Appraisal and coping predict health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international approach.

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on people worldwide. We conducted an international survey (n = 3646) examining the degree to which people's appraisals and coping activities around the pandemic predicted their health and well-being. We obtained subsamples from 12 countries-Bangladesh, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, India, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Turkey and the United States. For each, we assessed appraisals and coping strategies as well as indicators of physical and mental health and well-being. Results indicated that, despite mean-level societal differences in outcomes, the pattern of appraisals and coping strategies predicting health and well-being was consistent across countries. Use of disengagement coping (particularly behavioural disengagement and self-isolation) was associated with relatively negative outcomes. In contrast, optimistic appraisals (particularly of high accommodation-focused coping potential and the ability to meet one's physical needs), use of problem-focused coping strategies (especially problem-solving) and accommodative coping strategies (especially positive reappraisal and self-encouragement) were associated with relatively positive outcomes. Our study highlights the critical importance of considering accommodative coping in stress and coping research. It also provides important information on how people have been dealing with the pandemic, the predictors of well-being under pandemic conditions and the generality of such relations.

Profiles of appraisal, motivation, and coping for positive emotions.

We used a retrospective survey (N = 346) to model the patterns of appraisal, motivation, and coping that uniquely correspond with 12 positive emotions (affection/love, amusement, awe, challenge/determination, compassion, gratitude, happiness/joy, hope, interest, pride, relief, and serenity/tranquillity). Generally, we conceptually replicated previously demonstrated appraisal profiles of positive emotion while also examining how additional appraisals differentiate among positive emotions. We then uncovered the motivational goals and coping processes associated with each positive emotion. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research on positive emotion.

Racial disparities in the treatment of depression in low-income persons with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with diabetes are at higher risk for depression than the general population. Although depression can be treated with antidepressant medications, patients with diabetes and comorbid depression often go untreated. The goal of this study was to examine racial disparities in the treatment of depression with antidepressant medication in the southeastern U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected at baseline from 69,068 participants (71% African American, 60% female, and 82% with incomes <$25,000) recruited from community health centers and enrolled in the Southern Cohort Community Study (SCCS). The SCCS is a prospective epidemiological cohort study designed to explore causes of health disparities in adults aged 40-79 years. Binary logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with antidepressant use among those with diabetes (n = 14,279). RESULTS: Individuals with diagnosed diabetes (14,279) were classified with no depressive symptoms (54.7%), or with mild (24.2%), moderate (12.8%), or severe depressive symptoms (8.3%). After controlling for sex, age, insurance, income, education, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and level of depression, African Americans with diabetes were much less likely to report taking antidepressant medication than whites (adjusted odds ratio 0.32 [95% CI 0.29-0.35], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant use is much less common among African Americans than among whites with diabetes. Reasons for racial disparities in treatment of depressive symptoms are unclear but may include a combination of differential diagnosis and treatment by health professionals as well as cultural differences in seeking help for emotional distress.

Appraisal as a pervasive determinant of anger.

L. Berkowitz and E. Harmon-Jones (2004) challenge appraisal theories of emotion by describing 2 sets of conditions (physical discomfort and anger-related muscle actions) in which anger appears to be elicited in the absence of theoretically predicted appraisals. In response, the authors discuss the ability of the specific appraisal model they have developed (e.g., C. A. Smith & L. D. Kirby, 2000, 2001; C. A. Smith & R. S. Lazarus, 1990) to account for such instances of anger. First, a number of issues are clarified relevant to the authors' model, including the nature of both the cognitive operations underlying appraisal and the specific appraisals hypothesized to evoke anger. The authors then describe how their model can account for the instances of anger described by L. Berkowitz and E. Harmon-Jones and how both accounts might be tested.

Cardiovascular correlates of challenge and threat appraisals: a critical examination of the biopsychosocial analysis.

In this article we examine critically the biopsychosocial (BPS) challenge versus threat analysis proposed by Blascovich and his coworkers. We conclude that the BPS analysis should be viewed with considerable caution. We conclude this in part because the analysis is associated with notable problems, including (a) its conception of demand, (b) its definitions of goal-relevant and evaluative situations, (c) its assertion regarding primary and secondary appraisal determinants of challenge and threat, and (d) its cardiovascular (CV) predictions. We conclude this as well because BPS analysis studies have not made a compelling empirical case. BPS analysis studies are unpersuasive because (a) their CV results are only partially consistent with BPS analysis predictions, (b) they have compared CV responses of groups bearing an uncertain relationship to the primary and secondary appraisal criteria specified for the production of challenge and threat effects, (c) they have not compared challenge and threat appraisals between challenge and threat groups, and (d) they provided data that are incomplete. Theoretical modifications and additional research could make a better case for the BPS view.