Abstract
Introduction:
Workplace loneliness is a growing concern, yet few studies have comprehensively measured it using appropriate scales.
Methods:
This study developed a scale to assess feelings, states of isolation and loneliness in the workplace. Questionnaire surveys were conducted with Japanese company employees (Study 1: N = 648; Study 2 Wave1: N = 2,980; Wave 2: N = 2,101). Statistical analyses, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, were conducted.
Results:
The analyses revealed a four-factor structure of workplace loneliness: “sense of loneliness in the workplace,” “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “sense of assistance in the workplace.” These factors demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability. Notably, the factor “sense of usefulness in the workplace” emerged as distinct from conventional scales, highlighting its relevance to workplace isolation and loneliness state assessment.
Discussion:
The newly developed scale offers a comprehensive framework for assessing workplace isolation and loneliness state, encompassing both conventional aspects and novel dimensions such as the sense of usefulness in the workplace. This scale holds promise for advancing research and practice in addressing isolation and loneliness among employees, ultimately contributing to their psychological wellbeing and mitigating workplace stress. Future studies should examine its practical applications and explore its utility in diverse cultural contexts.
1 Introduction
The increasing recognition of loneliness as a global concern has prompted attention to loneliness within the workplace in countries like the United Kingdom (UK) and United States, with considerations for implementing countermeasures (; ; UK Government Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2018, 2022). In response, Japan has inaugurated the Office for Policy on Loneliness and Isolation (), initiating policy examination, as specific research focusing on workplace loneliness shows that it exerts a detrimental impact on mental health (; ; ; ), thereby underscoring its significance within the realm of employee wellbeing. Importantly, workplace loneliness is not merely an individual emotional experience; it poses significant consequences for organizations. Higher loneliness has been associated with poorer supervisor-rated performance and weaker affective commitment to the organization (), reduced work engagement leading to greater job dissatisfaction (), and increased turnover (Sasaki et al., 2025). Studies in the UK have clarified the costs associated with loneliness for employers (). Moreover, the surge in teleworking, particularly accentuated by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, has exacerbated feelings of loneliness among workers, given the physical detachment from colleagues (; ). Thus, workplace loneliness has become not only an individual psychological concern but also a systemic organizational issue shaped by work design and workplace culture. Yet, most organizations currently lack institutionalized methods for monitoring employees' loneliness, limiting their capacity to provide appropriate support or interventions. A reliable measurement scale that quantitatively assesses workplace loneliness would therefore serve as a crucial foundation for transforming loneliness from a “private feeling” into a visible organizational challenge and for implementing evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies. Despite growing recognition of workplace loneliness as a critical organizational issue, systematic assessment methods remain underdeveloped.
Previous studies on workplace loneliness have employed scales such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980; Russell, 1996) and the Loneliness at Work Scale (LAWS; Wright et al., 2006), which have shed light on the relationship between loneliness and various aspects of employee health, attitudes, and performance. For example, one study used the UCLA Loneliness Scale to explore the relationship between loneliness and performance (), and another examined its connection to employees' intentions to leave their jobs (). Additionally, studies have used the LAWS to examine the relationship between loneliness and psychological wellbeing () and its connection to organizational commitment (). While these scales have contributed to understanding workplace loneliness, highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the nature, concept, and dimensions of workplace loneliness, advocating for further research to address these gaps. Given the limited availability of scales for measuring workplace loneliness, there is a pressing need to develop an effective and reliable scale that can comprehensively capture workplace isolation and loneliness, thereby enriching the existing literature ().
The conceptualization of workplace isolation and loneliness warrants consideration of construct elements, particularly pertaining to the workplace environment. While existing scales predominantly focus on human relationships, workplace loneliness extends beyond mere social interactions to encompass factors such as a sense of belonging within the workplace. The UCLA Loneliness Scale is a one-dimensional scale developed to assess overall (general) loneliness. Conversely, the LAWS—a multidimensional construct reflecting the two dimensions of social and emotional loneliness proposed by Weiss (1973)—captures social companionship and emotional deprivation in two dimensions. One characteristic of workplace isolation and loneliness is whether a person adapts to the group of people in the workplace. This sense of belonging has been explored in the context of intragroup adaptation and many studies have identified a significant relationship between belonging and loneliness. describe loneliness as (1) the result of an individual's lack of social relationships, (2) a subjective experience, and (3) unpleasant and painful. found that their definition of loneliness was consistent with the conceptual construct of belonging. Loneliness and desire to belong share a subjective perception of connection with others, and many studies have considered the aspects of belonging and loneliness together (). There are five categories of belonging: macro-level groups, such as communities; instrumental associations, such as workplace groups; intimate relationships; kinship; and supportive friendships (). Nevertheless, argued that a general sense of belonging is insufficient to capture a sense of belonging in different domains, especially in dynamic arenas, such as the workplace. It has also been suggested that a general sense of belonging and a sense of belonging in the workplace are different construct factors (). Accordingly, based on the limitations of the general sense of belonging scale, developed a scale tailored to the workplace context that included work-related factors such as career and job prospects and outcomes. The sense of belonging, discussed with the sense of loneliness, involves various aspects of life, including workplace characteristics. However, the UCLA Loneliness Scale and LAWS do not include the concept of work. Notably, identified various manifestations of workplace isolation and loneliness, including a lack of communication and cooperative relationships within the organization, feelings of anguish and discomfort, as well as “lack of interaction with others,” “lack of communication,” “inability to consult with others,” “no one around to help,” and “sense of not being relied on at work (sense of not being useful).” It has also been suggested that isolated employees often feel unappreciated and unrecognized by their organizations and peers (). These workplace-specific dimensions of isolation and loneliness underscore the inadequacy of existing scales in fully capturing the breadth of workplace loneliness experiences.
