Loneliness Among College Students: The Influence of Targeted Messages on Befriending

Abstract

The objective of the current research was to examine the influence of targeted messages in increasing helping behaviors towards lonely individuals. Previous research on loneliness interventions typically focuses on the lonely individual and working to reduce feelings of loneliness. The current study expands on this research by targeting individuals around lonely others to notice and consider helping those who might be lonely. Five targeted messages, based on Latané and Darley’s (1970) bystander intervention model, were utilized. These messages included a “notice” condition (increasing awareness of lonely others), an “assume responsibility” condition (awareness and responsibility towards helping lonely others), a “decide” condition (awareness, responsibility, and steps to reach out to lonely others), and two control conditions. Participants in the “decide” condition were significantly more likely to report feeling prepared to help lonely others in the future. Those in the “assume responsibility” and “decide” conditions also reported more awareness of lonely individuals during a one-week follow-up. Overall, findings indicate that it might be advantageous to approach reducing loneliness from the perspective of those around lonely individuals. Future research and implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Loneliness befriending helping behavior young adults

Introduction

As humans, we have a strong need to belong – to feel part of a group and to have positive and affirming social interactions. Such needs are reflected in the finding that individuals rate interacting with others as being more enjoyable than solitary endeavors and that individuals, namely young adults, spend about 75% of their waking time in the company of others (see Franzi, 2011). The systematic investigation of interpersonal interaction and the potential negative consequences of isolation are particularly important given the current COVID-19 health pandemic experienced world-wide (Ducharme, 2020). Researchers and public health experts are increasingly concerned with a lack of meaningful face-to-face interactions as a result of engaging in social distancing efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Such efforts have made isolation from others more common, and perhaps, have contributed to feelings of loneliness and detriments to mental health (see Torales et al., 2020). Preliminary reports (Cigna, 2020) released in January of 2020 indicate that about 60% of Americans experienced some degree of loneliness; however, stay-at-home orders issued to help slow the spread of COVID-19 may have increased feelings of loneliness as about one-third of Americans reported feeling lonelier than usual (SocialPro, 2020). Important for the current study, young adults (i.e., Millennials) reported feeling lonelier as a result of the health pandemic compared to other age groups (SocialPro, 2020). These findings, in conjunction with an abundance of prior research on loneliness (see Masi et al., 2011), suggest that interpersonal relationships are central to identity and well-being.

If belongingness needs are not sufficiently met, individuals are likely to experience loneliness. Although social distance or social isolation is not the only factor that may relate to increased loneliness (see Richardson et al., 2017), the current COVID 19 health crisis has made it more difficult for adults (Tull et al., 2020) and adolescents (Loades et al., 2020) to meaningfully connect with others in ways that are satisfying and fulling. As a result, feelings of loneliness, typically defined as a discrepancy between one’s current and desired relationships (Peplau & Perlman, 1982), have become an increasingly common problem. Research indicates that most people experience loneliness (e.g., undesired social isolation, feelings of discontentment within current relationships; Cacioppo et al., 2015) at some point during their lifespan (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Qualter et al., 2015). However, college students (or young adults) comprise a unique subset of individuals who are prone to experience loneliness, as many are adjusting to the new collegiate environment. Recent estimates indicate that 20–71% of young adults report feeling lonely “sometimes” or “often” (Rönkä et al., 2014; Qualter et al., 2015), and these percentages may be increasing given the current health crisis. Prior research also suggests that although loneliness can be experienced across the lifespan, the experience of loneliness and severity of loneliness may vary depending on age (see Laursen & Hartl, 2013; Nicolaisen & Thorsen, 2017). Young adults may be more vulnerable to the experience of loneliness compared to older adults due to developmental and interpersonal changes during the transition from adolescence to adulthood while attending college; college students also are more vulnerable to perceived social isolation compared to other age groups (Laursen & Hartl, 2013) as well as potentially more susceptible to experience negative consequences, such as depression and anxiety (Moeller & Seehuus, 2019), as a result of loneliness. Preliminary research investigating the effects of social isolation due to the COVID 19 pandemic and subsequent loneliness notes that:

Contrary to the assumption that loneliness is of particular concern to older populations, the experience of loneliness tends to be most common in young adults and is a rather rare event across older adulthood; 20–48% of adolescent and young adults report severe levels of loneliness. Thus, the numbers of adolescents and young adults who experience psychological sequelae as a result of self-isolation and loneliness would be predicted to be among the highest from all populations who might seek out intervention. (Beam & Kim, 2020, p. 58)

Given research that indicates young adults may be more susceptible to perceived social isolation and more vulnerable to the negative outcomes associated with loneliness that may result from social isolation, it is important for researchers to empirically investigate ways to mitigate the consequences of loneliness among this group. Importantly, a majority of loneliness research has focused on interventions relating to helping lonely individuals (Masi et al., 2011); few studies have examined loneliness from the perspective of the non-lonely individual. If a lonely individual does not feel confident reaching out and/or does not feel like it is possible to reach out to others for support, then targeting others who might befriend and offer support may decrease loneliness. The current research tested befriending interventions, in which participants received a message directed towards helping lonely others. The befriending interventions developed for the current study were based on Latané and Darley’s (1970) seminal model of helping. This model was used a research framework along with relevant research regarding befriending and helping with respect to reducing loneliness.

Befriending interventions

Befriending interventions are typically implemented through the work of an external agency or third party, which works to set up a friendly relationship between a volunteer and individual who may be socially isolated or may not have adequate sources of social support (Balaam, 2015). Befriending as an intervention strategy to combat loneliness has been used particularly among older adults; however, befriending also can be used among young adults as a means to connect individuals who may be socially isolated. Such befriending interventions among young adults can take place in the form of peer to peer connections and mentoring programs (Windle et al., 2011). Other programs have further expanded this initial connection, with some programs incorporating specific pairings between older adults and younger individuals, as well as utilizing technologies such as email, online access, or even telephone use to improve interaction and support (Mulvihill, 2011; Tsai & Reis, 2009). Telephone interventions among older adults appear to be beneficial in helping to decrease levels of loneliness, as well as providing more meaning in their lives, and increasing feelings of confidence and independence (Cattan et al., 2011).

