Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Emerging adults experience intense instability and uncertainty in their lives. The relevance of existential loneliness to emerging adults has received little attention in loneliness research. This study investigated the psychometric properties of two recently developed existential loneliness scales, the Existential Loneliness scale (ELS) and the Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness (BSEL), among 370 emerging adults aged from 18 to 29 years. The results demonstrated that the BSEL had sound psychometric properties in this age group, while the psychometric properties of ELS were acceptable. As predicted, existential loneliness measured by each scale positively correlated with general loneliness, depressive symptoms and anxiety, and negatively correlated with satisfaction of life and presence of meaning in life. These results underscore the importance of examining how existential loneliness impacts the psychological well-being of emerging adults.

Keywords

emerging adults existential loneliness

Introduction

Psychological problems, such as depression and anxiety, are an increasing health risk in emerging adults (Christiansen et al., 2021; Galanaki et al., 2023; Matud et al., 2020; Potterton et al., 2020). Emerging adulthood is a relatively newly defined developmental phase, extending from the end of adolescence to the establishment of professional and intimate roles in young adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2023; Arnett et al., 2014). During this transition period, emerging adults are self-focused and engage in exploring identity roles. Arnett et al. (2014) argued that emerging adults face more major transitions and decisions than people in any other age group. This period, therefore, is characterized by instability and stress, which places emerging adults at increased risk of experiencing psychological problems. One of the key risk factors for psychological problems among emerging adults is loneliness (Christiansen et al., 2021; Mayorga et al., 2022; Pretorius & Padmanabhanunni, 2021). A recent meta-analysis found a consistent increase in loneliness among emerging adults from 1976 to 2019 (Buecker et al., 2021). Understanding loneliness in emerging adulthood is important to improve the mental health of people in this life stage.

Existential Loneliness

Loneliness is defined as an unpleasant feeling related to perceived insufficient or inadequate social interactions or relationships (Kirwan et al., 2024). Loneliness has been conceptualized as multidimensional, with different types of loneliness including social, emotional, and existential loneliness. Social loneliness is the feeling of lacking a wide group of contacts or integration into a social network, whilst emotional loneliness is defined as a lack of close emotional attachments (Maes et al., 2022). Both are usually a result of a lack of meaningful relationships. Therefore, a key strategy to address loneliness is often to improve social relationships. However, individuals who have strong social networks can still feel existential loneliness (Ettema et al., 2010; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2023b).

Ettema et al. (2010) reviewed the literature on existential loneliness and argued it had three dimensions: the condition of being separate from everyone else, which is also referred to as existential isolation; the experience of lonely emptiness and nothingness; and the process of confronting the lonely nature of one’s existence to achieve inner growth. However, they concluded the concept was ‘profoundly unclear’ (p. 141). Bolmsjö et al. (2019) further clarified this by arguing that existential loneliness was characterized by a feeling of being fundamentally separate from other people and the universe, an acute sense of mortality, and an inability to authentically communicate with other people. This feeling of existential loneliness is often accompanied by sadness, grief, hopelessness, and a lack of meaningful purpose in life (Bolmsjö et al., 2019; Chung et al., 2020; Mayers et al., 2002). As existential loneliness is a more profound and deeper feeling of loneliness, it can be seen as longer-lasting and more difficult to resolve than other types of loneliness (McKenna-Plumley et al., 2023b). However, existential loneliness has received relatively little scholarly attention. Further, studies on existential loneliness have mostly focused on older adults (Carr & Fang, 2023; Larsson et al., 2023; Olofsson et al., 2021) or people with serious illnesses (Ettema et al., 2010; Mayers et al., 2005; Mayers & Svartberg, 2001; Razban et al., 2022), and most of these studies were qualitative.

Emerging Adulthood and Existential Loneliness

Recent qualitative studies found that existential loneliness can be experienced as early as adolescence (Garnow et al., 2022; Hemberg et al., 2022; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2023a). For instance, Hemberg et al.’s (2022) qualitative study found that late adolescents and young adults (aged 17–30 years) experience existential loneliness as well as social and emotional loneliness. Garnow et al. (2022) interviewed Swedish people aged 15–21 years and found that their feelings of existential loneliness were related to their feelings of being in between childhood and adulthood and being socially isolated. Galanaki et al.’s (2023) quantitative study found that emerging adults with higher levels of existential loneliness were more likely to withdraw socially, become socially isolated, and avoid social interactions. These findings highlight the importance of understanding emerging adults’ experience of existential loneliness, which may adversely affect their psychological well-being. However, quantitative research on existential loneliness is scarce. One suggested reason for this is the lack of a suitable instrument to measure this construct.

