Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Test of Text Splitter (text cleaned up + modified after paste)

Social Connection and Well-Being

A Research Brief

This brief provides a summary of this topic and a synthesis of the latest relevant research and scholarship by specialists and experts studying this field.

Executive Summary

Human beings evolved to be socially integrated and to seek social connection. This fact is evident in our species’ biology, neural-circuitry, and genes. The need to feel a sense of belonging and mutual care with others drives much of human behavior and thought, and failure to meet this need can be devastating to physical, emotional, and cognitive well-being. For example, loneliness, which is the perception that one lacks social connection, increases one’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease, dementia, diminished immunity, chronic inflammation, and depression and contributes to antisocial and unhealthy behaviors, such alcoholism and aggression.

Leading health experts have concluded that objective and subjective social isolation is as significant a risk factor for overall morbidity and mortality as smoking, obesity, and lack of physical activity. On the flip side, the Harvard Study of Adult Development, a longitudinal research project that followed participants starting in 1938 for 80 or so years, found that people with stronger social connections were the happiest and healthiest.1 These findings are particularly alarming given an increase in loneliness reported in the United States and in many other parts of the modern world. Actual social isolation, which is common among an aging population, is only part of the story; many younger adults and teens also report increases in loneliness despite and often because of the ubiquity of social media, the use of which is associated with a number of mental health issues.

Fortunately there is an emerging but growing body of evidence that suggests there are effective interventions for loneliness and that proactive behaviors and practices can boost a sense of social connection and, in so doing, increase well-being. While the United States and other governments are beginning to address the loneliness epidemic particularly among the elderly, this research suggests that measures to treat or prevent loneliness must account for multiple contributing factors including, but not limited to, genetic predispositions, culture, gender, lifestyle, and neighborhood demographics.

Key Findings:

  1. Physical health and longevity depend on a subjective sense of belonging and connection to others.

  2. Feeling a sense of social connection significantly influences mental well-being and the potential for flourishing.

  3. Social connection leads to prosocial behavior and outcomes, while loneliness leads to antisocial behavior that begets further loneliness.

  4. Interventions involving cognitive behavioral therapy and strategies for regulating negative social perceptions and emotions may help alleviate loneliness and improve well-being.

  5. Well-being can be increased through individual practices and behaviors that boost a sense of social connection, including mindfulness and compassion meditation and prosocial activities such as helping others.

Introduction

Social connection is the sense of having close, positive interpersonal relationships,2 and for centuries, philosophers and scholars have asserted that social connection is critically important to human health and social and emotional well-being. A growing body of scientific research across a diverse range of fields now supports that premise with empirical evidence.

Humans’ innate need to seek and maintain a sense of social connection stems from an evolutionary adaptation key to human survival as evidenced by the importance of social bonding for infant-caregiver and kin relationships, reproduction, and cooperative food and protection arrangements among human groups. Humans are not the only social species for which group cooperation is adaptive and key to survival. Many mammals benefit from strong bonds between offspring and caregivers, and there are plenty of other animals who cooperate to get food, protection from predators, and shelter.

For humans, however, it’s not just that cooperating with others is useful; it’s that humans have an intrinsic need for relationships with others who value them and with whom they can build trust, communicate, and prosper according to leading loneliness researcher and social neuroscientist John Cacioppo. He and colleagues developed a theory that meeting this need involves satisfying three dimensions of social connectedness: (1) intimate connectedness (affirmation from a close, personal contact); (2) relational connectedness (mutually rewarding face-to-face interactions); and (3) collective connectedness (a feeling of belongingness to a collective beyond the individual).3

After food, water, and basic shelter, social connection may be humanity’s greatest need and the motivation behind much of human behavior, emotion, and thought.4 Recent findings illustrate just how crucial an emotional sense of social connection and belonging is to human development, health, and well-being throughout the lifespan and how the perception of social isolation creates increased risks of morbidity and mortality. The reason is that a need for social connection is embedded in our biology, neural-circuitry, and genes. First and foremost, social connection is physiologically rewarding and is associated with the release of oxytocin and natural opioids that trigger a calming, stress-reduction response activated by the parasympathetic nervous system.

By contrast, loneliness—”the distressing feeling that accompanies the perception that one’s social needs are not being met by the quantity or especially the quality of one’s social relationships”5—is associated with both psychological and actual physical pain. Many cultures and languages refer to a “broken heart” from social loss, but this association is not only linguistic. Recent research suggests that social pain and physical pain do, in fact, have common neurobiological markers. This makes sense considering that pain is an adaptive response—it signals a threat to survival that prompts a behavioral or situational change to alleviate that threat.6 In other words, humans are biologically primed to seek social connection and avoid loneliness in much the same way as they are motivated to quench and avoid thirst. That means the discomfort of loneliness is beneficial in the short term if it induces a positive behavioral or cognitive change that supports greater social connection.

Further evidence of an elemental human need for social connection is apparent in basic brain function. According to social baseline theory, the human brain is wired for and expects the presence of social resources that will help to “mitigate risk and diminish the level of effort needed to meet a variety of goals.”7 When the brain perceives a failure of such expectation, evidence shows that it prepares for increased cognitive and physiological effort—a state accompanied by distress. By contrast, functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) studies show that the brain is neurally more at rest when social resources are apparent and treats them as the equivalent of metabolic resources.

Put simply, just knowing that social resources are available puts less strain on the brain and body. Feeling connected to others is also key to psychological well-being. According to Deci and Ryan’s prominent self-determination theory, individual well-being and self-motivation are contingent on experiencing three basic things: (1) autonomy, (2) competence, and (3) relatedness—”a sense of belongingness and connectedness to others.”8

While this fundamental human need for positive social relationships transcends history, geography, and culture,9 a range of factors influence just how motivated or effective individual humans are at satisfying it. Twin- and adoption-based studies have found loneliness to be approximately 40% heritable,10 meaning that genetic factors significantly determine, for example, an individual’s sensitivity to social perceptions and the neurological processes that mediate social bonding and render it rewarding. The remaining causes stem from multiple behavioral, social, cultural, environmental, and economic issues that contribute to social isolation and influence the quantity and quality of social interactions available to particular individuals and groups. For example, situational causes of loneliness could include living in a neighborhood with high crime or a lack of recreational spaces.

There is a growing body of correlational and some experimental evidence around the critical importance of social connection to human health and well-being. This is particularly alarming considering the aging population, rising healthcare costs associated with chronic disease, and the fact that many recent surveys have found a precipitous decline in social connections and an increase in reported loneliness in the United States and many other parts of the world. For example, a 2010 survey suggested that 40% of middle-aged and older Americans were lonely (compared to 11-17% in the 1970s).11 In a 2019 study of 20,000 U.S. adults, 20% reported feeling lonely or left out at least sometimes, as did one-third of those aged 18-24.12 Equivalent studies in other industrialized countries have found similarly troubling results, including in the U.K. where the government recently assigned a “minister of loneliness” to address the problem.13

This loneliness epidemic is occurring despite modern pressures to “network” and the technological advances that have seemingly made it easier to create and maintain social connections. The elderly and disabled are particularly vulnerable to social isolation and thus feelings of loneliness, but studies show a decrease in perceived social connections at many levels of society. Americans report fewer close friendships and much less time spent interacting with neighbors or fellow community members through hobbies or charitable work than a generation ago,14 and growing numbers of young people report feeling disconnected or lonely even as their social media contacts rise.15 Other studies have found that social media not only fails to fully satisfy the innate need for social connection, but may actually be detrimental to human well-being in its own right, particularly for young people.16 For example, the vivid and often misleading images and messages of social media can lead online bystanders to feel excluded.