Moreover, the quality of human relationships within the workplace, as reflected in the availability of diverse forms of social support, plays a pivotal part in mitigating loneliness. Categorizations of workplace support include the two-aspect approach of instrumental and emotional support (), as well as the four-aspect approach of instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal support (), demonstrating that the function of support has diverse aspects. However, existing scales such as the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the LAWS inadequately capture the multifaceted nature of social support within the workplace using these measurements (; ). The availability of diverse support and recognition of its availability effectively reduce negative qualities, such as loneliness and workplace stress (; ). This necessitates a more comprehensive approach. Moreover, understanding workplace loneliness requires an appreciation of its dynamic nature, encompassing both trait-like characteristics and transient states influenced by changes in work environments. While the existing scales include many questions about traits (stable and characteristic), such as “How often do you feel outgoing and friendly?” on the UCLA Loneliness Scale and “I often feel isolated when I am with my coworkers” on the LAWS, they lack measures to evaluate the workings of how states of loneliness arise. Consequently, developing a scale that can effectively measure the state of loneliness in the workplace is imperative for facilitating timely interventions and support mechanisms to address the evolving needs of employees.
Zhou (2018) reviewed the research on workplace loneliness and argued that it is meaningful to study short-term fluctuations in workplace loneliness as it is sensitive to the external environment and is readily affected by work conditions. Therefore, it is important to understand how loneliness is affected by changes in work environments.
This study endeavors to bridge these gaps by developing a scale to measure workplace isolation and loneliness state, encompassing workplace-specific dimensions and considering the dynamic nature of loneliness in response to changes in work environments. However, existing scales have limitations in capturing the state-level, temporally fluctuating nature of workplace loneliness. To effectively address this issue and enable timely organizational support, reliable quantitative measurement is needed to transform loneliness from a “private feeling” into a visible organizational concern. This requires distinguishing subjective loneliness from objective isolation () and conceptualizing loneliness as a dynamic state that varies across daily work contexts (Russell, 1996). Indeed, such fluctuating loneliness has been linked to mental health and performance outcomes ().
In this study, we define “isolation” as perceived isolation, meaning the subjective recognition of lacking support or meaningful interaction in the workplace, conceptually distinct from emotional loneliness. Based on this framework, the WILS simultaneously assesses perceived isolation and emotional loneliness as related but independent state-level dimensions, thereby capturing the proximal transition whereby perceived disconnection can develop into emotional loneliness (e.g., sadness, emptiness). This approach enables visualization of the dynamic mechanism underlying workplace loneliness and offers a foundation for timely support and intervention.
2 Overview of the study
First, in a preliminary study, based on the findings of previous literatures, the authors—experts in industrial and organizational psychology—organized the factors involved in the concept of feeling, states of isolation and loneliness in the workplace, and prepared relevant question items. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis was performed to select the final question item pool, create a scale, and confirm the internal consistency of the extracted factors. Moreover, we examined its relationship with other psychological scales to confirm its construct validity. In Study 2, we reconfirmed the reliability and validity of the scale created in Study 1 using data other than those used in Study 1. The reliability was confirmed through retesting.
To assess the validity of the scale, we selected and analyzed psychological scales related to isolation and loneliness in the workplace from four perspectives. The first was the overall relationship with (general) loneliness in life. For working people, as it is difficult to separate loneliness at work—where workers spend a considerable amount of time, from (general) loneliness in life overall—a positive correlation is expected. The second perspective was related to mental health. Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between loneliness and mental health (; ; ; ), suggesting a negative correlation between good health and workplace loneliness. The third perspective was the relationship between attitudes toward and adaptation to work and organizations. As loneliness is uncomfortable and painful (), high levels of workplace loneliness can be attributed to low job satisfaction and commitment to the workplace. Furthermore, the desire to leave a place that one associates with pain is assumed to be the reason for strong turnover intention. Wright et al. (2006) suggested a negative correlation of LAWS with job satisfaction and organizational commitment and a positive correlation with turnover intention. Subsequent studies also revealed a negative relationship with organizational commitment () and a positive relationship with turnover intention (); similar results were expected in this study. The fourth perspective was the relationship with social support. Wright et al. (2006) suggested that work-related support is negatively correlated with LAWS, but less so with non-work support such as family and friends. In this study, we also expected to find that workplace loneliness would be negatively associated with social support at work, but less so or not at all with social support outside of work.
3 Preliminary study
This preliminary survey aimed to create a questionnaire measuring workplace isolation and loneliness state. The questionnaire for this study was developed based on the results of previous interview research (), and the findings of the five authors: all PhDs with a focus on industrial and organizational psychology and social psychology. The interviews were conducted by a separate group, working on isolation and loneliness in the workplace, and were conducted with human resource managers from different companies. In the interviews, the participants were asked about their sense and state of isolation and loneliness in the workplace. The interviews investigated aspects such as the “feeling of not being needed” and “state of having colleagues who understand each other” among others.
The questionnaire used in this study was developed as follows. First, we organized the construct concepts. The concept of workplace isolation and loneliness state was subdivided into four aspects: (1) loneliness and negativity; (2) the sense that there are people you can consider friends, understand, and be open about yourself with; (3) the sense that people care about you, that you can rely on them, and that they will help you; and (4) the sense that there is someone who needs you. Points (2), (3), and (4) indicate anti-loneliness sensations, and low scores in these aspects indicate a high sense of loneliness. Subsequently, to ensure content validity, we implemented multiple validation procedures. First, a structured expert review () was conducted by five experts in industrial and organizational psychology with corporate work experience and in social psychology. They evaluated (a) conceptual relevance, (b) redundancy and construct deviation, and (c) clarity of expression and the ease of use as a measurement tool. This evaluation included considering the ease of use as a measurement tool and the distortion of responses due to social desirability by considering the appropriateness of item wording, incorporating positive content, and keeping sentences as short as possible. Consensus-based refinement resulted in a reduced pool of 44 items. Next, a cognitive review was conducted to confirm comprehensibility and consistent judgment processes among respondents. To reduce acquiescence bias, reverse-coded items were added, returning the scale to 50 items. Finally, to confirm practical validity (), three additional experts who were not among the study authors with corporate work experience evaluated interpretability and response burden from the standpoint of actual employees. Minor adjustments were made based on feedback, and the final 50-item version was established.
