Data Analysis

Descriptives

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Age 121 19 35 25.41 3.466

Gender 121 1 2 1.45 .500
Education 121 1 4 2.44 .682
Marital status 121 1 2 1.09 .289
Income 121 1 4 2.13 .741
Residence area 121 1 3 1.93 .565
Living situation 121 1 4 1.93 .993
Type of friendship 121 1 3 2.50 .848
Valid N (listwise) 121

T-Test
Group Statistics

Agegroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL 18-25 71 45.48 6.811 .808

26-35 50 46.90 6.434 .910

SOSOTOTAL 18-25 71 62.23 11.119 1.320
26-35 50 59.78 9.809 1.387
SOSOFTOTAL 18-25 71 70.32 13.368 1.587
26-35 50 67.26 13.849 1.959
BFITOTAL 18-25 71 32.69 2.989 .355
26-35 50 31.02 3.577 .506
AASTOTA 18-25 71 55.54 6.487 .770

26-35 50 55.52 6.178 .874

The t-test results compare the means of variables between the 18-25 and 26-35 age groups. The 26-35 group
scored slightly higher on UCLATOTAL (46.90 vs. 45.48) but slightly lower on SOSOTOTAL (59.78 vs.
62.23) and SOSOFTOTAL (67.26 vs. 70.32). BFITOTAL scores are higher for the younger group (32.69 vs.
31.02), suggesting age-related differences. AASTOTAL scores are nearly identical across both groups.
UCLATOTAL(sum of loneliness)

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.895 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.250 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in UCLATOTAL between the groups.

SOSOTOTAL(sum of social provision for online friendship)

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.269 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.214 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOTOTAL between the groups.

SOSOFTOTAL(sum of social provision for offline friendship)

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.508 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.224 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOFOTAL between the groups.

BFITOTAL(sum of personality traits)

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.443 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.006 (< 0.05)
Interpretation: There is a significant difference in BFITOTAL between the groups.

AASTOTAL( sum of attachment styles)

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.880 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
  Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.990 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in AASTOTAL between the groups.

Group Statistics

Educationgroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL below graduation 8 45.50 6.525 2.307

above graduation 112 46.14 6.723 .635

SOSOTOTAL below graduation 8 65.13 9.906 3.502
above graduation 112 60.87 10.680 1.009
SOSOFTOTAL below graduation 8 76.75 9.407 3.326
above graduation 112 68.50 13.772 1.301
BFITOTAL below graduation 8 33.88 3.441 1.217
above graduation 112 31.89 3.305 .312
AASTOTA below graduation 8 55.63 4.719 1.668

above graduation 112 55.54 6.478 .612

Participants below graduation scored higher on SOSOTOTAL (65.13 vs. 60.87) and SOSOFTOTAL (76.75
vs. 68.50) compared to those above graduation. BFITOTAL scores were also higher for the below
graduation group (33.88 vs. 31.89). UCLATOTAL and AASTOTAL scores were similar across both groups.

UCLATOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.906 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
  Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.794 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in UCLATOTAL between the groups.

SOSOTOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.827 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.276 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOTOTAL between the groups.
SOSOFTOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.250 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.099 (for equal variances assumed) and 0.045 (for equal variances not assumed).
Since Levene’s test is not significant, use the equal variances assumed row.
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOFTOTAL at the 0.05 level, but it is
approaching significance (p = 0.099). The result is significant only if equal variances are not
assumed (p = 0.045).

BFITOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.901 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.105 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in BFITOTAL between the groups.
AASTOTA
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.473 (> 0.05), so equal variances are assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.970 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in AASTOTA between the groups.

