Meaningful connections between people of similar (i.e. intragenerational) and different generations (i.e. intergenerational) are essential to well-being. Intergenerational programs (IPs) may forge meaningful inter- and intragenerational connections, and in turn, promote social-emotional well-being - yet past work is sparse, limited, and inconclusive. We conducted a pre-registered and community-engaged multi-wave daily diary study with a representative IP called iGen, wherein sixth-grade students connect daily with long-term care residents ('Elders') over the school year. Across the start and end of the school year, iGen students, staff, and Elders completed up to 20 daily diaries (N = 622) capturing the meaning of their interactions and various social-emotional outcomes (e.g. happiness). Although meaningful connections and socio-emotional well-being did not increase over the school year, having more meaningful inter- and intra-generational connections related to greater social-emotional outcomes, especially at the end of iGen. This work offers insight to the potential of intergenerational programs like iGen.

Past experimental research shows that prosocial behavior promotes happiness. But do past findings hold up to current standards of consistent, rigorous, and generalizable evidence? In this review, we considered the evidentiary value of past experiments examining the happiness (i.e., subjective well-being; SWB) benefits of prosocial action, such as spending money on others or acts of kindness, in non-clinical samples. Specifically, we examined: (1) how consistent findings are across meta-analyses, (2) the conclusions of pre-registered, well-powered experiments, and (3) if the SWB benefits of prosociality are detectable beyond WEIRD (White-Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) samples. Across the two meta-analyses we found, prosocial behavior led to a small consistent increase in happiness, yet estimates were based primarily on underpowered and WEIRD samples. We identified a growing number of pre-registered experiments (19/71 conducted to date), in which: (1) roughly half were well-powered; (2) only two recruited non-WEIRD samples, both underpowered and collectively showing mixed results; and (3) most examined prosocial spending (79

Though smartphones have been shown to undermine well-being and social connection, evidence also suggests that these effects depend on when and how people use their phones. To examine whether the effects of phones on well-being (affect valence) and social connection depend on the situation, we compiled data across eight published and unpublished experiments where phone use was manipulated (N = 1,778). These experiments included situations ranging from parents visiting a science museum with their children, eating a meal with a group of strangers, to looking for an unfamiliar building. We found that phones have a significant negative impact on people’s feelings of social connectedness across situations. The impact of phones on well-being, however, depended on the situation: Phones negatively impacted well-being when used during ongoing social interactions, but not when used to find information relevant to current goals. Our large dataset also allowed us to examine whether the effects of phones depend on individual differences. We found that gender moderated the effects of phones on social connectedness, whereby phones negatively impacted men more than women. Overall, even after including unpublished studies with nonsignificant findings, we find that the negative effects of phones on well-being and social connection persist. Going beyond past research, however, we also show that these negative effects on social connection are driven by men more so than women.

In partnership with a sport-based Experiential Philanthropy Intervention (EPI)—The Play Better Program—we conducted a pre-registered, longitudinal experiment examining whether repeatedly reflecting on prosocial activity could boost adolescents’ objective generosity. Adolescents (N=114; aged 9–16) practiced charitable giving throughout their 2-month sports season and were randomly assigned to repeatedly reflect on the importance of their prosocial activity (Reflection condition) or to write about their everyday activities (Control condition). Adolescents completed an objective measure of generosity at pre- and post-intervention and self-reported measures of prosocial character. Across conditions, adolescents donated objectively more at post- vs. pre-intervention. However, adolescents in the Reflection (vs. Control) condition were no more generous and did not report greater prosocial character at post-intervention. Overall, these findings highlight the malleability of human prosociality and the need for additional scholar-practitioner collaborations to uncover whether and how EPIs boost long-term generosity among the next generation of givers.

