In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on economic activities have resulted in a sharp rise of unemployment. The purpose of this research is to explore mental disorders associated with COVID-19 related unemployment using a large, nationally representative dataset, the 2020 COVID-19 Household Pulse Survey. ANOVA with post hoc tests (Tukey HSD) are utilized to reveal the mean difference of mental disorders between various employment status, as well as between reasons of unemployment. Binary logit model is used to investigate the potential effect of different reasons of unemployment on mental disorders. Individuals who were not working during the pandemic due to involuntary reasons had higher probabilities of mental disorders than those who were working and those who voluntarily separated from work. Among respondents who were not working due to COVID-19 related reasons, respondents whose employer went out of business were the most likely to experience mental disorders. Household job uncertainty in the next four weeks positively contributed to mental disorders. Government should consider measures to contain the spread of virous while keeping as many people employed as possible. Government should also consider providing adequate financial and counseling assistance to individuals who are in the greatest need for such support.
The current research tested the concept of institutional agency (IA) and its implications for laypeople's attribution patterns related to economic behaviors and organizational responsibilities. The term “institutional agency” refers to a set of lay theories about whether or not an organization can have personhood and related mental properties, such as wishes, desires, intents, and responsibility. Through three cross‐cultural studies, we found that people do form certain beliefs about IA which are similar to the legal discourse of institutional responsibility. However, there are significant cultural differences in views of IA, and the concept is more mentally salient for Americans than for Chinese. In Study 1, we distinguished institutional from group agency by showing the cultural differences on attributions in the scenario with “individual vs. group agency” and the scenario with “individual vs. institutional agency.” In Study 2, we again demonstrated the stronger salience of IA for Americans than for Chinese by including the individual, group, and institutional agencies together in one scenario. In Study 3, we further demonstrated that the concept of IA is more salient for Americans by presenting three different agents in separate scenarios. The practical implications of these cultural differences for cross‐cultural understanding and the psychological effects of economic globalization are discussed. 相似文献