↓ Skip to main content

Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 1,047)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
736 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
968 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Loneliness Matters: A Theoretical and Empirical Review of Consequences and Mechanisms
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise C. Hawkley, John T. Cacioppo

Abstract

As a social species, humans rely on a safe, secure social surround to survive and thrive. Perceptions of social isolation, or loneliness, increase vigilance for threat and heighten feelings of vulnerability while also raising the desire to reconnect. Implicit hypervigilance for social threat alters psychological processes that influence physiological functioning, diminish sleep quality, and increase morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this paper is to review the features and consequences of loneliness within a comprehensive theoretical framework that informs interventions to reduce loneliness. We review physical and mental health consequences of loneliness, mechanisms for its effects, and effectiveness of extant interventions. Features of a loneliness regulatory loop are employed to explain cognitive, behavioral, and physiological consequences of loneliness and to discuss interventions to reduce loneliness. Loneliness is not simply being alone. Interventions to reduce loneliness and its health consequences may need to take into account its attentional, confirmatory, and memorial biases as well as its social and behavioral effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 968 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 1%
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Hong Kong 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 10 1%
Unknown 921 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 188 19%
Student > Master 164 17%
Student > Bachelor 145 15%
Researcher 127 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 85 9%
Other 259 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 399 41%
Social Sciences 156 16%
Unspecified 136 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 69 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 3%
Other 175 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 572. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2019.
All research outputs
#12,543
of 13,533,246 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50
of 91,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,533,246 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.