Brief interactions with strangers can enhance well-being, yet people often avoid them. Building on a new theoretical framework—the Stranger Engagement Model—we designed an intervention to promote positive interactions between strangers. In a field experiment with adults on a university campus ( N = 563), we enabled individuals to send explicit signals indicating whether or not they were interested in engaging with strangers. Our findings suggest that this simple intervention can increase the frequency, length, and depth of interactions between unacquainted community members, with downstream benefits for social connection and happiness. Our results also suggest that this intervention may enable individuals to meet new people if they wish to do so, without forcing social interactions on those who prefer solitude. More broadly, we argue that the Stranger Engagement Model can provide a framework for identifying when and how to promote interactions between strangers in diverse social contexts.

Around the world, hundreds of millions of people have used social chatbots designed to provide companionship to their users. But can people reap genuine social benefits from interacting with chatbots? In Studies 1a&b (pre-registered; N=801), participants shared good news with a supportive or less supportive interaction partner whom they believed was either a chatbot or a human. Participants’ feelings following the interaction were influenced by their partner’s response style, but not by whether their partner was human. In Study 2 (pre-registered, N=201), participants derived more social connection from having a supportive conversation with ChatGPT than with a less supportive human. In a final pre-registered study (Study 3; N=401), we identified an important boundary condition, demonstrating that the relative benefits of interacting with chatbots (vs. humans) may be reduced when they claim too much humanity.

This study examines the emotional consequences of spending choices in everyday life across a diverse multinational sample. Based on a dataset of 200 participants across 7 countries who received $10,000 USD, we analyzed how happy they felt from different types of purchases made with that money. Participants derived high levels of happiness from some types of purchases that have been examined in past research (e.g., buying experiences), but also from other purchases (e.g., education) that have not been the focus of previous work. We found some evidence that the emotional benefits of spending choices varied depending on whether participants lived in higher vs. lower-income countries; specifically, we found differences in the benefits of spending on gifts, housing, debt, and time-saving services. Around the world, people who spent money in ways that made them happy experienced greater improvements in overall subjective well-being 3 and 6 months later.

Smartphones can undermine the well-being people derive from social interactions, and yet nearly 90% of smartphone owners report having used their phones in their most recent social interaction. Why do people so readily turn to their devices, if doing so makes them less happy? To investigate this question, we asked participants to spend 20 min with 2-3 unacquainted peers in a makeshift recreation room. We randomly assigned groups to either have their phones accessible or to leave them stored away, and we assessed enjoyment for each 5-min phase of the 20-min period. We predicted that phones would provide some initial benefits; but, over time they would increasingly undermine the enjoyment people would derive otherwise by connecting with others. Contrary to our hypothesis, phones failed to confer any detectable benefits. Instead, participants who had access to their phones reported worse overall subjective experience and socialized significantly less (on both self-report and objective measures) compared to those who did not have access to their phones. The findings from this registered report cast doubt on the possibility that people are making sensible-albeit myopic-choices to use their phones, suggesting that people may be acting against their own best interest when they use phones in social situations.

Can happiness be reliably increased? Thousands of studies speak to this question. However, many of them were conducted during a period in which researchers commonly “p-hacked,” creating uncertainty about how many discoveries might be false positives. To prevent p-hacking, happiness researchers increasingly pre-register their studies, committing to analysis plans before analyzing data. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify pre-registered experiments testing strategies for increasing happiness. We found surprisingly little support for many widely-recommended strategies (e.g., performing random acts of kindness). However, our review suggests that other strategies—such as being more sociable—may reliably promote happiness. We also found strong evidence that governments and organizations can improve happiness by providing underprivileged individuals with financial support. We conclude that happiness research stands on the brink of an exciting new era, in which modern best practices will be applied to develop theoretically-grounded strategies that can produce lasting gains in life satisfaction.

Social connection plays a central role in people's everyday lives. Although researchers have traditionally focused on the benefits of experiencing an enduring sense of social connection, recent research has also begun to explore the contextual factors that shape momentary feeling of social connection. To date, however, no psychological scales have been developed to measure state social connection. To address this gap, we developed the 10-item UBC State Social Connection Scale (UBC-SSCS). In Study 1, we generated and refined our initial pool of items and confirmed our hypothesized factor structure in a large university sample. In Studies 2 to 3, we established several forms of validity. We provide foundational evidence that the UBC-SSCS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing momentary feelings of social connection. Our exploratory findings also suggest that researchers can substantially increase their statistical power using state (vs. trait) measures to capture fluctuations in feelings of social connection.

