We’ve all felt lonely at some point in our lives. It’s a human experience as universal as happiness, sadness or even hunger. But there’s been a growing trend of studies and other evidence suggesting that Americans, and people in general, are feeling more lonely than ever.

It’s easy to blame technology and the way our increasingly online lives have further isolated us from “real” human interactions. The Internet once held seemingly limitless promise for bringing us together but seems to be doing just the opposite.

Except that’s apparently not true at all. A major study from Cigna on loneliness found that feelings of isolation and loneliness are on the rise amongst Americans but the numbers are nearly identical amongst those who use social media and those who don’t. Perhaps more importantly, the study found five common traits amongst those who don’t feel lonely.


At the end the day, it appears our loneliness, or personal fulfillment has less to do with how much time we spend online versus how we are choosing to invest the rest of our time in personal relationships, physical health and meaningful work. The average “loneliness score” was only slightly different (43.5) than those who never use social media (41.7).

For the study, Cigna surveyed more than 20,000 Americans and found that 46 percent always feel alone and 47 percent feel “left out.” Nearly as many (43 percent) described themselves as being “isolated from others.”

“We’re seeing a lack of human connection, which ultimately leads to a lack of vitality – or a disconnect between mind and body,” said David M. Cordani, president and chief executive officer of Cigna. “We must change this trend by reframing the conversation to be about ‘mental wellness’ and ‘vitality’ to speak to our mental-physical connection. When the mind and body are treated as one, we see powerful results.”

Related: CEOs from nearly 200 companies say shareholder value is no longer their top priority

So, what is driving this increasing feeling of isolation? Cigna’s results suggest that we might find more meaningful answers by exploring the habits of people who don’t feel lonely. That’s because there is a clear, unified set of behaviors that seem to result in greater feelings of happiness, content, and community. From the study:

Relationships: People who engage in frequent meaningful in-person interactions have much lower loneliness scores and report better health than those who rarely interact with others face-to-face.

Sleep: Those who say they sleep just the right amount have lower loneliness scores, falling four points behind those who sleep less than desired and 7.3 points behind those who sleep more than desired. They are significantly less likely to feel as though they lack companionship (37 percent vs. 62 percent of those who oversleep) and are significantly more likely to feel like they have someone they can turn to (85 percent vs. 71 percent).

Spending time with family: Those who spend more time than desired with their family and those who spend less time than desired are on par with one another when it comes to experiencing feelings of loneliness. Those who report spending too much time with family stand out as being more likely than those who don’t to say that they feel as though they are part of a group of friends (73 percent vs. 64 percent) and they can find companionship when they need it (74 percent vs. 67 percent).

Physical activity: People who say they get just the right amount of exercise are considerably less likely to be lonely. The loneliness score of those who exercise more than desired increases by 3.5 points, while a similar uptick is seen for those who exercise less than desired (3.7 points). Those who exercise more than desired and those exercising for just the right amount are on par when it comes to feeling as though they are part of a group of friends (79 percent, each), have a lot in common with others (75 percent of those who exercise more vs. 79 percent who exercise just right), and can find companionship when they want it (76 percent vs. 80 percent).

Meaningful and manageable worklife: Those who say they work just the right amount are least likely to be lonely – the loneliness score of those who work more than desired increases by just over three points, while those who work less than desired showed a 6-point increase in loneliness. Not surprisingly, those who report working less than desired are less likely to report having feelings associated with being less lonely (e.g., feeling outgoing and friendly, there are people you can talk to, etc.), compared to those who work more than desired.

“These results clearly point to the benefits meaningful in-person connections can have on loneliness, including those in the workplace and the one that takes place in your doctor’s office as a part of the annual checkup,” said Douglas Nemecek, M.D., chief medical officer for Behavioral Health at Cigna. “While one solution won’t stop this growing public health issue, we’ve started to make changes to our business to help our clients and others to tackle loneliness and realize their vitality.”

  • Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it
    Photo credit: Irina Marwan/Moment via Getty Images From empty pills to homeopathy to sham surgery, placebos have powerful effects on the body.

    The first time the placebo effect really got under my skin was when I read that roughly one-third of people with irritable bowel syndrome improve on placebo treatments alone. Usually this statistic is presented as a fascinating quirk of medicine. My reaction was anger.

    Humanity possesses an extremely effective treatment, with essentially zero side effects – and patients need someone else’s permission to use it.