Existential Loneliness Scales

Until recently, there were two existential loneliness scales: the Belcher Extended Loneliness Scale (Belcher, 1973) and the Existential Loneliness Questionnaire (ELQ; Mayers et al., 2002). Belcher’s scale measured eight different types of loneliness, including existential loneliness. As Hadeei (2023) and McKenna-Plumley et al. (2024) have pointed out, a number of authors have crticised this scale for its length (65 items) and conceptual complexity (Scalise et al., 1984; Solano, 1980). Following this, Mayers et al. (2002) developed the ELQ with 22 items to measure existential loneliness in HIV-infected women. Whilst the ELQ was designed to measure only existential loneliness, Gökdemir-Bulut and Bozo's (2018) principal component analysis found the scale measured three factors: loneliness in social ties, loneliness in close relationships, and finding meaning in life. This factor structure suggests that the ELQ may measure different types of loneliness. Hadeei (2023) also argued that the ELQ focuses heavily on the interpersonal aspect of existential loneliness and is less focused on other aspects of existential loneliness, including ultimate and complete aloneness, and fundamental separateness from other people and everything in the world. Therefore, Hadeei (2023) developed the Existential Loneliness Scale (ELS) to provide a more comprehensive measure of the construct.

Hadeei (2023) argued that existential loneliness should be measured by items that relate to adverse subjective reactions to key existential concerns, such as feelings of fundamental separation from everything, emptiness, meaninglessness, and eternal aloneness. In addition, there should be items related to the source of existential loneliness, for instance, the fear or thought of death. Finally, there should be measures of factors related to existential loneliness, such as hopelessness, uncertainty, or meaninglessness. In Hadeei’s study, 433 Iranian youths and adults completed 30 items developed during the initial item selection phase. Following a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), 19 items were retained. Further results indicated the new scale had high internal consistency, acceptable test-retest reliability, satisfactory validity, and good construct validity. Using this scale, Hadeei (2023) found that people who had higher existential loneliness scores had higher existential anxiety and higher levels of depressive symptoms, experienced more general loneliness, and had lower life satisfaction and meaning in life. However, to date, the ELS has not been validated with other populations.

McKenna-Plumley et al. (2024) argued that the ELS was too long and contained items that did not measure the core construct of existential loneliness. They also highlighted the use of PCA to determine the factorial structure of the ELS, which has been argued to be an inappropriate technique for this purpose (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Hence, they developed the Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness (BSEL). Based on a literature review and a qualitative study by McKenna-Plumley et al. (2023a), they defined the central concept of existential loneliness as a feeling of complete aloneness and isolation from others, the world, and oneself which is generally accompanied by an adverse feeling (i.e., sadness, meaninglessness, emptiness, lack of feeling of being understood, or belonging). Fifty-five items were developed based on this definition of existential loneliness. After the initial scale developmental phases, 30 items were retained. These 30 items were tested with 714 participants aged from 17 to 84 years old in the UK and Ireland. Following an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the final scale was reduced to 6 items, which loaded on a single factor. The BSEL was found to have high internal consistency and validity. Scores on the BSEL were also positively correlated with general loneliness, existential isolation, and poor mental health, and negatively correlated with meaning in life. However, like the ELS, this scale is yet to be validated in different populations or special age groups.

The Aim of the Current Study

The emergence of two new measures of existential loneliness (i.e., ELS and BSEL) has the potential to further research of this construct among emerging adults. However, to date, these scales have only been validated in studies conducted by their developers. Further research is required to determine the psychometric properties of both measures in different samples. Additionally, little is known about the experience of existential loneliness during emerging adulthood. The current study, therefore, aimed to validate the ELS and BSEL in a sample of emerging adults. First, the original factorial structure of the ELS and the BSEL was evaluated using CFA, with a sample of emerging adults. Second, the validity of both scales was assessed by examining the relationship between the ELS and BSEL and general loneliness, depressive symptoms, anxiety, satisfaction with life, and meaning in life. We expected strong positive correlations between the ELS and BSEL, which would support the construct validity of both scales. We also expected the ELS and BSEL would be positively correlated with general loneliness, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, demonstrating the convergent validity of each measure. To test the discriminant validity of each scale, the relationships between existential loneliness and satisfaction with life and meaning in life were investigated. We expected emerging adults who reported higher levels of existential loneliness to have lower satisfaction with life and lower levels of meaning in life.

