Effects of COVID-19 related economic threat on political conservatism, xenophobia, and racial bias in the United States.

The uncertainty-threat model of conservatism posits that people turn to political conservatism to protect themselves from perceived threats; indeed, studies show increases in conservative ideology and outgroup bias following threat priming. The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented threat that has had devastating effects on the health and economic lives of Americans. Concerns surrounding the threat of COVID-19 may have secondary effects on other aspects of American life, such as political and anti-Asian racial bias. The current studies explored the effects of COVID-19 related threats on expressed political conservatism, xenophobia, and racial bias under the uncertainty-threat model. Study 1 assessed the effects of priming health or economic risks of COVID-19 (vs. control), and found that economic threat led to increased xenophobia, but had no effects on overall conservatism. Study 2 then investigated whether the effects of COVID-related economic threat prime extended to racial bias, and explored moderators and mediators of effects. Results showed that the economic threat prime increased perceived group-status threat, and indirectly increased conservatism, xenophobia, and racial bias through the mechanism of perceived group-status threat. Effects were greatest for those impacted financially by the pandemic. In general, our studies provide support for the uncertainty-threat model with the novel threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for understanding potential shifts in conservatism and bias in response to future threats in the United States are discussed.

Systematic Review: Patient Outcomes in Transdiagnostic Adolescent Partial Hospitalization Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Partial hospitalization programs (PHPs) are designed to help stabilize patients with acute mental health problems and are considered more cost-effective than inpatient care for patients who do not require 24-hour monitoring. Many PHPs treat transdiagnostic adolescents to reduce suicidality, self-harm, and other high-risk behaviors; however, the effectiveness of such programs is unknown. We aimed to review the existing evidence for the effects of PHPs on adolescent mental health symptoms and functioning. METHOD: We retrieved peer-reviewed evaluations of PHPs treating adolescents with a range of disorders that reported quantitative clinical outcomes. We followed PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and included studies published since 2000. RESULTS: Fifteen studies of 10 PHPs in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia met inclusion criteria, 5 of which used comparison groups. Most participants were White and female with depressive disorders. All studies found improvements in adolescents' functioning and mental health from admission to discharge; however, only 1 study tested PHP relative to other levels of care, and only 1 study included follow-up data. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) may be an effective theoretical orientation for PHP settings, but evidence is limited. CONCLUSION: Evidence for effectiveness of PHPs relative to other models is limited. Currently available research suggests that many high-risk transdiagnostic adolescents tend to improve during PHP treatment; however, controlled studies with follow-up data are needed to determine whether partial hospitalization is effective and, if so, how effective, and whether treatment gains persist after discharge.