.12795/RAA.2021.19.02\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eValenzuela-Garcia, H., Molina, J.L., and Lubbers, M.J. (2022). Choose, buy, pay \u0026ndash; Paradoxes of shame-relieving processes among impoverished Spaniards after 2008\u0026rsquo;s great recession. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Ethnography 12\u003c/em\u003e(1): 120\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-11-2021-0056\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, G., Zhang, X., Wang, K., Li, Y., Shen, Q., Ge, X., \u0026amp; Hang, W. (2011). Loneliness among the rural older people in Anhui, China: prevalence and associated factors. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1162\u0026ndash;1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2656\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeiss, R. S. (1973). \u003cem\u003eLoneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation\u003c/em\u003e. MIT Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWheeler, L., Reis, H., Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology 45\u003c/em\u003e(4), 943\u0026ndash;953. https://doi.org.10.1037//0022-3514.45.4.943\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, K. \u0026amp; Victor, C. (2011). Age and loneliness in 25 European nations. \u003cem\u003eAgeing and Society, 31\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org.10.1017/S0144686X1000139X\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao, R. \u0026amp; Cao, L. (2010). Social Change and Anomie: A Cross-National Study. \u003cem\u003eSocial Forces\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e (3), 1209\u0026ndash;1229. https://doi.org.10.1353/sof.0.0312\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e A megacity is generally defined as an urban area with more than ten million inhabitants, but its significance lies not only in its size. Megacities are marked by infrastructural complexity, population density, and often by social fragmentation and anonymity (Blaginin et al. 2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u0026lsquo;Individualism\u0026rsquo; refers to a sociocultural orientation that emphasizes personal autonomy, self-determination, and individual rights over collective duties. It is often linked to processes of modernization and social differentiation, and to the weakening of embedded relational roles (Triandis 1995; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002; Dumont 1986).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"loneliness, social isolation, wellbeing, culture, relational life","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eOver recent decades, loneliness has increasingly been recognized as a major factor affecting wellbeing, social life, and mental health, particularly in contemporary Western societies. While biomedical and psychological research has identified multiple risk factors associated with loneliness, less attention has been paid to how different cultures understand, evaluate, and respond to social isolation. This article examines the cultural meanings and social regulation of loneliness across societies, asking whether loneliness is mainly a feature of modern Western life or a more general condition of human relational existence. Using a mixed-methods approach based on data from 360 cultures and more than 3,700 ethnographic documents from the Human Relations Area Files, the study shows that (1) loneliness is a widespread human experience generally perceived as harmful or undesirable; (2) societies vary in the norms that define acceptable and unacceptable forms of isolation; and (3) diverse cultural mechanisms exist to prevent, manage, or alleviate loneliness. By situating loneliness within broader cultural models of relatedness and social belonging, the article contributes to a comparative anthropological understanding of loneliness and highlights the cultural and relational conditions that shape experiences of isolation, belonging, and wellbeing across societies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Loneliness across cultures: Social isolation, cultural models, and coping strategies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-25 10:57:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9147375/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4753e8a2-ca76-49f5-9dee-32250e153b1f","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"150762354914911010699880030919376539995","date":"2026-05-07T18:41:48+00:00","index":14,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T11:46:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-25 10:57:35","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9147375","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9147375","identity":"rs-9147375","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}