Previous Article in Journal
Reframing Migration: Toward a Human-Centered Security Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci14090531
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Weight of Loneliness: Family Resilience and Social Support Among Parents of Children with and Without Special Needs

by
Batel Hazan-Liran
* and
Inbar Levkovich
Faculty of Education, Tel Hai College, Upper Galilee 1220800, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(9), 531; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090531 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 8 May 2025 / Revised: 2 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 31 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Family Studies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Raising children with special needs presents unique emotional and practical challenges, often increasing parental loneliness and diminishing perceived social support, both of which can undermine family resilience. Although previous studies have explored these constructs separately, there is limited understanding of how loneliness and social support interact to influence family resilience. We examined the mediating role of loneliness and the moderating role of parent groups (parents with and without special needs children) in the association between social support and family resilience. Method: This cross-sectional study included 120 parents (60 parents of children with special needs, 60 parents of typically developing children), with children aged 3 to 18 years. Participants completed questionnaires measuring perceived social support, loneliness, and family resilience. Statistical analyses included t-tests, Pearson correlations, moderation, and mediation analyses using Hayes’ PROCESS macro. Results: Parents of children with special needs reported significantly lower levels of perceived social support and significantly higher levels of loneliness. However, no significant differences were found in family resilience. Across the sample, social support was positively associated with family resilience and negatively associated with loneliness. Moderation analysis revealed that the association between social support and family resilience was stronger among parents of typically developing children. Mediation analysis showed that loneliness fully mediated relations between social support and family resilience. Conclusions: These findings highlight loneliness as a critical psychological mechanism linking social support and family resilience. Although no significant group differences were found in family resilience, it is possible that unmeasured protective factors, such as coping strategies, may have buffered the negative impact of loneliness among parents of children with special needs. Interventions that focus on enhancing social support and addressing loneliness are vital for promoting resilience in parents, particularly those with special needs children.

1. Introduction

Parenting a child with special needs takes place within a complex network of relationships and environmental systems. Grounded in both Family Systems Theory (Johnson and Ray 2016) and Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, as cited in Greeff and Nolting 2013), parenting is understood as an interactive process shaped by individual, relational, and societal factors. These frameworks emphasize how challenges experienced by one family member can reverberate across the entire system and how the surrounding social ecology influences coping and adaptation. For families raising children with special needs, caregiving demands can significantly affect emotional well-being, family dynamics, and access to external resources (Mahmood and Gul 2023; Brennan et al. 2016).
Parents of children with special needs often face intensive caregiving demands that limit their opportunities for social interaction and participation in community life (Brennan et al. 2016; Hassan et al. 2021; Hazan-Liran 2024). These demands may include ongoing medical appointments, coordination with schools and therapists, behavioral supervision, and restrictions in employment flexibility. In addition, many parents report experiencing social stigma, misunderstanding from peers, and the need to relocate to access specialized services, all of which may weaken existing support networks (Kemperman et al. 2019; Kalalo 2024). These structural and emotional burdens contribute to elevated levels of loneliness and social isolation (Currie and Szabo 2020; Nowland et al. 2021), which in turn can erode psychological well-being and the capacity for effective caregiving.
Perceived social support and loneliness are particularly important in this context. Social support encompasses emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance received from family, friends, and community networks (Pietnoczko and Steuden 2020; Uchino et al. 2016). It has been found to play a crucial role in mitigating parental stress, enhancing mental health, and fostering resilience (Brinker and Cheruvu 2017). In contrast, loneliness is a subjective and distressing experience arising from a perceived gap between desired and actual social connections (Laursen and Hartl 2013; Luhmann et al. 2023). Loneliness can undermine psychological well-being and hinder a parent’s ability to maintain effective caregiving over time (Nowland et al. 2021).
While a substantial body of research has examined perceived social support, loneliness, and family resilience, relatively few studies have explored how these constructs interact within a comparative design and under an integrated theoretical framework (Brennan et al. 2016; Nowland et al. 2021). In this study, loneliness is conceptualized as a mediator based on evidence that low levels of perceived social support often lead to increased feelings of isolation, which in turn undermine coping and resilience (Nowland et al. 2021; Brinker and Cheruvu 2017). The child’s developmental status (i.e., whether the child has special needs or is typically developing) is considered a moderator, as caregiving demands and access to support differ substantially between these groups, potentially influencing the strength of associations among key variables (Brennan et al. 2016; Nowland et al. 2021). In particular, little is known about whether these dynamics differ between parents of children with and without special needs. Furthermore, existing studies often overlook systemic and cultural factors that may shape family resilience, such as family cohesion, religious or spiritual beliefs, and the broader sociocultural context of caregiving (Greeff and Nolting 2013; Shenaar-Golan 2017).
Family resilience is defined as the capacity of the family unit to adapt positively to adversity while maintaining functional and emotional stability (Walsh 2016; Black and Lobo 2008; Cihan and Var 2023). Core components include effective communication, flexibility, emotional closeness, and access to social resources. While the demands of raising a child with special needs may threaten these capacities, families can also experience post-traumatic growth and develop new strengths through the caregiving experience (Tedeschi and Calhoun 2004; Enache and Mitu 2022). Families with strong internal bonds, open communication, and access to external resources are better equipped to meet challenges, preserve family integrity, and demonstrate long-term resilience (Al-Jadiri et al. 2021; Fernández-Ávalos et al. 2020).

