Mitigating the affective and cognitive consequences of social exclusion: an integrative data analysis of seven social disconnection interventions.

BACKGROUND: Being socially excluded has detrimental effects, with prolonged exclusion linked to loneliness and social isolation. Social disconnection interventions that do not require direct support actions (e.g., "how can I help?") offer promise in mitigating the affective and cognitive consequences of social exclusion. We examine how various social disconnection interventions involving friends and unknown peers might mitigate social exclusion by buffering (intervening before) and by promoting recovery (intervening after). METHODS: We present an integrative data analysis (IDA) of five studies (N = 664) that systematically exposed participants to exclusion (vs. inclusion) social dynamics. Using a well-validated paradigm, participants had a virtual interaction with two other people. Unbeknownst to participants, the other people's behavior was programmed to either behave inclusively toward the participant or for one to behave exclusively. Critically, our social disconnection interventions experimentally manipulated whether a friend was present (vs. an unknown peer vs. being alone), the nature of interpersonal engagement (having a face-to-face conversation vs. a reminder of an upcoming interaction vs. mere presence), and the timing of the intervention in relation to the social dynamic (before vs. during vs. after). We then assessed participants' in-the-moment affective and cognitive responses, which included mood, feelings of belonging, sense of control, and social comfort. RESULTS: Experiencing exclusion (vs. inclusion) led to negative affective and cognitive consequences. However, engaging in a face-to-face conversation with a friend before the exclusion lessened its impact (p < .001). Moreover, a face-to-face conversation with a friend after exclusion, and even a reminder of an upcoming interaction with a friend, sped-up recovery (ps < .001). There was less conclusive evidence that a face-to-face conversation with an unknown peer, or that the mere presence of a friend or unknown peer, conferred protective benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide support for the effectiveness of social disconnection interventions that involve actual (i.e., face-to-face) or symbolic (i.e., reminders) interactions with friends. These interventions target momentary vulnerabilities that arise from social exclusion by addressing negative affect and cognitions before or after they emerge. As such, they offer a promising approach to primary prevention prior to the onset of loneliness and social isolation.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

On the prevalence of racial discrimination in the United States.

Boutwell, Nedelec, Winegard, Shackelford, Beaver, Vaughn, Barnes, & Wright (2017) published an article in this journal that interprets data from the Add Health dataset as showing that only one-quarter of individuals in the United States experience discrimination. In Study 1, we attempted to replicate Boutwell et al.'s findings using a more direct measure of discrimination. Using data from the Pew Research Center, we examined a large sample of American respondents (N = 3,716) and explored the prevalence of discrimination experiences among various racial groups. Our findings stand in contrast to Boutwell et al.'s estimates, revealing that between 50% and 75% of Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents (depending on the group and analytic approach) reported discriminatory treatment. In Study 2, we explored whether question framing affected how participants responded to Boutwell's question about experiencing less respect and courtesy. Regardless of question framing, non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. Further, there was an interaction of participant race and question framing such that when participants were asked about experiences of less respect or courtesy broadly, there were no differences between non-White participants and White participants, but when they were asked about experiences that were specifically race-based, non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. The current research provides a counterweight to the claim that discrimination is not a prevalent feature of the lives of minority groups and the serious implications this claim poses for research and public policy.