<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Chronic loneliness has been linked to many adverse outcomes, including mental health problems. Psychological treatment of loneliness can be effective, but the evidence base is limited. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To investigate the efficacy of 2 internet-based interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IIPT) relative to a wait-list control group and each other. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 170 participants were recruited and randomized to either 9 weeks of ICBT (<i>n</i> = 68), IIPT (<i>n</i> = 68), or a wait-list condition (<i>n</i> = 34). The primary outcome was loneliness, measured using the UCLA Loneliness Scale before, during, and after treatment. Secondary measures of psychiatric disorders and quality of life were administered before and after treatment. Follow-up was conducted 4 months after the treatment had ended. Primary outcome data were analyzed using growth curve modeling. Secondary outcomes were analyzed using robust regression models. The trial was preregistered (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03807154). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The ICBT condition had a significantly greater impact on loneliness compared to the wait-list and IIPT conditions. Effect sizes were moderate to large (Cohen <i>d</i> = 0.71) compared to the wait-list and moderate (<i>d</i> = 0.53) compared to IIPT. The IIPT condition did not differ significantly from the wait-list. Both active treatments led to significant increases in quality of life. Only the ICBT group had significantly lower symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety compared to the wait-list group. Treatment gains were maintained but not improved at follow-up. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> ICBT can be an efficacious option for alleviating loneliness. The IIPT intervention was not as effective.
We replicate and extend unit asking – a method to increase donations by first asking donors for their willingness to donate for one unit and then asking for donations for multiple units (Hsee, Zhang & Xu, 2013) We conducted a large scale replication and extension using a 2 (unit asking, control) × 3 (domains; children (original), animals, environment) between-subjects design. Across three domains, we find that unit asking increased donations, suggesting that this method can be used to increase giving to different charitable causes.
Do people consider alternative uses of money (i.e., opportunity cost) when asked to donate to a charitable cause? To answer this question, we examined the effect of providing versus not providing participants with an opportunity cost reminder when they are asked to donate money to causes with identified and non-identified victims. The results of two studies show that when making one-time donation decisions, people become less willing to donate to charity when reminded of opportunity cost, but mainly for non-identified victims. Moreover, framing the opportunity cost reminder as prosocial versus proself did not influence willingness to donate. Overall, our evidence suggests that opportunity cost reminders influence people's donation behavior depending on whether charities identify supported victims or not.
Can deliberation increase charitable giving when giving is impulsive (i.e., a one-time small gift in response to an immediate appeal)? We conduct two studies in Israel and Sweden to compare two forms of deliberation, unguided and guided, in their ability to decrease the singularity effect (i.e., giving more to one than many victims), often evident in impulsive giving. Under unguided deliberation, participants were instructed to simply think hard before making a donation decision whereas participants in the guided deliberation condition were asked to think how much different prespecified decision attributes should influence their decision. We find that both types of deliberation reduce the singularity effect, as people no longer value the single victim higher than the group of victims. Importantly, this is driven by donations being decreased under deliberation only to the single victim, but not the group of victims. Thus, deliberation affects donations negatively by overshadowing the affective response, especially in situations in which affect is greatest (i.e., to a single victim). Last, the results show that neither type of deliberation significantly reversed the singularity effect, as people did not help the group significantly more than the single victim. This means that deliberate thinking decreased the overall willingness to help, leading to a lower overall valuation of people in need.
Previous studies show that spending money on others makes people happier than spending it on themselves. The present study tested and extended this idea by examining the role of active versus passive choice and default choices. Here, 788 participants played and won money in a game, from which some of the earnings could be donated to charity. Participants were randomized to five conditions (control, passive or active choice, default to self or charity). Three measures of subjective well-being (SWB) were used. The results show that people who donated money were happier than people who kept money for themselves, and that active choices elicited significantly more negative affects than passive choices. Also, more people chose to keep the money when this was the default. Last, the greatest effect on happiness was to change from the set default. The results are in line with previous findings in positive psychology and decision making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.