The Current Study

This study aimed to extend prior research by examining how perceived social support and loneliness relate to family resilience among parents of children with and without special needs. Although previous studies have underscored the importance of social networks in parental well-being (Pineda et al. 2022), limited research has explored these associations within a comparative framework. Specifically, we tested whether loneliness mediates the relationship between social support and family resilience and whether these associations are moderated by the child’s developmental status. We sought to clarify the role of social and emotional factors in promoting family adaptation and identify targets for culturally sensitive interventions that support both the internal strengths and external resources of caregiving families (Cihan and Var 2023; Straughan and Xu 2023).
To guide the investigation, we posed the following research questions:
  • What are the associations between perceived social support, loneliness, and family resilience among parents of children with and without special needs?
  • Does loneliness mediate the relationship between perceived social support and family resilience?
  • Does the child’s developmental status moderate the strength of the relationships among these variables?
We formulated the following hypotheses:
H1: 
There will be significant positive correlations between social support and family resilience, and negative correlations between them and loneliness, in the overall sample and within each group separately.
H2: 
Parents of children with special needs will exhibit the same levels of family resilience as parents of children with special needs but lower levels of social support and higher levels of loneliness.
H3: 
The relationship between social support and family resilience will be moderated by the group to which the parents belong (parents of children with special needs, parents of typically developing children). More specifically, the relationship between social support and family resilience will be stronger for parents of typically developing children.
H4: 
Loneliness will mediate the relationship between social support and family resilience among all participants. Higher levels of social support will be associated with lower levels of loneliness, which, in turn, will lead to greater family resilience.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedure

Prior to the start of the study, ethical approval was obtained from the College Ethics Committee (Authorization No. 5-8/2024). The research was conducted through an online survey using the Qualtrics platform. As part of ensuring data integrity and reliability, and based on previous studies that have shown potential flaws in data collection from specific populations (Levi et al. 2022; Pellicano et al. 2024), the recruitment of parents of children with special needs was conducted through recognized educational frameworks, designated parent groups, and associations working with the relevant populations. Participation in the study involved completing screening questionnaires that included diagnostic details about the child to ensure that the participants were parents of children with special needs relevant to the current study. The data was checked for duplicate responses, inconsistencies between sections, and unusually short response times. Those who did not meet these criteria were removed from the sample.
Participants were told the study examined the relationships between loneliness, social support, and family resilience, focusing on understanding how these factors interact in the context of parents of children with special needs. They were given a questionnaire divided into four sections: demographic information, loneliness, social support, and family resilience. They were instructed to answer the questionnaire individually, honestly, and at their convenience without a set time limit. At any point, they could choose to stop completing the survey. The questionnaire completion process spanned three months. The sampling methods were convenient and snowball sampling. The study design was cross-sectional and between-subject. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software (29).
The inclusion criteria required all participants to be parents. Parents of typically developing children were raising their children most of the time. Parents of children with special needs had children diagnosed with a developmental disability (e.g., autism, intellectual disability, and rare syndromes), whom they were raising and for whom they were the primary caregivers. Specifically, children must reside with them and not in out-of-home care facilities.

2.2. Participants

The sample consisted of 120 parents: 60 parents of children with special needs and 60 parents of typically developing children. The majority of the participants were female (83.3%), with no significant gender distribution differences between the two groups. The average age was 39.71 years (SD = 6.07), with no significant age differences between groups. A greater percentage of parents were employed full-time. Most participants were married or living with a partner (82.5%), with no statistically significant differences in marital status between groups (Table 1).

