Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion

Abstract

We propose that perceptions of auditory loudness and interpersonal closeness are bidirectionally related. Across 12 experiments (total N = 2,219; 10 preregistered; with Singaporean, British, U.S. American, and Australian participants), we demonstrated that louder audio made people feel physically (Study 1a) and socially (Study 1b) closer to others, presumably because loudness activates interpersonal closeness-related concepts implicitly (Studies 1c and 1d). This loudness–interpersonal closeness effect was observed across diverse samples (Studies 2a, 3a, and S1), for longer listening intervals (Study 2b), and in natural settings (Studies 3a and 3b). Conversely, individuals made to feel socially excluded rated their surroundings as quieter (Study 4). Furthermore, following social exclusion, individuals showed a preference for louder volume (Study 5). Finally, exposure to loud stimuli mitigated detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion (Study 6). Theoretical implications for the social cognition of loudness, social exclusion and compensatory strategies, and practical implications for ameliorating loneliness are discussed.

Keywords

auditory loudness interpersonal closeness physical proximity social proximity social exclusion

In everyday life, people generally seem to show a preference for a certain level of background noise or, at the very least, a dislike of silence¹ (Gantz et al., 1978; Roe, 1985). This tendency is perplexing because people often seem to prefer background noise even when they do not intend to pay attention to it, such as leaving the television on while doing chores, or even when the noise may potentially interfere with the task at hand, such as listening to music while studying (Perham & Vizard, 2011). While people tend to instinctively avoid excessively loud sounds due to physical discomfort and potential noise-induced hearing loss (Kujawa & Liberman, 2009), it is less well understood why people also seem to gravitate away from excessively quiet environments. Even in everyday language, excessive quietness has often been referred to as the “uncomfortable silence” or the “deadly silence,” which begs the question why silence would be construed in such negative light. Conventional wisdom suggests that the loudness of a sound source is simply a concrete sensory dimension that allows people to make judgments about their location and distance from the sound source. However, the aforementioned everyday observations seem to suggest that, beyond concrete functions such as navigation and distance judgment, individuals sometimes rely on loudness cues to make additional inferences that are previously unrecognized.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that silence reminds people of loneliness and isolation, while loudness reminds people of interpersonal interactions and liveliness. In this research, we aimed to investigate whether perceptions of loudness are mentally associated with feelings of interpersonal closeness. This research is also motivated by the intention to advance two distinct domains of social cognition research: (a) the social cognition of auditory loudness, and (b) interpersonal closeness, social exclusion, and social acceptance.

The Social Cognition of Auditory Loudness

Given the ubiquity of auditory stimuli, researchers in psychology have taken a keen interest in the study of auditory loudness from a broad range of perspectives. To date, there has been extensive research on the effects of loudness in music psychology (e.g., the effect of music volume on exercise exertion; Edworthy & Waring, 2006), clinical psychology (e.g., the relationship between loudness perceptions and annoyance levels in individuals with Tinnitus; Hiller & Goebel, 2007), biological psychology (e.g., effects of noise exposure on individuals’ hormonal levels and cardiovascular activity; Evans et al., 1995), and cognitive psychology (e.g., effects of background noise loudness on individuals’ ability to concentrate, and general cognitive performance; Hygge et al., 2002; Kou et al., 2018). There is also related research on the effects of auditory loudness on people’s preferences for loudness levels in various contexts. Studies have shown, for instance, that people seem to prefer a louder volume when listening to music because it is often perceived as more pleasurable and associated with enjoyment (Manchaiah et al., 2018).

A common theme in psychological research on loudness perceptions and preferences is that loudness tends to be evaluated along a single evaluative dimension. Specifically, loudness may be desired when it is deemed “pleasant,” such as in the case of music (Manchaiah et al., 2018), but disliked when it is deemed “unpleasant,” such as in the case of traffic or other distracting background noises (Shepherd et al., 2010). It is possible that there is more nuance to the dimension of loudness beyond the “pleasant” versus “unpleasant” distinction. That is, are there other aspects of loudness cues that can affect people and their loudness preferences? Given that humans are social organisms, and the fulfillment or thwarting of the need for sociality can have a paramount level of influence on people’s psychological and physical well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), it is surprising to see that loudness has rarely been investigated from a social cognition perspective. This research therefore aims to fill this important knowledge gap by taking a social cognition perspective to study people’s loudness perceptions and preferences.

Interpersonal Closeness, Social Exclusion, and Social Acceptance

The experience of physical and social closeness with other people is crucial to everyday life, and the “need to belong” has been conceptualized as a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In support of the centrality of this need to belong is the temporal need-threat model of ostracism (Williams, 2009), which provides a comprehensive summary of the sequence of events associated with the thwarting or deprivation of the need to belong. The first line of defense seems to be hypersensitivity and overreactivity to cues reflecting social exclusion. An example of this is research showing that psychological distress accompanied social exclusion even when participants knew that they had been excluded by computers, rather than real people (Zadro et al., 2004).

Next, when social exclusion occurs, a number of potentially malign psychological and physiological consequences often ensue. For instance, social exclusion can threaten individuals’ perceived levels of self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence (Zadro et al., 2004), worsen mood (Blackhart et al., 2009), engender physical pain (Eisenberger et al., 2003), increase cortisol levels (Beekman et al., 2016), and alter physical pain sensitivity (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). These outcomes presumably serve as cues for excluded individuals to salvage at-risk social bonds. Subsequently, individuals often make swift behavioral changes in response to social exclusion, such as increased compliance (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008) or mimicry of others, presumably to fit in and establish new social affiliations (Lakin et al., 2008). If social exclusion persists, however, such compensatory behaviors tend to diminish over time, such that victims of chronic social exclusion feel a sense of numbness and hopelessness (Williams, 2009). Taken together, these findings appear consistent with the notion that interpersonal closeness and the need to belong are integral to well-being.

Events that foster or dampen a sense of interpersonal closeness, such as social acceptance and exclusion, can have social consequences, as outlined previously (Carter-Sowell et al., 2008). Understandably, researchers have taken a keen interest in examining social factors that could influence perceptions of interpersonal closeness, such as socioeconomic status (Andersson, 2018) and perceived similarity (Muraru et al., 2017). However, given that events reflecting a loss of interpersonal connectedness have also been shown to engender physiological consequences (e.g., DeWall & Baumeister, 2006), research on sensory factors (with the exception of physical warmth; IJzerman & Semin, 2009; Schilder et al., 2014) associated with feelings of interpersonal closeness has been surprisingly scant. In this research, we examine the relationship between one such factor, loudness, and feelings of interpersonal closeness.

