Loneliness around the world: Age, gender, and cultural differences in loneliness.

The BBC Loneliness Experiment provided a unique opportunity to examine differences in the experience of lonelines across cultures, age, and gender, and the interaction between these factors. Using those data, we analysed the frequency of loneliness reported by 46,054 participants aged 16-99 years, living across 237 countries, islands, and territories, representing the full range of individualism-collectivism cultures, as defined by Hofstede (1997). Findings showed that loneliness increased with individualism, decreased with age, and was greater in men than in women. We also found that age, gender, and culture interacted to predict loneliness, although those interactions did not qualify the main effects, and simply accentuated them. We found the most vulnerable to loneliness were younger men living in individualistic cultures.

Incidental fear reduces empathy for an out-group's pain.

Humans generally fear those different to them (i.e., an out-group) in the same way they fear natural predators. But fear pushes us to derogate others, whether they constitute a threat or not. Research has examined how fear associated with specific intergroup relations interferes with how individuals relate to in-group and out-group members. However, we know relatively little about how intergroup relations might be affected by incidental emotions. We tested how incidental fear affects empathy toward in-group and out-group members. We found that exposing participants to fearful imagery was sufficient to reduce empathy, but only in response to out-group suffering. We discuss how these findings provide insight into how fear is often leveraged to encourage social tribalism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Early Post-trauma Interventions in Organizations: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: In some organizations, traumatic events via direct or indirect exposure are routine experiences. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reviews (2005; 2018) of post-traumatic stress disorder management in primary and secondary care did not address early interventions for trauma within emergency response organizations. AIMS: This scoping review was designed to identify research which evaluates the use of early interventions in emergency and other high-risk organizations following exposure to primary or secondary trauma and to report on the effectiveness of the early intervention models in common use. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to examine early interventions for workers exposed to trauma, including emergency response, military, and humanitarian aid. Relevant data were extracted from the included studies and the outcomes were assessed using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Fifty studies of mixed quality met the inclusion criteria for this review. A synthesis of study outcomes found that early interventions help emergency responders to manage post-incident trauma when they are delivered in a manner that (a) respects distinct organizational culture, (b) is supported by organizations and senior management, and (c) harnesses existing social cohesion and peer support systems within teams. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that early interventions support emergency responders following exposure to trauma when these are tailored to the needs of the population, are supported by the host organization, and harness existing social cohesion and peer support processes within a team or unit. A number of recommendations for the delivery and evaluation of early interventions for psychological trauma in emergency response organizations were made.

Empathic responses are reduced to competitive but not non-competitive outgroups.

Individuals feel more empathy for those in their group (i.e. ingroup members) than those who are not (i.e. outgroup members). But empathy is not merely selective to group distinctions, rather it fluctuates according to how groups are perceived. The goal of this research was to determine whether group-based evaluations can drive biases in self-reported empathy as well as in the underlying neural activity. Participants were asked to rate a target's physical pain while BOLD responses were recorded via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The target was either a member of the ingroup or one of two outgroups, one which was more of a rival to the ingroup than the other. Participants reported feeling more empathy for targets experiencing painful compared to innocuous events, showing bias only in favour of their ingroup. Neural responses were stronger while observing painful, compared to innocuous, events but only for targets from the ingroup or the less competitive outgroup. The difference was non-significant and trended in the opposite direction when the target was from the more competitive outgroup. This provides evidence that empathy is not merely selective to "us" vs "them" but is more nuanced by whom we refer to by "them".