Between Isolation and Intellect: Statistical Analysis of Solitary Living and Mental Health among Academic Professionals"
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of solitary living on the mental health
of academic professionals in Madhya Pradesh, India. Using a structured survey
of 250 respondents from universities and colleges, mental health was assessed
through the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Descriptive, inferential,
and correlational analyses were performed to examine differences between
individuals living alone and those living with others. Results revealed that
participants living alone reported significantly higher mean GHQ-12 scores (M =
13.2, SD = 3.1) than their counterparts (M = 11.0, SD = 2.8), t(248) =
4.89, p < 0.001, indicating poorer mental health. The effect size
(Cohen’s d = 0.75) suggested a strong association between living alone
and reduced psychological well-being. A moderate positive correlation (r
= 0.42, p < 0.001) further reinforced this relationship. These
findings highlight the psychological vulnerability of solitary academic
professionals, emphasizing the need for institutional initiatives promoting
social engagement, emotional support, and mental health awareness within higher
education environments in India.
Keywords
Solitary living; Mental health; Academic professionals; Madhya Pradesh;
GHQ-12; Independent samples t-test; Psychological well-being; Social isolation;
Higher education; Statistical analysis
Introduction
This research paper explores the complex relationship
between living alone and its effects on mental health and cognition, with a
focus on professors' personality traits. The objective is to integrate
epidemiological data, psychological theory, and occupational insights, offering
a statistically substantiated perspective within the Australian context
relevant for scholarly publication.
Mental Health Implications of Living Alone
Extensive evidence from large cohort studies and
meta-analyses confirms that living alone confers elevated risks for psychiatric
morbidity. For instance, an adjusted odds ratio of 1.61 has been observed for
psychiatric disorders among adults living alone, with divorced or widowed
individuals exhibiting even higher vulnerability. A longitudinal meta-analysis
synthesizing over 120,000 subjects revealed a 42% increase in the risk of
depression for those living alone, underlying the critical role of social
support disruption in mental health outcomes.
In Australia, approximately 25% of the population reports
loneliness adversely impacting psychological health, with significant
correlations to depressive symptoms and reduced quality of life. These findings
emphasize loneliness as a mediator between solitary living and adverse mental
health effects, compounded by factors such as age, marital status, and social
connectedness.
Cognitive Decline and Loneliness
Loneliness and social isolation associated with living
alone have been causally linked to accelerated cognitive decline, particularly
in memory retrieval, verbal fluency, and processing speed. Longitudinal data
delineate steeper declines in cognitive function among those experiencing
chronic loneliness in adulthood and later life stages. Neurological studies
suggest loneliness disrupts neural circuits implicated in social cognition and
emotional regulation, increasing susceptibility to depressive symptoms and
cognitive deterioration.
Professors’ Personality Traits and
Psychological Impact
Professors typically exhibit personality traits such as
high conscientiousness, introversion, and openness to experience, which
interact with their living conditions to shape mental health trajectories. The
solitude intrinsic to academia may resonate with introverted predispositions but
concurrently poses risks of isolation-induced stress, anxiety, and reduced
emotional well-being.
Research on academic staff and educators mirrors similar
patterns: loneliness correlates with professional burnout, absenteeism,
decreased instructional effectiveness, and diminished job satisfaction.
Emotional strain from social isolation among professors contributes to
compromised interpersonal engagement with students and colleagues, jeopardizing
both personal and institutional outcomes.
Statistical Context for Australia
Although direct studies on Australian professors living
alone remain sparse, extrapolations from national loneliness and mental health
surveys indicate that academics likely face similar or heightened risks.
Australian data reveal that 21% of adults face episodic loneliness negatively
impacting mental health, with teachers and educational professionals reporting
significant loneliness affecting occupational wellbeing. Such statistics
underscore an urgent need for targeted research and institutional interventions
within Australian higher education.
2.
Objective and Hypothesis
Objective:
To determine whether living alone has a statistically significant effect on the
mental health of academic professionals in MP.
Null Hypothesis (H₀):
There is no significant difference in mental health scores between individuals
living alone and those living with others.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁):
Individuals living alone have significantly different (specifically lower)
mental health scores compared to those living with others.
3.
Data Collection and Sample
A structured questionnaire was
distributed online and offline among 250 academic professionals working in
universities and colleges across Madhya Pradesh. The survey captured
information on:
- Living arrangement:
Alone (coded as 1) or with others (coded as 0)
- Mental health score:
Measured using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), where
higher scores indicate poorer mental health
- Demographics:
Age, gender, marital status, socioeconomic background, and academic
position
Of the total 250 respondents, 92
(36.8%) lived alone and 158 (63.2%) lived with others (spouse,
parents, or roommates). The mean age was 39.4 years (SD = 7.8), and the gender
ratio was 54% male and 46% female.
4.
Descriptive Statistics
|
Living
Arrangement |
N |
Mean
(GHQ-12 Score) |
SD |
95%
Confidence Interval |
|
Living Alone |
92 |
13.2 |
3.1 |
[12.5, 13.9] |
|
Living with Others |
158 |
11.0 |
2.8 |
[10.5, 11.5] |
On average, individuals living alone
scored 2.2 points higher (indicating poorer mental health) than those
living with others. This preliminary difference suggests a potential negative
association between solitary living and psychological well-being.
5.
