Das (2018) presents a critique of the loneliness literature in terms of design (viz., small samples and the existence of only one longitudinal study) and potentially flawed data analyses that do not take into account clustering factors such as where the participants live. With respect to loneliness, Das's analysis of two large longitudinal population studies showed neither evidence of a high prevalence nor associations with the cardiometabolic measures, thereby providing additional questions regarding the role of loneliness in the causal chain of health and well-being. If questions concerning what loneliness is and its causal role in the chain of biological, personological, social, and cultural health and well-being are not clearly elucidated, then misconceptions of the role of loneliness construct can arise. Although Das indicates that differences in the assessment of loneliness may contribute to the failure to replicate associations, other individual differences and methodological factors may confound interpretation of the causal role of loneliness; these points warrant further comment, which is the focus of this commentary.
- Depressed mood
- Mental health
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health(social science)
- History and Philosophy of Science