Methods

Participants

A sample of 370 emerging adults in Australia aged from 18 to 29 years (M = 24.10, SD = 3.37) completed the online survey. The majority of the participants were female (N = 220, 59%). All participants were recruited through the online research participation platform Prolific Academic in November 2024. A summary of participant demographic characteristics can be seen in Table 1. Most participants were White, single, had a university degree, and were employed.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristic	n	%
Race/Ethnicity
White/European	207	55.9
People of color
Asian	108	29.2
First nations	6	1.6
Black or African or African American	9	2.4
Multi-racial	21	5.7
Middle Eastern	5	1.4
Another race/ethnicity	9	2.4
Prefer not to say	5	1.4
Relationship status
Single	215	58.1
Married	27	7.3
De-facto/committed relationship(s)	124	33.5
Separated/Divorced	2	0.5
A different status	2	0.5
Education
Some schooling, less than high school grades 1–8	2	0.5
Some high school, no diploma	10	2.7
High school graduate, diploma or GED	56	15.1
Some college, no degree	58	15.7
Trade/technical/vocational training	28	7.6
Associate degree	6	1.6
Bachelor degree	169	45.7
General postgraduate degree	11	3.0
Masters degree	29	7.8
Professional degree	1	0.3
Employment
Casual	46	12.4
Part-time	66	17.8
Full-time	141	38.1
Student	72	19.5
Unemployed	37	10.0
A different status	8	2.2

Measures

The Existential Loneliness Scale (ELS; Hadeei, 2023) and the 6-item Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness (BSEL; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2024) were used to measure existential loneliness. The ELS consists of 19 items and participants indicated the relevance of each item using a 5-point scale (1 = Never true, 5 = Always true). A higher score indicates higher levels of existential loneliness. The scale has one factor and was found to have high internal consistency (α = .95; ω = .95) and moderate test-retest reliability (one month, r = .74). The BSEL has 6 items with one factor. Responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree), and a higher mean score indicates a higher level of existential loneliness. The BSEL was reported to have a high internal consistency (α = .94) and validity.

The 6-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (DJGLS; De Jong-Gierveld & van Tilburg, 2006) measures general loneliness. It contains 3 social loneliness items and 3 emotional loneliness items. The social loneliness items were positively worded and therefore, the scores of those items were reversed. Therefore, higher total scores indicated higher levels of general loneliness. De Jong-Gierveld and van Tilburg (2006) found acceptable internal consistencies with three data sets from the Netherlands adult population (α = .70 to .76). Hadeei (2023) reported a higher internal consistency of α = .84.

The Patient Health Questionnaire−9 (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001) assessed depressive symptoms. Higher total scores indicated higher levels of depression. It has been found to have sound psychometric properties in a large clinical sample in the United States (N = 6,000; α = .86 to .89; 48 hours test-retest reliability r = .84; Kroenke et al., 2001).

The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006) is a screening tool for anxiety disorders. Higher total scores indicated higher levels of anxiety. The GAD-7 was found to have excellent internal reliability (α = .92), good 1-week test-retest reliability, and good convergent validity with the data collected from patients of several clinical settings in the United States (Spitzer et al., 2006).

The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ: Steger et al., 2006) consists of 10 items measured on a 7-point scale from 1 (Absolutely untrue) to 7 (Absolutely True). It has two subscales: the Presence of Meaning subscale and the Search for Meaning subscale, which consist of 5 items each. Consistent with previous research (Hadeei, 2023; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2024), only the presence subscale was used in this study. The total score of the subscale indicated how meaningful the individuals find their lives, with higher scores representing higher levels of meaningfulness. The subscale was shown to have good internal consistency (αs = .82–.86) with samples of students in a large university and a community college in Minneapolis (Steger et al., 2006).

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) consists of 5 items to measure global life satisfaction using a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The total scores range from 5 to 35, with higher total scores indicating greater satisfaction with life. Diener et al. (1985) reported good internal consistency (α = 0.87) with a sample of 176 psychology undergraduate students in Illinois and 2-months test-retest reliability (r = .82).

Procedure

This study was approved by Charles Sturt University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (H24298). Only participants who met the eligibility criteria (i.e., emerging adults in Australia aged between 18–29 years old) had access to the information sheet for this study on the Prolific Academic portal. Participants who consented to take part were directed to the demographic questions page, which was followed by the scales listed above. The scales were presented in a fixed order and no question item was compulsory except for one demographic question (i.e., age). We collected data until we reached at least 370 observations, at which point the survey was closed. No missing data were recorded. Participants were paid approximately £4.50 (A$7-9) once they completed the survey.

Data Analyses

A total of 370 people accessed and completed the survey. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), this meets the required minimum sample size for factor analysis. The mean, standard deviation, and variance for ELS and BSEL are presented in Table 2. Based on procedures outlined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), the value of skewness and kurtosis of items was between +1.5 and −1.5, suggesting no significant skewness or kurtosis.

Table 2.

The Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistency of Each Scale

	M	SD	Cronbach’s alpha	McDonald’s omega
ELS	2.81	0.77	.94	.94
BSEL	2.96	1.05	.93	.92
DJGLS-6	3.69	2.03	.79	.79
PHQ-9	10.11	6.41	.89	.89
GAD-7	8.38	5.48	.91	.91
SWLS	19.53	7.08	.89	.89
MLQ-Presence	19.98	6.96	.92	.92

Note. ELS = Existential Loneliness scale; BSEL = Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness; DJGLS-6 = The 6-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire-9; GAD-7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 items; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; MLQ-Presence = Meaning in Life Questionnaire (sub-scale of Presence of Meaning).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with Robust Unweighted Least Squares (RULS) with mean and variance adjustment was conducted using R version 4.5.1 (R Core Team, 2025) in RStudio version 2025.05.1 + 513 utilising the lavaan package version 0.6.19 (Rosseel, 2012). Using a reference indicator method, latent variables were scaled by fixing the loading of the first indicator of the factor at 1. Graphics were created using SPSS Amos 29. Model fit indices assessed were the Chi-square test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The current study used the adjusted index cutoff values suggested by Hair et al. (2019). For a sample size greater than 250 and 19 items, the following recommended cutoff values for a good fit were used: CFI > .94, TLI > .94, RMSEA ≤ .07, and SRMR ≤ .08. Where the item number was less than 12, the recommended cut off values for a good fit are: CFI $\geq$ .96, TLI $\geq$ .96, and RMSEA ≤ .06 (SRMR was not recommended to use but it was reported for information). Hair et al. (2019) argued that these indices need to be used with caution because no single numerical value can definitively distinguish ‘good’ from ‘bad’ fit. Therefore, they should be used as guidelines rather than to determine the acceptability of the model. The psychometric properties of the scales were assessed using SPSS version 30.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics of each scale as well as Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega are presented in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and McDonald’s omegas of ELS and BSEL indicate both scales had high internal consistency. Similarly, excellent or good internal consistency was found for all other scales used in this study.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of ELS

CFA was conducted to test the one-factor model of the ELS. Hadeei (2023) included the covariance between the error terms of Item 13 and Item 14 to improve the model fit because they shared a theoretically similar construct (i.e., feeling of emptiness) after inspecting modification indices. This study included the same covariance to test the model (see Figure 1). For this model, the Chi-square statistic was χ² (151) = 440.71, p < .001; and the chi-square statistic by the degrees of freedom was χ²/df = 2.92 which demonstrates acceptable fit (2 < χ²/df ≤ 3). With these specific model characteristics and sample size, a significant p-value is expected for a good fit. The one-factor model of ELS demonstrated a good fit on other indices: CFI = .989, TLI = .988, RMSEA = .066 (90% CI [.059, .074]), SRMR = .056. High internal consistency and reliability were confirmed with excellent Cronbach’s alpha (α = .94) and McDonald’s omega (ω = .94). Figure 1 shows the path diagram of the one-factor model of ELS.

Figure 1.

Results of confirmatory analysis on ELS

The means, standard deviations, and factor loadings of all items are shown in Table 3. The factor loadings of Items 8 and 9 were found to be below .30, and the factor loading of Item 3 is below .50. The recommended standardised factor loading estimate by Hair et al. (2019) is .5 or higher. The wording of these items suggests that they may be less relevant for emerging adults (see Discussion for further consideration of this point). The current study also found a high modification index between items 3 and 9, which share a similar construct (purpose of life, or meaning). When these items were removed, the model fit indices further improved: CFI = .994, TLI = .993, RMSEA = .056 (CI 90% [.049, .064], SRMR = .046. The Chi-square statistic was χ² (103) = 288.35, p < .001; and the chi-square statistic by the degrees of freedom was χ²/df = 2.80, which remains inside of an acceptable fit. Cronbach’s alpha (α = .95) and McDonald’s omega (ω = .95) for the 16-item scale indicate high internal consistency and reliability.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, Variances, and Factor Loadings of All ELS Items

Item	M	SD	Variance	Factor loading
1. I feel isolated from other people.	3.18	0.94	0.88	.74
2. I think people are only around me, but not with me.	3.09	1.03	1.07	.71
3. I have a clear purpose in my life (R).	3.00	1.06	1.12	.47
4. There is no one in the world who really understands me.	2.76	1.18	1.39	.69
5. I feel helpless.	2.76	1.07	1.15	.79
6. I feel like I am going to be alone forever.	2.56	1.23	1.50	.75
7. I feel left alone unprotected and defenceless against the cruel world.	2.41	1.08	1.16	.73
8. The thought of dying alone frightens me.	2.99	1.27	1.62	.23
9. I think that the world is full of meaning (R).	2.56	0.95	0.90	.28
10. My life has become so monotonous and boring.	2.95	1.08	1.16	.66
11. Man comes into the world alone, lives in the world alone and finally, leaves it alone too. It seems that man is condemned to be alone.	2.33	1.08	1.16	.55
12. I feel estranged from everyone and everything around me.	2.53	1.14	1.29	.81
13. I feel a void inside.	2.70	1.22	1.50	.80
14. Despite all of my achievements and attempts in life, I still feel like something is missing.	3.37	1.12	1.25	.71
15. I feel alienated from myself.	2.75	1.18	1.38	.78
16. I feel uncertain and anxious when I think about the future.	3.57	1.12	1.25	.63
17. I feel separated from the world and lost my roots in the nature.	2.80	1.16	1.34	.80
18. There is always an unbridgeable distance between me and other.	2.82	1.15	1.33	.83
19. My relationships with others have become meaningless.	2.34	1.16	1.34	.73

