Performance & Health Require Other People

Solitary vs. group performance outcomes are measurably worse across every dimension that matters: follow-through, engagement, work performance, health, longevity, mental health, SUD recovery.

The best intervention, when you strip it down, is (i) time together, (ii) a shared standard and individual accountability to others, and (iii) group perseverance through hardship in a culture that affirms.

I wrote a short synopsis of this research here:

*Setting up camp on a medical mission, Nepal, 2017.

1. Groups Outperform Individuals at Changing Behavior

When identical health interventions are delivered to groups versus individuals, groups produce better adherence and better outcomes.

A meta-analysis of physical activity interventions (Burke, Carron et al., 2006) found this pattern across adherence, social interaction, quality of life, and physiological outcomes.

Exercising in a “true group,” one designed with group-dynamics principles to increase cohesion, was superior to exercising in a standard exercise class. Standard classes and home-based exercise with regular contact from researchers performed similarly, while home-based exercise without contact was significantly inferior to both. *The distinction that mattered was whether the program was designed to build group cohesion, not simply whether people were in the same room. *This distinction is confirmed by more recent work. A 2025 meta-analysis (71 studies, 523 effect sizes, preprint, not yet peer-reviewed) found that true groups, those designed with deliberate cohesion-building, showed larger effects on health outcomes than all other group types.

Self-paced digital health programs confirm the cost of isolation from the other direction. Apps, courses, and online challenges consistently show low completion rates for the general population, often in the single digits for MOOCs and self-guided health programs (rates vary by platform and population, but the direction is consistent across the literature).

*The content in the online programs is often sound. Without social accountability—without other people who notice whether you showed up—the vast majority of people stop.

2. Workplace Teams: High Performance Is Relational

The workplace is where the relationship between group dynamics and performance has been measured most extensively.

*The single most important drivers of excellence at work? Friendship and psychological safety.

Gallup’s Q12 employee engagement research, based on tens of millions of survey responses across industries and decades, identified a finding that still surprises people: the single question most strongly linked to high-performing teams is: “I have a best friend at work.” People on the most productive teams consistently answer this favorably. People on average teams do not. Gallup tested alternative wordings and found that no other phrasing predicted team performance as well.

Friendship correlates with creativity, client partnership metrics, financial responsibility, safety outcomes, and retention.

(An important caveat: Gallup’s research is proprietary and correlational. High-performing teams may produce close friendships as much as close friendships produce high performance. The Q12 data establishes a strong association, not a clean causal arrow. But the association is consistent across industries, geographies, and decades of measurement.)

Google’s Project Aristotle, led by Abeer Dubey and Julia Rozovsky, studied 180 teams and arrived at the same conclusion from a different angle. The strongest predictor of team effectiveness was psychological safety, a construct developed by Harvard researcher Amy Edmondson: the belief that you can be vulnerable and take interpersonal risks without being punished. *Teams where people felt safe to admit mistakes and challenge each other outperformed teams staffed with individually brilliant people who didn’t trust each other.

Jehn and Shah (1997) tested this experimentally. Groups of friends consistently outperformed groups of acquaintances on collaborative tasks. Stronger collaboration, more open communication, shared commitment to group goals. The relationship preceded the performance.

*Even in the domain most explicitly organized around output, the quality of the relationships between people is the variable that matters most for results.

3. Being Alone Will Kill You

The performance gap between solo and group extends to whether you live or die.

Julianne Holt-Lunstad’s 2015 meta-analysis at Brigham Young University aggregated 70 studies and found that social isolation increases the likelihood of premature death by 26-32%, depending on how isolation is measured. Her earlier 2010 meta-analysis, covering 148 studies and over 300,000 participants, found that the mortality impact of weak social relationships is comparable to smoking and exceeds the risk from obesity and physical inactivity. These findings are replicated, controlled for confounds, and published in top-tier journals.

The risk is higher for people under 65 than over 65. This is counterintuitive. We associate isolation with the elderly. The data shows that social deficits are more predictive of death in younger and middle-aged samples.

