Social isolation

Social isolation refers to a lack of contact with society for members of social species. There may be many causes and individuals in numerous generally social species are isolated at times: it need not be a pathological condition. In human society, in those cases where it is viewed as a pathology, there are various viewpoints on how to address it.

Objective vs. Perceived

For humans what is to be addressed is seldom physical isolation, so a distinction between objective isolation with an absolute lack of interaction with others, e.g. due to distance, and a qualitative lack of interaction is called for.

Although objective social isolation can affect perceived social isolation (loneliness), it is perceived isolation that is more closely related to the quality than quantity of social interactions (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2009). This is in part because loneliness is influenced by factors unrelated to objective isolation, including genetics, childhood environment, cultural norms, social needs, physical disabilities, and discrepancies between actual and desired relationships. Accordingly, perceived social isolation predicts various outcomes above and beyond what is predicted by objective isolation (see "Loneliness"). Research by Cole and colleagues showed that perceived social isolation is associated with gene expression—specifically, the under-expression of genes bearing anti-inflammatory glucocorticoid response elements and over-expression of genes bearing response elements for pro-inflammatory NF-κB/Rel transcription factors. This finding is paralleled by decreased lymphocyte sensitivity to physiological regulation by the hypothalamic pituitary adrenocortical (HPA) axis in lonely individuals, which together with evidence of increased activity of the HPA axis, suggests the development of glucocorticoid resistance in chronically lonely individuals.^{[citation needed]}

Perspectives

According to James House, when it comes to physical illness, "The magnitude of risk associated with social isolation is comparable with that of cigarette smoking and other major biomedical and psychosocial risk factors. However, our understanding of how and why social isolation is risky for health—or conversely—how and why social ties and relationships are protective of health, still remains quite limited."

The research of Brummett shows that social isolation is unrelated to a wide range of measures of demographic factors, disease severity, physical functioning, and psychological distress. Hence, such factors cannot account for or explain the substantial deleterious effects of social isolation.

However, they also show that isolated individuals report fewer interactions with others, fewer sources of psychological/emotional and instrumental support, and lower levels of religious activity. The obvious question is whether adjusting for one or more of these factors reduces the association of social relationships/isolation with health, and which factors constitute the active ingredient in social isolation producing its deleterious effects on health.

A common sense notion frequently expressed is that social relationships beneficially affect health, not only because of their supportiveness, but also because of the social control that others exercise over a person, especially by encouraging health-promoting behaviors such as adequate sleep, diet, exercise, and compliance with medical regimens or by discouraging health-damaging behaviors such as smoking, excessive eating, alcohol consumption, or drug abuse.

Another hypothesis is that social ties link people with diffuse social networks that facilitate access to a wide range of resources supportive of health, such as medical referral networks, access to others dealing with similar problems, or opportunities to acquire needed resources via jobs, shopping, or financial institutions. These effects are different from support in that they are less a function of the nature of immediate social ties but rather of the ties these immediate ties provide to other people.

Yet another hypothesis proposed by Cacioppo and colleagues is that the isolation of a member of social species has deleterious biological effects. In a 2009 review, Cacioppo and Hawkley noted that the health, life, and genetic legacy of members of social species are threatened when they find themselves on the social perimeter. For instance, social isolation decreases lifespan in the fruit fly; promotes obesity and Type 2 diabetes in mice; exacerbates infarct size and edema and decreases post-stroke survival rate following experimentally induced stroke in mice; promotes activation of the sympatho-adrenomedullary response to an acute immobilization or cold stressor in rats; delays the effects of exercise on adult neurogenesis in rats; decreases open field activity, increases basal cortisol concentrations, and decreases lymphocyte proliferation to mitogens in pigs; increases the 24 hr urinary catecholamines levels and evidence of oxidative stress in the aortic arch of rabbits; and decreases the expression of genes regulating glucocorticoid response in the frontal cortex of piglets. Humans, born to the longest period of abject dependency of any species and dependent on conspecifics across the lifespan to survive and prosper, do not fare well, either, whether they live solitary lives or they simply perceive they live in relative isolation.

Technology as a factor

As a mitigator

With the advent of online social networking communities, there are increasing options. Chat rooms, message boards, and other types of communities are now meeting the need for those who would rather stay home alone to do so yet still develop communities of online friends. However, virtual friends are not adequate substitutes for real-world friends, and research suggests that individuals who substitute virtual for real friends become lonelier and more depressive.^{[citation needed]}

As an aggravator

Whether new technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones lead to social isolation is a contested topic among sociologists.

Some argue that new technologies have contributed to a trend towards social isolation in America by replacing local, strong social ties with weaker relationships. Early studies of the internet found that internet use negatively affected interaction with strong social ties; however, more recent studies have not produced such results. Another concern is that these technologies make users more inclined to stay at home and miss out on socializing with neighbors and visiting public places such as parks.

Others believe that these technologies do not lead to social isolation, and may in fact increase interpersonal communication by making it easier to keep in touch with friends and family. A 2009 Pew Research Center report on social isolation and new technologies found that Internet use was associated with larger “core” social networks—strong ties with whom one can discuss important matters. The study also found that internet users are just as likely to know their neighbors and visit public spaces as non-internet users.

See also

• Emotional isolation
• Loneliness
• Solitude
• Stigma management

Further reading

• Cacioppo, J. T.; Hawkley, L. C. (2009). "Perceived social isolation and cognition". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (10): 447–454. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.06.005. 
• Cole, S. W.; Hawkley, L. C.; Arevalo, J. M.; Sung, C. Y.; Rose, R. M.; Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). "Social regulation of gene expression in human leukocytes". Genome Biology 8 (9): R189. doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-9-r189. PMC 2375027. PMID 17854483. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2375027. 
• Elkin, Frederick (1960). The Child and Society: The Process of Socialization. New York: Random House.