Group Statistics

maritalgroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL single 110 46.25 6.646 .634

married 11 44.18 6.911 2.084

SOSOTOTAL single 110 61.70 10.446 .996
married 11 56.36 11.690 3.525
SOSOFTOTAL single 110 69.05 13.499 1.287
married 11 69.09 15.228 4.591
BFITOTAL single 110 32.11 3.255 .310
married 11 30.91 4.061 1.224
AASTOTA single 110 55.55 6.412 .611

married 11 55.36 5.784 1.744

Single participants scored higher on UCLATOTAL (46.25 vs. 44.18) and SOSOTOTAL
(61.70 vs. 56.36) compared to married participants. BFITOTAL scores were slightly higher
for singles (32.11 vs. 30.91). SOSOFTOTAL and AASTOTAL scores were nearly identical
for both groups.
UCLATOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.939 (> 0.05), so assume equal variances.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.328 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in UCLATOTAL between the groups.
SOSOTOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.642 (> 0.05), so assume equal variances.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.113 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOTOTAL between the groups.
SOSOFTOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.568 (> 0.05), so assume equal variances.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.993 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOFTOTAL between the groups.
BFITOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.420 (> 0.05), so assume equal variances.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.257 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in BFITOTAL between the groups.
AASTOTA
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.445 (> 0.05), so assume equal variances.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.928 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in AASTOTA between the groups.

Group Statistics

incomegroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL low and lower middle 83 46.89 6.944 .762

upper middle and high 38 44.26 5.698 .924

SOSOTOTAL low and lower middle 83 61.00 11.261 1.236
upper middle and high 38 61.68 9.204 1.493
SOSOFTOTAL low and lower middle 83 68.99 13.488 1.480
upper middle and high 38 69.21 14.012 2.273
BFITOTAL low and lower middle 83 31.67 3.139 .345
upper middle and high 38 32.71 3.668 .595
AASTOTA low and lower middle 83 54.78 6.125 .672

upper middle and high 38 57.16 6.562 1.064

The low/lower middle income group scored higher on UCLATOTAL (46.89 vs. 44.26) compared to the
upper middle/high income group. BFITOTAL scores were slightly higher for the upper middle/high income
group (32.71 vs. 31.67). AASTOTAL scores were also higher for the upper middle/high income group
(57.16 vs. 54.78). SOSOTOTAL and SOSOFTOTAL scores showed minimal differences between income
groups.
UCLATOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.313 (> 0.05) → Assume equal variances.

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.044 (< 0.05)
Interpretation: There is a statistically significant difference between the two groups on
UCLATOTAL.
 Mean Difference: 2.628
 95% CI: [0.076, 5.181] → Does not include zero, which supports the significance.

SOSOTOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.194 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed.

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.744 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: There is no significant difference in SOSOTOTAL between the groups.

SOSOFTOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.419 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed.

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.934 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No significant difference in SOSOFTOTAL between the groups.

BFITOTAL
 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.293 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed.
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.113 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No significant difference in BFITOTAL between the groups.

AASTOTA

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.490 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed.

  Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.055 (very close to 0.05, but still > 0.05)
Interpretation: The difference in AASTOTA is not statistically significant, but it approaches
significance (trend level). You might cautiously note a possible trend toward significance,
depending on your reporting style.

Group Statistics

Areagroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL rural and semi-urban 39 46.85 6.718 1.076

urban 82 45.70 6.653 .735

SOSOTOTAL rural and semi-urban 39 60.62 9.898 1.585
urban 82 61.50 11.000 1.215
SOSOFTOTAL rural and semi-urban 39 67.00 12.393 1.984
urban 82 70.04 14.100 1.557
BFITOTAL rural and semi-urban 39 31.85 3.013 .483
urban 82 32.07 3.492 .386
AASTOTA rural and semi-urban 39 54.26 4.666 .747

urban 82 56.13 6.935 .766

Rural/semi-urban residents scored slightly higher on UCLATOTAL (46.85 vs. 45.70)

compared to urban residents, while urban residents had marginally higher scores on
SOSOTOTAL (61.50 vs. 60.62) and notably higher SOSOFTOTAL scores (70.04 vs. 67.00).
BFITOTAL scores were nearly identical across groups. Urban residents scored higher on
AASTOTAL (56.13 vs. 54.26).
UCLATOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.998 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.377 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No statistically significant difference between the groups on UCLATOTAL.

SOSOTOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.496 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.670 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No statistically significant difference between the groups on SOSOTOTAL.

SOSOFTOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.200 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.253 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No statistically significant difference between the groups on SOSOFTOTAL.

BFITOTAL

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.635 (> 0.05) → Equal variances assumed

 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.728 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No statistically significant difference between the groups on BFITOTAL.

AASTOTA

 Levene’s Test Sig. = 0.012 (< 0.05) → Equal variances not assumed
 Sig. (2-tailed) = 0.082 (> 0.05)
Interpretation: No statistically significant difference between the groups on AASTOTA, though p =
0.082 suggests a trend toward significance.

Group Statistics

livingsituationgroup N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL living with family 80 45.70 6.883 .770

living alone 41 46.78 6.247 .976

SOSOTOTAL living with family 80 62.40 10.211 1.142
living alone 41 58.90 11.153 1.742
SOSOFTOTAL living with family 80 69.38 13.837 1.547
living alone 41 68.44 13.261 2.071
BFITOTAL living with family 80 32.01 3.042 .340
living alone 41 31.98 3.883 .606
AASTOTA living with family 80 55.78 6.500 .727

living alone 41 55.05 6.050 .945

Participants living alone showed slightly higher UCLATOTAL scores (46.78 vs. 45.70)
compared to those living with family, while family-living individuals scored higher on
SOSOTOTAL (62.40 vs. 58.90). SOSOFTOTAL and BFITOTAL scores were nearly
identical between groups. AASTOTAL scores were marginally higher for those living with
family (55.78 vs. 55.05).
 1. UCLATOTAL: No significant difference between groups (p=0.401)
2. SOSOTOTAL: Marginally non-significant difference (p=0.087)
3. SOSOFTOTAL: No significant difference (p=0.722)
4. BFITOTAL: No significant difference (p=0.954)
5. AASTOTA: No significant difference (p=0.553)

Group Statistics

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

UCLATOTAL male 66 47.39 7.142 .879

female 55 44.47 5.715 .771

SOSOTOTAL male 66 59.48 10.791 1.328
female 55 63.29 10.130 1.366
SOSOFTOTAL male 66 68.08 14.805 1.822
female 55 70.24 12.015 1.620
BFITOTAL male 66 31.67 3.311 .408
female 55 32.40 3.348 .451
AASTOTA male 66 56.38 6.775 .834
 female 55 54.51 5.656 .763

Male participants scored significantly higher on UCLATOTAL (47.39 vs. 44.47) and
AASTOTAL (56.38 vs. 54.51), while females showed higher scores on SOSOTOTAL (63.29
vs. 59.48) and SOSOFTOTAL (70.24 vs. 68.08). BFITOTAL scores were slightly higher for
females (32.40 vs. 31.67).

1. UCLATOTAL: Significant difference (p=0.016)

2. SOSOTOTAL: Significant difference (p=0.049)
3. SOSOFTOTAL: No significant difference (p=0.386)
4. BFTTOTAL: No significant difference (p=0.230)
5. AASTOTA: No significant difference (p=0.106)

Correlations

UCLATOTAL SOSOTOTAL SOSOFTOTAL BFITOTAL AASTOTAL

** ** **
UCLATOTAL Pearson Correlation 1 -.280 -.684 -.240 -.176

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .008 .054

N 121 121 121 121 121

** **
SOSOTOTAL Pearson Correlation -.280 1 .267 .083 .079
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .003 .364 .390
N 121 121 121 121 121
** ** **
SOSOFTOTAL Pearson Correlation -.684 .267 1 .315 .223*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .000 .014
N 121 121 121 121 121
BFITOTAL Pearson Correlation -.240** .083 .315** 1 .135
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .364 .000 .140
N 121 121 121 121 121
*
AASTOTAL Pearson Correlation -.176 .079 .223 .135 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .390 .014 .140

N 121 121 121 121 121

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

1. UCLATOTAL shows strong negative correlations with both SOSOTOTAL (-0.280) and SOSOFTOTAL (-0.684),
indicating that higher scores on one measure correspond to lower scores on the other.
2. SOSOFTOTAL is positively correlated with SOSOTOTAL (0.267) and BFITOTAL (0.315), suggesting that higher
scores in one are associated with higher scores in the other.
3. AASTOTAL has a weak but significant positive correlation with SOSOFTOTAL (0.223*).
4. BFITOTAL is negatively correlated with UCLATOTAL (-0.240**), meaning higher scores on one measure relate to
lower scores on the other.