The U.S. Surgeon General declared loneliness a public health epidemic in 2023. The 82-page advisory reported that roughly half of American adults experienced measurable loneliness even before COVID. The downstream consequences: 29% increased risk of coronary heart disease, 32% increased risk of stroke, approximately 50% increased risk of dementia among older adults with chronic loneliness.

*The loneliness studies have the same evidentiary weight as the research on smoking.

The longest confirmation comes from the Harvard Study of Adult Development, which has tracked the same individuals and their families since 1938. After more than 85 years of data collection, the study’s clearest finding is that relationship quality at age 50 is a better predictor of physical health at age 80 than cholesterol levels. The people most satisfied in their relationships in middle age were the healthiest three decades later, across both the Harvard-educated cohort and the inner-city Boston cohort. The finding held regardless of social class, IQ, or genetic background. Robert Waldinger, the study’s current director, summarizes the mechanism: chronic loneliness is a stressor, and chronic stress breaks the body down over time. (Waldinger, R. & Schulz, M., The Good Life, 2023; Harvard Study of Adult Development, ongoing since 1938.)

4. The Pattern Across Health Conditions

The group advantage is not confined to exercise or workplace performance. Researchers have studied group-based versus individual interventions across a range of chronic conditions. The same pattern appears in every one.

• Weight Loss: A 2022 systematic review (Street & Avenell, 10 RCTs, 2,169 participants) directly compared group versus individual delivery of the same weight loss intervention. Group participants lost significantly more weight at every time point, 1.33 kg more at final follow-up, and were 36% more likely to achieve clinically meaningful weight loss of 5% or more of body weight. Attrition rates were similar, meaning the group advantage was not explained by differential dropout.
• Type 2 diabetes: Group-based self-management education significantly reduced HbA1c compared to routine care: by 0.44 percentage points at 6 months and 0.46 points at 12 months, across 21 studies and 2,833 participants (Steinsbekk et al., BMC Health Services Research, 2012). A separate meta-analysis of group medical visits for diabetes, covering 13 RCTs, found HbA1c reductions of 0.46 percentage points versus usual individual care (Housden, Wong & Dawes, CMAJ, 2013). The clinical content in these comparisons was equivalent. The delivery format was the differentiator. (The impact is comparable to adding a second med.)
• Cardiac rehabilitation: Group-based exercise programs for coronary heart disease patients reduce cardiovascular mortality, recurrent cardiac events, and hospitalizations while improving quality of life. A 2023 meta-analysis in the European Heart Journal covering 85 RCTs and 23,430 participants confirmed the benefit (Taylor et al., 2023). The meta-analysis attributes these outcomes to exercise-based rehabilitation broadly, not specifically to the group social dynamic. That said, adherence to cardiac rehab programs is consistently higher in structured group settings than in home-based individual programs, and patient-reported research identifies the peer support of exercising alongside others with similar conditions as a significant factor in sustained participation.
• Gestational diabetes prevention: A 2024 meta-analysis in Communications Medicine (Takele et al., 116 studies, 40,940 participants) found that group-based physical activity interventions reduced gestational diabetes incidence by 34% compared to individual or mixed delivery formats (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46-0.95, subgroup p = 0.04). The confidence interval is wide and barely crosses significance, so this finding should be treated as suggestive rather than definitive. Worth noting: the individual-only delivery arm showed essentially no reduction in gestational diabetes risk (RR 1.03), which strengthens the case that format matters.
• Depression: Group CBT performs comparably to individual CBT for depression in adults, with the added benefit of reduced isolation and normalized experience. The evidence base is large enough that most clinical guidelines list group therapy as a first-line option alongside individual therapy.

5. Three Mechanisms, Not One

Research points to three distinct mechanisms through which groups improve individual outcomes: accountability, community identity, and cohesion. They overlap, but they work at different levels of human functioning, and that distinction matters for designing interventions.

