Is loneliness a social problem?

Background

Throughout much of recent history, loneliness has been predominantly conceptualized as an individual-level, psychological problem (Barreto et al., 2024; Sagan, 2023; Nilsson et al., 2006; Donbavand, 2020; Wilkinson, 2022). This conclusion is driven by observations that lonely people seem to be more negative and pessimistic, act more socially withdrawn and vigilant, are more distrusting of others, act with greater hostility, and generally seem dissatisfied with their lives (Ernst & Cacioppo, 1999). Perhaps for these reasons, loneliness is sometimes stigmatized, viewed as a personal failing (Barreto et al., 2022). However, scientific studies highlight that vulnerability to loneliness is strongly related to genetic factors (Boomsma et al., 2005; Bartels et al., 2007) and researchers have interpreted these findings as an indication that loneliness is the result of biological processes with evolutionary origins (Cacioppo et al., 2006, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2015a; 2015b). This evidence undermines the blame cast on lonely people. Furthermore, loneliness is observed to occur in a clustered pattern throughout social networks, disproportionately affecting those on the periphery and spreading through social networks like a contagion (Cacioppo et al., 2009). Age and income are also important predictors of loneliness, highlighting the role that social processes likely play in instigating feelings of loneliness (Shovestul et al., 2020). Recognizing these biological and social drivers, researchers have begun to advance social connection as a public health priority and are calling on all segments of society to address loneliness through social programs and policies (Barreto et al., 2024; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2018, 2022, 2023a; M. Smith et al, 2023, R. Smith et al., 2023, Lim et al., 2020, 2023; Yang, 2019). Such calls to action emphasize the importance of understanding the broader socio-structural causes of loneliness.

Purpose

The purpose of this evidence brief is to explore the relationship between loneliness and society. In doing so, we aim to improve our understanding of how socio-cultural structures contribute to feelings of loneliness, while also recognizing that loneliness itself may act to reinforce these dominant structures, resulting in considerable harm to society.

Evidence from Existing Studies

Effects of Social Structures on Loneliness

Existing interdisciplinary theories on loneliness emphasize that while it may be equivalent to hunger or thirst in its purpose of driving us to seek out our fundamental need for social connection (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2013; Dalgleish et al., 2017; Tomova et al., 2021), chronic and widespread loneliness is not an inevitable part of the human condition (Alberti, 2018). Indeed, scholars have argued that the psycho-biological problem of loneliness is caused by an evolutionary mismatch in which our evolved functions no longer serve their adaptive purposes in the context of our modern social environments (Li et al., 2017). The underlying assumption of this argument is that our social environments have dramatically changed from the one in which we (and our brains) evolved (Geher & Wedberg, 2019). In other words, it is suggested that over-time, our social worlds have become lower in quality – leading to greater levels of loneliness and isolation.

Empirical studies examining the underlying socio-structural causes of loneliness are relatively rare compared to those that focus on individual-level predictors (Killeen, 1998). Yet, researchers have begun to explore the roles of values, norms, social structures, communication technologies, and other living conditions that create loneliness (Luhmann et al., 2022; Franklin, 2016; Slade, 2012). Among these studies, researchers have sought to examine whether levels of loneliness have changed throughout time – a potential indicator that social, cultural, or structural factors are to blame. These studies have often highlighted a long-run decline in social participation and connectedness (Buecker et al., 2021; McPherson et al., 2006; Twenge et al., 2019, 2021;Feng et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2014; Sprecher, 2020; U.S., Surgeon General, 2023; Putnam, 2015; Schwadel & Stout, 2012; Bartolini et al., 2008; Alburez-Gutierrez et al., 2023), with period-specific changes sporadically identified in key demographic groups (e.g., small COVID-19-related increases; Ernst et al., 2022). For example, Snell (2017) documents the striking rise of single-person households between the 1850s and 2010s. However, these discouraging trends are not universally supported by existing literature (Thomson, 2005; Hawkley et al., 2019; Surkalim et al., 2023; Domenichini, 2007; Dahlberg et al., 2018; Victor et al., 2002; Paxton, 1999; Nyqvist et al., 2017; Clark et al., 2014, 2015) and many have argued that we have simply changed how we connect to one another, which makes it difficult to measure changes in our overall levels of connectedness using longitudinal surveys (Schwadel & Stout, 2012; Costa & Kahn, 2001; Clark, 2014; Norris, 1996). Similarly, Hawkley et al. (2019) suggests that increases in loneliness among older adults might simply be due to the changes in demography (i.e., people living longer) rather than a general trend towards greater disconnection.