Together the following key findings present a compelling argument that social connection is of paramount importance to human well-being and flourishing and that continuing failure to meet this fundamental need could have devastating social and public health effects. The good news is that evidence suggests there are effective interventions for loneliness and proactive ways to improve one’s level of social connection through cognitive and behavioral changes and other steps, including contemplative practices.

Key Findings

1. Physical health and longevity depend on a subjective sense of belonging and connection to others.

Research has shown a causal association between social connection and many markers of health. For example, studies have found that loneliness and feelings of social disconnection are associated with increased risks for cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease progression,17 obesity,18 diminished immunity,19 dementia,20 cardiovascular disease,21 stress and inflammation,22 and all-cause mortality.23 These increases in chronic disease and mortality may be caused by the way loneliness affects people on endocrinological and genetic levels in ways that decrease immunity and resistance to disease. In one study, people who reported greater loneliness had increased activity in inflammatory genes and reduced activity in antiviral genes.24

A key finding in many of these studies is that it’s the subjective feeling of social isolation rather than actual social isolation that matters—the “alone in a crowd” scenario. Other studies have found that loneliness decreases the quality of sleep (not necessarily duration), the cumulative effects of which can be highly detrimental to health and wellness.25 Loneliness is also associated with unhealthy behaviors like overeating and drinking too much.26

It’s not only loneliness in adulthood that matters for health. A longitudinal analysis found that social isolation experienced during childhood was associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing risk factors for cardiovascular disease in adulthood, including being overweight and having higher blood pressure and total cholesterol.27 In all, social isolation (whether objective or subjective) has been found to have a comparable or greater effect on mortality than other well-known risk factors including obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity.28

On the other hand, those who are more socially connected have been found to live longer across numerous prospective, longitudinal, and nationally representative studies and broad measurement approaches.29 Taken together, these studies show that one’s degree of social connection is predictive of one’s probabilistic risk for or protection against disease and death.

Evidence suggests that one pathway by which social support and connection improve health is through a stress buffering effect. In other words, feeling supported seems to help alleviate stress that might otherwise become chronic and severe, taking a physical and mental toll on the mind and body. The importance of social support in coping with hard times has long been understood,30 but recent studies have uncovered neurobiological evidence for this effect, including ways in which social resources may decrease stress-induced cortisol levels and activate the calming effects of the parasympathetic nervous system.31 Positive social relationships are also associated with healthy behaviors such as sticking to an exercise regiment.32

A feeling of social connection may also curb actual physical pain. One study showed a decrease in physiological and neural activation for pain (from a mild electric shock) when participants in good marital relationships held hands with their spouses but not when they held the hands of a stranger.33

Interestingly, some studies have shown that intimate, affectionate forms of social connection may be more significant for women’s health than for men’s. For example, one study showed that having emotional social support was a greater predictor of survival for elderly women than for men; another found cardiovascular benefits of social support for women but less so or not at all for men.34

Some researchers have argued that these findings support a theory that women on average have a greater need for affectionate, intimate social connections, whereas men connect through social comparison and competition. One significant finding that seems to contradict this view is that getting married seems to provide a greater health boost for men than for women.35 An evidence-based theory for this discrepancy is that men undergo a more significant behavioral change after marriage, refraining from riskier behaviors they engaged in while single and looking to their partners for the emotional support they may have lacked before marriage. Women, on the other hand, tend to already have a wide net of social support before marriage and continue to rely on this larger network of family and friends even when no longer single.36 Gender differences with respect to the quality and type of social connection affecting health and well-being is an area where further research would be fruitful and yield more targeted intervention strategies.

2. Feeling a sense of social connection significantly influences mental well-being and the potential for flourishing.

Unsurprisingly, loneliness is negatively correlated with positive mood and life satisfaction.37 It’s also strongly correlated with clinical depression;38 suicidal ideation and behavior;39 diminished executive control; increased stress, fear of negative evaluation, anxiety, and anger; and diminished optimism and self-esteem.40

Because depression and loneliness share similar characteristics and are significantly correlated, clinicians previously thought loneliness was simply a condition of depression and not worthy of separate study. A key development in the field of depression has been considerable evidence that loneliness is a distinct construct and itself a risk factor for depression.41

By contrast, social connection is strongly correlated with subjective well-being, higher levels of happiness42 and resilience, and lower levels of depression and anxiety.43 Social connection appears to offer protection against negative emotional and behavioral reactions to stressful events and environments.44 In one study, just having participants recall a supportive relationship through a writing prompt lowered their physiological stress response (blood pressure, heart rate) in a subsequent task.45

One explanation for this buffering effect is the impact that feeling strong social ties has on the cognitive appraisal of stressful events. People tend to appraise situations as less stressful when they know they’ll have the help or support of others. In fact, people literally see hills as less steep when standing next to a friend than when standing alone.46

Staving off depression, coping with stress, and weathering adversity are key to mental health of course, but flourishing requires more than just avoidance of pain and mental illness or the realization of pleasure or happiness, which is often referred to as hedonic well-being. While there is no settled scientific definition of human flourishing, many prominent thinkers, including ancient philosophers and theologians and contemporary scholars and scientists, have associated it with an optimal level of experience and functioning as a result of finding meaning or a higher purpose or actualizing one’s personal growth and potential. This type of well-being is referred to as eudaimonic. Studies have found that social connection is a key element of this higher-level of life experience and functioning.47

One mechanism that may account for the correlation between greater social connection and higher well-being is a causal link between having strong personal relationships and experiencing more positive emotions. This seems like common sense, but renowned positive psychology researcher Barbara Fredrickson was able to show that by actively focusing on a positive connection to others through an ancient Buddhist practice called loving-kindness meditation, study participants—all novice meditators—self-generated positive emotions.48

This is an important finding because through decades of prior research Fredrickson and colleagues have shown that positive emotions are associated with greater cognitive resources (broader and more creative and flexible thinking), better emotion regulation (greater optimism), and physical resources (improved health and coordination), which further fuels positivity in what Fredrickson refers to as an “upward spiral” of well-being.49 One study found that over a period of two weeks, day-to-day variations in an individual’s feelings of relatedness to others predicted corresponding variations in positive affect and vitality.50 Positivity has also been found to engender greater success across a number of domains including professional and financial.51

3. Social connection leads to positive social behavior and outcomes, while loneliness leads to antisocial behavior that begets further loneliness.

