Showing papers in "American Psychologist in 2021"

COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.

Abstract: The impacts of COVID-19 on workers and workplaces across the globe have been dramatic. This broad review of prior research rooted in work and organizational psychology, and related fields, is intended to make sense of the implications for employees, teams, and work organizations. This review and preview of relevant literatures focuses on (a) emergent changes in work practices (e.g., working from home, virtual teamwork) and (b) emergent changes for workers (e.g., social distancing, stress, and unemployment). In addition, potential moderating factors (demographic characteristics, individual differences, and organizational norms) are examined given the likelihood that COVID-19 will generate disparate effects. This broad-scope overview provides an integrative approach for considering the implications of COVID-19 for work, workers, and organizations while also identifying issues for future research and insights to inform solutions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Mental health and clinical psychological science in the time of COVID-19: Challenges, opportunities, and a call to action.

Abstract: COVID-19 presents significant social, economic, and medical challenges. Because COVID-19 has already begun to precipitate huge increases in mental health problems, clinical psychological science must assert a leadership role in guiding a national response to this secondary crisis. In this article, COVID-19 is conceptualized as a unique, compounding, multidimensional stressor that will create a vast need for intervention and necessitate new paradigms for mental health service delivery and training. Urgent challenge areas across developmental periods are discussed, followed by a review of psychological symptoms that likely will increase in prevalence and require innovative solutions in both science and practice. Implications for new research directions, clinical approaches, and policy issues are discussed to highlight the opportunities for clinical psychological science to emerge as an updated, contemporary field capable of addressing the burden of mental illness and distress in the wake of COVID-19 and beyond. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably impacted many people's lives. This study examined changes in subjective wellbeing between December 2019 and May 2020 and how stress appraisals and coping strategies relate to individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the pandemic. Data were collected at 4 time points from 979 individuals in Germany. Results showed that, on average, life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect did not change significantly between December 2019 and March 2020 but decreased between March and May 2020. Across the latter timespan, individual differences in life satisfaction were positively related to controllability appraisals, active coping, and positive reframing, and negatively related to threat and centrality appraisals and planning. Positive affect was positively related to challenge and controllable-by-self appraisals, active coping, using emotional support, and religion, and negatively related to threat appraisal and humor. Negative affect was positively related to threat and centrality appraisals, denial, substance use, and self-blame, and negatively related to controllability appraisals and emotional support. Contrary to expectations, the effects of stress appraisals and coping strategies on changes in subjective wellbeing were small and mostly nonsignificant. These findings imply that the COVID-19 pandemic represents not only a major medical and economic crisis, but also has a psychological dimension, as it can be associated with declines in key facets of people's subjective wellbeing. Psychological practitioners should address potential declines in subjective wellbeing with their clients and attempt to enhance clients' general capability to use functional stress appraisals and effective coping strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: Predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: The current pandemic wave of COVID-19 has resulted in significant uncertainty for the general public. Mental health and examining factors that may influence distress have been outlined as key research priorities to inform interventions. This research sought to examine whether intolerance of uncertainty and coping responses influence the degree of distress experienced by the U.K. general public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a cross-sectional online questionnaire design, participants were recruited (N = 842) using snowball sampling over a 10-day period in the early "lockdown" phase of the pandemic. Around a quarter of participants demonstrated significantly elevated anxiety and depression, with 14.8% reaching clinical cutoff for health anxiety. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance indicated those in "vulnerable" groups were significantly more anxious (p < .001), and also more anxious in relation to their health (p < .001). Mediation modeling demonstrated maladaptive coping responses partially mediated the predictive relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological distress. Mental health difficulties have become significantly raised during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, particularly for the vulnerable. Findings support emerging research suggesting the general public is struggling with uncertainty, more so than normal. Vulnerable groups are more anxious about their health, but not more intolerant of uncertainty than the nonvulnerable. Finally, this study indicated two modifiable factors that could act as treatment targets when adapting interventions for mental health during the COVID-19 global health crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact couples' relationships.

