Does the COVID-19 war metaphor influence reasoning?

In recent times, many alarm bells have begun to sound: the metaphorical presentation of the COVID-19 emergency as a war might be dangerous, because it could affect the way people conceptualize the pandemic and react to it, leading citizens to endorse authoritarianism and limitations to civil liberties. The idea that conceptual metaphors actually influence reasoning has been corroborated by Thibodeau and Boroditsky, who showed that, when crime is metaphorically presented as a beast, readers become more enforcement-oriented than when crime is metaphorically framed as a virus. Recently, Steen, Reijnierse and Burgers replied that this metaphorical framing effect does not seem to occur and suggested that the question should be rephrased about the conditions under which metaphors do or do not influence reasoning. In this paper, we investigate whether presenting the COVID-19 pandemic as a war affects people's reasoning about the pandemic. Data collected suggest that the metaphorical framing effect does not occur by default. Rather, socio-political individual variables such as speakers' political orientation and source of information favor the acceptance of metaphor congruent entailments: right-wing participants and participants relying on independent sources of information are those more conditioned by the COVID-19 war metaphor, thus more inclined to prefer bellicose options.

Philosophy for children and mindfulness during COVID-19: Results from a randomized cluster trial and impact on mental health in elementary school students.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on children's mental health. Given these problems can have significant impacts throughout the lifespan, preventing the negative repercussions of COVID-19 on children's mental health is essential. Philosophy for children (P4C) and mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) show promise in this regard. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to compare the impact of online MBI and P4C interventions on mental health, within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a randomized cluster trial to assess and compare the impact of both interventions on elementary school students' (N = 37) anxiety and inattention symptoms as well as on their basic psychological need satisfaction (BPN). RESULTS: ANCOVAs revealed a significant effect of the P4C intervention on mental health difficulties, controlling for baseline levels. Participants in the P4C group showed lower scores on the measured symptoms at post-test than participants in the MBI group. Significant effects of the MBI on levels of BPN were also found. Participants in the MBI intervention reported greater BPN satisfaction at post-test than participants in the P4C intervention. CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggest that, in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a P4C intervention centered around COVID-19 related themes may be helpful to reduce mental health difficulties, that a MBI may be useful to satisfy BPN, and that both interventions were easy to offer online to elementary school students. Future work including a larger sample size and follow-up measures is warranted. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Practice: Philosophy for children (P4C) and mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) can be used to foster mental health in elementary school students, in the current COVID-19 context. Policy: As we do not anticipate that facilitators will be allowed in schools during the 2020-2021 school year and that children will, most likely, be attending school in the current COVID-19 context, policymakers who want to implement psychological support measures in elementary schools should consider an online modality, which has shown in this study to work well, be feasible, and yield positive results on youth mental health.

Developing thinking around mental health science: the example of intrusive, emotional mental imagery after psychological trauma.

INTRODUCTION: One route to advancing psychological treatments is to harness mental health science, a multidisciplinary approach including individuals with lived experience and end users (e.g., Holmes, E. A., Craske, M. G., & Graybiel, A. M. (2014). Psychological treatments: A call for mental-health science. Nature, 511(7509), 287-289. doi:10.1038/511287a). While early days, we here illustrate a line of research explored by our group-intrusive imagery-based memories after trauma. METHOD/RESULTS: We illustrate three possible approaches through which mental health science may stimulate thinking around psychological treatment innovation. First, focusing on single/specific target symptoms rather than full, multifaceted psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., intrusive trauma memories rather than all of posttraumatic stress disorder). Second, investigating mechanisms that can be modified in treatment (treatment mechanisms), rather than those which cannot (e.g., processes only linked to aetiology). Finally, exploring novel ways of delivering psychological treatment (peer-/self-administration), given the prevalence of mental health problems globally, and the corresponding need for effective interventions that can be delivered at scale and remotely for example at times of crisis (e.g., current COVID-19 pandemic). CONCLUSIONS: These three approaches suggest options for potential innovative avenues through which mental health science may be harnessed to recouple basic and applied research and transform treatment development.