Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high-quality, open, and rigorous research standards.     

Positive evidence for neonatal imitation: A general response,adaptive engagement

The study employed four gestural models using frame‐by‐frame microanalytic methods, and followed how the behaviours unfolded over time. Forty‐two human newborns (0–3 days) were examined for their imitation of tongue protrusion, ‘head tilt with looking up’, three‐finger and two‐finger gestures. The results showed that all three gesture groups were imitated. Results of the temporal analyses revealed an early and a later, second stage of responses. Later responses were characterized by a suppression of similar, but non‐matching movements. Perinatal imitation is not a phenomenon served by a single underlying mechanism; it has at least two different stages. An early phase is followed by voluntary matching behaviour by the neonatal infant.     

Happiness,Wellbeing and Society. What Matters for Singaporeans by Siok Kuan Tambyah y Soo Jiuan Tan

Applied Research in Quality of Life -     

The over‐pruning hypothesis of autism

This article outlines the over‐pruning hypothesis of autism. The hypothesis originates in a neurocomputational model of the regressive sub‐type (Thomas, Knowland & Karmiloff‐Smith, 2011a, 2011b). Here we develop a more general version of the over‐pruning hypothesis to address heterogeneity in the timing of manifestation of ASD, including new computer simulations which reconcile the different observed developmental trajectories (early onset, late onset, regression) via a single underlying atypical mechanism; and which show how unaffected siblings of individuals with ASD may differ from controls either by inheriting a milder version of the pathological mechanism or by co‐inheriting the risk factors without the pathological mechanism. The proposed atypical mechanism involves overly aggressive synaptic pruning in infancy and early childhood, an exaggeration of a normal phase of brain development. We show how the hypothesis generates novel predictions that differ from existing theories of ASD including that (1) the first few months of development in ASD will be indistinguishable from typical, and (2) the earliest atypicalities in ASD will be sensory and motor rather than social. Both predictions gain cautious support from emerging longitudinal studies of infants at‐risk of ASD. We review evidence consistent with the over‐pruning hypothesis, its relation to other current theories (including C. Frith's under‐pruning proposal; C. Frith, 2003, 2004), as well as inconsistent data and current limitations. The hypothesis situates causal accounts of ASD within a framework of protective and risk factors (Newschaffer et al., 2012); clarifies different versions of the broader autism phenotype (i.e. the implication of observed similarities between individuals with autism and their family members); and integrates data from multiple disciplines, including behavioural studies, neuroscience studies, genetics, and intervention studies.     

An Investigation of the Sample Performance of Two Nonnormality Corrections for RMSEA

The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is a popular fit index in structural equation modeling (SEM). Typically, RMSEA is computed using the normal theory maximum likelihood (ML) fit function. Under nonnormality, the uncorrected sample estimate of the ML RMSEA tends to be inflated. Two robust corrections to the sample ML RMSEA have been proposed, but the theoretical and empirical differences between the 2 have not been explored. In this article, we investigate the behavior of these 2 corrections. We show that the virtually unknown correction due to Li and Bentler (2006) Li, L. and Bentler, P. M. 2006. “Robust statistical tests for evaluating the hypothesis of close fit of misspecified mean and covariance structural models.”. In UCLA Statistics Preprint #506. Los Angeles: University of California..  [Google Scholar], which we label the sample-corrected robust RMSEA, is a consistent estimate of the population ML RMSEA yet drastically reduces bias due to nonnormality in small samples. On the other hand, the popular correction implemented in several SEM programs, which we label the population-corrected robust RMSEA, has poor properties because it estimates a quantity that decreases with increasing nonnormality. We recommend the use of the sample-corrected RMSEA with nonnormal data and its wide implementation.     

Weight-based discrimination,body dissatisfaction and emotional eating: The role of perceived social consensus

Objective: Discrimination can have a negative impact on psychological well-being, attitudes and behaviour. This research evaluates the impact of experiences of weight-based discrimination upon emotional eating and body dissatisfaction, and also explores whether people's beliefs about an ingroup's social consensus concerning how favourably overweight people are regarded can moderate the relationship between experiences of discrimination and negative eating and weight-related cognitions and behaviours.

Research methods and procedures: 197 undergraduate students completed measures about their experiences of weight-based discrimination, emotional eating and body dissatisfaction. Participants also reported their beliefs concerning an ingroup's attitude towards overweight people.

Results: Recollections of weight-based discrimination significantly contributed to emotional eating and body dissatisfaction. However, the relationships between experiencing discrimination and body dissatisfaction and emotional eating were weakest amongst participants who believed that the ingroup held a positive attitude towards overweight people.

Discussion: Beliefs about ingroup social consensus concerning overweight people can influence the relationships between weight-based discrimination and emotional eating and body dissatisfaction. Changing group perceptions to perceive it to be unacceptable to discriminate against overweight people may help to protect victims of discrimination against the negative consequences of weight-based stigma.     

Causal attributions for heart disease: A systematic review

Abstract

The aims of this systematic literature review are to describe the pattern of attributions made for the causes of heart disease, and to determine how this pattern varies with the method by which attributions are elicited, and the respondent group.

A search yielded 47 papers and reports, containing 54 datasets. Lifestyle factors and chronic stress were the most common causes cited across all datasets. Attributions to stressors and fate or luck were more likely to be reported in studies that used interval rating scales than in studies that used dichotomous ratings. Cardiac patients were more likely to mention stressors and fate or luck as causes of heart disease; non-patients rated being overweight and hypertensive as more important

The differences observed between the responses of patients and non-patients may be due to actor - observer differences, or to a methodological difference: patients are often asked to report their own experiences whereas non-patients are asked about the general case.