Abstract: The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly altered people's daily lives and created multiple societal challenges. One important challenge of this unique stressor is maintaining well-functioning intimate relationships, which are inextricably tied to emotional and physical health. Yet research on romantic relationships shows that external stressors such as economic hardship, demanding jobs, and disasters can threaten the quality and stability of couples' relationships. Research within relationship science investigating how external stressors and existing vulnerabilities shape couple functioning can inform predictions about how the current pandemic will impact couples' relationships and which couples in which contexts may be most at risk for adverse relationship consequences. Drawing on theory and research from relationship science, the presented conceptual framework, adapted from the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), suggests that facing COVID-19-related external stress is likely to increase harmful dyadic processes (e.g., hostility, withdrawal, less responsive support), which will undermine couples' relationship quality. These harmful effects are likely to be exacerbated by the broader preexisting context in which couples' relationships are situated (e.g., social class, minority status, age), and their individual vulnerabilities (e.g., attachment insecurity, depression). The framework presented identifies the essential factors that need to be addressed in order to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the current crisis on relationships, and offers key directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The COVID-19 telepsychology revolution: A national study of pandemic-based changes in U.S. mental health care delivery.

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has altered mental health care delivery like no other event in modern history. The purpose of this study was to document the magnitude of that effect by examining (a) the amount of psychologists' telepsychology use before the COVID-19 pandemic, during the pandemic, and anticipated use after the pandemic; as well as (b) the demographic, training, policy, and clinical practice predictors of these changes. This study used a cross-sectional, national online design to recruit 2,619 licensed psychologists practicing in the United States. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, psychologists performed 7.07% of their clinical work with telepsychology, which increased 12-fold to 85.53% during the pandemic, with 67.32% of psychologists conducting all of their clinical work with telepsychology. Psychologists projected that they would perform 34.96% of their clinical work via telepsychology after the pandemic. Psychologists working in outpatient treatment facilities reported over a 26-fold increase in telepsychology use during the pandemic, while those in Veterans Affairs medical centers only reported a sevenfold increase. A larger increase in percentage telepsychology use occurred in women, in psychologists who reported an increase in telepsychology training and supportive organizational telepsychology policies, and in psychologists who treated relationship issues, anxiety, and women's issues. The lowest increases in percentage telepsychology use were reported by psychologists working in rural areas, treating antisocial personality disorder, performing testing and evaluation, and treating rehabilitation populations. Although there was a remarkable increase in telepsychology use during the COVID-19 pandemic, individual and practice characteristics affected psychologists' ability to adopt telepsychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American?

Abstract: The field of psychology prides itself on being a data-driven science. In 2008, however, Arnett brought to light a major weakness in the evidence on which models, measures, and theories in psychology rest. He demonstrated that the most prominent journals in six subdisciplines of psychology focused almost exclusively (over 70% of samples and authors) on a cultural context, the United States, shared by only 5% of the world's population. How can psychologists trust that these models and results generalize to all humans, if the evidence comes from a small and unrepresentative portion of the global population? Arnett's analysis, cited over 1,300 times since its publication, appears to have galvanized researchers to think more globally. Social scientists from the United States have increasingly sought ways to collaborate with colleagues abroad. Ten years later, an analysis of the same 6 journals for the period of 2014 to 2018 indicates that the authors and samples are now on average a little over 60% American based. The change is mainly due to an increase in authorship and samples from other English-speaking and Western European countries. Thus, it might be said that 11% of the world's population is now represented in these top psychology journals, but that 89% of the world's population continues to be neglected. Majority world authors and samples (4-5%) are still sorely lacking from the evidence base. Psychology still has a long way to go to become a science truly representative of human beings. Several specific recommendations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How psychology can help limit climate change.

Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has encouraged psychologists to become part of the integrated scientific effort to support the achievement of climate change targets such as keeping within 1.5°C or 2°C of global warming. To date, the typical psychological approach has been to demonstrate that specific concepts and theories can predict behaviors that contribute to or mitigate climate change. Psychologists need to go further and, in particular, show that integrating psychological concepts into feasible interventions can reduce greenhouse gas emissions far more than would be achieved without such integration. While critiquing some aspects of current approaches, we describe psychological research that is pointing the way by distinguishing different types of behavior, acknowledging sociocultural context, and collaborating with other disciplines. Engaging this challenge offers psychologists new opportunities for promoting mitigation, advancing psychological understanding, and developing better interdisciplinary interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The psychology of American racism.

