Welcome to the first edition of our regular, easy-reading blog covering the latest news and views from the world of psychotherapy. Do drop me line with your own feedback or questions.
Loneliness has a ceiling
When loneliness strikes, the usual advice is to get out more: join groups, meet people, widen your circle. Yet new research suggests that having more social contact than we actually want makes little difference.
A survey of 25,646 adults across all 27 EU countries asked two questions: how much social contact people had, and how much they wanted. The gap between the two predicted loneliness.
When contact fell below a person’s preferred level, loneliness increased. Once that threshold was reached, however, additional contact brought no further benefit. The line simply flattened.
The researchers therefore understand loneliness as a signal rather than a deficit. Like hunger, it prompts us to restore what is missing. Once we have reached our own level of sufficient connection, the signal switches off.
The interesting question, then, is what determines that threshold. It was lower among people who had close parents and childhood friends, and among those in relationships. It rose following separation and with heavy passive use of social media.
There is, however, a significant gap in the model. Three per cent of respondents reported feeling lonely all the time. A self-correcting signal should not remain permanently switched on. The researchers describe this as “defective” regulation, but leave the question unresolved.
My reading
If a client already has as much social contact as they want and still feels lonely, simply adding more contact targets the wrong problem. The work may need to focus on the quality of connection, the person’s capacity to feel connected, or what loneliness means in their particular life.
Limitation
This was a cross-sectional survey – a snapshot taken at one point in time. It cannot show how an individual’s loneliness changes as their level of social contact increases or decreases, nor can it establish cause and effect.
Source: Scientific Reports, January 2026
People care more than we think
People underestimate how much others care, then behave according to that assumption.
Researchers tracked 5,192 undergraduates at an American university over several terms, comparing how empathetic students believed their peers to be, with how those peers described themselves.
Students consistently underestimated others’ empathy. Students who believed their peers were least empathetic took the fewest social risks and “grew more isolated over time”.
This created a self-reinforcing loop. Expecting indifference made students less likely to approach others, and the resulting isolation appeared to confirm their expectations.
Two field experiments attempted to interrupt the cycle. Posters revealed students’ actual empathy levels, while workshops encouraged small social risks. Months later, those participants had wider friendship networks than students who received neither intervention.
My reading
When clients believe their colleagues do not care, the target may be neither their social skills nor their colleagues’, but their estimate of other people’s concern.
Limitation
The study involved a single undergraduate community, and did not establish how long the effects lasted.
Source: Nature Human Behaviour, October 2025
Good listening is more than technique
Listening courses often teach recognisable techniques such as: ask relevant follow-up questions, paraphrase what someone has said, reflect their feelings and offer verbal support. But these behaviours are only part of what makes someone feel genuinely heard.
Researchers filmed two sets of conversations between strangers: ten-minute “deep talk” involving 300 university students, and brief small talk involving 348 working adults.
Observers counted follow-up questions and verbal validation. In the small-talk study, a separate group also rated the listener’s overall quality, taking in verbal and non-verbal cues such as open questions, paraphrasing, eye contact, nodding and responsive sounds such as “mm-hmm”.
In the longer conversations, follow-up questions and verbal validation were consistently associated with stronger connection. During small talk, however, the overall impression of good listening predicted connection more reliably than the individual techniques alone.
A follow-up question can express genuine curiosity or simply fill an awkward silence. Its meaning depends on the surrounding exchange: timing, body language, attention to detail and whether the other person’s listening is reciprocated. Good listeners often remembered something said earlier and used it to deepen the conversation.
The researchers cannot yet prove that follow-up questions themselves create connection.
My reading
Listening training should not reduce listening to a checklist. The techniques matter but their effect depends on the quality of attention and responsiveness of the listener.
Limitations
The effects were generally small. Both samples came from the same university setting and the conversation partners were trained researchers rather than ordinary strangers.
Source: Communications Psychology, November 2025