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of BSEL

A CFA was conducted to test the one-factor model of the BSEL. The high modification index of the error term of Item 2 and Item 6 was consistent with McKenna-Plumley et al. (2024). Consequently, the same covariance was added between the two error terms. Figure 2 shows the path diagram of the model. The Chi-square statistic was χ² (8) = 21.27, p = .006, and the chi-square statistic by the degrees of freedom was χ²/df = 2.66. Even though a significant Chi-square indicates poor model fit for this specific model, as the Chi-square test is affected by sample size, this study focused more on the other indices. The one-factor model of BSEL demonstrated a good fit on all other indices: CFI = .999, TLI = .999, RMSEA = .039 (90% CI [.019, .059]), SRMR = .019. We found excellent Cronbach’s alpha (α = .93) and McDonald’s omega (ω = .92) for the BSEL, which indicate a high level of internal consistency and reliability. The mean, standard deviation, variance, and factor loading of each BSEL item are shown in Table 4.

Figure 2.

Results of confirmatory factor analysis on BSEL

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, Variances, and Factor Loadings of All Items of the BSEL

	M	SD	Variance	Factor loading
1. I struggle with the feeling that I am separate from other people.	3.10	1.17	1.36	.81
2. I feel like I am ultimately alone in life.	2.82	1.26	1.60	.70
3. I feel an upsetting distance between myself and other people.	3.01	1.20	1.44	.90
4. I struggle with the feeling that I cannot connect fully with others.	3.32	1.25	1.56	.84
5. I have an upsetting feeling that I am disconnected from everyone else.	3.06	1.25	1.57	.92
6. I feel utterly alone in the world.	2.46	1.26	1.59	.71

Validity of the ELS and BSEL

Table 5 shows the correlations between the ELS, BSEL, and general loneliness, depressive symptoms, anxiety, satisfaction with life, and meaning in life. There was a significant positive correlation between the ELS and BSEL, with a large effect size indicating that almost 75% of the variance of one scale is explained by the other. Scores on the ELS and BSEL were significantly correlated with general loneliness, depressive symptoms, anxiety, life satisfaction, and meaning in life. The large effect size was reported between the ELS and each of the other scales. Similarly, the effect size of BSEL with the other scales was large except for meaning in life, which had a medium effect size. Emerging adults reporting higher levels of existential loneliness, as measured by both scales, were more likely to experience general loneliness, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, and less likely to report life satisfaction and meaning in life. Overall, our findings indicate that both scales have good convergent validity.

Table 5.

Pearson Correlations Between Two Existential Loneliness Scales, General Loneliness Scale, Depression, Anxiety, Satisfaction With Life and Two Types of Meaning of Life Scales

Measures	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Existential loneliness (ELS)	1
2. Existential loneliness (BSEL)	.866^**	1
3. Loneliness (DJGLS-6)	.726^**	.729^**	1
4. Depressive symptoms (PHQ-9)	.730^**	.651^**	.542^**	1
5. Anxiety (GAD-7)	.615^**	.559^**	.452^**	.746^**	1
6. Life satisfaction (SWLS)	−.673^**	−.651^**	−.628^**	−.591^**	−.427^**	1
7. Meaning in life-presence (MLQ-P)	−.568^**	−.466^**	−.451^**	−.392^**	−.284^**	.584^**	1

Note. ELS = Existential Loneliness Scale; BSEL = Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness; DJGLS-6 = The 6 items De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale; PHQ-9 = Patient Health Questionnaire−9; GAD-7 = Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 items; SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; MLQ-P = Meaning in Life Questionnaire (sub-scale of Presence of Meaning).

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01.

Discussion

The aims of this study were: to confirm the original factor structures of two recently developed scales measuring existential loneliness, Hadeei’s (2023) Existential Loneliness Scale (ELS) and McKenna-Plumley et al.’s (2024) Brief Scale of Existential Loneliness (BSEL), among emerging adults, and to investigate the psychometric properties of both scales. We expected existential loneliness measured by both scales to positively correlate with each other, and existential loneliness to positively correlate with general loneliness, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. It was also predicted that existential loneliness would negatively correlate with the participants’ level of satisfaction with their lives, and the presence of meaning in life. The results of the current study were consistent with these predictions. Consistent with McKenna-Plumley et al. (2024), our results demonstrate the sound psychometric properties of BSEL in the current sample of emerging adults. Even though the strong psychometric properties of the ELS found by Hadeei (2023) were mostly supported, the study found some items with low factor loadings. Despite the problems with the factor loadings, the results of our CFA nevertheless demonstrated a good fit between the ELS and the sample. High internal consistency was found for both scales examined.