    The placebo effect refers to the improvements in symptoms that patients experience after they’re given an inert treatment like a sugar pill. Driven by expectation, context and social cues rather than pharmacology, the placebo effect is often dismissed as all in the mind. But decades of research have shown it is anything but imaginary.

    Placebo treatments can trigger measurable changes in the brain, immune system and hormone function. In studies on pain, placebos cause the brain to release endorphins, the body’s natural opioids. In Parkinson’s disease, placebo injections increase dopamine activity in the brain. The placebo effect isn’t magic. It’s biology.

    Having spent nearly a quarter-century teaching evolutionary medicine, I’ve come to see placebos not as curiosities of clinical trials but as windows into how human biology responds to social signals. And it’s that relationship that is exactly what makes the placebo effect unsettling.

    Medicine works, even when it isn’t medicine

    The placebo effect is so reliable that researchers must account for it in nearly every clinical trial.

    When testing a new drug, scientists compare its effects to what patients experience on a placebo treatment like sugar pills, saline injections or sham surgery. If the drug doesn’t outperform the placebo, it rarely reaches the public. Placebo responses are common and powerful enough to rival active treatments.

    Even surgery isn’t immune to the placebo effect. In several well-documented studies of knee procedures, patients who received sham operations – incisions without the full surgical repair – improved almost as much as those who received the real procedure.

    Clinician in scrubs and gloves holding wrist of patient lying on a hospital bed
    The experience of going under the knife can itself be healing. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Clearly something real is happening inside the body. But the strangest part of the placebo effect is not that it works. It’s what makes it work.

    The prescription of belief

    Placebo treatments tend to be more effective when delivered by credible authorities. Pills work better when prescribed by doctors wearing white coats. Expensive pills outperform cheap ones. Injections produce stronger responses than tablets.

    Some researchers have even removed the deception from placebo experiments entirely. In open-label placebo studies, patients are directly told they are receiving a placebo; and yet many still report significant improvement.

    But look more closely at how these studies are run. Patients are not simply handed a sugar pill and sent home. They receive an explanation from a clinician, in a medical setting, within a structured ritual of care: a context that may be doing much of the biological work.

    Even when the deception disappears, the social scaffolding remains. The permission to heal is still being granted by someone else.

    The placebo effect extends beyond the patient

    The placebo effect is often framed as something happening inside an individual. But it does not operate in isolation.

    Consider what happens in veterinary medicine. Dogs and cats cannot believe a treatment they’re given will work; they have no concept of receiving medication. Yet when owners and vets believe an animal is being treated, they consistently report improvements in pain and mobility that medical tests do not confirm.

    In one study of dogs with osteoarthritis, owners reported improvement roughly 57% of the time for animals receiving only a placebo.

    Dog resting head against person's arm while vet inspects a front leg
    Is Fido feeling better, or is the placebo effect working on you? Chalabala/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The animals themselves may not have improved. But the humans caring for them perceived they had. The healing signal, it turns out, travels through the humans in the room.

    When healing makes things worse

    There have been times when going to the doctor made you less likely to survive. In the 19th century, mainstream medicine was built on bloodletting, purging and doses of mercury and arsenic – treatments that killed as often as they cured.

    Homeopathy emerged in the late 18th century precisely in this context. Its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, was a physician horrified by the harm the conventional medicine of his time was causing. His highly diluted versions of contemporary remedies did nothing pharmacologically. But they also did not kill people, which put them decisively ahead of the competition.

    Homeopathic patients not only survived but also reported dramatic recoveries from chronic ailments and acute infections alike. During the cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s, patients at homeopathic hospitals had lower death rates than those receiving standard care. Why was that?

    The standard cholera treatment of the era was aggressive and exhausting; for a disease that already caused massive fluid loss, doctors often prescribed further bloodletting, along with toxic purgatives such as calomel – a form of mercury – to “flush” the system. In contrast, homeopathic care involved extreme dilutions of substances in water or alcohol, effectively providing hydration and a calm, structured environment without the physiological assault.

    Death rates were lower not because homeopathy worked but because the placebo effect – combined with not poisoning patients – was more effective than the medicine of the day.

    Healing is not free

    The body needs resources to heal from injury and disease. Activating systems such as immune responses, tissue repair and inflammation at the wrong time can be dangerous.