While befriending programs have become more popular among older adults, the exact mechanisms surrounding their actual effectiveness are still poorly understood (Balaam, 2015). In their meta-analysis on loneliness interventions, Masi et al. (2011) reaffirm this view, stating that while befriending interventions appear to lower feelings of social isolation, they have not been explicitly studied with regard to other populations. Because prior research suggests that young adults may be particularly vulnerable to loneliness (Beam & Kim, 2020), the efficacy of befriending interventions for younger adults is warranted. In addition, although studies have looked at the overall effects of befriending, there have not been any to date that have examined factors regarding how to influence individuals to befriend others around them, as compared to investigating its overall effects. More studies are needed, not only to better understand the mechanisms behind such befriending experiences, but to also understand what factors are involved in helping them to make the decision to reach out to others.

Helping behavior

While the exact mechanisms behind befriending are unclear, there are a number of models and theories that have worked to not only increase helping behavior, but also to better understand the reasons why individuals may or may not help others. Perhaps the most well-known is that of the bystander effect (e.g., Latané & Darley, 1970). In the event of an emergency, as the number of individuals observing the event increases, the less likely any one of them is to take action, as the responsibility for intervening becomes shared among all of them; such individuals may believe that others who are present will take action to help. The main tenets of this model in explaining a process of helping can be applied to the current research as a research framework. This model, along with the research cited above regarding befriending interventions targeted at reducing loneliness, can be used as a guide to help explain why individuals may be more or less likely to befriend lonely others. Although perhaps not always an emergency situation, the process of offering helping to someone who is lonely (or not offering help) may be explained through this model.

Latané and Darley (1970) indicate that there are five specific steps that an individual must go through, either overtly or implicitly, before helping another individual. Importantly, these steps must occur in a particular sequence and build off of each other in order for help to occur. First, a person must notice someone needing help, or that something is happening; if they are not aware of the issue, it would not be expected that they would therefore take actions to help. Secondly, the individual must interpret the event as an emergency; for example, he or she must decide if the behavior or circumstances appear to be normal, ambiguous, or if a situation is occurring in which an individual is truly in need of some sort of assistance. These two steps must be met, and if this occurs, then the individual must decide whether to help and assume personal responsibility for doing so, or that they do not want to undertake such accountability. The potential helper may evaluate how equipped he or she is to provide assistance, if he or she thinks the individual deserves help, or, if there are others present, if such help is even needed.

If an individual assumes personal responsibility to help, they then must then decide what type of assistance they can provide (Latané & Darley, 1970). For instance, in the case of someone who is injured, one must decide if it may be better to help in ways that are more direct, such as helping the victim, or more indirectly, through methods such as calling an ambulance. Finally, once the individual has chosen their specific course of action, they must find a way to implement it; continuing from the example above, they may then consider if they have a cell phone, or what supplies are available they can use to help. It is at this stage (after all other steps outlined in this model have been met) that most individuals will subsequently begin to act, and work to help the individual or to improve the situation, depending on the emergency (Latané & Darley, 1970). Together, such stages illustrate a process or the steps each individual must take when deciding whether they will actually choose to help another person. To help another individual, the person must progress through the whole series of steps in the outlined sequence either explicitly or implicitly; if he or she does not do so, then it is unlikely that such helping behavior will ultimately occur. Although many studies have explicitly investigated interventions that target the lonely individual, few have examined what factors influence an individual’s choice in reaching out to help others who are lonely. As such, the model by Latané and Darley (1970) provides a framework and process in which to examine helping and befriending behavior in others in relation to loneliness.

Summary of the current study

This study was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic; however, given the potential rise in loneliness that could be related to the pandemic, research on ways to effectively decrease loneliness is warranted. To develop the current study, relevant literature on befriending and loneliness was placed within the context of the Latané and Darley (1970) model of helping to build a research framework in which to test the steps needed for someone to reach out to and possibly help someone who might be lonely. Thus, the current study investigated the efficacy of loneliness interventions among college students through a targeted approach that has not yet been investigated. The focus of most loneliness interventions has been on the lonely individual. An additional method that has been utilized with increasing popularity, particularly among older adults (Mulvihill, 2011), is that of befriending, in which a volunteer is often paired with a socially-isolated older adult to improve quality of life (Balaam, 2015). Such befriending studies primarily target only the lonely individual; this study aims to investigate what factors are involved in increasing the likelihood that an individual will reach out to a lonely individual. Such a study may provide a better understanding of effective ways others can be encouraged to help. Additionally, it does not appear that Latané and Darley’s, 1970 model regarding steps of helping has been specifically applied to a non-crisis loneliness situation; the current study provides a new way of examining helping behavior towards lonely individuals. Because such interventions have primarily been utilized among older adults, implementing the study among college students may further provide a potential new way of reducing loneliness.

The following hypotheses were developed. Hypothesis 1: individuals exposed to the notice loneliness, assume responsibility, and decide messages will be significantly more likely to report noticing lonely individuals more than those in the control conditions. Hypothesis 2: individuals exposed to the assume responsibility and decide messages will also be significantly more likely to report considering helping lonely individuals than those in the control conditions. Hypothesis 3: individuals exposed to the decide message will be significantly more likely to actually say they helped lonely individuals, as compared to those in all other conditions.

