On March 15, 2020, the Dutch Government implemented COVID-19 lockdown measures. Although self-quarantine and social-distancing measures were implemented, restrictions were less severe compared to several other countries. The aim of this study was to assess changes in eating behavior and food purchases among a representative adult sample in the Netherlands (n = 1030), five weeks into lockdown. The results show that most participants did not change their eating behaviors (83.0%) or food purchases (73.3%). However, socio-demographic differences were observed among those that reported changes during lockdown. For example, participants with overweight (OR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.24–4.11) and obesity (OR = 4.21, 95%CI = 2.13–8.32) were more likely to indicate to eat unhealthier during lockdown compared to participants with a healthy weight. Those with a high educational level (OR = 2.25, 95%-CI = 1.03–4.93) were also more likely to indicate to eat unhealthier during lockdown compared to those with a low educational level. Older participants were more likely to indicate to experience no differences in their eating behaviors compared to those of younger age, who were more likely to indicate that they ate healthier (OR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.01–1.04) as well as unhealthier (OR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.02–1.06) during lockdown. Participants with obesity were more likely to indicate to purchase more chips/snacks (OR = 2.79, 95%CI = 1.43–5.45) and more nonalcoholic beverages (OR = 2.74, 95%CI = 1.36–5.50) during lockdown in comparison with those with a healthy weight. Of those that used meal delivery services before, 174 (29.5%) indicated to use meal delivery services more frequently during lockdown. Although the results confirm the persistence of dietary routines, profound socio-demographic differences were observed for those that did report changes. Especially for individuals with overweight and obesity, the lockdown has taken its toll on healthy dietary choices. Further research should unravel underlying mechanisms for these observations.

One of the enduring missions of personality science is to unravel what it takes to become a fully functioning person. In the present article, the authors address this matter from the perspectives of self-determination theory (SDT) and personality systems interactions (PSI) theory. SDT (a) is rooted in humanistic psychology; (b) has emphasized a first-person perspective on motivation and personality; (c) posits that the person, supported by the social environment, naturally moves toward growth through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. PSI theory (a) is rooted in German volition psychology; (b) has emphasized a third-person perspective on motivation and personality; and (c) posits that a fully functioning person can form and enact difficult intentions and integrate new experiences, and that such competencies are facilitated by affect regulation. The authors review empirical support for SDT and PSI theory, their convergences and divergences, and how the theories bear on recent empirical research on internalization, vitality, and achievement flow. The authors conclude that SDT and PSI theory offer complementary insights into developing a person's full potential.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Isolating a therapeutic procedure might be a powerful way to enhance our understanding of how cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) works. The present study explored new methods to isolate cognitive procedures and to study their direct impact on hypothesized underlying processes and CBT outcome. Method: The effects of a cognitive therapy skill acquisition procedure (n ¼ 36) were compared to no procedure (n ¼ 36) on cognitive therapy skills, dysfunctional thinking, distress, and mood in response to induced distress following a social stress test in healthy participants. Results: Participants reported more cognitive therapy skills after the procedure that focused on the acquisition of cognitive therapy skills compared to no procedure, but there were no differences in dysfunctional thinking, distress, and mood between the groups. Conclusions: By demonstrating an experimental approach to investigate mechanisms of change, including the pitfalls that come along with it, the present experiment provides a blueprint for other researchers interested in the underlying mechanisms of change in CBT for depression.