Mental Associations and the Loudness–Interpersonal Closeness Link

Mental associations underlie a plethora of fascinating phenomena, such as nostalgic memories brought back by certain odors (Herz, 2016). Research has shown that mental associations are formed through a “co-activation” mechanism—that physiological or mental experiences that are frequently co-experienced leads to concurrent neural activations of the brain regions involved, which, in turn, reinforces and strengthens these neural networks over time (Barsalou, 2016). Mirroring this is the embodied perspective of cognition, which posits that psychological and sensory experiences are inextricably linked as a result of implicit mental associations formed between sensory and psychological perceptions that are usually co-experienced (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). For instance, the experience of physical warmth has been shown to be associated with feelings of interpersonal warmth, presumably because physical warmth, in the form of emanating bodily heat, often accompanies gestures of interpersonal warmth, such as hugs and kisses, in everyday life (Fetterman et al., 2018). Similarly, in research on social schemas (Gocłowska et al., 2014), evaluations and contextual information that are co-experienced over time lead to mental models that link the evaluation and experienced stimuli together. Experience of the contextual information alone at a later time therefore leads to greater accessibility of the evaluation through “spreading activation” (Wheeler et al., 2014). Taken together, theories from neural, cognitive, and embodied cognition perspectives converge in suggesting that experiential correlations engender mental associations over time.

While a case could be made for the general assumption that experiential co-occurrences foster mental associations, the question remains whether auditory loudness and feelings of interpersonal closeness, in particular, are frequently co-experienced. We believe that auditory loudness is often co-experienced with events that reflect interpersonal proximity, including both physical and social proximity. Specifically, physical proximity with others is often characterized by loudness because common experience suggests that, in a given setting, if all other factors are held constant, loudness increases with crowdedness. In fact, the ability to perceive loudness serves as a sensory barometer that gauges the physical distance between the perceiver and the sound source (Kolarik et al., 2016), and in telecommunications, louder voices are often judged to be physically closer (Zhang et al., 2015). Similarly, social proximity with others seems to be associated with loudness because research suggests that people tend to be more verbal around their friends and quieter around strangers (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). Moreover, studies have demonstrated that people generally tend to be more expressive and uninhibited in front of those with whom they have a close relationship, and more shy and reserved in front of unfamiliar others (Cheek & Busch, 1981; Cheek & Buss, 1981). Over time, the repeated pairing of loudness with situations reflecting interpersonal closeness would likely lead to the formation of a robust mental association between the two.

In addition to experiential co-occurrences, ample language expressions support the association between loudness perceptions and interpersonal closeness mental concepts. For example “the lonely silence,” “the silent treatment,” and “loud and lively” are a few English expressions that associate loudness with interpersonal closeness and quietness with interpersonal isolation. Researchers have theorized that such language expressions are not merely literary inventions, but reflections of how individuals tend to construe the world (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). For instance, mental associations formed from the experiential co-occurrences of physical warmth and interpersonal warmth are reflected in metaphorical expressions such as “cold and lonely” and “friendly and warm.”

Taken together, conventional wisdom, empirical research, and everyday language expressions converge in suggesting that ambient loudness frequently co-occur with events reflecting interpersonal closeness. This in turn allows us to make our primary prediction: feelings of interpersonal closeness and perceptions of loudness should share a common representational network, such that the experience of one activates the other.

Social Exclusion, Ambient Loudness, and Mood Reparation

Following social exclusion, individuals typically exhibit a stronger desire for social reconnection to compensate for lost social affiliations (Maner et al., 2007). For instance, studies have shown that, following social exclusion, individuals tend to exhibit more socially oriented consumer behavior patterns (Mead et al., 2011) and are more drawn to people displaying genuine smiles over those displaying social smiles (Bernstein et al., 2010).

However, as social exclusion can also engender physiological consequences, surprisingly little attention has been devoted to examining compensatory strategies or behavior changes following social exclusion that relate to sensory parameters in the environment. While an exception to this is the sensory cue of ambient brightness (Pfundmair et al., 2019), the question still remains whether such sensory alterations are effective in ameliorating the detrimental effects of social exclusion. To address this important gap in the literature, this study aims to test two auxiliary predictions: First, we propose that individuals who are made to feel socially excluded should display a preference for louder auditory stimuli, presumably as a way to restore feelings of social connection. Second, we predict that exposure to loud auditory stimuli can help ameliorate detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion. In addition to the applied value of establishing a novel mood reparation remedy following social exclusion, our findings would add insight to the loudness–interpersonal closeness link by elucidating whether it has a compensatory element, specifically, whether feelings of social exclusion lead to a desire for greater levels of auditory loudness, and whether loudness can effectively compensate for feelings of social exclusion.

Overview of the Present Research

Taken together, examination of the loudness–interpersonal closeness link and its potential implications in settings involving social exclusion provides insight into the nature of the relationship between loudness perceptions and mental concepts of interpersonal closeness. To comprehensively examine our predictions and address the aforementioned gaps in the literature, we conducted a pretest followed by a series of 12 experiments (10 preregistered). The pretest (presented in the supplementary online materials [SOM]) provided correlational evidence that people believe that everyday situations reflecting a higher level of physical and social closeness with others are generally louder. Studies 1a and 1b examined the basic effect, that is, the prediction that loudness induces a sense of interpersonal closeness. Studies 1c and 1d aimed to elucidate the mechanism underlying the basic effect by examining semantic associations through mediation and moderation, respectively. Studies 2a and 2b aimed to replicate the basic effect in a demographically different sample and using a longer auditory exposure window, respectively. Studies 3a and 3b (and Study S1; see SOM) aimed to test whether the basic effect could be replicated in natural settings. Study 4 examined the directional nature of the loudness–interpersonal closeness association by testing whether people made to feel lonely rate their surroundings as quieter. Study 5 tested our auxiliary prediction that individuals who are made to feel socially excluded should prefer louder auditory stimuli. Finally, Study 6 tested our auxiliary prediction that exposure to loud auditory stimuli can help ameliorate detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion.

To establish the generalizability of our predictions, we aimed to replicate our effect in samples with diverse characteristics and in multiple contexts. Specifically, we sampled members of the public (mostly Caucasian; pretest, Study 2a), temple visitors at a Hindu temple (mostly Indian, Study 3a), and university students from Singapore (mostly ethnically Asian, Studies 1a to 1d, 2b, 3b, 4, 5, 6) and Australia (Study S1). All experiments reported in this article received ethical approval from the first author’s institutional review board prior to commencement of data collection.

To ensure that our studies were adequately powered, we used effect sizes from previous studies to calculate the a priori sample size (e.g., Studies 5 and 6). For the remaining studies, we adopted conservative rule of thumb sample sizes of 50 and 100 participants per condition for laboratory and non-laboratory experiments, respectively (Simmons et al., 2013) and reported post hoc sensitivity power analyses in the SOM. Regardless, all experiments (except Studies 1a and 1b) and their minimum target sample size were preregistered through the Open Science Framework (OSF) and data were not analyzed before termination of data collection. Finally, full details of data exclusions, manipulation checks, measures, and additional analyses can be found in the SOM. All study preregistrations, materials, data, and output are archived online: https://osf.io/vm8h3/?view_only=8c46bdb495924594a9ee3b304c6ad029.

Note that as Studies 1a to 3b utilized similar procedures, to maximize brevity, only key information is reported in the following. Full methodological details and results can be found in the SOM.