How generous are people when making consequential financial decisions in the real world? We took advantage of a rare opportunity to examine generosity among a diverse sample of adults who received a gift of U.S. $10,000 from a pair of wealthy donors, with nearly no strings attached. Two-hundred participants were drawn from three low-income countries (Indonesia, Brazil, and Kenya) and four high-income countries (Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States) as part of a preregistered study. On average, participants spent over $6,400 on purchases that benefited others, including nearly $1,700 on donations to charity, suggesting that humans exhibit remarkable generosity even when the stakes are high. To address whether generosity was driven by reputational concerns, we asked half the participants to share their spending decisions publicly on Twitter, whereas the other half were asked to keep their spending private. Generous spending was similar between the groups, in contrast to our preregistered hypothesis that enhancing reputational concerns would increase generosity.

We conducted a systematic review of the evidence underlying some of the most widely recommended strategies for increasing happiness. By coding media articles on happiness, we first identified the five most commonly recommended strategies: expressing gratitude, enhancing sociability, exercising, practising mindfulness/meditation and increasing nature exposure. Next, we conducted a systematic search of the published scientific literature. We identified well-powered, pre-registered experiments testing the effects of these strategies on any aspect of subjective wellbeing (that is, positive affect, negative affect and life satisfaction) in non-clinical samples. A total of 57 studies were included. Our review suggests that a strong scientific foundation is lacking for some of the most commonly recommended happiness strategies. As the effectiveness of these strategies remains an open question, there is an urgent need for well-powered, pre-registered studies investigating strategies for promoting happiness.

Around the world, hundreds of millions of people have used social chatbots designed to provide companionship to their users. But can people reap genuine feelings of social connection and happiness from interacting with chatbots? In Studies 1-4 (all pre-registered; N = 1201), participants shared good news with an interaction partner whom they believed was either a chatbot or a human. The conversation partner responded in either a highly responsive or less responsive manner. Interacting with a highly responsive chatbot was more rewarding than interacting with a less responsive human. Participants who believed they interacted with a highly responsive chatbot felt more rapport, were more socially connected, felt better about their own positive experience, and were in a better mood than participants who interacted with a less responsive human. In a final pre-registered study (n = 401), we identified a critical boundary condition by examining whether participants derived similar benefits when the chatbot partners shared their own experiences. Taken together, our results suggest that despite their inherent lack of agency, chatbots that are programmed to respond in an optimal manner may deliver greater social benefits than suboptimal human conversation partners.

Background To date, public health policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have been evaluated on the basis of their ability to reduce transmission and minimise economic harm. We aimed to assess the association between COVID-19 policy restrictions and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this longitudinal analysis, we combined daily policy stringency data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker with psychological distress scores and life evaluations captured in the Imperial College London-YouGov COVID-19 Behaviour Tracker Global Survey in fortnightly cross-sections from samples of 15 countries between April 27, 2020, and June 28, 2021. The mental health questions provided a sample size of 432 642 valid responses, with an average of 14 918 responses every 2 weeks. To investigate how policy stringency was associated with mental health, we considered two potential mediators: observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. Countries were grouped on the basis of their response to the COVID-19 pandemic as those pursuing an elimination strategy (countries that aimed to eliminate community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within their borders) or those pursuing a mitigation strategy (countries that aimed to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission). Using a combined dataset of country-level and individual-level data, we estimated linear regression models with country-fixed effects (ie, dummy variables representing the countries in our sample) and with individual and contextual covariates. Additionally, we analysed data from a sample of Nordic countries, to compare Sweden (that pursued a mitigation strategy) to other Nordic countries (that adopted a near-elimination strategy). Findings Controlling for individual and contextual variables, higher policy stringency was associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients beta=0.014 [95% CI 0.005 to 0.023] for psychological distress; beta=-0.010 [-0.015 to -0.004] for life evaluation). Pandemic intensity (number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants) was also associated with higher mean psychological distress scores and lower life evaluations (standardised coefficients beta=0.016 [0.008 to 0.025] for psychological distress; beta=-0.010 [-0.017 to -0.004] for life evaluation). The negative association between policy stringency and mental health was mediated by observed physical distancing and perceptions of the government's handling of the pandemic. We observed that countries pursuing an elimination strategy used different policy timings and intensities compared with countries pursuing a mitigation strategy. The containment policies of countries pursuing elimination strategies were on average less stringent, and fewer deaths were observed. Interpretation Changes in mental health measures during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic were small. More stringent COVID-19 policies were associated with poorer mental health. Elimination strategies minimised transmission and deaths, while restricting mental health effects. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

In the last two decades, social psychologists have identified several key spending strategies that promote happiness such as making time-saving purchases (buying time) and spending money on others (prosocial spending). Although the emotional benefits of these two spending strategies are well-documented in the current literature, it is unclear whether the effectiveness of these strategies vary depending on individual characteristics. To address this research gap, we surveyed an economically diverse sample of 15,545 Americans about their subjective well-being, spending behavior, personal values and beliefs, as well as demographics including age, gender, and income. Across demographic groups, spending money on others was robustly related to happiness. Spending money on others was also associated with greater happiness regardless of whether participants believed that they would be happier spending money on others. In contrast, the relationship between buying time and happiness was somewhat less reliable. Although gender and personal income did not moderate the relationship between buying time and happiness, the relationship was only marginally significant for men, and non-significant within each income bracket. Our results also indicated that those who valued money over time were significantly happier when they used money to buy time, whereas those who valued time over money reported similar levels of happiness whether or not they bought time. Taken together, the present research shows that the relationship between prosocial spending, buying time, and subjective well-being is largely consistent across the different demographic groups we examined.

