Do emotion intensity, variability, differentiation, co-occurrence, and positive-negative ratios make unique contributions to predicting longitudinal change in psychological distress and well-being?

A burgeoning array of affective indices are proposed to capture features of affect that contribute to mental health and well-being. However, because indices are often investigated separately, it is unclear what-if any-unique role they have. The present study addresses this question in a high-stress naturalistic context by prospectively testing the relative contributions of eight affective indices to psychological outcomes during the first acute lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across six fortnightly waves of data collection, participants (N = 613, aged 19 to 87 years) reported how much they experienced five positive and five negative emotions in response to images showing the health and social impacts of the pandemic. We used these ratings to calculate participant-level indices of intensity, variability, and differentiation for positive and negative emotions separately, and positive-negative co-occurrence and ratios. Psychosocial outcome measures were general psychological distress, loneliness, work, and social impairment specifically due to the pandemic, well-being, and coping. On average, psychosocial functioning improved across the lockdown period, and, for most affective indices, bivariate relationships with psychosocial functioning supported existing theory and empirical work. However, multiple regression analyses suggested that the contributions of the individual indices were rarely unique, with most of the change in psychosocial functioning over time being explained by affect intensity and variability. These findings highlight that affective indices should be studied in concert to build a comprehensive and integrated understanding of their role in mental health and well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Risk tolerance and changes in coronavirus disease (COVID) related health behaviors: A longitudinal study

OBJECTIVE

The present study examined behavioral responses during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the role of dispositional risk tolerance in the Australian context.

METHOD

The study involved a six-wave longitudinal investigation with a nationally representative sample of Australians (N = 1,296). Dispositional risk tolerance was measured at Wave 1 and participants' anxiety level and self-report implementation of 10 COVID actions was assessed in each wave. Autoregressive multinomial regression models were estimated to assess the unique contribution of risk tolerance to the longitudinal change of participants' implementation of COVID actions.

RESULTS

The results revealed a high implementation rate for protective actions when Australia had a peak in the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently declined with the easing threat of the pandemic. Individuals' dispositional risk tolerance significantly predicted transition to, and endorsement of, protective actions. Participants who had low risk tolerance were more likely to remain at the state of implementing COVID-19 measures than being in, or transitioning to, other states.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that when encouraging protective actions, governments and public authorities should acknowledge variability in the community in responding to risk and consider measures in addition to risk messaging to encourage protective actions among individuals with a high level of risk tolerance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Cause or symptom? A longitudinal test of bidirectional relationships between emotion regulation strategies and mental health symptoms

Previous work has generally conceptualized emotion regulation as contributing to mental health outcomes, and not vice versa. The present study challenges this assumption by using a prospective design to investigate the directionality of underlying relationships between emotion regulation and mental health in the context of a major population-level stressor. We surveyed a large nationally representative sample of adults (18-91 years, N = 704) at three 1-month intervals across the acute lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, using standardized measures of depression and anxiety symptoms. At each time point, we also measured the use of two emotion regulation strategies-cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression-previously associated with adaptive and maladaptive mental health outcomes, respectively. We found cognitive reappraisal was unrelated to mental health symptoms. In contrast, greater emotional suppression was robustly associated with higher symptom levels for both depression and anxiety. Longitudinal analyses revealed this association reflected bidirectional relationships. Higher symptoms of depression and anxiety each predicted greater subsequent use of emotional suppression, and greater use of emotional suppression predicted higher subsequent symptoms. This bidirectionality suggests emotional suppression is both symptomatic and predictive of psychological distress. The lack of a relationship for cognitive reappraisal is discussed with respect to the pandemic context and evidence that high stress might reduce people's ability to use this strategy effectively. Given the strong emphasis on reappraisal in clinical practice, there is a critical need to understand for whom, what and when this strategy is helpful. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).