Asian Americans respond less favorably to excitement (vs. calm)-focused physicians compared to European Americans

OBJECTIVES: Despite being considered a model minority, Asian Americans report worse health care encounters than do European Americans. This may be due to affective mismatches between Asian American patients and their European American physicians. We predicted that because Asian Americans value excitement (vs. calm) less than European Americans, they will respond less favorably to excitement-focused (vs. calm) physicians. METHOD: In Study 1, 198 European American, Chinese American, and Hong Kong Chinese community adults read a medical scenario and indicated their preference for an excitement-focused versus calm-focused physician. In Study 2, 81 European American and Asian American community college students listened to recommendations made by an excitement-focused or calm-focused physician in a video, and later attempted to recall the recommendations. In Study 3, 101 European American and Asian American middle-aged and older adults had multiple online encounters with an excitement-focused or calm-focused physician and then evaluated their physicians\u27 trustworthiness, competence, and knowledge. RESULTS: As predicted, Hong Kong Chinese preferred excitement-focused physicians less than European Americans, with Chinese Americans falling in the middle (Study 1). Similarly, Asian Americans remembered health information delivered by an excitement-focused physician less well than did European Americans (Study 2). Finally, Asian Americans evaluated an excitement-focused physician less positively than did European Americans (Study 3). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that while physicians who promote and emphasize excitement states may be effective with European Americans, they may be less so with Asian Americans and other ethnic minorities who value different affective states

Short-term effects of a gain-focused reappraisal intervention for dementia caregivers: A double-blind cluster-randomized controlled trial

Objectives To examine the effects of a benefit-finding intervention, the key feature being the use of gain-focused reappraisal strategies to find positive meanings and benefits in caring for someone with dementia. Design: Cluster-randomized double-blind controlled trial. Setting: Social centers and clinics. Participants: 129 caregivers. Inclusion criteria were (a) primary caregiver aged 18+ and without cognitive impairment, (b) providing ≥14 care hours per week to a relative with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and (c) scoring ≥3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Exclusion criterion was care-recipient having parkinsonism or other forms of dementia. Interventions: The benefit-finding intervention was evaluated against two treatment-as-usuals, namely, simplified psychoeducation (lectures only) and standard psychoeducation. Each intervention lasted eight weeks, with a 2-hour session per week. Randomization into these conditions was based on center/clinic membership. Measurements: Primary outcome was depressive symptom. Secondary outcomes were Zarit Burden Interview, role overload, and psychological well-being. Self-efficacy beliefs and positive gains were treated as mediators. Measures were collected at baseline and posttreatment. Results: Regression analyses showed BF treatment effects on all outcomes when compared with SIM-PE, and effects on depressive symptoms and Zarit burden when compared with STD-PE. Effect sizes were medium-to-large for depressive symptoms (d=-0.77– -0.96), and medium for the secondary outcomes (d=|0.42–0.65|). Furthermore, using the bootstrapping method, we found significant mediating effects by self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts and positive gains, with the former being the primary mediator. Conclusions: Finding positive gains reduces depressive symptoms and burden and promotes psychological well-being primarily through enhancing self-efficacy in controlling upsetting thoughts

Relevant yet uncontrollable : perceived control as a mediator of cross-cultural differences in old-age preparation

Previous studies have shown that there are cross-cultural differences in old-age preparation rate (e.g. Kornadt et al., 2019). Drawing from the transactional stress-and-coping model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), we proposed that perceived control, self-relevance and responsibility for old-age preparation could mediate the cultural differences in old-age preparation. We recruited a sample aged 18 to 96 from Germany (N=366, Mage=52.63) and Hong Kong (N=252, Mage=57.47) to complete two online questionnaires across two years. Compared with German adults, Hong Kong adults prepared less (b=-2.159, p<.001), had lower perceived control (b=-0.899, p<.001) and responsibility (b=-0.713, p<.001), yet similar level of self-relevance over preparation. Preparation at time2 was related to self-relevance (b=1.004, p<.001) and control (b=0.785, p<.001) at time1. The cultural differences in preparation at time2 were only mediated by perceived control at time1 (indirect effect=0.706, p<.001). Findings highlight the importance to enhance individual perceived control over old age in promoting society-wide old-age preparation

