Search

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.

In partnership with a sport-based Experiential Philanthropy Intervention – 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 Experiential Philanthropy Interventions boost long-term generosity among the next generation of givers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whereas some evidence suggests that toddlers consider targets' deservingness when deciding whom to help, other research demonstrates that toddlers help indiscriminately. The present findings shed light on this discrepancy by demonstrating that although toddlers do exhibit selectivity in giving behaviors, their emotional responses are comparatively indiscriminate. Specifically, in Experiment 1, 20-month-olds (N = 64) were more likely to give preferred toys to prosocial versus antisocial puppets, and more likely to withhold toys from antisocial versus prosocial puppets. Experiment 2 (N = 64) ruled out low-level explanations for the effects observed in Experiment 1, demonstrating that toddlers do not show the same effects when puppets' toy preferences are unclear. Despite providing evidence for selectivity in giving behaviors, across both experiments, toddlers were happier after giving than before giving, regardless of what they gave or whom they gave to. These results reveal the possibility of a divergence in early prosociality: Toddlers' giving behaviors are responsive to recipient deservingness, but their after-the-fact emotional reactions are responsive to giving acts themselves. Results are discussed in terms of their relevance to the debate regarding whether toddlers' early prosocial behaviors are discriminate versus indiscriminate.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]