A growing number of people donate to charity together with others, such as a spouse, friend, or stranger. Does giving to charity collectively with another person-called collaborative giving-promote generosity? Existing data offer unsatisfactory insight; most studies are correlational, present mixed findings, or examine other concepts. Yet, theory suggests that collaborative giving may increase generosity because giving with others could be intrinsically enjoyable. We conducted two well-powered, pre-registered experiments to test whether collaborative giving boosts generosity. In Experiment 1 (N = 202; 101 dyads) and Experiment 2 (N = 310; 155 dyads), pairs of unacquainted undergraduates earned money and were randomly assigned to donate collaboratively (Experiments 1-2), individually in each other's presence (Experiments 1-2), or privately (Experiment 2). Across studies, we observed no condition differences on generosity. However, collaborative (vs. individual) giving predicted greater intrinsic enjoyment, which, in turn, predicted larger donations, suggesting a promising potential mechanism for future research and practice.

Quality education can build a sustainable, happier world, but what experiences support student well-being? Numerous laboratory studies suggest that prosocial behavior predicts greater psychological well-being. However, relatively little work has examined whether real-world prosociality programs are associated with greater well-being in primary school-aged children (aged 5–12). In Study 1, we surveyed 24/25 students who completed their 6th Grade curriculum in a long-term care home alongside residents called “Elders,” which offered numerous opportunities for planned and spontaneous helping. We found that the meaning that students derived from their prosocial interactions with the Elders was strongly associated with greater psychological well-being. In Study 2, we conducted a pre-registered field experiment with 238 primary school-aged children randomly assigned to package essential items for children who experience homelessness and/or poverty who were either demographically similar or dissimilar in age and/or gender to them as part of a classroom outing. Children self-reported their happiness both pre- and post-intervention. While happiness increased from pre- to post-intervention, this change did not differ for children who helped a similar or dissimilar recipient. These studies offer re-al-world evidence consistent with the possibility that engaging in prosocial classroom activities—over an afternoon or year—is associated with greater psychological well-being in primary school-aged children.

People frequently spend money on others and research shows that such prosocial spending often promotes the benefactor’s happiness, even sometimes when reflecting upon past prosocial purchases. But on whom and what do people generally spend their money? And what features of prosocial spending memories are associated with greater post-recall happiness? In a pre-registered examination, human coders and a text analysis software coded over 2,500 prosocial spending recollections for information regarding the target, content, and presence of five theoretically motivated dimensions: affiliation, volition, impact, authenticity, and level of detail. Exploratory analyses revealed that people often recalled buying gifts or food and typically spent money on significant others, friends, or children. Consistent with the pre-registered hypotheses, higher levels of volition and impact were associated with greater post-recall happiness (rs: .05 – .07), controlling for pre-recall happiness. However, in contrast to the pre-registered hypotheses, affiliation, authenticity, and level of detail did not predict greater happiness. These findings illuminate some key characteristics of prosocial purchases and the most rewarding features of people’s prosocial spending recollections.

When structured appropriately, sport can promote psychosocial development in youth athletes. However, few frameworks exist that allow coaches to intentionally support youth’s psychosocial development through their sport programming. The Play Better framework represents one intentional approach that incorporates prosocial behavior where youth earn donations toward charitable causes for reaching process-based goals. Given the potential benefit that explicit strategies have for yielding positive developmental outcomes, there is a need for research to explore the role of intentionality in enhancing quality sport delivery. The purpose of this study was to understand coaches’ perceptions of using the framework within their coaching practices. Twenty-three soccer coaches (83% male) participated in a one-on-one semistructured interview analyzed inductively. Results indicated that coaches perceived the Play Better framework to (a) help enact their coaching philosophies; (b) enable youth choice, while supporting sport-skill development and enjoyment; (c) facilitate intentional approaches to life skills development and transfer; and (d) foster professional and personal development. This research provides initial evidence of the benefit of using an intentional framework, like Play Better, for athletes and coaches. Future research is needed to understand athlete and parent perspectives of utilizing the framework. Findings help inform future coach training resources and best practices.

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.

