В пилотном исследовании (N = 22) изучена связь тревоги и избегания в привязанности (ECR-R-14) с переживанием одиночества (ДОПО-3к) и ощущением непонятости (EIS-6) у женщин, желающих вступить в отношения. Значимых связей не выявлено; наиболее выраженной была положительная связь тревоги с общим одиночеством (ρ = 0,37; p = 0,094), причём тревога превышала избегание у 17 из 22 участниц. Результаты предварительные и требуют проверки на большей выборке.

1. Introduction

Loneliness is a common problem. It is linked to poorer mental and physical health [1]. A growing body of research has examined how loneliness differs across groups; studies in Kazakhstan show that it is related to values, identity and close emotional ties [2].

Attachment theory explains why people differ in how they experience closeness. Early experience with a caregiver forms stable expectations about close people [3]. In adults, these expectations have two dimensions: anxiety (fear of rejection and need for constant reassurance) and avoidance (discomfort with closeness and strong self-reliance) [4]. Insecure attachment is related to poorer mental health [5]. A meta-analysis of 76 studies (N = 40,688) showed that both dimensions are positively related to loneliness: r =.40 for anxiety and r =.32 for avoidance [6].

In this study, loneliness is understood as an unpleasant subjective state that appears when real relationships do not match the desired ones [7]. Weiss distinguished emotional loneliness, caused by the lack of a close attachment, from social loneliness, caused by the lack of a social network [8]. In Russian diagnostics, loneliness is seen as multidimensional: overall loneliness, dependence on communication and positive solitude, which means the ability to spend time alone without distress [9].

Previous studies have shown that people who have been without a partner for a long time more often have an insecure attachment style [10; 11]. Later work found different subgroups of single people: some deactivate their attachment needs, some hyperactivate them, and some choose to be single [12]. Russian data on women with different relationship statuses (n = 158) point to the role of resilience and well-being in coping with loneliness, but attachment scales were not used in that study [13]. However, little attention has been paid to women who are single but wish to enter a romantic relationship. There is still limited evidence on how attachment anxiety and avoidance are related to loneliness in this group. This knowledge is also needed to plan support for such women, because reviews show that interventions work best when they address people’s thoughts and expectations about social ties [14].

Attachment theory suggests that the association with loneliness is expected first of all for anxiety. People with high anxiety hyperactivate the attachment system, so they need closeness more and feel its lack more strongly [4]. In people with high avoidance, deactivating strategies suppress the need for closeness, and loneliness may be less visible [6].

The aim of this study is to examine how attachment anxiety and avoidance are related to loneliness in women who wish to enter a romantic relationship. The objectives are to describe attachment and loneliness in the sample, to identify their associations, and to compare anxiety with avoidance. The study addresses the following research question: how are attachment anxiety and avoidance related to overall loneliness and to the feeling of not being understood by others? Based on attachment theory, we expected that anxiety would be positively related to overall loneliness (H1), that avoidance would be positively but more weakly related to it (H2), and that both would be related to existential isolation (H3).

2. Methods

This is the first wave of a cross-sectional correlational study with a convenience sample. Inclusion criteria were: women aged 20–55 years, not in a romantic relationship, with a strong wish to enter one (4–5 points on a five-point scale), and a fully completed questionnaire. Of 20 online questionnaires, 16 met the criteria, and all 6 paper questionnaires were included. The final sample was N = 22 (M = 34.4, SD = 9.2, range 21–50 years). All participants gave informed consent.

Attachment was measured with the short Russian version of the ECR-R (14 items, 1–7), which gives anxiety and avoidance scores [15]. Loneliness was measured with the Differential Questionnaire of Loneliness Experience, DQLE-3c (24 items, 1–4): overall loneliness, dependence on communication and positive solitude [9]. The feeling of not being understood by others (existential isolation) was measured with the EIS-6 (6 items, 0–9) [16]. The questionnaire also asked about age, education, time without a relationship and the strength of the wish for a relationship.

Data were collected with a questionnaire available online (Google Forms) and on paper; the paper answers were entered into the same table manually. Contact data for the repeated measurement are held only by the researcher and are not part of the analysis file. The scale items were worded in the feminine gender with no other changes. Participants without experience of romantic relationships were asked to think of their closest people when answering the ECR-R.