Accountability

Making a commitment visible converts a private intention into a social contract. Dean Karlan and colleagues showed that people who made public savings pledges deposited more than those who committed privately, with similar effects in smoking cessation and other behavior change domains. Robert Cialdini’s social norms work explains why: what predicts behavior is not what people say they value, but what they see peers actually doing. When you can see that others in your group are following through, your own follow‑through increases; the essential ingredient is visibility, not format. This is why digital accountability groups, cohort courses, and workplace challenges can rival in‑person ones when they make progress and lapses observable.

Community identity

Accountability shapes behavior; identity shapes who you think you are. When “I’m someone who shows up” becomes a group identity rather than a private aspiration, the behavior sticks differently. Social identity research, and Alcoholics Anonymous in particular, show that durable change often requires stepping into a different social world, not just making better choices in the old one. AA’s sponsor, home group, and fellowship re-anchor identity around sobriety; individual therapy typically cannot, because it returns a person to the same drinking‑centered networks. This mechanism depends on sustained membership in a specific community over time, where others know your story and expect your presence.

Cohesion

Cohesion is the mechanism that depends most on physical co‑presence and shared experience. James Coan’s Social Baseline Theory shows that the brain treats nearby, trusted others as part of its resource environment, reducing perceived effort and threat. Hills literally appear less steep when a person stands next to a friend, socially isolated individuals consume more sugar even after controlling for other factors, and simply holding a partner’s hand dampens neural responses to threat. In other words, being with others lowers the metabolic cost of self‑regulation; some of the burden is offloaded to the relationship.

Cohesion arises when this load‑sharing is repeated under shared difficulty. Studies of shared pain and adversity show that groups who undergo painful or stressful tasks together report greater solidarity and cooperate more, even when cooperation is personally costly. Military research finds that units exposed to stressful events as a group often report higher social cohesion, and that cohesion buffers some of the impact of combat stressors on performance and adjustment. The “military model” works not just because it is hard, but because hard things are done together, in person, with mutual dependence. The toughness is a byproduct; the product is a tightly bonded unit whose members literally experience the world as less demanding when they are side by side.

Taken together, the three mechanisms form a stack. Accountability makes follow‑through visible, identity makes follow‑through self‑defining, and cohesion makes effort less costly by distributing it across bodies and brains. Well‑designed groups deliberately layer all three.

Why the distinction matters: Accountability can be delivered digitally. Community identity requires sustained membership in a specific group. Cohesion requires shared physical experience. The research suggests that interventions producing all three mechanisms simultaneously will outperform those producing only one or two. This is consistent with the Burke and Carron finding that “true groups” with deliberate cohesion-building outperform standard groups, which outperform individual approaches.

Self-determination theory offers a unifying frame: relatedness, the need to feel connected to and cared about by others, is one of three basic psychological needs alongside autonomy and competence. When this need is unmet, motivation and wellbeing degrade regardless of how well the other two are satisfied. The three mechanisms described above are three ways of meeting the relatedness need at increasing depth.

6. Recovery Proves the Model

The clearest proof that the container matters more than the content comes from addiction recovery research.

The 2020 Cochrane Review of Alcoholics Anonymous examined 27 studies covering 10,565 participants. AA and 12-Step Facilitation programs produced outcomes equal to or better than CBT and motivational enhancement therapy on every measure. On sustained abstinence specifically, AA showed a significant advantage: 42% of AA participants maintained continuous abstinence at one year, compared to 35% in other evidence-based treatments. AA also produced substantial healthcare cost savings.

This research has important limitations: the Cochrane reviewers flagged high risk of selection bias in 11 of the 27 studies. Nine studies carried high risk of attrition bias, meaning dropout rates exceeded 20%. Participants cannot be blinded to whether they’re attending AA, which introduces performance bias that is impossible to fully control. And there is a contamination problem: participants randomized to comparison treatments like CBT cannot realistically be prevented from attending AA on their own, which dilutes any measured differences between groups. The 42% versus 35% finding is real and clinically meaningful. It should be understood within these constraints.

What matters most for the argument here is the proposed mechanism.

The reviewers noted that AA’s advantage in sustained abstinence was achieved largely by fostering continued AA participation beyond the end of formal treatment.