Both scales also demonstrated sound validity. The strong positive correlation found between ELS and BSEL supports the construct validity of these scales. As expected, both had moderate correlations with general loneliness, indicating that both measure a related but not identical construct to general loneliness. Consistent with previous studies (Hadeei, 2023; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2024), individuals who experience existential loneliness also indicated higher levels of general loneliness. It also supports the findings by McKenna-Plumley et al. (2023b) that people who have never experienced other types of loneliness could still experience existential loneliness.

Both scales were also related to the other psychological constructs in the predicted directions. Emerging adults who experienced higher levels of existential loneliness were found to report higher levels of depression and anxiety, consistent with the previous findings for general youth and adult populations (Hadeei, 2023; McKenna-Plumley et al., 2024) as well as previous related findings in young adult populations on existential isolation and depression (Helm et al., 2019, 2020). Both scales’ strong negative correlations with the satisfaction with life scale indicated that individuals who feel satisfied with their lives tend not to feel existential loneliness. In addition, individuals with high existential loneliness were found to report less meaning in their lives. These findings support the sound psychometric properties of each scale and the predicted relationships between existential loneliness with the related psychological constructs, supporting the findings of Hadeei (2023) and McKenna-Plumley et al. (2024).

Unlike Hadeei’s (2023) study, this study found some ELS items had poor factor loadings, which may be because the items were less relevant for emerging adults. Arnett et al. (2014) argues that individuals are more unstable, self-focused, and optimistic during emerging adulthood than at any other time of their lives. They are also exploring who they are and what their lives mean. In this current sample, two items, Items 8 and 9, had poor factor loadings (< .3) and Item 3 had less than .5 factor loading. The poor loading of Item 8 “The thought of dying alone frightens me” is likely due to emerging adults being optimistic and the concept being less relevant to them in comparison to older adults. Similarly, Item 3 “I have a clear purpose in my life” and Item 9 “I think that the world is full of meaning” might not be relevant for emerging adults, who typically are self-focused and engaged in searching for who they are and what their lives will be like. The poorly loaded ELS items relate to death and factors outside the self, which are inconsistent with these characteristics of emerging adulthood. Performing the CFA without the 3 items improved the fit indices, indicating these items are inappropriate for this age group. The next lowest loading item (.55) is Item 11 “Man comes into the world alone, lives in the world alone and finally, leaves it alone too. It seems that man is condemned to be alone”, which is a convoluted concept that does not focus on the subjective experience of existential loneliness. The characteristics of low loading items found in this study supports McKenna-Plumley et al.’s (2024) argument that some ELS items are overly complex or alternatively measure correlates of existential loneliness. By contrast, the BSEL did not share these problems.

The current findings may be explained by key differences in how existential loneliness is operationalised in each scale. The ELS measures existential loneliness not only by using items focused on the subjective experience of existential loneliness, but also items that focus on what may cause these feelings. On the other hand, the BSEL focuses only on the subjective feeling of the primary notion of existential loneliness. The specific source of existential loneliness (e.g., fear of death) or related notions (e.g., uncertain about a purpose in life) are often regarded as important concerns contributing to existential loneliness. Whilst the subjective feeling of existential loneliness is relevant across different populations, the relevance of those specific existential concerns may vary more across different stages of life (e.g., older adults, seriously ill people). Hence, the simpler nature of BSEL is more appropriate for assessing existential loneliness among emerging adults than the longer and more complex ELS.

Overall, the findings of this study indicate that the BSEL is a psychometrically sound measure of existential loneliness among emerging adults and further, that existential loneliness is related to, yet distinct from general loneliness. Whilst we found the ELS had good psychometric properties, the low loadings of some items indicate that further investigation is required for the relevance of these aspects of existential loneliness in the emerging adult population. The BSEL is a useful tool to measure existential loneliness with emerging adults, a population that has not previously been a focus in studies on existential loneliness. The strong correlations found between existential loneliness and depressive symptoms and anxiety in this study indicate the importance of investigating the effects of this long-lasting and deeper loneliness on emerging adults’ psychological well-being.