Method

Participants

Three hundred and ninety-one participants from a Midwest university in the United States of America completed the study. Because the unique intervention message was an integral part of the study, the amount of time each participant spent on the message page was recorded. We conducted an informal pre-test among students to assess how long it would take to read the message briskly while still comprehending the information. Students in this pre-test read the message in approximately 30 seconds. This information was used as means to remove any participants from the current study who may have rushed through the study as well as a way to ensure that participants at least had a basic understanding of the message type. Data from 75 participants who spent less than 25 seconds reading the message were removed. This left a total of three hundred and sixteen participants who were included in the data analyses that follow (notice, N = 58; assume responsibility, N = 58; decide, N = 59; control, N = 62; no message control, N = 79). Approximately 60% of participants were female, with an average age of 19.81 (SD = 3.09). The majority identified as Caucasian (77.8%), followed by Hispanic (9.5%), African American (5.1%), Asian (4.4%), Other (2.9%), and Native American (.3%). About 64% identified as freshman. A follow-up survey was emailed to participants one week after the initial study. This follow-up assessed the extent to which participants reached out to lonely individuals around them. One hundred and fifty-six individuals responded to the follow-up survey within 10 days of the initial study (notice, N = 27; assume responsibility, N = 29; decide, N = 25; control, N = 33; no message control, N = 42).¹ Among this subset of individuals, approximately 62.8% were female, 62.6% freshman, average age of 19.77 (SD = 3.51), and 82.7% Caucasian.

Materials and measures

Likelihood of helping

Participants were asked six questions to measure baseline helping behaviors including: “How often have you been in situations where, in hindsight, there were other individuals around who were probably lonely?”; “In those situations, how many times did you notice someone was lonely?”; “How many times did you consider speaking to them?”; “How many times did you actually go over and speak to them because you thought they were lonely?”; “How often have you thought about going over but didn’t, because you thought it might not go well?”; and “How often did you choose not to go over and talk to them because you believed that it wasn’t your problem or responsibility?” To help mask the purpose of these items, eight additional filler items were included, such as: “How often have you been in situations, where, in hindsight, there were other individuals who needed your help?”; “In the past week, how often did you consider helping someone?”; and “In the past week, how many times did you do something nice for another individual?” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very often).

Intervention messages

Noticing Loneliness. Participants randomly assigned to this group read a message about how common loneliness is, typical signs and symptoms of loneliness, and common reasons why the college population experiences loneliness. Because the goal of this message was to increase awareness of lonely individuals, special emphasis was placed on why it is particularly important to pay attention to individuals who are lonely. Noticing lonely individuals might be difficult given the somewhat subjective nature of loneliness. As such, the content of this message was not designed as a way to ensure that participants recognize all people who might be lonely, but rather, to increase participants' awareness of the existence of lonely individuals around them, which was hoped would translate into increased future befriending behavior (see Appendix 1).

Noticing Loneliness and Assuming Responsibility. Participants read a combination of the main focus of the previous message and about framing loneliness in others as an opportunity to intervene. Participants were encouraged to help those around them perceived to be lonely due to a number of altruistic and egoistic reasons, such as how good they would feel if they chose to help (or alternatively, how guilty they may feel if they do not), the importance of helping fellow college students, and how it is the right thing to do. Although this message both encouraged participants to notice lonely individuals and assume responsibility to help, for purposes of clearness, it will subsequently be referred to only as the “assume responsibility” condition (see Appendix 1).

Noticing Loneliness, Assuming Responsibility, Deciding How to Help. Participants again received information from previous messages regarding noticing loneliness and assuming responsibility, but were additionally provided with information and steps on ways to reach out to those who may be lonely. They were encouraged to reach out and strike up a conversation with someone who may be lonely, give them a compliment, or even smile or saying hello to acknowledge the individual. The message also discussed how those actions may help lonely individuals to subsequently feel less lonely. Although this message encouraged participants to notice lonely individuals, assume responsibility, and decide to help, for the purposes of clarity, it will be referred to only as “decide to help.” Importantly, participants in the assume responsibility group received information about noticing lonely individuals; similarly, participants in the decide to help condition received information regarding assuming responsibility and noticing lonely others. There were no significant differences between the length of any messages; when combining, only the strongest parts of each message were used. For example, those in the assume responsibility group also received a consolidated main point of the noticing loneliness message. This helped to ensure that one message was not stronger, but contained each of the relevant points within the word limit (see Appendix 1).

Control. Two control messages were utilized. In one of the control messages, participants were presented with general facts about loneliness. To ensure such a message did not serve to draw attention to loneliness, and therefore not affect awareness of lonely individuals, an additional control group was also utilized which received no message (see Appendix 1).

Dependent measures

Attitude toward intervention techniques. Participants also were asked eight additional questions regarding how helpful and effective they viewed the current technique to be, as well as how often they would employ it in the future. These included “The information I learned today was an effective tool in making me more likely to notice and reach out to potentially lonely individuals”; “I am more likely to reach out to someone who is lonely as a result of this study”; and “I feel more prepared to help other lonely individuals as a result of this study.” Participants were additionally asked about intended future behaviors with questions such as “I believe I will be more aware of lonely individuals around me as a result of this study”; “I will be more likely to consider speaking to those around me who may be lonely as a result of this study”; “As a result of this study, I will be more likely to take action the next time I see someone around me who is lonely”; “I feel as though it’s my responsibility to help those who may be lonely”; and “I know what steps to take in order to reach out to a lonely individual as a result of this study.” Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Identification with lonely individuals and preferred method of reaching out. Four additional items were included. While one assessed feelings of recognition with other lonely individuals: “How much do you identify with other lonely individuals around you?” (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), the three remaining items focused on the ways in which participants might consider reaching out to others (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). These included: “How likely would you be to reach out to another lonely individual through speaking with them?”; “How likely would you be to reach out to another lonely individual through text messaging them?”; and “How likely would you be to reach out to another lonely individual through contacting them on Facebook or other social media sites?”

Follow-up befriending behavior. One week after the initial study, 156 participants responded to an email with a number of questions regarding their befriending behavior focused on three main areas: awareness of lonely individuals, consideration of helping other lonely individuals, and actual helping behaviors (1 = not at all, 7 = very often). To assess awareness of others, individuals were asked: “Over the past week, I was more aware of individuals around me who were lonely.” To assess the degree to which participants considered helping others, they were asked: “People can consider helping others in a number of ways. We are interested in just one of the ways people can think about being nice. In the past week, how often did you consider doing something nice for someone who you thought was lonely, such as going over to speak with them?” Participants were also asked to specify the ways in which they considered reaching out (e.g., speaking to them, Facebook/social media, or text messaging). Finally, to assess actual helping behavior, participants were asked: “People can help others in a number of ways. We are interested in just one of the many ways that people can show that they are nice. In the past week, how often did you do something nice for someone who you thought was lonely, such as going over and talking to them?” Participants were asked to specify the ways in which they actually reached out (e.g., speaking to them, communicating through social media, or text messaging).

