Locational disadvantage has negative effects on mental health, with research showing that low (vs. high) neighbourhood socioeconomic-status (SES) predicts worse outcomes. Perceived neighbourhood quality is a wellestablished mediator of this association. The present paper extends this analysis, focusing on the contribution of residents' social identification with their neighbourhood. In particular, it tests a model in which this neighbourhood identification both attenuates the effect of neighbourhood SES via perceived neighbourhood quality, and has a direct positive effect on mental health. Study 1 tested this hypothesized dual-effect neighbourhood identification model using a large nationally representative dataset (N = 14,874). Study 2 used a novel experimental design (N = 280) to investigate the causal effects of neighbourhood SES and neighbourhood identification on mental health. In line with the hypothesized model, in both studies, high neighbourhood identification attenuated the effects of neighbourhood SES on perceived neighbourhood quality, and neighbourhood identification had a direct positive impact on mental health. Additionally, and consistent with previous research, both studies also showed that perceived neighbourhood quality was the means through which neighbourhood SES affected mental health. The novel and far-reaching implications of neighbourhood identification for community mental health are discussed.

Background The social identity model of risk taking proposes that people take more risks with ingroup members because they trust them more. While this can be beneficial in some circumstances, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it has the potential to undermine an effective public health response if people underestimate the risk of contagion posed by ingroup members, or overestimate the risk of vaccines or treatments developed by outgroup members. Methods Three studies (two prospective surveys, one experiment) with community-based adults tested the potential for the social identity model of risk taking to explain risk perception and risk taking in the context of COVID-19. Results Study 1 was a two-wave study with a pre-COVID baseline, and found that people who identified more strongly as a member of their neighborhood pre-COVID tended to trust their neighbors more, and perceive interacting with them during COVID-19 lockdown to be less risky. Study 2 (N = 2033) replicated these findings in a two-wave nationally representative Australian sample. Study 3 (N = 216) was a pre-registered experiment which found that people indicated greater willingness to take a vaccine, and perceived it to be less risky, when it was developed by an ingroup compared to an outgroup source. We interpret this as evidence that the tendency to trust ingroup members more could be harnessed to enhance the COVID-19 response. Conclusions Across all three studies, ingroup members were trusted more and were perceived to pose less health risk. These findings are discussed with a focus on how group processes can be more effectively incorporated into public health policy, both for the current pandemic and for future contagious disease threats.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: The social identity model of risk taking proposes that people take more risks with ingroup members because they trust them more. While this can be beneficial in some circumstances, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it has the potential to undermine an effective public health response if people underestimate the risk of contagion posed by ingroup members, or overestimate the risk of vaccines or treatments developed by outgroup members. Methods: Three studies (two prospective surveys, one experiment) with community-based adults tested the potential for the social identity model of risk taking to explain risk perception and risk taking in the context of COVID-19. Results: Study 1 was a two-wave study with a pre-COVID baseline, and found that people who identified more strongly as a member of their neighborhood pre-COVID tended to trust their neighbors more, and perceive interacting with them during lockdown restrictions as less risky. Study 2 (N=2033) replicated these findings in a two-wave nationally representative Australian sample. Study 3 (N=216) was a pre-registered experiment which found evidence that the tendency to trust ingroup members more could be harnessed to enhance the COVID-19 response. Specifically, people were more willing to take a vaccine and perceived it to be less risky when it was developed by an ingroup compared to an outgroup source. Conclusions: Across all three studies, ingroup members were trusted more and were perceived to pose less health risk. These findings are discussed with a focus on how group processes can be more effectively incorporated into public health policy, both for the current pandemic and for future contagious disease threats.

BackgroundResearch on the health and wellbeing of retirees has tended to focus on financial security and financial planning. However, we suggest that one reason why financial security is important for retirees is that it enables social connectedness, which is critical for healthy ageing.MethodsThis paper tests this hypothesis cross-sectionally (N = 3109) and longitudinally (N = 404) using a population-weighted mixed effects mediation model in two nationally representative samples of Australian retirees.ResultsAnalyses provide robust support for our model. Subjective financial security predicted retiree health cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Social connectedness also consistently predicted mental health and physical health, on average four times more strongly than financial security. Furthermore, social connectedness partially accounted for the protective effect of subjective financial security.ConclusionsWe discuss the implications of these findings for public health, with a particular emphasis on how social connectedness can be better supported for people transitioning to retirement.

No abstract