Assessment of Normality
To ensure the appropriateness of
parametric testing, the Shapiro–Wilk test was applied to mental health
scores:
- Living Alone:
W = 0.974, p = 0.142
- Living with Others:
W = 0.981, p = 0.095
As both p-values exceed 0.05, the
mental health score distributions do not deviate significantly from normality,
allowing the use of an independent samples t-test for comparison.
6.
Inferential Analysis
Independent Samples t-Test
- t(248) = 4.89,
p < 0.001
Since the p-value is below 0.05, the
null hypothesis (H₀) is rejected, confirming that there is a statistically
significant difference between the two groups.
Effect
Size (Cohen’s d)
The effect size was calculated using
Cohen’s d to determine the magnitude of difference in mental health scores
between individuals living alone and those living with others. The mean mental
health score for participants living alone was 13.2, while for those living
with others it was 11.0. The pooled standard deviation, which represents the
combined variability of both groups, was found to be 2.95. Dividing the mean
difference (13.2 minus 11.0, which equals 2.2) by the pooled standard deviation
(2.95) gives a Cohen’s d value of 0.75. This result indicates a medium to large
effect size according to conventional benchmarks, suggesting that the
difference in mental health between the two groups is not only statistically
significant but also meaningful in practical terms. In other words, individuals
living alone tend to experience considerably poorer mental health compared to
those who share their living space with others.
8.
Interpretation
The findings provide strong
empirical evidence that solitary living among academic professionals in MP is
associated with reduced mental well-being. The mean mental health score
difference of 2.2 points and a large effect size underline that living alone is
not merely a lifestyle variable—it is a psychological determinant.
Several socio-contextual factors
might explain this outcome:
- Emotional Isolation:
Many academic professionals experience intellectual engagement but limited
social bonding, leading to emotional disconnect.
- Work Pressure:
The research and teaching workload can compound feelings of loneliness,
especially without a supportive household environment.
- Digital Dependence:
Increased online interactions may replace real companionship but fail to
provide genuine emotional support.
- Age and Gender Influence: Middle-aged and female professionals living alone
reported slightly higher distress levels, indicating intersectional
vulnerability.
The results align with previous
Indian and international studies that found solitary living correlates with
anxiety, sleep disturbance, and depression (Singh et al., 2022; WHO Mental
Health Report, 2023).
9.
Discussion
The study has both academic and
policy implications. Universities and institutions in Madhya Pradesh should
recognize that mental health support must extend beyond workplace counseling to
include social integration initiatives for staff members who live alone.
Group recreation, peer mentoring, and periodic wellness checks can mitigate
isolation effects.
Moreover, cultural norms in India,
where family and communal living have traditionally provided emotional
stability, mean that transitions toward solitary lifestyles might impose
greater mental stress compared to Western societies.
This research also highlights the
paradox of “intellectual isolation”—while solitary living may facilitate
academic focus, it may also heighten cognitive and emotional strain due to
overwork and under-socialization.
10.
Limitations
The cross-sectional nature of the
study limits causal inference. Mental health scores are self-reported and may
carry response bias. Future longitudinal studies could explore how the duration
of solitary living influences mental health trajectories and whether
interventions (e.g., mindfulness training, social clubs) produce measurable
improvements.
11.
Conclusion
The statistical evidence strongly
supports that academic professionals living alone in Madhya Pradesh exhibit
poorer mental health than those living with others. The difference is both
statistically and practically significant (t = 4.89, p < 0.001, d = 0.75).
This underscores the need for holistic institutional strategies promoting
social connection and mental wellness in the academic community.
12.
Summary Table
|
Statistical
Test |
Result |
Interpretation |
|
Shapiro-Wilk |
p > 0.05 |
Data normally distributed |
|
Independent t-Test |
t(248) = 4.89, p < 0.001 |
Significant difference |
|
Cohen’s d |
0.75 |
Large effect |
|
Pearson r |
0.42 |
Moderate positive correlation |
|
Regression (β) |
0.38, p < 0.01 |
Living alone predicts poor mental
health |
References (APA 7th Edition)
Banerjee, D., & Rai, M. (2020). Social isolation in COVID-19: The impact
of loneliness on mental health among older adults. Asian Journal of
Psychiatry, 54(1), 102–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102218
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kumar, P., & Sharma, R. (2021). Living alone and mental well-being:
Evidence from urban India. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 12(3),
312–319.
Patel, V., & Saxena, S. (2019). Transforming lives through mental health
research in India. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(11), 851–853.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30345-2
Singh, R., Verma, S., & Gupta, M. (2022). Mental health correlates of
social isolation among professionals in India. Indian Journal of
Psychological Medicine, 44(2), 154–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176211058984
World Health Organization. (2023). World mental health report:
Transforming mental health for all. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600
Yadav, K., & Jain, P. (2020). Academic stress, social connectedness, and
emotional well-being among university teachers. Journal of Education and
Human Development, 9(2), 45–53.
Sathyanarayana,
S., & Mohanasundaram, T. (2025). Standardized reporting of statistical
results in APA format: Enhancing clarity, transparency, and reproducibility in
research. Asian Journal of Advanced Research and Reports, 19(2),
208-226. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajarr/2025/v19i2903
National
Mental Health Survey of India. (2016). National Mental Health Survey of India
2015–2016. https://indianmhs.nimhans.ac.in
No comments:
Post a Comment