Emotional and Social Loneliness as Differential Predictors of Positive Mental Health and Well-Being During Lockdown in Pakistan

Abstract

The COVID-19 lockdown created conditions of restricted social contact, but different forms of loneliness may not have had equivalent implications for well-being. This study examined emotional and social loneliness as differential predictors of subjective well-being and positive mental health during the COVID-19 lockdown in Pakistan. Archival lockdown-period survey data were analyzed from 413 adults aged 18–80 years (M = 28.11, SD = 8.40). Participants completed the 6-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, and a modified dichotomous version of the Mental Health Continuum–Short Form assessing endorsed indicators of emotional, social, and psychological well-being. Pearson correlations and hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, controlling for age, gender, self-rated health, family structure, self-isolation, social distancing, and going out during lockdown. Emotional loneliness was consistently and negatively associated with WHO-5 well-being and all positive mental health indicators. In controlled models, emotional loneliness significantly predicted lower WHO-5 well-being, emotional well-being, social well-being, psychological well-being, and total positive mental health. Social loneliness did not significantly predict WHO-5 well-being after covariates were controlled, but showed small positive associations with modified MHC-SF indicators after emotional loneliness was included. A supplementary robustness check showed that total loneliness significantly predicted lower WHO-5 well-being and MHC total scores, but explained less variance than the dimensional model. Findings support the value of distinguishing emotional and social loneliness during lockdown. Emotional loneliness appeared to be the more consistent loneliness-related correlate of reduced positive mental health, whereas social loneliness showed weaker and context-dependent associations. Results should be interpreted cautiously due to the cross-sectional design and modified MHC-SF response format.