Model 1 (demographics only) explains 10.7% of variance (R²=0.107, p=0.111) and is not significant. Model
2 (demographics + psychological variables) explains 52.6% of variance (R²=0.526, p<0.001), showing
significant improvement

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 570.995 8 71.374 1.678 .111b

Residual 4764.476 112 42.540

Total 5335.471 120

2 Regression 2808.214 12 234.018 10.001 .000c

Residual 2527.257 108 23.401

Total 5335.471 120

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

b. Predictors: (Constant), Type of friendship, Living situation, Residence area, Education, Age,
Income, Gender, marital status
c. Predictors: (Constant), Type of friendship, Living situation, Residence area, Education, Age,
Income, Gender, marital status, SOSOFTOTAL, AASTOTAL, BFITOTAL, SOSOTOTAL

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 43.720 6.848 6.384 .000

Age .339 .209 .176 1.619 .108

Gender -1.912 1.349 -.143 -1.417 .159

Education .508 .945 .052 .538 .592

Marital status -2.697 2.433 -.117 -1.109 .270

Income -1.426 .868 -.158 -1.644 .103

Residence area -.608 1.109 -.051 -.548 .585

Living situation .015 .621 .002 .024 .981

Type of friendship .962 .754 .122 1.275 .205

2 (Constant) 72.706 8.699 8.358 .000

Age .171 .163 .089 1.047 .297

Gender -1.453 1.079 -.109 -1.347 .181

Education .225 .714 .023 .315 .754

Marital status -2.637 1.859 -.114 -1.418 .159

Income -1.154 .667 -.128 -1.730 .087

Residence area .483 .834 .041 .580 .563

Living situation -.089 .468 -.013 -.191 .849

Type of friendship .498 .614 .063 .810 .420

SOSOTOTAL -.067 .049 -.106 -1.366 .175

SOSOFTOTAL -.308 .038 -.628 -8.101 .000

BFITOTAL -.007 .152 -.004 -.048 .962

AASTOTAL -.009 .077 -.008 -.116 .908

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

1. Model 1 (Demographics):
o No significant predictors (all p>0.05)
o Constant is significant (p<0.001)
2. Model 2 (Demographics + Psychological):
o Only SOSOFTOTAL is significant (β=-0.628, p<0.001)
o All other predictors remain non-significant (p>0.05)
o Constant remains significant (p<0.001)
Sub categories of social provisions scale in terms of online friendship

1. Living Situation Group shows:

o Significant negative correlation with attachmentSOSOtotal (-0.197*, p=0.030)
o Significant negative correlation with ReliablealliancesSOSOtotal (-0.235**, p=0.010)
2. All SOSOtotal subscales show:
o Strong positive intercorrelations (all p<0.01)
o Highest correlation between attachmentSOSOtotal and GuidanceSOSOtotal (r=0.679**)

Sub categories of social provisions scale in terms of offline friendship

 1. Guidance and Reliable Alliances show the
highest correlation (r = .775), suggesting these
constructs overlap substantially.
2. Attachment scores correlate strongly with
Reliable Alliances (r = .741) and Guidance (r
= .742), indicating these dimensions are
closely related.
3. Nurturance has the lowest correlations (r
= .352 to .504),

Variables Entered/Removeda

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 NurturanceSOS
Ototal,
reassurancewort
hSOSOtotal,
Reliablealliance
SOSOtotal,
. Enter
attachmentSOS
Ototal,
socialintegration
SOSOtotal,
GuidanceSOSOt
otalb

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

b. All requested variables entered.