In other words, by keeping people connected to a community over time. AA works because it replaces a person’s drinking-centered social world with a sober one. The sponsor relationship, the home group, the fellowship: these create a community that expects sobriety and notices when someone is struggling. Individual therapy, however skilled, sends a person back into the same social environment that supported their addiction.

7. The Military Cohesion Data

Peer-reviewed research on military unit cohesion consistently identifies the bonds between soldiers as a significant predictor of combat performance, morale, and post-deployment psychological health. Prospective studies show that higher unit cohesion is associated with lower risk of PTSD, depression, generalized anxiety, and suicidal ideation after deployment (Anderson, Campbell-Sills, Ursano et al., Depression & Anxiety, 2019, 4,645 soldiers deployed to Afghanistan). A separate analysis found that cohesion buffers the dose-response relationship between combat exposure and PTSD symptoms at both the individual and unit level (Campbell-Sills, Ursano et al., Psychological Medicine, 2022). This is produced by the shared training and mutual dependence, not by selecting for toughness.

The PTSD data is more nuanced than popular accounts suggest. Sebastian Junger’s book Tribe (2016) popularized the idea that reintegration difficulty is primarily about losing the unit bond rather than combat exposure itself. The peer-reviewed evidence supports cohesion as a significant moderator of combat exposure effects on PTSD, but does not establish that cohesion loss outweighs combat exposure as a standalone predictor. Both matter. What the research does show clearly is that soldiers embedded in strong units fare better psychologically than soldiers with equivalent combat exposure in weaker units. The container shapes the outcome.

Every discipline story that dominates popular culture right now, BUD/S, Ranger School, Special Forces selection, is a story about collective formation. The individual toughness that emerges is real. It is a byproduct of the relational container. The container came first.

What This Adds Up To

The convergence across these domains is not subtle. Mortality research, recovery science, behavioral interventions, workplace performance, military psychology, sports outcomes, chronic disease management: they all arrive at the same conclusion.

People who lack structured social connection perform worse, follow through less, get sicker, and die sooner.

The self-improvement industry sells individual optimization because individual products scale and group programs don’t. The result is strong revenue and poor sustained outcomes for most participants.

The healthcare system treats individuals, prescribing medications and recommending lifestyle changes delivered to a person sitting alone in a room. The social determinants of health framework acknowledges the importance of community, but the actual delivery model remains stubbornly individual.

To be fair, it’s hard to address social structure using market or medical mechanisms.

The institutions that once provided group infrastructure are disappearing. Robert Putnam documented this decline exhaustively in Bowling Alone (2000): civic associations, unions, fraternal orders, churches, and social clubs have all contracted dramatically since the 1960s. His 2020 follow-up, The Upswing, confirmed the trend has continued.

What has replaced them is content. Podcasts. Apps. Online communities that can provide accountability but struggle to produce community identity and rarely produce cohesion.

Supplemental Point: The Friendship Recession

Roughly one in five adults have no close friends?

The American Perspectives Survey (2021), run by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute, documents a friendship decline that is staggering in scale. Over the past three decades, the number of close friends Americans have has plummeted. In 2021, 12% of Americans reported having no close friends, up from roughly 3% in 1990. A 2024 follow-up found the figure had risen to 17%.

The class dimension is as significant as any other factor. The AEI Survey Center data shows that education level predicts friendship networks more strongly than gender. Americans without a college degree are roughly twice as likely as college graduates to have no close friends (24% versus 10% in 2024 data). Working and middle-class adults are disproportionately affected.

Time tells the rest of the story. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the American Time Use Survey shows that time spent with friends peaks in late adolescence and drops steeply through the 30s and 40s. By middle age, Americans spend roughly 30 minutes a day with friends, down from over two hours at age 18. Friendships require time, and the structure of modern adult life, long commutes, shift work, dual-income households, screen time, systematically eliminates it.

---

Sources

1. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237.

2. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., & Layton, J.B. (2010). “Social Relationships and Mortality Risk.” PLoS Medicine, 7(7).

