Dr. Michelle Quist Ryder on Social Connection, Belonging Cues, and Holiday Loneliness
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/03/17
Dr. Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD (she/her), is a social psychologist and research leader who serves as Chief Executive Officer of the American Psychological Foundation (APF). At APF, she helps steer philanthropic investment that funds psychological research, supports scholars and practitioners, and expands evidence-based solutions to real-world problems. Her professional background includes human-centric organizational design, effective DEI practice, and translating social science into practical tools for institutions and communities. She regularly speaks and writes on belonging, identity, workplace culture, and the public value of psychological science—so more people can live healthier, dignified lives, and accelerate impact through rigorous, ethical research globally.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Dr. Michelle Quist Ryder (CEO, American Psychological Foundation) about why social connection is a major health protective factor. Ryder says evidence is “overwhelming”: strong ties predict longer life and better mental and physical health, while loneliness rivals major risk factors—comparable, in effect size, to smoking. She distinguishes social ties (having friends) from belonging (felt acceptance and safety). Small, designable cues—being noticed, easy participation, representation, and especially contribution—accelerate belonging. For holidays, she recommends early concrete plans, less social media comparison, and volunteering to shift from rumination to being needed.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Social connection is protective factor for health. What is the evidence for this?
Dr. Michelle Quist Ryder: The evidence is, frankly, overwhelming. Decades of research show that people with stronger social connections live longer and experience better physical and mental health across the board. Loneliness and social isolation are so dramatically associated with increased risk of early mortality that they surpass conditions that we consider to be critical, like obesity and lack of physical activity, and are on par with factors we consider to be actively harmful. The effect size is roughly comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
What’s especially important is that this isn’t just about “having people around.” You don’t have to be alone to be lonely. The critical piece is whether we feel supported and that we belong. Social connection buffers stress, supports healthier behaviors, and reduces the chronic strain that comes from feeling unsafe or unseen. In other words: connection isn’t just sentimental; it’s physiological.
Jacobsen: Galentine’s Day is a pop-culture invention. Why do informal rituals become psychologically meaningful?
Ryder: Humans are remarkably good at turning small, invented things into meaningful ones, and those things can be immensely helpful if they meet a real need. Informal rituals foster belonging, reduce cognitive load (because we know what to expect), and create the sense that everyone is aligned in the shared positive emotions. They take an abstract feeling (“I value my friends”) and turn it into a repeated action (“we do this every year”). So not only do we have the pleasant feelings of our memories, but the warmth of expectation that we’ll do it again.
I also think it’s worth mentioning that there’s a specific element of agency to “Galentine’s Day”. Valentine’s Day is about romance, and it historically focuses primarily on whether couples are partnered, and what the male partner is planning for the female partner. And stereotypically, male partners initiate relationships. So you have a lot of people who might feel left out; those aren’t partnered, those who aren’t heterosexual, or those who are partnered with men who aren’t demonstrative for whatever reason. “Galentine’s” can feel like reclaiming. It says: we can choose to honor the relationships that sustain us, without waiting to be chosen.
Jacobsen: What is the difference between having friends and feeling belonging?
Ryder: In short, having friends is about social ties. Belonging is about a felt sense of being wanted and accepted.
Many people recognize the experience of a friend who drains more resources (mental, emotional, or physical) than they give back. Or a friend group in which you psych yourself up before an interaction; reminding yourself what you should and shouldn’t say or do. You can have plenty of friends and still feel like you don’t quite fit–especially if you feel you’re performing, editing yourself, or always doing the emotional labor.
Belonging is different. Belonging is peace and acceptance. You don’t have to perform. You don’t have to brace. And interestingly, you don’t even have to have close friends in a space to feel a sense of belonging, as long as the environment consistently signals that people “like you” are welcome there.
Social ties are important. Belonging is essential.
Jacobsen: What does research suggest are effective belonging cues in community spaces?
Ryder: Belonging is shaped by surprisingly small signals that answer one basic question: Is there a place for someone like me here?
Effective cues include being noticed when you arrive, having clear ways to participate without insider knowledge, and seeing people like you reflected in leadership or norms. You can also grow a sense of belonging over time in spaces that make it easy to return; to build that sense of peace and community.
One of the most powerful cues that isn’t necessarily intuitive is contribution. When people are invited to help, host, or play a role, belonging accelerates. I have a friend who feels lonely at holiday gatherings; not because her family is cold, but because they won’t let her contribute. They insist on doing everything themselves and resist when she tries to help. Even in a warm environment, being excluded from contribution can create feelings of isolation.
Being needed is a fast track to feeling like you matter; and ultimately, that is a basic human need at the core of belonging.
Jacobsen: What are evidence-aligned ways to reduce loneliness around holidays?
Ryder: Loneliness tends to spike around holidays because expectations are high, plans are often vague, and belonging is assumed.
It’s pretty brutal.
So here are a few things that reliably help:
- Plan early and concretely. Choose one meaningful interaction instead of chasing the perfect day. If you suffer from social anxiety, use simple structures such as shared meals or activities. And reach out in ways that lower the cost of saying yes: “No pressure, but want to do a Facetime lunch on Thursday?” goes a long way.
- Step back from social media, which can amplify the illusion that everyone else is included. Instagram is famous (among researchers at least) for fostering negative emotions. Loneliness thrives on ambiguity and comparison; it shrinks when we make one real plan with one real person.
- Volunteer. It might sound counterintuitive, but remember that thing about being needed? Serving other people moves your emotions outside of rumination and into the real world, where they can be tied to real things, like actively making someone’s life better. Even if it’s just for a moment. And volunteer environments are dang near unparalleled for fostering a sense of belonging over time.
Jacobsen: How do identity, stigma, or marginalization alter the loneliness/belonging equation?
Ryder: Oof. There are so many layers to this.
At baseline, marginalization adds cognitive and emotional load. There’s belonging uncertainty (“Do I fit here?”), vigilance for bias, and sometimes the need to conceal parts of oneself to stay safe. All of that makes connection harder, even in a room full of people. Maybe even especially in a room full of people.
This is why inclusive design matters. When environments reduce background threat through things like norms, behavior, and accountability, people have more capacity to actually connect. Belonging isn’t just emotional; it’s structural. That structure means everything. It takes the burden off of the person walking in to search for the place in which they belong and instead highlights it straight from the outset.
Jacobsen: If a reader wanted to host a Galentine’s gathering, what design choices matter?
Ryder: The difference between “cute” and “meaningful” is structure. Keep the group small enough that people can be seen. Create an easy arrival; music, a snack, something to do with your hands. A way to connect with people. Build in one shared activity so conversation doesn’t carry all the weight.
Invite contribution, but keep it optional. Say the belonging part out loud: “I’m really glad you’re here!”
And if you want the belonging to last, create a next touchpoint; a group chat, a photo share, a “same time next month?”
The secret ingredient isn’t themed décor. It’s making it easy to be recognized, be safe, and to just be.
Jacobsen: From the APF perspective, where is the most promising frontier in belongingness research?
Ryder: The frontier isn’t discovering that belonging matters. We know that. Emphatically.
The frontier is implementation: translating belonging science into everyday environments like schools, workplaces, healthcare settings, and community spaces.
That means better measurement, better design, and interventions that don’t put the burden entirely on individuals to “try harder” to connect. The most promising work treats belonging as something we can build into systems, not something people should have to earn by luck or personality. It’s inclusion. It’s recognition. It’s shared humanity. And most of all, it’s intrinsically good. For all of us.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Michelle.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 