The results related to point (1) represent emotional loneliness according to Weiss (1973), while those related to points (2), (3), and (4) can be considered as indicators of social loneliness. Social loneliness encompasses various aspects of connection with others, and this survey highlighted dimensions such as feeling connected with empathetic individuals, having supportive connections in work duties, and feeling useful to others in the workplace. Notably, this questionnaire was originally developed in Japanese.
4 Study 1
In Study 1, we developed a scale to measure isolation and loneliness state in the workplace using a questionnaire prepared in a preliminary study and aimed to confirm its reliability and validity.
4.1 Materials and methods
All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The survey was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of University of Tsukuba (approval number: TOU22-13). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants as part of the questionnaire survey.
4.1.1 Participants and survey methods
A web survey targeting male and female company employees aged 20–59 years was conducted between May 26 and June 1, 2022. The survey was administered by a research firm commissioned for this purpose, ensuring unbiased representation across gender (male/female), age groups (20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59), company size (under 300, over 300 employees), industry, occupation, or annual income. The participants were randomly selected from among registered monitors of the survey company who met the criteria. They responded to the survey of their own free will and received a monetary incentive for their participation.
4.1.2 Survey content
The survey comprised the Workplace Isolation and Loneliness State Scale (WILS), accompanied by a related validity assessment scale and questions regarding personal attributes. The WILS used items developed in the preliminary study with the following instruction provided: “How much does this apply to how you feel when you are at your current workplace?” Responses were recorded on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not apply) to 4 (applies). The questionnaire was designed in Japanese. Additionally, for validation purposes, the survey incorporated the following scales: For overall (general) loneliness in life, we used a shortened version of the Japanese translation (; ) of the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS3-J; Russell, 1996), which includes the item “I feel left out of things.” Additionally, we utilized the simplified Japanese version of the WHO-5 Wellbeing Index (S-WHO-5-J; ; ) to aid mental health evaluation, consisting of five items assessing “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits.” To gauge attitudes and adaptation to work and organizations, the following aspects were investigated: job satisfaction, consisting of three items assessing “I am satisfied with my job”; turnover intention, consisting of three items assessing “I intend to quit my current job” (, as translated into Japanese by ); and affective commitment, consisting of six items assessing “I feel emotionally attached to this organization” (). Perception of social support networks was measured using the Brief Inventory of Social Support Network (BISSEN; ), consisting of 24 items assessing “Do you currently have someone who cheers you up or listens to you complain when you are not feeling well?”, which evaluates support and satisfaction levels across various social domains (family, relatives, friends, neighborhood acquaintances, work associates, and others). The survey was conducted entirely in Japanese.
4.1.3 Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics version 28 (IBM, USA) was used for all statistical analyses.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Participants
A total of 648 valid respondents participated in the study, with an average age of 40.9 years (±10.8), comprising 49% males and 50% females. See Supplementary Table S1 for a more detailed demographic distribution.
4.2.2 Exploratory factor analysis
To examine the factor structure of the WILS, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation with promax rotation. Initially, five factors were assumed based on the criterion of eigenvalues greater than one. However, one of the extracted factors consisted of only two items with high loadings. Because two-item factors generally provide limited content representation (), this factor was removed from further analyses. Subsequently, items with factor loadings below 0.40 and those loading on two or more factors were eliminated. The results confirmed the four-factor structure. Four items were selected in descending order of factor loading for each subscale, and a 16-item scale was created. In this selection process, we ensured that the chosen items not only had high factor loadings but also maintained conceptual clarity and were representative of the intended construct within the workplace context, thereby addressing content considerations. Subsequently, a factor analysis was performed again on the 16 items to confirm the four-factor structure. The first factor, comprising items such as “I am relied on in the workplace” and “I am expected in the workplace” related to the sense that one is needed and useful at work, was named “sense of usefulness in the workplace.” The second factor— “sense of loneliness in the workplace” —comprised negative and painful emotions such as “difficulty being in the workplace” and “loneliness at work.” The third factor, comprising items about the availability of emotional support in the workplace, included items such as “there are people at my workplace with whom I share a mutual understanding” and “there are people at my workplace with whom I can talk about what I think”; it was named “emotional connections in the workplace.” The fourth factor— “the sense of assistance in the workplace” —comprised items about the presence of people who will support one at work, such as “some people at my workplace support my work” and “some people at my workplace can help me with my work.” The correlation between the factors ranged from 0.54 to 0.76. Cronbach's reliability coefficients for each subscale ranged from 0.87 to 0.91, indicating good internal consistency. The results of the factor analysis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
| Scale items | M | SD | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sense of usefulness in the workplace | ||||||
| I am depended on at my workplace | 2.62 | 0.77 | 0.87 | −0.07 | −0.11 | −0.01 |
| People at my workplace expect things of me | 2.54 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.11 | −0.02 | 0.14 |
| I am essential at my workplace | 2.68 | 0.77 | 0.78 | −0.04 | 0.04 | −0.11 |
| There are people at my workplace who need me | 2.70 | 0.78 | 0.67 | −0.04 | 0.24 | −0.03 |
| Sense of loneliness in the workplace | ||||||
| I feel uncomfortable at my workplace | 1.95 | 0.84 | 0.03 | 0.84 | −0.03 | 0.04 |
| I feel lonely at my workplace | 2.14 | 0.88 | −0.04 | 0.80 | 0.07 | −0.04 |
| I feel empty at my workplace | 1.98 | 0.87 | −0.08 | 0.79 | 0.08 | −0.01 |
| I am all alone at my workplace | 1.95 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 0.69 | −0.14 | −0.04 |
| Emotional connections in the workplace | ||||||
| There are people at my workplace with whom I have a mutual understanding | 2.66 | 0.83 | −0.01 | −0.05 | 0.88 | −0.04 |
| There are people at my workplace to whom I can say what I think | 2.69 | 0.80 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.83 | 0.01 |
| There are people at my workplace who give me mental support | 2.54 | 0.82 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.76 | 0.09 |
| I find it easy to talk to people at my workplace about my worries regarding work | 2.42 | 0.83 | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.72 | 0.16 |
| Sense of assistance in the workplace | ||||||
| People at my workplace support my work | 2.75 | 0.78 | −0.02 | −0.02 | −0.08 | 0.96 |
| There are people at my workplace who help me with my work | 2.81 | 0.76 | −0.06 | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.84 |
| I am protected by people at my workplace | 2.61 | 0.78 | 0.12 | −0.01 | 0.23 | 0.50 |
| At my workplace, I can ask what I want to ask about work at any time | 2.88 | 0.79 | 0.04 | −0.12 | 0.17 | 0.50 |
| Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.88 | ||
| Inter–factor correlation | Factor 1 | −0.54 | 0.69 | 0.58 | ||
| Factor 2 | −0.57 | −0.52 | ||||
| Factor 3 | 0.76 |
Results of the 16-item exploratory factor analysis (factor loadings, reliability coefficients, subfactors, items).