Studies 1a and 1b: Loudness Induces a Sense of Physical and Social Proximity

Method

In Studies 1a (N = 100; 49 female; M_age = 22.08 years, SD_age = 2.91) and 1b (N = 100; 52 female; M_age = 20.74 years, SD_age = 2.49), students at a University in Singapore were provided with headphones and told that they would be required to listen to a brief audio clip and answer a question on the computer screen. Participants were instructed to listen to an audiobook segment² at either the “loudest volume possible without it being uncomfortable” (loud condition) or “quietest volume possible without it being incomprehensible” (quiet condition), based on random allocation. After 2 min, participants in Study 1a were shown, and they answered, the following question on the computer screen: “Pretend that you are the center of a sphere, if you had to make a quick guess, how many people do you think are there within a 30 meter radius in this very moment?” Unlike the measure of physical proximity in Study 1a, participants in Study 1b were required to rate their relationship closeness with a self-nominated individual, using circles on a 7-point scale (1 = two minimally overlapping circles to 7 = two maximally overlapping circles; Aron et al., 1992) as a measure of social proximity (IJzerman et al., 2018; IJzerman & Semin, 2009). All participants then completed some demographic information and were probed for suspicion, debriefed, and thanked. It is important to note that in all applicable studies, we took the dependent measures during the auditory exposure interval rather than after termination of the auditory stimulus. This was aimed at maximizing replicability of our hypothesized effects as mental associations are more reliably activated during, not after, participants’ exposure to cues responsible for the formation of such associations (Barsalou, 2016).

Results and Discussion

Participants in the loud condition estimated significantly greater numbers of people within a 30 m radius (M = 77.24, SD = 101.14) compared with participants in the quiet condition (M = 28.98, SD = 23.30), t(54.19) = 3.29, p = .002, Cohen’s d = 0.66, 95% CI (confidence interval) for the mean difference = [18.84, 77.68]. Participants in the loud condition also reported that they were significantly more intimate with their self-nominated individual (M = 4.22, SD = 1.73) compared with participants in the quiet condition (M = 3.40, SD = 1.58), t(98) = 2.48, p = .015, Cohen’s d = 0.50, 95% CI for the mean difference = [0.16, 1.48]. These findings support our prediction and suggest that exposure to higher volume instills in people a greater sense of physical and social proximity, such that they believe there are more people nearby and are reminded of others with whom they share a closer relationship.

Study 1c: Mechanistic Elucidation Through Mediation

Study 1c aimed to establish whether mental accessibility of closeness-related concepts mediates the basic effect. Furthermore, to eliminate the alternative possibility that exposure to low volume actually decreased perceptions of interpersonal closeness, rather than exposure to high volume increasing perceptions of interpersonal closeness, a no-exposure control condition was included.

Method

Measures

Perceived physical proximity

As with Study 1a, participants were asked to estimate the number of people within a given radius. To maximize the robustness of our results, however, instead of using a single item measure, participants were asked to make the same estimation for a 30, 50, and 20 m radius. The mean of the three estimates constituted perceived physical proximity.

Perceived social proximity

As with Study 1b, participants were asked to rate their relationship closeness with a self-nominated individual. To maximize robustness of our results, instead of rating a single person, participants were asked to rate their relationship closeness with three self-nominated individuals. The mean of the three ratings constituted perceived social proximity.

Procedure

Students at a university in Singapore (N = 150; 92 female; M_age = 22.89 years, SD_age = 5.54) were invited to a computerized booth and those in the loud and quiet conditions were given headphones to listen to a Greek song compilation clip as background music during the experiment. Depending on the condition, participants were asked to listen to the clip at the “loudest volume possible without it being uncomfortable” or “quietest volume possible without it being inaudible.” Participants in a third no-exposure condition were not given any instructions. All participants were then administered a lexical decision task (LDT; see SOM) whereby their mental accessibility/sensitivity to closeness-related concepts were inferred, using their reaction times to words semantically associated with closeness. Upon completion of the LDT, participants were handed a single handout with the measures of perceived physical and social proximity in random order, followed by some demographic questions. When this was completed, participants were probed, debriefed, and thanked.

Results and Discussion

The basic effect of loudness on perceptions of interpersonal closeness was successfully replicated (p = .002, d = 0.63 and p = .012, d = 0.51 for perceived physical and social proximity, respectively; additional statistics in Table 1). This study also showed that participants in the quiet condition did not differ significantly from those in the no-exposure condition in our dependent measures, and that using either as the control condition yielded the same pattern of results (for both the basic effect and mediation; see SOM). This helps eliminate the alternative possibility that exposure to low volume decreased perceptions of interpersonal closeness.

Table 1.

Overview and Results of Studies 1a to 3b.

Study	Sample (total N)	Study type^a	Auditory stimulus	Physical proximity statistics						Social proximity statistics
				Loud condition		Quiet condition		d	t	Loud condition		Quiet condition		d	t
				M	SD	M	SD			M	SD	M	SD
1a	Asian students (100)	Lab (overt)	Neutrally valenced audiobook	77.24	101.14	28.98	23.30	0.66	3.29**	—	—	—	—	—	—
1b	Asian students (100)	Lab (overt)	Neutrally valenced audiobook	—	—	—	—	—	—	4.22	1.73	3.40	1.58	0.50	2.48*
1c	Asian students (150)	Lab (overt)	Greek song compilation	85.94	76.59	46.86	41.54	0.63	3.17**	4.47	1.09	3.89	1.18	0.51	2.56*
1d	Asian students (100)	Lab (covert)	Noise of air conditioner	67.29	60.62	38.45	43.71	0.55	2.73**	4.59	1.61	3.79	1.56	0.51	2.55*
2a	Caucasian members of public (205)	Online (overt)	Greek song compilation	157.52	159.28	100.22	118.28	0.41	2.93**	5.54	1.03	5.11	1.23	0.38	2.71**
2b	Asian students (100)	Lab (overt)	Instrumental music	70.12	100.54	30.11	50.53	0.50	2.18*	4.09	1.33	3.49	1.30	0.46	2.26*
3a	Hindu temple visitors (444)	Field (covert)	Hindu hymn	5.81	1.00	5.39	1.23	0.37	3.19**	5.67	1.46	4.99	1.71	0.43	3.65***
3b	Asian students (314)	Field (covert)	Instrumental music	5.23	1.15	4.98	1.23	0.21	1.88	4.81	1.16	4.16	1.19	0.55	4.91***
S1	Caucasian students (200)	Online (overt)	Instrumental music	4.68	1.18	3.93	1.24	0.62	4.40***	4.73	1.55	3.90	1.70	0.51	3.58***
MA								0.45^b						0.48^c

Note. MA = internal meta-analysis.

Participants were explicitly instructed to select either a loud or soft volume (overt), or were simply exposed to the audio stimulus without any explicit mention of its volume (covert). ^bN = 1,413. ^cN = 1,412.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

We conducted mediation analyses, using the PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 4; 5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) and found significant indirect effects of loudness on perceived physical (b = 12.11, 95% CI = [2.41, 26.50]) and social (b = 0.16, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.35]) proximity through mental accessibility of closeness-related mental concepts. These results support our hypothesis and suggest that loudness increases perceived physical and social proximity by increasing mental accessibility of interpersonal closeness-related concepts (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Diagram representing mediation effects in Study 1c.

It follows then, that the effect of loudness on perceived interpersonal closeness should be more pronounced in individuals who tend to associate loudness with closeness more strongly. To investigate this, and to further corroborate the mechanistic process underlying the effect of loudness on perceived interpersonal closeness, Study 1d measured individuals’ dispositional tendency to associate loudness with closeness, using a modified version of the Implicit Association Task (IAT; see the SOM).

