Systems Theory and Loneliness

The following descriptions below highlight possible questions a family systems theorist may ask with regards to the different dimensions of loneliness.

Type of deprivation.  Of interest in this section is the utility of systems theory to explaining social loneliness, which is the type of deprivation experienced by lonely persons as a result of a discrepancy between desired and achieved patterns of social relations or social network.  While the discrepancy is perceived and thus internal, the main question a systems theorist may ask is what characteristics of the family system prevents an adolescent from resolving this discrepancy?  In other words, what are the external family system barriers that an adolescent has to overcome in order to resolve this discrepancy?  These questions will be looked at further later. 

Emotional characteristics.  The discrepancy experienced as social loneliness can be considered as the source of the emotional characteristics of loneliness.  This emotional characteristic of loneliness provides the necessary motivation to attempt to resolve the discrepancy as suggested by the feedback mechanism described Flanders (1982).

Time perspective.  The time perspective dimension allows one to make the distinction between adolescents whose loneliness is transient and easily overcome vs. adolescents whose loneliness is more chronic and difficult to change.  Systems theory can be used to answer the question of how families may help or hinder the process of reducing the discrepancy.  It may be helpful to begin first with what types of families generally tend to have moderate to chronically lonely adolescents (previously it was suggested that Olson’s (1993) rigidly enmeshed and chaotically disengaged family types are most relevant) and then continue into how these family types can create family cultures in which adolescents are unable to resolve the discrepancies they experience between the actual and desired patterns of social relations.  It is possible that certain family types create systems, which perpetuate an adolescent’s loneliness over time.

The Circumplex Model and loneliness.  Based on Olson’s Circumplex Model of the family, two of the four unbalanced types of families most clearly seem to be fertile ground for adolescent loneliness. For the chaotically disengaged type, Johnson, LaVoie, and Mahoney (2001) provide evidence that families lacking cohesion (i.e., disengaged) and also as Perlman (1988) described as emotionally cold, show a statistical relationship with adolescents who are lonely.  Perlman (1988) also states that undisciplined and irrational families have adolescents who are lonely.  Rotenberg (1999b) also puts forward the idea that parenting style is associated with adolescent loneliness.  In particular he cites research, which suggests that parents who are rejecting and not positively involved with their children tend to have lonely children.  Olson (1993) describes discipline in chaotic families as laissez-faire and ineffective, and also describes that decisions made within the family are impulsive.  Therefore the description of families that have adolescents, who are susceptible to loneliness, is similar to what Olson (1993) describes as a chaotically disengaged family. 

However, the situation is different for rigidly enmeshed families.  Andersson, Mullins, and Johnson (1989) propose that the absence of family cohesion is only one side of the coin.  They suggest that a dichotomous model of loneliness in which loneliness can be sustained either through too little or too much emotional fusion.  Families that are too emotionally fused tend to have a prevalence of narcissistic intrusion.  This narcissistic intrusion results from a parental love, which is overly protective of the child and inhibits exploration.  This in turn limits the ability of a child/adolescent to gain social skills through exploration of the social environment outside of the family.  Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1999) also suggest that overly involved and overprotective parents can have a negative effect on children and adolescents, which can later lead to loneliness by fostering “lack of social self-confidence, independence, and initiative” (p. 78). 

Olson (1993) describes enmeshed families as having extreme emotional closeness, and rigid families as having authoritarian leadership, where the parents are highly controlling.  Adolescents in rigidly enmeshed families thus may have difficulty forming peer relationships outside of the home and may be particularly susceptible to loneliness there.

Family types and loneliness.  Given the relationship between Olson’s family types and adolescent loneliness, the question arises as to the ways certain family types help create systems which hinders an adolescent’s ability to reduce the cognitive discrepancy associated with his/her loneliness.  Systems theory suggests that a particular family culture may entail patterns of interaction between parents and adolescents that tend to perpetuate adolescents’ loneliness.

Collins and Laursen (1999) state that as individuals move through adolescence, relationships change:  they are move extensive and diverse, adolescents perceive their relationships with greater complexity, and romantic relationships develop. Parkhurst and Hopmeyer (1999) show that relationships become important for adolescents especially for discussing personal issues, discussing social and philosophical issues, and establishing intimacy.  Adolescents need parental assistance in order to adapt to the relationship changes occurring.  As individuals move through adolescence therefore, and especially if they experience loneliness, they may make repeated requests for parental assistance in helping them deal with their situation.  Parents of the two family types then, may reject requests for assistance or provide assistance that is ineffective in reducing an adolescent’s loneliness.

O’Neil and Parke (2000) and Rotenberg (1999b) state that parents can directly help adolescents with developing social skills through parental advice and social guidance.  As adolescents learn to negotiate through the social milieu, parental advice and experience may help adolescents learn social skills quicker and establish intimate relationships more easily.  In both unbalanced family types discussed previously, rigidly enmeshed families may offer parental advice that is counter to establishing intimate relationships (e.g., “people who are not your family cannot be trusted”), whereas chaotically disengaged families offer little or no advice at all. 

The other means that parents can directly help adolescents is as sources of social opportunity (O’Neil & Parke, 2000; Rotenberg, 1999b).  In this case, parents provide opportunities for adolescents to have increased social contact.  Several examples include parents inviting peers over for a birthday party, encouraging adolescents to go to social events, and for parents to be part of the community and knowing other parents (greater social network).  Again rigidly enmeshed families would have parents with a closed boundary and would discourage outside involvement, whereas chaotically disengaged families would have parents who are unable or unwilling to create social opportunities for their children.  Mounts (2000) in her interview with parents, discovered that parents who are unaccepting of their adolescent’s peers may prohibit peer relationships.  This can particularly be the case in romantic relationships, where family values and traditions may frown upon adolescent romantic relationships.  Andersson et al. (1989) highlights that parents of families similar to the rigidly enmeshed type may use the threats of love withdrawal, abandonment, and eliciting feelings of guilt as controlling mechanisms to get children and adolescents to obey them.  Adolescents in the rigidly enmeshed family type may feel especially lonely because of the parents’ prohibitions about which peer relationships are acceptable.

The family culture therefore creates a system in which adolescents make requests for help and support in resolving their loneliness, and in parents providing inadequate support.  As Andersson et al. (1989) says, “parents may be inadequate in opposite directions.  They may neglect their offspring or they may be overprotective” (p. 129).  Hojat (1982), for example, in his study found that adolescents whose parents were not a secure source of advice and thought that their parents did not understand them or devote enough time to them had significantly higher scores on loneliness than others whose parental relationships were more positive.  The family system therefore is unable to assist the adolescent in resolving his/her loneliness.

Conclusion.  Systems theory is useful in explaining how the family system can sustain an environment in which an adolescent’s social network is reduced to a level below his/her desired level (social loneliness).  Two family types were proposed as systems, which are closely associated with previous research on families and loneliness: chaotically disengaged and rigidly enmeshed.  Rigidly enmeshed families restrict an adolescent from expanding their social network outside of the family setting by family members.  Two family types can provide fertile ground for adolescent loneliness, in particular by withholding necessary socialization experiences to gain needed social skills, or by providing little parental guidance and support.

General Conclusion

      This section looked at various concepts within systems theory and in particular, Olson’s (1993) Circumplex Model.  Systems theory can be useful in explaining chronic social loneliness by proposing that certain family types prevent adolescents from resolving this discrepancy.  The explanations by systems theory clearly indicate the need for intervention researchers to focus not only on individual characteristics that may promote loneliness, but also look at the individual’s context and how this context may provide obstacles to resolving a person’s loneliness.