The Workplace Isolation and Loneliness State Scale (WILS) was originally developed and validated in Japanese. The English items shown in this table are translations provided by the authors for the reader's convenience and do not constitute a validated English version of the scale. Bold values indicate the names of the subfactors.
The descriptive statistics for the four scales are as follows: The scale of “sense of usefulness in the workplace” had a mean of M = 2.63 (SD = 0.68), “sense of loneliness in the workplace” had a mean of M = 2.00 (SD = 0.72), “Emotional connections in the workplace” had a mean of M = 2.58 (SD = 0.73), and “sense of assistance in the workplace” had a mean of M = 2.77 (SD = 0.67).
4.2.3 Component validation
Principal component analysis was conducted for each scale used in this study to confirm its unidimensional structure. Scale scores were calculated according to the procedures described in the original publications. For each scale, the higher the score, the stronger the characteristic that the scale measured. All scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients greater than 0.74 (see Supplementary Table S2).
To examine validity, we measured the association of WILS with (a) general loneliness and mental health not specified by domain, (b) attitudes toward work and workplace, and (c) perceived social support. First, to examine the relationship between general loneliness and mental health, we calculated the correlation coefficient between WILS and both the UCLA-LS3-J and S-WHO-5-J. As shown in Table 2, “sense of loneliness in the workplace” showed a significant positive correlation with the UCLA-LS3-J and a significant negative correlation with the S-WHO-5-J. Conversely, there was a significant negative correlation with the UCLA-LS3-J and a significant positive correlation with the S-WHO-5-J for the following factors: “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “sense of assistance in the workplace.”
Table 2
| Subfactors of WILS | UCLA-LS3-J | S-WHO-5-J | Job satisfaction | Turnover intention | Organizational commitment (affective) | Support from family | Support from relatives | Support from friends | Support from neighborhood | Support from work-related people | Support from others |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sense of usefulness in the workplace | −0.33** | 0.47** | 0.56** | −0.40** | 0.60** | 0.10* | 0.14** | 0.22** | 0.09* | 0.35** | 0.04 |
| Sense of loneliness in the workplace | 0.52** | −0.43** | −0.52** | 0.52** | −0.38** | −0.15** | −0.21** | −0.19** | 0.02 | −0.30** | −0.09* |
| Emotional connections in the workplace | −0.36** | 0.51** | 0.57** | −0.42** | 0.62** | 0.18** | 0.22** | 0.26** | 0.08* | 0.44** | 0.05 |
| Sense of assistance in the workplace | −0.33** | 0.48** | 0.55** | −0.40** | 0.54** | 0.15** | 0.25** | 0.26** | 0.07 | 0.34** | 0.06 |
Relationship between workplace isolation and loneliness state scale and external variables.
UCLA-LS3-J, the shortened Japanese version of the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale; S-WHO-5-J, the simplified Japanese version of the WHO-5 Wellbeing Index. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
To investigate the relationship between work and attitude toward the workplace, we calculated the correlation coefficients between WILS, job satisfaction, turnover intention, and affective commitment. As shown in Table 2, “sense of loneliness in the workplace” was positively correlated with turnover intention and negatively correlated with job satisfaction and affective commitment. “sense of usefulness in the workplace” was negatively correlated with turnover intention and positively correlated with job satisfaction and affective commitment. “Emotional connections in the workplace” was negatively correlated with turnover intention and positively correlated with job satisfaction and affective commitment. “Sense of assistance in the workplace” was negatively correlated with turnover intention and positively correlated with job satisfaction and affective commitment.
5 Study 2
Study 2 confirmed the reliability and validity of the scale created in Study 1, using a different dataset. We examined the reliability of the scale using a retest method.
5.1 Materials and methods
All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The survey was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee of University of Tsukuba (approval number: TOU22-76). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants as part of the questionnaire survey.
5.1.1 Participants and survey methods
An online survey targeting male and female company employees aged 20–59 years was conducted in September 2022. The survey was administered by a research company, and data were collected from collaborators distinct from those involved in Study 1. Additionally, the same respondents underwent retesting 4 weeks later (October 2022) using identical questions.
5.1.2 Survey content
In addition to the WILS developed in Study 1, the survey included questions regarding personal attributes.
5.1.3 Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS version 28 (IBM, USA) were used for all statistical analyses.