Abstract: American racism is alive and well In this essay, we amass a large body of classic and contemporary research across multiple areas of psychology (eg, cognitive, developmental, social), as well as the broader social sciences (eg, sociology, communication studies, public policy), and humanities (eg, critical race studies, history, philosophy), to outline seven factors that contribute to American racism: (a) Categories, which organize people into distinct groups by promoting essentialist and normative reasoning; (b) Factions, which trigger ingroup loyalty and intergroup competition and threat; (c) Segregation, which hardens racist perceptions, preferences, and beliefs through the denial of intergroup contact; (d) Hierarchy, which emboldens people to think, feel, and behave in racist ways; (e) Power, which legislates racism on both micro and macro levels; (f) Media, which legitimize overrepresented and idealized representations of White Americans while marginalizing and minimizing people of color; and (g) Passivism, such that overlooking or denying the existence of racism obscures this reality, encouraging others to do the same and allowing racism to fester and persist We argue that these and other factors support American racism, and we conclude with suggestions for future research, particularly in the domain of identifying ways to promote antiracism (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

No body is expendable: Medical rationing and disability justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: The health threat posed by the novel coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic has particular implications for people with disabilities, including vulnerability to exposure and complications, and concerns about the role of ableism in access to treatment and medical rationing decisions. Shortages of necessary medical equipment to treat COVID-19 have prompted triage guidelines outlining the ways in which lifesaving equipment, such as mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds, may need to be rationed among affected individuals. In this article, we explore the realities of medical rationing, and various approaches to triage and prioritization. We discuss the psychology of ableism, perceptions about quality of life, social determinants of health, and how attitudes toward disability can affect rationing decisions and access to care. In addition to the grassroots advocacy and activism undertaken by the disability community, psychology is rich in its contributions to the role of attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior on the social fabric of society. We call on psychologists to advocate for social justice in pandemic preparedness, promote disability justice in health care settings, call for transparency and accountability in rationing approaches, and support policy changes for macro- and microallocation strategies to proactively reduce the need for rationing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Religion and reactance to COVID-19 mitigation guidelines.

Abstract: During the current COVID-19 pandemic, religious gatherings have become intense hot spots for the spread of the virus. In this research, we focus on the religiosity of communities to examine whether religiosity helps or hinders adherence to mitigation policies such as shelter-in-place directives. Prior research has made opposing predictions as to the influence of religiosity. One stream predicts greater adherence because of rule-abiding norms and altruistic tendencies, whereas another has predicted lower adherence as a reaction against the restriction of personal and religious freedom. We used shelter-in-place directives as an intervention in a quasiexperiment to examine adherence over 30 days as a function of religiosity in the most populous metropolitan areas in the United States. When a shelter-in-place directive had not been imposed, religiosity did not affect people's movements. However, when the directive was imposed, higher religiosity resulted in less adherence to shelter-in-place directives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Virtual mental health care in the Veterans Health Administration's immediate response to coronavirus disease-19.

Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased the need for psychological care in the global population and has created new barriers to accessing services. Hospitals, mental health facilities, and other clinics face the challenge of providing continued care to a population that is under severe stress, while minimizing in-person visits that risk spreading the virus. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, providing care at 1,286 sites. VHA ensured the continuity of mental health services after the COVID-19 outbreak by rapidly expanding its use of telemental health methods in the first weeks after the U.S. pandemic outbreak. VHA provided nearly 1.2 million telephone and video encounters to veterans in April 2020 and reduced in-person visits by approximately 80% when compared with the October 2019 to February 2020 period before the pandemic. By June 2020, VHA had an 11-fold increase in encounters using direct-to-home video and a fivefold increase in telephone contacts relative to before the pandemic. This article discusses research on the effectiveness of telemental health, VHA policies before COVID-19 that facilitated the use of telemental health systemwide, and VHA's actions that rapidly scaled use of telemental health during the first months of the outbreak. Key challenges and lessons learned from VHA's experience and implications for providers and health care systems regarding the use of telemental health to meet patients' mental health care needs during the pandemic are also discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How personality and policy predict pandemic behavior: Understanding sheltering-in-place in 55 countries at the onset of COVID-19