Procedure

Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses, namely General Psychology and upper level psychology courses. All students received course credit for their participation. Participants were randomly assigned (via Qualtrics online function) to one of the five different types of intervention conditions and completed all study materials online. Participants were told that the researchers wanted to follow up in one week to learn more about their interactions with individuals who may be lonely. Participants provided their email address and were informed that this information would be kept confidential. Our research procedures were consistent with the American Psychological Association’s (APA) published principles of research ethics. This research was approved by an Institutional Review Board. All APA and IRB guidelines were followed in the treatment of participants; informed consent was obtained and participants were debriefed at the conclusion of the study. For the full research process, see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research process. Note. Upon signing up for the study, participants were directed to an informed consent. Following this, the participant’s likelihood of helping was assessed, followed by receiving one of the five message interventions at random. Finally, participants were presented with questions regarding their attitude toward the intervention. As the study was being debriefed, participants provided their email address so that the researchers could follow up one week after the study to learn more about the participants interactions with individuals who may be lonely.

Results

Analyses regarding information collected at baseline (n = 316)

Baseline attitudes toward the intervention techniques

Using the eight questions described above, we examined whether the message influenced how helpful and effective participants found the technique to be with respect to whether it was an effective tool in making them more likely to notice and reach out to lonely individuals, whether they were more likely to reach out to lonely others as a result of the study, and whether they felt more prepared to help lonely individuals as a result of the study. We also examined intended future behaviors as a result of the study, such as how the study impacted future awareness of lonely individuals, if participants would consider speaking to lonely others, if they would take action the next time they saw a lonely individual, if they would feel responsible for helping lonely others, and if they knew the steps to take to reach out to lonely individuals as a result of the study. We anticipated different effects based on the message content. As such, a MANOVA was utilized to examine potential differences across conditions. Results indicated a significant effect for message [F(32, 1122.69) = 1.61, p = .018, η² = .040]. Thus, we elected to analyze each dependent measure separately.

Effective tool to notice and reach out. Univariate tests showed a significant difference across the five conditions for the message being an effective tool to notice and reach out to lonely individuals [F(4, 311) = 4.86, p = .001, partial η² = .059]. Participants in the decide condition (M = 5.21, SD = 1.34) were significantly more likely to report the message effective than those in the control message (M = 4.24, SD = 1.77) and no message (M = 4.19, SD = 1.48) groups. No significant differences were seen regarding the notice (M = 4.76, SD = 1.40) and assume responsibility (M = 4.53, SD = 1.55) conditions.

Reaching out to lonely. A significant difference emerged for reaching out [F(4, 311) = 2.96, p = .020, partial η² = .037]. Participants in the decide condition (M = 5.02, SD = 1.48) were significantly more likely to reach out than those in the no message (M = 4.18, SD = 1.35) groups. No significant differences were seen regarding the notice (M = 4.52, SD = 1.17), assume responsibility (M = 4.53, SD = 1.42), and control message (M = 4.58, SD = 4.58) groups.

Feel prepared to help. Feeling prepared to help lonely individuals also was significant [F(4, 311) = 2.59, p = .037, partial η² = .032], with individuals in the decide group (M = 4.63, SD = 1.58) reporting higher scores than the no message (M = 3.81, SD = 1.38) condition. No significant differences emerged for the notice (M = 4.14, SD = 1.42), assume responsibility (M = 4.10, SD = 1.41), and control message (M = 4.19, SD = 1.64) conditions.

Awareness of lonely individuals. No significant differences emerged here [F(4, 311) = 1.75, p = .138, partial η² = .022]. No significant differences were seen between the notice (M = 4.69, SD = 1.17), assume responsibility (M = 4.83, SD = 1.37), decide (M = 4.83, SD = 1.52), control message (M = 4.56, SD = 1.63), and no message (M = 4.29, SD = 1.42) conditions.

Consider speaking. Significant differences emerged for considering speaking to lonely individuals [F(4, 311) = 4.26, p = .002, partial η² = .052]. Those in the decide condition (M = 5.36, SD = 1.27) reported higher scores than the notice (M = 4.66, SD = 1.40) and no message (M = 4.37, SD = 1.37) groups. No significant differences were seen regarding the assume responsibility (M = 4.86, SD = 1.48) and control message (M = 4.71, SD = 1.59).

Taking action. Significant differences also emerged for taking action [F(4, 311) = 2.61, p = .036, partial η² = .032] whereby participants in the decide group (M = 4.97, SD = 1.25) reported being significantly more likely to take action than the no message (M = 4.20, SD = 1.35) condition. No significant differences were seen regarding the notice (M = 4.43, SD = 1.35), assume responsibility (M = 4.47, SD = 1.49), and control message (M = 4.40, SD = 1.56) groups.

Responsibility to help. A significant effect was found for taking responsibility [F(4, 311) = 3.37, p = .010, partial η² = .042]. Those in the decide condition (M = 4.75, SD = 1.52) were more likely to report higher scores than those in the notice (M = 3.86, SD = 1.46) and no message (M = 3.86, SD = 1.53) conditions. No differences emerged regarding the assume responsibility (M = 4.19, SD = 1.65) and control message (M = 4.10, SD = 1.62) conditions.

Know steps to reach out. A significant effect emerged [F(4, 311) = 3.03, p = .018, partial η² = .037]. Those receiving the decide (M = 4.76, SD = 1.37) message reported higher scores than the notice (M = 3.86, SD = 1.49) and no message (M = 4.04, SD = 1.49) groups. No significant differences emerged for the assume responsibility (M = 4.21, SD = 1.54) and control message (M = 4.15, SD = 1.64) groups.