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Participants
A total of 2,980 valid respondents participated in the first survey (Wave 1), while 2,101 respondents provided valid responses in the second (Wave 2). See Supplementary Table S3 for a more detailed demographic distribution.
5.2.2 Verifying internal consistency
Cronbach's reliability coefficients for each subscale were calculated to confirm internal consistency: 0.89 for “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” 0.87 for “sense of loneliness in the workplace,” 0.91 for “emotional connections in the workplace,” and 0.88 for “sense of assistance in the workplace.”
5.2.3 Confirmatory factor analysis
The goodness of fit of the four- and one-factor construct models was analyzed based on respondents' data from Wave 1 (n = 2,980). The results for the four-factor construct were as follows: = 977.60 (p < 0.001), GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI [0.052, 0.058], SRMR = 0.037, and AIC = 1053.60. Additionally, the one-factor construct yielded the following results: = 7439.44 (p < 0.001), GFI = 0.61, AGFI = 0.57, CFI = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.15, 90% CI [0.151, 0.157], SRMR = 0.090, and AIC = 7503.44. These results indicate that the four-factor construct exhibited superior fit compared to the one-factor construct, supporting its suitability as a model. Furthermore, all standardized factor loadings were significant and fell within acceptable ranges (0.58–0.87, all p < 0.001), and factor correlations were moderate and theoretically consistent (|r| = 0.57–0.79), providing additional evidence for the construct validity of the four-factor model.
5.2.4 Confirmation of reliability by retesting
Reliability was confirmed by retesting each subfactor using data from 2,101 participants who responded to both Wave 1 and Wave 2. The results confirmed high correlations for the “sense of usefulness in the workplace” (r = 0.69; p < 0.001), “sense of loneliness in the workplace” (r = 0.67; p < 0.001), “emotional connections in the workplace” (r = 0.71; p < 0.001), and “sense of assistance in the workplace” (r = 0.63; p < 0.001).
6 Discussion
This study developed a scale to measure workplace isolation and loneliness state. The developed scale was confirmed to have reliability and validity, suggesting its usefulness for measuring isolation and loneliness state in the workplace. The following sections summarize and discuss the results of Studies 1 and 2.
6.1 Scale composition
The results suggest that the WILS developed in this study comprises four factors: “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “sense of loneliness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “presence of assistance in the workplace.” Additionally, the reliability and validity results indicated that this scale is well-structured and reliable. Although few scales measure isolation and loneliness in the workplace and the concept itself has not been sufficiently examined (), the results of this study provide insights into the concept of workplace loneliness.
6.2 Factor dimensionality
The LAWS (Wright et al., 2006) measures two dimensions, social companionship and emotional deprivation, whereas the UCLA Loneliness Scale measures one dimension. Examining the model fit of the four- and one-factor constructs revealed that the four-factor construct had a high degree of fit, indicating the possibility that isolation and loneliness in the workplace are multidimensional.
6.3 Construct components
Here, we discuss the characteristics of “sense of loneliness in the workplace,” “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “sense of assistance in the workplace” that were revealed in this study.
The “sense of loneliness in the workplace” factor encapsulates unpleasant sensations such as feeling lonely, empty, and isolated at work. Although described loneliness as uncomfortable and painful, the “sense of loneliness in the workplace” factor extracted in this study comprises items such as those mentioned above. From the perspective of group adaptation, we find that the characteristics of loneliness in the workplace include loneliness and the feeling of pain for being part of a workplace group, as one has to stay in a group to work, although “it is difficult to be there.”
In contrast, the “sense of usefulness in the workplace” factor, unique to our scale, reflects the importance of feeling valued and appreciated in one's job and is one of the constructs that characterize the state of isolation and loneliness in the workplace. This study expands the concept of loneliness and aims to develop a scale that considers factors specific to the workplace. Consequently, we extracted an element called “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” which was not found in the LAWS or UCLA loneliness scales. Consistent with 's “sense of being relied on at work” and 's “sense of not being appreciated by organizations and colleagues,” a lack of “sense of usefulness in the workplace” equates to a state of loneliness. Moreover, in the sense of belonging, which is related to loneliness, a characteristic of the workplace domain is that being rewarded for one's work (i.e., being useful in the workplace) is an element of feeling a sense of belonging (). Thus, we find that the sense of being useful is a characteristic element in adaptation to workplace groups, and the lack of the sense of being “relied on” or “needed” equates to a state of being isolated and lonely in the workplace.
Finally, we discuss the characteristics of “emotional connections in the workplace” and “sense of assistance in the workplace.” In this study, two factors related to social support were extracted: “emotional connections in the workplace” and “sense of assistance in the workplace.” We found that “emotional connections in the workplace” capture aspects of emotional support (; ), and “sense of assistance in the workplace” captures aspects of instrumental (; ) and informational support (). The two are different aspects, and we were able to extract diverse aspects of the state of human connection. This makes it possible to provide support and intervention focused on more appropriate conditions for those who are isolated and lonely in the workplace.
Thus, “sense of loneliness in the workplace” captures the emotional aspect of isolation and loneliness, such as discomfort and pain, whereas “sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “sense of assistance in the workplace” involve the state of being able to connect with others in the workplace and adjust well to the workplace; meanwhile, the inability to have these sensations elicits a state of isolation and loneliness.
6.4 Examination of reliability
To confirm the reliability of the scale developed in this study, the reliability coefficients of each factor and correlation coefficients were confirmed by retesting. The reliability coefficient α was 0.87–0.91, confirming that sufficient internal consistency was obtained. The retest correlation coefficient between Wave 1 and Wave 2 was 0.63–0.71, confirming the reliability of the scale developed in this study.
