No abstract

Despite the severe psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals do not develop high levels of psychological distress and can be termed resilient. Using the ecological resilience model, we examined factors promoting or hindering resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 1034 participants (49.9±16.2 years; females 51.2%) from Italian general population, 70% displayed resilient outcomes and 30% reported moderate-severe anxiety and/or depression. A binary regression model revealed that factors promoting resilience were mostly psychological (e.g., trait resilience, conscientiousness) together with social distancing. Conversely, factors hindering resilience included COVID-19-anxiety, COVID-19-related PTSD symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty, loneliness, living with children, higher education, and living in regions where the virus was starting to spread. In conclusion, the ecological resilience model in the COVID-19 pandemic explained 64% of the variance and identified factors promoting or hindering resilient outcomes. Critically, these findings can inform psychological interventions supporting individuals by strengthening factors associated with resilience.

The spatial Simon effect is often asymmetric, being greater on one side than on the other. To date, not much attention has been paid to these asymmetries, and explanations of the Simon effect do not take them into account. In the present article, we attempt to clarify the statistical implications of the asymmetries so as to provide a useful tool for future empirical investigation. Starting with examples from our laboratory and previous well-known studies, we point out the consequences of ignoring the asymmetries in the Simon effect. We suggest an alternative data analysis that might render the results clearer. Finally, through a comparison of left- and right-handed subjects, we demonstrate that asymmetries in the Simon effect are linked to the lateralization of processes involved in the Simon task--that is, attention and response selection. This approach provides a strong argument against collapsing data from the two sides to measure the Simon effect.

Background: To date, the number of epidemiological studies on eating disorders (ED) in Italy and in other Mediterranean countries is still limited. This study evaluated the eating attitudes and the prevalence of eating disorders in a sample of 359 16-year-old Italian schoolgirls. Methods: The study followed a two-stage procedure consisting in a first screening stage followed by clinical interviews. A third stage consisting in a case register study and a 1-year follow-up confirmed the importance of evaluating subjects who chose not to participate in the survey. Results: Prevalence rates found in our sample are consistent with those of other prevalence studies conducted on adolescent girls: 0% for anorexia nervosa, 0.5% for bulimia nervosa and 3.7% for ED not otherwise specified. Also some important features associated with the presence of an ED appeared to be present in Italian female students, as in Anglo-Saxon populations: the tendency towards denial that led to an overrepresentation of ED among nonrespondents, and the ascertainment that just a small proportion of people seeks help for ED. The Italian sample reported higher scores on eating attitudes test compared to Anglo-Saxon samples. Conclusions: No evidence of different rates of ED was found in our Italian sample in comparison with non-Mediterranean samples. The importance of using a two-stage design and a third control stage in prevalence studies is emphasized by our findings.

No abstract