Pandemic stressors and depressive symptoms : examining within- and between-person effects of neuroticism

Experiencing stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic such as health-related concern, social isolation, occupational disruption, financial insecurity, and resource scarcity can adversely impact mental health; however, the extent of the impact varies greatly between individuals. In this study, we examined the role of neuroticism as an individual-level risk factor that exacerbates the association between pandemic stressors and depressive symptoms. With repeated assessments of pandemic stressors and depressive symptoms collected from 3,181 participants over the course of the pandemic, we used multilevel modeling to test if neuroticism moderated the association between pandemic stressors and depressive symptoms at both between- and within-person levels. At the between-person level, we found that participants who reported more pandemic stressors on average had higher levels of depressive symptoms and that this association was stronger among those high in neuroticism. At the within-person level, reporting more pandemic stressors relative to one’s average on any given occasion was also associated with heightened depressive symptoms and this effect was similarly exacerbated by neuroticism. The findings point to pandemic stressor exposure and neuroticism as risk factors for depressive symptoms and, in demonstrating their synergistic impact, may help identify individuals at greatest risk for adverse psychological responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.Arts, Faculty ofPsychology, Department ofGraduat

From Puzzle to Progress: How engaging with Neurodiversity can improve Cognitive Science

In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g. autism, ADHD and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the Neurodiversity Paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits, but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities

From Puzzle to Progress: How Engaging With Neurodiversity Can Improve Cognitive Science

In cognitive science, there is a tacit norm that phenomena such as cultural variation or synaesthesia are worthy examples of cognitive diversity that contribute to a better understanding of cognition, but that other forms of cognitive diversity (e.g., autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/ADHD, and dyslexia) are primarily interesting only as examples of deficit, dysfunction, or impairment. This status quo is dehumanizing and holds back much-needed research. In contrast, the neurodiversity paradigm argues that such experiences are not necessarily deficits but rather are natural reflections of biodiversity. Here, we propose that neurodiversity is an important topic for future research in cognitive science. We discuss why cognitive science has thus far failed to engage with neurodiversity, why this gap presents both ethical and scientific challenges for the field, and, crucially, why cognitive science will produce better theories of human cognition if the field engages with neurodiversity in the same way that it values other forms of cognitive diversity. Doing so will not only empower marginalized researchers but will also present an opportunity for cognitive science to benefit from the unique contributions of neurodivergent researchers and communities