Hot instantaneous temperature and affect : meaningful activities as a buffer for older adults with low socioeconomic status

Background and Objectives -- Extremely hot temperature affects psychological well-being negatively, especially for older adults with lower socioeconomic status (SES). The objectives of this study are to examine: (1) the impact of hot instantaneous temperature on older adults’ emotional well-being; and (2) whether meaningful engagement could reduce the above impact, particularly for those of lower SES. Research Design and Methods -- We conducted a quantitative time sampling study during hot-weather months (May–September) in 2021 and 2022. The sample comprises 344 participants aged 60 years or above (Mage = 67.15, SDage = 5.26) living in urban areas of Hong Kong, where hot days (daily maximum temperature >= 33℃) accounted for 23% of the study days. Participants reported positive and negative affect, and engagement in meaningful activities, three times a day over a 10-day period, and wore sensors that tracked the instantaneous temperature of their immediate environment. Multilevel modeling was employed to examine the impacts on affect from temperature, SES, and meaningful activity engagement. Results -- Hotter instantaneous temperature predicted greater momentary negative affect and less positive affect immediately afterwards. Meaningful engagement significantly buffered against the affective impacts of hotter temperature, and this buffering effect was more salient among older adults of lower SES. Discussion and implications -- This study highlights the role of meaningful engagement in reducing the impact of hotter instantaneous temperature on older adults’ emotional well-being, particularly for those of lower SES. Meaningful activity engagement may be capitalized on, as a strategy, to reduce climate-related social inequality

The mediating role of loneliness on relations between face-to-face and virtual interactions and psychological well-being across age : a 21-day diary study

Lack of social interaction is associated with a heightened sense of loneliness and, in turn, poorer psychological well-being. Despite the prevalence of communicating with others virtually even when physically alone, whether the social interaction–loneliness–well-being relationship is different between face-to-face and virtual interactions and between younger and older adults is relatively understudied. This 21-day diary study examined this question among younger ( n = 91; Mage = 22.87) and older ( n = 107; Mage = 64.53) Hong Kong participants during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–May 2020). We found significant indirect effects of shorter face-to-face interaction time on poorer psychological well-being via a heightened sense of loneliness at the within-person level only among younger adults and at the between-person level only among older adults. Independent of loneliness, spending more time with others on virtual interactions was associated with better psychological well-being only among older adults. Taken together, while the mechanisms may be different across age groups, face-to-face interaction remains an effective way to reduce loneliness and enhance psychological well-being even at times when it is discouraged (e.g., pandemic). Although virtual interaction does not reduce loneliness, its positive impact on older adults' well-being sheds light on the utility of promoting technological acceptance in late adulthood

Cognition, Persuasion and Decision Making in Older Consumers

Older adults constitute a rapidly growing demographic segment, but relatively little is known about them within consumer contexts: how they process information, respond to persuasive messages, and make decisions. We discuss extant findings from consumer behavior and related disciplines (e.g., cognitive psychology, neuroscience, social psychology, gerontology) as they pertain to the effects of aging on consumer memory, persuasion and decisionPeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47045/1/11002_2005_Article_5903.pd

NIST Interlaboratory Study on Glycosylation Analysis of Monoclonal Antibodies: Comparison of Results from Diverse Analytical Methods