Regardless of whether loneliness and social disconnection have increased in recent history, cultural theories of loneliness play out on the scale of centuries – meaning that these would not necessarily be detected in short term surveys administered over the past few decades. Advancing this view, Alberti et al., (2019), building on the work of others, argues that loneliness is the byproduct of modernity and its social and cultural structures (Olds & Schwartz, 2010; Hookway et al., 2019; Patulny et al., 2019; Sagan & Miller, 2018). In particular, authors have chronicled the problems posed by a growing dominance of urban “society” over rural “community” (Schirmer & Michailakis, 2015; de Vries, 2024; Weinberg, 1961; Mijuskovic, 1992).

Providing some face validity to the assertion that society and its structures are to blame for the prevalence of loneliness, most of us readily recognize that present day life—unfolding within bustling cities that force us into near-constant contact with strangers and isolate us inside small apartments, cars, and cubicles—bears little, if any, resemblance to the African savanna where we evolved (Montgomery, 2018). Indeed, unlike today, many scholars argue that our ancestors lived in tightly-knit, interdependent social networks consisting of only a few dozen kin. People spent their whole lives with fairly stable social networks and almost all aspects of our lives were shared in community (Kelly, 2013; Dunbar, 1992, 2022; Lee, 1979; Suzman, 2017; Laslett, 2021). When someone felt lonely, it was not hard to reach out. When you felt distressed or worried, there were others who shared in your concerns or were otherwise ready to comfort you. Our challenges were largely collective (getting enough food, fighting off predators) rather than those of the alienating and isolating variety (Hooper et al., 2021; Lin & Schank, 2022; Pereda et al., 2017; Smaldino, 2019). Today, it is argued, much of this is no longer true (Donbavand, 2020; Alberti et al., 2018; Spykman, 2004; Blaginin, 2018). While no reasonable person would wind back the clock to live in the terribly harsh environments our ancestors survived, our biology and psychology grew accustomed to the social aspects of these environments and now, for many, this way of living has vanished or been taken away and replaced with a form of living not conducive to humans (Goodwyn, 2024). Indeed, historians argue that with the advent of agricultural (10,000 BC) and later with the industrial revolution (late-1700s to mid-1800s), our economies required a tighter, more efficient organization of labour in order to staff farms and factories (Durkheim, 1893; Snell, 2015; Franklin, 2022). As a result, people relocated to cities, which while increasing social contact, failed to structure relationships in a way that allowed for authentic, meaningful, and satisfying relationships to form (Donbavand, 2019; Schmidt, 2023). Broad networks of connection and collaboration fractured, leaving families more vulnerable to social and economic forces (Uzoka, 1979; Rokach & Shick, 2014; Snell, 2017; Popp, 2023; Ayla & Kanwal, 2018). Of course, for much of recent history families have been buttressed by faith and other community groups that provide invaluable sources of communal support (House et al., 1988; Chadborn et al., 2019). However, with the advent of austerity measures, rising individualism, and digital forms of entertainment, these supporting social organizations have in large part been dismantled or unable to keep pace with need (Merrett, 2013; Valenzuela-Garcia et al., 2019). In short, our social environment has, overtime, become less and less able to meet our social needs.

While the historical argument outlined above is difficult to empirically evaluate (Mijuskovic, 2021) and is plausibly the byproduct of moral panic rather than a reflection of the historical roots of loneliness (Hampton & Wellman, 2021; Thomson, 2005; Seeman, 1971), researchers have begun to empirically demonstrate numerous ways in which our present day culture undermines our social relationships and wellbeing (Hidaka, 2013). For example, researchers have found that poor and declining social cohesion or social capital at a group level undermine the social fabric of society by leading to less interpersonal trust, more polarization, and less cooperation (Langenkamp, 2022; Vasconcelos et al., 2021; Putnam, 2002; Howe, 2017; Rotenberg, 1994, 2010). Illustrating this, Langenkamp (2022) showed that loneliness contributes to alienation, distrust, and reduced political participation. Similarly, Floyd (2017) showed that loneliness is correlated with greater xenophobia and endorsement of right-wing authoritarianism. Conversely, more informal social ties and connections are seen to enhance social trust (Glanville et al., 2013). While a variety of processes explain these association, the need to belong appears to be a powerful driver behind shift to extremist and violent ideologies that provide a sense of belonging and purpose to otherwise alienated individuals (Pfundmair et al., 2022; Wood, 2020; Kruglanski et al., 2018; Webber et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2016; Bhui et al., 2014; Zenker, 2021). These conditions erode social trust, which in turn contributes to withdrawal, loneliness, and isolation (Rapoliene & Aartsen, 2022; Yang & Moorman, 2021; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Krause, 1993)—highlighting intersection of micro-, meso- and macro-level social processes (Morris et al., 2015; Zebrowitz et al., 2006).

