Bidirectional Associations Between Loneliness, Emotional Support, and Sleep in Daily Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests a link between positive social relationship perceptions and improved sleep (e.g., quality, efficiency) across the life span. Less work has probed the directionality of these relationships. Here, we report findings from the first study to examine bidirectional between- and within-person associations between loneliness and emotional support with daily life measures of sleep. METHODS: Participants were 389 healthy adults aged 40 to 64 years (61% female) who completed hourly surveys assessing loneliness and perceptions of emotional support over the course of 4 days. Measures of actigraphy-assessed sleep and nightly sleep quality were also assessed for 7 to 10 days. RESULTS: Individuals with lower average daily loneliness showed higher sleep quality and efficiency than individuals with higher loneliness (r = -0.19, p < .001; r = -0.14, p = .008, respectively), and greater average emotional support was likewise linked with better sleep quality (r = 0.18, p < .001). Controlling for neuroticism attenuated the effects of average loneliness on sleep. Within-person analyses showed unexpected bidirectional effects. Specifically, days in which people felt relatively lonelier were followed by nights with greater sleep efficiency (γ = 1.08, p = .015), and nights when people reported relatively poorer sleep quality were followed by days with greater emotional support (γ = -0.04, p = .013). These unexpected findings are probed in exploratory analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with higher loneliness and lower emotional support report poorer sleep quality and efficiency, on average. Day-to-day fluctuations in perceptions of social relationships may affect the following night's sleep, and vice versa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".