NPR84%

People love working from home. But does it love them back? A new study says no 42%

By Rhitu Chatterjee0%

6/8/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.4% saturation with 294 hits. Analysis detected 2,097 faulty-reasoning hits from 879 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,807 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.50% of the article peer group.

Remote work has soared in popularity since the COVID-19 pandemic. 
But, a new study suggests the practice has made workers more socially isolated, anxious and depressed compared to people who work in-person in offices and other settings. 
"Other studies have found that workers are willing to give up 4 to 10% of their earnings in order to have the ability to work remotely," says Natalia Emanuel, an economist at Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the main author of the new study published in the journal <em>Science</em>. 
"So there is a great desire for remote work." 
Yet she and her colleagues found that people in remote jobs have seen a rise in hours spent alone during the workday, and more visits to mental health care providers. 
In self-reports, they also assess their own mental health negatively. 
How does working from home change us? 
The findings suggest that "people might be choosing poorly," when it comes to their well-being, says Nicholas Epley, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, who wasn't involved in the study. 
Want the latest stories on the science of healthy living? 
Subscribe to NPR's <em>Health newsletter</em>. 
That's probably because "it's very easy to recognize that the commute is a pain in the neck and the traffic sucks," compared to anticipating how missed social connections at work will impact us down the line, he says. 
His own research has documented that people "underestimate how well things will go when we actually reach out to connect with other people," he adds. 
Epley says Emanuel and her colleagues found a way to answer a question he gets asked often: "What work from home does to us?" 
"Everybody wants to know how is that changing things? 
And usually the answer is we can't really tell," he explains. 
"We can't really tell because people weren't randomly assigned to work from home or not as a terrible experiment." 
"Remotable" vs. "non-remotable" jobs 
To get around that problem, Emanuel and her colleagues looked at data from five large national surveys on American workers, both in jobs that allow remote work, like software engineering and marketing  so-called "remotable jobs"  and those in jobs that can't be done remotely ("non-remotable jobs" like surgery, or mechanical engineering). 
They found that workers in remotable jobs had experienced a 58% rise in hours spent alone compared to people in non-remotable jobs. 
These workers also saw a 72% rise in chances of spending their whole day with no human contact. 
"Not even like a wave to a barista, not somebody also checking for ripeness of the avocados at the grocery store," says Emanuel. 
"Just no human contact at all." 
Remote workers aren't making up for that lost social connection by socializing after work, she adds. 
"We even see a decrease in spending time with friends after the work day relative to people in non-remotable occupations." 
More psych meds, too 
People in remote jobs also saw a rise in symptoms of emotional distress, evaluated with a standardized questionnaire about symptoms of anxiety and depression. 
They also had more visits to mental health care providers and used more prescription psychiatric meds. 
All these impacts were worse for remote workers who live alone. 
For example, they saw the largest increase  83%  in chances of spending their days with no social contact. 
"Likewise, the increase in mental distress is almost twice as large for those living alone as for those living with their family," notes Epley. 
That's no surprise, he adds. 
Scores of past studies have documented the negative impacts of isolation and loneliness on our mental and even physical health. 
"Being alone compromises your immune system functioning, your cardiovascular system functioning," says Epley. 
Studies have also documented that the biggest predictor of well-being and happiness is "the quality of your social relationships," he adds. 
"Psychologists believe this feeling of human connection and belonging is just absolutely crucial to us as humans, that we cannot thrive, we suffer, if we don't have that need met," says psychologist Gillian Sandstrom at Sussex University and author of a book called <em>Once Upon a Stranger: The Science of How 'Small' Talk Can Add Up to a Big Life.</em> 
While the new study's findings are important, Epley notes that they "don't suggest that every office should be forcing everybody to come in to work." 
However, employers should take into account that remote work is taking a toll on workers' mental health, and they should make working in the office "more attractive for people." 
As many organizations are starting to bring employees back to work, Epley suggests, they should make sure that those who come in have other co-workers there, too. 
"What they're providing that's rewarding at work is social interaction, social connection," he says. 
And for those still working remotely, Sandstrom, who also often works from home, recommends being intentional about seeking daily human interactions like she does. 
"I leave the house every day. 
I go for a walk, I see my neighbors, I pet some dogs," she says. 
"I have my activities that I do. 
I play tennis. 
I have hobbies that mean that I see other people."<br> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Rhitu Chatterjee: 5.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 6.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.6%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.6%This article: 5.2%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 1.9%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 33.4%Rhitu Chatterjee: 11.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias33.4%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 2.7%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias3.6%This article: 2.7%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect2.7%This article: 2.8%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.2%Rhitu Chatterjee: 13.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority27.2%This article: 4.8%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 3.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope3.3%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.8%Rhitu Chatterjee: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization7.8%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 11.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 4.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion11.3%This article: 0.6%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.6%This article: 25.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 6.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.3%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.5%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof5.5%This article: 2.7%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.7%This article: 8.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division8.3%This article: 7.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal7.3%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.4%Rhitu Chatterjee: 4.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.4%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.8%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading2.8%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.6%Rhitu Chatterjee: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 3.3%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 3.2%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 4.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 3.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhitu Chatterjee: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Rhitu Chatterjee: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

879 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers65%attributed speech306writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 51 words • 100.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageNPR • 5 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 38 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 25 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 24 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNatalia Emanuel • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 24 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 5 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 21 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 60 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 25 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 29 words • 100.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 27 words • 0.0% coverageNicholas Epley • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 6 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 15 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 7 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 3 words • 0.0% coverageGillian Sandstrom • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nicholas Epley

100%flagged-word coverage
342 attributed words60% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Indoctrination+6.5 ptsWriter: 2.0%Nicholas Epley: 8.5%8.5%Unattributed Quote+7.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nicholas Epley: 7.3%7.3%Quote-first Misdirection+5.4 ptsWriter: 1.6%Nicholas Epley: 7.0%7.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.1 ptsWriter: 4.9%Nicholas Epley: 3.8%3.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Nicholas Epley: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.