Factors associated with perceived stress and depressive symptoms among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had detrimental effects on college students' psychosocial well-being due to campus closures starting in Spring 2020. This study examined changes in perceived stress and depressive symptoms before and during the pandemic using longitudinal data collected from students over the 2019-2020 academic year. We also compared data from this sample in Fall 2019 (N = 282) to data collected from another sample in Fall 2020 (N = 240). Latent change modeling showed increases in stress during Spring 2020. Additionally, the Fall 2020 sample had higher levels of stress than the Fall 2019 sample. Differences in stress and depressive symptoms did not depend on underrepresented minority (URM) status, income, gender, or membership in Greek life or other organizations. However, third- and fourth-year students and student-athletes experienced more stress during the pandemic. Findings suggest an adverse and differential impact of the pandemic on students' psychosocial well-being.

Honor, face, and dignity norm endorsement among diverse North American adolescents: Development of a Social Norms Survey.

This article examined the psychometric properties and validity of a new self-report instrument for assessing the social norms that coordinate social relations and define self-worth within three normative systems. A survey that assesses endorsement of honor, face, and dignity norms was evaluated in ethnically diverse adolescent samples in the U.S. (Study 1a) and Canada (Study 2). The internal structure of the survey was consistent with the conceptual framework, but only the honor and face scales were reliable. Honor endorsement was linked to self-reported retaliation, less conciliatory behavior, and high perceived threat. Face endorsement was related to anger suppression, more conciliatory behavior, and, in the U.S., low perceived threat. Study 1b examined identity-relevant emotions and appraisals experienced after retaliation and after calming a victimized peer. Honor norm endorsement predicted pride following revenge, while face endorsement predicted high shame. Adolescents who endorsed honor norms thought that only avenging their peer had been helpful and consistent with the role of good friend, while those who endorsed face norms thought only calming a victimized peer was helpful and indicative of a good friend. Implications for adolescent welfare are discussed.

"I Felt Like a Hero:" Adolescents' Understanding of Resolution-Promoting and Vengeful Actions on Behalf of Their Peers.

Bystander intervention on behalf of victims of peer aggression is credited with reducing victimization, yet little is known about how bystanders evaluate their intervention efforts. African-, European-, Mexican-, and Native-American adolescents (N = 266) between 13 and 18 years (Mage = 15.0, 54% female) recounted vengeful and peaceful responses to a peer's victimization. For comparison, they also described acts of personal revenge. Youth's explanations of how they evaluated each action were coded for goals and outcomes. Befitting its moral complexity, self-evaluative rationales for third-party revenge cited more goals than the other two conditions. References to benevolence and lack thereof were more frequent after third-party revenge compared to personal revenge. Concerns that security was compromised and that actions contradicted self-direction were high after both types of revenge. Third-party resolution promoted benevolence, competence, self-direction, and security more than third-party revenge. Epistemic network analyses and thematic excerpts revealed the centrality of benevolence goals in adolescents' self-evaluative thinking. Self-focused and identity-relevant goals were cited in concert with benevolence after third-party intervention.

Third-Party Intervention in Peer Victimization: Self-Evaluative Emotions and Appraisals of a Diverse Adolescent Sample.

African American, European American, Mexican American, and Native American adolescents (N = 270) described how they felt and appraised their own actions in response to a peer's victimization. Analyses compared times they had calmed victim emotions, amplified anger, avenged, and resolved conflicts peacefully. Adolescents felt prouder, more helpful, more like a good friend, and expected more peer approval after calming and resolving than after amplifying anger or avenging peers. They also felt less guilt and shame after calming and resolving. Avenging elicited more positive self-evaluation than amplifying. Epistemic network analyses explored links between self-evaluative and other emotions. Pride was linked to relief after efforts to calm or resolve. Third-party revenge reflected its antisocial and prosocial nature with connections between pride, relief, anger, and guilt.