Glycosylation is a topic of intense current interest in the development of biopharmaceuticals because it is related to drug safety and efficacy. This work describes results of an interlaboratory study on the glycosylation of the Primary Sample (PS) of NISTmAb, a monoclonal antibody reference material. Seventy-six laboratories from industry, university, research, government, and hospital sectors in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia submit- Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20993; 22Glycoscience Research Laboratory, Genos, Borongajska cesta 83h, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 23Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacˇ ic´ a 1, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; 24Department of Chemistry, Georgia State University, 100 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; 25glyXera GmbH, Brenneckestrasse 20 * ZENIT / 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; 26Health Products and Foods Branch, Health Canada, AL 2201E, 251 Sir Frederick Banting Driveway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9 Canada; 27Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama Higashi-Hiroshima 739–8530 Japan; 28ImmunoGen, 830 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts 02451; 29Department of Medical Physiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Michalowskiego 12, 31–126 Krakow, Poland; 30Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 400 N. Broadway Street Baltimore, Maryland 21287; 31Mass Spec Core Facility, KBI Biopharma, 1101 Hamlin Road Durham, North Carolina 27704; 32Division of Mass Spectrometry, Korea Basic Science Institute, 162 YeonGuDanji-Ro, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gu, Cheongju Chungbuk, 363–883 Korea (South); 33Advanced Therapy Products Research Division, Korea National Institute of Food and Drug Safety, 187 Osongsaengmyeong 2-ro Osong-eup, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju-si, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363–700, Korea (South); 34Center for Proteomics and Metabolomics, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; 35Ludger Limited, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EB, United Kingdom; 36Biomolecular Discovery and Design Research Centre and ARC Centre of Excellence for Nanoscale BioPhotonics (CNBP), Macquarie University, North Ryde, Australia; 37Proteomics, Central European Institute for Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A26, 625 00 BRNO, Czech Republic; 38Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, Sandtorstrasse 1, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany; 39Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; 40AstraZeneca, Granta Park, Cambridgeshire, CB21 6GH United Kingdom; 41Merck, 2015 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033; 42Analytical R&D, MilliporeSigma, 2909 Laclede Ave. St. Louis, Missouri 63103; 43MS Bioworks, LLC, 3950 Varsity Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; 44MSD, Molenstraat 110, 5342 CC Oss, The Netherlands; 45Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, 5–1 Higashiyama, Myodaiji, Okazaki 444–8787 Japan; 46Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nagoya City University, 3–1 Tanabe-dori, Mizuhoku, Nagoya 467–8603 Japan; 47Medical & Biological Laboratories Co., Ltd, 2-22-8 Chikusa, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464–0858 Japan; 48National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Blanche Lane, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 3QG United Kingdom; 49Division of Biological Chemistry & Biologicals, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158–8501 Japan; 50New England Biolabs, Inc., 240 County Road, Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938; 51New York University, 100 Washington Square East New York City, New York 10003; 52Target Discovery Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7FZ, United Kingdom; 53GlycoScience Group, The National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training, Fosters Avenue, Mount Merrion, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland; 54Department of Chemistry, North Carolina State University, 2620 Yarborough Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27695; 55Pantheon, 201 College Road East Princeton, New Jersey 08540; 56Pfizer Inc., 1 Burtt Road Andover, Massachusetts 01810; 57Proteodynamics, ZI La Varenne 20–22 rue Henri et Gilberte Goudier 63200 RIOM, France; 58ProZyme, Inc., 3832 Bay Center Place Hayward, California 94545; 59Koichi Tanaka Mass Spectrometry Research Laboratory, Shimadzu Corporation, 1 Nishinokyo Kuwabara-cho Nakagyo-ku, Kyoto, 604 8511 Japan; 60Children’s GMP LLC, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place Memphis, Tennessee 38105; 61Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd., 1–5 Muromati 1-Chome, Nishiku, Kobe, 651–2241 Japan; 62Synthon Biopharmaceuticals, Microweg 22 P.O. Box 7071, 6503 GN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 63Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., 40 Landsdowne Street Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; 64Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409; 65Thermo Fisher Scientific, 1214 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California 94085; 66United States Pharmacopeia India Pvt. Ltd. IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Shamirpet, Turkapally Village, Medchal District, Hyderabad 500 101 Telangana, India; 67Alberta Glycomics Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 68Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G2 Canada; 69Department of Chemistry, University of California, One Shields Ave, Davis, California 95616; 70Horva´ th Csaba Memorial Laboratory for Bioseparation Sciences, Research Center for Molecular Medicine, Doctoral School of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Egyetem ter 1, Hungary; 71Translational Glycomics Research Group, Research Institute of Biomolecular and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, Egyetem ut 10, Hungary; 72Delaware Biotechnology Institute, University of Delaware, 15 Innovation Way Newark, Delaware 19711; 73Proteomics Core Facility, University of Gothenburg, Medicinaregatan 1G SE 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden; 74Department of Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, University of Gothenburg, Institute of Biomedicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Medicinaregatan 9A, Box 440, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden; 75Department of Clinical Chemistry and Transfusion Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Bruna Straket 16, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden; 76Department of Chemistry, University of Hamburg, Martin Luther King Pl. 6 20146 Hamburg, Germany; 77Department of Chemistry, University of Manitoba, 144 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2; 78Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry of Interactions and Systems, University of Strasbourg, UMR Unistra-CNRS 7140, France; 79Natural and Medical Sciences Institute, University of Tu¨ bingen, Markwiesenstrae 55, 72770 Reutlingen, Germany; 80Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research and Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 81Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Amsterdam Institute for Molecules, Medicines and Systems, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 82Department of Chemistry, Waters Corporation, 34 Maple Street Milford, Massachusetts 01757; 83Zoetis, 333 Portage St. Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Author’s Choice—Final version open access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY license. Received July 24, 2019, and in revised form, August 26, 2019 Published, MCP Papers in Press, October 7, 2019, DOI 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677 ER: NISTmAb Glycosylation Interlaboratory Study 12 Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19.1 Downloaded from https://www.mcponline.org by guest on January 20, 2020 ted a total of 103 reports on glycan distributions. The principal objective of this study was to report and compare results for the full range of analytical methods presently used in the glycosylation analysis of mAbs. Therefore, participation was unrestricted, with laboratories choosing their own measurement techniques. Protein glycosylation was determined in various ways, including at the level of intact mAb, protein fragments, glycopeptides, or released glycans, using a wide variety of methods for derivatization, separation, identification, and quantification. Consequently, the diversity of results was enormous, with the number of glycan compositions identified by each laboratory ranging from 4 to 48. In total, one hundred sixteen glycan compositions were reported, of which 57 compositions could be assigned consensus abundance values. These consensus medians provide communityderived values for NISTmAb PS. Agreement with the consensus medians did not depend on the specific method or laboratory type. The study provides a view of the current state-of-the-art for biologic glycosylation measurement and suggests a clear need for harmonization of glycosylation analysis methods. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 19: 11–30, 2020. DOI: 10.1074/mcp.RA119.001677.L