Past studies show that spending money on other people— prosocial spending—increases a person’s happiness. However, foundational research on this topic was conducted prior to psychology’s credibility revolution (or “replication crisis”), so it is essential to ask whether the evidence supporting this claim is robust and replicable. Here, we consider all 15 published preregistered experiments on prosocial spending to evaluate whether there is causal evidence for the idea that spending money on other people promotes happiness. Although the evidence appears somewhat mixed, we argue that the emotional benefits of prosocial spending are robust and replicable in large samples. These benefits are particularly likely when people have some choice about whether or how to give and when they understand how their generosity makes a difference. This review provides renewed support for the idea that prosocial spending promotes happiness and offers a template for revisiting phenomena that were established prior to the credibility revolution.

How much happiness could be gained if the world's wealth were distributed more equally? Despite decades of research investigating the relationship between money and happiness, no experimental work has quantified this effect for people across the global economic spectrum. We estimated the total gain in happiness generated when a pair of high-net-worth donors redistributed US$2 million of their wealth in $10,000 cash transfers to 200 people. Our preregistered analyses offer causal evidence that cash transfers substantially increase happiness among economically diverse individuals around the world. Recipients in lower-income countries exhibited happiness gains three times larger than those in higher-income countries. Still, the cash provided detectable benefits for people with household incomes up to $123,000.

COVID-19 has infected millions of people and upended the lives of most humans on the planet. Researchers from across the psychological sciences have sought to document and investigate the impact of COVID-19 in myriad ways, causing an explosion of research that is broad in scope, varied in methods, and challenging to consolidate. Because policy and practice aimed at helping people live healthier and happier lives requires insight from robust patterns of evidence, this article provides a rapid and thorough summary of high-quality studies available through early 2021 examining the mental-health consequences of living through the COVID-19 pandemic. Our review of the evidence indicates that anxiety, depression, and distress increased in the early months of the pandemic. Meanwhile, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and loneliness remained largely stable throughout the first year of the pandemic. In response to these insights, we present seven recommendations (one urgent, two short-term, and four ongoing) to support mental health during the pandemic and beyond.

Researchers' subjective judgments may affect the statistical results they obtain. This possibility is particularly stark in Bayesian hypothesis testing: To use this increasingly popular approach, researchers specify the effect size they are expecting (the "prior mean"), which is then incorporated into the final statistical results. Because the prior mean represents an expression of confidence that one is studying a large effect, we reasoned that scientists who are more confident in their research skills may be inclined to select larger prior means. Across two preregistered studies with more than 900 active researchers in psychology, we showed that more self-confident researchers selected larger prior means. We also found suggestive but somewhat inconsistent evidence that men may choose larger prior means than women, due in part to gender differences in researcher self-confidence. Our findings provide the first evidence that researchers' personal characteristics might shape the statistical results they obtain with Bayesian hypothesis testing.

A myriad reasons exist as to why individuals volunteer to serve in the U.S. military. However, less is known about why these same veterans who have returned home choose to serve again in their communities. We aim to describe the lived experience of post–9/11 era veterans who shared their reasons for joining a civic service program after the completion of their military service. Narrative data from an observationally designed study of veterans ( N = 346) who completed a leadership and civic service program administered by a national nonprofit, was qualitatively analyzed. Findings reveal 15 distinct personal and professional reasons why veterans engage in civic service following the completion of their military service, with 84% of the veteran sample reporting wanting to continue to serve while 41% reporting that participating would aid in their employment transition from military to civilian life. Other personal reasons include wanting a sense of purpose (20%) and wanting to integrate and participate in a community (20%). The motivation to continue to serve is strong among those who have served in the military and offers implications for conducting research with community-based and federal programs for veterans, military service members, and their communities.

Since the first confirmed case in Wuhan, China on December 31, 2019, the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has spread quickly, infecting 165 million people as of May 2021. Since this first detection, research has indicated that people contracting the virus may suffer neurological and mental disorders and deficits, in addition to the respiratory and other organ challenges caused by COVID-19. Specifically, early evidence suggests that COVID-19 has both mild (e.g., loss of smell (anosmia), loss of taste (ageusia), latent blinks (heterophila), headaches, dizziness, confusion) and more severe outcomes (e.g., cognitive impairments, seizures, delirium, psychosis, strokes). Longer-term neurological challenges or damage may also occur. This knowledge should inform clinical guidelines, assessment, and public health planning while more systematic research using biological, clinical, and longitudinal methods provides further insights.