Study 1d: Mechanistic Elucidation Through Moderation

Method

Study 1d (N = 100; 61 female; M_age = 22.56 years, SD_age = 2.44) replicated Study 1c with the following methodological exceptions. First, the Greek music clip was replaced with some “background noise” that participants were asked to bear with as the cover story was that they have been allocated to the control group of a music-related experiment. In actuality, this was an audio recording of an operating air conditioner set at the desktop volume of either 1 (quiet condition) or 10 (loud condition) out of 100. Second, the LDT was replaced by an IAT administered after termination of the auditory stimuli and completion of the dependent measures. Finally, a no-exposure condition was not included.

Results and Discussion

The basic effect of loudness on perceptions of interpersonal closeness was successfully replicated (p = .008; d = 0.55 and p = .012; d = 0.51 for perceived physical and social proximity respectively; additional statistics in Table 1). We also conducted moderation analyses, using the PROCESS SPSS macro (Model 1; 5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) and obtained significant interaction effects (see SOM). Most critically, the effect of loudness on perceived physical proximity emerged only for participants with strong loudness–closeness implicit associations (loud: M = 88.96, quiet: M = 35.54), b = 53.42, SE = 14.63, t(97) = 3.65, p < .001, 95% CI = [24.38, 82.47], but evaporates for those with weak loudness–closeness implicit associations (loud: M = 44.17, quiet: M = 41.12), b = 3.05, SE = 14.54, t(97) = 0.21, p = .834, 95% CI = [–25.81, 31.91] (see Figure 2). Likewise, the effect of loudness on perceived social proximity emerged only for participants with strong loudness–closeness implicit associations (loud: M = 5.21, quiet: M = 3.63), b = 1.57, SE = 0.44, t(97) = 3.58, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.70, 2.45], but not for those with weak loudness–closeness implicit associations (loud: M = 3.94, quiet: M = 3.96), b = –0.02, SE = 0.44, t(97) = –0.05, p = .958, 95% CI = [–0.89, 0.84] (see Figure 3). These moderation effects corroborate results of Study 1c and suggest that implicit mental associations between loudness and closeness-related concepts are indeed the reason why loudness perceptions can influence feelings of interpersonal closeness.

Figure 2.

The interactive effect of participants’ loudness condition and dispositional loudness–closeness implicit association strength on perceived physical proximity (Study 1d).

Figure 3.

The interactive effect of participants’ loudness condition and dispositional loudness–closeness implicit association strength on perceived social proximity (Study 1d).

Study 2a: Cross-Cultural Replication

Study 2a sought to replicate the basic effect on Caucasian members of the public through Prolific. A secondary aim of Study 2a was to explore whether the basic effect is moderated by explicit general beliefs about the association between loudness and interpersonal closeness. These moderation analyses are an exploratory component of this study and are therefore presented in the SOM.

Method

Study 2a (N = 205; 96 female; M_age = 28.44 years, SD_age = 9.41) replicated Study 1c (without the no-exposure condition) in an online format, such that the instructions were presented through Qualtrics, and participants were mostly Caucasian members of the public. Participants also completed a general beliefs questions (for moderation analyses; see SOM) instead of the IAT.

Results and Discussion

The basic effect of loudness on perceptions of interpersonal closeness was successfully replicated (p = .004; d = 0.41 and p = .007; d = 0.38 for perceived physical and social proximity respectively; additional statistics in Table 1). This speaks to the cross-cultural generalizability of the effect of loudness on feelings of interpersonal closeness.

Study 2b: Replication Using a Longer Auditory Exposure Period

Method

Study 2b (N = 100; 36 female; M_age = 21.30 years, SD_age = 3.47) replicated Study 1d with two methodological differences. First, the audio stimulus was an instrumental piece of music played on a loop. Second, the listening period before participants completed the dependent measures was extended to 30 min under the cover story that the study aimed to explore the effect of background noise on concentration. Participants were therefore instructed by the blind experimenter to self-study for 30 min while the audio clip was played in the background at the desktop volume of either 3 (quiet condition) or 13 (loud condition) out of 100.

Results

The basic effect of loudness on perceptions of interpersonal closeness was successfully replicated (p = .033; d = 0.50 and p = .026; d = 0.46 for perceived physical and social proximity respectively; additional statistics in Table 1) even when individuals have been exposed to the auditory stimuli continuously for 30 min.

Study 3a: Field Replication—Temple Setting

To test whether the effect of loudness on perceived interpersonal closeness can be observed in a non-laboratory setting, a field study was conducted at a Hindu temple.

Method

Study 3a was disguised as a “temple experience survey” where visitors at a Hindu temple in Singapore (N = 444; 197 female; M_age = 44.62 years, SD_age = 13.53) completed the dependent measures, using a clipboard while a blind experimenter played a context congruent hymn using a mobile device at 90% (loud condition), 50% (quiet condition), or 0% (no-exposure condition) of full volume. We operationalized perceived physical proximity as participants’ perceptions of how lively and crowded the temple is. Perceived social proximity was operationalized as the extent to which participants felt a sense of companionship, and closeness, with their “temple friends.”

Results

The basic effect of loudness on perceptions of interpersonal closeness was successfully replicated (p = .002; d = 0.37 and p < .001; d = 0.43 for perceived physical and social proximity respectively; additional statistics in Table 1) in natural settings, using ecologically valid measures of perceived physical and social proximity. Note that, as with Study 1c, the no-exposure condition yielded results that were not significantly different from that of the quiet condition and using either condition as the reference group produced the same pattern of results (see SOM).

Study 3b: Field Replication—Classroom Setting

A second field study was conducted in a University classroom setting. We operationalized perceived physical proximity as participants’ perceptions of how lively and crowded the university campus is. Perceived social proximity was operationalized as the extent to which participants felt a sense of companionship, and closeness, with their university friends. Please note that, given the difficulties of conducting field studies, a pilot study for Studies 3a and 3b was conducted—see Study S1 in the SOM.

Method

Administrative staff of the university approached tutorial classes in the final weeks of semester to obtain students’ evaluations of their tutors as part of routine practice. To minimize suspicion, the experimenter accompanied the staff during these sessions to collect data. Following instructions to students relating to the tutor evaluation questionnaire, the experimenter distributed the information sheet of this study and a handout containing the dependent measures in random order. As a cover story, students were told that the university wished to obtain some additional non-mandatory anonymous feedback. The experimenter then played an instrumental music clip on a mobile device at either 90% (loud condition) or 50% (quiet condition) of maximum volume as “background music while the evaluations are being completed.” Upon completion, students were verbally debriefed and thanked. A total of 314 students (159 female; M_age = 20.68 years, SD_age = 2.88) participated in this study.

Results

This study’s results were similar to that of the previous field study (p = .061; d = 0.21 and p < .001; d = 0.55 for perceived physical and social proximity, respectively; additional statistics in Table 1) although the effect of loudness on perceived physical proximity was only marginally significant.