6.5 Examination of validity
Validity analysis demonstrated associations between workplace loneliness and various factors, including general loneliness, mental health, attitudes toward work and organization, and perceived social support. The results showed that, first, convergent validity was supported by the predicted relationship between the WILS subscales and general loneliness. Specifically, “sense of loneliness in the workplace” and general loneliness not specified by the domain were positively correlated. Furthermore, aspects of workers' states in the workplace (“sense of usefulness in the workplace,” “emotional connections in the workplace,” and “sense of assistance in the workplace”) were negatively correlated with general loneliness. Second, criterion-related validity was supported by correlations with mental health and attitudes toward work and organization. “Sense of loneliness in the workplace” was negatively associated with good mental health and positive attitudes toward work and organization. In contrast, the other WILS subscales were positively associated with good mental health and positive attitudes toward work and organization. Third, regarding the relationship with perceived social support, all subscales of the WILS showed a moderate correlation with support from “work-related people”; a weak correlation with support from “family,” “relatives,” and “friends”; and a negligible correlation with support from “neighbors” and “others.” In other words, support from family, relatives, and friends is independent of workplace loneliness, and this scale may measure workplace-specific loneliness independently of general loneliness. This finding provides evidence for the discriminant validity of the WILS scale against general social support. These results suggest that the scale developed in this study is a valid measure of loneliness among the workers.
6.6 Conceptual justification, practical utility, and ethical considerations of WILS
The Workplace Isolation and Loneliness Scale (WILS) was developed to assess loneliness and isolation as a subjective psychological state, rather than an objective measure of contact frequency. Consistent with theoretical frameworks emphasizing that loneliness is rooted in perceived relational deficits (Weiss, 1973; ), WILS captures not only emotional loneliness but also perceived relational support and one's sense of usefulness within the workplace. These dimensions reflect modifiable aspects of workplace experience, offering practical value for dynamic and repeated assessments.
From a practical utility standpoint, WILS primarily serves as a diagnostic tool for organizational health. Aggregated results can guide organizational policy (e.g., redesigning communication structures or strengthening inclusion practices in high-risk units). Individually, the scale can be utilized as a self-check tool, enabling employees to continuously monitor changes in their own state, facilitating the early identification of loneliness before it worsens and allowing for timely intervention. At the managerial level, the scale supports supervisors in recognizing employees who may benefit from additional relational support, enhancing early-stage care without incorporating results into formal personnel evaluation. Furthermore, repeated assessments enable the evaluation of intervention effectiveness (e.g., structured dialogue programs). While WILS is suitable for continuous surveys, we acknowledge that its length and repeated administration in organizational settings may impose a certain level of administration burden, a consideration discussed further in Section 6.
Finally, several ethical and practical considerations must accompany organizational use. Because loneliness remains stigmatized, organizations must cultivate a psychologically safe environment and educate employees about loneliness as a universal human experience rather than a personal weakness. To ensure the reliability of self-reported responses, anonymity is essential, and the clear separation of scale results from personnel evaluation must be guaranteed. Furthermore, given that social support is not always needed or wanted (; Uchino, 2009) and some individuals prefer solitude (Stavrova and Ren, 2023), interventions based on WILS results must respect personal preferences and subjective interpretations to avoid one-size-fits-all responses.
The results detailed above suggest that the scale developed in this study has a certain degree of reliability and validity, reflects the characteristics of isolation and loneliness in the workplace, and may provide the necessary information to support efforts to prevent the worsening of isolation and loneliness. Moreover, this scale can be used to visualize the isolation and loneliness of workers in the workplace. Thus, worker self-care and companies' knowledge of employees' isolation and loneliness may lead to the implementation of specific measures throughout the organization. To maintain good mental health, it is important to prevent the continuation of isolation and loneliness. Therefore, we suggest that this scale may serve as a basic diagnostic tool that facilitates timely action toward preventing worker isolation and loneliness and their worsening.
6.7 Study limitations and future research directions
Several limitations warrant consideration. First, this scale was developed in Japanese and this study was conducted with Japanese company employees sampled via an internet panel. The use of this internet-based convenience sample means that the participants may not be representative of the general Japanese working population. The scale's applicability beyond Japanese companies and corporate workers requires validation. However, from the perspective of its item content, this scale can be considered applicable for use in other languages and cultural contexts. This is supported by the conceptual parallels between the WILS factors and established, cross-culturally relevant constructs. Specifically, “sense of loneliness in the workplace” aligns with “emotional deprivation” dimension described in the LAWS (Wright et al., 2006). Furthermore, “emotional connections in the workplace” and “sense of assistance in the workplace” effectively capture the instrumental and emotional aspects of the “social companionship” dimension described in the LAWS (Wright et al., 2006). Although “sense of usefulness in the workplace” was newly identified in the context of workplace loneliness in this study, it is conceptually closely related to the established psychological sense of belongingness () and thus is not a uniquely Japanese dimension. Given that LAWS (Wright et al., 2006), which was originally developed in English, has been successfully translated and utilized in other languages (e.g., ; Soto and Pérez, 2025), it is highly probable that the WILS scale can also be used multilingually. Nevertheless, further empirical validation is needed to fully establish its applicability across different cultural contexts. In particular, future research should assess cross-cultural validity and evaluate item-level functioning using item response theory, to enhance the psychometric robustness and generalizability of the scale. Second, considering the practical utility of the WILS, this study reduced the number of items in each subscale to four. While this enhances usability, it carries the risk that the full range and complexity of each conceptual subdomain of workplace loneliness may not be adequately represented. Third, workplace isolation and loneliness change in response to changes in the environment (Zhou, 2018). Therefore, to establish WILS as a state-based measure with sensitivity to short-term within-person changes, longitudinal or repeated-measures designs are needed to confirm that WILS scores vary dynamically in response to workplace conditions. Therefore, it would be effective to conduct time-series surveys over a fixed period, such as longitudinal studies. Fourth, this study focuses on workplace isolation and loneliness. Although we confirmed a correlation with (general) loneliness in life overall, we did not confirm the nature of this relationship. To better understand individuals' mental health, it is necessary to examine the relationship between workplace loneliness and other areas of life. Fifth, as both the WILS and the validation measures in Study 1 were self-reported and collected from the same source at the same time, common method bias might have influenced the observed correlations. Future research could attempt to mitigate this potential bias by incorporating data from multiple sources or by temporally separating the measurement of different constructs. Lastly, although this study aimed to prevent the worsening of isolation and loneliness in the workplace, the WILS itself is a measurement tool, and its use does not directly imply intervention efficacy. Future research should evaluate organizational and individual factors contributing to loneliness and examine whether targeted interventions—such as peer support or structured dialogue opportunities can improve WILS scores and psychological wellbeing. Through continued empirical refinement, including longitudinal validation and intervention studies, the practical value of WILS as a preventive, organization-wide monitoring tool is expected to become further established.