Although humans are driven to satisfy their need for social connection and motivated to avoid and overcome the physical and mental pain of social isolation and feelings of disconnection, people who fall into a trap of loneliness tend to engage in a vicious cycle of antisocial behavior and negative social interactions that reinforce their loneliness.52 The reason for this, according to a theory from well-known loneliness researchers Louise Hawkley and John Cacioppo from the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago, is that loneliness is tantamount to feeling vulnerable or “unsafe,” thus triggering a short-term self-preservation strategy. That strategy manifests in an implicit hypervigilance and bias for seeing and expecting social threats and negative social interactions, and remembering the negative aspects of social interactions more than the neutral or positive ones.53 This in turn results in maladaptive social behavior in which lonely people actively distance themselves from others (even as they believe it’s not in their control) or else they alienate others by exhibiting shyness, anxiety, hostility, or social awkwardness.54 In other words, loneliness makes people think, act, and feel in ways that further exacerbate their loneliness.

Loneliness negatively affects not only the individual, but also proximal and even more distant others through a chain of negative interactions. For example, in one study researchers used social network analysis and self-reporting to investigate loneliness among 6,000 or more participants in the population-based Framingham Heart Study during the period 1983–2001.55 They found that lonely people tended to be clustered, an effect that extended to three degrees of separation, although it was stronger for geographically proximal friends. Through a longitudinal analysis, they also found that interacting with lonely people made non-lonely people more lonely over time—a contagion that was found to be stronger than the spread of perceived social connections, stronger for friends than family members, and stronger for women than for men.

One theory for the virus-like effect of loneliness is emotional induction. The idea is that lonely individuals infect others with their negative attitude and behavior. Those people then carry that negativity into their subsequent interactions and relationships with others in ways that induce their own loneliness and so on.56

In light of this contagiousness, it’s a wonder that loneliness has not become an outright pandemic. Additional results from the foregoing study provide a possible explanation for why it hasn’t. The investigators found lonely individuals disproportionately on the periphery of social networks and theorized that humans may subconsciously drive out lonely members as a means of stabilizing the social network. This effect mirrored the studies of rhesus monkeys in the 1960 which showed that individual monkeys who were experimentally socially isolated from the colony for a time would be eliminated or driven out by the other members when reintroduced.

There is another side effect of loneliness that affects others. Unsurprisingly, both adults and children low in social connection or who lack a sense of belongingness, engage in fewer prosocial acts.57 For example, in one series of experiments, participants primed to feel socially excluded or rejected showed less willingness to donate money to a student cause, volunteer for further lab experiments, help others, or cooperate with another student in a mixed-motive game. The authors of that study theorized that because people low in social connection are primed for social threats, they have fewer resources and inclination to see the benefits of prosocial behavior or to empathize with others.

People who feel a strong sense of social connection, on the other hand, tend to exhibit more compassion and empathy for others and to engage in more prosocial behaviors such as cultivating trust, cooperating, and volunteering—acts that are themselves beneficial to well-being and beget further social connection.58 Experimenters have even induced people to overcome a strong human tendency toward in-group bias and engage in prosocial behavior toward out-group members by manipulating a sense of social connection to the out-group. This is called interdependence priming and is cultivated through perspective-taking exercises, for example.59

All of these studies suggest that the presence or absence of social connection within individuals has far reaching consequences not only for them, but for the well-being of society as a whole, such that relevant interventions are in the public interest.

4. Interventions involving cognitive behavioral therapy and strategies for regulating negative social perceptions and emotions may help alleviate loneliness and improve well-being.

Increased awareness of chronic loneliness and the physical, mental, and social toll it’s taking on public health has sparked many new intervention efforts and research into their efficacy.60 Higher-profile interventions in the United States and abroad, such as those from the AARP, the Canadian Seniors Council, and the Crown Princess of Denmark, involve programs to increase social contact with and support of the aging population. Other measures are frequently focused on at-risk groups such as those with long-term mental or physical conditions that stymy social interactions. Another common tactic is to help lonely people improve their social skills.

While these kinds of interventions are commonsensical and may help enlarge a person’s social circle or opportunities or provide short-term relief from social isolation and loneliness, they fail to address a primary root and modifiable cause of loneliness: the person’s perception that they lack connection to others through mutual care, trust, and concern. That perception may have nothing to do with their quantity of or access to social interactions or even the quality of their actual relationships. It may stem from prior negative social experiences or from the social inclinations of their personalities or temperaments, either or both of which could lead to the development of implicit negative associations with and biases against social interactions that fuel loneliness.

Accordingly, a 2011 meta-analysis of 20 randomized loneliness intervention studies between 1970 and 2009 found that the largest effect sizes stemmed from programs designed to address maladaptive social perception and cognition, such as through cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).61 For example, one study of the elderly in a Tapai nursing home involved an eight-week program designed for participants to increase emotional awareness and regulation and to identify and apply prior positive relationship experiences to their current situations.62 Another study involved weekly sessions with at-risk Naval recruits during which they were taught strategies for increasing their sense of belonging, decreasing distorted thoughts, and improving coping skills.63

A 2015 study built upon the 2011 meta-analysis by describing further evidence of the maladaptive social cognition inherent in loneliness and the promise of interventions designed to modify it. Specifically, the study concluded that training in perspective-taking, empathy, identification of automatic negative thoughts, reframing perceptions of loneliness and personal control over such, and mindfulness could help lonely people modify the dysfunctional thoughts, negatively biased beliefs, and false perceptions and expectations of social interactions that underlie their loneliness-reinforcing emotions and behavior.64 For example, soldiers were trained to recognize when the self-focused, self-preservation mode that accompanies loneliness warped their perceptions of others, including in how they interpreted body language, tone of voice, and eye contact.65

Currently there is no proven pharmacological intervention to treat loneliness; however, experiments involving isolation of social animals have provided some promising evidence and leads. For example, both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and oxytocin, a neuropeptide associated with prosocial behavior in humans, have been shown to diminish the anxious behavior and autonomic fear responses triggered by isolation of prairie voles.66

5. Well-being can be increased through individual practices and behaviors that boost a sense of social connection, including mindfulness and compassion meditation and prosocial activities such as helping others.

Because an individual’s perception of social connection is subjective, it’s plastic and subject to change and improvement. Although more rigorous studies are needed, researchers have recently found evidence that people can proactively effect such positive change by engaging in certain cognitive or contemplative practices and behavioral exercises.

Cultivating compassion and loving-kindness

Compassion, variably considered a state, trait, or emotion, constitutes a sensitivity to the suffering of others coupled with a desire to alleviate that suffering. Experiencing compassion has been found to correlate with activation of the same brain networks and the same stress-reducing physiological processes of the parasympathetic nervous system that foster a sense of social connection and make it rewarding.67 A small but growing body of evidence has shown that individuals can self-generate compassion through cognitive training or contemplative practices and that doing so increases their sense of social connection and subjective well-being. Many of these studies involve training participants in loving-kindness meditation (LKM), a practice derived from Buddhist traditions and philosophy that involves cultivating a sense of benevolence, love, and care toward self and others.68

Scientists use a secularized version of LKM and often incorporate a wish to relieve suffering, starting with the self, loved ones, and close friends and moving on to neutral and difficult others, then strangers, and finally all living beings.69Two studies found that a brief LKM session (no more than 10 minutes) temporarily boosted participants’ social connection toward strangers.70

Many studies of compassion training and LKM include small sample sizes and vary widely in the frequency and duration of practice used and the pre- and post-intervention measures of social connection. As such, these results are encouraging but additional and more rigorous research is needed to draw broader conclusions.