Study 4: Individuals Made to Feel Socially Excluded Rate Their Surroundings as Quieter

Establishing the bidirectional nature of the loudness–interpersonal connection relationship is fundamental not only for the completeness of our prediction, but also because a change in perceptual sensitivity, following social exclusion, would act as a precursor to a change in sensory preferences as the latter may serve as a form of compensation for the former. For example, socially excluded individuals show an increased preference for brighter lighting, however, this does not manifest independently, but rather, in conjunction with their perception that the surroundings are darker compared with those who were not socially excluded (Pfundmair et al., 2019). This suggests that changes in sensory preferences are not independent manifestations, but may serve as a compensatory mechanism for the perceptual changes experienced following social exclusion. By the same token, it is important to first establish whether individuals do perceive the environment as quieter, following social exclusion, before testing whether they show a preference for louder auditory stimuli. This was the goal of Study 4.

Method

Students from a university in Singapore (N = 100; 53 female, M_age = 21.86 years, SD_age = 3.23) sat in a laboratory booth and were asked to reflect on either a social acceptance or a social rejection-related memory (DeWall & Baumeister, 2006). Two minutes later, participants were told as follows: “Before we proceed to the next task, the maintenance staff have requested laboratory users to provide some quick feedback on their experience of the laboratory environment for decisions on future renovations and laboratory architecture.” Participants were then provided with the ostensible laboratory experience survey containing the measure of perceived ambient quietness (“How quiet is this lab booth?” answered using a 9-point scale ranging from 1 [too quiet] to 9 [too loud]) and some filler items to minimize suspicion. On completion of the form, participants were probed for suspicion and asked to complete some demographic information before being debriefed and thanked.

Results and Discussion

Participants in the social exclusion condition (M = 3.32, SD = 1.69) perceived the laboratory booth to be quieter compared with participants in the social inclusion condition (M = 4.48, SD = 2.09), t(98) = –3.05, p = .003, d = –0.61, 95% CI for the mean difference = [–1.91, –0.41]. Participants in the social exclusion condition did not differ from participants in the social inclusion condition on filler items, such as perceived spaciousness of the booth, all ps > .457. These findings suggest that individuals feeling a sense of social exclusion actually perceive the immediate surroundings to be quieter compared with individuals feeling a sense of social inclusion.

Study 5: Social Exclusion Increases Individuals’ Preferred Volume

Thus far, our studies have focused on our primary prediction relating to the basic loudness–interpersonal closeness link, and its underlying mechanism, generalizability, and bidirectionality. In Studies 5 and 6, we sought to test the auxiliary predictions relating to the interplay between loudness and feelings of social exclusion.

Research has demonstrated that relative to the socially included, socially excluded individuals tend to display an increased desire to socially reconnect (Maner et al., 2007). Importing this social reconnection theory to our findings thus far gives rise to a bold but intriguing follow-up question: If individuals seek to reconnect with others following social exclusion, and loudness confers a sense of interpersonal closeness, would individuals display a preference for higher volume following social exclusion compared with social inclusion? We tested this hypothesis in Study 5.

Method

Students from a university in Singapore (N = 80; 52 female, M_age = 22.01 years, SD_age = 3.03) arrived at a quiet laboratory in same-sex groups of four, and were asked to write their names on a name tag placed on the table in front of them and to try and remember each other’s names while proceeding with the first task. As a cover story, participants were told that the study explores individuals’ evaluations of peer personalities during communication. Participants were told that, for the first 10 min, they should get to know each other by asking each other some icebreaker questions (Sedikides et al., 1999). Following this get-acquainted task, participants were led to separate booths and were told that there will be an upcoming task that involves the group members working in pairs. Participants were shown a slip with the following message: “We are interested in forming pairs in which the members like and respect each other. Below, please write your own name followed by the names of two people (out of the three that you met today) you would most like to work with for the next task” (Zhou et al., 2009). Upon collection of their preference slips, participants were asked to wait while the experimenter ostensibly collated their preferences and allocated them to pairs. By random assignment, the experimenter then returned to each participant and told them that either everyone (inclusion condition) or no one (exclusion condition) had written their name as a preferred partner, and that therefore they will be randomly allocated to one of their elected members for the next task. Following this, participants were told that, prior to the dyad task, they are required to listen to an audio segment until they are told to stop. Participants were then provided with headphones and asked to click “play.” They were also shown the volume bar, which was preset at 0, and asked to adjust the volume to their preference. Two minutes later, participants were stopped, probed for suspicion, debriefed, and thanked. Their volume preference was measured by simply recording their desktop volume (0 to 100).

Results and Discussion

Participants in the social exclusion condition (M volume = 43.43, SD = 19.82) selected louder volume levels compared with participants in the social inclusion condition (M = 32.90, SD = 15.42), t(78) = 2.65, p = .010, d = 0.59, 95% CI for the mean difference = [2.62, 18.43]. This finding supports our prediction and suggests that, following social exclusion, individuals’ social reconnection propensity manifests through a preference for ambient loudness, presumably because loudness provides a false sense of companionship. Coupled with the findings of Study 4, the present findings also provide a further insight into the mechanism behind the loudness–interpersonal closeness link by demonstrating how feelings of social exclusion affect people’s perceptual experiences. It seems that, when people are made to feel socially excluded, they perceived the surroundings to be quieter and show a preference for louder auditory stimuli. Given that the change in loudness preference was not the sole outcome following social exclusion, and that a change in loudness perceptions was also observed, these findings suggest that loudness may possess compensatory properties when the need for sociality is thwarted.

Study 6: Loud Auditory Stimuli Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion

Having determined that the loudness–interpersonal closeness link entails a compensatory component, it is important to investigate whether this preference for louder volume is effective in ameliorating the negative effects of social exclusion. We reasoned that, as loudness has been shown to induce a sense of interpersonal closeness, exposure to loudness should be effective in partially countering the detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion. We tested this hypothesis in Study 6.

Method

Students from a university in Singapore (N = 128; 84 female, M_age = 22.98 years, SD_age = 5.21) were randomly allocated to one of four conditions in a 2 (Social Exclusion: inclusion vs. exclusion) × 2 (Volume: loud vs. quiet) design.

Participants were asked to enter a quiet individual cubicle to play an online ball-throwing game with three other student players from other local universities. Unbeknownst to them, there were no other players as it was actually a preset software used to manipulate social exclusion (Williams et al., 2000). Specifically, whereas participants in the social inclusion condition received an equal number of throws as the other “players,” participants in the social exclusion condition only received two throws (30 throws in total). To minimize participant suspicion that the “other players” were not real, participants were led to believe that the experimenter’s colleagues from other local universities were also involved in this task. Specifically, a sham phone call from an ostensible colleague took place at the beginning of the experiment in the presence of the participants and participants were led to believe that the caller was calling to check whether the experiment could be started on time. An additional cover story included the built-in instructions page of the ball-throwing software (Williams et al., 2000), which informed participants that the task aims to investigate individuals’ mental visualization skills.