6.8 Conclusions
This study expanded the understanding of the concept of loneliness by developing a scale tailored to measure workplace isolation and loneliness state, accounting for workplace-specific characteristics, and verifying its reliability and validity. The scale holds promise for assessing workplace loneliness in both research and practical contexts. Further studies should examine its practical applications and adaptability to diverse cultural contexts beyond the current study's scope, facilitating its widespread utilization and contributing to the field of workplace psychology. By enabling a better understanding and assessment of workplace isolation and loneliness, this scale is expected to contribute to enhancing employees' psychological wellbeing and mitigating workplace stress.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics Committee of the University of Tsukuba. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JN: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AM: Data curation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. HO: Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. HM: Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. DS: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation. YM: Project administration, Methodology, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by JST RISTEX, Japan (grant number JPMJR X21K4). The funder had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We thank all the participants who participated in the study.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/forgp.2025.1699454/full#supplementary-material
Abbreviations
LAWS, Loneliness at Work Scale; WILS, Workplace Loneliness and Isolation Scale; UCLA-LS3-J, 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale; S-WHO-5-J, Simplified Japanese version of the WHO-5 Well-being Index; BISSEN, Brief Inventory of Social Support Network.
References
1
AibaM.TachikawaH.FukuokaY.EndoG.ShiratoriY.MatsuiY.et al. (2013). Development of the brief inventory of social support exchange network. Clin. Psychiatry55, 863–873.
2
AllenT. D.GoldenT. D.ShockleyK. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest16, 40–68. doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273
3
ArimotoA.TadakaE. (2019). Reliability and validity of Japanese versions of the UCLA loneliness scale version 3 for use among mothers with infants and toddlers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Women's Health19:105. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0792-4
4
AwataS.BechP.YoshidaS.HiraiM.SuzukiS.YamashitaM.et al. (2007). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index in the context of detecting depression in diabetic patients. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 61, 112–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2007.01619.x
5
AyazlarG.GuzelB. (2014). The effect of loneliness in the workplace on organizational commitment. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 131, 319–325. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.124
6
AytacS. (2015). Loneliness as a mediator between job satisfaction and intention to leave: a study on prison staff in Turkey. Arab. J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 5, 1–4. doi: 10.4172/2223-5833.1000167
7
BasitA. A.NaumanS. (2023). How workplace loneliness harms employee well-being: the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of need to belong. Front. Psychol.13:1086346. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1086346
8
BoatengG. O.NeilandsT. B.FrongilloE. A.Melgar-QuiñonezH. R.YoungS. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front. Public Health6:149. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
9
CacioppoS.CapitanioJ. P.CacioppoJ. T. (2014). Toward a neurology of loneliness. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1464–1504. doi: 10.1037/a0037618
10
Cigna (2020). Loneliness in the Workplace: 2020 U.S. Report. Available online at: https://www.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-and-reports/combatting-loneliness/cigna-2020-loneliness-report.pdf (Accessed September 1, 2025).
11
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol. Assess. 7, 309–319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
12
CockshawW. D.ShochetI. M.ObstP. L. (2013). General belongingness, workplace belongingness, and depressive symptoms. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 240–251. doi: 10.1002/casp.2121
13
ColarelliS. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. J. Appl. Psychol. 69, 632–642. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.633
14
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
15
D'OliveiraT. C.PersicoL. (2023). Workplace isolation, loneliness and well-being at work: the mediating role of task interdependence and supportive behaviours. Appl. Ergon. 106:103894. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103894
16
ErdilO.ErtosunÖ. G. (2011). The relationship between social climate and loneliness in the workplace and effects on employee well-being. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 24, 505–525. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.091
17
FigueiredoE.MargaçaC.Sánchez-GarcíaJ. C. (2025). Loneliness and isolation in the era of telework: a comprehensive review of challenges for organizational success. Healthcare13:1943. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13161943
18
FirozM.ChaudharyR.KhanA. (2020). Desolated milieu: exploring the trajectory of workplace loneliness (2006–2019). Manag. Res. Rev. 44, 757–780. doi: 10.1108/MRR-01-2020-0051
19
GansterD. C.FusilierM. R.MayesB. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 102–110. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.1.102
20
HaraT.FujimotoT. (2020). Development of a Japanese version of Work-Family Balance Scale: an examination of scale reliability and validity. Jpn. Assoc. Indus.32, 121–130. doi: 10.32222/jaiop.33.2_121
21
HaynesS. N.RichardD. C. S.KubanyE. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol. Assess. 7, 238–247. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
22
Holt-LunstadJ.SmithT. B.BakerM.HarrisT.StephensonD. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 227–237. doi: 10.1177/1745691614568352
23
HouseJ. S. (1981). Work Stress and Social Support (Addison-Wesley Series on Occupational Stress, 4). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24
InagakiH.ItoK.SakumaN.SugiyamaM.OkamuraT.AwataS. (2013). Reliability and validity of the simplified Japanese version of the WHO–Five Well-being Index (S–WHO−5–J). Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi60, 294–301. doi: 10.11236/jph.60.5_294
25
Japanese Government Cabinet Secretariat (2021). Measures to Address Loneliness and Isolation. Available online at: https://www.cao.go.jp/kodoku_koritsu/index.html (Accessed September 1, 2025).
