Abstract
Social isolation and loneliness pose major societal challenges accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, especially for mental health. In this cohort study using accelerometry, electronic diaries and neuroimaging in a community-based sample of 317 young adults, we show that people felt affectively worse when lacking social contact, but less so when engaging in physical activity. This putative compensatory mechanism was present even at small physical activity doses and was pronounced in individuals with higher brain functional connectivity within the default mode network signaling risk for depression. Social-affective benefits of movement were higher in people showing exacerbated loneliness and were replicated throughout the pandemic. These findings extend the state of knowledge on the dynamic interplay of social contact and physical activity in daily life identifying an accessible protective strategy to mitigate the negative effects of social isolation, particularly among at-risk individuals, which comes with the potential to improve public health in the post-pandemic world.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Social isolation and loneliness increase human mortality like known health risk factors such as obesity, alcohol consumption or smoking 15 cigarettes per day1. Lack of social contact also impairs momentary affective well-being2, impacts the structural and functional integrity of emotion regulatory brain networks3,4 and is a potent risk factor for mood disorders5. Social distancing directives during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have exacerbated this public health problem and highlighted the importance of finding remedial strategies6. One promising strategy to mitigate the negative affective consequences of lack of social contact is physical activity, a known protective factor for affective well-being and mental health7 with neural mechanistic links to emotion regulatory brain regions8. However, the everyday relevance and biological basis are unknown. In this study, we hypothesized that physical activity can compensate for the negative affective effects of lacking social contact in daily life and that individuals at increased neural4 and psychological9 risk for depression benefit most from this compensatory mechanism.
Results
The physical activity of individuals (Fig. 1 and Table 1) significantly moderated the known relationship2 between momentary social isolation and decreased affective valence in everyday life (β = 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0–0.02; P = 0.020; Supplementary Table 2). Specifically, higher physical activity significantly decreased the reduction in affective well-being associated with the lack of social contact (Fig. 2a–c). According to our data, about 349 milli-g (g/1,000) physical activity across 1 h (for example, walking approximately three miles per hour) are necessary to fully compensate for the lack of affective well-being in everyday life (Supplementary Results 1). We successfully replicated this effect in the second sample we studied during the COVID-19 pandemic (β = 0.03; 95% CI = 0.02–0.04; P < 0.001; Fig. 2c, study 2; Supplementary Table 8). At the neurobiological level, individuals with higher resting-state functional connectivity within the default mode network (DMN), a risk phenotype for loneliness4 and depression10, compensated best for this momentary ‘social-affective deficit’ through physical activity (β = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.01–0.26; P = 0.029; Fig. 3b and Supplementary Table 3). Moreover, we observed similar benefits of physical activity at the between-individual level and related it to established psychological risk factors for mental health. First, participants with small social networks and high habitual physical activity levels exhibited lower trait loneliness compared to those with low levels of habitual physical activity (β = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.001–0.092, P = 0.046; Fig. 2d and Supplementary Table 4). Second, individuals with a pronounced compensatory mechanism were less likely to frequently feel lonely during the first COVID-19 lockdown (odds ratio (OR) = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.85–0.99; P = 0.021; Supplementary Table 5). Further exploratory analyses showed that offsetting the social-affective deficit with physical activity was effective even under pandemic-like constraints (curfews, closed gyms), for example, when only light physical activity (β = 0.04; 95% CI = 0–0.8; P = 0.040; Supplementary Table 6) and physical activity at home (β = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.01–0.15; P = 0.032; Supplementary Table 6) are considered.