Identification with lonely individuals

After viewing the message, participants were asked how much they could relate to other lonely individuals. Although a one-way ANOVA revealed no main effect for message type [F(4, 311) = 1.16, p = .331, η² = .015], bivariate correlations indicated that those who identified with lonely individuals were more likely to report that the message was an effective tool to reach out [r(314) = .27, p < .001]; being more likely to reach out [r(314) = .25, p < .001]; feeling prepared to help [r(314) = .26, p < .001]; believing that they would be more aware of other lonely individuals [r(314) = .36, p < .001]; being more likely to consider reaching out [r(314) = .34, p < .001]; believing that they would take action in the future [r(314) = .26, p < .001]; and feeling that it was their responsibility to help [r(314) = .22, p < .001].

Preferred method of reaching out

Participants reported how likely they would be to reach out through various means of communication (i.e., speaking, texting, social media). A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect [F(2, 630) = 57.13, p = < .001, η² = .154]. Participants were significantly less likely to report being likely to reach out to someone through social media (M = 3.82, SD = 1.91) than through speaking to them (M = 4.65, SD = 1.37) or text messaging them (M = 4.84, SD = 1.69). There was not a significant difference between speaking and text messaging.

Analyses regarding information collected at follow-up (n = 156)

One-way ANCOVAs were performed. Participants’ previous scores for awareness of lonely individuals (Hypothesis 1), considering reaching out (Hypothesis 2), and actual helping behaviors measured as reaching out (Hypothesis 3), were used as covariates.

Hypothesis 1²

It was expected that individuals who were exposed to one of the three main messages would be significantly more likely to report noticing lonely individuals than those in the control message condition. A significant effect for message type was found [F(4,150) = 3.45, p = .010, η² = .084]. Participants in the assume responsibility (M = 4.07, SD = 1.58) and decide (M = 4.16, SD = 1.55) conditions were more likely than participants exposed to the control message (M = 3.18, SD = 1.55) to report being aware of lonely individuals. No significant differences were found in awareness between the notice loneliness (M = 3.74, SD = 1.38) and no message (M = 3.48, SD = 1.64) conditions, thus partially supporting hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2

It was expected that individuals who were exposed to one of the three main messages would be significantly more likely to consider helping than those in the control conditions. No significant differences emerged between the message conditions in follow-up reports of consideration of helping [F(4, 150) = 1.07, p = .375, η² = .028]. There were no significant differences between the notice (M = 4.22, SD = 1.37), assume responsibility (M = 4.55, SD = 1.40), decide (M = 4.84, SD = 1.313), control message (M = 4.45, SD = 1.68), no message (M = 4.62, SD = 1.58) conditions. Thus, hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Hypothesis 3

We expected that those receiving the decide message would be more likely to report helping (i.e., reaching out) than all other conditions. No significant differences between the conditions with regard to follow-up reports of reaching out emerged [F(4, 150 = .877, p = .479, η² = .023]. There were no differences between the notice (M = 3.48, SD = 1.12), assume responsibility (M = 3.34, SD = 1.14), decide (M = 3.92, SD = 1.53), control message (M = 3.48, SD = 1.72) and no message (M = 3.81, SD = 1.61) conditions; hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Discussion

As mentioned previously, reports suggest that the current health crisis could be contributing to a rise in loneliness (Cigna, 2020; Ducharme, 2020; SocialPro, 2020). This study was conducted before the start of the pandemic in the United States of America; however, findings regarding the efficacy of a targeted message approach aimed at helping people around lonely others to notice and potentially help/befriend people who might be lonely may be highly relevant and timely as communities continue to reopen following mandated stay-at-home-orders. Baseline questions indicated that participants exposed to the decide message were more likely to report increased intentions of helping. Those in the decide condition were significantly more likely to believe that the information was effective in making them more likely to notice and reach out to lonely individuals as compared to the control and no message conditions. By providing them with key information on loneliness as well as tangible steps on how to reach out, this may help individuals to feel prepared and more competent to engage in helping behavior toward loneliness, such as noticing others or actually engaging in the behavior of reaching out.

In addition, those in the decide group also were more likely to consider speaking to lonely people, feeling as though it was their responsibility to help, and reported knowing what steps to take to reach out than participants in the no message and notice conditions. It is interesting to note that, for items such as consideration of speaking or feeling responsible, the decide message was significantly more effective than the assume responsibility message, indicating that participants were potentially moved along the continuum, farther than those who received the message specifically targeting those behaviors. Because the decide message contained specific strategies on how to reach out, it may have increased knowledge and responsibility, as well as feelings of confidence in actually helping, something that just raising the issue of loneliness and the importance of noticing lonely individuals may have failed to do.

Participants in the decide condition also were significantly more likely than those not exposed to a message to report being likely to reach out, feeling more prepared to help other lonely individuals, and acting the next time they saw someone who was lonely. Because the decide condition listed concrete actions on ways to reach out, such a message appears to be effective, at least in the short term, with regard to increasing helping behavior. Participants were asked to what degree they identified with lonely individuals. Those who could relate to lonely others were significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the intervention and toward future likelihood of helping others. Future studies may benefit from having participants think about their own experiences with being lonely to increase likelihood of future helping.

In addition to examining likelihood of future helping and favorability towards the messages, different facets of helping behavior also were assessed during the one-week follow-up. Participants in the assume responsibility and decide conditions were significantly more likely to report being aware of lonely individuals than those in the control condition. The decide message was more effective than even the notice message, which was specifically tailored to increase awareness towards lonely individuals. Because the no message condition was not significantly different than the assume responsibility or decide messages, individuals may be responding differently to the message. For example, not having a message regarding loneliness may make the individual reflect on their own experiences of being lonely, whereas the control message may result in individuals just focusing on facts regarding loneliness and a less sympathetic experience, which may result in them not engaging in such behaviors.