Abstract: The spread of COVID-19 within any given country or community at the onset of the pandemic depended in part on the sheltering-in-place rate of its citizens. The pandemic led us to revisit one of psychology's most fundamental and most basic questions in a high-stakes context: what determines human behavior? Adopting a Lewinian interactionist lens, we investigate the independent and joint effects of macrolevel government policies and microlevel psychological factors-that is, personality-on whether individuals sheltered-in-place. We analyzed data collected in late March and early April 2020 from 101,005 participants in 55 countries, a time period that coincided with the early and accelerating stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. This time period also contained substantial variation in the stringency of governmental policy toward sheltering-in-place, both between countries and within each country over time. Analyses revealed that personality and the stringency of governmental policies independently predicted sheltering-in-place rates. Policy stringency was positively related to sheltering-in-place. For the personality dimensions, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism all predicted higher rates of sheltering-in-place, whereas Extraversion was negatively related to staying at home. In addition, two personality traits-Openness to Experience and Neuroticism-interacted with governmental policy to predict whether individuals sheltered-in-place; openness and neuroticism each had weaker effects on sheltering-in-place as governmental policies became stricter. Theoretically, the findings demonstrate that individual differences predict behavior (i.e., sheltering-in-place) even when governments take strong action targeting that behavior. Practically, they suggest that even if governments lift their shelter-in-place restrictions, some individuals will shelter-in-place less than others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The mental health implications of COVID-19 for adolescents: Follow-up of a four-wave longitudinal study during the pandemic.

Abstract: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared a pandemic due to the global outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While scientists have moved quickly to study the physical health implications of the disease, less attention has been paid to the negative mental health repercussions. The current study utilized a community sample of adolescents who had recently completed a 2-year, four wave study of adolescent mental health (Wave 1 n = 184, Mage = 13.9 years; 50.3% female). Participants were recontacted to assess their anxiety, depression, and emotion dysregulation symptoms during the pandemic. Latent growth modeling based on four pre-COVID time points indicated the extent to which the fifth (COVID) time point deviated from trend expectations. Results showed that (a) anxiety and depression scores were significantly higher than previous trajectories would have predicted, and (b) deviations from personal trajectories were associated with higher levels of perceived lifestyle impact due to the pandemic. Furthermore, gender-based analyses revealed that financial impacts, lifestyle impacts, and coronavirus fear were differentially associated with symptom increases for male and female participants. The current study is among the first to report that adolescent mental health trajectories have been altered in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. As physical distancing and other safety precautions may be required for several years, it is essential that we gain a deep understanding of how prevention efforts are associated with significant disruptions to youth mental health to bolster youth resilience during these unprecedented times. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Making sense of crisis: Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership in response to COVID-19.

Abstract: The incursion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached global scale in 2020, requiring a response from leaders worldwide. Although the virus is a ubiquitous problem, world leaders have varied appreciably in their responses resulting in substantially different outcomes in terms of virus mitigation, population health, and economic stability. One explanation for this inconsistency is that leaders have taken differential approaches to making sense of the crisis that, in turn, have driven their approaches to decision making and communication. The present article elaborates on the role of leaders as sensemakers and explains how a leader's sensemaking approach is a critical element in successful crisis management efforts. Through the charismatic, ideological, pragmatic (CIP) leadership model, a sensemaking-focused theory of leadership, it is explained how specific, relatively stable sensemaking approaches manifest and what actions leaders engaged in those styles are likely to take in times of crisis. These connections are then reinforced through case examples of 3 world leaders, framed through CIP, and demonstrate how their sensemaking approach has influenced their response to COVID-19. The article concludes with a discussion of the impacts that these differential approaches to COVID-19 may have on the global community, and recommendations for more explicit incorporation of sensemaking into our understanding of leadership. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

All adverse childhood experiences are not equal: The contribution of synergy to adverse childhood experience scores.