2.3. Research Instruments

We used the following measures.
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). This 12-item questionnaire assesses perceived social support from three sources: family, friends, and significant others (Zimet et al. 1988). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater perceived support. An example is: ‘I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.’ We calculated a mean score; a high score indicated higher levels of perceived social support (Cronbach’s α = 0.95).
Family Sense of Coherence Scale (FSOC-26). The FSOC-26 is a 26-item questionnaire designed to assess the degree to which individuals perceive their family as comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful, based on Antonovsky’s salutogenic model (Antonovsky and Sourani 1988). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (very seldom or never) to 7 (very often), with higher scores indicating a stronger family sense of coherence. An example is: ‘We feel that we can handle difficult problems in our family.’ We calculated the mean score; a high score indicated a greater family sense of coherence (Cronbach’s α = 0.94).
UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3). This 20-item instrument measures subjective feelings of loneliness and social isolation (Russell et al. 1980). Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale from 1 (never) to 4 (often), with higher scores indicating higher perceived loneliness. An example is: ‘I feel isolated from others.’ We calculated the mean score; a higher score indicated greater levels of loneliness (Cronbach’s α = 0.93).
Sociodemographic Questionnaire. We gathered background information on gender, age, marital status, level of education, employment status, and monthly household income.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (Version 26). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency) were computed for all demographic variables. We used independent sample t-tests to assess group differences between parents of children with special needs and parents of typically developing children in terms of social support, family resilience, and loneliness.
We conducted Pearson’s correlation analyses to examine the relationships between the main study variables. To test for moderation, we applied PROCESS Model 1 using parental status (parent of a child with special needs vs. parent of a typically developing child) as a moderator of the relationship between social support and family resilience. To examine whether loneliness mediated the relationship between social support and family resilience, we used PROCESS Model 4. Bootstrapping (5000 iterations) was used to test the significance of the indirect effect via loneliness, generating 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An effect was considered significant if the CI did not include zero. The significance level for all analyses was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

To examine the first hypothesis, we used Pearson’s correlation analyses to determine the connections between social support, family resilience, and loneliness. As expected, the results revealed significant positive associations between social support and family resilience, and significant negative correlations between social support and loneliness across the total sample and within each group (Table 2).
To address the second hypothesis, we performed independent sample t-tests to compare the levels of social support, family resilience, and loneliness between the two parent groups. While no significant difference was found in family resilience, parents of children with special needs reported significantly lower social support and higher levels of loneliness. Thus, H2 was confirmed (Table 3).
To examine the third hypothesis, we conducted a moderation analysis, with social support as the predictor and family resilience as the outcome. Group membership (special needs vs. typical development) moderated this relationship, yielding a significant interaction (R2 = 0.066, F(1, 116) = 10.776, p < 0.01). As hypothesized, the relationship between social support and family resilience was stronger among parents of typically developing children (B = 0.637, SE = 0.105, CI: 0.429–0.844) than for parents of children with special needs (B = 0.205, SE = 0.079, CI; 0.048–0.362).
Similarly, the mediation analysis supported the fourth hypothesis. Perceived social support was significantly and negatively associated with loneliness (B = −0.375, CI: −0.422 to −0.328), while loneliness was negatively but not significantly associated with family resilience. Also, the direct relationship between social support and family resilience was insignificant (B = −0.469, SE = 0.238, CI: −0.941–0.003), suggesting the possibility of full mediation of loneliness in the relationship between social support and family resilience. The indirect effect was indeed statistically significant, as the 95% CI for the bootstrapped estimate did not include zero, indicating a mediating role for loneliness in the relationship between support and resilience. Tests of the indirect effect of social support on family resilience via loneliness revealed a significant mediation effect (B = 0.176, 95% CI: 0.029–0.325). These findings support the hypothesis that loneliness fully mediates the relationship between social support and family resilience (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

