The distinct associations of ingroup attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence from a multilevel investigation in 21 countries.

While public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic transcend national borders, practical efforts to combat them are often instantiated at the national level. Thus, national group identities may play key roles in shaping compliance with and support for preventative measures (e.g., hygiene and lockdowns). Using data from 25,159 participants across representative samples from 21 nations, we investigated how different modalities of ingroup identification (attachment and glorification) are linked with reactions to the coronavirus pandemic (compliance and support for lockdown restrictions). We also examined the extent to which the associations of attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic are mediated through trust in information about the coronavirus pandemic from scientific and government sources. Multilevel models suggested that attachment, but not glorification, was associated with increased trust in science and compliance with federal COVID-19 guidelines. However, while both attachment and glorification were associated with trust in government and support for lockdown restrictions, glorification was more strongly associated with trust in government information than attachment. These results suggest that both attachment and glorification can be useful for promoting public health, although glorification's role, while potentially stronger, is restricted to pathways through trust in government information.

Real-World Effectiveness of Reslizumab in Patients With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma - First Initiators and Switchers.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab, a biologic targeting IL-5, has been shown to reduce asthma exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use in randomized controlled trials and pre-post studies in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. However, real-world effectiveness data of reslizumab are scarce, and it is unknown whether reslizumab has added value after switching from another type 2 biologic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (1) the real-world effectiveness of reslizumab on severe asthma exacerbations, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, and overall treatment response, both in biologic-naive patients who initiated reslizumab and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic; and (2) physicians' experience with reslizumab treatment. METHODS: This observational real-world study evaluated data from 134 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma included in the Dutch severe asthma registry (RAPSODI), who initiated reslizumab treatment (4-weekly infusions, 0.3 mg/kg) before April 2020 and had follow-up data for 6 months and greater. Clinical asthma experts completed surveys on their experience with reslizumab treatment. RESULTS: Overall, reslizumab reduced the exacerbation rate (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.10 [0.05-0.21]; P < .001), oral corticosteroid use (OR [95% CI], 0.2 [0.0-0.5]; P < .001), and maintenance dose (median [CI], 5.0 [0.0-10.0] to 0.0 [0.0-5.0]; P < .001), with comparable results in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and switchers. The overall response to reslizumab was graded good or excellent in 59.2% of patients. The additive effectiveness of reslizumab after switching from another biologic was reflected in physicians' surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world data show that reslizumab reduces severe asthma exacerbations and oral corticosteroid use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, both in biologic-naive reslizumab initiators and in those who switched from another type 2 biologic. This additional value of reslizumab was recognized by clinical asthma experts.

Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations.

U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1-2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic.

Acting Proactively to Manage Job Insecurity: How Worrying About the Future of One's Job May Obstruct Future-Focused Thinking and Behavior.

An increasing number of people experience insecurity about the future of their job, making it more important than ever to manage this insecurity. While previous research suggests that proactive coping is a promising way to alleviate job insecurity, we suggest that, paradoxically, it may be particularly difficult to act proactively when feeling emotionally distressed about the future of one's job. Drawing on the principle of resource scarcity and the Conservation of Resources theory, we propose that affective job insecurity ignites a scarcity mindset that inhibits workers' future focus and cognitive functioning, thereby undermining proactive career behavior. Additionally, we examine whether income adequacy can compensate for these negative consequences of job insecurity. Results of a three-wave survey study among 108 self-employed professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that initial affective job insecurity was negatively related to cognitive functioning but unrelated to future focus. Yet, the latter relationship was moderated by income adequacy: affective job insecurity was positively related to future focus when participants reported high income adequacy. In turn, future focus was positively related to proactive career behavior, which was subsequently related to lower cognitive job insecurity. Thus, while replicating the finding that workers can proactively manage their cognitive job insecurity, we also showed that initial affective job insecurity may obstruct people's cognitive functioning. We discuss how our results signal a Matthew effect, in which job insecure people with sufficient means are able to look ahead and proactively build resources to change their career, while job insecure people with insufficient means may fall behind.