26
JenaL. K.PradhanS. (2018). Conceptualizing and validating workplace belongingness scale. J. Organ. Change Manag. 31, 451–462. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2017-0195
27
KaufmannG. M.BeehrT. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social support: some counterintuitive results. J. Appl. Psychol. 71, 522–526. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.522
28
LearyM. R.CoxC. B. (2008). “Belongingness motivation: a mainspring of social action,” in Handbook of Motivation Science, eds. J. Y. Shah and W. L. Gardner (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), 27–40.
29
LeeR. M.RobbinsS. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: the social connectedness and the social assurance scales. J. Couns. Psychol. 42, 232–241. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232
30
MaloneG. P.PillowD. R.OsmanA. (2012). The general belongingness scale (GBS): assessing achieved belongingness. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 311–316. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.027
31
MasudaY.TadakaE.DaiY. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale Version 3 among the older population. J. Jpn. Acad. Community Health Nurs.15, 25–32. doi: 10.20746/jachn.15.1_25
32
MellorD.StokesM.FirthL.HayashiY.CumminsR. (2008). Need for belonging, relationship satisfaction, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Pers. Individ. Dif. 45, 213–218. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.020
33
MichaelsonJ.JeffreyK.AbdallahS. (2017). The cost of Loneliness to UK Employers. New Economics Foundation. Available online at: https://neweconomics.org/2017/02/cost-loneliness-uk-employers (Accessed September 1, 2025).
34
MoriR.OotaA.NakamuraJ.HaraK.MitaraiN.OkadaM.et al. (2022). “Isolation and loneliness in the workplace as perceived by corporate HR managers: a study on the process of isolation and loneliness in the workplace,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Tokyo: Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational Psychology), 146–149.
35
MurthyV. (2017). Work and the Loneliness Epidemic: Reducing Isolation at Work Is Good Business. Harvard Bus. Rev. Available online at: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/09/work-and-the-loneliness-epidemic (Accessed September 1, 2025).
36
OkuraU.KanaiA. (2004). “Organizational commitment: the impact of self-esteem and perceptions of organizational justice in organizations,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of The Japanese Association of Administrative Science (Tokyo: Japanese Association of Administrative Science), 161–167.
37
OzcelikH.BarsadeS. G. (2018). No employee an island: workplace loneliness and job performance. Acad. Manage. J. 61, 2343–2366. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1066
38
ÖzişliÖ. (2022). The effect of workplace ostracism on organizational silence and workplace loneliness: a study on healthcare workers. Int. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy7, 300–308. doi: 10.33457/ijhsrp.1131522
39
PeplauL. A.PerlmanD. (Eds.). (1982). “Perspectives on loneliness,” in Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons), 1–18.
40
PerlmanD.PeplauL. A. (1984). “Loneliness research: a survey of empirical findings,” in Preventing the Harmful Consequences of Severe and Persistent Loneliness, eds L. A. Peplau and S. E. Goldston (New York, NY: National Institute of Mental Health), 13–46.
41
RussellD.PeplauL. A.CutronaC. E. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 472–480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.472
42
RussellD. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J. Pers. Assess. 66, 20–40. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
43
SasakiN.TsunoK.KurodaR.ImamuraK.EguchiH.ShimazuA.et al. (2025). Workplace loneliness and job turnover: a 6-month prospective study. J. Occup. Health67:uiaf009. doi: 10.1093/joccuh/uiaf009
44
SotoC. A. V.PérezJ. P. (2025). Adaptación transcultural y validez factorial de la escala de “soledad laboral” de Wright en población mexicana. Contaduría y Administración70, 26–55. doi: 10.22201/fca.24488410e.2025.5048
45
StavrovaO.RenD. (2023). Alone in a crowd: is social contact associated with less psychological pain of loneliness in everyday life?J. Happiness Stud.24, 1841–1860. doi: 10.1007/s10902-023-00661-3
46
UchinoB. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: a life-span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 236–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01122.x
47
UK Government Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. (2018). A Connected Society: A Strategy for Tackling Loneliness—Laying the Foundations for Change. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-connected-society-a-strategy-for-tackling-loneliness (Accessed September 1, 2025).
48
UK Government Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport. (2022). Government's Work on Tackling Loneliness. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/governments-work-on-tackling-loneliness (Accessed September 1, 2025).
49
WeissR. S. (1973). Loneliness: The Experiences of Emotional and Social Isolation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50
WrightS. L.BurtC. D. B.StrongmanK. T. (2006). Loneliness in the workplace: construct definition and scale development. New Zeal. J. Psychol. 35, 59–68.
51
ZhouX. (2018). A review of researches workplace loneliness. Psychology9, 1005–1022. doi: 10.4236/psych.2018.95064
Summary
Keywords
loneliness, occupational health, scale, states of isolation, workplace
Citation
Nakamura J, Matsuo A, Ono H, Momotani H, Sekiya D and Matsui Y (2026) Development and validation of a workplace isolation and loneliness state scale: a tool for the prevention of isolation and loneliness in the workplace. Front. Organ. Psychol. 3:1699454. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2025.1699454
Received
05 September 2025
Revised
10 December 2025
Accepted
25 December 2025
Published
20 January 2026
Volume
3 - 2025
Edited by
José Alberto Martínez González, University of La Laguna, Spain
Reviewed by
Lambert Zixin Li, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Marlen Rahnfeld, Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Nakamura, Matsuo, Ono, Momotani, Sekiya and Matsui.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Junko Nakamura, nakamura.junko.fp@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.