The Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) are highly valid depressive testing tools used to measure the symptom profile of depression globally and in South Asia, respectively (Steer et al., 1998; Kroenke et al, 2001). Even though the South Asian population comprises only 23% of the world’s population, it represents one-fifth of the world’s mental health disorders (Ogbo et al., 2018). Although this population is highly affected by mental disorders, there is a lack of culturally relevant research on specific subsections of the South Asian population.<br/><br/>As such, the goal of this study is to investigate the differences in the symptom profile of depression in native and immigrant South Asian populations. We investigated the role of collective self-esteem and perceived discrimination on mental health. <br/><br/>For the purpose of this study, participants were asked a series of questions about their depressive symptoms, self-esteem and perceived discrimination using various depressive screening measures, a self-esteem scale, and a perceived discrimination scale.<br/><br/>We found that immigrants demonstrated higher depressive symptoms than Native South Asians as immigration was viewed as a stressor. First-generation and second-generation South Asian immigrants identified equally with somatic and psychological symptoms. These symptoms were positively correlated with perceived discrimination, and collective self-esteem was shown to increase the likelihood of these symptoms.<br/><br/>This being said, the results from this study may be generalized only to South Asian immigrants who come from highly educated and high-income households. Since seeking professional help and being aware of one’s mental health is vital for wellbeing, the results from this study may spark the interest in an open communication about mental health within the South Asian immigrant community as well as aid in the restructuring of a highly reliable and valid measurement to be specific to a culture.

People generally struggle with making good decisions for their well-being (Hershfield, 2019; Hershfield & Bartels, 2018). One reason for this might be that people struggle with connecting to their future selves. Prior research suggests that future self-connectedness predicts better decisions. This study examined if feeling more positive or negative helps people connect more to their future self and if this, in turn, helps people make better decisions. Participants read a scenario in which they are presented with two decisions, one having a short-term benefit/long-term cost and the other having a short-term cost/long-term benefit. Either neutral affect framing, positive affect framing, or negative affect framing was emphasized in the scenario depending on the condition. Our study did not find that positive affect framing and negative affect framing enhanced future self-connectedness. Neither did we find that positive affect framing and negative affect framing influenced decision-making.

The Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) are highly valid depressive testing tools used to measure the symptom profile of depression globally and in South Asia, respectively (Steer et al., 1998; Kroenke et al, 2001). Even though the South Asian population comprises only 23% of the world’s population, it represents one-fifth of the world’s mental health disorders (Ogbo et al., 2018). Although this population is highly affected by mental disorders, there is a lack of culturally relevant research on specific subsections of the South Asian population.

As such, the goal of this study is to investigate the differences in the symptom profile of depression in native and immigrant South Asian populations. We investigated the role of collective self-esteem and perceived discrimination on mental health.
For the purpose of this study, participants were asked a series of questions about their depressive symptoms, self-esteem and perceived discrimination using various depressive screening measures, a self-esteem scale, and a perceived discrimination scale.

We found that immigrants demonstrated higher depressive symptoms than Native South Asians as immigration was viewed as a stressor. First-generation and second-generation South Asian immigrants identified equally with somatic and psychological symptoms. These symptoms were positively correlated with perceived discrimination, and collective self-esteem was shown to increase the likelihood of these symptoms.

This being said, the results from this study may be generalized only to South Asian immigrants who come from highly educated and high-income households. Since seeking professional help and being aware of one’s mental health is vital for wellbeing, the results from this study may spark the interest in an open communication about mental health within the South Asian immigrant community as well as aid in the restructuring of a highly reliable and valid measurement to be specific to a culture.

Cancer therapy selects for cancer cells resistant to treatment, a process that is fundamentally evolutionary. To what extent, however, is the evolutionary perspective employed in research on therapeutic resistance and relapse? We analyzed 6,228 papers on therapeutic resistance and/or relapse in cancers and found that the use of evolution terms in abstracts has remained at about 1% since the 1980s. However, detailed coding of 22 recent papers revealed a higher proportion of papers using evolutionary methods or evolutionary theory, although this number is still less than 10%. Despite the fact that relapse and therapeutic resistance is essentially an evolutionary process, it appears that this framework has not permeated research. This represents an unrealized opportunity for advances in research on therapeutic resistance.

While expert groups often make recommendations on a range of non-controversial as well as controversial issues, little is known about how the level of expert consensus-the level of expert agreement-influences perceptions of the recommendations. This research illustrates that for non-controversial issues expert groups that exhibit high levels of agreement are more persuasive than expert groups that exhibit low levels of agreement. This effect is mediated by the perceived entitativity-the perceived cohesiveness or unification of the group-of the expert group. But for controversial issues, this effect is moderated by the perceivers' implicit assumptions about the group composition. When perceivers are provided no information about a group supporting the Affordable Care Act-a highly controversial piece of U.S. legislation that is divided by political party throughout the country-higher levels of agreement are less persuasive than lower levels of agreement because participants assume there were more democrats and fewer republicans in the group. But when explicitly told that the group was half republicans and half democrats, higher levels of agreement are more persuasive.