Haha. Yeah, I missed the link. Tired, I guess. I just didn't see it, and I am so.eone who digs into a lot of links and references. So I asked for clarification.

Ossiana already pointed out that it was there, though that doesn't change the fact that the sentence in question is ordered poorly. Swapping modifier placement would have made it read so much better.

Thanks for your input.

The article doesn't answer my legit questions though. It's not even a study, it's an interview with a siciological professor that references a study. Interestingly it says 60% of people are lonely and that the number has been rising linearly since the 70s (based on what?) then is says 60% of COLLEGE students are lonely. That's a note of oddity. Which is it. There's some of that missing context. There are also still no parameters around the criteria of "lonely".

How the question was asked and who it was asked to are very important in keeping research of this nature sound.

The sad fact is that a lot of researchers, especially in soft sciences, don't design good studies. Then they publish and before those studies can be properly evaluated and replicated some science writer picks it up, writes an article designes to sell subscriptions and now everyone is on the lonely bandwagon.