Discussion
Our intensive e-diary and accelerometer-based longitudinal data suggest that physical activity can effectively and reproducibly compensate for the loss of affective well-being associated with lack of social contact in real life. While social contact and physical activity are well-known protective resources for mental health1,5,7, previous studies have predominantly examined these factors using questionnaires or individually in the real world2,8. Our naturalistic study extends the state of knowledge by showing a dynamic interplay of both factors impacting human affective well-being in everyday life. Our data further show that about 1 h of walking at a speed of three miles per hour can compensate for the ‘social-affective deficit’ in everyday life and that this beneficial effect even persists when physical activity is performed at lower doses and only at home. This indicates a considerable potential of physical activity to counteract the negative affective consequences of social isolation in everyday life. Importantly, the effect was larger in people at higher neural risk for affective disorders. These included people from the general population with risk-related changes in DMN brain connectivity4,10, smaller social networks11 and frequently perceived loneliness under the regulatory constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, our data not only suggest an effective and accessible strategy to mitigate the negative effects of social isolation and loneliness in everyday life, but also contribute to the identification of probable responders and enrich existing evidence-based recommendations for the preventive management of affective dysfunction in the post-pandemic world6,9.
Limitations
We captured affective valence via an established scale specifically developed and validated for investigating mood in everyday life12,13. Therefore, our study provides insights into mood changes provoked by physical activity and social interaction. However, given the ongoing discussions on mood assessments in the field, future studies should examine the effects of physical activity in the context of lacking social contact on specific emotions (for example, anxiety, anger). Moreover, although our real-life observational data have high ecological validity, they do not allow for causal inferences. In particular, our findings show correlations and the temporal directionality of effects, but we cannot rule out potential influences of undiscovered third variables. Future studies should address the causality question by incorporating experimental manipulations such as just-in-time adaptive interventions into their real-life investigations.
Conclusion
Our multimodal epidemiological cohort study shows that physical activity is reproducibly linked to better affective well-being in people lacking social contact in daily life, especially in persons at neural and psychological risk for affective disorders. These data suggest an effective and accessible strategy to mitigate the negative effects of social isolation and loneliness that can improve public health and enrich existing evidence-based recommendations for the preventive management of social isolation in the post-pandemic world.
Methods
The cohort study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines for medical research compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 version. All participants provided written informed consent for a study protocol approved by the institutional review board of Heidelberg University. Medical Faculty Mannheim (medical ethics committee II) at the Ruprecht-Karls-University in Heidelberg approved both studies (study 1: approval no. 2014-555N-MA; study 2: approval no. 2019-733N). Participants received monetary compensation for their effort. The flowchart depicts how the study size was arrived at in both the main (study 1) and the replication study (study 2); see Fig. 1.
Study population and measures
We studied a community-based cohort of 317 healthy young adults aged 18–28 years (57.09% females), recruited from September 2014 to November 2018, for 7 days during everyday life (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). We further studied a replication sample of 30 healthy adults aged 18–63 years, recruited from December 2019 to July 2022, for 6 months during everyday life during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany (Supplementary Table 7). The biological sex of participants was determined using a questionnaire.
Participants wore accelerometers on their hip (study 1) or wrist (study 2) to measure their physical activity, and repeatedly reported their real-life social contact and affective valence using smartphone-based e-diaries (Fig. 2a). Established multilevel reliability measures (Spearman–Brown14) yielded sound coefficients of ρ = 0.80 (within-individual level) and ρ = 0.94 (between-individual level) in our sample and for the two affective valence variables assessed (that is, unwell to well and content to discontent). Moreover, within and between person correlations of the two items applied yielded positive correlations (rwithin = 0.66; rbetween = 0.88), which indicates convergent validity for the affective valence assessment instrument applied. Participants additionally completed a battery of psychological questionnaires11,15, and we continuously tracked their geographical locations and situational contexts as described previously2 (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Information 1). A total of 175 participants from study 1 additionally underwent a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan after the ambulatory study week to quantify DMN connectivity (Supplementary Results 2), a neural risk marker for social isolation and depression4,10. In 76 participants from study 1, we additionally assessed individuals’ perceptions of loneliness during the ongoing first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Supplementary Results 4).