Limitations

The data used in this study were collected from an online participation platform. Therefore, the sample in this study may not be a representation of emerging adults, and the paid participation via Prolific may have led to certain biased responses. Also, the findings of this study are based on the data collected from emerging adults in Australia. Arnett (2000, 2023) argued that how an individual experiences emerging adulthood is cultural, national, time, and socio-economic specific. Therefore, further research may consider investigating the validity of the shorter scale of ELS, as well as BSEL, for this age group in other countries. As the current study found three items in ELS that did not have good factor loadings, researchers or clinicians need to be cautious when interpreting the score with those items if they are using ELS with emerging adults. Further studies may consider validating the 16 items in ELS for a younger population. Finally, given the current study is based on correlational procedures, caution needs to be exercised in inferring causal relationships.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study confirmed that the BSEL had sound psychometric properties in a sample of emerging adults. The findings of this study suggest that the BSEL is a useful tool to assess emerging adults’ feelings of existential loneliness. BSEL may be used as a screening tool for emerging adults’ existential loneliness. The ELS may be of more interest to researchers examining different dimensions of existential loneliness. It may also be useful to critically investigate these dimensions, specifically fear of death and the meaning of life across the lifespan. Future research should also validate these scales with different age groups from different countries as well as investigate what role existential loneliness plays in emerging adults’ psychological well-being.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Validation of Two Existential Loneliness Scales in Emerging Adults

Supplemental Material for Validation of Two Existential Loneliness Scales in Emerging Adults by Izumi Hiramatsu, Suzanne McLaren, Andrew McGrath in Emerging Adulthood

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Genevieve d’Ament for providing technical support.

ORCID iDs

Izumi Hiramatsu

Suzanne McLaren

Andrew McGrath

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF|rawELdata.sav).*

Transparency and Openness Statement

The raw data used in this study are available on Open Science Framework (OSF|rawELdata.sav).

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

We confirm that no generative AI tools were used in preparing this manuscript.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Dr. Izumi Hiramatsu is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Charles Sturt University. Her PhD investigated how humans process information in order to make casual association between events, and was awarded in 2008. Her current research interests are in emerging adulthood, the psychological wellbeing of emerging adults, loneliness, existential loneliness, and psychometric evaluations of measurements of existential loneliness.

Dr. Suzanne McLaren, PhD, is a Professor in Psychology at Charles Sturt University. Her research interests focus on resilience, particularly in understanding the processes by which risk factors (e.g., loneliness) and protective factors (e.g., sense of belonging, self-compassion, hope) influence mental health among older adults and LGBTQA + individuals. Her research includes developing, implementing, and evaluating psychological interventions aimed at decreasing depression and suicidality among these two high-risk populations.

Dr. Andrew McGrath is an Associate Professor in Psychology at Charles Sturt University. His PhD, in which he interviewed 200 hundred young people immediately following their sentencing hearing in the NSW Children’s Court, was awarded by the University of Sydney in 2007. He has conducted research on topics ranging from the impact of custodial penalties on re-offending, juvenile risk assessment, and the psychometric properties of a number of commonly used psychological instruments. His most recent research examined the difference between males and females in NSW prisons.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett

J. J.

(2023). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

Arnett

J. J.

Žukauskienė

Sugimura

(2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: Implications for mental health. The Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7

Belcher

M. J.

(1973). The measurement of loneliness: A validation study of the Belcher Extended Loneliness Scale (BELS) (Publication Number 7416990) [Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Bolmsjö

Tengland

P.-A.

Rämgård

(2019). Existential loneliness: An attempt at an analysis of the concept and the phenomenon. Nursing Ethics, 26(5), 1310–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017748480

Buecker

Mund

Chwastek

Sostmann

Luhmann

(2021). Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(8), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000332

Carr

Fang

(2023). A gradual separation from the world: A qualitative exploration of existential loneliness in old age. Ageing and Society, 43(6), 1436–1456. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21001252

Christiansen

Qualter

Friis

Pedersen

Lund

Andersen

Bekker-Jeppesen

Lasgaard

(2021). Associations of loneliness and social isolation with physical and mental health among adolescents and young adults. Perspectives in Public Health, 141(4), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139211016077

Chung

B. P. M.

Olofsson

Wong

F. K. Y.

Rämgård

(2020). Overcoming existential loneliness: A cross-cultural study. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01753-y

10.

De Jong-Gierveld

van Tilburg

T. G.

(2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506289723

11.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

12.

Ettema

E. J.

Derksen

L. D.

van Leeuwen

(2010). Existential loneliness and end-of-life care: A systematic review. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 31(2), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-010-9141-1

13.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

14.

Galanaki

E. P.

Nelson

L. J.

Antoniou

(2023). Social withdrawal, solitude, and existential concerns in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 11(4), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968231170247

15.

Garnow

Garmy

Edberg

A.-K.

Einberg

E.-L.

(2022). Deeply lonely in the borderland between childhood and adulthood - Experiences of existential loneliness as narrated by adolescents. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-Being, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2022.2132653

16.

