According to a study published in the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity and authored by Anthony Ong (a psychology professor and director of the Human Health Labs in the College of Human Ecology), Laura Kubzansky (a professor of social and behavioral sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health), and researchers from Cornell University, Weill Cornell Medicine, and Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, those with richer social lives may be biologically aging slower.
Published in the October issue of the journal, the study drew data from more than 2,100 individuals part of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) project: A collaborative and interdisciplinary effort with the goal of investigating midlife development in physical and psychological health as well as social responsibilities and their patterns, predictors, and consequences. From the resulting data, the researchers observed that those with higher cumulative social advantage—a measure of lifelong social and emotional support quantified by deep relationships with family and friends as well as involvement in social groups—had biological markers indicating slower cellular aging, as well as lower levels of chronic inflammation than those less socially involved.
Co-author Ong remarks by saying how “cumulative social advantage is really about the depth and breadth of your social connections over a lifetime…We looked at four key areas: the warmth and support you received from your parents growing up, how connected you feel to your community and neighborhood, your involvement in religious or faith-based communities, and the ongoing emotional support from friends and family.”
Additionally, using results of slower epigenetic aging, the authors recognized the ability for social advantages to set back what are called “epigenetic clocks”: Molecular signatures that are used in order to approximate the pace of biological aging. These clocks are supposedly set back by deep social networks in such a way that an individual’s biological age, as indicated by their DNA methylation patterns appear more youthful than their literal, chronological age. Two types of these clocks, GrimAge and DunedinPACE—used to predict health risks and life expectancy—are regarded as especially predictive of morbidity and mortality, and those with stronger social involvement and connections displayed significantly younger profiles on both clocks.
The investigation has led researchers involved to hypothesize that sustained social advantages may be linked to core regulatory systems linked to aging, including epigenetic, inflammatory, and neuroendocrine pathways. Backing up this hypothesis is that said advantage has been connected to lower levels of the pro-inflammatory molecules, interleukin-6, implicated in heart disease, diabetes, and neurodegeneration. Interestingly enough, however, there were no significant links with short-term stress indicators such as cortisol or catecholamines.
Unlike previously conducted studies that characterized cumulative social advantage by a collection of social factors in isolation, such as whether an individual is married or how many friends they have, this recent study redefines it as a more multidimensional construct combining both early and later-life relationships and resources in which advantage is clustered and compounded. Ong comments how “these social resources build on each other over time,” and “it’s not just about having friends today; it’s about how your social connections have grown and deepened throughout your life. That accumulation shapes your health trajectory in measurable ways.”
This more complex view on the way in which biological aging may be slowed through means of social connectivity suggests that holding a single friendship or volunteer position may not necessarily be enough to turn back the biological clock. The authors of the study recommend that consistency and depth in social connections built over decades and span different spheres of life are more likely to instrumentally reflect these results. Jeremy Nobel, an instructor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, comments on the study by reasoning that people should approach loneliness as a biological signal, such as thirst that impairs our health if not remedied (e.g. hydration), and that under such a perspective, it is unsurprising that our minds have created a mechanism that rewards connection with others.
When reflecting on the study, Ong suggested to “think of social connections like a retirement account…The earlier you start investing and the more consistently you contribute, the greater your returns. Our study shows those returns aren’t just emotional; they’re biological. People with richer, more sustained social connections literally age more slowly at the cellular level. Aging well means both staying healthy and staying connected—they’re inseparable.”