Practicing mindfulness

Also stemming from Buddhist philosophy, the concept of mindfulness generally means present-moment awareness and nonjudgmental acceptance of experience,71 and mindfulness meditation often involves focusing attention on a target (like the body or breath) to cultivate this type of awareness. Several studies have correlated mindfulness training with a greater sense of social connection.72 For example, mindfulness training reduced loneliness in older adults in one study73 and reduced the effects of loneliness on the academic achievements of first-year college students in another.74

A few studies that explicitly compared a form of mindfulness meditation to LKM found them to be similarly effective in cultivating a sense of social connection.75 While compassion-related meditation practices are specifically designed to shift present thoughts and feelings toward the well-being of others, mindfulness in general involves disengaging from self-related thoughts to cultivate present moment awareness. In both cases, one’s focus shifts away from the self, making one more aware of and open to feeling connected with others.76

In fact, FMRI studies of expert meditators (compared to novice- and non-meditators) showed that both a compassion-related meditation and a focused-attention form of mindfulness meditation resulted in increased brain activity associated with down-regulation of self-focused thoughts and mind-wandering.77 Other studies have indicated that mindfulness results in decentering—the ability to separate awareness of an experience from meta-awareness of that experience (i.e., the difference between watching a movie and being aware of yourself watching a movie)—and a lessening of narrative self-focus.78 One randomized, controlled study with a small sample size found some evidence that this decentering effect may be the mechanism by which an increase in mindfulness (through meditation training) boosts social connection.79

Another mechanism by which mindfulness may boost social connection is through an improved ability to regulate the emotions that facilitate or inhibit social interaction. For example, mindfulness has been shown to increase positive emotions80 and empathy and has been correlated with reduced stress during interpersonal conflict81 and lower levels of social anxiety and public self-consciousness.82 Research also suggests that mindfulness enhances awareness of one’s own and others’ emotions and behavior—a crucial factor in positive social functioning and interpersonal relationships.83 There is compelling evidence, however, that the reason why practicing mindfulness improves emotion regulation skills in the first place is by virtue of the fundamental decentering and decreased self-focus at the heart of mindfulness meditation.84

Other scholars have suggested that the way in which meditation practice offers a retreat from the self-focused stresses of daily life may be a prime mechanism behind the boosted sense of connection to others. Additional rigorous studies are needed to precisely understand why mindfulness meditation improves social connection and to design effective interventions in different contexts.

Another attribute of meditation that is ripe for investigation relative to social connection is the underlying solitary nature of the practice. While the presence or absence of others is not necessarily key to a subjective sense of social connection, at least one validating study has laid the groundwork for deeper investigation of this issue, finding that a dyad-structured contemplative practice in which participants voiced their thoughts to a partner during meditation elicited similar increases in social connection as compared to typical contemplative practices.85 The results suggest that further study of partner or group meditation may be warranted. Perhaps, for example, a less solitary form of meditation may be especially beneficial in cases where people are already suffering from loneliness.

Engaging in prosocial behaviors

Keeping in mind that merely increasing the number of social interactions in one’s day doesn’t necessarily improve one’s perception of being socially connected, research suggests that some simple but specific, socially focused behaviors can boost well-being and positive emotions related to social connection.

For example, in her book Love 2.0: Creating Happiness and Health in Moments of Connection, Fredrickson describes several “micro-moment practices” that her research suggests are effective in creating feelings of warmth, love, and connection with others. They include taking time to reflect daily on one’s existing social connections or interactions; seeking out at least three daily opportunities to really connect with someone through focused attention, eye contact, and conversation; taking time to notice and cultivate compassion for the suffering of others seen or met in passing during the day; and celebrating the good fortune of others.

Other studies on helping behaviors and altruism show that such acts boost well-being, positive emotions, and a sense of connection. Evidence for this comes not only from self-reports, but also from studies that show helping behaviors stem from deeply ingrained neural and physiological mechanisms that make such behavior intrinsically rewarding and pleasurable for humans and many other mammals.86

Performing acts of kindness toward others is in fact so beneficial to health and well-being that at least one study showed a greater boost to longevity from providing social support than from receiving it.87 Another study found that the motive for volunteering may affect the health benefits of doing so. That study found that volunteers lived longer than non-volunteers, but only if they volunteered for other-oriented (i.e., compassionate as opposed to selfish or other) reasons.88 This research seems to suggest that simply showing up and volunteering without a true change in focus away from the self and toward the welfare of others may be insufficient to fundamentally change the underlying dispositions and behaviors that reinforce loneliness or boost subjective social connection and well-being.

Critical Evaluations and Future Research Directions

Numerous studies from various fields confirm the importance of subjective social connection for human health, well-being, and flourishing; however, additional and more rigorous and targeted research is needed to fully understand the precise biological, social, and behavioral mechanisms that influence an individual’s perception of social connection; that render social connection crucial to well-being; and that underlie loneliness across different ages, genders, cultures, and other demographics.

While the emerging research on effective cognitive and behavioral treatments for loneliness and on practices that boost social connection is promising, there is a lack of conclusive evidence due in part to the use of inconsistent measures of social connection, a dearth of longitudinal and experimental studies, and a lack of diversity among study subjects and contexts. One primary issue that must be addressed to facilitate more conclusive findings is the ethics of including controls in intervention studies for loneliness.

Another area that is ripe for more rigorous research in the public interest is how the presence and ubiquity of social media and digital communication in modern life hinders or supports the innate human need for social connection throughout the human lifespan.

Conclusion

It is clear that a rising rate of loneliness among people of all ages and parts of society has created an urgent and costly public health crisis. Further research is needed and warranted to develop multi-level interventions that address the full variety of contributing factors—from individual behavior to social, cultural, and economic trends and pressures. It is equally important to pursue and raise awareness of effective preventive measures, emotion regulation practices, and prosocial behaviors that proactively boost a sense of social connection and thus facilitate greater human flourishing.

Author

Katherine Ludwig is the Associate Editor of the Contemplative Sciences Center.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Mineo, Liz. “Good Genes are Nice, But Joy is Better.” The Harvard Gazette, April 11, 2017, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-80-years-harvard-study-has-been-showing-how-to-live-a-healthy-and-happy-life/.

  2. ^ Seppala, Emma, Timothy Rossomando, and James R. Doty. "Social Connection and Compassion: Important Predictors of Health and Well-being." Social Research: An International Quarterly 80, no. 2 (2013): 411-430. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/528212; Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. "The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation." Psychological Bulletin 117, no. 3 (1995): 497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.

  3. ^ Cacioppo, John T. and William Patrick. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. New York, NY: Norton, 2008. https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393335286.

  4. ^ Baumeister and Leary, "The Need to Belong.”

  5. ^ Hawkley, Louise C., and John T. Cacioppo. "Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms." Annals of Behavioral Medicine 40, no. 2 (2010): 218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8.