We explored the relationships between perceived social support, loneliness, and family resilience, comparing parents of children with special needs to parents of typically developing children. The findings largely supported our hypotheses.
Consistent with the first hypothesis, perceived social support was positively correlated with family resilience and both were negatively correlated with loneliness across both parent groups. These findings align with Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources theory, which posits that individuals strive to acquire and maintain personal and social resources and experience stress when these resources are threatened or depleted. Within this framework, social support functions as a vital external resource, preserving internal coping capacities and promoting resilience. Conversely, loneliness reflects a critical deficit in social resources, potentially initiating a ‘loss spiral’ that undermines coping and adaptive functioning. Our results reinforce those of prior studies highlighting social support as a central protective factor for family resilience (Black and Lobo 2008; Walsh 2016).
Supporting the second hypothesis, parents of children with special needs reported significantly lower perceived social support and higher levels of loneliness than parents of typically developing children. Family Systems Theory (Johnson and Ray 2016) suggests that changes affecting one family member reverberate across the entire system. The complex caregiving demands associated with raising a child with special needs may constrain parents’ opportunities for social engagement and increase their feelings of isolation. Other studies have found parents of children with special needs experience greater social isolation and reduced support due to stigma, intense caregiving demands, and the limited availability of tailored resources (Ammari et al. 2014; George-Levi et al. 2023).
Interestingly, despite these social challenges, no significant differences in family resilience levels were observed between the two groups. This finding is consistent with the Compensatory Model of Resilience (Fergus and Zimmerman 2005), which suggests individuals and families can develop adaptive strengths to counterbalance elevated risk factors. For example, parents of children with special needs often cultivate unique coping mechanisms and internal resources to maintain resilience (Gugliandolo et al. 2023). Post-Traumatic Growth theory (Tedeschi and Calhoun 2004) similarly suggests adversity can foster growth, closer relationships, and greater appreciation of life, which may help explain the resilience levels we observed among these parents.
The moderation analysis confirmed the third hypothesis: child status moderated the relationship between social support and family resilience. Specifically, the positive association between social support and resilience was stronger among parents of typically developing children. This result suggests generic social support may be less effective for parents of children with special needs; they may require specialized support adapted to their context. Standard forms of assistance, such as informal emotional support or occasional childcare, may meet the needs of parents of typically developing children but may be insufficient for families dealing with developmental disabilities (Pepperell et al. 2018; Russa et al. 2015). They benefit the most from interventions that offer tailored support, peer networks, and professional expertise. Programs designed for this purpose, such as the Nurturing Program (Burton et al. 2018) and more recent school-based family counseling models emphasizing caregiver support (Awwad-Tabry and Levkovich 2025), highlight the need to address the unique social and emotional needs of these parents.
The mediation analysis provided strong support for the fourth hypothesis: loneliness fully mediated the relationship between social support and family resilience. According to Fredrickson’s (2001) Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions, positive social interactions expand cognitive and emotional repertoires, thus fostering resilience, while loneliness constricts adaptive responses. This mechanism explains the strong influence of loneliness on resilience. Prior research has documented the detrimental effects of loneliness on emotional regulation and coping (Buecker et al. 2021) and the buffering role of meaningful social support on reducing isolation (Kemperman et al. 2019). Reducing loneliness has emerged as a critical pathway for enhancing resilience, particularly for parents who experience greater caregiving burdens and have limited external support (Nowland et al. 2021).

4.1. Limitations

The study had several limitations that warrant consideration. First, our reliance on convenience and snowball sampling methodologies limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should employ larger and more representative sample populations. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes the establishment of causal relationships between the variables. Longitudinal studies are necessary to elucidate how social support, loneliness, and family resilience evolve over time, particularly during significant transitional periods of family development. Third, we approached parents of children with special needs as a homogeneous population, without sufficient differentiation as to the type of the child’s special needs or the degree of severity. Subsequent investigations should examine subgroups of this population. Fourth, the sample had a notable gender imbalance: a substantial majority (83.3%) of participants were female. This disproportionate representation of mothers versus fathers may introduce bias into the findings, as coping patterns, social support perceptions, and loneliness experiences may differ between genders. In this regard, it would be beneficial for future studies to ensure gender balance as well as balance in employment status in order to incorporate these analyses and examine whether there are differences arising from these demographic variables in relation to the study variables. Lastly, a potential limitation of this study is related to ensuring the integrity of the data and verifying that the respondents were indeed parents of typically developing children and children with special needs. While we implemented screening questionnaires and followed a recruitment process through recognized educational frameworks and parent groups, the study did not include official verification of the child’s developmental status by a medical professional. To strengthen the reliability of future studies, it is recommended that, in subsequent research, parents provide official documentation from developmental pediatricians regarding their child’s condition.