Although a significant difference emerged for awareness of lonely individuals, there was no significant difference in consideration of helping or actual helping behavior based on message type in the follow-up. It appears that participants are being moved in the right direction, but may need more long-term exposure to have a greater influence on their behaviors. The finding that the assume responsibility and decide messages were significantly more likely to increase awareness, yet the notice message did not, may be the result of the extremeness of the messages themselves, as compared to the participants’ original attitudes. The social judgement theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1967), as well as the “door-in-face” technique (Cialdini et al., 1975) and stage-of-change models may serve to help explain the findings of the current study.

Social judgement theory

There are three different position areas that messages can fall within: latitudes of acceptance, non-commitment, or rejection. Latitudes of acceptance are viewpoints or messages that are similar to the individual’s original opinions; these are things that the individual currently believes. In contrast, viewpoints that fall within the latitude of rejection are too different from the participants’ original views that they are not even considered. As a result, messages within the latitudes of acceptance and rejection tend to not be very persuasive – if the participant agrees with the message, there is little room to change his or her thoughts and behavior; if the message is too different, the participant is likely to not entertain the message. Between the latitudes of acceptance and rejection, however, is the latitude of non-commitment. Messages within this latitude tend to conflict somewhat with the individual’s opinions, but are not so different as to be automatically rejected. The social judgment theory asserts that within this latitude of non-commitment, messages that are more extreme will be more persuasive, and will result in greater attitude and behavior change. It is possible that, with regard to making individuals more aware of lonely individuals around them, the notice message may have fallen more so within participants’ latitude of acceptance, and therefore did not produce a significant change.

In contrast, because messages like that of assume responsibility or decide to help asked participants to invest more of their time and energy, it is possible that they may have fallen within the participants’ non-commitment latitudes. This may have resulted in greater behavior change, which may help to explain why the decide message was particularly effective, as it was the more extreme message of the two. Were participants asked to engage in even more extreme behaviors, such as inviting a lonely individual to their house, giving them their phone number, or other behaviors that involved significantly more investment, this would have likely resulted in no behavior or attitude change, and may have caused participants to reject the message altogether. Because the assume responsibility or decide messages are what would likely be considered reasonable requests, and may still be slightly more extreme (in that individuals may not necessarily want to engage in those behaviors), participants may be more likely to change their attitudes to reflect this, resulting in a shift towards being more aware of lonely individuals.

“Door-in-face” technique

Such results can also be explained by a compliance strategy called the “door-in-the-face” technique (Cialdini et al., 1975). After being asked to fulfill a large request likely to be declined, individuals may subsequently be more likely to agree to a smaller request. Because working to assume responsibility for helping or encourage helping behavior could be perhaps more extreme, participants may be more likely to engage in the less extreme behavior, which in this case would be noticing lonely others. If message extremeness and the door-in-the-face technique are indeed the case, repeating the message to participants in the subsequent week would likely have a continuing effect on behavior change, as they may be more sympathetic towards lonely individuals from the start. This position could help them continue to move towards the desired behaviors of consideration of helping and actual helping. Initially, it was considered that to increase helping behavior, the individual’s unique stage of change would need to be targeted.

Stage-of-change

Many behavior change models, specifically within fields of health psychology, utilize this specific stage-of-change focus to influence behaviors. Such models focus on behaviors that may be more difficult to change and require more involvement. The results of the current study show that for less intensive behavior change, an individual’s specific base stage may not need to be directly targeted. Individuals exposed to the notice condition were not more likely to report noticing other individuals at follow-up; however, those in the assume responsibility and decide conditions were. While stage-of-change models may be more appropriate for extreme behavior changes, presenting participants with messages targeting the final goal (e.g., reaching out to) may be enough to start moving in the direction of the desired behavior.

Limitations and future research

This study utilized messages to assess which was most effective in increasing befriending. Participants were presented with the message one time. To further increase exposure to the message, presentation of such messages more than once may be particularly beneficial to keep individuals moving along the continuum. The first-time participants are exposed to the message, it may make them more aware of lonely others; if they read the message again at a later time, it may increase their feelings of responsibility, and even later, result in helping behaviors. In addition, participants were not particularly diverse; thus, utilizing a more diverse sample could lead to increased generalizability. Such results also have limited generalizability to the current population. College students, as a whole, tend to experience greater levels of loneliness due to the transition of starting school and developing new relationships (Ames et al., 2011).

With respect to the intervention messages, manipulation check questions were not asked to gauge comprehension of the message content. A pre-test was conducted to ascertain how long it might take students to briskly read the message and then provide details about the message content; it took students in the pre-test approximately 30 seconds to briskly read and provide accurate details about the message. Although we did time how long participants in the main study spent on the message (and removed participants who spent less than 30 seconds reading the message), similar questions regarding message detail were not asked in the main study. Future research using a message approach would benefit from including questions to check attention to and comprehension of the message content. An additional consideration for future research may involve how the intervention messages were developed and provided to participants. In the current study we used Latané and Darley’s model to frame the messages with each message building on the next. Because the steps to helping do not occur in isolation, but rather as a process or sequence of events, we developed the messages to target such helping behavior following the outlined sequence. Further, we purposefully created the messages to build off of one another to test if including all of the relevant steps to helping (i.e., the decide message) would be more effective than just discussing part of the steps (i.e., noticing). Without knowing what level of helping a participant may have been at prior to the study (e.g., whether they already would recognize lonely people, accept responsibility for helping, and/or have an idea of what to do to help), it was necessary to build the messages as a progression. However, developing the messages in this way may have created a potential confounding effect in that we were not able to test the steps/messages separately from one another. Future research might consider assessing where participants are at in relation to the helping process and then tailor a message to their specific situation.