Data were analysed in SPSS. The scales are ordinal and the sample is small, so we used Spearman’s correlation (ρ). The three hypotheses were tested as confirmatory. The comparison of anxiety and avoidance (Wilcoxon test) and the additional analyses (age, wish for a relationship, time without a relationship, relationship experience; 24 tests with the Holm correction) were exploratory.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Reliability was acceptable for anxiety and for the three DQLE-3c scales (α =.79–.85) but low for avoidance (α =.36) and EIS-6 (α =.60), so the results for these two scales are preliminary.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of the scales (N = 22)

None of the associations reached significance (Table 2). Anxiety was positively but not significantly related to overall loneliness (ρ =.37, p =.094; Fig. 1A). The direction agrees with H1, but the threshold was not reached. Avoidance was almost unrelated to overall loneliness (ρ =.08, p =.713), so H2 was not supported. The associations with existential isolation were weak and had opposite signs (anxiety ρ =.24, p =.287; avoidance ρ = −.27, p =.227), so H3 was not supported. Overall loneliness was related to dependence on communication (ρ =.56, p =.007) and to EIS-6 (ρ =.54, p =.010).

Table 2

Spearman correlations between attachment and loneliness (N = 22)

Anxiety (Mdn = 4.29) was higher than avoidance (Mdn = 2.93): in 17 of 22 participants anxiety exceeded avoidance, in 3 it was lower, and in 2 they were equal (Wilcoxon Z = 3.44, p <.001, r =.73; Fig. 1B).

Fig. 1. Anxiety and overall loneliness (A); anxiety and avoidance in each participant (B)

In the exploratory analysis, two associations were below.05 without correction: the stronger the wish for a relationship, the lower the positive solitude (ρ = −.51, p =.014), and the longer the period without a relationship, the lower the avoidance (ρ = −.44, p =.041). After the Holm correction neither held (p =.35 and p =.94). The wish for a relationship was also close to significance for anxiety (ρ =.42, p =.053). These results are used only as hypotheses for the second wave.

4. Discussion

The pilot did not find significant associations, so the results are preliminary. Still, the main result goes in the direction predicted by attachment theory, and its size (ρ =.37) is close to the meta-analytic value for anxiety (r =.40) [6]. With N = 22, only an association of |ρ| ≈.42 or more can be significant, and the power for ρ =.37 is about 39 %. Therefore, the absence of significance does not mean that there is no association. Theory explains the expected direction by hyperactivation: when anxiety is high, the need for closeness is stronger, and its lack is felt more strongly [4; 12].

For avoidance, we found almost no association (ρ =.08), while the meta-analysis reports r =.32 [6]. Two reasons are possible. The avoidance scale had low reliability (α =.36) and a narrow range (SD = 0.69), which weakens correlations. Also, avoidant people may suppress the feeling of loneliness [6]. These explanations need to be tested on a larger sample. The profile of the sample is clear: anxiety was much higher than avoidance.

The exploratory results suggest a possible profile of the group. Women who wanted a relationship more strongly reported lower positive solitude (ρ = −.51) and tended to have higher anxiety (ρ =.42). This is logical: the stronger the wish for closeness, the less comfortable it may be to be alone. However, these associations did not hold after the correction for multiple comparisons, and the sample is small, so we treat them as hypotheses, not as findings. A longer period without a relationship was related to lower avoidance (ρ = −.44), but this association also did not hold after the correction and is not included in the hypotheses.

This study has several limitations. The sample is small and convenient, so the results cannot be generalised to all single women. The design is cross-sectional, so we cannot say that attachment influences loneliness; loneliness may also change attachment. The reliability of the avoidance scale and EIS-6 is low. Paper and online questionnaires differed in anxiety (Mdn = 2.86 and 4.93), so the way of data collection may have affected the results.

In the second wave, about 75 participants are needed to detect an association of ρ ≈.32 with 80 % power. The original hypotheses H1–H3 will be tested again, and the exploratory results of the pilot give three new hypotheses that were formulated before collecting new data: (1) the stronger the wish to enter a relationship, the lower the positive solitude; (2) the stronger the wish to enter a relationship, the higher the attachment anxiety; (3) attachment anxiety is higher than avoidance in women who wish to have a relationship.