    A full-scale immune response is metabolically expensive, with fever increasing metabolic rate by roughly 10% per degree Celsius rise in body temperature. Triggered at the wrong time, this can deplete critical energy reserves needed for immediate survival, such as escaping a predator. Furthermore, misplaced or overzealous inflammation causes collateral damage to healthy tissues, potentially leading to chronic dysfunction.

    Some researchers have proposed that placebo responses reflect a kind of biological health governor: a system that regulates when the body invests heavily in recovery. Cues from trusted individuals may be exactly the signal the body waits for before committing resources to recovery. A caregiver’s reassurance, a physician’s authority and the rituals of medicine may tell the body that conditions are finally stable enough to devote energy to healing.

    If that interpretation is correct, the placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is an ancient biological system responding to social information.

    Body under stress

    The placebo effect resembles another system people struggle with today: the stress response.

    Stress evolved to keep you alive in the face of acute danger – predators, famine, immediate physical threat. These days, this useful piece of biological engineering might fire when someone hasn’t replied to your email. The system that once saved people’s lives now makes many miserable over things that would have been unimaginable to their ancestors.

    You can talk back to the stress response, consciously reappraising the threat – in other words, reframing a looming deadline not as a catastrophe but as a manageable challenge – to help quiet it. But notice what you cannot do: You cannot simply decide to activate your placebo response. You cannot will yourself to release pain-relieving endorphins by believing hard enough in a sugar pill. For that, you still need the ritual, the white coat, the authority figure. You need someone else.

    The stress response, misfiring as it is, remains yours. The placebo response has been outsourced: not because it wasn’t always social, but because even now, people still can’t seem to access it on their own.

    The uncomfortable implication

    The placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is a feature of human biology that people have largely surrendered to whoever performs authority most convincingly.

    If belief can activate biological healing pathways, belief can also be manipulated. Charismatic figures, elaborate medical rituals and expensive treatments may produce real improvement in symptoms even when the underlying treatment is physiologically inert. That is how wellness culture works. It leverages the same social scaffolding of care to trigger the body’s internal pharmacy, regardless of whether the treatment itself does anything.

    The placebo effect is often celebrated as proof that the mind can heal the body. But I believe that may not be its most interesting lesson. It also reveals that human physiology evolved to take its cues from other people. Your brain, immune system and pain response are not isolated machines. They are deeply intertwined with social signals, expectations and trust.

    In a world filled with doctors, advertisements, wellness influencers and elaborate medical rituals, that insight is both fascinating and profoundly maddening. People are walking around with one of the most powerful healing systems ever documented locked inside them, and they can reliably access it only when someone in a position of authority gives them permission.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.
    Photo credit: CanvaA man cooks for his date at home.
    ,

    She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.

    “I am dating a dummy. But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    Alexandra Sedlak had been seeing a man for over a month and things were going well. He was thoughtful, attentive, and one day invited her over for a homemade dinner. She immediately catalogued this as a green flag.

    She was right to be touched. He had actually thought about what she would like. She’s health-conscious, so he tailored the meal to her preferences. As they sat down he proudly explained what he’d made and why.

    It was designed, he told her, for her prostate health.

    dating, relationships, viral video, humor, couples
    A visibly confused woman tries to think. Photo credit: Canva

    Sedlak asked him if he meant his prostate health.

    He confidently said no. He meant hers.

    Sedlak, an actress and filmmaker with 145K Instagram followers, shared the moment in a video posted on November 22, 2025 under her handle @alexandrasedlak. She described the progression from delight to confusion with great precision. “I am dating a dummy,” she concluded in the video. “But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    For reference: the prostate is a gland in the male reproductive system, located below the bladder. Women do not have one. A study published in PMC found that men’s knowledge of gynecologic anatomy tends to be significantly lower than women’s, which at least provides some scientific context for this particular gap running in the other direction.

    The comments were predictably delighted. One person suggested she invite him over and cook a meal focused on his ovulation health, then casually ask what part of his cycle he’s in. Another compared him to a golden retriever who should be given head scratches and told he’s a good boy.

    He is very caring. He cooked her a whole meal. The organ was wrong but the intention was right.

    For more relationship-based content, follow @alexandrasedlak on Instagram.

  • It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect
    Photo credit: Jutta Klee/fStop via Getty ImagesBabies – whether boy or girl – look to adults for care and comfort.