Before playing the game, participants were also shown an online audio clip, provided headphones, and read the following instructions: “My colleague has asked me to play an online audio segment to act as background noise as you are playing this game, so can I please get you to just turn the volume as loud as possible without it being uncomfortable (loud condition) OR as quiet as possible without it being incomprehensible (quiet condition)? When you are done, you can start the game by clicking ‘play.’ Please let me know when the game is finished.” After the game finished in approximately 4 min, participants were led to believe that, before they move on to an ostensible “main” questionnaire, they were to complete some “standard information including a mood scale followed by some demographic information.” Unbeknownst to the participants, the “mood scale” contained our dependent variables—mood, anger, loneliness, hurt feelings, and a social exclusion manipulation check.

In line with previous research (Zadro et al., 2004), mood during the game was measured by averaging participants’ responses to four bipolar items, each with 9-point scales (good-bad, happy-sad, relaxed-tense, and aroused-not aroused), whereas anger, loneliness, and hurt feelings were each assessed by a single item asking participants whether they felt these emotions during the game. Participants responded on 9-point scales (1 = not at all to 9 = very much so) before completing the demographic information and answering the social exclusion manipulation check where they indicated the degree to which they thought they were included by other “players” using the same scale (Zadro et al., 2004). Finally, participants were probed, debriefed, and thanked.

Results and Discussion

A 2 (socially included vs. excluded) × 2 (loud vs. quiet volume exposure) MANOVA on negative mood, anger, hurt feelings, and loneliness revealed a significant main effect of social exclusion, Pillai’s Trace = .26, F(4, 121) = 10.70, p < .001, η²_p = .26. This indicates that excluded (vs. included) participants generally experienced greater levels of adverse psychological effects. A significant main effect of volume exposure was also found, Pillai’s Trace = .21, F(4, 121) = 7.79, p < .001, η²_p = .21, indicating that participants exposed to high (vs. low) volume generally experienced lower levels of adverse psychological effects. Importantly, the main effects were qualified by a significant Inclusion × Volume interaction effect both at the multivariate level, Pillai’s Trace = .18, F(4, 121) = 6.74, p < .001, η²_p = .18, and at the univariate level for each of the dependent variables (see online Table S2). Planned contrasts revealed that, among excluded participants, those exposed to high volume experienced lower levels of negative mood, anger, hurt feelings, and loneliness than those exposed to low volume, (all ps < .001, Cohen’s d = –0.94 to –1.59). We found no significant difference in adverse psychological effects across volume conditions for included participants (all ps > .36, d = 0.21 to –0.23; see online Table S3). These results support our predictions and suggest that exposure to loudness can ameliorate the negative psychological effects of social exclusion, but does not affect the psychological well-being of socially included individuals.

Finally, to determine whether exposure to loudness is partially or fully effective as a buffer against adverse psychological effects of social exclusion, exploratory pairwise comparisons were conducted. No significant differences in adverse psychological effects were found between excluded participants exposed to high volume and both included participants exposed to low volume (all ps > .088, Cohen’s d = 0.01 to 0.43) and included participants exposed to high volume (all ps > .269, Cohen’s d = 0.04 to 0.28; see online Table S4). Figure 4 depicts mean levels of adverse psychological effects (with 95% CIs) experienced during the Cyberball game reported by each condition. These findings suggest that, surprisingly, exposure to high volume is able to fully, rather than partially, mitigate detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion.

Figure 4.

Mean levels of adverse psychological effects (with 95% CIs) experienced during the Cyberball game in each condition in Study 6.

Internal Meta-Analysis

Finally, an internal meta-analysis across the applicable experiments (k = 9) revealed medium-sized averaged sample-weighted effect sizes for perceived physical proximity (d = 0.45, 95% CI = [0.33, 0.56], N = 1,413) and perceived social proximity (d = 0.48, 95% CI = [0.37, 0.58], N = 1,412). These results support the robustness of the loudness–interpersonal closeness effect.

It is important to note that heterogeneity statistics were nonsignificant (all ps > .297), indicating homogeneity of effect size magnitudes despite seemingly varied effect sizes across studies (ds range = 0.21–0.66). Although this precluded us from predicting significant moderation effects, given the diversity of audio stimuli used in this research, we still proceeded to analyze factors such as the language and arousal level of the audio stimuli as they may provide moderation trends. Expectedly, we did not find any statistically significant moderation effects of audio stimuli-related variables (all ps > .258). Further details of the internal meta-analysis and moderator analyses such as forest plots and heterogeneity statistics are reported in the SOM.

General Discussion

In this study, we examined whether loudness and interpersonal closeness concepts are mentally associated, such that the experience of one activated perceptions of the other. Results of 12 experiments provided broad support for the predicted association. Our findings demonstrated that individuals listening to a loud (vs. quiet) audio clip felt that there were more people near them (Study 1a) and selected a self-nominated person with whom they had a closer relationship (Study 1b), presumably because loudness implicitly activates mental concepts of interpersonal closeness (Studies 1c and 1d). This loudness–interpersonal closeness effect was replicated in demographically different samples (Studies 2a and S1), for longer auditory exposure intervals (Study 2b), and in natural settings (Studies 3a and 3b). Bidirectionality of the loudness–interpersonal closeness relationship was also established. Participants instructed to reflect on a social exclusion-related memory rated their surroundings as quieter compared with those reflecting on an acceptance-related memory (Study 4). Interestingly, our studies also revealed that participants made to feel socially excluded (vs. accepted) showed a preference for louder auditory volume (Study 5), and that exposure to loud (vs. soft) auditory stimuli mitigated the detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion (Study 6).

Taken together, our findings suggest that associations between loudness and interpersonal closeness perceptions manifest not only in everyday language expressions, such as “the lonely silence,” but also in people’s experiences of the world. Moreover, our findings offer comprehensive insight on the nature of the loudness–interpersonal closeness link by illustrating that it is bidirectional, and that it contains a compensatory element.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This research makes several unique theoretical contributions. First, our findings augment the broad and multidisciplinary literature of auditory loudness effects and preferences by showing that loudness cues not only affect people cognitively (Hygge et al., 2002), biologically (Evans et al., 1995), and clinically (Hiller & Goebel, 2007), but also affect social cognition constructs. Specifically, loudness cues confer a sense of interpersonal closeness, which entails a sense of physical and social proximity with others. Conversely, people’s preference for louder volumes may not be solely driven by physiological reasons, such as wanting to obtain more sensory pleasure from loud music, but may also be driven by their need for social connection. Perhaps seeking a sense of companionship and avoiding a sense of loneliness may explain why people often prefer to turn the television or radio on for “background noise” even when they do not intend to attend to it. After all, background noise of any kind would bear closer resemblance to lively social interactions compared with silence. Given that auditory loudness is an ever-present sensory dimension in everyday life, our study makes an important contribution by illuminating a novel social cognition element of auditory loudness.

Next, our research contributes to the literature on perceptions of interpersonal closeness and social exclusion in important ways. Previous research in this domain has examined a multitude of social and physiological consequences when individuals’ need for sociality are deprived or fulfilled (Beekman et al., 2016; Carter-Sowell et al., 2008; DeWall & Baumeister, 2006; Zadro et al., 2004). However, with respect to what causes people to feel a sense of interpersonal closeness or social exclusion, most studies have focused on social factors (e.g., Muraru et al., 2017). It is therefore unclear whether and how various sensory factors may affect feelings of interpersonal closeness (with the exception of ambient temperature; Schilder et al., 2014). This study sheds light on this understudied research domain by providing empirical evidence for the causal role of ambient loudness on feelings of interpersonal closeness. While sensory factors may be traditionally thought of as unrelated to social experiences, our findings suggest that antecedents of social experiences need not be confined to those who are social in nature, they can also be sensory cues from the environment. Interestingly, this research also demonstrates the inverse relationship—that feelings of social acceptance and exclusion made people perceive their surroundings to be louder and quieter, respectively. This bidirectional relationship is consistent with the hypothesis that concepts of loudness and interpersonal closeness share similar mental representational networks, perhaps as a result of their repeated coactivations from experiential co-occurrences.

