Reducing Loneliness through the Power of Practicing Together: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Online Dyadic Socio-Emotional vs. Mindfulness-Based Training.

Loneliness has become a pressing topic, especially among young adults and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a randomized controlled trial with 253 healthy adults, we evaluated the differential efficacy of two 10-week app-delivered mental training programs: one based on classic mindfulness and one on an innovative partner-based socio-emotional practice (Affect Dyad). We show that the partner-based training resulted in greater reductions in loneliness than the mindfulness-based training. This effect was shown on three measures of loneliness: general loneliness assessed with the 20-item UCLA Loneliness Scale, state loneliness queried over an 8-day ecological momentary assessment in participants' daily lives, and loneliness ratings required before and after daily practice. Our study provides evidence for the higher efficacy of a mental training approach based on a 12 min practice conducted with a partner in reducing loneliness and provides a novel, scalable online approach to reduce the increasing problem of loneliness in society.

A randomized trial on differential changes in thought and affect after mindfulness versus dyadic practice indicates phenomenological fingerprints of app-based interventions.

Contemplative practice has demonstrated benefits for mental health and well-being. Most previous studies, however, implemented in-person trainings containing a mix of different, mostly solitary, practices and focused on pre- to post-training outcomes. In this randomized trial, we explore the immediate differential efficacy of two daily app-delivered practices in shifting emotional (valence, arousal) and thinking patterns (thought content on future-past, self-other, positive-negative dimensions). For 10 weeks of daily training, 212 participants (18-65 years) performed either a novel 12-min partner-based socio-emotional practice (Affect Dyad) or a 12-min attention-focused solitary mindfulness-based practice. Using ordinal Bayesian multilevel modeling, we found that both practice types led to more positive affect and higher arousal. However, whereas mindfulness-based practice partly led to a decrease in active thoughts, particularly in future-, other-related and negative thoughts, the Dyad in contrast led to increases in other-related, and positive thoughts. This shift towards more social and positive thoughts may specifically support overcoming ruminative thinking patterns associated with self-related and negative thought content. Overall, these differential findings may help inform the adaptation of scalable app-based mental trainings in different segments of the population with the goal to improve mental health and well-being.

Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perceived Changes in Psychological Vulnerability, Resilience and Social Cohesion before, during and after Lockdown.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns have posed unique and severe challenges to our global society. To gain an integrative understanding of pervasive social and mental health impacts in 3522 Berlin residents aged 18 to 65, we systematically investigated the structural and temporal relationship between a variety of psychological indicators of vulnerability, resilience and social cohesion before, during and after the first lockdown in Germany using a retrospective longitudinal study design. Factor analyses revealed that (a) vulnerability and resilience indicators converged on one general bipolar factor, (b) residual variance of resilience indicators formed a distinct factor of adaptive coping capacities and (c) social cohesion could be reliably measured with a hierarchical model including four first-order dimensions of trust, a sense of belonging, social interactions and social engagement, and one second-order social cohesion factor. In the second step, latent change score models revealed that overall psychological vulnerability increased during the first lockdown and decreased again during re-opening, although not to baseline levels. Levels of social cohesion, in contrast, first decreased and then increased again during re-opening. Furthermore, participants who increased in vulnerability simultaneously decreased in social cohesion and adaptive coping during lockdown. While higher pre-lockdown levels of social cohesion predicted a stronger lockdown effect on mental health, individuals with higher social cohesion during the lockdown and positive change in coping abilities and social cohesion during re-opening showed better mental health recovery, highlighting the important role of social capacities in both amplifying but also overcoming the multiple challenges of this collective crisis.