Syracuse University, Department of Psychology, 430 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jul;232:470-472. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.039. Epub 2018 Dec 29.
Das (2018) presents a critique of the loneliness literature in terms of design (viz., small samples and the existence of only one longitudinal study) and potentially flawed data analyses that do not take into account clustering factors such as where the participants live. With respect to loneliness, Das's analysis of two large longitudinal population studies showed neither evidence of a high prevalence nor associations with the cardiometabolic measures, thereby providing additional questions regarding the role of loneliness in the causal chain of health and well-being. If questions concerning what loneliness is and its causal role in the chain of biological, personological, social, and cultural health and well-being are not clearly elucidated, then misconceptions of the role of loneliness construct can arise. Although Das indicates that differences in the assessment of loneliness may contribute to the failure to replicate associations, other individual differences and methodological factors may confound interpretation of the causal role of loneliness; these points warrant further comment, which is the focus of this commentary.
Das（2018）从设计（即小样本和只有一项纵向研究）和潜在有缺陷的数据分析方面对孤独文献提出了批评，这些分析没有考虑到参与者居住地点等聚类因素。关于孤独，Das 对两项大型纵向人群研究的分析既没有表明高患病率的证据，也没有与心血管代谢指标相关，因此对孤独在健康和幸福的因果链中的作用提出了更多问题。如果没有清楚地阐明孤独是什么以及它在生物、人格、社会和文化健康和幸福的因果链中的因果作用，那么对孤独结构作用的误解就可能出现。尽管 Das 指出孤独感评估方面的差异可能导致无法复制相关性，但其他个体差异和方法学因素可能会混淆对孤独感因果作用的解释；这些观点值得进一步讨论，这也是本评论的重点。
