UC Riverside

Experiments prompting people to engage in more prosocial behavior (e.g., acts of kindness) or simple social interactions (e.g., acting extraverted) have both shown promise in boosting well-being. However, little is known about how much the impact on well-being depends on the type of interpersonal interaction (i.e., social versus prosocial) or on other proximal features (e.g., whether the interaction takes place online versus in-person, the closeness of the relationship, or in-the-moment social connection). We randomly assigned a sample of full-time employees recruited via mTurk (N = 754) to perform weekly acts of kindness online vs. in person, to engage in weekly social interactions online vs. in person, or to list their daily activities (control) over the course of 4 weeks. First, on average, all conditions reported improvements in well-being (i.e., increases in positive affect and life satisfaction, decreases in negative affect) across the 4-week intervention period. Second, relative to controls, the four experimental groups reported increases in general social connectedness over time. Finally, according to auxiliary analyses collapsed across experimental condition, closer relationship with target and non-digital medium of delivery predicted in-the-moment (or episode-level) social connection, which, in turn, was associated with general social connectedness and positive affect. We conclude that the “who” and the “how” of a behavior (i.e., its target, its delivery method, and the feelings of social connection generated) may be as important for well-being as the “what” (i.e., whether the behavior is social or prosocial).