  6. ^ Eisenberger, Naomi I. "The Pain of Social Disconnection: Examining the Shared Neural Underpinnings of Physical and Social Pain." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13, no. 6 (2012): 421. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3231/; MacDonald, Geoff, and Mark R. Leary. "Why Does Social Exclusion Hurt? The Relationship Between Social and Physical Pain." Psychological Bulletin 131, No. 2 (2005): 202. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2005-01973-004.html.

  7. ^ Coan, James A., and David A. Sbarra. "Social Baseline Theory: The Social Regulation of Risk and Effort." Current Opinion in Psychology 1 (2015): 87-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.021.

  8. ^ Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. "Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being." American Psychologist 55, no. 1 (2000): 68. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2000-13324-007.html.

  9. ^ Tomasello, Michael. "The Human Adaptation for Culture." Annual Review of Anthropology 28, no. 1 (1999): 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.509.

  10. ^ Goossens, Luc, Eeske Van Roekel, Maaike Verhagen, John T. Cacioppo, Stephanie Cacioppo, Marlies Maes, and Dorret I. Boomsma. "The Genetics of Loneliness: Linking Evolutionary Theory to Genome-Wide Genetics, Epigenetics, and Social Science." Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 2 (2015): 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614564878; Bartels, Meike, John T. Cacioppo, James J. Hudziak, and Dorret I. Boomsma. "Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Stability in Loneliness Throughout Childhood." American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics 147, No. 3 (2008): 385-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30608; Boomsma, Dorret I., Gonneke Willemsen, Conor V. Dolan, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo. "Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Loneliness in Adults: The Netherlands Twin Register Study." Behavior Genetics 35, no. 6 (2005): 745-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-005-6040-8.

  11. ^ Edmondson, Brad. “All the Lonely People.” AARP: The Magazine, Nov/Dec 2010. Accessed January 23, 2020, https://www.aarp.org/personal-growth/transitions/info-09-2010/all_the_lonely_people.html; Peplau, L. A., Russell, D., and Heim, M. “The Experience of Loneliness.” In New Approaches to Social Problems: Applications of Attribution Theory, edited by Irene Hanson Frieze, Daniel Bar-Tal, and John S. Carroll, 53–78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1980; Perissinotto, Carla M., Irena Stijacic Cenzer, and Kenneth E. Covinsky. "Loneliness in Older Persons: A Predictor of Functional Decline and Death." Archives of Internal Medicine 172, no. 14 (2012): 1078-1084. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1188033.

  12. ^ Norton, Amy. “ 1 in 3 Young Adults Suffers From Loneliness in U.S.” U.S. News & World Report, March 11, 2019, https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-03-11/1-in-3-young-adults-suffers-from-loneliness-in-us.

  13. ^ John, Tara. “How the World's First Loneliness Minister Will Tackle 'the Sad Reality of Modern Life.'” TIME, April 25, 2018, https://time.com/5248016/tracey-crouch-uk-loneliness-minister/.

  14. ^ McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. "Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks Over Two Decades." American Sociological Review 71, no. 3 (2006): 353-375. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100301.

  15. ^ Allen, Kelly A., Tracii Ryan, DeLeon L. Gray, Dennis M. McInerney, and Lea Waters. "Social Media Use and Social Connectedness in Adolescents: The Positives and the Potential Pitfalls." The Educational and Developmental Psychologist 31, No. 1 (2014): 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2014.2; Kim, Junghyun, Robert Larose, and Wei Peng. "Loneliness as the Cause and the Effect of Problematic Internet Use: The Relationship Between Internet Use and Psychological Well-Being." CyberPsychology and Behavior 12, no. 4 (2009): 451-455.https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0327.

  16. ^ Twenge, Jean M., and W. Keith Campbell. “Associations between Screen Time and Lower Psychological Well-Being among Children and Adolescents: Evidence from a Population-Based Study.” Preventive Medicine Reports 12 (December 1, 2018): 271–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003; Shakya, Holly B., and Nicholas A. Christakis. “Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology 185, no. 3 (February 1, 2017): 203–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189; Kross, Ethan, Philippe Verduyn, Emre Demiralp, Jiyoung Park, David Seungjae Lee, Natalie Lin, Holly Shablack, John Jonides, and Oscar Ybarra. “Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-Being in Young Adults.” PloS One 8, no. 8 (2013): e69841. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069841;

  17. ^ Wilson, Robert S., Kristin R. Krueger, Steven E. Arnold, Julie A. Schneider, Jeremiah F. Kelly, Lisa L. Barnes, Yuxiao Tang, and David A. Bennett. "Loneliness and Risk of Alzheimer Disease." Archives of General Psychiatry 64, no. 2 (2007): 234-240. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/482179.

  18. ^ Lauder, William, Kerry Mummery, Martyn Jones, and Cristina Caperchione. "A Comparison of Health Behaviours in Lonely and Non-Lonely Populations." Psychology, Health & Medicine 11, no. 2 (2006): 233-245. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13548500500266607.

  19. ^ Pressman, Sarah D., Sheldon Cohen, Gregory E. Miller, Anita Barkin, Bruce S. Rabin, and John J. Treanor. "Loneliness, Social Network Size, and Immune Response to Influenza Vaccination in College Freshmen." Health Psychology 24, No. 3 (2005): 297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.297; Kiecolt-glaser, Janice K., Ronald Glaser, Eric C. Strain, Julie C. Stout, Kathleen L. Tarr, Jane E. Holliday, and Carl E. Speicher. "Modulation Of Cellular Immunity in Medical Students." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 9, no. 1 (1986): 5-21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf00844640.

  20. ^ Sutin, Angelina R., Yannick Stephan, Martina Luchetti, and Antonio Terracciano. "Loneliness and Risk of Dementia." The Journals of Gerontology: Series B (2018). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/482179.

  21. ^ Hawkley and Cacioppo, "Loneliness Matters.”

  22. ^ Uchino, Bert N., Ryan Trettevik, Robert G. Kent de Grey, Sierra Cronan, Jasara Hogan, and Brian R. W. Baucom. “Social Support, Social Integration, and Inflammatory Cytokines: A Meta-Analysis.” Health Psychology 37, no. 5 (2018): 462–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000594.

  23. ^ Yang, Yang Claire, Courtney Boen, Karen Gerken, Ting Li, Kristen Schorpp, and Kathleen Mullan Harris. “Social Relationships and Physiological Determinants of Longevity across the Human Life Span.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 3 (January 19, 2016): 578–83. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511085112; Cacioppo, John T., and Stephanie Cacioppo. “Social Relationships and Health: The Toxic Effects of Perceived Social Isolation.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8, no. 2 (2014): 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12087; Holt‐Lunstad, Julianne, and Timothy B. Smith. “Social Relationships and Mortality.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6, no. 1 (2012): 41–53 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00406.x.

