Citation

Cummins RA. Int. J. Community Wellbeing 2020; 3(3): 273-276.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s42413-020-00072-9

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The issue of loneliness is making big news. And so it should. The over-riding concern by public-health authorities in the face of the Covid-19 threat is to contain the spread of the virus. And from this perspective alone, the solution is simple. Stop people occupying the same social environment. But this solution ignores the psychological consequences of involuntary social isolation, which reviewers Haslam et al. (2019) describe as ‘a killer.’ So, in order to avoid a coincident epidemic of induced psychopathology, a more complex solution is required, advised by an understanding of loneliness.

The starting-point for scientific understanding lies in defining the construct and agreeing on a valid and reliable form of measurement. An excellent and informed definition of loneliness has been provided by the Commissioner for Senior Victorians (2016) as “Loneliness is a subjective, unwelcome feeling of lack or loss of companionship or emotional attachment with other people” (p.46). Crucially, they note the difference between loneliness and Social Isolation, which is “an objective state of having minimal contact and interaction with others and a generally low level of involvement in community life” (Grenade and Boldy 2008, p. 9). They also note that the direct link between being alone and being lonely cannot be assumed. Some people are happy to be alone, while others can feel lonely despite the presence of other people.

So how can loneliness be measured? There are many scales that purport to measure the construct. Nine are described in the Australian Centre on Quality of Life (ACQoL) Directory of Instruments ...

Language: en