Written bij Hannah-Sophie Schmidt
In this article we describe some of the most important risk factors of loneliness. There are more factors than the ones mentioned here and we could write a lot more about these factors. If you want to know more about the research, please check the references at the end of the article.
Another great source is the book from the JRC: Loneliness in Europe: Determinants, Risks and Interventions which you can download here. The book is available for free as PDF and ePub and for sale in Print.
Age
Loneliness affects people across various life stages and varies among different age groups. The experience of loneliness changes throughout life due to differing needs and priorities at each stage. Younger people focus on building social networks, launching careers, and establishing long-term relationships. Therefore, having few friends, no job, or no romantic partner can be particularly strong risk factors for loneliness among young adults (Luhmann & Hawkley, 2016).
Recent research indicates that loneliness follows a U-shaped pattern across the lifespan, with both older and younger individuals experiencing heightened levels of loneliness. Traditionally, studies have focused on older adults, assuming they were at the greatest risk due to factors such as loss of a spouse, declining health, and reduced social engagement. However, newer studies reveal that young people also face a significant risk of loneliness, potentially exceeding that of older populations. This increased vulnerability among younger individuals may be attributed to factors such as social media use, digital peer comparison, and the social isolation exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Schnepf et al., 2024).
Income
Low income is a significant risk factor for loneliness. Financial constraints often prevent individuals from participating in social activities, leading to isolation (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2016).
Poverty hinders social participation not through active withdrawal, but by creating conditions that limit access to activities. For instance, high costs often prevent participation in events, hobbies, or consumption. Additionally, groups such as homeless individuals face exclusion from public spaces like parks and train stations. Thus, social withdrawal is exacerbated by a society that enables participation only on an economically selective basis. Poverty also contributes to increased social isolation and is linked to life events such as illness, breakups, and job loss (Dittmann & Goebel, 2022).
Gender
The impact of gender on loneliness varies across studies, with evidence suggesting either minimal or negligible differences (Maes et al., 2019). When loneliness is measured directly, women tend to report higher levels of loneliness; however, when measured indirectly, men appear to be at greater risk (Barjaková et al., 2023).
Household and family
Being single is also associated with higher loneliness levels (Hsieh & Hawkley, 2018), and individuals who are not married face a greater risk of experiencing loneliness (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2016). Additionally, living in a nursing home is a known predictor of loneliness. To protect against loneliness, high-quality relationships play a crucial role. Other key predictors include the quality of social contacts being more significant than their quantity, lower levels of emotional or social support, and having no or fewer children (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2016).
Research has shown that between 8% and 21% of single parents struggle with loneliness, often due to the lack of a partner and limited social interaction, especially someone to share daily experiences with. For some, becoming a single parent led to feelings of isolation, whereas others viewed this transition as an opportunity for self-discovery, autonomy, and a greater sense of liberation (Nowland et al., 2021).
Although prevalence studies are limited, estimates suggest that 8 in 10 caregivers in the UK have experienced loneliness or social isolation due to their caregiving responsibilities. This loneliness is often linked to the constraints imposed by their role, as caregivers frequently describe a lack of personal freedom, restricted control over their time and space, and little spontaneity in daily life. Their primary focus remains on the well-being of the person they care for, making time away a challenge that requires significant planning and effort. (Hajek et al., 2021)
Health
Health issues prevent people from participating in day-to-day activities with others, making them a significant risk factor for loneliness. Isolation is closely linked to poor health, and those who are less active tend to feel lonelier. Individuals with hearing or vision impairments, as well as those with mobility issues, experience higher levels of loneliness. Moreover, the study found that people who frequently need to visit the doctor also tend to feel lonelier (Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2016).
Minority Status
Most migrants report various reasons for feeling lonely, with first-generation migrants particularly experiencing higher levels of social and emotional loneliness. They tend to express greater dissatisfaction with their social lives compared to other groups. Migrants, in general, face an increased risk of loneliness and often report moderate levels of social isolation, reflecting the challenges of adapting to a new environment and building social connections. (Geisen et al., 2022).
Studies indicate that LGTBQAI+ individuals, on average, experience significantly higher levels of loneliness than the general population. In Germany, 15% of LGTBQAI+ respondents reported frequently lacking social contact, twice the rate of the broader population. Within the community, notable differences emerge: trans* individuals report greater loneliness than cis individuals, averaging half a scale point higher. Similarly, polysexual individuals experience more loneliness than monosexual individuals. Overall, those with multiple marginalized identities face a heightened risk of loneliness compared to those with relatively privileged characteristics( Fischer, M. (2022).
References
Barjaková, M., Garnero, A., & d’Hombres, B. (2023). Risk factors for loneliness: A literature review. Social Science & Medicine.
Cohen-Mansfield, J., Hazan, H., Lerman, Y., & Shalom, V. (2016). Correlates and predictors of loneliness in older adults: A review of quantitative results informed by qualitative insights. International Psychogeriatrics, 28, 557–576.
Dittmann, J., & Goebel, J. (2022, Mai). Einsamkeit und Armut [KNE Expertise 5/2022]. Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit. https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/publikationen/kne-expertisen/kne-expertise-05-dittmann-goebel
Fischer, M. (2022). Einsamkeit unter LSBTQI Menschen: Gesellschaftliche Entfremdung, soziale Ausgrenzung und Resilienz* [KNE Expertise 7/2022]. Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit. https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/publikationen/kne-expertisen/kne-expertise-07-fischer
Geisen, T., Widmer, L., & Yang, A. (2022). Migration und Einsamkeit: Resultate eines systematischen Literaturreviews[KNE Expertise 6/2022]. Kompetenznetz Einsamkeit. https://kompetenznetz-einsamkeit.de/publikationen/kne-expertisen/kne-expertise-06-geisen-widmer-yang
Hajek, A., Kretzler, B., & König, H.-H. (2021). Informal Caregiving, Loneliness and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12101. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212101
Luhmann, M., & Hawkley, L. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old age. Developmental Psychology, 52, 943–959.
Maes, M., Qualter, P., Lodder, G. M., & Mund, M. (2022). How (not) to measure loneliness: A review of the eight most commonly used scales. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10816.
Nowland, R., Thomson, G., McNally, L., Smith, T., & Whittaker, K. (2021). Experiencing loneliness in parenthood: a scoping review. Perspectives in public health, 141(4), 214-225.https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139211018243
Schnepf, S. V., d’Hombres, B., & Mauri, C. (Eds.). (2024). Loneliness in Europe: Determinants, risks and interventions.Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66582-1