Gökdemir-Bulut

Bozo

Ö.

(2018). The psychometric validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the existential loneliness questionnaire. Current Psychology, 37(1), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9534-z

17.

Hadeei

(2023). Development and validation of a new measurement scale for existential loneliness. Assessment, 1(5), 1100–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231204831

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

19.

Helm

P. J.

Greenberg

Park

Y. C.

Pinel

E. C.

(2019). Feeling alone in your subjectivity: Introducing the state trait existential isolation model (STEIM). Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(3), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.41

20.

Helm

P. J.

Jimenez

Bultmann

Lifshin

Greenberg

Arndt

(2020). Existential isolation, loneliness, and attachment in young adults. Personality & Individual Differences, 159, Article 109890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109890

21.

Hemberg

Östman

Korzhina

Groundstroem

Nyström

Nyman-Kurkiala

(2022). Loneliness as experienced by adolescents and young adults: An explorative qualitative study. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 27(1), 362–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2022.2109422

22.

Kirwan

E. M.

Burns

O’Súilleabháin

P. S.

Summerville

McGeehan

McMahon

Gowda

Creaven

A.-M.

(2024). Loneliness in emerging adulthood: A scoping review. Adolescent Research Review, 10(1):47–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-024-00240-4

23.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B.

(2001). The PHQ‐9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

24.

Larsson

Beck

Blomqvist

(2023). Perspectives on existential loneliness. Narrations by older people in different care contexts. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 18(1), 2184032. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2184032

25.

Maes

Qualter

Lodder

G. M. A.

Mund

(2022). How (not) to measure loneliness: A review of the eight most commonly used scales. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10816. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710816

26.

Matud

M. P.

Díaz

Bethencourt

J. M.

Ibáñez

(2020). Stress and psychological distress in emerging adulthood: A gender analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), 2859. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092859

27.

Mayers

A. M.

Khoo

S. T.

Svartberg

(2002). The existential loneliness questionnaire: Background, development, and preliminary findings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(9), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10038

28.

Mayers

A. M.

Naples

N. A.

Nilsen

R. D.

(2005). Existential issues and coping: A qualitative study of low-income women with HIV. Psychology & Health, 20(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440410001722949

29.

Mayers

A. M.

Svartberg

(2001). Existential loneliness: A review of the concept, its psychosocial precipitants and psychotherapeutic implications for HIV‐infected women. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 74(4), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711201161082

30.

Mayorga

N. A.

Smit

Garey

Gold

A. K.

Otto

M. W.

Zvolensky

M. J.

(2022). Evaluating the interactive effect of COVID-19 worry and loneliness on mental health among young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10252-2

31.

McKenna-Plumley

P. E.

Turner

R. N.

Yang

Groarke

J. M.

(2023a). Experiences of loneliness across the lifespan: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 18(1), 2223868. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2223868

32.

McKenna-Plumley

P. E.

Turner

R. N.

Yang

Groarke

J. M.

(2023b). “It’s a feeling of complete disconnection”: Experiences of existential loneliness from youth to older adulthood. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 408. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01452-4

33.

McKenna-Plumley

P. E.

Turner

R. N.

Yang

Groarke

J. M.

(2024). The brief scale of existential loneliness: Scale development and psychometric evaluation. Current Psychology, 43(42), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06828-2

34.

Olofsson

Rämgård

Sjögren-Forss

Bramhagen

A.-C.

(2021). Older migrants’ experience of existential loneliness. Nursing Ethics , 28(7/8), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733021994167

35.

Potterton

Richards

Allen

Schmidt

(2020). Eating disorders during emerging adulthood: A systematic scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3062. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03062

36.

Pretorius

Padmanabhanunni

(2021). A looming mental health pandemic in the time of COVID-19? Role of fortitude in the interrelationship between loneliness, anxiety, and life satisfaction among young adults. South African Journal of Psychology, 51(2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246321991030

37.

Razban

Mehdipour-Rabori

Rayyani

Mangolian Shahrbabaki

(2022). Meeting death and embracing existential loneliness: A cancer patient's experience of being the sole author of his life. Death Studies, 46(1), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2020.1725932

38.

R Core Team . (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.5.0)[Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

39.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

40.

Scalise

J. J.

Ginter

E. J.

Gerstein

L. H.

(1984). Multidimensional loneliness measure: The loneliness rating scale (LRS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(5), 525–530. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4805_12

41.

Solano

C. H.

(1980). Two measures of loneliness: A comparison. Psychological Reports, 46(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.1.23

42.

Spitzer

R. L.

Kroenke

Williams

J. B.

Löwe

(2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

43.

Steger

M. F.

Frazier

Oishi

Kaler

(2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80

44.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.22 MB

0.00 MB