Page |134 explain different outcomes in the two contact with others. However, people groups. For example, people who not only tend to like lonely individuals volunteer to be in the experimental arm less than nonlonely individuals, lonely of a study may be more gregarious by individuals are especially negative nature and may be more likely to toward other lonely individuals. become less lonely over time regardless Therefore, bringing lonely individuals of exposure to the intervention. Results together is unlikely to result in warm, of the meta-analysis suggested the satisfying social connections. Finally, interventions might be effective, but to some interventions were designed with know it’s the intervention and not an the notion that what lonely individuals artifact of subject selection, we need to need is social support, such as someone look at the effect of these interventions who is available to provide help when when assessed using randomized group needed. However, loneliness affects not comparison designs in which only how people think, but how people participants are randomly assigned to the think about others: loneliness experimental or control group. diminishes people’s executive Twenty-two studies utilized such functioning and biases them to see others a design. Quantitative analysis revealed as threatening and rejecting even when that, on average, the interventions had a they are not (5). small but significant effect in reducing Cacioppo and Patrick (5) loneliness. Moreover, efficacy in proposed a framework for reducing reducing loneliness did not differ loneliness which includes four elements. significantly as a function of First, unconscious barriers that intervention strategy nor as a function of chronically lonely people develop to individual- versus group-based shield against being hurt by others tend implementation. Whereas once a to reduce their likelihood of having consensus existed that social skills positive social interactions, and they traini