  24. ^ Cole, Steven W., John P. Capitanio, Katie Chun, Jesusa M. G. Arevalo, Jeffrey Ma, and John T. Cacioppo. “Myeloid Differentiation Architecture of Leukocyte Transcriptome Dynamics in Perceived Social Isolation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 49 (December 8, 2015): 15142–47. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514249112; Cole, Steve W., Louise C. Hawkley, Jesusa M. Arevalo, Caroline Y. Sung, Robert M. Rose, and John T. Cacioppo. “Social Regulation of Gene Expression in Human Leukocytes.” Genome Biology 8, no. 9 (September 13, 2007): R189. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r189.

  25. ^ Hawkley, Louise C., Kristopher J. Preacher, and John T. Cacioppo. "Loneliness Impairs Daytime Functioning but not Sleep Duration." Health Psychology 29, no. 2 (2010): 124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018646; Mahon, Noreen E. "Loneliness and Sleep During Adolescence." Perceptual and Motor Skills 78, no. 1 (1994): 227-231. https://doi-org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.1.227; Kurina, Lianne M., Kristen L. Knutson, Louise C. Hawkley, John T. Cacioppo, Diane S. Lauderdale, and Carole Ober. "Loneliness is Associated With Sleep Fragmentation in a Communal Society." Sleep 34, no. 11 (2011): 1519-1526. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.1390.

  26. ^ Cacioppo and Patrick, Loneliness, 142.

  27. ^ Caspi, Avshalom, HonaLee Harrington, Terrie E. Moffitt, Barry J. Milne, and Richie Poulton. "Socially Isolated Children 20 Years Later: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease." Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 160, no. 8 (2006): 805-811. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/205331.

  28. ^ Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, Mark Baker, Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson. "Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review." Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 2 (2015): 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352.

  29. ^ Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, and J. Bradley Layton. "Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review." Plos Medicine 7, no. 7 (2010): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.

  30. ^ Cohen, Sheldon, and Thomas A. Wills. "Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis." Psychological Bulletin 98, no. 2 (1985): 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.

  31. ^ Hostinar, Camelia E., and Megan R. Gunnar. "Social Support Can Buffer Against Stress and Shape Brain Activity." AJOB Neuroscience 6, no. 3 (2015): 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2015.1047054; Ditzen, Beate, and Markus Heinrichs. "Psychobiology of Social Support: The Social Dimension of Stress Buffering." Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 32, no. 1 (2014): 149-162. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-03713-012.

  32. ^ Beauchamp, Mark R. “Promoting Exercise Adherence Through Groups: A Self-Categorization Theory Perspective.” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, October 2018, 1. https://doi.org/10.1249/JES.0000000000000177.

  33. ^ Coan, James A., Hillary S. Schaefer, and Richard J. Davidson. "Lending a Hand: Social Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat." Psychological Science 17, no. 12 (2006): 1032-1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01832.x.

  34. ^ For a review of research in this area see Seppala, Rossomando, and Doty, "Social Connection and Compassion,” 419.

  35. ^ Waite, Linda J. "Does Marriage Matter?" Demography 32, no. 4 (1995): 483-507. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2061670.

  36. ^ For a discussion see Taylor, Shelley E., and Gian C. Gonzaga. "Evolution, Relationships, and Health: The Social Shaping Hypothesis." Evolution and Social Psychology (2006): 211-236. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/824a/da88f4e0f84a1c91c8805688c90482754c37.pdf.

  37. ^ Lee, Gary R., and Masako Ishii-Kuntz. "Social Interaction, Loneliness, and Emotional Well-being Among the Elderly." Research on Aging 9, no. 4 (1987): 459-482. https://doi-org/10.1177/0164027587094001.

  38. ^ Cacioppo, John T., Louise C. Hawkley, and Ronald A. Thisted. "Perceived Social Isolation Makes Me Sad: 5-year Cross-Lagged Analyses of Loneliness and Depressive Symptomatology in the Chicago Health, Aging, and Social Relations Study." Psychology and Aging 25, no. 2 (2010): 453. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2010-11857-019.html; Cacioppo, John T., Mary Elizabeth Hughes, Linda J. Waite, Louise C. Hawkley, and Ronald A. Thisted. "Loneliness as a Specific Risk Factor for Depressive Symptoms: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses." Psychology and Aging 21, No. 1 (2006): 140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.140.

  39. ^ Jones, Angela C., Katherine C. Schinka, Manfred HM van Dulmen, Robert M. Bossarte, and Monica H. Swahn. "Changes in Loneliness During Middle Childhood Predict Risk for Adolescent Suicidality Indirectly Through Mental Health Problems." Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 40, no. 6 (2011): 818-824. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.614585.

  40. ^ For a review of this research see Hawkley and Cacioppo, "Loneliness Matters,” 219.

  41. ^ Cacioppo, et al., “Perceived Social Isolation Makes Me Sad”; Heinrich, Liesl M., and Eleonora Gullone. "The Clinical Significance of Loneliness: A Literature Review." Clinical Psychology Review 26, No. 6 (2006): 695-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002; Cacioppo, et al., “Loneliness as a Specific Risk Factor for Depressive Symptoms.”

  42. ^ Diener, Ed, and Martin EP Seligman. "Very Happy People." Psychological Science 13, no. 1 (2002): 81-84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11894851; Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. "On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being." Annual Review of Psychology 52, no. 1 (2001): 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.

  43. ^ Lee, Richard M., Matthew Draper, and Sujin Lee. "Social Connectedness, Dysfunctional Interpersonal Behaviors, and Psychological Distress: Testing a Mediator Model." Journal of Counseling Psychology 48, no. 3 (2001): 310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310; Ozbay, Fatih, Douglas C. Johnson, Eleni Dimoulas, C. A. Morgan III, Dennis Charney, and Steven Southwick. "Social Support and Resilience to Stress: From Neurobiology to Clinical Practice." Psychiatry (Edgmont) 4, no. 5 (2007): 35. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921311/; Suttie, Jill. “Four Ways Social Support Makes You More Resilient.” Greater Good Magazine, November 13, 2017. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/four_ways_social_support_makes_you_more_resilient.

  44. ^ Twenge, Jean M., Roy F. Baumeister, C. Nathan DeWall, Natalie J. Ciarocco, and J. Michael Bartels. "Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, no. 1 (2007): 56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.

  45. ^ Smith, Timothy W., John M. Ruiz, and Bert N. Uchino. "Mental Activation of Supportive Ties, Hostility, and Cardiovascular Reactivity to Laboratory Stress in Young Men and Women." Health Psychology 23, no. 5 (2004): 476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.5.476.

  46. ^ Schnall, Simone, Kent D. Harber, Jeanine K. Stefanucci, and Dennis R. Proffitt. "Social Support and the Perception of Geographical Slant." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, no. 5 (2008): 1246-1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.011.

  47. ^ For example, see Ryff, Carol D., and Burton Singer. "Interpersonal Flourishing: A Positive Health Agenda for the New Millennium." Personality and Social Psychology Review 4, no. 1 (2000): 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4.

  48. ^ Fredrickson, Barbara L., Michael A. Cohn, Kimberly A. Coffey, Jolynn Pek, and Sandra M. Finkel. "Open Hearts Build Lives: Positive Emotions, Induced Through Loving-Kindness Meditation, Build Consequential Personal Resources." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95, no. 5 (2008): 1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013262.