Abstract: The operationalization of childhood trauma and adversity into checklists commonly known as adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, has become the most widely adopted methodology linking traumatic childhoods to adult outcomes. As the number of self-reported ACEs increase from 0 to 4 or more (4+), most studies find a roughly stepwise progression in risk for a wide range of negative medical and mental health outcomes. A score of 4+ ACEs, has become a de facto cutpoint, increasingly used clinically to define "high risk" status for a myriad of outcomes. Comparisons across studies using a 4+ cutpoint, however, find considerable heterogeneity in the degree of risk for the same outcomes. In addition to sample and methodological differences, certain pairs of ACEs comprising the cumulative ACE score interact synergistically to significantly increase the overall risk beyond the sum (or product) of the contributions of each ACE to the outcome. This article reviews the empirical literature on synergistic ACEs including results from a general population adult and a mixed trauma, youth sample both sufficiently powered to examine over 20 different ACE pairings for possible synergy. Synergistic pairs of ACEs vary by gender and age group. About 30-40% of the variance in outcomes is accounted for by additive synergistic interactions between certain pairs of ACEs. Across studies, sexual abuse is the most synergistically reactive ACE. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of synergistic ACE pairings for psychologists and other allied professionals across clinical practice, prevention, research, and policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Toward personalized psychotherapy: The importance of the trait-like/state-like distinction for understanding therapeutic change.

Abstract: For the past hundred years, mechanisms of change have been the black box of psychotherapy. Thousands of studies failed to produce consistent findings, even concerning factors considered crucial for treatment success by theoretical models and decades of clinical experience. This article introduces the distinction between trait-like (TL) and state-like (SL) components of any mechanism of change (the TLSL distinction) as a potential key to the black box of psychotherapy. TL refers to individual differences between patients; SL refers to changes occurring within the patient over the course of treatment. The TLSL distinction explains why past research, which conflated the two, has produced conflicting results, and predicts the conditions under which consistent results can be obtained. Data collected so far show support for the importance of the TLSL distinction and point the way toward personalized treatment. The TL components create the individual's signature pathology and strengths map, and determine the SL changes that represent the patient-specific mechanisms most critical for optimizing treatment efficacy for each individual. The TLSL distinction has the potential to explain not only how psychotherapy works, but also how changes of any type occur in the wake of intervention, life events, and other factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Optimism versus pessimism as predictors of physical health: A comprehensive reanalysis of dispositional optimism research.

Abstract: Prior research has related dispositional optimism to physical health. Traditionally, dispositional optimism is treated as a bipolar construct, anchored at one end by optimism and the other by pessimism. Optimism and pessimism, however, may not be diametrically opposed, but rather may reflect two independent, but related dimensions. This paper reports a reanalysis of data from previously published studies on dispositional optimism. The reanalysis was designed to evaluate whether the presence of optimism or the absence of pessimism predicted positive physical health more strongly. Relevant literatures were screened for studies relating dispositional optimism to physical health. Authors of relevant studies were asked to join a consortium, the purpose of which was to re-analyze previously published data sets separating optimism and pessimism into distinguishable components. Ultimately, data were received from 61 separate samples (N = 221,133). Meta-analytic analysis of data in which optimism and pessimism were combined into an overall index (the typical procedure) revealed a significant positive association with an aggregated measure of physical health outcomes (r = .026, p < .001), as did meta-analytic analyses with the absence of pessimism (r = .029, p < .001) and the presence of optimism (r = .011, p < .034) separately. The effect size for pessimism was significantly larger than the effect size for optimism (Z = -2.403, p < .02). Thus, the absence of pessimism was more strongly related to positive health outcomes than was the presence of optimism. Implications of the findings for future research and clinical interventions are discussed.

Psychological resilience early in the COVID-19 pandemic: Stressors, resources, and coping strategies in a national sample of Americans.

