The COVID-19 pandemic presents threats, such as severe disease and economic hardship, to people of different ages. These threats can also be experienced asymmetrically across age groups, which could lead to generational differences in behavioral responses to reduce the spread of the disease. We report a survey conducted across 56 societies (N = 58,641), and tested pre-registered hypotheses about how age relates to (a) perceived personal costs during the pandemic, (b) prosocial COVID-19 responses (e.g., social distancing), and (c) support for behavioral regulations (e.g., mandatory quarantine, vaccination). We further tested whether the relation between age and prosocial COVID-19 responses can be explained by perceived personal costs during the pandemic. Overall, we found that older people perceived more costs of contracting the virus, but less costs in daily life due to the pandemic. However, age displayed no clear, robust associations with prosocial COVID-19 responses and support for behavioral regulations. We discuss the implications of this work for understanding the potential intergenerational conflicts of interest that could occur during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some public officials have expressed concern that policies mandating collective public health behaviors (e.g., national/regional "lockdown") may result in behavioral fatigue that ultimately renders such policies ineffective. Boredom, specifically, has been singled out as one potential risk factor for noncompliance. We examined whether there was empirical evidence to support this concern during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large cross-national sample of 63,336 community respondents from 116 countries. Although boredom was higher in countries with more COVID-19 cases and in countries that instituted more stringent lockdowns, such boredom did not predict longitudinal within-person decreases in social distancing behavior (or vice versa; n = 8,031) in early spring and summer of 2020. Overall, we found little evidence that changes in boredom predict individual public health behaviors (handwashing, staying home, self-quarantining, and avoiding crowds) over time, or that such behaviors had any reliable longitudinal effects on boredom itself. In summary, contrary to concerns, we found little evidence that boredom posed a public health risk during lockdown and quarantine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Religiosity is a construct that has interesting implications in the mental health issues of youths. This study examines the role of religiosity on anxiety, depression, and stress using 148 Muslim students studying Islamic studies at undergraduate provision in an Islamic University as sample. Results indicated that the level of religiosity among the participants ranged from moderately religious to highly religious. The mean levels of anxiety, depression, and stress among the participants were moderate, and a significant number of students suffered from severe psychological distress. Female students were reported to experience significantly slightly more stress than male students. Furthermore, the relationship between religiosity, anxiety, and depression was significantly negative but not stressful. Further analysis found that religiosity serves as a protective factor for depression. Meanwhile, some religiosity components (i.e., avoidance of sinful acts and frequent conduct of recommended acts) were found to be a significant protective factor against anxiety and depression, respectively. Thus, in retrospect, mental health and religion appear to converge on managing psychological distress. As so to speak, this is a vital point in the emerging mental health services in which the incorporation of religious components into clinical practice may show good promising results in aiding the recovery process of psychological health issues. Likewise, embedding religiosity in one’s life, or being religiously minded, reflected in daily life manifestation, is linked with better mental health outcomes.

This current study aims to systematically review the treatments for anxiety disorders in Malaysia. PsycINFO, MEDLINE databases, and 28 local journals were used to search published papers in this area. Eight articles were subjected to review after excluding 273 papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 598 participants with various types of anxiety disorders were included in the review. Based on the findings, the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy provided better treatment outcomes if compared to psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy alone. The combination of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and cognitive behaviour therapy was considered as one of the most effective treatment to treat patients with anxiety disorders in Malaysia. This is in line with the clinical practice guidelines from the Ministry of Health Singapore and Canada. Even though there were some limitations in the methodology and reporting of the results, it can be concluded that efforts have been taken to conduct studies related to treatments for patients with anxiety disorders in Malaysia. Future studies are suggested to make conscious efforts to overcome these limitations.