In addition, this work expands the literature on compensatory strategies and behavioral alterations that individuals adopt following social exclusion. Previous research has largely investigated social exclusion–induced behavioral changes that are social in nature, such as displaying greater levels of social loafing (Williams et al., 2000), social attention (Gardner et al., 2000), and an increased tendency to purchase conspicuous products that can be shown to others (Lee & Shrum, 2012; Wan et al., 2014). Here, we show that individuals who were made to feel socially excluded showed a spontaneous preference for higher volume sounds compared with those who were made to feel socially accepted. Most critically, we also observed powerful protective effects of loudness in the face of social exclusion. Individuals who were made to feel socially excluded while being exposed to loud (vs. soft) stimuli responded more positively on a range of affective measures. As such, akin to how money may promote feelings of self-sufficiency and serve as a buffer against social pain (Zhou et al., 2009), loudness seems to promote feelings of interpersonal closeness, which may also help protect individuals from social pain.

Taken together, these findings highlight a previously untested compensatory strategy that people adopt following social exclusion, one that is sensory, rather than social, in nature. These findings also help carve out the compensatory nature of the loudness–interpersonal closeness link, such that a deprivation in feelings of interpersonal closeness leads to a desire for louder auditory stimuli. It is important to note that, although this study is not the very first to illuminate sensory preference changes as a potential compensatory strategy following social exclusion (Pfundmair et al., 2019), it is the first to empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of such sensory preference changes. Specifically, we demonstrated that loud auditory stimulus is not just sought after following social exclusion, but that it is also effective in mitigating the detrimental psychological effects of social exclusion. Perhaps people display a preference for louder volume sounds following social exclusion because loud stimuli are capable of serving as a substitute for interpersonal companionship. These findings provide novel insight on the existing social exclusion literature because they show that not only do people engage in sensory preference changes as potential compensatory strategies following social exclusion, but that such changes are also functionally meaningful. In revealing these more nuanced and downstream effects of the loudness–interpersonal closeness relationship, our findings connect the social exclusion (Blackhart et al., 2009) and loudness perception (Ljung et al., 2009) literatures, which, until now, have largely proceeded in parallel.

The present findings also carry important implications for everyday life. Exposure to auditory loudness appears to be a virtually cost-free, intuitive, and convenient coping strategy that may be used in contexts where interpersonal companionship is deprived. Whether people are working solitary jobs, living alone, or self-isolating during a pandemic, turning on some form of auditory stimulus and cranking the volume up may alleviate negative emotions, such as loneliness, presumably because of the sense of companionship it provides. Our findings could be of particular pertinence to settings in which people may be more prone to interpersonal isolation and feelings of loneliness, such as prisons, hospitals, retirement homes, and quarantine hotels.

Limitations and Future Research

While the use of diverse samples, a broad range of audio stimuli, and different exposure durations help substantiate the generalizability and robustness of the predicted phenomenon, some limitations should be noted. First, the auditory stimuli used in our experiments, while diverse, all contained an interpersonal element, however remote. For instance, the audiobook segment (Studies 1a, 1b, 5, and 6) may be associated with everyday social interactions, and the music clips (Studies 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and S1) may be associated with social occasions where music is played in the background. Even the sound of the operating air conditioner (Study 1d) may be associated with man-made environments and hence, people. This common denominator inevitably leaves open the question of whether feelings of interpersonal closeness are affected by the loudness of all sounds. It certainly seems improbable that the loudness of sounds without a human element, such as that of thunder, can affect feelings of interpersonal closeness (at least not as potently as more socially relevant sounds such as the laughter of a close friend). As such, to establish boundary conditions on the present findings, future studies are encouraged to explore a greater variety of sound sources.

As Study 4 was aimed primarily at establishing bidirectionality of the proposed effect, we did not investigate the effect of social exclusion on perceived ambient quietness the way we investigated the basic effect, that is, with mediation, moderation, no-exposure control condition, and so on. This limitation means we could not address some salient ancillary questions, such as whether it is social exclusion that makes the environment seem quieter or social acceptance that makes the environment seem louder. Future studies are therefore encouraged to examine this phenomenon further.

What stood out the most from the present findings was perhaps the larger than expected effect sizes obtained in Study 6. We demonstrated that, by listening to a neutral audiobook segment simply at high, instead of low, volume while experiencing social exclusion, individuals’ exclusion-induced feelings of negative mood, anger, hurt, and loneliness completely vanished (ds = –0.94 to –1.59; see online Table S3). Results of this magnitude should be interpreted with caution. It certainly does not seem plausible that the false sense of companionship evoked by the exposure to loud stimuli can be as protective as real companionship in the face of social exclusion. Perhaps loud stimuli was protective against social exclusion because it was also more effective at distracting individuals from the experience of social exclusion. We speculate that the very large effect sizes could be because both mechanisms were at play—loudness may have evoked a sense of companionship, and simultaneously served as a more potent distractor, both leading to protective effects against the detrimental psychological concomitants of social exclusion. Future studies are encouraged to ascertain this speculation and potentially delineate the relative contributions of these mechanisms.

Findings of this study also open up additional avenues for future research. First, additional downstream social effects of loudness cues could be explored, for instance, by investigating whether loudness plays a role in impression-formation processes. As an example, future research may investigate whether a louder voice gives off an increased sense of interpersonal closeness during first encounters and, consequently, make louder individuals seem more approachable. Studies could also explore the effects of other dimensions of auditory perception on social cognition constructs. For instance, would the pitch or pace of auditory stimuli affect social cognition outcomes in the same way loudness does? Given that people rely heavily on their hearing, and that noise is an ever-present feature of the environment, further illumination of how the mind is affected through audition is imperative to further understanding of human cognition and behavior more broadly.

Finally, research has shown that social exclusion may differentially affect people from individualistic and collectivistic cultures (Uskul & Over, 2017). Future studies are therefore encouraged to explore in a systematic way whether the interplay between loudness and social exclusion established in this study manifests differently in people from different cultures.

Conclusion

This research highlights a novel mental association between auditory loudness and feelings of interpersonal closeness. Our results suggest that auditory loudness is not only a vessel by which sensory information is communicated, but also a means by which people make social inferences. Perhaps people tend to associate “loud” with “lively” and “silence” with “lonely” semantically, and through the use of metaphor, because past experiences of companionship tend to coincide with ambient loudness and past experiences of solitude tend to coincide with ambient quietness. While there is still much to learn about the psychological effects of loudness, this study provides preliminary evidence that loudness can be harnessed to combat feelings of loneliness.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672211015896 – Supplemental material for Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672211015896 for Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion by Deming Wang, Ignazio Ziano, Martin S. Hagger and Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Hans IJzerman for commenting on an earlier version of this article and N. Azman, A. Lim, C. Morwen, X. Poh, S. Vojodi, C. Yap, and Y. Yow for research assistance. The authors also thank the Hindu Endowment Board, Singapore, for permission to run a field experiment at the Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple.