    Girls and boys are equally social at birth.

    This finding, based on my team’s synthesis of six decades of research, may come as a surprise. Gender differences in adults’ social sensitivity are famous. Women outperform men at recognizing faces and emotions, and they score modestly higher on measures of empathy. They are likelier to take jobs working with people, such as in teaching and health care, whereas men are likelier to choose jobs working with “things,” such as in engineering or plumbing.

    But how early do these differences emerge, and are they a matter of evolution or social learning? For years, some theorists have argued the former: that the difference is innate, built into the brain hardware of girls and boys through Darwinian selection. But this perspective relies almost exclusively on just one high-profile, yet deeply flawed, study of 102 newborns.

    Mining the neonatal research trove

    Realizing that psychologists have been studying newborns’ social orientation for decades, my team of neurobehavioral researchers and I set out to collect all the data – every published study that has compared boys’ and girls’ attention to social stimuli in the first month of life. Our goal was to better test the hypothesis of an inborn gender difference in attention to, or interest in, other people.

    Our study was a systematic review, meaning we searched through every published report indexed in both medical and psychological databases from the 1960s onward.

    We cast a wide net, looking for any research that measured newborns’ attention to or preference for human faces or voices and that reported the data separately by gender. Importantly, we did not limit our search to the terms “gender difference” or “sex difference,” since these would bias the collection by potentially excluding studies that failed to find boy-girl differences..

    As expected, we unearthed dozens of studies comparing newborn boys and girls on social perception: 40 experiments reported in 31 peer-reviewed studies and involving nearly 2,000 infants. The majority of studies measured the amount of time newborns spent looking at faces, either at a single face or comparing a baby’s preference between two faces of differing social value, such as their own mother versus a woman who was a stranger.

    Our data collection was large enough that we were able to carry out meta-analysis, which is a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. Meta-analysis essentially turns many small studies into a single large one. For studies measuring neonates’ looking time at faces, this included 667 infants, half of them boys and half of them girls.

    a blue and a red distribution curve overlap almost completely making it look mostly purple
    Newborn boys and girls are similarly attentive to faces, with the distribution of time they spend looking almost completely overlapping. Data from Karson et al. plotted using tool at sexdifference.org.

    The result was clear: nearly identical social perception between baby boys and girls. There was no significant difference between genders overall, nor was there a difference when we focused only on studies measuring babies’ gaze duration on a single face, or only on studies measuring babies’ gaze preference between two different faces.

    Our search also netted two other types of studies. One focused on a remarkable behavior: newborns’ tendency to start crying when they hear another baby cry. An early study found this “contagious crying” to be marginally more common in girls. But when we performed meta-analysis on data across nine contagious-crying experiments, including 387 infants, there was again no solid evidence for male-female difference.

    The last dataset we analyzed compared babies’ orientation to both social and inanimate objects using a newborn behavior assessment scale developed by legendary pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton. Across four studies involving 619 infants, girls did pay somewhat greater attention to the social stimuli (a human face or voice), but they also paid more attention to the inanimate stimuli (a ball or the sound of a rattle).

    In other words, girls in this test seemed a bit more attuned to every type of stimulus, perhaps due to a general maturity advantage that they hold from fetal development through puberty. But there was nothing special about their interest in people, according to the Brazelton assessment.

    Boys, too, prefer faces

    Our findings align with other well-designed studies, including one finding that 5-month-old boys and girls equally prefer looking at faces over toy cars or other objects, and another finding that 2-month-old boys actually perform better than girls at detecting faces. So taken together, current research dispels a common myth that girls are innately “hardwired” to be more social than boys in early life.

    The truth is that all babies are wired for social engagement at birth. Boys and girls are both primed to pay attention to human faces and voices, which, after all, belong to those who will keep them fed, safe and comforted.

    Despite their best intentions, most parents cannot help but stereotype their infants by gender and begin treating boys and girls differently early on. Presuming that sons are already less social is not a recipe for remedying this bias. Our research can help dispel this myth, giving every child, male or female, the best possible start for connecting with and caring about other people.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect

Well-being

Licensed therapist shares 6 signs you’re doing a lot better than you think you are

Health

Reclaiming water from contaminated brine can increase water supply and reduce environmental harm

Well-being

‘Bouncing back’ is a myth – resilience means integrating hard experiences into your life story, not ignoring them