  49. ^ Fredrickson, Barbara L., and Thomas Joiner. "Positive Emotions Trigger Upward Spirals Toward Emotional Well-Being." Psychological Science 13, no. 2 (2002): 172-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00431; Fredrickson, Barbara L. "The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions." American Psychologist 56, no. 3 (2001): 218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.

  50. ^ Reis, Harry T., Kennon M. Sheldon, Shelly L. Gable, Joseph Roscoe, and Richard M. Ryan. "Daily Well-Being: The Role of Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, no. 4 (2000): 419-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266002.

  51. ^ Lyubomirsky, Sonja, Laura King, and Ed Diener. "The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?" Psychological Bulletin 131, no. 6 (2005): 803. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2005-15687-001.html.

  52. ^ Hawkley and Cacioppo, "Loneliness Matters.”

  53. ^ Duck, Steve, Kris Pond, and Geoff Leatham. "Loneliness and the Evaluation of Relational Events." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11, no. 2 (1994): 253-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407594112006.

  54. ^ Cacioppo, John T., Louise C. Hawkley, John M. Ernst, Mary Burleson, Gary G. Berntson, Bita Nouriani, and David Spiegel. "Loneliness Within a Nomological Net: An Evolutionary Perspective." Journal of Research in Personality 40, no. 6 (2006): 1054-1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.007.

  55. ^ Cacioppo, John T., James H. Fowler, and Nicholas A. Christakis. "Alone in the Crowd: The Structure and Spread of Loneliness in a Large Social Network." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97, no. 6 (2009): 977. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2009-22579-013.html..

  56. ^ Hawkley, Louise C., Kristopher J. Preacher, and John T. Cacioppo. "Multilevel Modeling of Social Interactions and Mood in Lonely and Socially Connected Individuals: The MacArthur Social Neuroscience Studies." In Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology, edited by Anthony D. Ong and Manfred H. M. van Dulmen, 559-575. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/1504/hawkley_preacher_cacioppo_2007.pdf?sequence=1.

  57. ^ For a discussion of correlational studies see Twenge, et al., “Social Exclusion Decreases Prosocial Behavior.”

  58. ^ Cialdini, Robert B., Stephanie L. Brown, Brian P. Lewis, Carol Luce, and Steven L. Neuberg. "Reinterpreting the Empathy–Altruism Relationship: When One Into One Equals Oneness." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, No. 3 (1997): 481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.481; Glaeser, Edward L., David I. Laibson, Jose A. Scheinkman, and Christine L. Soutter. "Measuring Trust." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, no. 3 (2000): 811-846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926; Fehr, Ernst, and Bettina Rockenbach. "Detrimental Effects of Sanctions on Human Altruism." Nature 422, no. 6928 (2003): 137-140. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01474.

  59. ^ For an overview of literature concerning social connection and prosocial behavior see Seppela, Rossomando and Doty,"Social Connection and Compassion,” 422-424.

  60. ^ Coll‐Planas, Laura, Gabriela del Valle Gomez, Petra Bonilla, Teresa Masat, Teresa Puig, and Rosa Monteserin.Gardiner, Clare, Gideon Geldenhuys, and Merryn Gott. "Interventions to Reduce Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older People: An Integrative Review." Health & Social Care in the Community 26, No. 2 (2018): 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12367; Cacioppo, Stephanie, Angela J. Grippo, Sarah London, Luc Goossens, and John T. Cacioppo. "Loneliness: Clinical Import and Interventions." Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 2 (2015): 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615570616; Kanai, Ryota, Bahador Bahrami, Brad Duchaine, Agnieszka Janik, Michael J. Banissy, and Geraint Rees. "Brain Structure Links Loneliness to Social Perception." Current Biology 22, no. 20 (2012): 1975-1979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.045.

  61. ^ Masi, Christopher M., Hsi-Yuan Chen, Louise C. Hawkley, and John T. Cacioppo. "A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness." Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, no. 3 (2011): 219-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377394.

  62. ^ Chiang, Kai‐Jo, Hsin Chu, Hsiu‐Ju Chang, Min‐Huey Chung, Chung‐Hua Chen, Hung‐Yi Chiou, and Kuei‐Ru Chou. "The Effects of Reminiscence Therapy on Psychological Well‐Being, Depression, and Loneliness Among the Institutionalized Aged." International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry: A Journal of the Psychiatry of Late Life and Allied Sciences 25, no. 4 (2010): 380-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2350.

  63. ^ Williams, Arthur, Bonnie M. Hagerty, Steven M. Yousha, Julie Horrocks, Kenneth S. Hoyle, and Dawei Liu. "Psychosocial Effects of the Boot Strap Intervention in Navy Recruits." Military Medicine 169, no. 10 (2004): 814-820. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.169.10.814.

  64. ^ Cacioppo, John T., Amy B. Adler, Paul B. Lester, Dennis McGurk, Jeffrey L. Thomas, Hsi-Yuan Chen, and Stephanie Cacioppo. "Building Social Resilience in Soldiers: A Double Dissociative Randomized Controlled Study." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109, no. 1 (2015): 90. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000022; Creswell, J. David, Laura E. Pacilio, Emily K. Lindsay, and Kirk Warren Brown. "Brief Mindfulness Meditation Training Alters Psychological and Neuroendocrine Responses to Social Evaluative Stress." Psychoneuroendocrinology 44 (2014): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.02.007.

  65. ^ Cacioppo, et al., "Building Social Resilience in Soldiers.”

  66. ^ For an overview of relevant pharmacological research see, Cacioppo, et al., "Loneliness: Clinical Import and Interventions.”

  67. ^ Porges, Stephen W. “Vagal Pathways: Portals to Compassion.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compassion Science, edited by Emma M. Seppälä, Emiliana Simon-Thomas, Stephanie L. Brown, Monica C. Worline, C. Daryl Cameron, and James R. Doty, 189-202. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464684.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190464684; Klimecki, Olga M., Susanne Leiberg, Matthieu Ricard, and Tania Singer. "Differential Pattern of Functional Brain Plasticity after Compassion and Empathy Training." Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9, no. 6 (2014): 873-879. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst060.

  68. ^ Fredrickson et al., “Open Hearts Build Lives”; Kok, Bethany E., Kimberly A. Coffey, Michael A. Cohn, Lahnna I. Catalino, Tanya Vacharkulksemsuk, Sara B. Algoe, Mary Brantley, and Barbara L. Fredrickson. "How Positive Emotions Build Physical Health: Perceived Positive Social Connections Account for the Upward Spiral Between Positive Emotions and Vagal Tone." Psychological Science 24, no. 7 (2013): 1123-1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612470827; Condon, Paul, Gaëlle Desbordes, Willa B. Miller, and David DeSteno. "Meditation Increases Compassionate Responses to Suffering." Psychological Science 24, no. 10 (2013): 2125-2127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613485603; Galante, Julieta, Ignacio Galante, Marie-Jet Bekkers, and John Gallacher. "Effect of Kindness-based Meditation on Health and Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82, no. 6 (2014): 1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037249; Aspy, Denholm J., and Michael Proeve. "Mindfulness and Loving-kindness Meditation: Effects on Connectedness to Humanity and to the Natural World." Psychological Reports 120, no. 1 (2017): 102-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116685867; Aspy, Denholm J., and Michael Proeve. "Mindfulness and Loving-Kindness Meditation: Effects on Connectedness to Humanity and to the Natural World." Psychological Reports 120, no. 1 (2017): 102-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116685867.