Abstract: Spreading rapidly across the United States beginning in the spring of 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic radically disrupted Americans' lives. Previous studies of community-wide disasters suggested people are fairly resilient and identified resources and strategies that promote that resilience. Yet, the COVID-19 pandemic is in some ways unique, with high levels of uncertainty, evolving implications and restrictions, and varied and uneven impacts. How resilient were Americans as the pandemic progressed? What psychosocial resources and coping strategies facilitated adjustment as the country moved into a summer of uneven reopenings and reclosures? Data from a national sample of 674 Americans were gathered at the height of early lockdowns and peaking infections in mid-April, 2020, and again, 5 and 10 weeks later. The study aimed to determine levels and sources of distress and to identify the resources and coping efforts that promoted or impeded resilience. Early levels of distress diminished to some extent over subsequent months while levels of wellbeing were comparable with usual norms, suggesting a largely resilient response. COVID-19-related stress exposure also decreased gradually over time. Older age, higher levels of mindfulness and social support, and meaning focused coping predicted better adjustment, reflecting resilience, while avoidance coping was particularly unhelpful. In models predicting change over time, approach-oriented coping (i.e., active coping, meaning-focused coping, and seeking social support) was minimally predictive of subsequent adjustment. Given the unique and ongoing circumstances presented by COVID-19, specific interventions targeting psychosocial resources and coping identified here may help to promote resilience as the pandemic continues to unfold. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Helping healthcare teams save lives during COVID-19: Insights and countermeasures from team science.

Abstract: As the COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the United States, health care teams are on the frontlines of this global crisis, often navigating harrowing conditions at work, such as a lack of personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, and distractions at home, including worries about elderly relatives or making childcare arrangements. While the nature and severity of stressors impacting health care teams are in many ways unprecedented, decades of psychological research exploring teamwork in extreme contexts can provide insights to understand and improve outcomes for teams in a crisis. This review highlights the psychological principles that apply to teams in a crisis and illustrates how psychologists can use this knowledge to improve teamwork for medical teams in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic., The review also provides a glimpse toward the future, noting both how psychologists can help health care teams recover and rebound, as well as how additional research can improve psychologists' understanding of teamwork in times of crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Barriers to access, implementation, and utilization of parenting interventions: Considerations for research and clinical applications.

Abstract: In February 2019, the American Psychological Association approved a resolution on physical discipline of children by parents that recognized its negative impact on children; called for increased use of more effective, alternate forms of discipline; and highlighted the need for greater access to behavioral parenting intervention for underserved groups. Despite a wealth of empirical evidence supporting these statements and similar resolutions by other influential organizations (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children), many challenges exist in providing empirically supported parent training interventions to individuals in need. The current article reviews many barriers to access and implementation of best practices for parents of children and adolescents, including structural barriers to accessing care and factors that interfere with effective delivery of interventions. The review also provides suggestions for clinicians, researchers, and public policy advocates to begin making progress toward reducing and removing these barriers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Recognizing the cumulative burden of childhood adversities transforms science and practice for trauma and resilience.

Abstract: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) studies transformed our understanding of the true burden of trauma. Notable elements of Felitti and colleagues' findings include the influence of adversity on many physical as well as psychological problems and the persistence of impacts decades after the traumas occurred. In this article, we make the case that the most revolutionary finding was the discovery of a strong dose-response effect, with marked increases in risk observed for individuals who reported four or more adversities. Over the past two decades, our understanding of the cumulative burden of trauma has expanded further, with recognition that experiences outside the family, including peer victimization, community violence, and racism, also contribute to trauma dose. Recent research has provided evidence for the pervasiveness of trauma, which we now realize affects most people, even by the end of adolescence. Extensive scientific evidence has documented that more than 40 biopsychosocial outcomes, including leading causes of adult morbidity and mortality, are associated with adverse childhood experiences, measured by dose. We summarize the state of science and explain how ACEs built a movement for uncovering mechanisms responsible for these relationships. Perhaps unexpectedly, the pervasiveness of trauma also expands our understanding of resilience, which is likewise more common than previously recognized. Emerging research on positive childhood experiences and poly-strengths suggests that individual, family, and community strengths may also contribute to outcomes in a dose-response relationship. We close with an agenda for research, intervention, and policy to reduce the societal burden of adversity and promote resilience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How can we inspire nations of learners? An investigation of growth mindset and challenge-seeking in two countries

Abstract: © American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000647

Adverse childhood experiences in African Americans: Framework, practice, and policy