As well, other cultural factors, such as urbanization, individualism, neoliberalism, materialism, and technocentrism each have been shown to contribute to asocial or antisocial norms that undermine social cohesion and interpersonal connectedness.

Urbanization. While urban environments, with their dense populations and diverse social landscapes, might offer fertile ground for fostering connections, paradoxically, the data suggest that urban settings are actually associated with increased loneliness and isolation (Chen & Gong, 2021; Milbrandt & Park, 2023; Lai et al., 2021). This may be due to the superficial and transitory nature of social interactions in urban settings. People may come to experience a sense of “urban anonymity” in which they feel invisible, even though surrounded by others (Coleman, 2009). Of course, other features, such as economic and material deprivation might also contribute to the observed spread of loneliness in urban areas (Victor & Pikhartova, 2020).

Individualism. Another commonly cited culprit cause of loneliness is the rise of individualism, which scholars define as a social and cultural principle that prioritizes the autonomy, rights, and interests of the individual over those of the group or community. Individualism is rooted in the values of self-reliance and personal freedom, emphasizing individual goals and the expression of personal identity. Studies have sought to examine whether individualism is associated with increased loneliness – often hypothesizing that individualism creates a sort of breeding ground for loneliness. While this may very well be the case (Barreto et al., 2021; Beller & Wagner, 2020; Taniguchi & Kaufman, 2022), the literature on the topic has suffered from a sort of paradox (Heu et al., 2021), wherein it appears that collectivistic individuals have greater need for social connection and therefore are more vulnerable to social impoverishment if the environment fails to provide adequate social contact, while individualistic individuals tend to be better equipped to live within these individualistic environments (Lykes et al., 2013; Heu et al., 2018). Similarly, Heu et al. (2020) note that collectivism can better protect against physical isolation while individualism may better support individuals in pursuing their personal social goals – allowing them to be free agents that can maximize their social utility.These findings point somewhat optimistically to the adaptability of human beings across diverse social environments, but also underscore the need for cultural conditions that promote connection, irrespective of levels of individualism and collectivism (Swader, 2019; Rokach, 2018; Schermer et al., 2023).

Neoliberalism. Researchers have also begun to explore the effects of neoliberalism on loneliness, which while closely related to individualism emphasizes the roles of competition and self-sufficiency – which again, are hypothesized to be deleterious to social bonds. While neoliberal beliefs can promote a sense of self-efficacy – leading to social benefits for those who are able to meet such expectations (Card & Hepburn, 2022), multiple mechanisms might also lead to an association between neoliberalism and greater loneliness. First, neoliberalism might create material inequalities. Researchers have shown that countries with higher and increasing levels of income inequality have greater prevalence of loneliness and other indicators for poor mental health (Tapia-Munoz, 2022; Dierckens, 2022; Elgar et al., 2015). This suggests that inequalities across class, social status, or other salient factors may play a key role in shaping experiences of loneliness (Arhibald, 1976; Costa & Kahn, 2001; Hill, 2017). Additionally, neoliberalism and competitiveness may undermine social solidarity – creating distrust and eliminating opportunities to build cohesion (Bettache et al., 2020; Arora, 2020; Becker, 2021; Sagan, 2017; Gerard, 2024). Indeed, such emphasis on interpersonal comparison can create a lot of social pressure that in turn leads to psychological distress and social anxiety (Haugan, 2023). A growing body of literature highlights these mechanisms, including studies supporting the social rank theory (Gilbert, 2000; Wetherall et al., 2019) and the sociometer theory (Leary, 2012), which posit that our position within social hierarchies are can trigger poor self-esteem and isolation. Thus, cultures that emphasize competition and visible markers of success may activate self-monitoring and evaluative mechanisms that ultimately undermine our ability to bond with others. Indeed, while the desire to belong, be admired, and receive affirmation are natural and even healthy – the unreasonable demands placed on us to be extraordinarily attractive, wealthy, and popular ultimately fail to serve us well (Leary & Jongman-Sereno, 2014; Norton & Abbott, 2017; Wetherall et al., 2019; Weisman et al., 2011; Christensen & Kashy, 1998) and ultimately contribute to withdrawal, passive coping, and experiences of loneliness (Lucas et al., 2010; Baumeister & Robson, 2021).