3. U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. (2023). “Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

4. Cox, Daniel A. (2021). “The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss.” Survey Center on American Life, American Enterprise Institute.

5. Kelly, J.F., Humphreys, K., & Ferri, M. (2020). “Alcoholics Anonymous and Other 12-Step Programs for Alcohol Use Disorder.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3.

6. Kelly, J.F., Humphreys, K., & Ferri, M. (2020). “Distillation of a 2020 Cochrane Review for Clinicians and Policy Makers.” Alcohol and Alcoholism, 55(6), 641-651.

7. Burke, S.M., Carron, A.V., Eys, M.A., Ntoumanis, N., & Estabrooks, P.A. (2006). “Group versus Individual Approach? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Physical Activity.” Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 2(1).

8. Street, A. & Avenell, A. (2022). “Are Individual or Group Interventions More Effective for Long-Term Weight Loss in Adults with Obesity?” Clinical Obesity, 12:e12539.

9. Steinsbekk, A., Rygg, L., Lisulo, M., Rise, M.B., & Fretheim, A. (2012). “Group Based Diabetes Self-Management Education Compared to Routine Treatment.” BMC Health Services Research, 12, 213.

10. Housden, L., Wong, S.T., & Dawes, M. (2013). “Effectiveness of Group Medical Visits for Improving Diabetes Care.” CMAJ, 185(13).

11. Taylor, R.S., et al. (2023). “Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation for Coronary Heart Disease.” European Heart Journal, 44(6), 452-469.

12. Takele, W.W., et al. (2024). “Effective Interventions in Preventing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.” Communications Medicine, 4(67).

13. Doré, I., et al. (2023). “The Impact of Sports Participation on Mental Health and Social Outcomes in Adults.” Systematic Reviews, 12(1).

14. Reardon, C.L. & Hitchcock, M. (2024). “Mental Health in Individual Versus Team Sports.” International Review of Psychiatry, 36(3), 284-295.

15. Sabiston, C.M., et al. (2016). “Number of Years of Team and Individual Sport Participation During Adolescence and Depressive Symptoms in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(1), 105-110.

16. Gallup Q12 Employee Engagement Research. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., et al. Gallup, Inc. (Proprietary; correlational.)

17. Google Project Aristotle. Led by Abeer Dubey and Julia Rozovsky. Psychological safety construct developed by Edmondson, A., Harvard Business School.

18. Jehn, K.A. & Shah, P.P. (1997). “Interpersonal Relationships and Task Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775-790.

19. Karlan, D., et al. Commitment device research (savings, smoking cessation). Yale University.

20. Junger, Sebastian. (2016). *Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging. New York: Twelve. (Popular synthesis; not primary research.)

21. Campbell-Sills, L., Ursano, R.J., et al. (2022). “Unit Cohesion as Individual- and Unit-Level Buffer.” Psychological Medicine, 52(1), 121-131. (Online 2020, print 2022.) See also: Anderson, G.S., Campbell-Sills, L., Ursano, R.J., et al. (2019). “Prospective Associations of Perceived Unit Cohesion with Postdeployment Mental Health Outcomes.” Depression & Anxiety, 36(6), 511-521. (Stronger prospective citation; 4,645 soldiers.)

22. Pew Research Center. (2025). “Men, Women and Social Connections.”

23. Waldinger, R. & Schulz, M. (2023). *The Good Life: Lessons from the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness. Simon & Schuster. Harvard Study of Adult Development, ongoing since 1938.

24. Coan, J.A. & Sbarra, D.A. (2015). “Social Baseline Theory: The Social Regulation of Risk and Effort.” Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87-91. See also: Beckes, L. & Coan, J.A. (2011). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 976-988.

25. Putnam, R.D. (2000). *Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster. See also: Putnam, R.D. (2020). *The Upswing.

26. Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

27. Karlan, D. & Appel, J. (2011). *More Than Good Intentions. Commitment savings: Ashraf, N., Karlan, D. & Yin, W. (2006). “Tying Odysseus to the Mast.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 635-672.