4.2. Practical Implications

The findings have important implications for interventions and policy development aimed at supporting families with children with special needs. First, intervention programs should focus not only on enhancing the availability of social support but also on reducing feelings of loneliness, as this may mediate resilience. Second, programs must be tailored to the specific needs of parents caring for children with special needs, recognizing generic support services are often insufficient. Practical strategies may include establishing specialized peer support networks, offering professional counseling adapted to the unique stressors faced by parents, and integrating school-based family counseling services that address both educational and emotional needs (Awwad-Tabry and Levkovich 2025).
Third, the findings highlight the resilience potential of these families, despite substantial caregiving challenges. Policymakers and practitioners should prioritize interventions that provide external resources but also foster internal family strengths, coping capacities, and opportunities for growth. Finally, efforts to promote parental well-being should adopt a systemic perspective, recognizing that supporting parents contributes directly to the adaptive functioning and developmental outcomes of children with special needs.
While our sampling method does not permit generalization to the broader population, the findings may be particularly relevant to specific groups of parents who share similar psychosocial profiles. For example, the results may inform interventions for parents experiencing elevated caregiving stress, low perceived social support, and heightened loneliness, especially those raising children with developmental disabilities in socially or geographically isolated settings. In this way, the conclusions can offer practical value for developing targeted support systems for families at elevated risk of diminished resilience.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms linking perceived social support, loneliness, and family resilience in parents of children with and without special needs. The findings highlight the central role of loneliness as a mediator and the effect of child status as a moderator in shaping these relationships. Despite their greater caregiving challenges, the resilience of our sample of parents of children with special needs was comparable to that of parents of typically developing children, emphasizing the potential for adaptive strength and growth. However, the results also suggest that general social support is less effective for families with special needs, unless tailored to their specific caregiving demands. These insights underscore the need for targeted programs that enhance support structures and actively work to reduce parental loneliness. By addressing both external resources and internal psychological processes, interventions can significantly bolster the resilience of families to chronic caregiving stressors. More specifically, the mediation analysis revealed that perceived social support enhances family resilience indirectly by reducing loneliness. This suggests that emotional connection and a sense of belonging play a key role in translating external support into internal family strength. Interventions aiming to increase resilience should therefore prioritize not only increasing support availability, but also actively reducing feelings of isolation. In light of this, practical measures such as structured peer support groups, caregiver-focused counseling, and school-based family support programs may help translate caregiving challenges into opportunities for growth. Recognizing and supporting the caregiving role is essential for fostering sustainable family resilience.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.H.-L.; Methodology, B.H.-L.; Validation, I.L.; Formal analysis, B.H.-L.; Resources, B.H.-L.; Writing—original draft, B.H.-L.; Writing—review & editing, I.L.; Supervision, I.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Al-Jadiri, Aseel, David J. Tybor, Christina Mulé, and Christina Sakai. 2021. Factors associated with resilience in families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 42: 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ammari, Tawfiq, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Meredith R. Morris. 2014. Accessing social support and overcoming judgment on social media among parents of children with special needs. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 8: 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Antonovsky, Aaron, and Talma Sourani. 1988. Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50: 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Awwad-Tabry, Sawsan, and Inbar Levkovich. 2025. Supporting caregivers: Enhancing parental well-being through resources for autism care in school-based family counselling. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools 35: 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Black, Keri, and Marie Lobo. 2008. A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of Family Nursing 14: 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brennan, Eileen M., Julie Rosenzweig, Pauline Jivanjee, and Lisa M. Stewart. 2016. Challenges and supports for employed parents of children and youth with special needs. In Oxford Handbook of Work and Family. Edited by Tammy D. Allen and Lillian T. Eby. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brinker, Jenna, and Vinay K. Cheruvu. 