Sub categories of social provisions scale in terms of online friendship

1. Model Fit:
o R=0.411 shows moderate correlation between predictors and outcome
o R²=0.169 indicates the model explains 16.9% of variance
o Adjusted R²=0.125 suggests 12.5% variance explained after adjusting for
predictors
2. Significance:
o Significant overall model (Sig. F Change=0.002)
o F(6,114)=3.853, p=0.002
 ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 899.610 6 149.935 3.853 .002b

Residual 4435.861 114 38.911

Total 5335.471 120

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

b. Predictors: (Constant), NurturanceSOSOtotal, reassuranceworthSOSOtotal,
ReliableallianceSOSOtotal, attachmentSOSOtotal, socialintegrationSOSOtotal,
GuidanceSOSOtotal

1. Model Significance:
o Significant overall model (F=3.853, p=0.002)
o Explains significant portion of variance in UCLATOTAL

For online friendship

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 56.592 3.581 15.804 .000

attachmentSOSOtotal -.730 .401 -.240 -1.821 .071

socialintegrationSOSOtotal .729 .378 .255 1.932 .056

reassuranceworthSOSOtotal -.704 .348 -.223 -2.021 .046

ReliableallianceSOSOtotal -.697 .313 -.265 -2.228 .028

GuidanceSOSOtotal -.003 .373 -.001 -.008 .994

NurturanceSOSOtotal .344 .298 .116 1.157 .250

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

1. Significant Predictors:
o Reassuranceworth (-0.223, p=0.046)

o Reliablealliance (-0.265, p=0.028)

Both show significant negative relationships with loneliness
2. Marginal Predictors:
o Attachment (-0.240, p=0.071)

o Socialintegration (0.255, p=0.056)

Approach but don't reach standard significance
3. Non-significant Predictors:
o Guidance (p=0.994)

o Nurturance (p=0.250)
 Variables Entered/Removeda

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 NurturanceSOS
Oftotal,
Reliablealliance
SOSOftotal,
Reassurancewor
thSOSOftotal,
. Enter
AttachmentSOS
Oftotal,
Socialintegration
SOSOftotal,
GuidanceSOSOf
totalb

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

b. All requested variables entered.

For Offline friendship sub categories of social provisions scale

1. Model Fit:
o Strong multiple correlation (R = 0.758)

o Explains 57.4% of variance in outcome (R² = 0.574)

o Adjusted R² = 0.552 (55.2% variance explained after penalty for 6 predictors)

2. Significance:
o Highly significant model (F(6,114) = 25.649, p < .001)

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 3065.027 6 510.838 25.649 .000b

Residual 2270.444 114 19.916

Total 5335.471 120

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

b. Predictors: (Constant), NurturanceSOSOftotal, ReliableallianceSOSOftotal,
ReassuranceworthSOSOftotal, AttachmentSOSOftotal, SocialintegrationSOSOftotal,
GuidanceSOSOftotal

Model Significance
 F-statistic (25.649) with p < 0.001 → The regression model is highly statistically significant.
 This means the set of predictors (friendship quality subscales) collectively explain a significant portion of the
variance in the dependent variable (likely loneliness, UCLATOTAL).

For offline friendship

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 66.854 2.449 27.299 .000

AttachmentSOSOftotal -.591 .256 -.236 -2.309 .023

SocialintegrationSOSOftotal -1.307 .250 -.538 -5.233 .000

ReassuranceworthSOSOftot
-.659 .279 -.229 -2.364 .020
al

ReliableallianceSOSOftotal .512 .276 .216 1.857 .066

GuidanceSOSOftotal -.323 .277 -.134 -1.166 .246

NurturanceSOSOftotal .568 .230 .183 2.468 .015

a. Dependent Variable: UCLATOTAL

 Social Integration (B = -1.307, β = -0.538, p < 0.001):

Strongest predictor. Higher social integration significantly reduces loneliness.

 Attachment (B = -0.591, β = -0.236, p = 0.023):

Greater attachment is linked to lower loneliness.

 Reassurance (B = -0.659, β = -0.229, p = 0.020):

More reassurance significantly decreases loneliness.

 Nurturance (B = 0.568, β = 0.183, p = 0.015):

Unexpectedly, higher nurturance slightly increases loneliness, possibly due to one-sided support.