Search

AbstractExperience sampling studies often aim to capture social interactions. A central methodological question in such studies is whether to use event- or signal-contingent sampling. The little existing research on this issue has not taken into account that social interactions occur with unique interaction partners (e.g., Anna or Tom). We analyze one week of social interaction data of 286 students from the University of Pittsburgh (60.8% male, mean age 19.2 years), taking into account the unique interaction partners of each student. Specifically, we investigate the differences between event- and signal contingent sampling in (1) the total number of unique interaction partners captured, as well as (2) the kinds of relationships, and (3) the quality of social interactions with these captured interaction partners. Apart from a larger quantity of interactions and unique interaction partners in the event-contingent sampling design, our analyses indicate subtle differences between the two designs when aiming to assess social interactions with more distant interaction partners, such as coworkers or strangers. Most importantly, in our analyses, specific interaction partners and social roles explained a considerable amount of variance in the quality of social interactions (up to 20.5%), suggesting that future research would benefit greatly from considering “with whom” individuals interact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The social context of a person, meaning their social relationships and daily social interactions, is an important factor for understanding their mental health. However, personalised feedback approaches to psychotherapy do not consider this factor sufficiently yet. Therefore, we developed an interactive feedback prototype focusing specifically on a person's social relationships as captured with personal social networks (PSN) and daily social interactions as captured with experience sampling methodology (ESM). We describe the development of the prototype as well as two evaluation studies: Semi-structured interviews with students (N = 23) and a focus group discussion with five psychotherapy patients. Participants from both studies considered the prototype useful. The students considered participation in our study, which included social context assessment via PSN and ESM as well as a feedback session, insightful. However, it remains unclear how much insight the feedback procedure generated for the students beyond the insights they already gained from the assessments. The focus group patients indicated that in a clinical context, (social context) feedback may be especially useful to generate insight for the clinician and facilitate collaboration between patient and clinician. Furthermore, it became clear that the current feedback prototype requires explanations by a researcher or trained clinician and cannot function as a stand-alone intervention. As such, we discuss our feedback prototype as a starting point for future research and clinical implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]