Development and Validation of Social Motivation Questionnaire

Background and Objectives: Information-seeking (IS) and emotion-regulatory (ER) motivation play meaningful roles in age-related changes in social interaction across adulthood. This study aimed to develop and validate the Social Motivation Questionnaire (SMQ) to assess these two types of motivation. Research Design and Methods: Ten items were selected from a pool as the candidate items of SMQ and were administered to 480 German adults (20–91 years old) for validation. These items were also administered to 150 U.S. (18–40 years old) and 131 Hong Kong younger adults (18 to 26 years old) for cultural-invariance examination. Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that a two-factor, eight-item structure fits the German adults’ data well with satisfactory reliability. Multigroup comparisons showed cross-age invariance among younger, middle-aged, and older German adults, as well as cross-cultural invariance among German, U.S., and Hong Kong younger adults. Discussion and Implications: A new questionnaire, SMQ, was developed and validated to measure IS and ER social motivation across adulthood and across cultures

Are Older Adults More Willing to Donate? The Roles of Donation Form and Social Relationship

Objectives: Whether older adults are more prosocial than younger adults has been under debate. In the current study, we investigated how age differences in prosocial behaviors varied across different contextual factors, that is, donation form, kinship, and social distance. Methods: To achieve this purpose, 89 younger and 66 older adults took part in a hypothetical donation task in which they were asked to donate money and time to relatives and nonrelatives at various social distances. Results: The results showed that, compared to younger adults, (a) older adults donated less to nonrelatives (regardless of the donation form), but donated a similar amount (in money) or even donated more (in time) to relatives; (b) older adults displayed higher levels of kin selection (favoring relatives over nonrelatives) in both monetary and time donations; and (c) older adults showed higher levels of social discounting (favoring socially close over distant others) in monetary but not time donation. Discussion: The study underscored the importance of contextual factors in understanding age differences in prosocial behaviors such as donation