Is Loneliness Adaptive? A Dynamic Panel Model Study of Older U.S. Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent evolutionary psychological theory proposes that loneliness is an adaptive mechanism, designed to trigger maintenance and repair of social ties. No population representative analyses have probed loneliness effects on sociality. The present study addressed this gap. METHOD: Data were from the 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018 waves of the Health and Retirement Study, nationally representative of U.S. adults over age 50. Recently developed cross-lagged models with fixed effects were used to test prospective within-person associations of loneliness with specific dimensions of sociality, taking into account reverse causality as well as all time-invariant confounders with stable effects. Both gender-combined and -specific analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Loneliness did not consistently predict overall sociality: sparse linkages were found only among women. The same null pattern held with family ties. Non-family ties, in contrast, were associated with prior loneliness, but in a gender-specific way. Loneliness positively predicted women's social interactions with friends, but seemed linked to withdrawal from these relationships among men. There were indications that lonely men instead used religious attendance as a social outlet. DISCUSSION: Loneliness seems to induce domain- and gender-specific sociality responses. Findings suggest implications for evolutionary models of sociality as well as for psychosocial and physical health. Pending replication in independent samples, inferences remain tentative.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".