Materialism. Closely related to the challenge neoliberalism, researchers have also explored the effects of materialism on our social wellbeing. For example, Rahn & Transue (2002) show that the explosion of consumerism and materialistic values throughout the 70s and 80s severely eroded levels of social trust and other studies underscore a persistent, bidirectional relationship between materialism and loneliness (Fumagalli et al, 2022; Khalid & Qadeer, 2021; Lane, 2008; Oversveen, 2021; Manchiraju et al., 2021; Pieters, 2013; Ang et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2022; Shrum et al., 2022; Kasser & Kanner, 2004). It is believed that the focus on things over people may undermine effective coping by distracting us with material resources that do not offer the same benefits that social resources do. Thus, a cultural emphasis on property and gadgets not only undermine solidarity by contributing to status differences, but also fail to provide the expected emotional benefits (Donnelly et al., 2016; Caprariello & Reis, 2013).

Technocentrism. Similarly, technocentrism poses a profound challenge to social cohesion by favoring lower-quality digital interactions over more meaningful in-person connections. The ubiquity of so-called 'social media' platforms often fosters environments ripe for social comparison, which can severely impact individual wellbeing (Hakansson & Witmer, 2015; Samra et al., 2022; Goodman et al., 2022). Notably, these platforms frequently fail to meet the specific, nuanced social needs of their users, promoting a superficial form of engagement that can lead to increased feelings of isolation and anxiety (Lopez et al., 2017). Recent studies further corroborate these findings, revealing how excessive reliance on digital communication can diminish the quality of human relationships and contribute to a pervasive sense of loneliness across various demographics (Twenge, 2019). By replacing authentic human interaction with digital exchanges, technocentrism not only changes the structure of our social interactions but also the very fabric of our societal and emotional landscapes.

With each of these examples outlined above, it can be difficult to draw clear causal associations, but taken together the evidence produced thus far seems to support the broader hypothesis that loneliness is not merely a byproduct of individual-level psychological experience. Rather, loneliness appears to be most common and severe when the socio-cultural conditions fail to create a sense of cohesion, belonging, and inclusion or misdirect individuals in the pursuit of non-social satisfactions.

Effects of Loneliness on Society

The evidence summarized above highlights how our social structures are key to shaping our experiences of loneliness. Of course, the direction of causation in these relationships is difficutl to assess; and, as such, it is also likely that loneliness and isolation can have deleterious impacts on society by reinforcing social structures or processes that contribute thereto. For example, social isolation can shape patterns of sexual selection (Bailey & Moore, 2018) – resulting in genetic changes across generations. Given the heritability of loneliness (Gao et al., 2017; Fowler et al., 2009; Spithoven et al., 2019) and tendency for lonely individuals to affiliate with one another (Cacioppo et al., 2010; Fridmanski et al., 2020; Victor & Pikhartova, 2020), this might mean loneliness may be inter-generationally self-perpetuating – thereby reinforcing systemic inequalities across subpopulations. The perpetuation of loneliness might thus lead to more asocial (or even antisocial) behaviour within certain populations – which might serve to reinforce the social structures that contribute to loneliness leading to a vicious cycle of loneliness at the population level.

