The COVID-19 pandemic and associated social distancing and lockdowns has caused unprecedented changes to social life. We consider the possible implications of these changes for mental health. Drawing from research on social ostracism emphasizing the importance of social connection for mental well-being, there is reason for concern regarding the mental health effects of the crisis. However, there are also reasons for optimism; people can be surprisingly resilient to stressful situations, the impact of ostracism tends to depend on social norms (which are rapidly changing), and mental health depends primarily on having at least one or two close social connections. Given the scale and unprecedented nature of the social disruption that occurred, we see strong reason for concern, but not despair.

Ghosting—the act of ending a relationship by ceasing communication without explanation—is a type of ostracism that threatens a person’s basic psychological needs for belonging, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control. The experience of ghosting creates uncertainty within the relationship and may vary based on individual differences in the need for closure, which is the desire to avoid ambiguity. Across three preregistered studies with emerging adults, we predicted that a greater need for closure would be associated with lower intentions to use ghosting (Studies 1 and 2) and lower needs satisfaction after being ghosted (Study 3). Results from Study 1 ( N = 553) and Study 2 ( N = 411) were inconsistent, but together indicate that a higher need for closure is not negatively associated—and may be positively associated—with ghosting intentions. In Study 3 ( N = 545), participants who recalled a time when they were ghosted reported lower needs satisfaction than included and directly rejected participants. Further, a higher need for closure was associated with lower needs satisfaction after being ghosted and after being directly rejected, but with greater needs satisfaction after being included. Overall, these findings suggest that the need for closure is less influential when deciding how to end a relationship, but it appears to play an important role in amplifying both positive and negative experiences within a relationship.

In recent years, researchers of various disciplines have developed many theories to understand the radicalization process. One key factor that may promote radicalization is social exclusion, the state of being kept apart from others. Indeed, experimental studies have provided initial evidence for a relation between exclusion and radicalism. The current review outlines and builds upon these research programs, arguing that social exclusion has been shown (a) to increase the willingness to fight‐and‐die, (b) to promote the approval for extreme, even violent, political parties and actions, and (c) to push the willingness to engage in illegal and violent action for a political cause. We close with an agenda for future research and critically discuss implications of this work for social policy.

No abstract

No abstract