ArticlePloS one2025
Revisiting the cognitive and behavioral aspects of loneliness: Insights from different measurement approaches.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trajectories and Bidirectional Associations between Loneliness and Non-suicidal Self-Injury among Chinese Adolescents.Journal of youth and adolescence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Loneliness is increasingly recognized as a critical public health issue that profoundly affects psychological well-being and social functioning. This study evaluates cognitive and behavioral differences associated with different facets of loneliness. We classified 790 German-speaking adults (MAge = 31.86 (12.48), 81% female) as lonely or not lonely based on three dimensions - loneliness frequency, distress, and chronicity - and tested for group differences regarding cognitive and behavioral aspects, as proposed by the cognitive model of loneliness, while controlling for depressive and social anxiety symptoms. The results indicate fair to substantial agreement between the three classification methods. Further, we found significant group differences regarding all components, such as interpretation bias, social avoidance, and self-esteem, with each loneliness classification method. Our findings highlight the multifaceted nature of loneliness and underscore the importance of applying diverse methods to fully capture its complexity. This study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of loneliness and its implications, suggesting that interventions should consider the specific dimensions of loneliness to effectively address its cognitive and behavioral ramifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.