In addition to the potential impacts on our genes, loneliness also has considerable social implications for society. For example, lonely individuals appear to adopt a pessimistic avoidant social strategy and are perceived to act less prosocially, more socially withdrawn, and are sometimes rated more negatively by peers (Gable et al., 2006; Nurmi et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1982, 1983; Tsai & Reis, 2009; Wittenberg & Reis, 1986; Layden et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible that the negative valance associated with the lonely phenotype might act as a social signal to others – communicating important social information that could in turn shape the social behaviour of others (van Baaren et al., 2009; Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009). Indeed, social signals are believed to play an important role in shaping perceptions and social behaviour (Loth & Ruiter, 2016; Poggi & D’Errico, 2011) and, as such, asocial or anti-social signaling might have a broader network effect (Mcgregor & Peake, 2000). For example, Liberz et al., (2021) show that lonely individuals are less trusted compared to non-lonely individuals. Contextualizing such findings, empirical examinations of social learning and emotion contagion theories demonstrate that our emotions and social behaviours are learned from observing and interacting with others (Herrando & Constantinides, 2021; Cheng et al., 2007; Luchetti et al., 2023; Christakis & Fowler, 2013). In other words, we tend to mimic and re-enact the behaviours we observe in others (Cracco & Brass, 2018). As such, asocial or antisocial behaviour may give rise to widespread network effects (Coviello et al., 2014) and eventually to social norms that discourage or limit sociability (Eriksson, 2019). Of course, such social learning requires reinforcement and internalization – meaning that the prevalence of asocial or antisocial signaling is important to whether it “catches on” (Zhang et al., 2023; Masur et al., 2021). Unfortunately, it appears that anti-social behaviour is more contagious than is pro-social behaviour (Dimant, 2019) – suggesting that even though lonely phenotypes are less prevalent in a population, they may have an outsized impact on social norms regarding sociability.

Analyses from The Canadian Alliance for Social Connection and Health

Using pooled data from the Canadian Social Connection Survey weexamined the differences in emotional and social loneliness scores across three geographical classifications: provinces, forward sortation areas (FSAs), and cities.In doing so, we hoped to understand the influence of macro- and meso-level geographic factors on patterns of loneliness in order to illustrate how local context might influence social loneliness. To accomplish this, separate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to assess each type of loneliness within each geographic level. For emotional loneliness, significant differences were found across provinces (F(12, 5501) = 8.336, p < .001), indicating substantial variability by province. Differences at the FSA level were also significant (F(1080, 2362) = 1.251, p < .001), albeit with a lower magnitude compared to provinces. The analysis for cities showed significant differences as well (F(597, 2282) = 1.425, p < .001), suggesting that cities also contribute to the variability in emotional loneliness. In terms of social loneliness, significant differences were observed across provinces (F(12, 5526) = 4.498, p < .001), reflecting notable provincial influences. At the FSA level, the differences remained significant (F(1082, 2382) = 1.37, p < .001), but were less pronounced than at the provincial level. Similarly, city-level differences were significant (F(603, 2285) = 1.215, p = .001), indicating a modest effect of cities on social loneliness. The findings highlight significant geographical differences in both emotional and social loneliness, with the strongest differences observed at the provincial level. This suggests that broader regional factors such as cultural, economic, and social policies might influence loneliness levels more than local urban characteristics represented by FSAs and cities. The consistently lower F-values for social loneliness across all geographic levels compared to emotional loneliness suggest that social loneliness might be influenced by more immediate or smaller-scale personal networks and community interactions, which are less defined by geographical boundaries than broader emotional or existential experiences of loneliness.

Discussion

The evidence presented above underscores the multifaceted nature of loneliness, suggesting that it is influenced by both individual psychological factors and broader socio-cultural structures. The diverse findings across disciplines illuminate the complex interplay between genetic predispositions, individual behaviors, and societal structures, all contributing to feelings of loneliness. This heterogeneity highlights the difficulty in pinpointing a singular cause of loneliness, suggesting it is neither solely an individual nor exclusively a social issue but rather a confluence of both.

In considering the quality of the evidence outlined above, it is important to note that further research is needed to understand the influence of group processes on individual experiences of loneliness. This is particularly needed in order to clarify causal relationships linking different social structures to personal emotional experiences as well as the effect that emotional experiences can have in reinforcing certain social structures or processes. Given these complexities, advancing our understanding of loneliness requires a multifaceted approach that considers both individual and societal factors, utilizing dyadic, network, and geospatial data collected across culture and time.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence summarized above, we recommend responses to loneliness that acknowledge the social, structural, and cultural contributors to loneliness. As well, the potential intersections between loneliness and society emphasize that loneliness is more than an individual problem and that it may have deleterious impacts on society. Addressing loneliness should therefore be considered a paramount obligation of communities. Interventions aiming to undertake this responsibility should be multi-dimensional, incorporating psychological support, social integration initiatives, and cultural and structural reforms to effectively address the diverse and interconnected factors contributing to loneliness, including factors that contribute to social inequalities, reinforce unhealthy social hierarchies, and erode social trust within communities.