Finally, future research should work to identify potential barriers to helping when noticing lonely others, considering reaching out, or actually reaching out. One assumption of the current work was that it is possible to train individuals to identify lonely people; however, loneliness can be subjective. Although we agree with the assertion of the subjective nature of loneliness, an important first step in reaching out is to notice the lonely individual. Although it might not be possible to notice everyone who is lonely and also possible to misidentify someone who is not lonely, it is important to be aware of the common signs of loneliness (e.g., social isolation, feelings of disconnected relationships, and/or negative affect; Cacioppo et al., 2015). Being aware might then make it possible to train individuals to recognize common signs of loneliness and how to engage with lonely individuals. Providing information about these signs would be an important step in the helping process, and future research should continue to explore ways to increase the likelihood that people will notice (and befriend) lonely individuals. Further, it is possible that befrienders may not engage in helping behaviors because they are not sure if the individual is lonely and may not want it to be awkward, or may experience negative reactions from their peers. It is important to further identify and address common reasons why individuals choose not to reach out so that messages can be created to address those obstacles to increase helping behavior.

Implications of the current research

Few studies have approached loneliness reduction from the perspective of people around the lonely individual, and methodology that has utilized this has focused on older adults. To our knowledge, the current research is not only the first study to examine befriending behaviors towards lonely others in a college sample, but also to examine the efficacy of messages to encourage individual involvement, rather than volunteer sign up through an external agency. Such an intervention has a number of advantages, as it can be applied to more everyday situations to increase helping towards lonely individuals, rather than signing up to participate in a program which may be more time intensive. The current work also demonstrates the unique application of Latanaé and Darley’s (1970) model, showing that such a model can work well in providing a foundation for non-emergency social helping situations, such as that of loneliness.

It was found that messages advocating befriending others show promise in increasing subsequent helping behaviors toward lonely individuals. Participants who were given all relevant information needed to help others (i.e., those in the decide condition) tended to consistently report feeling the most prepared to help, but also were more likely to report helping behaviors – in this case, being more aware of other lonely individuals. While the current study did not find significant differences with regard to consideration or actual helping behavior one week after the intervention, had participants perhaps received a more intensive intervention, in which they were given such messages on more than one occasion, this may have resulted in greater subsequent helping behaviors. The current study shows, however, that arming individuals with knowledge of a particular issue, as well as providing specific steps may elicit desired helping behaviors.

While the current study largely focused on people noticing and reaching out to lonely others they may not know, findings also may be applied within the context of close relationships (e.g., noticing and deciding to help friends and family who may be lonely). If increased social distancing as a result of the current health pandemic is related to people feeling lonelier than usual, then it may be reasonable to assume that many people we interact with (or will interact with; including strangers, acquaintances, friends, and family) are lonely, or at least lonelier than usual. Using information from the noticing and taking responsibility messages may help people to better recognize loneliness among those they might not know as well as among those they know and interact with already who might be lonely. This may lead to the action of reaching out through whatever approach is most appropriate given the situation and person who is experiencing loneliness (e.g., calling/texting/Zoom meeting versus arranging time to meet in-person). Overall, the current work shows that it might be advantageous to approach loneliness from the perspective of those around lonely individuals. Being aware and reaching out may serve to decrease loneliness at a time when people are lonelier than ever before.

Appendix 1: Intervention and control messages

Noticing loneliness

Loneliness is a common condition in today’s world. However, it doesn’t just strike older adults – it is also very common among college students. For example, individuals under the age of 25 have been found to have some of the highest rates of loneliness. This may be due in part to the transition to college life. Students may have to leave their family and high school friends and move to a new environment where they may not know many individuals and have to make new friends. Additionally, during this time many young adults are also trying to learn and grow as a person, which can also result in feelings of loneliness.

A person who is lonely may have several friends, or may be surrounded by a group of people and still feel lonely. This is because loneliness doesn’t depend on the number of friendships a person has, but rather their quality. For example, a person might feel lonely if they feel like they don’t have anyone to talk to, if they aren’t as close to others or don’t have as many meaningful connections with others as they would like. Because of this, loneliness can be a very subjective experience – one individual may be lonely in one situation, whereas another may be perfectly content with their current relationships.

Although loneliness is a common experience and happens to many college students, it is still marked by a number of negative feelings. A person who is lonely may not even say that they are feeling that way, but may instead keep those negative feelings to themselves, rather than reach out and try to talk to someone about them. Because of this, it is especially important that you are aware of the issue of loneliness and pay special attention to those around you, so that you are able to notice if someone near you may be lonely.

Assuming responsibility

Loneliness is a common condition in today’s world, especially among college students. For example, individuals under the age of 25 have some of the highest rates of loneliness. This may be due in part to the transition to college life. Students may have to leave their family and high school friends and move to a new environment where they may not know many individuals, which can result in feelings of loneliness.

Although loneliness is a common experience, it is still marked by a number of negative feelings. A person who is lonely may not even say that they are feeling that way, but may instead keep those negative feelings to themselves, rather than reach out and try to talk to someone about them. Because of this, it is especially important that you are aware of the issue of loneliness and notice individuals around you that may be lonely.

Although loneliness is a common problem, it does provide a unique opportunity to reach out and help others. If you notice or think that someone may be feeling lonely, you have the potential to make a big difference in their day by intervening to help them. By reaching out to help, you may not only help to make the person feel less lonely; you may also feel better about yourself because you tried to do something nice to help another individual. You may even have the opportunity to make a new friend. If you are concerned with the welfare of others, reaching out to those who are lonely is a great way to make a difference and to do the right thing. If people did the right thing and made an effort to reach out to those in need, the world would be a much less lonely place.

Deciding to help

Loneliness is a common condition, especially among college students, with individuals 25 and under having some of the highest rates. This may be due in part to the transition to college—students may leave their family and high school friends, moving to a new environment where they may not know many individuals, resulting in feelings of loneliness. A lonely person may not even say that they are feeling that way, but may instead keep those negative feelings to themselves, rather than try to talk to someone about them. Because of this, it is especially important that you are aware of the issue and notice individuals around you that may be lonely.

Although loneliness is a common problem, it does provide a unique opportunity to reach out and help others. If you notice someone who may be lonely, you have the potential to make a big difference by intervening to help. In doing so, you may not only make them feel less lonely; you may also feel better about yourself because you tried to do something nice. If you are concerned with others’ welfare, reaching out to those who are lonely is a great way to make a difference and to do the right thing. If people made an effort to reach out to lonely individuals, the world would be a much less lonely place.