Research indicates that spending money on others-prosocial spending-leads to greater happiness than spending money on oneself (e.g., Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008, 2014). These findings have received widespread attention because they offer insight into why people engage in costly prosocial behavior, and what constitutes happier spending more broadly. However, most studies on prosocial spending (like most research on the emotional benefits of generosity) utilized small sample sizes (n < 100/cell). In light of new, improved standards for evidentiary value, we conducted high-powered registered replications of the central paradigms used in prosocial spending research. In Experiment 1, 712 students were randomly assigned to make a purchase for themselves or a stranger in need and then reported their happiness. As predicted, participants assigned to engage in prosocial (vs. personal) spending reported greater momentary happiness. In Experiment 2, 1950 adults recalled a time they spent money on themselves or someone else and then reported their current happiness; contrary to predictions, participants in the prosocial spending condition did not report greater happiness than those in the personal spending condition. Because low levels of task engagement may have produced these null results, we conducted a replication with minor changes designed to increase engagement; in this Experiment 3 (N = 5,199), participants who recalled a prosocial (vs. personal) spending memory reported greater happiness but differences were small. Taken together, these studies support the hypothesis that spending money on others does promote happiness, but demonstrate that the magnitude of the effect depends on several methodological features. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

New developments in technology—from the printing press to television—have long facilitated our capacity for “absent presence,” enabling us to escape the limits of our immediate environment. Does being constantly connected to other people and activities through our smartphones diminish the need to engage with others in the immediate social world, reducing the likelihood of approach behavior such as smiling? In a preregistered experiment, strangers waited together with or without their smartphones; their smiling was later coded by trained assistants. Compared to participants without smartphones, participants with smartphones exhibited significantly fewer smiles of any kind and fewer genuine (Duchenne) smiles. These findings are based on objective behavioral coding rather than self-report and provide clear evidence that being constantly connected to the digital world may undermine important approach behavior.

In less than a decade, smartphones have transformed how, when, and where people access information. We propose that turning to technology for information may lead individuals to miss out on opportunities to cultivate feelings of social connection. Testing this hypothesis, we asked participants to find an unfamiliar building and randomly assigned them to solve this everyday problem either with or without their smartphones. Compared to those who could not rely on technology, participants who used their smartphones found the building more easily but ended up feeling less socially connected. Although having access to smartphones improved participants’ mood by making their task easier, this beneficial effect was diminished by the costs to social connection. Our findings provide the first experimental evidence that the benefits of pervasive connectivity may be undercut when technology supplants social interactions.

As smartphones increasingly pervade our daily lives, people are ever more interrupted by alerts and notifications. Using both correlational and experimental methods, we explored whether such interruptions might be causing inattention and hyperactivity-symptoms associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) even in people not clinically diagnosed with ADHD. We recruited a sample of 221 participants from the general population. For one week, participants were assigned to maximize phone interruptions by keeping notification alerts on and their phones within their reach/sight. During another week, participants were assigned to minimize phone interruptions by keeping alerts off and their phones away. Participants reported higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity when alerts were on than when alerts were off. Higher levels of inattention in turn predicted lower productivity and psychological well-being. These findings highlight some of the costs of ubiquitous connectivity and suggest how people can reduce these costs simply by adjusting existing phone settings.

In an age already saturated with information, the ongoing revolution in mobile computing has expanded the realm of immediate information access far beyond our homes and offices. In addition to changing where people can access information, mobile computing has changed what information people access—from finding specific directions to a restaurant to exploring nearby businesses when on the go. Does this ability to instantly gratify our information needs anytime and anywhere have any bearing on how much we trust those around us—from neighbors to strangers? Using data from a large nationally representative survey (World Values Survey: Wave 6), we found that the more people relied on their mobile phones for information, the less they trusted strangers, neighbors and people from other religions and nationalities. In contrast, obtaining information through any other method—including TV, radio, newspapers, and even the Internet more broadly—predicted higher trust in those groups. Mobile information had no bearing on how much people trusted close others, such as their family. Although causality cannot be inferred, these findings provide an intriguing first glimpse into the possible unforeseen costs of convenient information access for the social lubricant of society—our sense of trust in one another.