2017. Social and emotional support as a protective factor against current depression among individuals with adverse childhood experiences. Preventive Medicine Reports 5: 127–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Buecker, Susanne, Jaap J. A. Denissen, and Maike Luhmann. 2021. A propensity-score matched study of changes in loneliness surrounding major life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 121: 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Burton, Rosalinda Strano, Jennifer Zwahr-Castro, Cara L. Magrane, Hugo Hernandez, Laura G. Farley, and Nancy Amodei. 2018. The nurturing program: An intervention for parents of children with special needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies 27: 1137–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cihan, Hudayar, and Esra Calik Var. 2023. Developing a model on the factors affecting family resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic: Risk and protective factors. Current Psychology 42: 20259–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Currie, Genevieve, and Joanna Szabo. 2020. Social isolation and exclusion: The parents’ experience of caring for children with rare neurodevelopmental disorders. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 15: 1725362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Enache, Rodica Gabriela, and Iuliana Mitu. 2022. Coping mechanisms of families of children’s with special education needs. Technium Social Sciences Journal 34: 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fergus, Stevenson, and Marc A. Zimmerman. 2005. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health 26: 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Fernández-Ávalos, María Inmaculada, María Nieves Pérez-Marfil, Rosario Ferrer-Cascales, Francisco Cruz-Quintana, and Manuel Fernández-Alcántara. 2020. Feeling of grief and loss in parental caregivers of adults diagnosed with intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 34: 712–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Fredrickson, Barbara L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. George-Levi, Sivan, Roni Laslo-Roth, and Lital Ben Yaakov. 2023. Vulnerability to loneliness among fathers of children with autism spectrum disorder: The role of interpersonal and familial resources. Family Process 63: 364–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Greeff, Abraham P., and Claudia Nolting. 2013. Resilience in families of children with developmental disabilities. Families, Systems, and Health 31: 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gugliandolo, Maria Cristina, Francesca Liga, Rosalba Larcan, and Francesca Cuzzocrea. 2023. Parents of children with developmental disorders: Family hardiness and resilience. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 48: 334–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hassan, Amel Ahmed, Amal Mohammed Hamid, and Nagla Hassan Eltayeb. 2021. Burden on parenting of children with special needs: Review article. EAS Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 3: 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hazan-Liran, Batel. 2024. The contribution of psychological capital and parental age to job satisfaction: A comparison of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder and parents of typically developing children. Frontiers in Education 9: 1354732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hobfoll, Stevan E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44: 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Johnson, Benjamin E., and Wendel A. Ray. 2016. Family systems theory. In The Wily Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies. Edited by Constance L. Shehan. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kalalo, Royke Tony. 2024. The role and function of single parents in special needs children to combat loneliness. Surabaya Psychiatry Journal/Jurnal Psikiatri Surabaya 13: 119–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kemperman, Astrid, Pauline van Den Berg, Minou Weijs-Perrée, and Kevin Uijtdewillegen. 2019. Loneliness of older adults: Social network and the living environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Laursen, Brett, and Amy C. Hartl. 2013. Understanding loneliness during adolescence: Developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. Journal of Adolescence 36: 1261–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Levi, Ronli, Ronit Ridberg, Melissa Akers, and Hilary Seligman. 2022. Survey fraud and the integrity of web-based survey research. American Journal of Health Promotion 36: 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Luhmann, Maike, Susanne Buecker, and Marilena Rüsberg. 2023. Loneliness across time and space. Nature Reviews Psychology 2: 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mahmood, Areej, and Afsheen Gul. 2023. Parental stress, familial burden and quality of life in parents of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Professional and Applied Psychology 4: 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nowland, Rebecca, Gill Thomson, Lara McNally, Timothy Smith, and K. Whittaker. 2021. Experiencing loneliness in parenthood: A scoping review. Perspectives in Public Health 141: 214–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pellicano, Elizabeth, Dawn Adams, Laura Crane, Calliope Hollingue, Connie Allen, Katherine Almendinger, Monique Botha, Tori Haar, Steven K. Kapp, and Elizabeth Wheeley. 2024. A possible threat to data integrity for online qualitative autism research. Autism 28: 786–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pepperell, Te Ana, Jessica Paynter, and Linda Gilmore. 