Social Identities Mediate the Relationship Between Isolation, Life Transitions, and Loneliness

Research has demonstrated that life transitions lead to heightened experiences of loneliness, in part because they engender isolation. We tested whether the degree of isolation during a transition influences loneliness, and if this is due to their effects on social identity processes. Employing an experimental paradigm, Study 1 (N = 213) found that when the transition involved isolation from new networks, in this case studying at university online as opposed to in person, it led to more loneliness, and this was mediated through reduced social identification and continuity of group memberships. Study 2 (N = 215) replicated these effects using a different experimental paradigm in which the transition involved isolation from old group memberships, namely moving to a new neighbourhood from interstate. Study 3 (N = 2346) employed a quasi-experimental repeated-measures design to assess the impact of a highly isolating life transition on loneliness-COVID lockdown. Australians in prolonged lockdown experienced increases in loneliness and this was mediated through (lack of) continuity of group memberships. Overall, these results suggest that isolation needs to be considered when assessing the impact of life transitions on loneliness. Moreover, the mediation results indicate that isolating transitions may be responsible for loneliness because these make it difficult to maintain crucial group memberships and form a sense of identification with relevant new groups.

Groups 4 Health protects against unanticipated threats to mental health: Evaluating two interventions during COVID-19 lockdown among young people with a history of depression and loneliness.

BACKGROUND: Decades of research indicate that when social connectedness is threatened, mental health is at risk. However, extant interventions to tackle loneliness have had only modest success, and none have been trialled under conditions of such threat. METHOD: 174 young people with depression and loneliness were randomised to one of two evidence-based treatments: cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) or Groups 4 Health (G4H), an intervention designed to increase social group belonging. Depression, loneliness, and well-being outcomes were evaluated at one-year follow-up; COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were imposed partway through follow-up assessments. This provided a quasi-experimental test of the utility of each intervention in the presence (lockdown group) and absence (control group) of a threat to social connectedness. RESULTS: At one-year follow-up, participants in lockdown reported significantly poorer wellbeing than controls who completed follow-up before lockdown, t(152)=2.41, p=.017. Although both CBT and G4H led to symptom improvement, the benefits of G4H were more robust following an unanticipated threat to social connectedness for depression (χ2(16)=31.35, p=.001), loneliness (χ2(8)=21.622, p=.006), and wellbeing (χ2(8)=22.938, p=.003). LIMITATIONS: Because the COVID-19 lockdown was unanticipated, this analysis represents an opportunistic use of available data. As a result, we could not measure the specific impact of restrictions on participants, such as reduced income, degree of isolation, or health-related anxieties. CONCLUSIONS: G4H delivered one year prior to COVID-19 lockdown offered greater protection than CBT against relapse of loneliness and depression symptoms. Implications are discussed with a focus on how these benefits might be extended to other life stressors and transitions.