The predominance of anxiety over avoidance can serve as an orientation point for a support programme. Such a programme can work with attachment anxiety, for example, through exercises that activate the experience of a secure base [17], repeated practices [18] and the group as a source of support [19]. Its effect will be tested at the second stage on a group with the programme and a group without it.

5. Conclusion

In women who wish to enter a romantic relationship, attachment anxiety predominated over avoidance and was positively related to overall loneliness in the direction predicted by attachment theory, although the association did not reach significance. Because the study is cross-sectional, the data show an association but do not prove that one factor influences the other.

References:

1. Cacioppo J. T., Hawkley L. C. Perceived social isolation and cognition // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2009. Vol. 13, no. 10. P. 447–454.
2. Куандыкова А. А., Токатлыгиль Ю. С., Мехмет Г. Психология одиночества у представителей поколения Z: ценности, идентичность и потребность в контакте // Вестник КазНПУ имени Абая. Серия «Психология». 2025. № 3(84). С. 280–290. DOI: 10.51889/2959–5967.2025.84.3.025.
3. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, 1982. (Original work published 1969)
4. Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press, 2007.
5. Zhang X., Li J., Xie F., Chen X., Xu W., Hudson N. W. The relationship between adult attachment and mental health: A meta-analysis // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2022. Vol. 123, no. 5. P. 1089–1137. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000437
6. Han X., Liu X., Meng Y., Feng Y., Chen X. The different associations of adult attachment anxiety and adult attachment avoidance on loneliness: A multilevel meta-analysis // Personality and Individual Differences. 2026. Vol. 263. Article 113994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113994
7. Perlman D., Peplau L. A. Toward a social psychology of loneliness // Personal relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder / ed. by S. Duck, R. Gilmour. London: Academic Press, 1981. P. 31–56.
8. Weiss R. S. Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973.
9. Осин Е. Н., Леонтьев Д. А. Дифференциальный опросник переживания одиночества: структура и свойства // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2013. Т. 10, № 1. С. 55–81.
10. Schachner D. A., Shaver P. R., Gillath O. Attachment style and long-term singlehood // Personal Relationships. 2008. Vol. 15. P. 479–491.
11. Petrowski K., Schurig S., Schmutzer G., et al. Is it attachment style or socio-demography: Singlehood in a representative sample // Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. Article 1738. URL: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01738
12. Pepping C. A., Girme Y. U., Cronin T. J., MacDonald G. Diversity in singlehood experiences: Testing an attachment theory model of sub-groups of singles // Journal of Personality. 2025. Vol. 93, no. 2. P. 275–295. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12929
13. Крупина К. М. Особенности переживания одиночества и способы совладания с ним у женщин с разным статусом отношений в период взрослости // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология. 2025. Т. 15, вып. 3. С. 455–475. EDN: NIQASA.
14. Hickin N., Käll A., Shafran R., et al. The effectiveness of psychological interventions for loneliness: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Clinical Psychology Review. 2021. Vol. 88. Article 102066.
15. Чистопольская К. А., Митина О. В., Ениколопов С. Н. [и др.] Адаптация краткой версии «Переработанного опросника — Опыт близких отношений» (ECR-R) на русскоязычной выборке // Психологический журнал. 2018. № 5. С. 88–95.
16. Аверина П. А., Лебедева А. А. Шкала экзистенциальной изоляции: адаптация русскоязычной версии EIS // Национальный психологический журнал. 2024. Т. 19, № 4. С. 103–113.
17. Rowe A. C., Gold E. R., Carnelley K. B. The effectiveness of attachment security priming in improving positive affect and reducing negative affect: A systematic review // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020. Vol. 17, no. 3. Article 968. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030968
18. Gillath O., Selcuk E., Shaver P. R. Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can repeated security priming help? // Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2008. Vol. 2, no. 4. P. 1651–1666.
19. Yalom I. D., Leszcz M. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. 6th ed. New York: Basic Books, 2020.