Predictors and consequences of loneliness during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Rumas, Rachel; Shamblaw, Amanda L.; Jagtap, Shreya; Best, Michael W.

doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113934

Cited by 71 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many reports concerning increased loneliness and its impact have emerged [48][49][50][51]. Unlike chronic loneliness discussed above, this loneliness is more situational in nature and was also accompanied by social distancing and, at times, complete isolation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opposing Association of Situational and Chronic Loneliness with Interpersonal Distance

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loneliness is a prevalent condition with adverse effects on physical and mental health. Evolutionary theories suggest it evolved to drive people to reconnect. However, chronic loneliness may result in a negative social bias and self-preservation behaviors, paradoxically driving individuals away from social interactions. Lonely people often feel they are not close to anyone; however, little is known about their interpersonal distance preferences. During COVID-19, many experienced situational loneliness related to actual social isolation. Therefore, there was a unique opportunity to examine both chronic and situational (COVID-19-related) loneliness. In the present study, 479 participants completed an online task that experimentally assessed interpersonal distance preferences in four conditions—passively being approached by a friend or a stranger, and actively approaching a friend or a stranger. Results show that high chronic loneliness was related to a greater preferred distance across conditions. Intriguingly, by contrast, high COVID-19-related loneliness was related to a smaller preferred distance across conditions. These findings provide further support for the evolutionary theory of loneliness: situational loneliness indeed seems to drive people towards reconnection, while chronic loneliness seems to drive people away from it. Implications for the amelioration of chronic loneliness are discussed based on these findings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opposing Association of Situational and Chronic Loneliness with Interpersonal Distance

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas these policies may have indeed reduced individuals’ risk of infection, they also exposed them to other risks, such as losing their sources of livelihood (e.g., Codagnone et al, 2020 ), depression, burnout, and anxiety (e.g., Amerio et al, 2020 ; Fiorillo et al, 2020 ; O’Connor et al, 2020 ; Robinson and Daly, 2021 ; Buckner et al, 2021 ). It also appears that vulnerable populations such as those already suffering from mental health issues or addictions, and women and children living in abusive households may have been particularly negatively affected (e.g., Serafini et al, 2016 ; Buttell and Ferreira, 2020 ; Clarke et al, 2020 ; Graham-Harrison et al, 2020 ; Pfefferbaum and North, 2020 ; Reger et al, 2020 ; Schippers, 2020 ; Zetzsche and Consiglio, 2020 ; Acenowr and Coles, 2021 ; Rumas et al, 2021 ; Sakamoto et al, 2021 ). It is undeniably crucial that policymakers should focus on protecting public health by preventing coronavirus-induced deaths.…”

Section: Information-processing Failures During Crisis and Reflexivity As A Potential Antidotementioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

Schippers

Rus

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of policymakers’ decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers’ decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several evidence-based reflexivity tools that could easily be implemented to counter these information-processing errors and improve decision-making processes in uncertain times.

show abstract

“…Die Bedeutung von Bindung und sozialer Nähe für die psychische Gesundheit zeigt sich auch in den psychosozialen Auswirkungen der derzeitigen Kontaktbeschränkungen im Zusammenhang mit der COVID-19-Pandemie [ 18 ]. Insbesondere Einsamkeit stellt hier wahrscheinlich einen relevanten Risikofaktor für eine Abnahme subjektiven Wohlbefindens im Zusammenhang mit der Pandemiesituation dar [ 28 ], während darüber hinaus gerade Personen, die vor der Pandemie nicht an einer psychischen Störung erkrankt waren, vor dem Hintergrund der COVID-19-Pandemie eine Zunahme psychischer Beschwerden erlebten [ 23 ].…”

Section: Zugehörigkeit Und Bindungunclassified

The domain “social processes” in the system of research domain criteria: current state and perspectives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predictors and consequences of loneliness during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cited by 71 publications

References 55 publications

Opposing Association of Situational and Chronic Loneliness with Interpersonal Distance

Opposing Association of Situational and Chronic Loneliness with Interpersonal Distance

Optimizing Decision-Making Processes in Times of COVID-19: Using Reflexivity to Counteract Information-Processing Failures

The domain “social processes” in the system of research domain criteria: current state and perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About