  69. ^ Salzberg, Sharon. Lovingkindness: The Revolutionary Art of Happiness. Boston, MA: Shambala, 2002. https://www.shambhala.com/lovingkindness-971.html.

  70. ^ Seppala, Emma M., Cendri A. Hutcherson, Dong TH Nguyen, James R. Doty, and James J. Gross. "Loving-kindness Meditation: A Tool to Improve Healthcare Provider Compassion, Resilience, and Patient Care." Journal of Compassionate Health Care 1, no. 1 (2014): 5. https://jcompassionatehc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40639-014-0005-9; Hutcherson, Cendri A., Emma M. Seppala, and James J. Gross. "Loving-Kindness Meditation Increases Social Connectedness." Emotion 8, no. 5 (2008): 720. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2008-13989-015.html.

  71. ^ Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... and Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1093/clipsy.bph077.

  72. ^ Gootjes, Liselotte, and Eric Rassin. "Perceived Thought Control Mediates Positive Effects of Meditation Experience on Affective Functioning." Mindfulness 5, no. 1 (2014): 1-9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-012-0140-3; Brown, Kirk Warren, and Richard M. Ryan. "The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and its Role in Psychological Well-Being." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, no. 4 (2003): 822. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2003-02410-012.html; Carson, James W., Kimberly M. Carson, Karen M. Gil, and Donald H. Baucom. "Mindfulness-Based Relationship Enhancement." Behavior Therapy 35, no. 3 (2004): 471-494. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789404800285.

  73. ^ Creswell, J. David, Michael R. Irwin, Lisa J. Burklund, Matthew D. Lieberman, Jesusa MG Arevalo, Jeffrey Ma, Elizabeth Crabb Breen, and Steven W. Cole. "Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Training Reduces Loneliness and Pro-inflammatory Gene Expression in Older Adults: A Small Randomized Controlled Trial." Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 26, no. 7 (2012): 1095-1101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159112001894.

  74. ^ Rosenstreich, Eyal, and Malka Margalit. "Loneliness, Mindfulness, and Academic Achievements: A Moderation Effect Among First-year College Students." The Open Psychology Journal 8, no. 1 (2015). https://openpsychologyjournal.com/VOLUME/8/PAGE/138/.

  75. ^ Condon et al., "Meditation Increases Compassionate Responses to Suffering."; Dahl, Cortland J., Antoine Lutz, and Richard J. Davidson. "Reconstructing and Deconstructing the Self: Cognitive Mechanisms in Meditation Practice." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19, no. 9 (2015): 515-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.001; Hutcherson, Seppala, and Gross, "Loving-Kindness Meditation Increases Social Connectedness."

  76. ^ Adair, K. C., Fredrickson, B. L., Castro-Schilo, L., Kim, S., and Sidberry, S. (2018). “Present With You: Does Cultivated Mindfulness Predict Greater Social Connection Through Gains in Decentering and Reductions in Negative Emotions?” Mindfulness, 9(3), 737-749. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-017-0811-1; Dalai Lama, T. G., and Ekman, P. (2008). Emotional awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion. New York, NY: Holt; Shapiro, S. L., Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., Plante, T. G., and Flinders, T. (2008). “Cultivating Mindfulness: Effects on Well‐Being.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(7), 840-862. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20491; Condon, et al., "Meditation Increases Compassionate Responses to Suffering."; Dahl, Lutz, and Davidson, "Reconstructing and Deconstructing the Self.”

  77. ^ Brewer, J. A., Worhunsky, P. D., Gray, J. R., Tang, Y. Y., Weber, J., and Kober, H. (2011). “Meditation Experience is Associated With Differences in Default Mode Network Activity and Connectivity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20254-20259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112029108.

  78. ^ Dahl, Lutz, and Davidson, "Reconstructing and Deconstructing the Self.”; Feldman, Greg, Jeff Greeson, and Joanna Senville. "Differential Effects of Mindful Breathing, Progressive Muscle Relaxation, and Loving-Kindness Meditation on Decentering and Negative Reactions to Repetitive Thoughts." Behaviour Research and Therapy 48, no. 10 (2010): 1002-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.006.

  79. ^ Adair et al., "Present with You.”

  80. ^ Fredrickson et al., "Open Hearts Build Lives.”

  81. ^ Kabat-Zinn, Jon. "Mindfulness Meditation: Health Benefits of an Ancient Buddhist Practice." In Mind Body Medicine: How to Use Your Mind for Better Health, edited by Daniel Goleman and Joel Garin, 259–276. Yonkers, NY: Consumer Reports, 1993. https://archive.org/details/mindbodymedicine00gole.

  82. ^ Brown and Ryan, "The Benefits of Being Present.”

  83. ^ Quaglia, Jordan T., Robert J. Goodman, and Kirk Warren Brown. "From Mindful Attention to Social Connection: The Key Role of Emotion Regulation." Cognition and Emotion 29, no. 8 (2015): 1466-1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.988124.

  84. ^ Hölzel, Britta K., Sara W. Lazar, Tim Gard, Zev Schuman-Olivier, David R. Vago, and Ulrich Ott. "How Does Mindfulness Meditation Work? Proposing Mechanisms of Action from a Conceptual and Neural Perspective." Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, no. 6 (2011): 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611419671;Tang, Yi-Yuan, Britta K. Hölzel, and Michael I. Posner. "The Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16, no. 4 (2015): 213-225. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3916; Vago, David R., and David A. Silbersweig. "Self-Awareness, Self-regulation, and Self-Transcendence (S-ART): A Framework for Understanding the Neurobiological Mechanisms of Mindfulness." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6 (2012): 296. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296/full.

  85. ^ Kok, Bethany E., and Tania Singer. "Effects of Contemplative Dyads on Engagement and Perceived Social Connectedness Over 9 Months of Mental Training: A Randomized Clinical Trial." Jama Psychiatry 74, no. 2 (2017): 126-134. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2594386.

  86. ^ Batson, Charles Daniel. Altruism in Humans. Oxford University Press, USA, 2011. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001/acprof-9780195341065; Warneken, Felix, and Michael Tomasello. "The Roots of Human Altruism." British Journal of Psychology 100, no. 3 (2009): 455-471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X379061.

  87. ^ Brown, Stephanie L., Randolph M. Nesse, Amiram D. Vinokur, and Dylan M. Smith. “Providing Social Support may be More Beneficial than Receiving it: Results from a Prospective Study of Mortality.”Psychological Science 14, no. 4 (2003): 320-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.14461.

  88. ^ Konrath, Sara, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, Alina Lou, and Stephanie Brown. "Motives for Volunteering Are Associated with Mortality Risk in Older Adults." Health Psychology 31, no. 1 (2012): 87. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2011-17888-001.html.