There are many ways to reach out to a person who might be feeling lonely. For example, you could strike up a conversation and try to get to know them, give them a compliment, or even ask a question. Reaching out doesn’t even have to be a big investment - even saying something as simple as “Hello,” smiling, or acknowledging the individual in some way can make a big impact, and can help to give the lonely individual a sense of belonging.

Control group message

Control group

(No message)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Whitney K. Whitaker

Notes

Author Biographies

Robin Besse: is a research analyst in the Office of Institutional Research and Analysis at north Dakota State University in Fargo, ND. Her research interests include various aspects of social psychology including loneliness and health-related behaviors.

Whitney K. Whitaker: is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Fort Hays State University in Hays, KS. Her research interests include various aspects of social psychology, including the study of loneliness, forgiveness, and mindfulness.

Laura A. Brannon: is a Full-time Professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Kansas Stare University in Manhattan, KS. Her research interests include social psychology, including persuasion, health, and positive psychology.

References

Ames

M. E.

Pratt

M. W.

Pancer

S. M.

Wintre

M. G.

Polivy

Birnie-Lefcovitch

Adams

(2011). The moderating effects of attachment style on students’ experience of a transition to university group facilitation program. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du Comportement, 43(1), 1–12.

Balaam

M. C.

(2015). A concept analysis of befriending. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(1), 24–34.

Beam

C. R.

Kim

A. J.

(2020). Psychological sequelae of social isolation and loneliness might be a larger problem in young adults than older adults. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), 58–60.

Cacioppo

Grippo

A. J.

London

Goossens

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2015). Loneliness clinical import and interventions. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(2), 238–249.

Cattan

Kime

Bagnall

A. M.

(2011). The use of telephone befriending in low level support for socially isolated older people: An evaluation. Health & Social Care in the Community, 19(2), 198–206.

Cialdini

R. B.

Vincent

J. E.

Lewis

S. K.

Catalan

Wheeler

Darby

B. L.

(1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 206–215.

Cigna. (2020, January). Cigna takes action to combat the rise of loneliness and improve mental wellness in America . https://www.cigna.com/newsroom/news-releases/2020/cigna-takes-action-to-combat-the-rise-of-loneliness-and-improve-mental-wellness-in-america

Ducharme

(2020, May 8). COVID-19 is making America’s loneliness epidemic even worse. Time. https://time.com/5833681/loneliness-covid-19/

Franzi

S. L.

(2011). Psychology: A Discovery Experience (1st ed.). Cengage Learning.

10.

Heinrich

L. M.

Gullone

(2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6), 695–718.

11.

Latané

Darley

J. M.

(1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Meredith Corporation.

12.

Laursen

Hartl

A. C.

(2013). Understanding loneliness during adolescence: Developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1261–1268.

13.

Loades

M. E.

Chatburn

Higson-Sweeney

Reynolds

Shafran

Brigden

Linney

Niamh McManus

Borwick

Crawley

(2020). Rapid systematic review: The impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 59(11), 1218–1239.e3.

14.

Masi

C. M.

Chen

H. Y.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2011). A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 15(3), 219–266.

15.

Moeller

R. W.

Seehuus

(2019). Loneliness as a mediator for college students' social skills and experiences of depression and anxiety. Journal of Adolescence, 73, 1–13.

16.

Mulvihill

(2011). Personalized befriending support for older people. Quality in Ageing & Older Adults, 12(3), 180–183.

17.

Nicolaisen

Thorsen

(2017). What are friends for? Friendships and loneliness over the lifespan – From 18 to 79 years. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 84(2), 126–158.

18.

Peplau

L. A.

Perlman

(1982). Perspectives on loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy (pp. 1–18). Wiley-Interscience.

19.

Qualter

Vanhalst

Harris

Van Roekel

Lodder

Bangee

Maes

Verhagen

(2015). Loneliness across the life span. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(2), 250–264.

20.

Richardson

Elliot

Roberts

(2017). Relationship between loneliness and mental health in students. Journal of Public Mental Health, 16(2), 48–54.

21.

Rönkä

A. R.

Rautio

Koiranen

Sunnari

Taanila

(2014). Experience of loneliness among adolescent girls and boys: Northern Finland birth cohort 1986 study. Journal of Youth Studies, 17(2), 183–203.

22.

Sherif

C. W.

(1967). Attitudes as the individual’s own categories: The social judgment approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement and change (pp.105–139). Wiley.

23.

SocialPro. (2020, April). Loneliness and anxiety during lockdown . https://socialpronow.com/loneliness-corona/

24.

Tsai

F. F.

Reis

H. T.

(2009). Perceptions by and of lonely people in social networks. Personal Relationships, 16(2), 221–238.

25.

Torales

O’Higgins

Castaldelli-Maia

J. M.

Ventriglio

(2020). The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 6(4), 317–320.

26.

Tull

M. T.

Edmonds

K. A.

Scamaldo

Richmond

J. R.

Rose

J. P.

Gratz

K. L.

(2020). Psychological outcomes associated with stay-at-home orders and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on daily life. Psychiatry Research, 289, 113098.

27.

Windle

Francis

Coomber

(2011). Preventing loneliness and social isolation: Interventions and outcomes. Social Care Institute for Excellence.

Loneliness Among College Students: The Influence of Targeted Messages on Befriending

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Befriending interventions

Helping behavior

Summary of the current study

Method

Participants

Materials and measures

Likelihood of helping

Intervention messages

Dependent measures

Procedure

Results

Analyses regarding information collected at baseline (n = 316)

Baseline attitudes toward the intervention techniques

Identification with lonely individuals

Preferred method of reaching out

Analyses regarding information collected at follow-up (n = 156)

Hypothesis 1 2

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 3

Discussion

Social judgement theory

“Door-in-face” technique

Stage-of-change

Limitations and future research

Implications of the current research

Appendix 1: Intervention and control messages

Noticing loneliness

Assuming responsibility

Deciding to help

Control group message

Control group

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Hypothesis 1²