Background: The effects of COVID-19 on the population's mental health and wellbeing are likely to be profound and long-lasting. Aims: To investigate the trajectory of mental health and wellbeing during the first six weeks of lockdown in adults in the UK. Method: A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample was employed. Findings for waves 1 (31 st March to 9 th April 2020), 2 (10 th April to 27 th April 2020) and 3 (28 th April to 11 th May 2020) are reported here. A range of mental health factors was assessed: pre-existing mental health problems, suicide attempts and self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, mental well-being, and loneliness. Results: A total of 3077 adults in the UK completed the survey at wave 1. Suicidal ideation increased over time. Symptoms of anxiety, levels of defeat and entrapment decreased across waves whereas levels of depressive symptoms did not change significantly. Positive wellbeing also increased. Levels of loneliness did not change significantly over waves. Subgroup analyses showed that females, young people (18-29 years), those from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds, and those with pre-existing mental health problems have worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors. Conclusions: The mental health and wellbeing of the UK adult population appears to have been affected in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasing rates of suicidal thoughts across waves, especially among young adults, are concerning.

No abstract

In 1978, Comrey wrote a guide to factor analysis in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. This paper provides an update of the information given by Comrey in relation to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for work and ogvliutional psychologists, and particularly those involved with test development, interpretation and validation. In doing so, it offers a user's guide to contemporary methods and available techniques and introduces heuristics for dealing with problems of skew and kurtosis, social desirability response set, and factor naming. The basic factor model assumes that the observed variables reflect linear combinations of underlying factors. It is these fictors which are causal in creating the derived factor structure. They can take two forms. First, there are cmmon factors: those which are common to two or more observed variables but which can affect all observed variables. These can either be correlated or uncorrelated. Second, there are unique @tors which are s -c to each variable and orthogonal (i.e. statistically uncorrelated) to each other and to all common factors. The major goal of EFA is the identification of the minimum number of common factors required to reproduce the initial correlation or cmriance matrix. As such, factor analysis is different from principal components analysis. Principal components analysis identifies components on the basis of Absolute minimum number 100 to 200 Kline (1986); Comrey (1978) of subjects (N) Relative proportions of: between 2:l and 6:l Cattell (1978) variables to expected factors (plm ratio), and subjects to expected factors (Nlm ratio)Table 2: The type of heuristic, its range and advocates for producing a stable factor structure.

Daily hassles were associated with an increase in unhealthy eating behavior. These changes may indicate an important indirect pathway through which stress influences health risk.

No abstract

The benevolence hypothesis is supported, suggesting that blood donor motivation is partly selfish. Blood donation campaigns should focus on benevolent rather than purely altruistic messages.

Theoretical models suggest that gratitude is linked to increased prosociality. To date, however, there is a lack of a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of results to support this claim. In this review we aimed to (a) examine the overall strength of the association between gratitude and prosociality, and (b) identify the theoretical and methodological variables that moderate this link. We identified 252 effect sizes from 91 studies across 65 papers-(Total N = 18,342 participants). The present meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant, and moderate positive correlation between gratitude and prosociality (r = .374). This association was significantly larger among studies that assessed outcomes relative to outcomes, and in particular among studies that examined -compared with-reciprocity. Studies that examined gratitude as an reported significantly larger effect size studies assessing gratitude as a. Studies that examined gratitude (in response to other's kindness) had a stronger effect that gratitude that focuses on the appreciation of what is valued and cherished in life. Finally, studies that manipulated gratitude in vivo (e.g., economic games) had larger effect sizes compared with those based on recalled incidents when the person felt grateful. We describe the theoretical and practical significance of the results. (PsycINFO Database Record

Recent revisions of Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) have important implications for self-report measures of approach and avoidance behaviours and how Gray's model relates to other personality models. In this paper, we examine the revised RST by comparing Carver and White's (1994) original one-factor solution of the BIS scale with two alternative two-factor solutions separating BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-Fear. We also examine the relationships between Eysenck's PEN and revised RST factors. Two hundred and twelve participants completed Carver and White's BIS/BAS scales and Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire-Revised. Confirmatory factor analyses of the original BIS scale showed that the hypothesized two-factor model of BIS-Anxiety and FFFS-Fear was the best fit to these data. Associations between the revised RST and Eysenck's PEN were examined using path analysis. In line with theoretical predictions, Psychoticism was related to revised BIS-Anxiety and BAS, Neuroticism to revised BIS-Anxiety and FFFS- Thank you for organizing the review process and for you email of April 9 th 2008 giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the Manuscript. We would like to thank the three reviewers for the time and effort they put into their reviews. Their comments were very useful and allowed us to clarify the focus of the paper and strengthen the analyses. Detailed answers to the reviewers' comments are presented below. We have addressed all of the reviewers' concerns.First of all, we would like to thank you for your personal comments and reference for the recently released Corr & McNaughton chapter in Corr (2008). We have incorporated their invaluable discussion into our manuscript. For instance, you had pointed out that the first suggestion for the split of the BIS scale into specific anxiety and fear items was made by Corr & McNaughton (2008) and we have highlighted this in the paper (page 4, paragraph 3; page 5, paragraph 2).Moreover, a number of the reviewers' changes called for additional information and we have tried to make all of these changes while keeping the manuscript within the 5000 word limit for Personality and Individual Differences. For example, we have now included one additional model for the confirmatory factor analysis and the appropriate figures showing the two CFA models (e.g. page 9 and 10, Figure 2) as well as a descriptive table for the RST and PEN variables (page 11, Table 2). Throughout the text we have also clarified some arguments.Word count: 4908 Reviewer 1 General Comment: 'In this study the authors examine associations among Eysenck's PEN and indices relevant to Gray's RST, using Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales to index RST constructs. Noting important theoretical distinctions between Gray's early (1987) and revised (Gray & McNaughton,2000) theory (e.g., the reallocation of sensitivity to conditioned fear stimuli from the BIS to FFFS), the authors inspect the C&W BIS scale items and, on rational grounds, identify items more related to "fear" than to Response:We t...