2018. Social support and coping strategies of parents raising a child with autism spectrum disorder. Early Child Development and Care 188: 1392–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pietnoczko, Magdalena, and Stanisława Steuden. 2020. The need for social support and the health condition of parents of children with cancer. Palliative Medicine in Practice 14: 157–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pineda, Chelsea Nicole, Moira Pauline Naz, Annedel Ortiz, Ella Louisse Ouano, Nathaniel Pierce Padua, Jaime Paronable, Jr., Janella Mae Pelayo, Minette Coleen Regalado, and Gian Carlo S. Torres. 2022. Resilience, social support, loneliness and quality of life during COVID-19 pandemic: A structural equation model. Nurse Education in Practice 64: 103419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Russa, Mary Bower, Amy L. Matthews, and Jamie S. Owen-DeSchryver. 2015. Expanding supports to improve the lives of families of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 17: 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Russell, Dan, Letitia A. Peplau, and Carolyn E. Cutrona. 1980. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shenaar-Golan, Vered. 2017. Hope and subjective well-being among parents of children with special needs. Child and Family Social Work 22: 306–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Straughan, Paulin Tay, and Chengwei Xu. 2023. How does parents’ social support impact children’s health practice? Examining a mediating role of health knowledge. Global Health Research and Policy 8: 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tedeschi, Richard G., and Lawrence G. Calhoun. 2004. Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry 15: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Uchino, Bert N., Kimberly S. Bowen, and Robert G. Kent de Grey. 2016. Social support and mental health. In Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 2nd ed. Edited by Howard S. Friedman. Cambridge: Academic Press, pp. 189–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Walsh, Froma. 2016. Applying a family resilience framework in training, practice, and research: Mastering the art of the possible. Family Process 55: 616–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zimet, Gregory D., Nancy W. Dahlem, Sara G. Zimet, and Gordon K. Farley. 1988. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment 52: 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 14 00531 g001
Figure 1. Relations between Social Support and Family Resilience via Loneliness as a Mediator. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Relations between Social Support and Family Resilience via Loneliness as a Mediator. *** p < 0.001.
Socsci 14 00531 g001
Table 1. Demographics of Parents with and without Children with Special Needs (n = 120).
Table 1. Demographics of Parents with and without Children with Special Needs (n = 120).
VariablesSubscaleSpecial Needs Child (n = 60)Typical Child (n = 60)
GenderMales19 (32%)22 (37%)
Females41 (68%)38 (63%)
AgeRange25–63 (M = 42)26–62 (M = 44)
Working StatusNot Working4 (7%)15 (25%)
Working Full-Time33 (55%)29 (48%)
Working Part-Time23 (38%)16 (27%)
Family StatusSingle2 (3%)4 (7%)
Married49 (82%)50 (83%)
Divorced8 (13%)5 (8%)
Widower1 (2%)1 (2%)
Number of ChildrenRange1–6 (M = 3)1–5 (M = 3)
An Additional SE ChildYes13 (22%)-
No47 (78%)-
Number of SE ChlidrenRange1–4 (M = 2)-
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Study Variables (n = 120).
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Study Variables (n = 120).
VariablesM (SD)12
Total (n= 120)
1. Family Resilience5.02 (0.98)
2. Social Support5.39 (1.29)0.496 ***
3. Loneliness1.99 (0.58)−0.476 ***−0.824 ***
Parents of Special Needs Child (n = 60)
1. Family Resilience4.89 (1.05)
2. Social Support4.98 (1.38)0.269 *
3. Loneliness2.19 (0.57)−0.370 **−0.838 ***
Parents of Typical Child (n = 60)
1. Family Resilience5.15 (0.89)
2. Social Support5.80 (1.04)0.742 ***
3. Loneliness1.78 (0.52)−0.581 ***−0.759 ***
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Differences between Parents with and without Children with Special Needs (N = 120).
Table 3. Differences between Parents with and without Children with Special Needs (N = 120).
VariablesParents of Special Needs Child (n = 60)Parents of Typical Child (n = 60)
M (SD)t (118), pCohen’s d
Family Resilience4.89 (1.05)5.15 (0.89)−1.471, p = 0.1440.267
Social Support4.98 (1.38)5.80 (1.04)−3.659, p < 0.0010.671
Loneliness2.19 (0.57)1.78 (0.52)4.063, p < 0.0010.751
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hazan-Liran, B.; Levkovich, I. The Weight of Loneliness: Family Resilience and Social Support Among Parents of Children with and Without Special Needs. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090531

AMA Style

Hazan-Liran B, Levkovich I. The Weight of Loneliness: Family Resilience and Social Support Among Parents of Children with and Without Special Needs. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(9):531. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090531

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hazan-Liran, Batel, and Inbar Levkovich. 2025. "The Weight of Loneliness: Family Resilience and Social Support Among Parents of Children with and Without Special Needs" Social Sciences 14, no. 9: 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090531

APA Style

Hazan-Liran, B., & Levkovich, I. (2025). The Weight of Loneliness: Family Resilience and Social Support Among Parents of Children with and Without Special Needs. Social Sciences, 14(9), 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090531

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop