The words we use to describe social issues shape both public perception and the strategies we develop to address them. This is especially true in discussions about chronic loneliness—a serious and widespread condition, but not one accurately termed an “epidemic.” Despite frequent references to loneliness as such in contemporary debates, evidence from sources like Your World in Data, De Correspondent, and sociologist Eric Klinenberg suggests that “epidemic” is a misnomer. This post explores why labeling loneliness as an epidemic can misdirect our focus, potentially overlooking the true causes and solutions of loneliness.

Deconstructing the “Loneliness Epidemic”

The term “epidemic” has often been applied to loneliness by scholars and policymakers. As early as 1979, Colin Killeen described loneliness as an epidemic in modern society, a view echoed by Barbara Fiand in 1980, who questioned why loneliness persisted in a rapidly growing world population. Carin Rubenstein, in her 1979 dissertation, cited therapist Tanner’s claim that modern America was experiencing an “epidemic of loneliness.” More recently, in 2023, the US Surgeon General’s advisory also echoed the “epidemic” framing, emphasizing the societal risks of loneliness.

Yet, it’s uncommon for an epidemic to span over four decades. This longevity raises questions about whether “epidemic” is an appropriate term. Epidemics imply sudden, widespread outbreaks—characteristics that don’t align with loneliness trends spanning several decades. A more fitting description might be US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s labeling of loneliness as an “underappreciated public health crisis.” While loneliness is undoubtedly a serious public health concern, the “epidemic” narrative implies exogenous, sudden factors, like technological advancements, as primary causes. This framing overlooks deeper structural issues—poverty, exclusion, and shifting family dynamics—that often drive loneliness.

Assessing the “Loneliness Epidemic”: A Detailed Analysis

The term “epidemic” is traditionally reserved for widespread disease outbreaks that affect many people at once, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Using this term to describe loneliness prompts us to consider whether loneliness truly exists at epidemic levels. However, the US Surgeon General’s report conflates social isolation with loneliness, relying heavily on social isolation data from the 2003–2020 US Time Use Survey to argue for an “epidemic” of loneliness.

But here’s the issue: social isolation and loneliness, while related, are not synonymous. Social isolation is an objective measure of the amount of time people spend alone, whereas loneliness is a subjective feeling of disconnection from meaningful relationships. Confusing the two can lead to misguided strategies. Reducing time alone may not necessarily alleviate the emotional experience of loneliness—and focusing on time spent with others misses the deeper, qualitative elements of connection that people crave.

Evaluating Data and Definitions

While the US Surgeon General rightly identifies loneliness and social isolation as critical public health concerns, it’s vital to dig into the data more carefully. As the report states:

Loneliness and isolation represent profound threats to our health and well-being. But we have the power to respond. By taking small steps every day to strengthen our relationships, and by supporting community efforts to rebuild social connection, we can rise to meet this moment together.

We fully agree with the report’s emphasis on the importance of addressing loneliness, but it’s necessary to critically assess the data on which it is based. The report focuses primarily on social isolation, drawing from the US Time Use Survey from 2003 to 2020, which tracks three variables:

• Social isolation: Time spent alone, regardless of whether others are present in the vicinity.
• Social engagement: Time spent interacting with family, friends, or others during daily activities.
• Companionship: Time spent with others during leisure activities or socializing.

The outcome of the analyses can be found below in Figure 1.

While these metrics provide insight into social behaviors, they do not directly measure whether people feel lonely. The subjective nature of loneliness—feeling disconnected or unsatisfied with one’s social relationships—requires more nuanced, self-reported data that social isolation measures cannot fully capture. 

Notably, questions have also arisen recently about the reproducibility of these analyses, so we suggest that the reader monitors our reanalyses of these trends (see our call for a collaborative reanalysis). 

Diverging Evidence on Loneliness Trends

The evidence doesn’t support the narrative of a loneliness epidemic. For instance, studies by Hawkley et al. and subsequent analyses by Surkalim et al. (Figure 2a-c) have indicated that loneliness among older adults in the United States has remained stable, or even decreased, over the decades. A similar trend is seen in Sweden, where repeated cross-sectional surveys by Dalhberg et al. (Figures 3a&b) among very old adults (aged 85 and older) show no significant increase in loneliness over the past two decades.

When examining younger populations, research by Trzesniewski and Donnellan, as well as Clark et al., shows no significant generational increase in loneliness, with Clark et al. even noting a slight decline. In addition, Buecker et al.’s 2021 meta-analysis found only a slight rise in loneliness from 1976 to 2019, challenging the idea of an epidemic. Notably, Paris and IJzerman, using similar data as Buecker et al. but employing more advanced retrieval techniques, found no increase in loneliness.[1]

The Disconnect Between Loneliness and Social Isolation

The discrepancy between loneliness trends and social isolation data underscores a critical distinction: while social isolation (i.e., the objective measure of time spent alone) may have increased, the subjective experience of loneliness has remained relatively stable. This raises a key question: are we conflating two related but distinct phenomena, potentially leading to ineffective interventions?

It’s true that social isolation can contribute to feelings of loneliness, but the relationship is far from straightforward. Loneliness is shaped by factors beyond physical isolation, such as the quality of relationships and the perception of support. People can spend significant time alone without feeling lonely, especially if their need for meaningful connections is met in other ways. Conversely, individuals can feel deeply lonely even when surrounded by others, particularly if those interactions lack emotional depth or authenticity.

The danger of treating social isolation and loneliness as interchangeable lies in the potential to craft misguided public health strategies. Rather than focusing on reducing time spent alone, interventions should prioritize improving the quality of social connections and fostering emotional support.

Moreover, concerns about the US Time Use Survey data—which were heavily relied upon by the US Surgeon General—warrant further scrutiny. Unlike meta-analytic studies on loneliness, such as those by Buecker et al., the social isolation data lacks transparency. The data and analysis scripts for Kannan and Veazie’s (2023) report were not made publicly available, making independent verification impossible. This calls for a more rigorous, transparent reanalysis, which we are currently pursuing.

There may be alternative explanations for the reported rise in social isolation:

• Changes in time-use measurement: The way people report their daily activities may have shifted over time due to evolving norms around privacy or survey fatigue, potentially affecting the accuracy of isolation data.
• Substitution of social activities: As social norms have changed, people may substitute in-person interactions with virtual ones, which might not be captured adequately in the time-use data. This shift could give the impression of rising isolation, even though social needs are being met in other ways.
• Sampling differences: Differences in survey design, sampling strategies, or demographic representation over time may have introduced biases that exaggerate or obscure true trends in social isolation.

Why These Distinctions Matter

The divergence between loneliness and social isolation data is not just an academic concern—it has real-world implications. If public health campaigns and interventions are based on the assumption that loneliness is skyrocketing in parallel with social isolation, they risk missing the mark. Focusing primarily on reducing time spent alone, for instance, might not effectively reduce loneliness if the underlying issue is poor quality or unsatisfying relationships. Conversely, individuals who spend time alone by choice may not benefit from interventions aimed at increasing social contact, as they may not experience loneliness in the first place.

Misinterpreting the data could lead to misplaced resources, misdiagnoses of the problem, and ineffective solutions. A clearer understanding of the nuances between social isolation and loneliness is essential to developing interventions that target the specific drivers of loneliness, such as improving relationship quality, building social skills, or fostering community integration, rather than simply trying to increase social interactions.

The Importance of Accurate Terminology. The motivation to label loneliness as an “epidemic” is likely driven by a desire to emphasize its serious consequences—premature mortality, health issues, and diminished well-being. While this framing conveys urgency, it oversimplifies the problem. By suggesting that loneliness spreads like an infectious disease, this narrative implicitly points to sudden, external causes—particularly technological changes such as smartphones and social media. The US Surgeon General’s report hints at this view, implying that recent technological advancements may be driving loneliness.

However, this perspective overlooks substantial evidence that digital technology, including internet connectivity, can positively influence well-being when used to foster meaningful social connections. Studies show that digital platforms enable people to maintain relationships across distances and engage in communities that would otherwise be inaccessible. Simple measures, like banning smartphones or limiting screen time, have shown limited success in addressing wellbeing. Focusing too much on surface-level symptoms, such as technology use, risks diverting attention from the real, underlying drivers of loneliness—many of which are societal and structural in nature.

Addressing Structural Causes of Loneliness. While individual behaviors and interpersonal dynamics certainly play a role in loneliness, its roots often lie much deeper, embedded within societal structures that perpetuate disconnection. To truly tackle loneliness, we need to shift our focus beyond personal factors and consider the broader, structural contributors—such as economic inequality, social marginalization, and the erosion of communal spaces—that exacerbate feelings of loneliness. Comprehensive public health strategies must address these deeper causes.

Research by Matthews et al. (2019) found that experiences of discrimination and marginalization are significant contributors to feelings of loneliness and isolation. In their study, nationally representative samples revealed that these social inequalities limit individuals’ opportunities to form and sustain meaningful connections, making loneliness not just a personal issue but a reflection of broader societal inequities.

Similarly, Nguyen et al. (2020) found that unequal access to healthcare, education, and other critical resources contributes to increased social isolation and loneliness. Their study, which spanned across Europe, emphasized how policy-driven disparities deepen social divides, leaving certain groups more vulnerable to isolation. In other words, structural inequalities—driven by policy decisions—create environments where loneliness can thrive, particularly in underprivileged communities.

The Role of Community and Family Structures. The importance of cohesive communities in mitigating loneliness cannot be overstated. Research by Dahlberg and McKee (2018), which involved over 40,000 older adults, found that those living in well-connected, supportive communities reported significantly lower levels of loneliness. This underscores the need to invest in local infrastructure that fosters social engagement—creating public spaces such as parks, community centers, and communal areas where people can naturally meet and form connections. When communities are designed with social health in mind, loneliness can be addressed at a foundational level, reducing the need for reactive interventions.

Family structures also play a critical role in determining loneliness outcomes. Hawkley et al. (2008), in their longitudinal analysis of the Health and Retirement Study, found that the absence of strong familial support was linked with an increase in loneliness over time. Family bonds provide emotional security and a sense of belonging that is vital not only during childhood but throughout life. Strengthening these family support systems, especially for vulnerable populations such as the elderly or those in caregiving roles, is essential to long-term loneliness reduction.

The Importance of Mental Health Services. Addressing loneliness also requires a robust mental health infrastructure. Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2014), in their comprehensive review, demonstrated that increasing access to mental health services can significantly alleviate loneliness. By offering critical support and resources, these services help individuals navigate the emotional and psychological challenges associated with loneliness. Mental health interventions—ranging from counseling and therapy to community-based mental health programs—are necessary for addressing loneliness at both the individual and societal levels.

Beyond Surface-Level Solutions. While interventions such as social skills training can be helpful, they often fail to address the broader, structural drivers of loneliness. Mislabeling loneliness as an “epidemic” risks leading policymakers to approach the issue as they would a contagious disease—focusing on containment and short-term fixes rather than addressing the root causes.

To truly mitigate loneliness, policy adjustments must go beyond surface-level solutions. Urban planning should prioritize the creation of communal spaces—parks, libraries, and shared workspaces—that encourage organic social interactions. These spaces act as catalysts for social cohesion, fostering environments where people can connect naturally and meaningfully.

Health policies should adopt a more holistic approach, recognizing that social health is just as important as physical health. Integrated community health programs could incorporate social health metrics into regular health assessments, prompting healthcare providers to consider a person’s social network and emotional support systems as part of their overall well-being. By doing so, we can begin to treat loneliness as a public health issue that deserves the same attention as chronic diseases.

Education systems must also play a proactive role. Programs that foster social-emotional learning, teach relationship-building skills, and promote emotional intelligence should be integrated into school curricula from an early age. Teaching children how to form meaningful relationships and cope with social challenges will equip them with the tools to avoid loneliness later in life. Programs such as peer support groups, social resilience workshops, and emotional intelligence training should be central to this approach.

The Path Forward: A Multifaceted Approach to Loneliness. Ultimately, loneliness is a multifaceted issue that demands comprehensive solutions. It is not enough to label it an “epidemic” and focus on technology use or surface-level interventions. We must address the structural factors that drive loneliness, from economic and social inequality to the erosion of communal spaces and family structures. By understanding loneliness as both a personal and societal issue, we can craft interventions that target its many dimensions.

To truly tackle loneliness, we need policies and strategies that reflect the complexity of the issue. Public health initiatives, urban planning, and educational reform must be aligned with the goal of fostering connection and well-being. Only by addressing the root causes of loneliness—through thoughtful, evidence-based policies—can we build stronger, more resilient communities.

By using accurate, thoughtful terminology and focusing on comprehensive, multifaceted solutions, we can move beyond the oversimplified “epidemic” narrative and address the real drivers of loneliness. Whether through public health programs, community-building initiatives, or educational reform, the solutions to loneliness must be as varied and complex as the issue itself. Only then can we begin to create a society that promotes connection, well-being, and flourishing for all.

[1] Note: we were unable to include the Buecker et al.’s graph due to copyright restrictions, but the graph shows a small upward increase.

References for Figures:

Buecker, S., Mund, M., Chwastek, S., Sostmann, M., & Luhmann, M. (2021). Is loneliness in emerging adults increasing over time? A preregistered cross-temporal meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(8), 787.

Dahlberg, L., Agahi, N., & Lennartsson, C. (2018). Lonelier than ever? Loneliness of older people over two decades. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 75, 96-103.

Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). (2023). Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community. US Department of Health and Human Services.

Surkalim, D. L., Clare, P. J., Eres, R., Gebel, K., Bauman, A., & Ding, D. (2023). Have middle-aged and older Americans become lonelier? 20-year trends from the health and retirement study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 78(7), 1215-1223.