Power analysis
Because statistical power analyses of multilevel models strongly depend on a host of assumptions (for example, on random slopes, covariance structure) that cannot be drawn in the absence of the final dataset16, we estimated whether our final sample size of n = 317 was suitable to detect the expected effects referring to the most recent simulation studies17. According to these simulation studies, a sample size of n = 200 was necessary to detect the minimum detectable effect size (0.08) in a level-1 direct effect analysis given a level-1 sample size of at least 30 at a power of 80%, which provides evidence for the sufficient power of our analysis.
Data analysis
All statistical analyses were performed with SAS v.9.4. Brain imaging data were analyzed using the CONN toolbox v.19c in MATLAB v. 9.8 (R2020a). Study 1: within participants (main model), we analyzed the main and interaction effects of momentary social contact (predictor: alone versus in company) and momentary physical activity (moderator: mean of milli-g in the 60 min before an e-diary prompt) on momentary affective valence (outcome) using multilevel models with time of day, time of day squared, current location (level 1), sex, age and body mass index (level 2) as covariates. Between participants, we predicted trait loneliness (outcome) with the main and interaction terms of social network size11 (predictor) and habitual physical activity level (moderator: hours per week). In addition, we predicted the frequency of perceived loneliness during the first COVID-19 lockdown (outcome) by extracting random slopes from the multilevel interaction of social contact and physical activity on affective valence (predictor: from the main model) and fitting an ordinal logistic regression model assuming proportional odds. At the neural level, we computed DMN connectivity estimates from the participants’ resting-state fMRI data (Fig. 3) and introduced them as an additional moderator into our main model, resulting in a three-way multilevel interaction analysis. In study 2, we used the main model of study 1 to replicate the findings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (see Supplementary Information for more details).
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Figures 1, 2 and 3 have associated raw data. For the neuroimaging analysis we used a 100-region, 7-network parcellation atlas18: https://github.com/ThomasYeoLab/CBIG/tree/master/stable_projects/brain_parcellation/Schaefer2018_LocalGlobal/Parcellations/MNI.
Code availability
The custom code used for the analyses of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T. & Stephenson, D. Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 227–237 (2015).
Gan, G. et al. Neural correlates of affective benefit from real-life social contact and implications for psychiatric resilience. JAMA Psychiatry 78, 790–792 (2021).
Lam, J. A. et al. Neurobiology of loneliness: a systematic review. Neuropsychopharmacology 46, 1873–1887 (2021).
Spreng, R. N. et al. The default network of the human brain is associated with perceived social isolation. Nat. Commun. 11, 6393 (2020).
Mann, F. et al. Loneliness and the onset of new mental health problems in the general population. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 57, 2161–2178 (2022).
Chu, D. K. et al. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 395, 1973–1987 (2020).
Bull, F. C. et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 54, 1451–1462 (2020).
Reichert, M. et al. A neural mechanism for affective well-being: subgenual cingulate cortex mediates real-life effects of nonexercise activity on energy. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8934 (2020).
Escalante, E., Golden, R. L. & Mason, D. J. Social isolation and loneliness: imperatives for health care in a post-COVID world. JAMA 325, 520–521 (2021).
Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. & Ford, J. M. Default mode network activity and connectivity in psychopathology. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 8, 49–76 (2012).
Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C. & Barrett, L. F. Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 163–164 (2011).
Cloos, L., Ceulemans, E. & Kuppens, P. Development, validation, and comparison of self-report measures for positive and negative affect in intensive longitudinal research. Psychol. Assess. 35, 189–204 (2023).
Wilhelm, P. & Schoebi, D. Assessing mood in daily life. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 23, 258–267 (2007).
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. T. & Pelzer, B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman–Brown? Int. J. Public Health 58, 637–642 (2013).
Döring, N. & Bortz, J. Psychometrische Einsamkeitsforschung: Deutsche Neukonstruktion der UCLA Loneliness Scale. [Psychometric research on loneliness: a new German version of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale]. Diagnostica. 39, 224–239 (1993).
Bolger, N., Stadler, G. & Laurenceau, J. P. in Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life (eds Mehl, M. & Conner, T.) 285–301 (The Guilford Press, 2012).
Arend, M. G. & Schäfer, T. Statistical power in two-level models: a tutorial based on Monte Carlo simulation. Psychol. Methods 24, 1–19 (2019).
Schaefer, A. et al. Local-global parcellation of the human cerebral cortex from intrinsic functional connectivity MRI. Cereb. Cortex 28, 3095–3114 (2018).
Körner, A. et al. Personality assessment with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory: the 30-Item-Short-Version (NEO-FFI-30). Psychother. Psychosom. Med. Psychol. 58, 238–245 (2008).
Raine, A. & Benishay, D. The SPQ-B: a brief screening instrument for schizotypal personality disorder. J. Pers. Disord. 9, 346–355 (1995).
Spielberger, C. D., Gonzalez-Reigosa, F., Martinez-Urrutia, A., Natalicio, L. F. S. & Natalicio, D. S. The state-trait anxiety inventory. Interam. J. Psychol. 5, 145–158 (1971).
Acknowledgements
We thank all the participants for supporting our research. We also thank C. Akdeniz, B. Höchemer, E. Bilek, C. Moessnang, G. Gan, R. Ma and our research assistants for valuable support with this study. The first study was supported by the German Research Foundation through the Collaborative Research Center SFB1158, projects B04 (to H.T.) and B09 (to A.M.-L.); and the Collaborative Research Center TRR265, projects C05 (to M.R.), A04 (to H.T.) and S02 (to U.E.-P. and A.M.-L.). Additional support was received from the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg (grant no. 42-5400/136/1 to H.T. and A.M.-L., and grant no. 42-04HV.MED(16)/16/1 to A.M.-L.), and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01EF1803A to A.M.-L., H.T. and U.E.-P.). The second study was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.B. and M.R. contributed equally to the study. A.M.-L. and H.T. were co-senior authors. M.R., U.E.-P., A.M.-L. and H.T. conceived and designed the study. A.B., M.R., O.B. and A.M. acquired the data. A.B., M.R., M.G., I.T. and I.R. analyzed the data. A.B., M.R., A.M.-L. and H.T. drafted the paper. A.B., M.R., M.G., I.T., I.R., C.N., O.B., A.M., C.v.d.G., U.B., U.E.-P., A.M.-L. and H.T. participated in interpreting the data and developing further stages and the final version of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
A.M.-L. has received consultant fees from the Daimler and Benz Foundation, EPFL Brain Mind Institute, Fondation FondaMental, Hector II Foundation, Invisio, Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Lundbeck A/S, Lundbeckfonden, Lundbeck Neuroscience Foundation, Neurotorium, MedinCell, The LOOP Zürich, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Washington, the Mental Wellbeing Association and the von Behring-Röntgen Foundation; speaker fees from Ärztekammer Nordrhein, Caritas, Clarivate, the German Society for Neuroscientific Assessment, Gentner Verlag, the State Medical Association Baden-Württemberg, LWL Bochum, Northwell Health, Ruhr University Bochum, Penn State University, the Society of Biological Psychiatry, the University Prague and Vitos Klinik Rheingau; and editorial or author fees from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Servier Int. and Thieme Verlag. U.E.-P. reports consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim and speaker honorarium from Angelini Pharma. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Mental Health thanks Paul Briley, Hiroe Kikuchi and Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–8.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Benedyk, A., Reichert, M., Giurgiu, M. et al. Real-life behavioral and neural circuit markers of physical activity as a compensatory mechanism for social isolation. Nat. Mental Health 2, 337–342 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00204-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-024-00204-6
This article is cited by
-
Why loneliness is bad for your health
Nature (2024)