Social isolation

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

The Connection Project significantly increased participants' comfort with both intervention group classmates (B=.39, SE=.04, p<.001 at post; B=.16, SE=.05, p<.001 at follow-up) and control group class

Effect: improvement; B = .39 (SE = .04)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)

By four-month follow-up, intervention students were rated as significantly more approachable by control group peers (B=.07, SE=.02, p<=.01) and reported significantly greater use of social supports to

Effect: improvement; B = .07 (SE = .02)