Author’s Note

The findings of this study were partially presented at the Asian Association of Social Psychology Conference 2019. The authors declare no further prior dissemination of the data or narrative interpretations of the data/research appearing in the article. All data, analyses, code, materials, and preregistrations relating to this article are archived at .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Deming Wang

Martin S. Hagger

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Andersson

M. A.

(2018). Modern social hierarchies and the spaces between: How are subjective status inconsistencies linked to mental well-being? Social Psychology Quarterly, 81, 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272517753687

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Barsalou

L. W.

(2016). Situated conceptualization offers a theoretical account of social priming. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.009

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Beekman

J. B.

Stock

M. L.

Marcus

(2016). Need to belong, not rejection sensitivity, moderates cortisol response, self-reported stress, and negative affect following social exclusion. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1071767

Bernstein

M. J.

Sacco

D. F.

Brown

C. M.

Young

S. G.

Claypool

H. M.

(2010). A preference for genuine smiles following social exclusion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.010

Blackhart

G. C.

Nelson

B. C.

Knowles

M. L.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309346065

Carter-Sowell

A. R.

Chen

Williams

K. D.

(2008). Ostracism increases social susceptibility. Social Influence, 3, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802204868

Cheek

J. M.

Busch

C. M.

(1981). The influence of shyness on loneliness in a new situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 572–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728174008

10.

Cheek

J. M.

Buss

A. H.

(1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330

11.

DeWall

C. N.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.1

12.

Edworthy

Waring

(2006). The effects of music tempo and loudness level on treadmill exercise. Ergonomics, 49, 1597–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600899104

13.

Eisenberger

N. I.

Lieberman

M. D.

Williams

K. D.

(2003). Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134

14.

Evans

G. W.

Hygge

Bullinger

(1995). Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychological Science, 6, 333–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00522.x

15.

Fetterman

A. K.

Wilkowski

B. M.

Robinson

M. D.

(2018). On feeling warm and being warm: Daily perceptions of physical warmth fluctuate with interpersonal warmth. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617712032

16.

Gantz

Gartenberg

H. M.

Pearson

M. L.

Schiller

S. O.

(1978). Gratifications and expectations associated with pop music among adolescents. Popular Music and Society, 6, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007767808591113

17.

Gardner

W. L.

Pickett

C. L.

Brewer

M. B.

(2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266007

18.

Gocłowska

M. A.

Baas

Crisp

R. J.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 959–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214533132

19.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

20.

Herz

R. S.

(2016). The role of odor-evoked memory in psychological and physiological health. Brain Sciences, 6, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci6030022

21.

Hiller

Goebel

(2007). When tinnitus loudness and annoyance are discrepant: Audiological characteristics and psychological profile. Audiology and Neurotology, 12, 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106482

22.

Hygge

Evans

G. W.

Bullinger

(2002). A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychological Science, 13, 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00483

23.

IJzerman

Neyroud

Courset

Schrama

Post

Pronk

T. M.

(2018). Socially thermoregulated thinking: How past experiences matter in thinking about our loved ones. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.008

24.

IJzerman

Semin

G. R.

(2009). The thermometer of social relations: Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 10, 1214–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02434.x

25.

Kolarik

A. J.

Moore

B. C. J.

Zahorik

Cirstea

Pardhan

(2016). Auditory distance perception in humans: A review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 78, 373–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-1015-1

26.

Kou

McClelland

Furnham

(2018). The effect of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of Chinese introverts and extraverts. Psychology of Music, 46, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617704300

27.

Kujawa

S. G.

Liberman

M. C.

(2009). Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after temporary noise-induced hearing loss. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 14077–14085. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2845-09.2009

28.

Lakin

J. L.

Chartrand

T. L.

Arkin

R. M.

(2008). I am too just like you: Nonconscious mimicry as an automatic behavioral response to social exclusion. Psychological Science, 19, 816–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x

29.

Lakoff

Johnson

(2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

30.

Lee

Shrum

L. J.

(2012). Conspicuous consumption versus charitable behavior in response to social exclusion: A differential needs explanation. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1086/664039

31.

Ljung

Sörqvist

Hygge

(2009). Effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children’s reading and mathematical performance. Noise & Health, 11, 194–198. https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.56212

32.

Manchaiah

Zhao

Oladeji

Ratinaud

(2018). Examination of previously published data to identify patterns in the social representation of “loud music” in young adults across countries. Noise Health, 20, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01390

33.

Maner

J. K.

DeWall

C. N.

Baumeister

R. F.

Schaller

(2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the porcupine problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.42

34.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

(1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417949009372817

35.

Mead

N. L.

Baumeister

R. F.

Stillman

T. F.

Rawn

C. D.

Vohs

K. D.

(2011). Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1086/656667

36.

Muraru

Iorga

Turliuc

(2017). From perceived similarity of ideals to relationship satisfaction: A path analysis using dyadic data. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajap-5-1-3

37.

Perham

Vizard

(2011). Can preference for background music mediate the irrelevant sound effect? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 625–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1731

38.

Pfundmair

Danböck

S. K.

Agthe

(2019). Out of the dark, into the light: The impact of social exclusion on judgments of darkness and brightness. Acta Psychologica, 199, 102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102901

39.

Roe

(1985). Swedish youth and music: Listening patterns and motivations. Communication Research, 12, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365085012003007

40.

Schilder

J. D.

IJzerman

Denissen

J. J.

(2014). Physical warmth and perceptual focus: A replication of IJzerman and Semin (2009). PLOS ONE, 9(11), Article e112772. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112772

41.

Sedikides

Campbell

W. K.

Reeder

G. D.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.

42.

Shepherd

Welch

Dirks

K. N.

Mathews

(2010). Exploring the relationship between noise sensitivity, annoyance and health-related quality of life in a sample of adults exposed to environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 3579–3594. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7103580

43.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2013, January 17–19). Life after P-hacking. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2205186

44.

Uskul

A. K.

Over

(2017). Culture, social interdependence, and ostracism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417699300

45.

Wan

E. W.

Ding

(2014). To be or not to be unique? The effect of social exclusion on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1086/674197

46.

Wheeler

S. C.

DeMarree

K. G.

Petty

R. E.

(2014). Understanding prime-to-behavior effects: Insights from the active-self account. Social Cognition, 32, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.109

47.

Williams

K. D.

(2009). Ostracism: A temporal need-threat model. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 275–314). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00406-1

48.

Williams

K. D.

Cheung

C. K.

Choi

(2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748

49.

Zadro

Williams

K. D.

Richardson

(2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006

50.

Zhang

Lakens

IJsselsteijn

W. A.

(2015). The illusion of nonmediation in telecommunication: Voice intensity biases distance judgments to a communication partner. Acta Psychologica, 157, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.011

51.

Zhou

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2009). The symbolic power of money: Reminders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20, 700–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02353.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.56 MB