Results of this pilot study confirm that G4H has the potential to reduce the negative health-related consequences of social disconnection. Future research will determine its utility in wider community contexts.

Objective: Loneliness is a key public health issue for which various interventions have been trialled. However, few directly target the core feature of loneliness-lack of belonging. This is the focus of GROUPS 4 HEALTH (G4H), a recently developed intervention that targets the development and maintenance of social group memberships to support health. Method:To investigate the efficacy of this intervention, a randomized controlled trial was conducted with participants (N=120) assigned to G4H or treatment-as-usual (TAU) by computer software. Assessment of primary (loneliness) and secondary (depression, social anxiety, general practitioner visits, multiple group membership) outcomes was conducted at baseline and 2-month follow-up using mixed-model repeated-measures analyses.Results: G4H produced a greater reduction in loneliness (d = -1.16) and social anxiety (d = -0.53) than TAU (ds =-0.36, 0.03, respectively). G4H was also associated with fewer general practitioner visits at follow-up (d = -0.21) and a stronger sense of belonging to multiple groups (d = 0.96) relative to TAU (d = 0.21, d = 0.42, respectively). Depression declined significantly in both G4H (d = -0.67) and TAU (d = -0.35), but follow-up analyses showed this was greater in G4H among those not receiving adjunct psychopharmacological treatment and whose symptoms were milder.Conclusions: Findings suggest that G4H can be a useful way to treat loneliness and highlight the importance of attending to group memberships when tackling this important social challenge.

The present research interrogates the greater tendency for Chinese people to somaticize depression relative to Westerners. Drawing from a social identity perspective, three studies were conducted examining the role that cultural norms play in symptom expression. In an initial study, we confirmed greater somatization, minimization of distress and suppression of emotional expression among Chinese participants compared with Australians (Study 1). Asian normative expectations of collectivism moderated these effects such that somatization was higher among those who endorsed collectivism norms, but only among Chinese participants. Studies 2a and 2b found that only when Asian participants identified strongly with Asian culture did collectivism norms predict somatic symptoms. These findings have implications for practitioners working with people from Asian cultures, highlighting that it is not culture per se, but the endorsement of normative expectations in the context of strong identification with cultural groups that predicts which symptoms of depression are emphasized. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

While previous studies have consistently shown that belonging to multiple groups enhances well-being, the current research proposes that for Asians, multiple group memberships (MGM) may confer fewer well-being benefits. We suggest that this is due, in part, to Asian norms about relationships and support seeking, making Asians more reluctant to enlist social support due to concerns about burdening others. Overall, MGM was associated with enhanced well-being in Westerners (Study 2), but not Asians (Studies 1–3). Study 2 showed that social support mediated the relationship between MGM and well-being for Westerners only. In Study 3, among Asians, MGM benefited the well-being of those who were least reluctant to enlist support. Finally, reviewing the MGM evidence-base to date, relative to Westerners, MGM was less beneficial for the well-being of Asians. The evidence underscores the importance of culture in influencing how likely individuals utilize their group memberships as psychological resources.

Risk taking is typically viewed through a lens of individual deficits (e.g., impulsivity) or normative influence (e.g., peer pressure). An unexplored possibility is that shared group membership, and the trust that flows from it, may play a role in reducing risk perceptions and promoting risky behavior. We propose and test a Social Identity Model of Risk Taking in eight studies (total N = 4,708) that employ multiple methods including minimal group paradigms, correlational, longitudinal, and experimental designs to investigate the effect of shared social identity across diverse risk contexts. Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence for the basic premise of the model, showing that ingroup members were perceived as posing lower risk and inspired greater risk taking behavior than outgroup members. Study 3 found that social identification was a moderator, such that effect of shared group membership was strongest among high identifiers. Studies 4 and 5 among festival attendees showed correlational and longitudinal evidence for the model and further that risk-taking was mediated by trust, not disgust. Study 6 manipulated the mediator and found that untrustworthy faces were trusted more and perceived as less risky when they were ingroup compared to outgroup members. Studies 7 and 8 identified integrity as the subcomponent of trust that consistently promotes greater risk taking in the presence of ingroup members. The findings reveal that a potent source of risk discounting is the group memberships we share with others. Ironically, this means the people we trust the most may sometimes pose the greatest risk.