Abstract: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) disproportionately impact African Americans because of profound subjection to historical-systemic oppression in addition to personal and intergenerational trauma exposure. This article utilizes a biopsychosocial-cultural framework to understand the correlates of ACE exposure in African Americans and attends to the cultural factors that contribute to resilience. We review the evidence base for culturally informed, preventive-interventions, as well as strategies for bolstering this work by capitalizing on cultural strengths that are salient in the African American community. We also highlight pertinent policy initiatives guided by recent strategic outlines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These policies provide the backdrop for the recommendations offered to facilitate the healthy biopsychosocial development of individuals and families. These recommendations can contribute to the expansion and creation of new policies that aim to strengthen individual coping in the face of adversity, enhance family bonds and resilience, and promote community capacity to reduce ACE exposure in African Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19 anti-Asian racism: A tripartite model of collective psychosocial resilience.

Abstract: Anti-Asian racism has spiked since the outbreak of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, creating compounded threats to Asian Americans' psychological wellbeing on top of other pandemic stressors (e.g., fears of infection, financial insecurity, or quarantine isolation). COVID-19 anti-Asian racism signifies the relevance of race and racism during public health crises and highlights the importance of examining the psychological impacts of racialized stress and avenues for resilience during a pandemic. This article describes a conceptual model that emphasizes the importance of rechanneling the experience of COVID-19 anti-Asian racism toward resilience. Specifically, the proposed model identifies a tripartite process of collective psychosocial resilience, comprised of (a) critical consciousness of discrimination as a common fate, (b) critical consciousness-informed racial/ethnic identity, and (c) advocacy, for empowering Asian Americans and protecting them against the harmful effects of COVID-19 anti-Asian racism during and beyond the pandemic. Theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the proposed tripartite process for cultivating resilience against COVID-19 anti-Asian racism are delineated. Practice implications and future research directions, as informed and revealed by the conceptual model, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Rendered invisible: Are Asian Americans a model or a marginalized minority?

Abstract: In 1992, the United States government expanded a 1978 decision to observe Asian Pacific American Heritage Week to a month-long recognition of the contributions of Asian Americans to the country's history and ongoing cultural milieu. Since 2000, the Asian population in the United States has grown by 72%-the fastest rate of any racial/ethnic group in the country. Today, the Census reports that Asians comprise 22 million United States residents. Despite this unprecedented growth, Asian Americans remain largely invisible in the national dialogue and in scientific research. This special issue features theoretical, empirical, and policy articles that highlight Asian Americans in psychology. Asian Americans remain marginalized and invisible in scientific endeavors for several reasons. For example, consolidating many ethnic groups under an "Asian American" pan-ethnic umbrella masks meaningful cultural, linguistic, ethnic, migration, gender, sexual/gender identity/expression, and socioeconomic differences. These intersectional identities result in experiences that are multiply marginalized, contributing to invisibility. The model minority stereotype highlights high-achieving and successful individuals, rendering the segment of the Asian American population that is struggling irrelevant and unworthy of attention. This special issue directly interrogates sources of invisibility to synthesize theory, research, and policy focused on Asian Americans. The articles in this special issue focus on the intersectional spaces that Asian Americans occupy, unpacking the diversity behind the "Asian American" pan-ethnic label, experiences of identity and discrimination across a range of Asian American groups, and areas of theory/research/policy where Asian American experiences have been overlooked. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reducing mental health disparities by increasing the personal relevance of interventions.

Abstract: One of the most persistent health disparities is the underutilization of mental health services by people of color. Neither evidence-based treatments (universal focus) nor culturally adapted treatments (group focus) have reduced these disparities. We propose the personal relevance of psychotherapy (PROP) model, which integrates universal, group, and individual dimensions to determine the personal relevance of interventions. A cultural example of personal relevance among people of East Asian ancestry involves "face" (i.e., one's prestige and position in society), which may moderate treatment outcomes. Pragmatic intervention approaches focused on helping individuals cope with specific external problems, compared to managing a "personal" disease, can effectively "restore" face. Thus, social problem-solving interventions may be more personally relevant to many people of East Asian ancestry than are approaches that are internally focused. In addition, we posit that social neuroscience can offer unique opportunities above and beyond self-report measures when assessing the impact of PROP and the personal relevance of interventions for diverse populations. Our preliminary evidence upon testing this hypothesis indicated that among Asian Americans, exposure to problem-solving therapy content elicited significantly greater neural activity in brain areas associated with personal relevance compared to exposure to cognitive-behavioral therapy content. Identifying personally relevant interventions has the potential to reduce mental health disparities by increasing engagement with mental health services for diverse groups. The increased client engagement produced by personally relevant interventions also has the potential to make mental health services more effective for diverse groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Translating the neuroscience of adverse childhood experiences to inform policy and foster population-level resilience.

