Loneliness and diurnal cortisol levels during COVID-19 lockdown: the roles of living situation, relationship status and relationship quality

  1. Dora Hopf
  2. Ekaterina Schneider
  3. Corina Aguilar-Raab
  4. Dirk Scheele
  5. Mitjan Morr
  6. Thomas Klein
  7. Beate Ditzen
  8. Monika Eckstein

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Loneliness and social isolation have become increasing concerns during COVID-19 lockdown through neuroendocrine stress-reactions, physical and mental health problems. We investigated living situation, relationship status and quality as potential moderators for trait and state loneliness and salivary cortisol levels (hormonal stress-responses) in healthy adults during the first lockdown in Germany. N  = 1242 participants (mean age = 36.32, 78% female) filled out an online questionnaire on demographics, trait loneliness and relationship quality. Next, N  = 247 (mean age = 32.6, 70% female) completed ecological momentary assessment (EMA), collecting twelve saliva samples on 2 days and simultaneously reporting their momentary loneliness levels. Divorced/widowed showed highest trait loneliness, followed by singles and partnerships. The latter displayed lower momentary loneliness and cortisol levels compared to singles. Relationship satisfaction significantly reduced loneliness levels in participants with a partner and those who were living apart from their partner reported loneliness levels similar to singles living alone. Living alone was associated with higher loneliness levels. Hierarchical linear models revealed a significant cross-level interaction between relationship status and momentary loneliness in predicting cortisol. The results imply that widowhood, being single, living alone and low relationship quality represent risk factors for loneliness and having a partner buffers neuroendocrine stress responses during lockdown.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41598-022-19224-2
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.25.22271461: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Participants: This study was approved by the Heidelberg Medical Faculty’s Ethics Committee (Heidelberg University, approval no. S-214/2020) and registered online (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.
    Consent: All participants signed an informed consent and were recruited between April 1st and July 30th 2020 via online media and local newspapers.
    Field Sample Permit: The responders received Salicap® tubes for saliva collection with additional informational documents via mail and specific instructions via phone.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    ANCOVA and multiple regression analyses were conducted with SPSS Statistics Version 27 ©
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has several limitations that need to be addressed. First of all, sample sizes differed between demographic groups. For example, 70 divorced/widowed individuals and 329 singles participated in the online survey. We recruited a convenience sample and widowers/widows and divorced individuals are on average older and less technically involved than singles, which made it more difficult to recruit them in an online survey. Another limitation is the cross-sectional design of the study, which makes it impossible to draw causal conclusions on long-term (mental) health outcomes. Furthermore, there is no baseline assessment of the variables of interest before lockdown, therefore we were not able to control for the participants’ pre-lockdown levels of loneliness and cortisol. Thus, our results can only be seen as a “snapshot” of the current situation. There are several aspects that could be addressed in future research. Although we found main effects of relationship status, living situation, and relationship quality, they only explained a small amount of variance in the outcomes. This indicates that there are additional predictor and moderator variables influencing the outcomes. Furthermore, the stress-buffering effects of close relationships is not restricted to romantic relationships. For example, having meaningful relationships with close friends or relatives38 could be one protective factor. In addition, longitudinal assessments with repeated within-person measurements of ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.25.22271461 on medRxiv