COVID-19 has led to global dramatic shifts in daily life. Following the biopsychosocial model of health, the goal of the current study was to predict people’s psychological well-being (PWB) during the initial lockdown phase of the pandemic and to investigate which coping strategies were most common among people with low and high PWB. Participants were 938 volunteers in the United States who responded to an online survey during the lockdown in April 2020. The main findings were that all three groups of variables, biological, psychological, and socio-economic, significantly contributed to PWB explaining 53% variance. Social loneliness and sense of agency were the strongest predictors. PWB was significantly predicted by physical health (not gender nor age); by spirituality, emotional loneliness, social loneliness, and sense of agency; by job security (not income, nor neighborhood safety, nor hours spent on social media). Comparing the coping strategies of participants, results show more intentional coping in the high-PWB group and more passive coping in the low-PWB group. During this unprecedented pandemic, the findings highlight that ability to sustainably cope with the global shifts in daily life depends on actively and intentionally attending to PWB by being one’s own agent for physical health, spiritual health, and social connection.

This article describes PSI theory, which is a formalized computational architecture of human psychological processes. In contrast to other existing theories, PSI theory not only models cognitive, but also motivational and emotional processes and their interactions. The article starts with a brief overview of the theory showing the connections between its different parts. We then discuss the theory's components in greater detail. Key constructs and processes are the five basic human needs, the satisfaction of needs using the cognitive system, including perception, schemas in memory, planning, and action. Furthermore, emotions are defined and the role of emotions in cognitive and motivational processes is elaborated, referring to a specific example. The neural basis of the PSI theory is also highlighted referring to the "quad structure," to specific brain areas, and to thinking as scanning in a neural network. Finally, some evidence for the validity of the theory is provided.

Research in the fields of complex problem solving (CPS) and dynamic decision making using microworlds has been mainly conducted in Western industrialized countries. This study analyzes the CPS process by investigating thinking-aloud protocols in five countries. Participants were 511 students from Brazil, Germany, India, the Philippines, and the United States who worked on two microworlds. On the basis of cultural-psychological theories, specific cross-national differences in CPS strategies were hypothesized. Following theories of situatedness of cognition, hypotheses about the specific frequency of problem-solving strategies in the two microworlds were developed. Results of the verbal protocols showed (a) modification of the theoretical CPS model, (b) task dependence of CPS strategies, and (c) cross-national differences in CPS strategies. Participants' CPS processes were particularly influenced by country-specific problem-solving strategies.

Thinking aloud is the concurrent verbalization of thoughts while performing a task. The study of thinking-aloud protocols has a long tradition in cognitive psychology, the field of education, and the industrial-organizational context. It has been used rarely in cultural and cross-cultural psychology. This paper will describe thinking aloud as a useful method in cultural and cross-cultural psychology referring to a few studies in general and one study in particular to show the wide applications of this method. Thinking-aloud protocols can be applied for (a) improving the validity of cross-cultural surveys, (b) process analysis of thoughts and the analysis of changes over time, (c) theory development across cultures, (d) the study of cultural meaning systems, and (e) individual as well as group level analyses allowing hypothesis testing cross-culturally. Limitations of the thinking-aloud method are also discussed.

While in some countries, many people have died due to the coronavirus (COVID-19), in other countries, only a few have died. Based on the cultural values theory, our first hypothesis was that in countries that are predominantly individualistic, the number of deaths will be high, whereas in countries with predominantly collectivist values, the number of deaths will be low. Our second hypothesis was that countries with high power distance and hierarchy will have fewer deaths compared to countries with low power distance and egalitarianism. The hypotheses were tested by referring to two different value studies (Hofstede's study of 76 countries and Schwartz's study of 75 countries) while also controlling for GDP per capita, Gini index, population density, median age per country, and BMI per country. Of the five control variables GDP and BMI significantly predicted coronavirus deaths. Taking into account GDP, Gini index, population density, median age, and BMI, hierarchical regression analyses confirmed the first hypothesis on individualism and the second hypothesis on egalitarianism. Therefore, in the case of this current pandemic, group-oriented and collectivist values and low egalitarianism values lead to specific health-related behaviors that ultimately keep more people alive.