Abstract: Imaging methods have elucidated several neurobiological correlates of traumatic and adverse experiences in childhood. This knowledge base may foster the development of programs and policies that aim to build resilience and adaptation in children and youth facing adversity. Translation of this research requires both effective and accurate communication of the science. This review begins with a discussion of integrating the language used to describe and identify childhood adversity and their outcomes to clarify the translation of neurodevelopmental findings. An integrative term, Traumatic and Adverse Childhood Experiences (TRACEs+) is proposed, alongside a revised adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) pyramid that emphasizes that a diversity of adverse experiences may lead to a common outcome and that a diversity of outcomes may result from a common adverse experience. This term facilitates linkages between the ACEs literature and the emerging neurodevelopmental knowledge surrounding the effect of traumatic adverse childhood experiences on youth in terms of the knowns and unknowns about neural connectivity in youth samples. How neuroscience findings may lead directly or indirectly to specific techniques or targets for intervention and the reciprocal nature of these relationships is addressed. Potential implications of the neuroscience for policy and intervention at multiple levels are illustrated using existing policy programs that may be informed by (and inform) neuroscience. The need for transdisciplinary models to continue to move the science to action closes the article. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The importance of adverse childhood experiences during the perinatal period.

Abstract: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) study (Felitti et al., 1998) has led to an understanding of how exposure to abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction in childhood are related to subsequent physical and mental health problems. These issues are important to consider during the perinatal period, with studies indicating that pregnant women who report adverse experiences in childhood may be at risk of experiencing mental health and substance use problems. This study examined the association of pregnant women's ACEs with symptoms of depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and substance use, and examined the potential buffering effect of women's resilience against the deleterious effects of ACES on mental health and substance use. Women reported on ACES, mental health symptoms, substance use, and resilience when they were screened for participation in a perinatal psychosocial support intervention, which was integrated into obstetrical clinics in a Southern academic medical center. Almost a quarter of the 303 women in this sample reported four or more ACEs, indicating significant risk. Those reporting more overall ACEs also reported more symptoms of depression, posttraumatic stress, and increased risk of tobacco use. Unique effects of specific ACEs subtypes were also found. Women exposed to child maltreatment reported more anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress symptoms, and were at risk for tobacco, cannabis, or opioid use during pregnancy. Women exposed to household dysfunction reported more posttraumatic stress symptoms and were at increased risk of tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy. Women's resilience attenuated effects of household dysfunction on posttraumatic stress symptoms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Demystifying and addressing internalized racism and oppression among Asian Americans.

Abstract: Asian Americans (AAs) are a diverse group who come from many different cultures, backgrounds, immigration histories, geographic regions, and experiences. Unfortunately, AAs are commonly stereotyped as a model minority, used as an intermediary minority, and consequently have been marginalized and left out of dialogues of racism and discrimination. Internalized racism (IR), defined as the internalization of bias and oppression toward one's group, is an especially insidious form of divisive racism that remains largely misunderstood and unaddressed in AAs. In addition to devaluing oneself, IR creates division in communities and reinforces systems of oppression. This paper reviews the extant literature on IR among AAs and discusses the importance of addressing this deleterious issue and its consequences on individual, family, and community mental health. Moreover, I discuss and elucidate how stereotypes about AAs (e.g., model minority, perpetual foreigner, gendered stereotypes, and conceptions of beauty) directly promote and reinforce different types of internalized oppression (e.g., intraracial hierarchies, intraethnic othering, gendered emasculation, and hypersexualization, colorism and Western standards of beauty). Clinical and community recommendations are provided through a multilevel preventive intervention framework. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).