Loneliness and Global Cognitive Functioning: A Study of Racially and Ethnically Diverse Older U.S. Adults
David Camacho, Maria P. Aranda, M. Cary Reid, Elaine R Wethington- Psychiatry and Mental health
- Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
- Geriatrics and Gerontology
- Neurology (clinical)
- Developmental Neuroscience
- Health Policy
- Epidemiology
Abstract
Background
Few studies have examined the association of loneliness and cognitive functioning in the U.S., and these rarely assessed whether this relationship varied by race. We assessed this association in a large sample of U.S. Black, Latino, and White adults (ages≥50).
Method
We analyzed Wave 3 of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (N = 2,334). We examined loneliness via one item from the CES‐D (“Direct”) and the Felt Loneliness Measure (NFLM; “Indirect”), and cognitive functioning via the Chicago Cognitive Functioning Measure (CCFM; higher scores indicated better functioning). We used weighted generalized linear models to examine the main and interactive effects of loneliness (direct and indirect in separate models) and race on CCFM scores. We adjusted for: sociodemographic and other salient factors (e.g., chronic disease, depressive symptoms, living alone).
Result
Mean age was 67 years, 53.5% were female, 11.5% were Black and 8.1% Latino. 42% of sample was lonely on at least one measure; 29% (direct) and 30% (indirect). The relationship between loneliness measures was significant, X2 (1, N = 2,344) = 594.64, p = .001. However, only 40% of lonely individuals were identified as lonely on both direct and indirect assessments. Direct: loneliness was inversely (β̂ = ‐.291, p = .013) associated with CCFM scores and this association did not vary by race. Indirect: loneliness was positively associated (β̂ = 1.504, p = .001) with better CCFM scores for Latinos only.
Conclusion
Loneliness appears to be an important predictor of cognitive functioning. However, the association of loneliness and cognitive functioning may vary as a function of measurement and race. Further research is needed, particularly to understand the counterintuitive finding for Latinos. For example, future research should explore how different measures of loneliness (direct vs. indirect), and dimensions of loneliness (social, emotional, existential, chronicity), relate to global and individual cognitive domains. Also, research is needed to explore how diversity within groups (nativity, acculturation, migratory status), contextual (established vs. new destination states), and cultural factors (stigma, beliefs, coping) influence cross‐sectional and longitudinal relationships between loneliness and cognitive functioning. Finally, findings also support the need for research on interventions to prevent cognitive decline targeting loneliness.